I was reminded of the proverbial frog as I considered how the recently passed Military Commissions Act (MSA) managed to get lost in a shuffle of naughty e-mails and bipartisan accusations.
This isn't meant to downplay the MSA. As Michael C. Dorf, a professor of Law at Columbia University, explains: "It immunizes government officials for past war crimes; it cuts the United States off from its obligations under the Geneva Conventions; and it all but eliminates access to civilian courts for non-citizens--including permanent residents whose children are citizens--that the government, in its nearly unreviewable discretion, determines to be unlawful enemy combatants." Nasty stuff, indeed...but since fiddling with human rights has long been a hobby for America's power elite, it'd be misguided to assign all the blame to the current administration. The erosion of freedom has been a slow steady processâ€¹not unlike boiling a pot of water.
Add a comment
(Inspired by the recent assassination of Russian journalist Anna
There's no shortage of outrage on the Left. Plenty of marches and manifestos to go along with the myriad calls to change this and take back that. Toss in the occasional fighting words and the intermittent flirtation with property damage and the Left typically does just enough to get itself effectively demonized by the mainstream...thus making it that much easier for the police to get away with swinging their nightsticks at the next "anti-globalization" protest.
So, here's my question: What would those who identify as leftists do if one of their high profile icons were openly eliminated? For the sake of argument, let's say the U.S. government (or one of its proxies)â€¹with the full support of the corporate mediaâ€¹overtly did away with Michael Moore for his political beliefs and anti-corporate activism.
The Bush administration has repeatedly rejected North Koreaâ€™s appeals for a â€œnon-aggressionâ€ pact. Bush believes that he has the inherent right to attack whomever he chooses if it is in the national interest, which is to say, if it furthers his ambitions for global domination.
Bush has openly supported â€œregime changeâ€ in North Korea and placed the country on his axis of evil list. On a personal level, Bush stated that he â€œloathesâ€ Kim Jung-il and has referred to him as â€œa pygmyâ€.
These provocations have been duly noted in North Korea. Kim knows that heâ€™s a top candidate for a preemptive attack unless he develops a credible deterrent. Any sane person would draw the same conclusion even if they hadnâ€™t been humiliated in public as â€œevilâ€.
As'ad AbuKhalil (of Angry Arab fame) plucked out this bit of necessary context for the Foley scandal from a nugget buried deep in a long Newsweek examination of the affair. This is especially pertinent now that the right-wing has decided to divert the outrage of their "base" over the Republican leadership's coddling of a known sexual predator into a good, old-fashioned gay-bashing witch hunt, just like Mother used to make for Uncle Joe McCarthy when he used to come around for dinner with his little friend Roy Cohn:Add a comment
Kissinger and The Mothers of the Disappeared in Argentina: America on the Brink of Horror.
This blistering Buzzflash editorial deserves to be spread far and wide. The reappearance of Henry Kissinger as a top adviser in the White House dredges up horrors that have long been buried by time â€“ but which are still fresh in the scarred hearts of millions of people. It reminds us of the complicity and cooperation of the American political elite in the South American mass murder campaign known as "Operation Condor." This earlier "war on terror" â€“ which reached its apogee on that other September 11 terrorist attack, in 1973, with the American-backed murder of Salvador Allende, Chile's democratically elected president â€“ also featured unrestrained "unitary executive power" claiming the right to imprison and torture and permanently detain anyone arbitrarily declared a "terrorist" or "enemy of the state" on the most specious â€“ or nonexistent â€“ grounds.
Add a comment
A just-released study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, published in the current issue of the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, reports that the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq has led to the deaths of between 426,000 and 794,000 Iraqis. This is a substantial increase over the 100,000 dead that the same research group found through 2004, based upon a smaller survey, and it represents an astonishing 2.5 percent of the country's total population.
The grim news was widely--though not universally--reported in the U.S. media (my local paper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, blacked it out), but few news organizations reported the most disturbing finding of the study, which was that 31 percent of those killed were acatually slain by U.S. and "coalition" forces (actually by U.S. forces, since most of the other foreign forces working with the U.S., with the exception of the British, have not played combat roles, and even the British have largely operated in the south where fighting has been much less severe.
That means U.S. forces have, since the March 19, 2003 invasion, killed between 132,000 and 246,000 Iraqis.
Add a comment
Add a comment
In February 2003, I wrote a column for the Moscow Times detailing Don Rumsfeld's personal â€“ and profitable â€“ connection with North Korea's nuclear program. Today Greg Saunders at This Modern World notes (from a Guardian story from May 2003),
that the Bush Administration continued to shove money toward Rumsfeld's
corporate cronies, allowing them to help accelerated North Korea's nuke
push â€“ even as the Dear Leader (theirs, not ours) was kicking out
weapons inspectors and withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation
What I wrote more than three years ago unfortunately still holds true today. The nuclear blast test that North Korea conducted this week is not only the result of the Bush Administration's incompetent and sinister diplomatic philosophy â€“ which seems to consist solely of provoking unfriendly regimes into countermeasures which can then be used as excuses for war-profiteering "regime change" assaults â€“ but also stems from the overwhelming lust for loot that lies behind the noble rhetoric of the third-rate goons of the Bush Gang.
(Originally published in the Feb. 28, 2003 edition of The Moscow Times; the version here excerpted from the book, Empire Burlesque.)
Hey there nostalgia fans and
potential survivors! Donâ€™t you miss the good old days when baby boomers
were babies? I sure do. Boy, those were fine times, ainâ€™t we lucky
we had â€˜em!
Think back to all the joys of the era: Elvis Presley in Blue Hawaii, A&W root beer drive-ins, The Ed Sullivan show! Oh that Topo Gigio! And what about Bill Dana as Jose Jimenez! Talk about wrong! Then there was the music, Rock Around The Clock by Bill Haley and his Comets! Roy Orbison singing for the lonely! And who can forget our shocked parents when the Fab Four with those scandalous hairdos sang I Wanna Hold Your Hand on national TV! Oh it does take one back to an era of having an innocence worth losing.
Well, that innocence is not
all lostâ€¦ yet! Yes, you, Mr. John Q. Public may have grown up, but
thereâ€™s no need to leave the Wonderful World
of Disney behind!
Yes! You can relive the days of the Cold War when you cowered beneath
your desk at school, when your Dad insisted on digging an air raid shelter
and your Mom lived in fear of fluoridation. Thanks to the modern techno
era, with one simple little device you can take a stroll down memory
lane guided by state of the art technology.
Juan Cole recently heard Craig speak at the conference of the
Central Eurasian Studies Society.
Craig Murray on Manufacturing Terror
Oil, Lily Pad Bases and Torture
The Bush administration has been about "the Greater Middle East" (including Central Asia). It has been about basing rights in those areas. It says it is fighting a "war on terror" that is unlike past wars and may go on for decades. It has been about rounding up and torturing large numbers of Iraqis, Afghans and others. This region has most of the world's proven oil and gas reserves.
Why is the Bush administration so attached to torturing people that it would pressure a supine Congress into raping the US constitution by explicitly permitting some torture techniques and abolishing habeas corpus for certain categories of prisoners?
(See David Corn's "This is What Waterboarding looks like.".)
Boys and girls, it is because torture is what provides evidence for large important networks of terrorists where there aren't really any, or aren't very many, or aren't enough to justify 800 military bases and a $500 billion military budget.
I was at the conference of the Central Eurasian Studies Society the last couple of days. Saturday evening, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray addressed us. He served in Tashkent 2002 through 2004. Murray was providing copies of his new book, "Murder in Samarkand," which unfortunately is not yet available in the United States.
Add a comment
Not exactly your nervous Nellie type, the former head of U.S. Southern Command, McCaffrey says, given the current course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the army can't be sustained more than 24 months. Citing growing tensions in Korea, or a possible conflict between China and Taiwan, he warns, should "the other shoe drop" the military will be unable to react.
Add a comment
To say that this election could go
either way is not to say that the Republicans have any chance of
winning it. As a civic entity responsive to the voters' will, the
party's over, there being
no American majority that backs it, or that ever would. Bush has left
the GOP in much the same condition as Iraq, Afghanistan, the global
climate, New Orleans, the Bill of Rights, our military, our economy and
our national reputation. Thus the regime is reviled as hotly by
conservatives as by liberals, nor do any moderates support it.
So slight is Bush's popularity that his own party's candidates for Congress are afraid to speak his name or to be seen with him (although their numbers, in the aggregate, are even lower than his). It seems the only citizens who still have any faith in him are those who think God wants us to burn witches and drive SUVs. For all their zeal, such theocratic types are not in the majority, not even close, and thus there's no chance that the GOP can get the necessary votes.
And so the Democrats are feeling good, and calling for a giant drive to get the vote out on Election Day. Such an effort is essentialâ€”and not just to the Democrats but to the very survival of this foundering Republic. However, such a drive will do the Democrats, and all the rest of us, more harm than good if it fails to note a certain fact about our current situation: i.e., that the Democrats are going to lose the contest in November, even though the people will (again) be voting for them. The Bush Republicans are likely to remain in power despite the fact that only a minority will vote to have them there. That, at any rate, is what will happen if we don't start working to pre-empt it now.
Add a comment
More Articles ...
Page 1233 of 1235