From Environmental Working Group
The Environmental Working Group has worked hard to track the billions lavished on the wealthiest and largest farm operations in the country, in the hope that releasing the information would spur public demand for a sane and sensible agriculture policy. By following the money, we’ve exposed the grossly inequitable federal farm spending that enables the biggest subsidy recipients to maximize their haul of taxpayer dollars while skirting tepid regulations.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
'Obama Deceives the Public'
Daniel Ellsberg says 'Obama Deceives the Public'.
From Spiegel Online:
Daniel Ellsberg, legendary leaker of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, still has a bone to pick with the White House. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the 79-year-old peace activist accuses President Obama of betraying his election promises -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on civil liberties.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Ellsberg, you're a hero and an icon of the left. But we hear you're not too happy with President Obama anymore.
Daniel Ellsberg: I voted for him and I will probably vote for him again, as opposed to the Republicans. But I believe his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?
Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?
Ellsberg: Take Obama's explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove "all" United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a total lie. I believe that's totally false. I believe he knows that's totally false. It won't be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about Afghanistan? Isn't that a justifiable war?
Ellsberg: I think that there's an inexcusable escalation in both countries. Thousands of US officials know that bases and large numbers of troops will remain in Iraq and that troop levels and bases in Afghanistan will rise far above what Obama is now projecting. But Obama counts on them to keep their silence as he deceives the public on these devastating, costly, reckless ventures.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You doubt not only Obama's missions abroad but also his politics back home in the US. Why exactly are you accusing the president of violating civil liberties?
Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …
Read more...
ABOUT DANIEL ELLSBERG
Daniel Ellsberg, 79, a former United States Marine and military analyst, triggered a national crisis in 1971 when he released the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times and other newspapers. The classified Pentagon documents -- 7,000 pages commissioned by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara -- revealed that the US government knew the Vietnam War was ultimately unwinnable. The White House fought the publication all the way up to the Supreme Court and, when that proved unsuccessful, proceeded to smear and persecute Ellsberg. Today, Ellsberg continues to tour the world as a lecturer, writer and activist.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From Spiegel Online:
Daniel Ellsberg, legendary leaker of the "Pentagon Papers" in 1971, still has a bone to pick with the White House. In an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE, the 79-year-old peace activist accuses President Obama of betraying his election promises -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan and on civil liberties.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Ellsberg, you're a hero and an icon of the left. But we hear you're not too happy with President Obama anymore.
Daniel Ellsberg: I voted for him and I will probably vote for him again, as opposed to the Republicans. But I believe his administration in some key aspects is nothing other than the third term of the Bush administration.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: How so?
Ellsberg: I think Obama is continuing the worst of the Bush administration in terms of civil liberties, violations of the constitution and the wars in the Middle East.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: For example?
Ellsberg: Take Obama's explicit pledge in his State of the Union speech to remove "all" United States troops from Iraq by the end of 2011. That's a total lie. I believe that's totally false. I believe he knows that's totally false. It won't be done. I expect that the US will have, indefinitely, a residual force of at least 30,000 US troops in Iraq.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What about Afghanistan? Isn't that a justifiable war?
Ellsberg: I think that there's an inexcusable escalation in both countries. Thousands of US officials know that bases and large numbers of troops will remain in Iraq and that troop levels and bases in Afghanistan will rise far above what Obama is now projecting. But Obama counts on them to keep their silence as he deceives the public on these devastating, costly, reckless ventures.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: You doubt not only Obama's missions abroad but also his politics back home in the US. Why exactly are you accusing the president of violating civil liberties?
Ellsberg: For instance, the Obama administration is criminalizing and prosecuting whistleblowers to punish them for uncovering scandals within the federal government …
Read more...
ABOUT DANIEL ELLSBERG
Daniel Ellsberg, 79, a former United States Marine and military analyst, triggered a national crisis in 1971 when he released the "Pentagon Papers" to the New York Times and other newspapers. The classified Pentagon documents -- 7,000 pages commissioned by then-Defense Secretary Robert McNamara -- revealed that the US government knew the Vietnam War was ultimately unwinnable. The White House fought the publication all the way up to the Supreme Court and, when that proved unsuccessful, proceeded to smear and persecute Ellsberg. Today, Ellsberg continues to tour the world as a lecturer, writer and activist.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Friday, June 11, 2010
Obama's War on Whistleblowers Intensifies.
From Salon.com
War on Whistleblowers Intensifies.
What makes this trend of escalated anti-whistleblower activity particularly notable is that Obama, during his career in the Senate and when running for President, feigned serious support for whistleblowers. Today, Bush DOJ whistleblower Jesselyn Raddack -- while pointing out that "Bush harassed whistleblowers mercilessly, but Obama is prosecuting them and sending them to jail" -- notes that Obama previously made commitments like this one (click on image to enlarge):
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
War on Whistleblowers Intensifies.
What makes this trend of escalated anti-whistleblower activity particularly notable is that Obama, during his career in the Senate and when running for President, feigned serious support for whistleblowers. Today, Bush DOJ whistleblower Jesselyn Raddack -- while pointing out that "Bush harassed whistleblowers mercilessly, but Obama is prosecuting them and sending them to jail" -- notes that Obama previously made commitments like this one (click on image to enlarge):
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Obama’s National Security Strategy (NSS): A New Direction or Continuity
Via: Dissident Voice
By Stephen Lendman / June 9th, 2010 (emphasis mine)
Periodically, US administrations prepare NNS documents for Congress, outlining their major national security concerns and plans for addressing.
On May 27, the White House Office of the Press Secretary announced Obama’s saying it’s to “Advanc(e) Our Interests: Actions in Support of the President’s National Security Strategy.” UN ambassador Susan Rice called it a “dramatic departure” from the Bush administration. The White House claims it’s “to keep the American people safe” and advance the nation’s “values and ideals.”
In fact, it’s old wine in new bottles, rebranded to appear softer. Rhetoric is one thing, policy another, revealing actions much louder than words. Under all administrations, they’re menacing, given America’s permanent war agenda, discussed by this writer on March 1 here .
It addressed permanent wars, waging them in the name of peace, what historians, Charles Beard and Gore Vidal, called “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” suppressing truths too disturbing to reveal, like creating pretexts to pursue them, always for imperial gain and benefits for war profiteers.
As a candidate, Obama campaigned against militarism, promised limited escalation and the removal of all combat troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010. In fact, permanent occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is planned, increased military spending annually, and more conflicts for greater dominance that eventually will bankrupt the country and leave it as damaged and isolated as Israel is becoming from a policy Stratfor’s George Friedman calls r(unning) into its own fist.”
Even the world’s superpower is vulnerable, maneuvering perhaps for goals too lofty, running out of ways to pay for them, and perhaps enough allies willing to go along.
In his writings and a recent interview, Chalmers Johnson “worr(ies) about the future of the United States; whether, in fact, we are tending in the same path as the former Soviet Union (as well as other former empires), with domestic, ideological rigidity in our economic institutions, imperial overstretch (that) we have to be everywhere at all times. (We’re richer than Russia), so it will take longer. But we’re overextended,” and are headed for the same fate. “I think we will stagger along under a facade of constitutional government (until one day) we’re overcome by bankruptcy.” Obama is pursuing the same reckless path as his predecessors, more so, in fact, with greater spending and new fronts.
What then to make of his NSS? On May 27, New York Times writers, David Sanger and Peter Baker, headlined, “New US Strategy Focuses on Managing Threats,” saying:
Obama’s first plan describes a time when America “will have to learn to live within its limits — a world in which two wars cannot be sustained for much longer and (other) rising powers inevitably begin to erode some elements of (US) influence around the globe.”
Seeking help to advance global hegemony, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stressed “patience and partners (to achieve) results more slowly,” claiming “In a world like this, American leadership isn’t needed less. It is needed more. And the simple fact is that no problem can be solved without us,” or perhaps less of them would exist without US policies creating them — the fractious, threatening world The Times writers mention, reflecting more continuity than divergence from Bush.
On May 27 in Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver, wondered the same thing in his article headlined, “Obama’s National Security Strategy: real change or just ‘Bush Lite,’ ” saying:
Despite trying to frame it as a new direction, in fact, he’s continuing “a slightly watered down but basically plausible remake” of his predecessor’s. Beyond the hyperbole and talking points, “the conclusion is pretty obvious.”
Instead of Bush’s “strengthen(ed) alliances to defeat global terrorism,” Obama stresses prevention of “attacks against us and our friends, (and) agendas for cooperative action with the other main centers of global power.” Further, “comprehensive engagement” with our traditional allies, as well as “more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence.” In other words, greater efforts to co-opt more nations to expand America’s global dominance.
Bush also addressed reforming international institutions. So does Obama, saying:
we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcoming of the international system as a reason to walk away from it.
Instead, he stresses focusing on strengthening it to “serve common interests,” mostly benefitting America.
Bush and Obama both identified WMD proliferation as a major threat, “particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states.” They both recognized the importance of military and police power to combat it, and according to Obama’s NSS:
“The United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests.” In other words, like Bush, preemptive war will be pursued to combat perceived threats.
Also, both presidents stressed US leadership, Bush’s 2006 NSS saying:
“The challenges America faces are great, yet we have enormous power and influence to address those challenges.” The “time has long since passed” that Washington can lead by example alone. “America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating from the world. America must lead by deed as well as example.”
As true for Obama stressing “global leadership (dependent on) strong and responsible American leadership” directing it to ensure other nations follow.
Overall, the language and tone differ, but policy remains the same — permanent wars in a threatening world, America in the lead waging them along with willing partners offering support; that is, until they cut their losses and opt out.
Also in Foreign Policy on May 27, Will Inboden headlined, “Obama’s National Security Strategy leaves an empty feeling,” saying:
Continuity with Bush is evident in the context of a less than compelling grand strategy “that connects an analysis of opportunities and threats with resources, policies and goals.”
It’s “too heavy on process and light on strategy,” much of it devoted to “engagement, cooperation and partnerships” as well as a “world we seek (for) a just and sustainable international order,” not what’s needed without Washington rampaging to control it.
The proof, of course, is in the implementation, and after nearly one-and-a-half years in office, Obama is clearly pursuing imperial wars and homeland repression, like the Bush administration, by a leader who promised change.
Another way came last September when Central Command head, General David Petraeus, issued a secret directive to send covert US Special Operations forces to friendly and hostile states in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and by implication anywhere in the world by his counterparts – to “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” terror threats and “prepare the environment” for future planned military attacks.
On June 4, Washington Post writers, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, headlined, “US ‘Secret War’ Expands Globally as Special Operations Forces Take a Larger Role,” saying:
The Obama administration “has significantly expanded a largely secret US war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups” with Special Ops forces “in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year.”
More is planned along with intensified use of CIA drone attacks, and according to one unnamed “senior military official,” Obama has allowed “things that the previous administration did not,” including the largest ever FY 2011 Special Ops budget of $6.3 billion plus another $3.5 billion contingency funding in 2010.
His NSS aside, Obama plans more war on the world than George Bush, putting a lie to his campaign promise to withdraw Iraq troops by August 2010 and begin exiting Afghanistan by July 2011. Earlier as an Illinois State Senator, he delivered an October 2002 anti-war speech, saying:
….we ought not….travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
As president, he’s waging war on the world, including Americans globally, suspected of terrorism. Explaining it, former National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, told Congress last February that Obama authorized “direct actions against terrorists,” including assassinating uncharged Americans innocent of any crime, in clear violation of the law.
Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, cites the “Annex to the Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land” with a provision stating: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden… to kill or wound treacherous individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army….”
Though vague, the Pentagon interprets it as “prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy ‘dead or alive.’” In other words, combatants can be targeted on the battlefield, not civilians, precisely what other international law states, Turley citing the rights of US citizens, affirmed both in law and:
“in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are within or outside of the country.”
The decision referred to two American women who killed their husbands on US military bases abroad, given the same Fifth Amendment and other constitutional protections they’d get at home. Turley asked: “If a president can kill US citizens abroad, why not within the United States?” What’s to stop him, and what do policy statements mean if he can do as he pleases by executive order, other edicts, or verbal commands to subordinates.
Russia’s RIA Novosti said Obama’s NSS “is not a radical departure” from his predecessor. The document “is intended mainly for foreign consumption,” and to a lesser degree for Congress. However, it’s “just a piece of paper,” and will anyone “take him at his word.” Why, when all politicians lie, and Obama matches the best of them.
While the document denies America targets Islam, policy clearly shows otherwise abroad and at home, Muslims remaining the enemy of choice, regularly vilified to hype fear to enlist support for imperial wars and homeland repression, the same as under Bush.
Added focus also stresses homegrown threats, John Brennan, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, saying:
We’ve seen an increasing number of individuals here in the United States become captivated by extremist activities or causes…. The president’s national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat (from) radicalized… individuals, including US citizens, armed with their US passport, travel(ing) to terrorist safe havens… then return(ing) to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement.
What’s going on, in fact, is America’s war on Islam to incite fear, targeting innocent Muslims as convenient scapegoats to gain popular support for police state policies — Obama doing Bush one better with indefinite detentions of uncharged persons “who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.” Despots couldn’t say it better.
His NSS implies no let-up in the counterterrorism fight, Brennan referring to a campaign “harness(ing) every tool of American power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic,” including war. “We will take the fight to Al Qaeda (read Muslims) and its extremist affiliates (read Taliban, US citizens, or anyone challenging America) wherever they plot and train — in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond.”
Nor will we “respond after the fact. Instead the United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of Al Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates” — a clear declaration of war on the world with America’s full military and homeland security might.
What critic, Andrew Bacevich, calls America’s standard response to perceived threats, “a normal condition, one to which no plausible alternatives seem to exist. All of this Americans (and other nations) have come to take for granted: it’s who we are and what we do,” and why we’re increasingly hated. Governing as roguishly as Bush, Obama will end up as much despised.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
By Stephen Lendman / June 9th, 2010 (emphasis mine)
Periodically, US administrations prepare NNS documents for Congress, outlining their major national security concerns and plans for addressing.
On May 27, the White House Office of the Press Secretary announced Obama’s saying it’s to “Advanc(e) Our Interests: Actions in Support of the President’s National Security Strategy.” UN ambassador Susan Rice called it a “dramatic departure” from the Bush administration. The White House claims it’s “to keep the American people safe” and advance the nation’s “values and ideals.”
In fact, it’s old wine in new bottles, rebranded to appear softer. Rhetoric is one thing, policy another, revealing actions much louder than words. Under all administrations, they’re menacing, given America’s permanent war agenda, discussed by this writer on March 1 here .
It addressed permanent wars, waging them in the name of peace, what historians, Charles Beard and Gore Vidal, called “perpetual war for perpetual peace,” suppressing truths too disturbing to reveal, like creating pretexts to pursue them, always for imperial gain and benefits for war profiteers.
As a candidate, Obama campaigned against militarism, promised limited escalation and the removal of all combat troops from Iraq by August 31, 2010. In fact, permanent occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere is planned, increased military spending annually, and more conflicts for greater dominance that eventually will bankrupt the country and leave it as damaged and isolated as Israel is becoming from a policy Stratfor’s George Friedman calls r(unning) into its own fist.”
Even the world’s superpower is vulnerable, maneuvering perhaps for goals too lofty, running out of ways to pay for them, and perhaps enough allies willing to go along.
In his writings and a recent interview, Chalmers Johnson “worr(ies) about the future of the United States; whether, in fact, we are tending in the same path as the former Soviet Union (as well as other former empires), with domestic, ideological rigidity in our economic institutions, imperial overstretch (that) we have to be everywhere at all times. (We’re richer than Russia), so it will take longer. But we’re overextended,” and are headed for the same fate. “I think we will stagger along under a facade of constitutional government (until one day) we’re overcome by bankruptcy.” Obama is pursuing the same reckless path as his predecessors, more so, in fact, with greater spending and new fronts.
What then to make of his NSS? On May 27, New York Times writers, David Sanger and Peter Baker, headlined, “New US Strategy Focuses on Managing Threats,” saying:
Obama’s first plan describes a time when America “will have to learn to live within its limits — a world in which two wars cannot be sustained for much longer and (other) rising powers inevitably begin to erode some elements of (US) influence around the globe.”
Seeking help to advance global hegemony, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, stressed “patience and partners (to achieve) results more slowly,” claiming “In a world like this, American leadership isn’t needed less. It is needed more. And the simple fact is that no problem can be solved without us,” or perhaps less of them would exist without US policies creating them — the fractious, threatening world The Times writers mention, reflecting more continuity than divergence from Bush.
On May 27 in Foreign Policy, Peter Feaver, wondered the same thing in his article headlined, “Obama’s National Security Strategy: real change or just ‘Bush Lite,’ ” saying:
Despite trying to frame it as a new direction, in fact, he’s continuing “a slightly watered down but basically plausible remake” of his predecessor’s. Beyond the hyperbole and talking points, “the conclusion is pretty obvious.”
Instead of Bush’s “strengthen(ed) alliances to defeat global terrorism,” Obama stresses prevention of “attacks against us and our friends, (and) agendas for cooperative action with the other main centers of global power.” Further, “comprehensive engagement” with our traditional allies, as well as “more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence.” In other words, greater efforts to co-opt more nations to expand America’s global dominance.
Bush also addressed reforming international institutions. So does Obama, saying:
we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms. Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcoming of the international system as a reason to walk away from it.
Instead, he stresses focusing on strengthening it to “serve common interests,” mostly benefitting America.
Bush and Obama both identified WMD proliferation as a major threat, “particularly the danger posed by the pursuit of nuclear weapons by violent extremists and their proliferation to additional states.” They both recognized the importance of military and police power to combat it, and according to Obama’s NSS:
“The United States must reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend our nation and our interests.” In other words, like Bush, preemptive war will be pursued to combat perceived threats.
Also, both presidents stressed US leadership, Bush’s 2006 NSS saying:
“The challenges America faces are great, yet we have enormous power and influence to address those challenges.” The “time has long since passed” that Washington can lead by example alone. “America cannot know peace, security, and prosperity by retreating from the world. America must lead by deed as well as example.”
As true for Obama stressing “global leadership (dependent on) strong and responsible American leadership” directing it to ensure other nations follow.
Overall, the language and tone differ, but policy remains the same — permanent wars in a threatening world, America in the lead waging them along with willing partners offering support; that is, until they cut their losses and opt out.
Also in Foreign Policy on May 27, Will Inboden headlined, “Obama’s National Security Strategy leaves an empty feeling,” saying:
Continuity with Bush is evident in the context of a less than compelling grand strategy “that connects an analysis of opportunities and threats with resources, policies and goals.”
It’s “too heavy on process and light on strategy,” much of it devoted to “engagement, cooperation and partnerships” as well as a “world we seek (for) a just and sustainable international order,” not what’s needed without Washington rampaging to control it.
The proof, of course, is in the implementation, and after nearly one-and-a-half years in office, Obama is clearly pursuing imperial wars and homeland repression, like the Bush administration, by a leader who promised change.
Another way came last September when Central Command head, General David Petraeus, issued a secret directive to send covert US Special Operations forces to friendly and hostile states in the Middle East, Central Asia, the Horn of Africa, and by implication anywhere in the world by his counterparts – to “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” terror threats and “prepare the environment” for future planned military attacks.
On June 4, Washington Post writers, Karen DeYoung and Greg Jaffe, headlined, “US ‘Secret War’ Expands Globally as Special Operations Forces Take a Larger Role,” saying:
The Obama administration “has significantly expanded a largely secret US war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups” with Special Ops forces “in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year.”
More is planned along with intensified use of CIA drone attacks, and according to one unnamed “senior military official,” Obama has allowed “things that the previous administration did not,” including the largest ever FY 2011 Special Ops budget of $6.3 billion plus another $3.5 billion contingency funding in 2010.
His NSS aside, Obama plans more war on the world than George Bush, putting a lie to his campaign promise to withdraw Iraq troops by August 2010 and begin exiting Afghanistan by July 2011. Earlier as an Illinois State Senator, he delivered an October 2002 anti-war speech, saying:
….we ought not….travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.
As president, he’s waging war on the world, including Americans globally, suspected of terrorism. Explaining it, former National Intelligence Director, Dennis Blair, told Congress last February that Obama authorized “direct actions against terrorists,” including assassinating uncharged Americans innocent of any crime, in clear violation of the law.
Law Professor, Jonathan Turley, cites the “Annex to the Hague Convention Number IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land” with a provision stating: “In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden… to kill or wound treacherous individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army….”
Though vague, the Pentagon interprets it as “prohibiting assassination, proscription, or outlawry of an enemy, or putting a price upon an enemy’s head, as well as offering a reward for an enemy ‘dead or alive.’” In other words, combatants can be targeted on the battlefield, not civilians, precisely what other international law states, Turley citing the rights of US citizens, affirmed both in law and:
“in cases like Reid v. Covert, 354 US 1 (1957), American citizens have the same protections regardless of whether they are within or outside of the country.”
The decision referred to two American women who killed their husbands on US military bases abroad, given the same Fifth Amendment and other constitutional protections they’d get at home. Turley asked: “If a president can kill US citizens abroad, why not within the United States?” What’s to stop him, and what do policy statements mean if he can do as he pleases by executive order, other edicts, or verbal commands to subordinates.
Russia’s RIA Novosti said Obama’s NSS “is not a radical departure” from his predecessor. The document “is intended mainly for foreign consumption,” and to a lesser degree for Congress. However, it’s “just a piece of paper,” and will anyone “take him at his word.” Why, when all politicians lie, and Obama matches the best of them.
While the document denies America targets Islam, policy clearly shows otherwise abroad and at home, Muslims remaining the enemy of choice, regularly vilified to hype fear to enlist support for imperial wars and homeland repression, the same as under Bush.
Added focus also stresses homegrown threats, John Brennan, Obama’s Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, saying:
We’ve seen an increasing number of individuals here in the United States become captivated by extremist activities or causes…. The president’s national security strategy explicitly recognizes the threat (from) radicalized… individuals, including US citizens, armed with their US passport, travel(ing) to terrorist safe havens… then return(ing) to America, their deadly plans disrupted by coordinated intelligence and law enforcement.
What’s going on, in fact, is America’s war on Islam to incite fear, targeting innocent Muslims as convenient scapegoats to gain popular support for police state policies — Obama doing Bush one better with indefinite detentions of uncharged persons “who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States.” Despots couldn’t say it better.
His NSS implies no let-up in the counterterrorism fight, Brennan referring to a campaign “harness(ing) every tool of American power, military and civilian, kinetic and diplomatic,” including war. “We will take the fight to Al Qaeda (read Muslims) and its extremist affiliates (read Taliban, US citizens, or anyone challenging America) wherever they plot and train — in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond.”
Nor will we “respond after the fact. Instead the United States will disrupt, dismantle and ensure a lasting defeat of Al Qaeda and violent extremist affiliates” — a clear declaration of war on the world with America’s full military and homeland security might.
What critic, Andrew Bacevich, calls America’s standard response to perceived threats, “a normal condition, one to which no plausible alternatives seem to exist. All of this Americans (and other nations) have come to take for granted: it’s who we are and what we do,” and why we’re increasingly hated. Governing as roguishly as Bush, Obama will end up as much despised.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Obama Continues to Bully Iran
Never Taking Yes for an Answer
From: Dissident Voice
No policy of the Obama administration better illustrates its fundamental mendacity than its policy of bullying Iran. In this the administration is Bush/Cheney Regime, Part II. The Post-9/11 Geopolitical Power Grab, Continued. The March of Folly: the sequel.
“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon…is unacceptable.” That assumes that Iran is trying to get one. This rootless assumption was relentlessly promoted by the disinformation specialists nested in the Office of the Vice President throughout the Bush administration. The same ones who insisted that al-Qaeda had an intimate relationship with Saddam Hussein, that Iraq was procuring uranium from Niger, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, etc. (Outrageous lies Obama has never wanted to investigate, urging us all to just “move on” and thus forgive the prevaricators and ignore all the blood on their hands.)
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From: Dissident Voice
No policy of the Obama administration better illustrates its fundamental mendacity than its policy of bullying Iran. In this the administration is Bush/Cheney Regime, Part II. The Post-9/11 Geopolitical Power Grab, Continued. The March of Folly: the sequel.
“Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon…is unacceptable.” That assumes that Iran is trying to get one. This rootless assumption was relentlessly promoted by the disinformation specialists nested in the Office of the Vice President throughout the Bush administration. The same ones who insisted that al-Qaeda had an intimate relationship with Saddam Hussein, that Iraq was procuring uranium from Niger, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, etc. (Outrageous lies Obama has never wanted to investigate, urging us all to just “move on” and thus forgive the prevaricators and ignore all the blood on their hands.)
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Obama says diplomacy, military go hand in hand
Obama says diplomacy, military go hand in hand
Yeah, haven't we heard that before? As a candidate, he was talking all about the importance of diplomacy. Now, its all about the importance of military. We are fighting two pre-emptive and unnecessary wars, both STILL being funded through "emergency" spending measures. These are wars that have stretched on for nine years in one case and seven years in the other.
From the above article (emphasis mine):
"...Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding" and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, "even when it's hard, even when we're being attacked, even when we're in the midst of war."
The two current wars are in complete violation of "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding". Closing Guantanamo, but using Baghram Air Base instead, is in complete violation of those universal rights too.
When you say one thing, but you are doing the exact opposite, you really have lost all credibility.
And if the article doesn't frighten the life out of you then you are probably not paying attention.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Yeah, haven't we heard that before? As a candidate, he was talking all about the importance of diplomacy. Now, its all about the importance of military. We are fighting two pre-emptive and unnecessary wars, both STILL being funded through "emergency" spending measures. These are wars that have stretched on for nine years in one case and seven years in the other.
From the above article (emphasis mine):
"...Obama said the U.S. will fight to protect "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding" and will lead by example by staying true to the rule of law and the Constitution, "even when it's hard, even when we're being attacked, even when we're in the midst of war."
The two current wars are in complete violation of "those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding". Closing Guantanamo, but using Baghram Air Base instead, is in complete violation of those universal rights too.
When you say one thing, but you are doing the exact opposite, you really have lost all credibility.
And if the article doesn't frighten the life out of you then you are probably not paying attention.
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Friday, May 21, 2010
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
Astounding, though depressing, hypocricy from Obama
From salon.com:
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."
...
...a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
From salon.com:
Obama wins the right to detain people with no habeas review
Few issues highlight Barack Obama's extreme hypocrisy the way that Bagram does. As everyone knows, one of George Bush’s most extreme policies was abducting people from all over the world -- far away from any battlefield -- and then detaining them at Guantanamo with no legal rights of any kind, not even the most minimal right to a habeas review in a federal court. Back in the day, this was called "Bush's legal black hole." In 2006, Congress codified that policy by enacting the Military Commissions Act, but in 2008, the Supreme Court, in Boumediene v. Bush, ruled that provision unconstitutional, holding that the Constitution grants habeas corpus rights even to foreign nationals held at Guantanamo. Since then, detainees have won 35 out of 48 habeas hearings brought pursuant to Boumediene, on the ground that there was insufficient evidence to justify their detention.
Immediately following Boumediene, the Bush administration argued that the decision was inapplicable to detainees at Bagram -- including even those detained outside of Afghanistan but then flown to Afghanistan to be imprisoned. Amazingly, the Bush DOJ -- in a lawsuit brought by Bagram detainees seeking habeas review of their detention -- contended that if they abduct someone and ship them to Guantanamo, then that person (under Boumediene) has the right to a habeas hearing, but if they instead ship them to Bagram, then the detainee has no rights of any kind. In other words, the detainee's Constitutional rights depends on where the Government decides to drop them off to be encaged. One of the first acts undertaken by the Obama DOJ that actually shocked civil libertarians was when, last February, as The New York Times put it, Obama lawyers "told a federal judge that military detainees in Afghanistan have no legal right to challenge their imprisonment there, embracing a key argument of former President Bush’s legal team."
...
...a President attempting to deny Constitutional rights to detainees can simply transfer them to a "war zone" instead of to Guantanamo and then claim that courts cannot interfere in the detention. Barack Obama quickly adopted that tactic for rendering the rights in Boumediene moot -- the same rights which, less than two years ago, he was praising the Supreme Court for safeguarding and lambasting the Bush administration for denying.
Read more...
--------------------
That's not "change we can believe in."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
