The Iraq war has become a disaster that we have chosen to forget
With the media subdued, governments have not been held to account for the biggest political calamity of our time
By Madeleine Bunting
'You think you are innocent, but you're not," said the British Muslim suicide bomber in the Channel 4 television drama Britz last week. As the compelling actor Manjinder Virk recited her suicide statement to camera, she went on: thousands of women and children are dying every day in Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet the governments responsible have been returned to power.
Her assertion sticks in the mind because it goes straight to the heart of how we choose to forget, choose not to understand; and how from such choices it becomes possible to imagine our innocence.
That's not to say that her own moral choices were defensible - she blew up herself, her beloved brother, fellow Muslims and plenty of women in the crowd - but the challenge even from such a morally flawed character persists. Can we claim innocence of the chaotic violence of Iraq now normalised into the background of our lives? Suicide bombs have long since become routine radio noise. We're numbed to the atrocities; except for some stalwarts, the initial anti-war activism has been crowded out by other responsibilities. Life goes on, even if in Baghdad it frequently doesn't.
And to accompany the indifference is the creeping denial of responsibility. Government ministers now talk of Iraq as a tragedy, as if it was a natural disaster and they had no hand in its making. There's a public revulsion at the violent sectarian struggles best summed up as "a plague on all their houses", as even the horror gives way to exhaustion.
The irony is that in this great age of communications and saturation media, this is perhaps the most important war to become nigh on impossible to report. Unless the reporter is embedded with the occupation forces, it takes either terrifying courage or extraordinary ingenuity to bring images to our screens of those caught up in the awful maelstrom of this imploded country. Without the human stories that bring people and their suffering so vividly to life, there is little chance of public opinion re-engaging with the biggest political calamity of our time.
The Iraq war represents the end of the media as a major actor in war. In Bosnia journalists stirred western Europe's conscience with their vivid accounts; these were people we came to understand, recognise and empathise with, and public opinion forced recalcitrant governments to take note and act. It was a lesson not lost on the Kosovans: they ensured the media saw every atrocity, and the coverage was used to secure a comparable outcome to Bosnia - western governments were forced to act. But in Iraq the number of journalists killed (now at least 138) means that this war is near private - the images and people who might make the horror of this war real don't reach our screens. It's no longer a war that is accessible to public scrutiny or to democratic engagement.
It may have been Iraqi suspicion of western media that ensured this outcome, but it's one that serves US interests nicely. The indifference, the exhaustion and the difficulty of reporting leaves the US forces with arguably a freer hand than they have had in any field of operations for decades. While the Americans and the British keep trying to persuade their public that the war is over - a habit initiated by George Bush himself when he announced his pyrrhic victory on an aircraft carrier in the Gulf in May 2003 - they can carry on fighting it. And there are plenty of people only too eager to hope their political leaders are right and that the whole problem of a country they never knew much about just goes away.
All of which makes the achievement of the few who do break through this news blackout all the more remarkable - Ghaith Abdul-Ahad on this paper, and the Guardian's Emmy-winning film made by an Iraqi doctor on his Baghdad hospital, for example. This week a book is published by another: Dahr Jamail was a mountain guide in Alaska in 2003 who began to take an interest in US foreign policy and ended up picking up his backpack and swapping American mountains for Baghdad and Falluja, driven by a fierce moral imperative that "as a US citizen he was complicit in the devastation of Iraq". After more than three years of reporting he has post-traumatic stress disorder, but has not lost his conviction that "if the people of the United States had the real story about what their government has done in Iraq, the occupation would already have ended".
What is chilling about Jamail's accounts is the routine destructiveness of the US forces; how they demolish nearby homes after a roadside bomb, leave unexploded munitions in the fields of farmers who don't give information, bulldoze orchards. Livelihoods destroyed, families displaced every day, incubating hatred. One of the worst episodes occurred when Jamail's friend was caught by chance at prayer time in a mosque when worshippers were shot dead, with children trapped in the mayhem: a holy place desecrated in a US operation. We may know nothing of such routine details of the prosecution of this war, but these are the stories filling the Arabic media. Across the Muslim world they are taken as irrefutable evidence of the humiliation and persecution of their Islamic faith. We can only pretend we don't understand.
In the meantime, the biggest human displacement crisis in the Middle East for 60 years is unfolding, the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world. One in six Iraqis has now been displaced, 60,000 a month are leaving the country, spilling into Syria (1.4 million) and Jordan (750,000). In an uncanny magnification of our own anxieties about migration and the strain on public services, the capacities of these two Middle Eastern countries to educate thousands of traumatised children or provide basic healthcare have been swamped. The UN's budget for refugees in Syria for 2007 is $700,000 - less than a dollar per person. But this crisis offers no telegenic vistas - people are crammed into the apartments of friends rather than tents on a windy African plain. So it gets even less attention.
Of these millions, Britain confirmed last week that it will take just 500 refugees with a record of having worked for British forces. It drags its feet over offering any more assistance for dispersal, despite requests from the UN; of 123 from Jordan whom the UN have allocated to Britain on tight criteria of having relatives in this country to provide for them, we have so far accepted only three. Britain washes its hands of the consequences of its invasion with the US. There's a horrible contradiction here: those in power accept no responsibility. Those who might have a sense of responsibility feel utterly powerless.
It can take a generation or more for people to grasp the significance and magnitude of historical events. Facts that are infinitely more bizarre and awful than fiction - as Naomi Klein's book The Shock Doctrine documents - take a long time to be fully absorbed. The Iraq war has been about the abject failure of democracy: governments have not been held to account for a war that has squandered lives, billions in public money and the stability of an entire region with reckless criminality.
· Dahr Jamail speaks at War, Truth and the Media, a conference at the London School of Economics, on November 17 -
m.bunting@guardian.co.uk
Original article posted here.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Will the echoing, controlled media take notice?
Ron Paul Raises More Than $4.2 Million
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $4.2 million in nearly 24 hours.
Paul, the Texas congressman with a libertarian tilt and an out-of-Iraq pitch, entered heady fundraising territory with a surge of Web-based giving tied to the commemoration of Guy Fawkes Day.
Fawkes was a British mercenary who failed in his attempt to kill King James I on Nov. 5, 1605. He also was the model for the protagonist in the movie "V for Vendetta." Paul backers motivated donors on the Internet with mashed-up clips of the film on the online video site YouTube as well as the Guy Fawkes Day refrain: "Remember, remember the 5th of November."
Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama.
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the effort began independently about two months ago at the hands of Paul's backers. He said Paul picked up on the movement, mentioning in it speeches and interviews.
"It's been kind of building up virally," Benton said.
The $4.2 million represented online contributions from more than 37,000 donors, fundraising director Jonathan Bydlak said Monday night.
Paul has been lagging in the polls behind Republican front-runners. But he captured national attention at the end of September when he reported raising $5.2 million in three months, putting him fourth among Republican presidential candidates in fundraising for the quarter.
Paul as of Monday had raised more than $7 million since Oct. 1, more than half his goal of $12 million by the end of the year, according to his Web site.
Paul advocates limited government and low taxes like other Republicans, but he stands alone as the only GOP presidential candidate opposed to the Iraq war. He also has opposed Bush administration security measures that he says encroach on civil liberties.
Iftikhar Chaudhry still fighting the good fight in Pakistan
Top judge attacks Musharraf rule
 Gen Musharraf sacked and swiftly replaced Iftikhar Chaudhry |
In a telephone address to lawyers in Islamabad, Iftikhar Chaudhry criticised President Pervez Musharraf, who imposed a state of emergency on Saturday.
He said the constitution had been "ripped to shreds" by Gen Musharraf and added it was now "time for sacrifices".
US President George W Bush has called on Gen Musharraf to end the emergency and restore democratic civilian rule.
Gen Musharraf said on Monday he had declared the state of emergency because of a crisis caused by militant violence and an unruly judiciary.
Struggle
Mr Chaudhry was sacked after he and eight other judges refused to endorse the order, declaring it unconstitutional.
Gen Musharraf swiftly replaced him and the Supreme Court was surrounded by troops.
 |  I am under arrest now, but soon I will also join you in your struggle  Iftikhar Chaudhry  |
Critics have said Gen Musharraf imposed a state of emergency to pre-empt a judgment by the Supreme Court on whether his re-election last month was legal.
Mr Chaudhry told lawyers on Tuesday: "The Supreme Court followed the constitution and the law in making all its decisions. The president's accusations are baseless.
"The constitution has been ripped to shreds. The lawyers should convey my message to the people to rise up and restore the constitution.
"This is a time for sacrifices. I am under arrest now, but soon I will also join you in your struggle."
The former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto, echoed his calls for the constitution to be restored at a Karachi press conference.
"We want General Musharraf to abide by his promise, which he made to us and the people of Pakistan, to give up his uniform as army chief," she said.
"We want elections to be held on schedule. The government refrain from violence... it is the duty of the government to protect the people."
The Pakistani cabinet is expected to meet later to discuss the parliamentary elections, which are supposed to take place by January.
On Monday, prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the vote would go ahead on schedule, but his deputy information minister later told the BBC the elections could be delayed by as much as a year.
Demonstrations
Lawyers have called for three days of protests and strikes against the suspension of the constitution.
But police stifled their demonstrations on Monday and have deployed in large numbers to prevent any more.
Hundreds of lawyers and political opponents have been detained.
Pakistan has come under heavy international pressure since Gen Musharraf imposed emergency rule.
Mr Bush urged President Musharraf to quit his post as head of the army and hold elections as soon as possible.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon expressed grave concern and called for the release of all those detained since the state of emergency was declared.
The UK has also reiterated demands for a return to civilian rule in Pakistan.
The Netherlands became the first country to suspend aid, and the EU said its members were considering "possible further steps".
But Gen Musharraf said confidence in his government would soon return and insisted he still planned to give up his military post, as he had been scheduled to do this month.
These are the madmen we are dealing with
U.S. Plan Envisioned Nuking Iran, Syria, Libya
 | |
Despite years of denials, a secret planning document issued by the U.S. military's nuclear-weapons command in 2003 ordered preparations for nuclear strikes on countries seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, including Iran, Saddam Hussein-era Iraq, Libya and Syria.
A briefing (pdf) on the document obtained by the Federation of American Scientists, showed that the document itself was created to flesh out a 2001 Bush administration revision of long-standing nuclear-weapons policy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review. That review was a Defense Department-led attempt to wean nuclear policy off a Cold-War focus on Russia and China, but the shift raised questions about what purpose nuclear forces would serve apart from deterring an attack. In March 2002, leaks indicated that the review would recommend preparations for nuclear attacks against WMD-aspirant states. Arms Control Today pointed out at the time that planning to attack non-nuclear states that were signatories to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty reversed decades of U.S. nuclear policy.
The administration's response was to deny that the review moved the U.S. from deterrence to a first-strike posture. After the leaks, the Defense Department issued a statement in March 2002 saying cryptically, "This administration is fashioning a more diverse set of options for deterring the threat of WMD. ... A combination of offensive and defensive, and nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities is essential to meet the deterrence requirements of the 21st century." Speaking to CNN around the same time, General Richard Myers, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Nuclear Posture Review was "not a plan, it's not an operational plan. It's a policy document. And it simply states our deterrence posture, of which nuclear weapons are a part." Vice President Dick Cheney said at the time that the notion that the review paved the way for "preemptive nuclear strikes" was "a bit over the top."
But that now looks to be an explanation too clever by half. Perhaps the review itself didn't contain operational plans. But guidance documents created to flesh it out did.
One such document is known as OPLAN 8044 Revision 03. That document is an update of the basic nuclear-weapons plan, formerly known as the Single Integrated Operational Plan. It was created by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom), which has responsibility for nuclear-weapons planning, doctrine and maintenance. Using the Freedom of Information Act, the Federation of American Scientists obtained a briefing on how Stratcom's OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 changed the nuclear-policy paradigm. For the first time in U.S. nuclear history, plans for nuclear attack on regional targets around the world were included in the basic nuclear war planning document.
It's not entirely easy to tell from the planning document what WMD-desiring countries are listed as targets for a possible U.S. nuclear attack. (See page 11 for all the redactions on this crucial point.) But the FAS hazards an educated guess based on photography included in the briefing document: Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea and Syria.
The briefing document also references a "target base" for prospective elimination with nuclear weapons. However, the actual document redacts what that target base might be. FAS contends it probably refers to either the stockpiles of WMD themselves or the command center for any state seeking to deploy WMD. And that's a further sign of specific planning for a full-blown nuclear conflict, the FAS writes: "The creation of a 'target base' indicates that the planning went further than simple retaliatory punishment with one or a few weapons, but envisioned actual nuclear warfighting intended to annihilate a wide range of facilities in order to deprive the states the ability to launch and fight with WMD."
It's difficult to tell whether OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 is still in place. A further revision of the plan, known as Revision 05, was still in effect as recently as July. "Presumably," writes FAS, Revision 05 carries with it planning for nuclear strikes on Iran, North Korea and Syria.
The new glimpse of OPLAN 8044 Revision 03 comes at an awkward time for the Bush administration. Just last week, a State Department official at an international arms conference met with rebuke for suggesting that U.S. nuclear forces weren't on "hair-trigger alert," even though the U.S. nuclear arsenal is known to experts to be capable of launching within minutes of an order. Certainly Iran, North Korea, and Syria are wondering at whom those weapons are currently aimed.
Original article posted here.Tyranny by any name is still tyranny. Weazl likes Chavez, but not these changes
Top former general breaks with Chavez over constitutional changes 
Original article posted here.
CARACAS, Venezuela (CNN) -- An ex-general who helped President Hugo Chavez through an abortive coup against his leadership in 2002 publically broke with the president Monday over proposed constitutional changes.
Baduel holds a copy of Venezuela's national constitution during a news conference in Caracas on Monday.
Approval of the proposed changes "would in effect finalize a coup d'etat, brazenly violating the constitution," former Defense Minister Raul Baduel said at a news conference. "The Venezuelan people should categorically reject this fraud."
Venezuela's pro-Chavez National Assembly on Friday overwhelmingly approved a package of 69 changes to the 1999 Constitution. The changes would institutionalize Chavez's bid to implant a new model of development -- called "Socialism for the 21st Century" -- in the country while strengthening the power of the executive to rule by decree. It would also change electoral rules and allow a sitting president to seek unlimited re-election -- grandfathering Chavez into that system.
Opposition and human rights groups have been particularly critical of how the changes would give the president greater latitude to impose a state of emergency and suspend individual rights, as well as how they would place further restrictions on the news media. Protesters and security forces have clashed repeatedly in recent weeks as opposition to the changes moved into the streets. 
Baduel, who was Chavez's defense minister and military general in chief until July, became the highest-profile former military official to criticize Chavez's constitutional designs. He targeted his stinging criticism on how the changes would concentrate power in the executive.
"Constitutions are born precisely to limit the power of governments and to protect citizens from the abusive exercise of power, guaranteeing their rights and liberties," Baduel said. "They shouldn't do the opposite."
"Any Constitution that removes the limits on power should be viewed with suspicion," he continued, calling on "on all Venezuelans to vote 'No'" when the changes are put to a public referendum in December.
Baduel's harsh criticism -- and the public nature of his break with his former comrade in arms -- was a sharp counterpoint to their previous relationship.
The two came up through the officer corps together as both military and philosophical brothers in arms: Baduel participated with Chavez in his 1992 coup attempt against President Carlos Andres Perez, but escaped being cashiered from the army because his role in the plot didn't come to light.
Then, as commander of the 42nd Airborne Brigade in Maracay, Baduel's support was critical in helping overturn the abortive coup d'etat in 2002 that briefly unseated Chavez -- and opened the way for Chavez to strengthen his grip on power by moving to clear dissident officers from the military and put the opposition on the defensive.
Baduel was soon promoted up the chain of command, first being put in overall command of the army's main garrison at Maracay and then, in 2006, taking over as general-in-chief and, in July 2006, as defense minister. In all of those roles, he was seen as a right-hand man to Chavez as Chavez reshaped the military from a traditional institutional military into a politicized arm of his "Bolivarian Revolution," and worked to reshape Venezuela as a whole.
However, when he was replaced in July by Gen. Gustavo Rangel Briceno of the Military Reserve and National Mobilization forces, Baduel gave a broad hint of the break to come, using the bulk of his retirement speech to critique the idea of "Socialism for the 21st Century."
"A socialist regime is not incompatible with a democratic system of checks and balances and division of powers," he said. "We must separate ourselves from Marxist orthodoxy."Original article posted here.
Monday, November 05, 2007
White House once again shits on Congress and the rule of law
Conyers to file contempt report; says White House has one last chance
Jason Rhyne
White House says 'futile' contempt filing 'won't go anywhere'
House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI) will file a report today holding that two White House officials are in contempt of Congress for their continued refusal to honor subpoenas in connection with the controversial firing of US attorneys last year -- but he's offering one last chance to make a deal.
In a Monday letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Conyers wrote that he would be officially filing submitting the contempt report, a move which would allow the full House to later vote on the measure, but would stop the contempt process there if the White House would agree to a final compromise offer.
“I have written to you on eight previous occasions attempting to reach agreement on this matter,” Conyers says in the letter. “As we submit the Committee’s contempt report to the full House, I am writing one more time to seek to resolve this issue on a cooperative basis.”
But White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told reporters Monday that an effort to bring a contempt citation to a vote was "futile."
"I'm just amazed that the Democrats actually think they've accomplished so much on behalf of the American people that they can now waste time again on another diversion," she said. "I don't know if they'll actually have a vote on the House floor or not. If they do, I guess we'll just take it from there. But it's been very clear that this is a futile attempt on their part, because they know that it won't go anywhere."
In July, Conyers had written Fielding to inform him that White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten and former White House Counsel Harriet Miers could be held in contempt for refusing to comply with subpoenas seeking documents and testimony as part of a House Judiciary probe into the firing of nine US attorneys. President Bush had earlier blocked those requests, citing executive privilege.
In order to prevent further action on the contempt measure, Conyers is requesting that the White House provide communications documents pertaining to the firings, including internal White House materials, and asking that White House staffers be allowed to conduct private interviews -- albeit not under oath -- with the House Judiciary Committee.
“I hope you will consider this offer in earnest and based upon the good faith with which it is delivered,” Conyers writes, going on to give Fielding a Nov. 9 deadline.
Republicans in the House have already sprung into action, according to Politico's John Bresnahan.
"GOP leaders have begun to prepare their own counter-attack if a criminal contempt resolution vote takes place on the floor, and they plan to target conservative and moderate Democrats," he writes. "Republicans see several moves that signal a vote is likely to happen soon, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has not made a final decision one way or the other at this time."
According to the Washington Post, Democrats have been working to secure the votes necessary to make sure that a contempt vote, if brought to the House floor, would be successful. "House Democratic leaders have spent the past 10 days trying round up enough votes to secure a majority on the House floor for a contempt citation, aware that some Democrats from moderate to conservative districts may be wary of such a high-profile vote against President Bush," says the paper.
If Fielding rejects Conyers' offer, reports the Post, a contempt vote could come as early as next week.
Our own little Musharraf
Bush invokes 9/11 to justify torture, domestic spying and war by Patrick Martin | |
In a speech Thursday, President Bush invoked the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as an all-purpose justification for his prevailing on a series of issues now in dispute in Congress: the confirmation of Michael Mukasey as attorney general despite his refusal to disavow torture; the passage of legislation to give sweeping new domestic spying powers to the federal government; and the approval of yet another emergency spending bill providing nearly $200 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s address was less a speech than a semi-hysterical diatribe, combining scare-mongering, crackpot history and bullying of his opponents in Washington. As in all presidential speeches of the past several years, he spoke before a carefully vetted audience at the Heritage Foundation, one of the main right-wing think tanks. The desperate character of the speech was signaled by his repeated references to the 9/11 attacks, as well as last year’s alleged Al Qaeda plot to blow up airliners flying across the Atlantic from Britain to the US, and—the ultimate bogeyman—a supposed Al Qaeda plot to “build a totalitarian Islamic empire—encompassing all current and former Muslim lands, stretching from Europe to North Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.” Bush suggested that any opposition to his policies of torture, spying and war represented a capitulation to this existential terrorist threat. He declared, “I know that when I discuss the war on terror, some here in Washington, DC dismiss it as political rhetoric—an attempt to scare people into votes. Given the nature of the enemy and the words of its leaders, politicians who deny that we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive.” He denounced the Senate Judiciary Committee for holding up the nomination of Judge Mukasey as attorney general, with demands that he take a position on whether the waterboarding of suspected terrorists constitutes torture. In a lengthy letter to the committee Tuesday, Mukasey expressed personal “repugnance” for waterboarding, but refused to comment on whether it was torture, and hence illegal. This flies in the face of both the Geneva Conventions and US laws, both of which classify waterboarding as torture and prohibit it completely, under any circumstances. The Mukasey nomination is a conflict that the Democratic majority in the Senate clearly wanted to avoid. Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York originally proposed the judge as a replacement for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and praised him in introducing him to the Judiciary Committee two weeks ago. But when the issue of torture arose on the second day of his confirmation hearing, Mukasey’s refusal to condemn waterboarding as illegal became a political sticking point. Most Senate Democrats and several Republicans—including former Vietnam War POW John McCain—have called for an official ban on waterboarding and even enacted it into law in 2005, although this applied only to the military and not to the CIA. The White House is adamantly opposed to such a ban, not only because it plans to continue waterboarding prisoners, but because numerous administration officials, from the CIA leadership up to Bush himself, could be held criminally liable for their actions over the past six years. Mukasey stated this concern explicitly in his October 30 letter, saying that any comment on the legality of waterboarding could arouse fears among executive branch officials about “personal legal jeopardy.” Similarly, both House and Senate Democrats caved in to White House pressure and adopted the so-called Protect America Act last August—legislation that legalized, for a six-month period, more extensive spying on domestic telecommunications and Internet traffic by the CIA, NSA and other US intelligence agencies. The Bush administration is now pressing for a bill that would make these expanded powers permanent, but the effort has encountered a significant obstacle, with resistance to the White House demand for a provision giving blanket immunity to telecommunications companies for collaborating in illegal surveillance of the private communications of American citizens. The congressional Democrats have agreed to immunity for future cooperation by the telecommunications firms, but not to immunity that is retroactive, covering the past transfer of vast amounts of telephone and Internet data to the NSA and other federal agencies without any legal authorization, simply on the basis of an executive order from Bush. There is also a potential logjam over the Iraq-Afghanistan spending, although no leading Democrat in Congress has proposed to block the legislation, and the Democratic-controlled Congress approved the last such measure in May. But there have been suggestions that the latest emergency funding bill will not be taken up until the New Year, when it could well become the focus of public attention during the height of the presidential nominating contest. Bush is pressing for a vote before Christmas. Bush sought to connect the war funding to the Mukasey nomination and domestic surveillance issues in order to bully his opponents with the threat that they would be accused of neglecting the troops. He concluded with a McCarthy-style smear that managed to link antiwar protesters with terrorism. “When it comes to funding our troops,” he declared, “some in Washington should spend more time responding to the warnings of terrorists like Osama bin Laden and the requests of our commanders on the ground, and less time responding to the demands of MoveOn.org bloggers and Code Pink protesters.” The Mukasey nomination is the most immediate concern of Bush, Vice President Cheney and their inner circle, as a series of prominent Senate Democrats have come out in opposition to his confirmation, including, by late Thursday, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, deputy leader Dick Durbin and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Christopher Dodd and Joseph Biden. Majority Leader Harry Reid indicated that if the Judiciary Committee did not approve the nomination he would not permit a vote by the full Senate. Cheney touched on the issue in a speech Thursday, traveling to Indianapolis to address a meeting of the American Legion, a reliably pro-war venue from which all critics could be excluded. The vice president went beyond Bush to explicitly defend the torture interrogations conducted by the CIA, claiming that they had produced information that had proven critical for forestalling hundreds of potential terrorist attacks. (This contention did not jibe, however, with another piece of administration propaganda, a CIA leak to the New York Times claiming that the agency had only inflicted waterboarding on three prisoners, and none currently.) In arguing for the immediate confirmation of Mukasey, Bush claimed that it would be wrong to have any public discussion about what interrogation techniques were forbidden to US agencies because this would help Al Qaeda “train their operatives to resist questioning, and withhold vital information we need to stop attacks and save lives.” By that logic, however, it would be wrong to rule out in advance any method of interrogation, no matter how barbaric, including electrical shocks, the rack, drugs or even dismemberment. Bush also claimed that Mukasey should not be asked to take a legal position on specific interrogation techniques because he has not yet been “read into the program,” i.e., because, as a retired federal judge, Mukasey does not yet have access to classified information. The complete absurdity of this argument was demonstrated at the press briefing Thursday by White House press secretary Dana Perino. After reiterating Bush’s claim that it was “very unfair” to ask Mukasey to give an opinion on waterboarding, Perino added that it would be perfectly all right for the Senate to ask such questions after Mukasey had been “read into the program,” that is, after he took office. “If they want to ask him more questions about that,” Perino said, “they should confirm him and then they’d have the opportunity to do so.” Moreover, Mukasey has not been asked whether specific acts of the CIA constitute torture. He has been asked whether, as a general principle, waterboarding is torture, to which he responded—in a transparent and provocative evasion—that he didn’t know what waterboarding was and therefore could not comment. Despite this professed ignorance, however, there is no doubt that Judge Mukasey and every other politically literate American knows what waterboarding is and knows that it constitutes torture. Mukasey’s hometown newspaper, the New York Daily News, provided a graphic description of waterboarding in an op-ed column published Wednesday, written by Malcolm Nance, a former adviser on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence. The column, entitled, “I know waterboarding is torture—because I did it myself,” is based on Nance’s experience as a master instructor and chief of training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, where Navy Seals are trained both to perform and resist waterboarding. Nance rejects the conventional description of waterboarding in the US media as “simulated drowning.” He writes: “that’s a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.... Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia—meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.” “The lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threatened with its use again and again,” he continues. “Call it ‘Chinese water torture,’ ‘the barrel,’ or ‘the waterfall.’ It is all the same. One has to overcome basic human decency to endure causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you questioning the meaning of what it is to be an American.” The public embrace of this torture technique by the US government is a terrible sign of the decay of democratic rights in America, one which is increasingly recognized throughout the world. On the same day as Bush’s speech, Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on torture, declared in a speech in Australia that the US policy was undermining worldwide efforts against torture. “I am very concerned about the undermining of the absolute prohibition of torture by interrogation methods themselves in Abu Ghraib, in Guantanamo Bay and others, but also by rendition and the whole CIA secret places of detention,” he said. “All that is really undermining the international rule of law in general and human rights but also the prohibition of torture,” said Nowak. “It has a negative effect because the US is a very powerful and important country and many other countries take the US as a model.” Nowak concluded, “In my opinion, this ill-conceived, security-oriented counterterrorism strategy is having a very, very negative effect, not only on human rights in the USA, but for the first time I would say in a long period of time, the US is really engaging in systematic violation of human rights, but also a very negative effect on many other countries.” | |
Don 't mourn Pakistan too much, don't be surprised if this show hits America before November of next year
Pakistani troops jail hundreds & attack protesters
Pakistani policemen arrest civil rights activists who were trying to march toward ousted chief justice Muhammad Chaudhry's residence during an anti-Musharraf protest in Islamabad on Sunday.
Police and paramilitaries stand guard at the junction to the president's house in Islamabad.
Authorities rounded up opposition leaders Sunday, including these political workers in Lahore.
Opposition leader Javed Hashmi flashes a victory sign as he is arrested in Multan.
Punjabi policemen scour the news while awaiting orders outside the Presidential Palace on Sunday.
WASHINGTON - Riot troops swept through Pakistan Sunday, throwing hundreds of government opponents into jail as people took to the streets to protest the martial law clampdown and the suspension of the constitution.
Government forces shut down television stations, arrested hundreds of lawyers and human rights activists, and attacked opposition rallies with tear gas and clubs as the crisis deepened in the teetering nation - one of the world's nuclear powers and a precarious ally of the U.S. in the war on terror.
In Lahore, riot police stormed a meeting and arrested 50. "They dragged us out, including women," one man said at a police station. "It's inhuman, undemocratic and a violation of human rights."
The crackdown has put the U.S. in a tough position.
"The emergency is an embarrassment for the Bush administration," said Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But she said the White House has few options. "They will have to keep working with the government on terrorism and Afghan-related issues," Schaffer said.
Streets around government buildings were sealed, and opposition leader and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto charged that President Gen. Pervez Musharraf had carried out a "second coup," referring to his initial power grab in 1999.
"This is a coup conducted by Gen. Musharraf against his own regime," she said on CBS News.
Musharraf suspended the constitution and dismissed most of the Supreme Court on Saturday, just days before it was to decide the legality of his most recent election.
The Pakistani strongman cited Abraham Lincoln, saying he was clamping down to prevent extremists from taking over, the way Lincoln suspended some rights during the Civil War.
"Poor President Lincoln, he must be turning in his grave," Bhutto scoffed on "ABC News."
"Unless we can stop it, the radicals will gain in strength, and there will be horrific consequences for the people of Pakistan as well as for the people in this region, if not even beyond," she said.
The United States has been pushing for improved democracy while sending billions in aid to prop up Musharraf and crack down on Islamic terrorists.
Neither effort has gone well, as Musharraf seems certain to ignore U.S. calls to hold promised elections on Jan. 15, and Taliban and Al Qaeda forces have only gotten stronger along Pakistan's lawless border with Afghanistan.
Secretary of State Rice complained yesterday that Musharraf was moving in the wrong direction. "I think the decision sets Pakistan back in terms of the considerable progress that it had made along the road to democratic change," she said, warning she would "review" Pakistan's aid package.
Excellent Ron Paul article
Ron Paul Gets Much More Than 15 Minutes
Szandor Blestman
This article refers to a blog by the editors of Foreign Policy which can be found here:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/mboyer
Mike Boyer is a blogger for Foreign Policy magazine. In a recent blog entry he asserts that Ron Paul's fifteen minutes of fame should be up. Of course, when Andy Warhol originally made the statement that in the future everyone would have fifteen minutes of fame, he was referring to the common man, not politicians or other public figures. But, whatever. Mr. Boyer apparently believes that everyone, no matter what their stature in life, is only allotted fifteen minutes, no more. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news Mr. Boyer sir, but Ron Paul has already had more than fifteen minutes. The Ron Paul girl has had her fifteen minutes, but, like it or not, Ron Paul is working on at least his second hour of fame and will continue racking up the minutes whether or not he wins the presidency. So, even though you might close your eyes and wish Dr. Paul would go away, there are many, many of us who would like to see him stick around for quite a bit longer and hope his fame grows to biblical proportions.
Normally, I wouldn't bother with some blogger discounting Ron Paul's candidacy, but this is from an establishment publication and the establishment still seems to be trying to bury Ron Paul's relevancy even as he appears on TV shows such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Like CNBC, Foreign Policy Magazine is doing its best to minimize Ron Paul. This gentleman starts his blog by stating that Ron Paul is a seductive mistress. Hmmm. I've never really thought about Ron Paul that way. Well, to each his own I suppose.
Mr. Boyer goes on to ask whether or not people understand what Ron Paul stands for. He then lists five of Ron Paul's policies that are "fraught with danger." He lists the first policy as "Foreign Policy and the Constitution." I suppose that these things can be fraught with danger and I can understand why some people would be very frightened of them. If you don't like freedom and want the government to take care of you and protect you from the big bad world, then the government obeying the constitution and the foreign policy Dr. Paul espouses can be quite terrifying indeed. But Mr. Boyer asserts Dr. Paul's understanding of the Constitution and the vision of the founding fathers is profoundly flawed. He then goes on to suggest that Ron Paul believes that the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in the congress and not in the executive. He then goes on to use the opinion of someone else to complete his argument that suggests that Dr. Paul is wrong. I simply decided to look at what it says in the constitution. You see, I have the ability to read that document and decide for myself what it says without having to look to someone else to interpret it. Article II Section 2 (presidential powers) reads as follows:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
I don't see anything there about the president creating foreign policy except that he can make treaties "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."Everything else he does is by and with the advice of the senate. On the other hand, taken from the Constitution, the congress has these powers:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"
It appears to me as if Dr. Paul, with his twenty years experience as a congressman, does know a little bit more about the constitution and what it says than the journalist gives him credit for.
Mr. Boyer's second point is to suggest that Dr. Paul is an isolationist instead of a noninterventionist. He asserts that Dr. Paul is an isolationist because he wants out of some organizations formed some sixty years ago through the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange, a system that failed in the early 1970's by the way. Let's make this clear, Dr. Paul is a noninterventionist. This means he does not believe the United States should interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. I happen to agree with this philosophy. We would not want some foreign power interfering with our internal affairs, so why should we interfere with theirs? As far as getting out of some musty old organizations that aren't doing us any good anyway, I say go for it. This doesn't mean that Ron Paul wants to stop trading with other countries. On the contrary, it means he wants to trade with them on a voluntary basis, not by force of treaty. This is how all trade should be done. The U.N. does not necessarily help accomplish this.
Mr. Boyer asserts that Ron Paul has stated he would get out of Iraq immediately. Again, Mr. Boyer is misrepresenting what Ron Paul has said. He has stated time and again that he would get out of Iraq, and indeed out of every country our military occupies, as quickly as possible. Now, if Mr. Boyer wants to assume that as quickly as possible means immediately, that's his prerogative, but Ron Paul was in the military and he realizes that he can't simply pull out, that the withdrawal has to be organized rather than chaotic. So yes, Ron Paul would begin the program of withdrawing the troops from Iraq immediately and we all know that process would take some time. That timetable is a lot sooner than all the other Republican candidates who would keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely, as we have in Germany, South Korea, etc.
Mr. Boyer's fourth point is the intimation that Ron Paul is crazy. He suggests that because Ron Paul's websites warn of a very real danger world government could pose to our sovereignty that he has lost his mind. This ploy is quite upsetting. Mr. Boyer is another mainstream journalist who exposes his own paranoia when trying to expose Ron Paul's. Mr. Boyer is obviously frightened, in my opinion, of a world where no one is allowed to paint their helicopters black. Why, to him, the thought of people even talking about helicopters being painted black is fear mongering at its worst. No talking about helicopters being painted black or you're going to the loony bin to sing songs with world leaders that never leave their own country. But seriously, does he really think that the United States leaving these organizations would mean the end of the world? Would the WTO, U.N. and other organizations fail if the United States is not a member of their little club? Perhaps it's time we just let the other countries of the world worry about their own internal affairs and they just let us worry about our internal affairs and we all agree that trade should be done on a voluntary basis.
His fifth point, that Iran might create a nuclear weapon and needs to be attacked now, is the point that sets Ron Paul apart from the crowd. He is the only Republican candidate that has come out and said that he would not start a way with Iran. We can hardly afford to keep Iraq going. Most people want out of Iraq. Iran is much bigger. It has ties with China, India and Russia. There's no telling what would happen if a conflagration was started in that country. I don't want to find out. There has been enough death and destruction caused as a result of our foreign policies, and it's time for that to end. The United States of America was supposed to be a compassionate country where the poor and the down trodden could come to make a better life for themselves, not a country that kills the poor and down trodden in the streets of their nation and destroys what little infrastructure they had in the first place. It's time to stop threatening countries, to start treating them like human beings, to start trading with them fairly, equitably and responsibly. In this way we can start influencing them diplomatically instead of forcefully at the point of a gun.
Mr. Boyer concludes by saying that play time is over. I have to agree with him. It's time for Ron Paul supporters to pull out all the stops. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. It's time to quiet all these nay sayers who think that Ron Paul's supporters are few and far between. It's time to show our strength. Donate. Put on the bumper stickers. Keep going to those rallies and holding up your signs. Keep submitting those videos to Youtube. Keep blogging. Keep writing those articles. Let those in the minority, those like Mr. Boyer, those who think that their vision is the only clear vision, let these people know that they can no longer tell us what to think. Let them know that it is time for them to worry about themselves and not about everyone else. Let them know that the majority of people want to accept responsibility for themselves and want government out of their lives. Let these people know that the ideas of freedom, liberty, smaller government and self reliance are still viable ideas today that resonate with Americans. It is time to elect Ron Paul and send the message that we wish the rest of the politicians to stop playing with our lives.
Original article posted here.
Szandor Blestman
This article refers to a blog by the editors of Foreign Policy which can be found here:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/mboyer
Mike Boyer is a blogger for Foreign Policy magazine. In a recent blog entry he asserts that Ron Paul's fifteen minutes of fame should be up. Of course, when Andy Warhol originally made the statement that in the future everyone would have fifteen minutes of fame, he was referring to the common man, not politicians or other public figures. But, whatever. Mr. Boyer apparently believes that everyone, no matter what their stature in life, is only allotted fifteen minutes, no more. Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news Mr. Boyer sir, but Ron Paul has already had more than fifteen minutes. The Ron Paul girl has had her fifteen minutes, but, like it or not, Ron Paul is working on at least his second hour of fame and will continue racking up the minutes whether or not he wins the presidency. So, even though you might close your eyes and wish Dr. Paul would go away, there are many, many of us who would like to see him stick around for quite a bit longer and hope his fame grows to biblical proportions.
Normally, I wouldn't bother with some blogger discounting Ron Paul's candidacy, but this is from an establishment publication and the establishment still seems to be trying to bury Ron Paul's relevancy even as he appears on TV shows such as The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Like CNBC, Foreign Policy Magazine is doing its best to minimize Ron Paul. This gentleman starts his blog by stating that Ron Paul is a seductive mistress. Hmmm. I've never really thought about Ron Paul that way. Well, to each his own I suppose.
Mr. Boyer goes on to ask whether or not people understand what Ron Paul stands for. He then lists five of Ron Paul's policies that are "fraught with danger." He lists the first policy as "Foreign Policy and the Constitution." I suppose that these things can be fraught with danger and I can understand why some people would be very frightened of them. If you don't like freedom and want the government to take care of you and protect you from the big bad world, then the government obeying the constitution and the foreign policy Dr. Paul espouses can be quite terrifying indeed. But Mr. Boyer asserts Dr. Paul's understanding of the Constitution and the vision of the founding fathers is profoundly flawed. He then goes on to suggest that Ron Paul believes that the founders vested absolute authority for foreign-policy making in the congress and not in the executive. He then goes on to use the opinion of someone else to complete his argument that suggests that Dr. Paul is wrong. I simply decided to look at what it says in the constitution. You see, I have the ability to read that document and decide for myself what it says without having to look to someone else to interpret it. Article II Section 2 (presidential powers) reads as follows:
"The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."
I don't see anything there about the president creating foreign policy except that he can make treaties "provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."Everything else he does is by and with the advice of the senate. On the other hand, taken from the Constitution, the congress has these powers:
"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;"
It appears to me as if Dr. Paul, with his twenty years experience as a congressman, does know a little bit more about the constitution and what it says than the journalist gives him credit for.
Mr. Boyer's second point is to suggest that Dr. Paul is an isolationist instead of a noninterventionist. He asserts that Dr. Paul is an isolationist because he wants out of some organizations formed some sixty years ago through the Bretton Woods system of fixed exchange, a system that failed in the early 1970's by the way. Let's make this clear, Dr. Paul is a noninterventionist. This means he does not believe the United States should interfere in the internal affairs of another nation. I happen to agree with this philosophy. We would not want some foreign power interfering with our internal affairs, so why should we interfere with theirs? As far as getting out of some musty old organizations that aren't doing us any good anyway, I say go for it. This doesn't mean that Ron Paul wants to stop trading with other countries. On the contrary, it means he wants to trade with them on a voluntary basis, not by force of treaty. This is how all trade should be done. The U.N. does not necessarily help accomplish this.
Mr. Boyer asserts that Ron Paul has stated he would get out of Iraq immediately. Again, Mr. Boyer is misrepresenting what Ron Paul has said. He has stated time and again that he would get out of Iraq, and indeed out of every country our military occupies, as quickly as possible. Now, if Mr. Boyer wants to assume that as quickly as possible means immediately, that's his prerogative, but Ron Paul was in the military and he realizes that he can't simply pull out, that the withdrawal has to be organized rather than chaotic. So yes, Ron Paul would begin the program of withdrawing the troops from Iraq immediately and we all know that process would take some time. That timetable is a lot sooner than all the other Republican candidates who would keep the troops in Iraq indefinitely, as we have in Germany, South Korea, etc.
Mr. Boyer's fourth point is the intimation that Ron Paul is crazy. He suggests that because Ron Paul's websites warn of a very real danger world government could pose to our sovereignty that he has lost his mind. This ploy is quite upsetting. Mr. Boyer is another mainstream journalist who exposes his own paranoia when trying to expose Ron Paul's. Mr. Boyer is obviously frightened, in my opinion, of a world where no one is allowed to paint their helicopters black. Why, to him, the thought of people even talking about helicopters being painted black is fear mongering at its worst. No talking about helicopters being painted black or you're going to the loony bin to sing songs with world leaders that never leave their own country. But seriously, does he really think that the United States leaving these organizations would mean the end of the world? Would the WTO, U.N. and other organizations fail if the United States is not a member of their little club? Perhaps it's time we just let the other countries of the world worry about their own internal affairs and they just let us worry about our internal affairs and we all agree that trade should be done on a voluntary basis.
His fifth point, that Iran might create a nuclear weapon and needs to be attacked now, is the point that sets Ron Paul apart from the crowd. He is the only Republican candidate that has come out and said that he would not start a way with Iran. We can hardly afford to keep Iraq going. Most people want out of Iraq. Iran is much bigger. It has ties with China, India and Russia. There's no telling what would happen if a conflagration was started in that country. I don't want to find out. There has been enough death and destruction caused as a result of our foreign policies, and it's time for that to end. The United States of America was supposed to be a compassionate country where the poor and the down trodden could come to make a better life for themselves, not a country that kills the poor and down trodden in the streets of their nation and destroys what little infrastructure they had in the first place. It's time to stop threatening countries, to start treating them like human beings, to start trading with them fairly, equitably and responsibly. In this way we can start influencing them diplomatically instead of forcefully at the point of a gun.
Mr. Boyer concludes by saying that play time is over. I have to agree with him. It's time for Ron Paul supporters to pull out all the stops. It's time to put your money where your mouth is. It's time to quiet all these nay sayers who think that Ron Paul's supporters are few and far between. It's time to show our strength. Donate. Put on the bumper stickers. Keep going to those rallies and holding up your signs. Keep submitting those videos to Youtube. Keep blogging. Keep writing those articles. Let those in the minority, those like Mr. Boyer, those who think that their vision is the only clear vision, let these people know that they can no longer tell us what to think. Let them know that it is time for them to worry about themselves and not about everyone else. Let them know that the majority of people want to accept responsibility for themselves and want government out of their lives. Let these people know that the ideas of freedom, liberty, smaller government and self reliance are still viable ideas today that resonate with Americans. It is time to elect Ron Paul and send the message that we wish the rest of the politicians to stop playing with our lives.
Original article posted here.
Another Central American country shifting Left
Center-leftist beats general in Guatemala election
 |
By Mica Rosenberg and Frank Jack Daniel
GUATEMALA CITY (Reuters) - Center-leftist Alvaro Colom won Guatemala's presidential election on Sunday, denying power to a retired general who had sought to unleash the army to fight a violent crime wave.
Colom, a soft-spoken textile businessman, beat Gen. Otto Perez Molina, the former head of army intelligence, by 5.4 percentage points with more than 95 percent of votes counted.
He will be sworn in on January 14, becoming the first president from the left since the end of the country's civil war in 1996, which deeply scarred this coffee-producing nation of jungles, volcanoes and Mayan ruins.
The Central American country, a U.S. free-trade partner, has been plagued by violent drug cartels and youth street gangs since the war and has one of the world's highest murder rates.
But voters with bad memories of atrocities under military rule rejected Perez Molina's plans to send more soldiers onto the streets, boost the use of capital punishment and emergency powers to fight crime. Perez Molina conceded defeat.
"It is a 'no' to Guatemala's tragic history," Colom, 56, said when asked if the vote was a rejection of the country's military past.
Chain-smoker Colom, whose party symbol is a peace dove, says Guatemala will only cut crime by attacking poverty and removing corrupt police and judges.
"All this violence comes from the lack of employment, I just hope he creates more jobs," said doughnut seller Yolanda Morales, 26, as Colom gave his victory speech and a barrage of fireworks exploded above her.
Colom, on his third bid to win the presidency, had accused Perez Molina of seeking to take Guatemala back to the dark days of the Cold War when the military was brutal in its counter-insurgency tactics.
"We have had a strong hand for 50 years and it caused more than 250,000 victims in a dirty war," he said.
The army ruled Guatemala for decades until the mid-1980s. More than 200,000 people died in the 36-year war with leftist rebels, many of them Mayan peasants killed in army-led massacres.
The outgoing government of President Oscar Berger stabilized the economy but failed to reduce the wide gap between the rich and poor in Guatemala. Violent crime surged under the pro-business Berger's watch.
MARRED BY VIOLENCE
The election campaign was marred by violence, with more than 50 political party activists or candidates for Congress or local elections killed. Colom's party was hardest hit with almost 20 party members murdered since last year.
The president-elect has admitted that drug gangsters have found their way into his National Unity for Hope party.
Some voters say Colom, a bookish former deputy economy minister, is not tough enough to fight cocaine cartels, corruption and infamous "mara" street gangs which extort businesses and behead rivals.
"Soldiers are disciplined. For all his good intentions, Colom sadly does not have the determination needed," said Perez Molina supporter Noemi Samoyoa, who lives next to the capital's El Gallito area where drug-gang shootouts are common.
Colom defines himself as a moderate social democrat and says he is inspired by leftist presidents Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva in Brazil and Michelle Bachelet in Chile.
He says his government would not clash with the landowning and business elites of Guatemala, a major coffee producer.
Guatemala has the highest level of chronic infant malnutrition in the Western Hemisphere and one of the region's lowest tax collection rates.
Several of Colom's relatives were killed during the civil war, including his uncle Manuel Colom Argueta, a presidential candidate and prominent leftist who was murdered by the military in 1979.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Paul Craig Roberts continues to tell it like it is
The Wages of Hegemony
By Paul Craig Roberts
"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
Bush, at the Athena Performing Arts Center at Greece Athena Middle and High School Tuesday, May 24, 2005 in Rochester, NY
When he departs the White House on 20 January, 2009, the current resident will bequeath to the American people and the next administration an interminable war in the Middle East and a depreciated currency.
And that's the good news. It assumes there is a successor administration and that no Cheney-contrived "national emergency" will make it possible for Bush to test drive National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-51 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20 to cancel the 2008 election.
Neoconservatives led by vice president Dick Cheney remain determined to effect "regime change" in Iran. The allegation of weapons of mass destruction falsely brought against Iraq is now being deployed against Iran.
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that there is no evidence that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The IAEA is the institution that polices the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty by inspecting the nuclear facilities of the signatories to the treaty of which Iran is one. However, the neocon/Cheney/Bush regime is prepared to bomb Iran on the basis of fibs alone.
Faithfully repeated by the propaganda ministry that masquerades as the "mainstream media," those fibs have been trotted out so many times in recent months that significant numbers of Americans now believe themselves to be in peril from nonexistent Iranian nukes.
In this way the regime gains the complicity of the American people and their representatives in Congress for what will be unprovoked aggression against a third Middle Eastern country, a third war crime under the Nuremberg standard.
The "war on terror" is a hoax. It serves as a cover for the drive for US and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Iraq, Iran, and Syria became neoconservative targets, because they were the only Middle Eastern countries that are not American puppet states or dependencies.
Afghanistan was attacked, because the Taliban were uniting the country under the banner of Islam, a development that, if successful, could lead to the overthrow of the governments in America's puppet states and dependencies.
The war rhetoric against Iran ratcheted up when the White House belatedly realized that the result of "bringing democracy to Iraq" was to empower the majority Shi'ites, thereby creating a Shi'ite crescent from Iran to southern Lebanon and alarming America's Sunni Saudi Arabian dependent.
Israel's goal is to have the Americans eliminate the Muslim states that support Hamas and Hezbollah's opposition to Israel's theft of the remainder of Palestine and southern Lebanon, whose water resources Israel covets. Israel's goal thus precisely coincides with that of the Cheney regime.
The "Cakewalk War" in Iraq was supposed to be over in a few weeks and to pay for itself out of Iraqi oil revenues. The war is now five years old and has cost American taxpayers, and those left dependent on government programs by decades of a welfare state, $1 trillion in out-of-pocket and already incurred future costs.
As large and troublesome as this cost is, it pales in comparison to the damage the war has done to the value of the dollar and its role as reserve currency. Since 2001, the Euro has risen 60 percent against the dollar.
This means much more to Americans than the higher cost of a European vacation and status symbol German cars. The US dollar is losing its reserve currency role when the Euro, the currency of a nonexistent country--Europe--becomes so much more desirable than the dollar that it rises 60 percent in value.
The Euro is a monetary unit that has run far ahead of the political entity whose currency it is. Europe still consists of separate sovereign states, and many of them are unhappy with the Euro. Yet, since 2001 people throughout the world have been shifting from dollars to Euros.
It is not normal for people to flee from the reserve currency. It only happens when people believe it cannot continue to fill that role.
The US dollar is under double assault. One assault is from the offshoring of American jobs, which turns US GDP into foreign GDP and worsens the US trade deficit. It is not possible to achieve a trade balance when the production of goods and services for the US market is being moved offshore by US corporations.
The other assault is from the US budget deficit. Americans have become so hard pressed that their savings rate is negligible. The US government has to rely on foreigners to lend it money for its annual expenditures. Washington's two biggest bankers are China and Japan, the countries with the largest trade surpluses with the US.
The transformation of the Iraq "cakewalk" into an interminable war has run up a one trillion dollar price tag, and an even larger war with Iran is looming. US generals and neoconservative ideologues predict a decade or multi-decade long war in the Middle East. Washington's bankers are waking up to the reality that they will not be repaid.
The only reason the dollar has not already lost its reserve currency role is that the only alternative is the currency of a non-existent political entity. Yet, even the Euro, a virtual currency, may have taken the dollar's role by the end of 2008.
Full of hegemonic hubris, the US government does not understand that US power and hegemony have always depended, not on missiles and military force, but on the financial power conveyed by the dollar's role as reserve currency.
The reserve currency is world money, good in any country to pay any bill. The reserve currency country is not a debtor in the usual sense. As the reserve currency can be used to settle international accounts, the reserve currency country can borrow at will until lenders lose confidence in the currency.
There is abundant evidence that the loss of confidence in the dollar is underway. When it is complete, the US will no longer be a superpower.
The decline in American power and influence could be dramatic. Part of America's power results from European countries going along with Washington. However, the sharp rise in the Euro's value has hurt European exports, squeezing profit margins, wages, and encouraging offshore production. Fights over monetary policy between European capitals could doom both the EU and the Euro, leaving the world with no reserve currency and America with embittered former allies.
By going to war for hegemony, the Bush Regime has brought about American decline. While the neocons have spent two administrations trying to deracinate Islam, real threats to America's power have been neglected. Offshoring, which turns US GDP into imports and larger trade deficits, together with war debts, has eroded the dollar's status as reserve currency, undermining the foundation of American power.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com
The Moron's Perfect Touch of Death
Times: Bush plans to keep Pakistan from being mockery of democracy 'fell apart spectacularly'
John Byrne
In a somewhat sharply worded news analysis in Sunday's editions of The New York Times, the paper of record takes the president to task on his seeming failure to maintain order in Pakistan.
"For more than five months the United States has been trying to orchestrate a political transition in Pakistan that would manage to somehow keep Gen. Pervez Musharraf in power without making a mockery of President Bush’s promotion of democracy in the Muslim world," pens the Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Helene Cooper.
"On Saturday, those carefully laid plans fell apart spectacularly," they continue. "Now the White House is stuck in wait-and-see mode, with limited options and a lack of clarity about the way forward."
Musharraf declared emergency rule Saturday evening, putting the Army in charge of Islamabad. Most of the Supreme Court was disbanded after they refused to certify his decision; Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry was placed under house arrest. Telephone lines were cut and critical media outlets shuttered.
The Times said Pakistan was close to a Bush administration nightmare -- an "American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public"
Stolberg and Cooper also note that top Al Qaeda leaders and Osama Bin Laden are "believed to be hiding out in the mountainous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan."
Taken together, these statements could indicate a greater threat to the United States' security than Iran: an "American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public" on whose border Osama Bin Laden and top Al Qaeda leaders are "believed to be hiding out."
Musharraf was one of Bush's chief allies in the region, despite his all-but-dictatorship. The US has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid -- "mostly to the military, since 2001."
Now that military is patrolling the streets of Islamabad, cutting off phone lines and critical media outlets and placing opposition leader Imran Khan under house house arrest.
After Musharraf's decision to suspend the constitution, the Times notes: "there was no immediate action by the [Bush] administration to accompany the tough talk."
Tough talk?
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, traveling in the Middle East, called Mr. Musharraf’s move 'highly regrettable,' while her spokesman, Sean D. McCormack, said the United States was 'deeply disturbed.'"
Teresita Schaffer, an expert on Pakistan at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington told the paper Musharraf’s decision was “a big embarrassment” for the administration.
“There’s going to be a lot of visible wringing of hands, and urging Musharraf to declare his intentions,” Schaffer remarked. “But I don’t really see any alternative to continuing to work with him. They can’t just decide they’re going to blow off the whole country of Pakistan, because it sits right next to Afghanistan, where there are some 26,000 U.S. and NATO troops.”
Wargaming futility
Oil crisis exercise bares US 'impotence'
It's August 2009, oil prices have topped 150 dollars a barrel and a secret uranium plant has been detected in Iran.
 |
It's August 2009, oil prices have topped 150 dollars a barrel and a secret uranium plant has been detected in Iran.
Tehran and Caracas are slashing oil exports by 700,000 barrels to punish the west for sanctions, and the US military is ready to move its entire Pacific fleet into the Middle East to counter threats.
It may be tomorrow's headlines, but on Thursday a high-powered panel of Washington insiders acting as the US president's national security council found they would face almost impossible choices and be powerless in such a case, baring the United States' growing inability to lead in global crises.
"In this kind of hostile environment (Iran and Iraq) would have the upper hand," said Gene Sperling, who played the treasury secretary in the exercise.
It "would make us look impotent," he added.
"This scenario could start tomorrow," said retired general John Abizaid, the former US Central Command chief.
Put on by the Securing America's Future Energy and the Bipartisan Policy Center, the unscripted one-day simulation sought to emphasize the danger of the narrow gap between world oil production capacity and demand, and the heavy US dependence on oil imports.
But it exposed the strained US military's incapacity to project its power over multiple regions, and the ability of even small countries to provoke a world political and economic crisis.
To play a White House team reacting to the news in real time, SAFE brought together nine former top presidential advisors and officials with intimate knowledge of national security affairs.
The "council" included former treasury secretary Robert Rubin playing the president's national security advisor, former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage as secretary of state, former navy secretary John Lehman as secretary of defense, and former national security council official Philip Zelikow as national intelligence director.
The scenario they woke up to on May 4, 2009 was the loss to world markets of one million barrels a day in oil supplies when saboteurs in Azerbaijan caused the shutdown of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline.
The action heightened geopolitical tensions in the region and sent oil prices from the mid-90 dollar range to 115 dollars a barrel.
With the stock markets plummeting, the council has to advise the president what to say and do, and finds its hands tied by the strains of the Iraq war and by domestic politics.
"Energy Secretary" Carol Browner -- head of the US Environmental Protection Agency in the 1990s -- says the president can release oil from the strategic reserve to alleviate gasoline prices, or call for conservation with lower speed limits, a Sunday driving ban, and other measures.
Looking at possible Russian or Iran involvement in the Azerbaijan blast, "joint chiefs chairman" Abizaid says the strategic reserve has to be kept for military needs.
Others say the public and Congress would not accept forced conservation.
With no information on who made the Azerbaijan attack -- Armenians? pro-Russian elements? Iran? -- the defense and intelligence officials say they have to be on alert but do not know what else to do.
"Our ability to project power into this area is very limited. We are strung out all over the globe," said Lehman, noting the military hasn't begun to rebuild after years in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rubin points out that with global production capacity almost maxed out, there is little possibility of replacing the lost oil flow.
"It shows how weak our hand is," he says, as the group falters on urging the president to do more than assuage US consumers.
Three months later, the situation has drastically worsened. A secret uranium enrichment plant was discovered in Iran, confirming its nuclear weapon ambitions, and oil production in Nigeria has been curtailed by rebel attacks.
As the council meets, Iran has just replied to threatened new Western sanctions by cutting back its oil production and Venezuela follows suit, sending prices past 150 dollars.
The president's advisors say there are no short-term measures to soften the economic or political blow. They also admit sanctions on Iran have little effect, that high oil prices and short supply actually encourage producer cutbacks.
Militarily, with Israel threatening to take action on Iran itself, the Pentagon says the US has to project force in the region. But doing so means moving the entire Pacific fleet to the Middle East, ceding power in the Pacific -- and Taiwan -- to China.
After failing to demand sacrifices from the American public in the years following the 9/11 attacks, the new crisis has brought things to a head, Lehman said, as he suggests reviving the draft.
"We are facing a mortal threat to our way of life here," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)