Israel's Peace Offer?

Recently there has been much news coverage of the "ceasefire" between Hamas and Israel (which Condi Rice was in Israel trying to "shore up" on Thursday) and the magnanamous offer by Ehud Olmert of peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

The fact that the ceasefire has been anything-but aside (monday, for example, after the ceasefire took effect sunday, Palestinian militants fired rockets into Israel and the IDF shot and killed a "militant" and a 50 year old woman they claimed tried to "run off" with his weapon. I must say, that's the first time I've ever heard of a 50 year old woman running...), Israel's "offer of peace" has been on the table now since 1947.

Peace is offered to Palestine in return for the wholesale removal of all palestinians and the creation of a Jewish-Zionist state that runs from the mediterranean to the Jordan river. Okay, I exaggerate (a little). The best offer made by Israel at the Camp David negotiations still included a 12 percent reduction in the then-current territory under direct control of the Palestinian Authority, which didn't include of course any area that is still legally part of Palestine but under de-facto Israeli control. All current offers by Israel include taking Palestinian territory that cuts straight through the center of the west bank to the Jordan river, thus dividing the West Bank into walled-in enclaves with no inter-regional transportation (due to the Israeli "security fence" and buffer zone).

Palestine's offer (from Hamas and Fatah and Al-Aqsa etc.), which was made with much less publicity just a few months back, is that Israel withdraw to their pre-1967 borders (internationally viewed as the legal boundries of Israel and referred to as the "green line") and cease all military operations in Palestine. However, we don't hear about Palestine's offer in the West, although it has stood fairly unchanged since the early 1970s.

Yet, the western media gleefully reports every action by Olmert as a "major policy shift" that is obviously him taking the high road in looking for peace. He echos the offer of a "Palestinian State" but fails to mention, and this is never pointed out in the media, that the "state" they offer is essentially a small number of small and impossible to leave communes, all surrounded by the "State" of Israel and cut off from access to water or arable land, which technically (by international law) belongs to Palestine now but is part of the self-declared state of Israel in reality.

Olmert's offer is that some "suspected militants", thousands of whom are being detained without charge or trial by Israel, will be released after a kidnapped Israeli soldier is returned to Israel. They have already begun by releasing one Palestinian government minister who was kidnapped just a few weeks ago. Yes, you read that correctly: their graciousness has been displayed by releasing a kidnapped Palestinian government minister.

They also consistantly claim that Israel was planning to "unilaterally withdraw" from the west bank. But that is misleading. Israel offered to withdraw from the sections of the west bank it does not wish to keep, but maintains its claims on the farmlands and water supplies that are legally in the West Bank but viewed (only by the US and Israel and their puppy... what's it called again? Bushtain? Blairtain? Britrael?) as part of "Israeli territory."

What doesn't get covered is the UN report that was released this week that stated Israel "violated every article" of a crossings agreement they made last year regarding entry and exit from Palestinian areas. You need look no further than the blog of "A Mother From Gaza" who, as we speak, is waiting to get back into Palestine. She has been waiting, and waiting, and waiting and waiting, and waiting, and waiting... The effects of this de-facto blockade are disasterous for the Palestinians, left with no livelyhood, no food, and no water. So, as the report just linked to explains, while Israelis freely water their lawns with sprinklers, Palestinians are left having to pray for Red Cross water shipments... which are usually blocked by the IDF from entering Palestinian areas anyway.

Meanwhile, Palestine suffers from a whopping 40% unemployment rate; simultaneously, the US has historically provided unconditional aid to Israel to the tune of nearly a hundred billion dollars, and it continues to increase to this day.

The Human Rights Situation in Palestine is a travesty, and it has been inflicted upon Palestinians by Israel for decades. Additionally, those familiar with the situation are well aware of the disasterous effects that America's unconditional support for Israel has on the US's standing in the world, as evidenced by a letter from 50 retired American diplomats to George Bush on the subject. However, we in the west cannot say anything negative about Israel.

To give an example, a well known and very knowledgeable diplomat and former US president intricately familiar with the subject recently published a book called "Peace not Apartheid" which is naturally critical of Israel's actions towards Palestine.

Upon the book's release, the "new breed" of democrats who are taking over the US Congress in january were chomping at the bit to condemn the book as anti-semetic. Among those who came out against the book were Nancy Pelosi and John Conyers.

The formula is nothing new. Anything that is anti-Zionist (Zionism meaning building a Jewish state in the holy land, by UN terms it was a code-name for racism for 20 years lets not forget) and disagrees with Israel's murderous policies (much like 62 percent of the Israeli population disagreed with Ehud Olmert's actions in Lebanon this summer) must therefore be anti-semetic.

I think this kind of fear-and-hate mongering insults the intelligence and the morality of Jews and Gentiles everywhere. One does not have to support murder to be jewish, as those who are so quick to throw out the anti-semetic label would like you to believe, and one does not hate jews just because they disagree with the wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. The whole issue is so asinine I can't believe it even has to be addressed.

In 2002 Counterpunch published an interesting article on "anti-semitism." It's worth a read.

As far as Israel's "peace offer" goes, I would like to reiterate my take on the issue. Once the following conditions are met, I'm sure peace will soon follow.

• The US needs to cut off its unconditional military aid to Israel, instead offering such aid only on the condition that murderous incursions by the IDF into foreign territories is ended immediately and finally.


• Israel must withdraw from occupied territories back to the internationally agreed 1967 borders, and tear down its illegal perimeter wall.


• The US must at once re-evaluate its position of unconditional support for Israeli policies and cease using its Security Council Veto to stymie any international attempt at mediation.


• Iran must exert its influence on Hamas and Hizballah to stop targeting civilian areas, as it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.


• Israel must cease aggressive posturing against Iran that encourages the Iranian leadership to encourage Hamas and Hizballah to continue to provoke the IDF into attacks.

Extraordinary Rendition

I am appalled by what I am reading in the news today.

I place great hope in the EU. Progressive governance and an increasing ability (though apparently lacking desire) to break out from under the thumb of the US government gives Europeans great pride. However, continuing complicity towards Crimes Against Humanity should make all Europeans cringe as they read the news today.

From Ireland comes news today confirming the suspicion that Fianna Fáil (the party in power) gave their tacit support to American War Crimes in allowing the CIA to run over one hundred flights through Shannon Airport of "suspected terrorists" to formerly-secret concentration camps in Eastern Europe, with the full knowledge that those being taken would likely face torture.

F.F. have dishonored the memory of all those who died to bring about the Irish Republic, and for that they should be beyond ashamed.

From RTE News:

'Serious concerns' over use of Irish airports

28 November 2006 22:57
A draft European Parliament report into alleged CIA rendition flights has expressed 'serious concerns' over the 147 stopovers made by CIA-operated aircraft at Irish airports.

The report says these aircraft were on many occasions coming from, or en route to, countries linked with so-called 'extraordinary rendition' and the transfer of alleged terrorism suspects or detainees.

It also claims that CIA linked aircraft which had stopped off in Ireland had 'certainly been used for the extraordinary renditions' of nine named individuals.

From Al Jazeera:

Many European Union governments were aware of US secret jails being operated in Europe, according to a draft report.

Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, also made "omissions and denials" to EU investigators despite knowing about the CIA's covert operations in Europe, the European Parliament report says.

Claudio Fava, the author of the draft report on the CIA's use of European countries for the illegal transport and detention of prisoners, said: "Many governments co-operated passively or actively [with the CIA]. They knew."

To allow the CIA to use the airports of a supposedly neutral country is a violation of the solemn vow given by government ministers to represent the will of their population. That is an insult to the population, one that I hope will not be allowed to pass unnoticed.

Internet Governance Forum

Just a quick post about the Internet Governance Forum that was held in Greece over the past 3 days. Some information about it is available below.

The introductory remarks of the section that I, personally, am most interested in (the "openness section," i.e. the freedom-of-speech section) included the following, loosely transcribed:

The institutional fears of the new empowerment, because of the new fragility which is out there for governments and cooperation in power at the moment. The instinct of many still to control and intervene. Online censorship, the pressure now on bloggers. There's a particular case here in Greece at the moment. Should the major corporations use their massive bargaining power to change the terms that host governments give them to operate in some countries? Blocking by governments. Questions, should Internet service providers maximize freedom of expression in countries with restrictive laws on information and communication? The aspiration of knowledge for all. Those tensions that are built into the system. The tensions between defining copyright and intellectual property rights issues, how to balance the rights of the consumer and the content producer, and the threat to upholding human rights. Questions like, shouldn't companies resist compliance with local laws that are inconsistent with human rights principles? How to square that circle defined yesterday here at this time by the prime minister, Mr. Karamanlis, to enhance democracy, to have social cohesion and respect the rule of law. Recall Commissioner Reding's remarks yesterday. We must respect fundamental human rights and protect freedom of expression. That's the core of openness. So what are the best practices to strengthen freedom of expression through openness? What are the limits acceptable to preserve openness? Legal, policy, regulatory frameworks?

This forum has largely been relegated to secondary news sources recently, however it is an important one to have at least a small amount of knowledge about, based on the fact that the majority of us use the internet on a very regular basis, and there are those who would like to take away many of the inherent freedoms that the internet provides for the flow of information.

(I would like to take a random sidebar here and mention that recently I have had the opportunity to have a look through some of the scanned books available on Google Book search... it's basically an online library, with a large number of volumes available for perusal. If you have a few minutes to kill, it's well worth a look, just to look up a random topic you're interested in and see what books come up. And yes, they are actual published books, a large percentage of which were kindly scanned (by hand on desktop computer scanners by [I believe] the University of Michigan, and to them we should all say a big thank you.)

Back on topic, the IGF is essentially just a big meeting with no policy-making power that was put together with the intention of getting a large percentage of "stakeholders" in the internet together to try and find some common ground on what have emerged as some somewhat contentious issues regarding internet use, such as the balance between transparency and privacy, the prevailing english-language monopoly on internet programming and use, internet security, etc. As mentioned before, this forum has no policy-making power, however based on the fact that the intention was to get together some influential groups on the subject, it's conclusions are likely to at least carry some influence.

I haven't had time to look through much of the information available or the conclusions reached, but some of the sources include the Internet Governance Forum Official Website, some background on its creation, the original group that this forum was built upon, and the UN Secretary General's message to the forum.

With the constant assaults on freedom of speech in recent years in some of the worlds most industrialised nations, it is important to take note of issues such as internet regulation.

To give just one example, lets look the the US's "War on Terror." Some will argue that the "terrorists" using the internet, i.e. Al Qaeda cells allegedly communicating messages to each other, should (naturally) have this ability taken away from them. But who is to say what is a terrorist message? Is an internet post that could be interpreted as inciting violence against "coalition" forces in Iraq a terrorist message? As some neo-conservative advocates are arguing these days, if a withdrawl of US forces from Iraq would be a victory for "the jihadists," than isn't anyone who says the US should get [their imperial occupation forces] out of Iraq then supporting the terrorists, and as such supporting terrorism, and as such engaging in what the military commissions act of 2006 calls "hostilities" against the U.S., and shouldn't they be silenced? Perhaps shipped off to Auschwitz (sorry, I mean Guantanamo)? Where should it end?

Who was it that once said "I may not like what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" ?

"Call to Bloggers" to stand up for freedom ahead of world meeting on future of Internet

Amnesty International Press Release

AI Index: POL 30/055/2006 (Public)
News Service No: 277
27 October 2006

Embargo Date: 27 October 2006 00:01 GMT


"Call to Bloggers" to stand up for freedom ahead of world meeting on future of Internet
Urgent appeal for Iranian blogger held incommunicado

Amnesty International today issued a ‘Call to Bloggers’, asking them to get online and stand up for freedom of expression on the internet. The organisation says this is a critical time when fundamental rights – particularly freedom of expression and privacy – are under threat from governments that want to control what their citizens say, and what information they can access.

The call comes as the online world prepares to meet at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF, Athens 30/10 – 2/11) to discuss the future of the internet. Amnesty released a statement to the IGF today and is sending a delegation to ensure that human rights are not sidelined and remain at the heart of the forum’s discussions.

Amnesty’s International's statement also coincides with an urgent appeal on behalf of a blogger in Iran who was detained this month. Kianoosh Sanjari was arrested earlier this month while reporting on clashes between security forces and supporters of Shi'a cleric Ayatollah Boroujerdi. He is being held incommunicado and Amnesty International fears that he may be at risk of torture or ill-treatment. Sanjari had allegedly gone to the home of Ayatollah Boroujerdi in the capital, Tehran, to prepare a report on the clashes that were taking place there.

Steve Ballinger, part of Amnesty International’s delegation to the IGF, said:

“Freedom of expression online is a right, not a privilege – but it’s a right that needs defending. We’re asking bloggers worldwide to show their solidarity with web users in countries where they can face jail just for criticising the government.

“The Internet Governance Forum needs to know that the online community is bothered about free expression online and willing to stand up for it.”

Amnesty International is calling on governments and companies to ensure that human rights – particularly the rights to freedom of expression, association and the right to privacy – are respected and protected.

Steve Ballinger added:

“The internet is a powerful force for human rights, enabling the free flow of ideas and information around the world.

“But some governments have sought to curtail this freedom. People have been locked up just for expressing their views in an email or a website. Sites and blogs have been shut down and firewalls built to prevent access to information. Companies have restricted internet searches to stop people accessing information that repressive governments don’t want them to see.

“Countries and businesses have failed to respect, protect and promote the rights to freedom of expression, association and privacy, and the rights of human rights defenders.”

Yahoo! via its Chinese partner company, Alibaba, has provided the Chinese authorities with private and confidential information about its users that has been used to convict and imprison journalists. It has also agreed to censor and deny access to information. Microsoft shut down the blog of New York Times researcher Zhao Jing on the basis of a Chinese government request. The company has also admitted that it responds to directions from the Chinese government in restricting users of MSN Spaces from using certain terms. Google has launched a censored version of its international search engine in China.

Amnesty International is also highlighting the cases of prisoners of conscience, imprisoned for the expression of their peaceful views online.

Chinese journalist Shi Tao used his Yahoo! account to email a US-based website about an internal government directive instructing journalists how to handle media coverage of the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square crackdown. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison for "illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities." Yahoo! provided information to the government that was used in his prosecution.

Tunisian lawyer and human rights defender Mohammed Abbou is serving a three and a half year prison sentence largely for publishing articles critical of the Tunisian authorities on the internet.

Vietnamese political dissident Truong Quoc Huy was first arrested in October 2005 with two other young people after chatting on a democracy and human rights website. He was held incommunicado for nine months then released, but on 18 August 2006 he was rearrested in an internet cafe in Ho Chi Minh City, where he had logged on to a chatroom. His whereabouts remain unknown and no charges have been publicised.

Steve Ballinger said:

“We bring with us to the Internet Governance Forum the voices of thousands of people who share our concerns and who have supported Amnesty’s irrepressible.info campaign.

“We are calling on governments to release prisoners who are held just for expressing their peaceful views online, and to stop unwarranted censorship of internet sites and searches.”

The organisation welcomed the opportunity presented by the IGF to raise concerns with human rights and the internet.

Steve Ballinger added:

“We are looking forward to participating in the IGF, and being part of a process that will protect human rights on the internet. Amnesty’s job in Athens will be to ensure that human rights are not sidelined – they must be at the heart of all the forum’s discussions.”

Note to Editors
For more media information, including advanced copies of Amnesty International’s statement to the IGF, its appeal to bloggers and its Urgent Action appeal for Iranian blogger Kianoosh Sanjari, please contact:
Steve Ballinger, Amnesty International press office, +44 (0)20 7033 1548 or +44 (0)7891 565592

For a copy of AI's Urgent Action for Kianoosh Sanjari, please see: http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE131212006
From 27 October, Amnesty International’s statement to the IGF will be available at this link: http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engpol300542006

For more information on Amnesty’s campaign for internet freedom see: http://irrepressible.info

Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org

For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org

AI Index: POL 30/055/2006 27 October 2006

"Our Very Own Fascist Government"

From Citizens Against Lies

Here is the list of the Democrats who must never be allowed to be public servants again.

Carper (D-DE) Johnson (D-SD) Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Lieberman (D-CT) Menendez (D-NJ) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR) Rockefeller (D-WV) Salazar (D-CO) Stabenow (D-MI)

We must never vote for these people again, ever. They violated their oath of office and suspended habeas corpus, the fundamental cornerstone of democracy. They have OK'd torture and rendition programs and betrayed the American people by allowing us to be declared enemy combatants at the discretion of George W. Bush.

The "Military Commissions Act of 2006" is actually a sick piece of work.

The Act Is Available Here.

Some reaction to it, other than above, by Robyn Blumner in the Salt Lake Tribune, the first paragraph of which is below:

Flanked by the panjandrums of shame and the dirty hands gang, including the current attorney general and the vice president, President Bush last week signed into law the Military Commissions Act, a law that will go down in history as an obscenity against liberty and decency

.

Torture Awareness and Richard Tomlinson vs. MI6

Many weeks ago, an inspired activist by the name of Elendil started putting together a group of bloggers to highlight Amnesty International's "Torture Awareness Month" in June. At the beginning I think there was about 10 of us who signed on, and by the end the blogroll was pages long (just have a look at my sidebar).

A blogger has decided to attempt to raise money for Amnesty International's campaign by blogging for 24 hours straight. You can support him by clicking the link below.

I recently received the following email regarding the campaign:

Hi everyone

Thank you so much for your recent support of Bloggers Against Torture.
Torture Awareness Month may be over, but action against torture
continues. One of our bloggers, Heathlander, has generously
volunteered to go 24 hours without sleep -- blogging continuously the
whole time -- to raise money for Amnesty International USA. It's all
part of Blogathon 2006 (http://www.blogathon.org/), which will be held
across the globe on 29th July.

Would you like to help us out? Here's some things that you can do:

- Join Heathlander and stay up with him for 24 hours of continuous blogging!

If you'd like to help Heathlander stay awake and write posts, leave
a message here.

We're eager to get a small team together to share the load. If you
join up, we'll send you keys to the central blog, and the opportunity
to use your blogging skills for a good cause.

- Sponsor us in the Blogathon

I know it's unseemly to ask for money, so I've put $500 down to get
things started. If you can spare it, even just a few dollars, it will
work towards fighting for this serious issue. Every bit counts, and
generous donor blogs will be acknowledged.

- Let your readers know about our Blogathon

Thanks to your Torture Awareness Month posts, your readers now know
how serious human rights abuse is and their responsibilities towards
it. The enormity of the issue can leave one despondent, but this gives
everyone an opportunity to do something practical. Again, every bit
counts. Your voice can make all the difference.

For Torture Awareness Month we had great turn out with over 200
members joining, and several members participating in the action
activities sponsored by the NGOs. Most pleasing was the high quality
of thoughtful and passionate blog entries denouncing torture. Whether
your blog is big or small, each voice counts towards correcting public
opinion and returning our society back to its true course. Please
consider continuing this work by supporting the Bloggers Against
Torture Blogathon.

Kind Regards,
elendil

For you bloggers out there, the blog Rummy's Diaries is full of useful information for the fight against torture.






---------------------------------------------------


There have been recent news reports regarding a blog by a former agent of MI6 (Britain's version of the CIA, whom the fictional James Bond was meant to work for) that was troubling to the British Government due to a fear of leaks of intelligence.

The Blog is:

Tomlinson vs. MI6

Recently he was said to have supplied an aerial photograph of an Mi6 training camp, he was accused of releasing a list of MI6 agents worldwide (to a website called Cryptome.org), he has had his belongings confiscated, his friend's computer confiscated, and so on.

Perhaps he might be able to provide some information about MI6 agents operating in Iraq and Iran...

Freedom and Independence on the Fourth of July

Last year, on the American Independence Day, I flew into JFK Airport in New York from abroad. I was greeted by countless NYPD officers carrying M16 automatic rifles due to a heightened state of security created out of fear of a terrorist attack to coincide with America's celebration of Independence. On subsequent travels, I have noticed that foreign embassies tend to be friendly, inviting places for citizens in foreign countries to come for travel assistance; that is, except American Embassies. American Embassies are generally fortified like a military compound, out of fear of a "terrorist" attack. Flying into America, American citizens and non-citizens alike are forced to pass through more security checkpoints than for nearly any other destination on the planet, save perhaps Iraq. At some point don't people wonder: What are we doing so wrong that we have to live in fear all over the world, even in our own country?

Earlier this year, a company called Mercer Human Resource Consulting released its findings on the world's best and worst cities to live in. Its findings would have been troubling to Americans had the media bothered to mention it, but to do so may have been to wake the American Public from their reverrie of ignorance, so of course this didn't happen. Of the top 30 cities, nearly half were in Western Europe, quite a few from Asia, and just 2 from America. Those 2 were Honolulu (27th) and San Francisco (28th). Given this knowledge, might Americans question the fact that they have spent $293,000,000,000
and counting on the war in Iraq, while their quality of living is not up to par with their European and Asian counterparts?

American policies in the Middle East (read: Iraq as a Petri Dish for testing the National Security Strategy of 2002) are doing more to increase the threat of terrorism than to protect the safety and well being of its citizens. Is that not a violation of the very foundations of America? Lets have a look at the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

It is impossible, at this moment, to conclude that the Safety and Happiness of the people of America are being adequately secured by their "democratically" elected government. While Americans seem to believe, through their fog of ignorance, that somehow the Iraq War has helped increase their safety, the sad truth that the rest of the world is aware of is that it has not. Just look at the following recent poll results:


What I wonder is wether or not Americans genuinely believe that they must accept and agree with everything their government is doing to be nationalistic. Does the love of ones country have to blind them to the follies of their leaders?

Another disturbing trend Americans should note this Independence week is the fact that the "liberty" and "freedom" that their government exists to protect, that their 450,000,000,000 per year "Defence" budget exists to protect, is being infringed by a mixture of draconian encroachments on civil liberty (under the guise of National Security") and startling overextention of executive powers that is turning America into a Police State right under the noses of its population.

Simultaneously, disturbing trends of global warming, which are going to have a disasterous effect on the amount of food and inhabitable space that will be around for our grandchildren, is being wholeheartedly ignored by those in power.

Is this the world that the creators of America envisioned when they declared its Independence from Imperial Britain?

In the News today:

US top court rejects Guantanamo military tribunals

WASHINGTON - In a major blow for President George W. Bush’s war on terrorism, the US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the military tribunal system set up to try Guantanamo prisoners violates the Geneva Conventions and US military rules.


“We conclude that the military commission convened to try (Salim Ahmed) Hamdan lacks power to proceed because its structure and procedures violate” the international agreement that covers treatment of prisoners of war, as well as US military rules, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court majority in the 5-3 decision

... it continues.
From The Khaleej Times.

So, now we must just wait for the Indictments to start coming down for actively pursuing unlawful policies... that's a law, you know. (It's called "command responsibility") But then again, how often do those in charge actually have to take responsibility?
-----------------------------------------

In other news, the U.S. Propaganda Push is failing miserably in Europe and most of the rest of the world. I guess the IIP isn't doing its job.

From the Blog Understanding Europe: Support for the USA has totally collapsed.



-------
The Blog Story

The PEW Global Poll results that were the basis for the blog report.

Hitler's Germany is Bush's America

On September 3, 1939, the nations of Britain, France, Australia, and New Zealand, recognising an imminent and immense danger, declared war against Hitler's Nazi Germany.

On September 10, 1939, Canada, recognising an imminent and immense danger, declared war against Nazi germany.

On September 16, 1940, the United States, recognising an imminent and immense danger, passed a conscription bill in preparation for involvement to remove the threat of Nazi Germany.


What does it take for leaders and countries to recognise an imminent and immense danger? What does it take for people to recognise an imminent and immense danger? What is required before action is taken to ameliorate that danger?

If the history of the second world war teaches us anything, its that it takes quite a bit before an imminent and immense danger is recognised.

Adolf Hitler became the Chancellor of Germany on January 30, 1933. One of the first acts he was responsible for was to instruct his subordinates to burn the German Reichstag (congress/parliament), and, after blaming it on Communists, proceeded to enact the following emergency decree:

"For the Protection of the people and the State"
"Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed."

He proceeded to use the newspaper he controlled, called Völkischer Beobachter, to spread propaganda that would lead the German people to believe that his actions were just and understandable. Within a short period of time, all newspapers in Germany were controlled by the Nazi party, and only illustrated stories that would help solidify power for Hitler and the Nazi Party.

Using Communism as a tool to frighten the people into obedience, he proceeded to cement his hold over power in Germany. Instilling a fear of Jews in the population, he proceeded to utilise that fear as an excuse for a genocide against Jewish people in Germany.

On February 10, 1936, a law is passed by the Nazi party that makes the Gestapo not restricted to the confines of obeying existing laws, or having any accountability for their actions.

On November 5, 1937, Hitler unveiled a plan at the chancellory to acquire additional "living space" for the German people, that entailing the invasion and occupation of foreign countries for the purpose of advancing his view of Germany's national goals.

It wasn't until the end of August, 1939, that "The Allies" finally began to make preparations to deal with the immense and immediate threat that was Germany. During that time, the Germans had already cemented their position as an indesputable world power whose ambitions were only surpassed by their ruthlessness. What followed is well known in the public record.

It did not take much time for Hitlers Nazi Party to thoroughly indoctrinate the people of Germany with his warped ideas and ideals. He was then able to use that power to wreak havoc upon the world for nearly a decade, bringing about the deaths of countless millions of people. Although it took a very long time to be recognised, the danger he posed was very real.


I go out of my way, on this blog, to point out dangerous trends in world affairs. Some people say that this is unimportant; some people come to this site, take one look at the subject content, then go away again; some people would rather be unaware of the dangers posed to the world today, and as such have no interest in hearing what individuals such as myself have to say. That is unfortunate.

The reason that is so unfortunate is the fact that there are very real dangers facing the world today. These dangers are increasing, due in large part to ignorance of them or apathy towards them. It was ignorance and apathy that paved the way for Germany to invade country after country, suspend human rights, slaughter countless civilians, and move very quickly from being in immenent danger to being an immediate danger, all without much, if any, resistance.

When dealing with dangers, you must always face the largest and most pressing threat first. The reason why, on this blog, I go out of my way to constantly point out dangerous policies that are being carried out by, or on behalf of, the American Government, is that they pose the most immediate and dangerous threat to the world today. There are plenty of other threats, loads in fact, and a great deal of other perpetrators of heinous crimes that also need to be dealt with. However, as the most powerful and most dangerous regime in the world, those in power in America are the threat that needs to be ameliorated first.

Theoretically, in a democracy the government should serve the will of the people. In their hearts, the people of America could not, would not, and do not support the atrocious policies of their government. However, much the same as the German population was controlled in their mentality in the 1930s and 1940s, so is a large percentage of the American population. That is a dangerous trend.

The people of other countries, by a very large margin, do not support the policies of the U.S. government either. However, their views are either ignored, or they are encouraged to remain distracted from these threats to our very survival as a civilised species by those who have the most to gain in the short term from these dangerous policies.

Unfortunately, these policies continue. While many people would like to remain distracted from the problems that we face in the world today, that does not mean that those problems don't exist. The sooner we face these dangers, and take steps to see that these problems are solved, the better off we will be as a species.

The people of the world have power. Our governments exist for the purpose of serving our wishes. It is not in the wishes of the people of the World or the people of America to continue along the path we are going down. Now is the time to make your voice heard, now is the time for changes to be made. We must do what we can, while we still have the ability to do it.

"A PR Move"

These people are sick. Absolutely sick.

"A top US official has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention"."

from Guantanamo Suicides a 'PR Move' at BBC News


The fact that human life is so trivial to these people that they could describe the fact that "combatants" (more than half of whom were not actually, according to the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch, "combating" against america in any way shape or form) who have been interned for 5 years without charge or trial and subjected to FIVE YEARS OF TORTURE give in and kill themselves as a "PR move" is absolutely repulsive. And this American regime are the same people that Tony Blair describes as engaging in a "fight for values" (he said that in his recent press conference with Bush).

Lets recap: they've been held without trial for five years, they've been tortured for five years, and they cannot take it anymore so they commit suicide, and this is dismissed as "a tactic to further the jihadi cause"?!?!?! Those in charge of these atrocious American policies are either completely brain-dead or pure evil. I genuinely hope it's the former (what a fucking characterisation choice to have to make).



-----------
All of this brings to mind an old Irish song.
From the song Joe McDonnell

The Chorus:

And you dare to call me a terrorist
while you looked down your gun
When I think of all the deeds that you had done
You had plundered many nations divided many lands
You had terrorised their peoples you ruled with an iron hand.
And you brought this reign of terror to my land

The Song:

O me name is Joe McDonnell
from Belfast town I came
That city I will never see again
For in the town of Belfast
I spent many happy days
I love that town in oh so many ways

For it's there I spent my childhood
and found for me a wife
I then set out to make for her a life
But all my young ambitions
met with bitterness and hate
I soon found myself inside a prison gate

Through those many months internment
In the Maidstone and the Maze
I thought about my land throughout those days
Why my country was divided,
why I was now in jail
Imprisoned without crime or without trial

And though I love my country
I am not a bitter man
I've seen cruelty and injustice at first hand
So then one fateful morning
I shook bold freedom's hand
For right or wrong I'd try to free my land

Then one cold October morning
trapped in a lion's den
I found myself in prison once again
I was committed to the H-blocks
for fourteen years or more
On the Blanket the conditions they were poor

Then a hunger strike we did commence
for the dignity of man
But it seemed to me that no one gave a damn
But now, I'm a saddened man
I've watched my comrades die
If only people cared or wondered why

May God shine on you Bobby Sands
for the courage you have shown
May your glory and your fame be widely known
And brave Francis Hughes and Ray McCreesh
who died unselfishly
And Patsy O Hara and the next in line is me

And those who lie behind me
may your courage be the same
And I pray to God our lifes were not in vain
Ah but sad and bitter
was the year of 1981
For everything I've lost and nothing's won.
©Brian Warfield


-----------


What a state this world is in...

June is Torture Awareness Month

JUNE IS TORTURE AWARENESS MONTH!!!!

In the late 1970s and into the 1980s in Northern Ireland, Irish men and women were taken from their homes and thrown in jail without being charged with a crime or taken to trial. These people were held for years. The end result of this internment was the the bloody fighting in the North intensified: the bombings increased, the sectarian murders, assasinations, and general lawlessness only got worse due to these policies. The situation remained desparate straight through until the 1990s.

Fast forward to 2006. Again, young men are being taken from their homes, but this time the situation is even more grave. These men are being held (again) without trial, without charge, and without any evidence at all being presented to warrant their internment. What makes the situation worse is that these men are being brutally tortured: beaten, molested, deprived of sleep, humiliated; the very definitions of Cruel and Inhumane treatment. Excuses are given for this treatment: an Orwellian "War" on terror, which has "changed the rules" for the way things are to be done in this new century. But if history has taught us anything, it's that policies like this only make the situation more grave, more bloody, and more desparate.

If the U.S. actually intends to try to put an end to terror, engendering resentment and rage by torturing people is the polar opposite to policies that might achieve their goals. For their own sake, they must stop these policies now, apologize to the international community, and see that those responsible are brought to justice.

If people suspected of helping terrorists are being taken away and tortured today, who's to say who might be taken away tomorrow? If we donate money to a group that the U.S. adds to their "terror supporters" list, then we are by definition terrorists, and we could as well be taken away to be tortured. Such groups have included in the past Nelson Mandela's freedom party; many groups that do nothing more than try to feed starving palestinian children are on that list today. Will you be next?

There are basic human rights that should be observed, for the greater good of society. If we allow these rights to be usurped for one person, then two, then ten, tomorrow it could be for thousands, tens of thousands, or millions. The policies of torture need to stop, and those responsible need to be brought to justice. This needs to happen now.



Amnesty International Torture Awareness Month

Together, we can do something.

Bloggers Against Torture

Join Us!

Life goes on...

"When I left home this morning, the streets were full of people who were going to work and schools with full determination as if there were no clashes and bombs an hour earlier"
-Baghdad Treasure post BOOOM Tuesday, May 23, 2006
------------------------------------
Some of today's news stories that I feel should be read...
(not necessarily by you of course, but...)

Iraq doctor brings evidence of US napalm at Fallujah
"EVIDENCE to support controversial claims that napalm has been used by US forces in Iraq has been brought to Australia by an Iraqi doctor."
So that's where the WMDs were! With the Americans!

Dozens Killed In Wave Of Bombings
The post-"victory" security situation in Iraq isn't getting any better.
So far the American Invasion of Iraq has lead to the deaths of
FOURTY THOUSAND PEOPLE ...

Why all is quiet on the American home front
...yet people don't seem like they really care.


The state of the world's human rights
Report by Amnesty International, regarding a topic important to those of us who believe that Torture is Wrong.

Israel turns blind eye to attacks on Palestinians:
AFP story on the report from Amnesty International
(I think perhaps they should stress Israeli attacks on Palestinians, rather than attacks Israel "turns a blind eye" to, but who am I to say...)

Amnesty concerns over Shannon Airport use
RTE story (from Ireland) about the CIA using Shannon Airport to transport detainees to the "secret detention facilities" brought to light by the International Committee of the Red Cross. This story is also regarding today's Amnesty International report.

...also...

Haniya offers long-term truce in exchange for pullout
Hamas offers to recognize the State of Israel, and also offers a long term Truce. Sources include Israeli Ha'aretz daily news, and the story is brought to you by Monsters and Critics (a news aggregate favorite of mine)

"Review of the Arab press - May 22"
from Monsters and Critics News

(My personal favorite) A noise that should be dispelled
China's rebuttal to recent American Media reports about "China's technological threat"

Russia, China discuss bilateral cooperation and within SCO
from ITAR-TASS, Moscow--- Discusses the SCO, which I have previously mentioned in this blog, including the Conspicuously absent entry and other linked entries.
----------------------------------------------------

The propaganda Blitz is on against Iran now. I wonder how many months it will be before the War Drums are beating so loud that we can't hear ourselves think.

Just today, the AP ran a story that I came across in the Bucharest Daily News regarding the fact that some Israeli lawmakers are planning on filing a lawsuit against the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which claims, and I am not making this up:

A group of Israeli lawmakers and former diplomats plan to sue Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, accusing him of conspiring to commit genocide, one of those involved said yesterday.
Ahmadinejad recently said Israel should be wiped off the map and dismissed the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth."
Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, said Ahmadinejad's comments violate the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention, to which Iran is a signatory.

Ok, perhaps there is no common sense in the world, but can I possibly be the only person who finds it ludicrous that the Iranian president's comments are a violation of the Geneva Conventions according to Israel, but their genocidal slaughter of tens of thousands of Palistinians are not?!?!

Today's report by Amnesty International about their data gathered for 2005 touches on this subject:

Killings and attacks by the [Israeli] army:
Some 190 Palestinians, including around 50 children, were killed by the Israeli army in the Occupied Territories. Many were killed unlawfully, in deliberate and reckless shootings, shelling and air strikes in densely populated residential areas, or as a result of excessive use of force. Some were extrajudicially executed and others died in armed clashes with Israeli soldiers. Hundreds of others were injured.
Seven children aged between 10 and 17 were killed and five others seriously wounded in an Israeli air strike as they were picking strawberries in the northern Gaza Strip town of Beit Lahiya on 4 January. Those killed included six members of the Ghaben family – Rajah, Jaber, Mahmoud, Bassam, Hani and Mohammed – and Jibril al-Kaseeh.
On 27 October, Karam Mohammed Abu Naji, 14, Salah Said Abu Naji, 15, and Rami Riyad Assaf, 17, were killed when the Israeli army launched an air strike on a car travelling near the Jabalya refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. As well as the three child bystanders, all four people in the car were killed. Nineteen other bystanders, including seven children, were injured. Two members of a Palestinian armed group were believed to be the intended target.
On 3 November, 12-year-old Ahmed al-Khatib was fatally wounded by Israeli soldiers during a raid in Jenin refugee camp and died three days later. The army stated that he had been playing with a toy gun and soldiers had mistaken him for a gunman.


This is from the Human Rights Watch report on
Human Rights Issues in Israel/Occupied Palestinian Territories
While the total number of Israeli and Palestinian casualties fell in 2005 following the February ceasefire, the overall human rights situation in Israel and the OPT remained grave. Since the beginning of the current intifada in September 2000, Israel has killed nearly three thousand Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, including more than six hundred children. During the same period, Palestinian fighters have killed more than nine hundred Israelis inside Israel and in the OPT. Most of those killed on both sides were civilians.

it continues...

In July 2005, the Israeli Knesset approved legislation that effectively bars Palestinians from the OPT from suing Israel for death, injury or damages caused by Israeli security agents. The amendment to the Civil Wrongs (Liability of State) Law, 5712-1952 further strips Palestinians of an effective remedy for serious human rights abuses, which is required under international human rights law. The Knesset passed the bill at a time when the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) had criminally investigated fewer than ten percent of the Palestinian civilian deaths since September 2000, and have convicted only a handful of IDF soldiers for causing death or injury. In August, an Israeli court handed down an eight year sentence, by far the longest of the past five years, to the soldier found responsible for lethally shooting Briton Tom Hurndall in Gaza in 2002. The IDF maintains the policy that killings of Palestinians will be investigated only under “exceptional circumstances,” which neither the IDF nor the government has ever defined. The Israeli authorities’ failure to bring perpetrators to justice fosters a culture of impunity.

(By the way, these reports only cover published reports of civilian casualties [which can be limited in their scope]. They do not cover those dying from malnutrition or other aspects of this Humanitarian catastrophe.)

All of these reports are limited to the PAST YEAR.
This has been going on since 1967.
Yet somehow, the Iranian president saying Israel should be "wiped off the map" and asserting that the Holocost could be a "myth" somehow constitutes the War Crime. The Iranian President explained himself a small bit in his letter to the U.S. president:
"I am sure you know how – and at what cost – Israel was established:
-Many thousands were killed in the process.
-Millions of indigenous people were made refugees.
-Hundreds of thousands of hectares of farmland, olive plantations, townsand villages were destroyed.
This tragedy is not exclusive to the time of establishment; unfortunately it has been ongoing for sixty years now. A regime has been established which does not show mercy even to kids, destroys houses while the occupants are still in them, announces beforehand its list and plans to assassinate Palestinian figures, and keeps thousands of Palestinians in prison. Such a phenomenon is unique – or at the very least extremely rare – in recent memory.Another big question asked by the people is “why is this regime being supported?” "

He also notes:
Young people, university students, and ordinary people have many questions about the phenomenon of Israel. I am sure you are familiar with some of them. Throughout history many countries have been occupied, but I think the establishment of a new country with a new people, is a new phenomenon that is exclusive to our times. Students are saying that sixty years ago such a country did not exist. They show old documents and globes and say try as we have, we have not been able to find a country named Israel.

His rhetoric regarding Israel being "wiped off the map" is actually quite literal, not a genocidal threat, at least according to my (hopefully logical and not emotionally-based) interpretation of the situation: the state of Israel was an artificial creation that does not belong, and as such should be removed.

I am not saying that I agree with his views. I am only saying that presenting such a viewpoint is not Genocide (especially when compared with the last 50 years of systematic Palestinian slaughter at the hands of Israel).

But, such an accusation fits perfectly with the current war that's being waged. Yes folks, the west is at war (again!). It's not a terror war, it's not an imperialist war (although the latter exists and the former is the nom-de-guerre for a current policy of repression and oppression):
It's a Propaganda War.

And it's going on all around us.

--------------------------------
See also,
Wikipedia Entry regarding Israel and War Crimes
(not "verified as objective," but substantiated nonetheless)

Torture

Bloggers Against Torture

Join Us! Excerpts from UN Committee Against Torture report on The United States.19 May, 2006

" The Committee reiterates its previous recommendation that the State party should enact a federal crime of torture consistent with article 1 of the Convention, which should include appropriate penalties, in order to fulfill its obligations under the Convention to prevent and eliminate acts of torture causing severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, in all its forms.
The State party should ensure that acts of psychological torture, prohibited by the Convention, are not limited to "prolonged mental harm" as set out in the State party’s understandings lodged at the time of ratification of the Convention, but constitute a wider category of acts, which cause severe mental suffering, irrespective of their prolongation or its duration.
The State party should investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators under the federal extraterritorial criminal torture statute."

"The State party should recognize and ensure that the Convention applies at all times,whether in peace, war or armed conflict, in any territory under its jurisdiction and that the application of the Convention’s provisions are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument, pursuant to paragraph 2 of its articles 1 and 16."

"The State party should recognize and ensure that the provisions of the Convention expressed as applicable to "territory under the State party’s jurisdiction" apply to, and are fully enjoyed, by all persons under the effective control of its authorities, of whichever type, wherever located in the world."

"The State party should register all persons it detains in any territory under its jurisdiction, as one measure to prevent acts of torture. Registration should contain the identity of the detainee, the date, time and place of the detention, the identity of the authority that detained the person, the ground for the detention, the date and time of admission to the detention facility and the state of health of the detainee upon admission and any changes thereto, the time and place of interrogations, with the names of all interrogators present, as well as the date and time of release or transfer to another detention facility."

"The State party should ensure that no one is detained in any secret detention facility under its de facto effective control. Detaining persons in such conditions constitutes, per se, a violation of the Convention. The State party should investigate and disclose the existence of any such facilities and the authority under which they have been established and the manner in which detainees are treated. The State party should publicly condemn any policy of secret detention.
The Committee recalls that intelligence activities, notwithstanding their author, nature or location, are acts of the State party, fully engaging its international responsibility."

"The State party should adopt all necessary measures to prohibit and prevent enforced disappearance in any territory under its jurisdiction, and prosecute and punish perpetrators, as this practice constitutes, per se, a violation of the Convention."

Those Quotes are just a fraction of the recommendations. The U.S. has obligations under international law pursuant to the Geneva Conventions, The UN Charter, and UN resolutions. Protection of human rights is also written into the U.S. constitution. Pursuing a policy that takes away a person's basic inherent human rights is a dangerous direction to be going.

---------------

Don't allow human rights to be trivialised.Join Us!

--------------
Sources and links:
UN Committee Against Torture Report, Full Text, PDF format.
C/O BBC NEWS

Amnesty International

UN Official Documents Site

Torture Awareness Month Amnesty International

Blogs Against Torture

The BBC and UN human rights report...

The bbc has changed their main headline twice now in the past hour. The first version was this:

US 'must close Guantanamo camp'

The committee told the US to end secret detention

The US should close the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba and any secret "war on terror" detention facilities abroad, a United Nations report has said.
The UN Committee against Torture
said that detaining persons in such conditions was a violation of the UN Convention against Torture.
It also urged the US to put in place "immediate
measures" to eradicate torture of detainees by its troops.
The committee's
report follows a hearing in early May into US conduct.
"The state party
should cease to detain any person at Guantanamo Bay and close the detention
facility," the 11-page report said.
It also told the US to ensure no-one was
detained in any secret detention facility.
"The state party should
investigate and disclose the existence of any such facilities and the authority
under which they have been established and the manner in which detainees are
treated," the report said.
The report also urged the US to "rescind any
interrogation technique" that constituted torture, such as the use of dogs to
scare detainees.
It criticised vague guidelines that it said had led to
serious abuse of detainees and techniques which "have resulted in the deaths of
some detainees during interrogation".
The report was compiled by a panel of
10 experts who heard testimony in early May from a delegation of US officials
into its "war on terror" conduct.

THEN this story was put through their bleach cycle, and came out like this an hour later:

US 'must end secret detentions'

The committee told the US to end secret
detentionThe US should close any secret "war on terror" detention facilities
abroad and the Guantanamo Bay camp in Cuba, a United Nations report has said.
The UN Committee against Torture urged the US to ensure no one was detained
in any secret facility.
The report followed the first US appearance before
the committee since the 11 September 2001 attacks.
During the hearing in
early May, the US neither confirmed or denied the existence of secret prisons.
UN COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE
Recommendations
in full (131K)
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but
you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download the reader
here
The US has been holding hundreds of terror suspects arrested since
11 September at facilities in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. There are also reports
of CIA-run secret facilities in other countries.
The committee told the US
to provide more information on secret detention facilities.
"The state party
should investigate and disclose the existence of any such facilities and the
authority under which they have been established and the manner in which
detainees are treated," the 11-page report said.
It also called on the US to
end detentions at the Guantanamo Bay camp and close it.
Detaining people in
such conditions was a violation of the UN Convention against Torture, it said.
Abuse of detainees
The committee also urged the US to act against
ill-treatment of detainees, calling for "immediate measures to eradicate all
forms of torture and ill-treatment of detainees by its military or civilian
personnel, in any territory under its jurisdiction".
It called for an end to
interrogation techniques it said constituted torture, such as the use of dogs to
scare detainees.
The recommendations are not binding but the BBC's Imogen
Foulkes says the committee's conclusions will not make comfortable reading for
the US, with the assertion that secret camps do constitute torture.
The US
has maintained that it is engaged in a long term war on terror and that some
aspects of the convention on torture may not apply.
But the UN committee
rejected this, our correspondent says, saying the total ban on torture applies
in time of peace, war or armed conflict and anyone violating the convention
should be prosecuted.
Human rights groups welcomed the report.
"We hope
that the United States will take heed of this report and really begin to rethink
and change its policies on a number of practices, including secret prisons, lack
of accountability for abuse, and transfer of prisoners to places where they may
be tortured," Jennifer Daskal of Human Rights Watch told Reuters news agency.

Both of these stories (were actually the SAME STORY and) were available at the following link:

US 'must close...something, we can't decide what'

The fact that these Human Rights abuses were a violation of international law was pushed to the bottom of the story in the second version, as though that was an irrelevant fact. I wonder why...

IRAN, U.S. LIES, IDIOTS AT CNN, WMD

Sadly the IAEA report on Iran that was released today was realeased ONLY to Diplomats of the countries on the Security Council, and is not available to the public. We can, however, look towards the U.S. Ambassador's own statement on the report after he had seen it, wherein he stated, about the assertion by the U.S. that Iran's program is for weapons, the report "doesn't make any conclusions in that regard."
In it's own push to remind the world that we should all fear Iran, the U.S. State Department released their own report today (to coincide with the IAEA's statements) about the "State Sponsors of Terror," which somehow NEVER includes the United States, even though America fits the American definition of "state sponsor of terror."

[To step away from Iran to talk about the U.S. as the worlds leading "State sponsor of terror," lets look at the words of President Bush:
"If you harbor terrorists, you are [a] terrorist. If you aid and abet terrorists, you're a terrorist, and will be treated like one."
Just to mention a couple of the terrorists "harbored" in America today (not including the actions of the american military and how they fit the definition of "terrorism," as that would take too long and I don't have the patience), we should really mention: (1)Luis Posada Carilles (Miami), (2)Jorge Mas Canosa (Miami), (3)Emmanuel Constant (New York), etc.
(1) Nicaragua, (2) Cuba, and (3) Haiti should all (theoretically) be flattening America with carpet-bombing as we speak, but enough about that.]


Today's report on "State Sponsors of Terror" by the State Department was accepted as Fact by countless "news" organisations, including CNN Europe, who seem to have never heard of the U.S. State Department's Office of Public Diplomacy, Bureau of International Information Programs (quote from their site: "IIP informs, engages, and influences international audiences about U.S. policy and society to advance America's interests"), Advisory Commision on Public Diplomacy, or any of the other countless Executive Branch departments that specialize in providing propaganda to the people of the world. So anyway, this piece of [insert appropriate noun here] was presented today as honest Fact on CNN, coinciding with the (non-public) release of the IAEA's findings on the Iranian Nuclear Program.
The U.S. would like the world to know:

"Iran remained the leading state sponsor of terror." (they were last year as well apparently? Ok, if that's what you believe, then fine). What are the specific reasons given for why Iran is the leading state sponsor of terror? As follows: Iran's continued support for terror groups such as Hizbollah, Hamas, Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, and the PLO, including support through rhetoric, and providing them with funding and weapons. "Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior Al-Qaida members it detained in 2003." Bringing to justice is defined as "transfer custody of detainees... to third countries for interrigation and/or trial." "Iran pursued a variety of policies in Iraq, some of which appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the transitional government and the Multi-National Forces in Iraq." I don't honestly see how this could possibly put Iran ahead of America as the Leading State Sponsor of Terror. First of all, the actions of Hizbollah, Hamas, AAMB and the PLO all fall within the confines of International Law as it relates to Article 51 of the U.N. Charter and a state or region's ability to protect its land and its people from a foreign invasion force, that invasion force namely being the Israeli Defence forces regarding their occupation of what is by law land that belongs to Lebanon and Palestine. Therefore, supporting them is actually more in line with international law than the support that France gave to the rebels in the English Colonies during the time of the "American Revolution" and is not an action that could be defined as "sponsoring terror" in the honest definition of the phrase. What is in violation of international law is the continuing incursions by the IDF into foreign territory, and they are using U.S. supplied Apache helicopter gunships and U.S. supplied bulldozers, which is the same kind of thing that the U.S. is trying to pin on Iran. In psychology we call that "displacement." America's definition of "bringing to justice" is that these Al-Qaida suspects are to be turned over to the U.S. for interrogation. However, the U.S. interrogation practices are in violation of international law as it relates to the Humane Treatment of Prisoners, so for Iran to turn over these suspects to the U.S. (the third party, or "third country" as phrased in this report) would be for them to willingly aid in the violation of International Law and treaties. So their actions in attempting to stymie additional violations of international law are apparently "terrorist" actions. Right. Iran's policies in Iraq "appeared to be inconsistant with the objectives of the Multi-National Forces." And, of course, the puppet "transitional" government put in to place by these multi national forces. So, Iran's policies in an invaded territory are inconsistant with those of the people who violated international law (Article 51, U.N. Charter, again) when they invaded the country anyway? And that makes Iran the sponsors of terrorism? I don't see how ANY of these accusations are supported by ANY real evidence WHATSOEVER, but yet it's all accepted as truth by "journalists" who are supposed to be "unbiased" and "objective" but yet have somehow lost the ability to reason for themselves. The report is topped off with a great statement trying to pin WMD's on Iran as well (it worked so well in Iraq, lets try it on Iran!): "State sponsors of terrorism pose a grave WMD threat." How? "A WMD program in a state sponsor of terrorism could enable a terrorist organisation to aquire advanced WMD." Ok, but where did you come up with the factual basis for Iran having ANY WMD's AT ALL? "Nations that fail to live up to international obligations deserve special attention as potential facilitators of WMD terrorism." So if a nation fails to live up to its international obligations, then they must have WMDs that they're going to give to terrorists. What defines failure to live up to international obligations? Maybe attacking a defenseless country on the grounds that it may possibly somehow in the future develop WMDs or could possibly have WMDs or would like to know where to get WMDs, or what? We heard this about Iraq, and we're still waiting for these WMDs to be found. Are you actually coming forward now to give evidence that Iran has some sort of WMDs? "Iran is capable of producing biological or chemical agents or weapons." WHAT?!?!?! "Iran could support terrorist organisations seeking to aquire WMD." WHAT?!?!?!?! ARE YOU MAKING BASELESS WMD ACCUSATIONS AGAIN?!?!? HOW MANY TIMES ARE YOU GOING TO TRY TO FEED THE WORLD SHIT AND TELL EVERYONE ITS CHOCOLATE?!?! WHEN ARE YOU GONNA STOP WITH YOUR OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE PARANOID OBSESSION WITH WMD?!?!?! ENOUGH ALREADY, GET A FUCKING SHRINK!!!!!!!

NOT ONCE in this WHOLE REPORT did they produce ANY evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran has ANY sort of WMD program, but yet they're still mentioning it, trying to plant the seed. And even CNN buys this shit hook line and sinker.

[The report also made mention of the fact that the "war on terror" is probably going to last for a very very long time. If anyone who may be reading this has not read the novel 1984 by George Orwell, you would be well served to give it a read.]

(If you don't believe me that I have accurately quoted the report, you may see for yourself the section of the Report on Iran, and the Full Report, both of which are in .PDF format and available on the U.S. State Department website.)

Another small bit mentioned in the terror sponsor state report was how Iran refuses to comply with Security Council resolutions to halt Uranium Enrichment, which makes them a nation that will "fail to live up to international obligations." This issue is far simpler than it's being made out to be, and one of the things making it much more complicated in the news is, as usual, INACCURATE REPORTING.

First of all, if you listen to CNN you would be likely to believe that there was a UN Security Council Resolution 30 days ago that demanded that Iran halt all enrichment activity or be held in violation of international law. As are most things reported in the "news" these days, that is simply not true. What happened 30 days ago was in fact a Presidential Statement calling on the IAEA to look in to unresolved questions regarding Iran's Nuclear Program. The statement was basically this:

“The Security Council calls upon Iran to take the steps required by the IAEA Board of Governors, notably in the first operative paragraph of its resolution GOV/2006/14, which are essential to build confidence in the exclusively peaceful purpose of its nuclear programme and to resolve outstanding questions, and underlines, in this regard, the particular importance of re-establishing full and sustained suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, to be verified by the IAEA."

BUILD CONFIDENCE. The idea was that Iran was to stop what they were doing for the sake of BUILDING CONFIDENCE in their intentions of having a strictly peaceful nuclear program. This statement by the President of the Security Council for March was in response to a report by the IAEA from earlier that month, which concluded:

"The Agency over the last three years has been conducting intensive investigations of Iran´s nuclear programme with a view to providing assurances about the peaceful nature of that programme.
During these investigations, the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Regrettably, however, after three years of intensive verification, there remain uncertainties with regard to both the scope and the nature of Iran´s nuclear programme. As I mentioned in my report, this is a matter of concern that continues to give rise to questions about the past and current direction of Iran´s nuclear programme.
For confidence to be built in the peaceful nature of Iran´s programme, Iran should do its utmost to provide maximum transparency and build confidence. Only through clarification of all questions relevant to Iran´s past programme and through confidence building measures can confidence about Iran´s current nuclear activities be restored. This is clearly in the interest both of Iran and of the international community."

If I may bring your attention back to the beginning of the second paragraph: "the Agency has not seen indications of diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices." They only wanted "confidence to be built." And this was all pre-SCO-Membership for Iran (as discussed in my "Conspicuously Absent from Western Media" entry) which means that China and Iran and Russia are all very close trading partners and security partners now, as they weren't when this whole posturing began by the U.S. government to try to drum up support for ANOTHER WAR to make americans feel confident in their Bullies in Office come November Congressional Midterm Elections.

Rumsfeld Indictment?

An article relating to Rumsfeld's knowledge of torture of Guantanamo detainees that I discussed in my "deranged American government" entry was posted last week in Human Rights Watch's news:

"Rumsfeld could be liable under the doctrine of command responsibility the legal principle that holds a superior responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates when he knew or should have known that they were being committed, but fails to take reasonable measures to stop them. "

PBS describes the American concept of command responsibility quite well for those of you who haven't heard of it before.

Donald Rumsfeld's actions are not only in violation of international law, they are also in violation of American Law. When will the American government take responsibility for their actions?

And, out curiosity, how many of you lovely readers are old enough to remember the Iran/Contra affair of the 1980s? Or how it ended with the pardon of key players by george w bush's father? How it led to the death of the Swedish Prime minister, the (fairly recent) execution of a reporter who investigated the affair? Or how it tarnished the office of the President of the United States? Or how alot of the key players were recycled into the current Bush administration?

I wonder if these people will EVER take responsibility for their actions, rather than being hypocrites (ex. selling arms to Iran last time they were in power and demanding the world not sell arms to iran now) and demanding obedience while they themselves do not feel constrained by such frivolous things as laws. If they were part of any other country's government they would be in jail or worse, but I guess there's more than one interpretation of "land of the free."

Recent Noam Chomsky Article

New Noam Chomsky article that is not yet available on
.

Important Points:

"Here are a few simple suggestions for the US:

1. Accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court and the World Court;

2. Sign and carry forward the Kyoto protocols;

3. Let the UN take the lead in international crises;

4. Rely on diplomatic and economic measures
rather than military ones in confronting the grave threats of terror;

5. Keep to the traditional interpretation of the UN Charter:
The use of force is legitimate only when ordered
by the Security Council or when the country is
under imminent threat of attack, in accord with Article 51;

6. Give up the Security Council veto, and have
"a decent respect for the opinion of mankind," as the
Declaration of Independence advises,
even if power centres disagree;

7. Cut back sharply on military spending and sharply
increase social spending: health, education,
renewable energy and so on.

For people who believe in democracy,
these are very conservative suggestions:
They appear to be the opinions of the majority
of the US population, in most cases the
overwhelming majority. They are in radical
opposition to public policy; in most cases,
to a bipartisan consensus. "


See? It's not just about pointing out problems,
we bloggers offer solutions as well.

Even the BBC

I would expect this from the American news agencies, as their parent companies have alot to gain from America's aggressive foreign policy (also known as colonialism, theft, pillaging, inhumanity, aggression, etc.), but not from the BBC. I've been quite impressed by the BBC and their strict adherence to the facts and objectivity through the years, but I fear they are going the way of Viacom's CBS (Dan Rather you poor soul, 30 years with the network, you run one anti-bush story and your ass is out the door) or GE's NBC. Honestly, I always held them in high regard what with programs like Panorama and even their World News was generally the spot to find news the American media was hiding. In the words of a famous folk singer, "the times, they are a-changin."

In an article run monday on the front page of BBC News, regarding the Tel Aviv Bombing and Israel's response to it, they said:
"Israel holds Hamas responsible for a deadly suicide bombing in Tel Aviv but will not hit back against the Palestinian Authority, officials say.
A special cabinet meeting ended with agreement to increase security efforts but not launch a military strike. "

That is simply not true. Within hours Israel had launched a military strike, several in fact, sending troops in to the Gaza strip, Nablus, Qalqilia, Jenin, and Gaza City. The operation involved more than 80 military vehicles, including BULLDOZERS (and they aren't for anything to do with clearing away Palistinian settlements to make way for Israeli settlements, they are strictly to "fight terror" my Israeli sources tell me. They swear to this.) and the ubiquitous (American) Apache Helicopter Gunships. It's in print if BBC would get off their lazy asses and check it out.

Examples

1. "troops did roll into Nablus moments after Monday's attack. The army will also likely consider targeting the Palestinian Authority" -Jerusalem Post
2. "the IDF attacked targets in Gaza yesterday and last night" -Arutz Sheva, Israel National News
3. "Israel Responds with Military Raids" (that was the TITLE, need I say more?) - Al Jazeera
4. "Other decisions were taken about actual operation in the territories, which were not released for publication. It seems security forces will carry out pinpoint operation in reaction to the terror attack. " Is what Y-Net News (Yedioth, Israel's largest media company) said about the 80 vehicles they sent in to Palestine. That statement was after their bit about the revoking the travel priviledges of Hamas ministers living in Israeli occupied (but legally Palistinian) lands.
5. "Israeli troops raided a West Bank village near Jenin " -Israel Insider

I think it would be superfluous for me to continue, but you get the idea. Additionally, nearly every article mentioned that the Israeli cabinet had decided to revoke the residency of some Hamas MPs that were living in Israeli occupied territories. No mention that it was occupied territory that they were to be removed from, simply that they were to be removed from "Israeli Territory." And of course, no mention of the fact that "the Occupied Palestinian Territory and its associated régime are contrary to international law". -(2004 judgement by the International Court of Justice at the Hague)

Thank you BBC. Thank you very much. You have proved once again that western media is worthless.

Quaker Agitator: In memoriam.

Quaker Agitator: In memoriam. If only we all could be so strong and have such moral character.

The Deranged American Government

Ok, if ANYONE out there cares AT ALL about how terrifying the prospect of a bunch of mutinous insane asylum escapees having their fingers hovering (can't you just picture them standing there twitching going "c'mon, I dare ya!") over the Big Red Button that will bring about The End of our species' short reign as kings(/queens) of this planet, then please, let me know. Lets take the news today.
Reuters, not exactly a far left wing anti-bush news agency (example #1, they give an article to bush saying quite asinine things about his failed reaganomics tax cut scheme, and ONE LINE at the end to the opposition), ran a news story today based on an article run on Salon.com about Donald Rumsfeld (American Secretary of Defense) having PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of prisoner abuses at Guantanamo Bay, and as having PERSONALLY authorised them.
This is NOT a revelation for those of us who often read the dissident media or frequent sites that provide more unbiased views on the world today, BUT, it was in REUTERS. One of the 2 MAIN news providers for ALL news organisations worldwide. AP and Reuters stories are listed on just about every news site you'll find, from The Khaleej Times to The Asia Times to AlJazeera to The BBC to LeMonde to EVERYWHERE. IN REUTERS!!! So, one of the MAIN sources of information for THE WORLD has come out today saying that the American Secretary of Defense PERSONALLY AUTHORISED his subordinates to VIOLATE INTERNATIONAL LAW (check www.icj-cij.org) as it relates to the Geneva Conventions on Humane Treatment of prisoners, and yet these men are NOT being brought before the International Court at the Hague... WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!