Archives: Articles

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

6 February 13

@ readersupportednews.org

NBC’s Michael Isikoff has revealed the text of a white paper composed for Congress by the Department of Justice that sheds light on the legal arguments made by Eric Holder in justifying the killing by drone strike of Americans abroad, who are suspected of belonging to al-Qaeda. That the memo did not even require that the US know of a specific and imminent plot against the US, of which the al-Qaeda member was guilty, for it to kill him from the skies, alarmed all the country’s civil libertarians.

Here are five objections to the vision of the memo, which it seems to me is directly contrary to the spirit and the letter of the US constitution. It is contrary in profound ways to the ideals of the founding generation.

1. In the Western tradition of law, there can be no punishment without the commission of a specific crime defined by statute. The memo does not require that a specific crime have been committed, or that a planned criminal act be a clear and present danger, for an American citizen to be targeted for execution by drone.

2. To any extent that the president’s powers under the memo are alleged to derive from the 2001 Congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force, i.e. from the legislature, they are a form of bill of attainder (the History Learning Site explains what that is here):

“A bill, act or writ of attainder was a piece of legislation that declared a person or persons guilty of a crime. A bill of attainder allowed for the guilty party to be punished without a trial. A bill of attainder was part of English common law. Whereas Habeus Corpus guaranteed a fair trial by jury, a bill of attainder bypassed this. The word ‘attainder’ meant tainted. A bill of attainder was mostly used for treason . . . and such a move suspended a person’s civil rights and guaranteed that the person would be found guilty of the crimes stated in the bill as long as the Royal Assent was gained. For serious crimes such as treason, the result was invariably execution.”

What, you might ask, is wrong with that? Only that it is unconstitutional. Tech Law Journal explains:

“The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” . . .

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.” William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

The form of the AUMF, in singling out all members of al-Qaeda wherever they are and regardless of nationality or of actual criminal action, as objects of legitimate lethal force, is that of a bill of attainder. Congress cannot declare war on small organizations – war is declared on states. Such a bill of attainder is inherently unconstitutional.

3. The memo’s vision violates the principle of the separation of powers. It makes the president judge, jury and executioner. Everything is done within the executive branch, with no judicial oversight whatsoever. The powers the memo grants the president are the same enjoyed by the absolute monarchs of the early modern period, against whom Montesquieu penned his Spirit of the Laws, which inspired most subsequent democracies, including the American. Montesquieu said:

“Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with violence and oppression.

There would be an end of everything, were the same man or the same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the public resolutions, and of trying the causes of individuals.

Most kingdoms in Europe enjoy a moderate government because the prince who is invested with the two first powers leaves the third to his subjects. In Turkey, where these three powers are united in the Sultan’s person, the subjects groan under the most dreadful oppression.

Ironically, given contemporary American Islamophobia, the Obama administration has made itself resemble not the Sun-King, Louis XIV, who at least did have a court system not completely under his thumb, but rather, as Montesquieu saw it, the Ottoman sultans, who he claimed combined in themselves executive, legislative and judicial power. (Actually the Muslim qadis or court judges who ruled according to Islamic law or sharia were also not completely subjugated to the monarch, so even the Ottomans were better than the drone memo).

3. The memo resurrects the medieval notion of “outlawry” – that an individual can be put outside the protection of the law by the sovereign for vague crimes such as “rebellion,” and merely by royal decree. A person declared an outlaw by the king was deprived of all rights and legal protections, and anyone could do anything to him that they wished, with no repercussions. (The slang use of “outlaw” to mean simply “habitual criminal” is an echo of this ancient practice, which was abolished in the UK and the US).

I wrote on another occasion that the problem with branding someone an “outlaw” by virtue of being a traitor or a terrorist is that this whole idea was abolished by the US constitution. Its framers insisted that you couldn’t just hang someone out to dry by decree. Rather, a person who was alleged to have committed a crime such as treason or terrorism had to be captured, brought to court, tried, and sentenced in accordance with a specific statute, and then punished by the state. If someone is arrested, they have the right to demand to be produced in court before a judge, a right known as habeas corpus (“bringing the body,” i.e. bringing the physical person in front of a judge).

The relevant text is the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

4. The memo asks us to trust the executive to establish beyond the shadow of a doubt the guilt of an individual in a distant land, to whom access is so limited that the US cannot hope to capture him or have local authorities capture him. But Andy Worthington has established that very large numbers of the prisoners the US sent to Guantanamo were innocent of the charges against them. If the executive arm of the government can imprison people mistakenly, it can blow them away by drone mistakenly. A US government official once told me the story of an Iraqi Shiite who had fled persecution under Saddam through Iran all the way to Afghanistan. In 2001, locals eager to make a buck turned him in as “Taliban” to the US military, which apparently did not realize that Iraqi Shiites would never ever support a hyper-Sunni movement like that. So the Iraqi Shiite was sent to Guantanamo and it could even be that Taliban themselves were paid by the US for turning him in. The official may have been speaking of Jowad Jabar. These American officials are way too ignorant to be given the power to simply execute human beings from the sky on the basis of their so-called ‘intelligence.’

5. The memo, as Glenn Greenwald points out, ratifies the Bush/Cheney theory that the whole world is a battlefield on which the US is continually at war. Treating the few hundred al-Qaeda, spread around the world in 60 small cells, as an enemy army, making them analogous to German troops in WW II, is insane on the face of it. Our current secretary of state, John Kerry, largely rejected the notion. Al-Qaeda consists of criminals, not soldiers, and they pose a police counter-terrorism problem, not a battlefield problem. The notion that the whole world is a battlefield violates basic legal conceptions of international law such as national sovereignty.

By Shepherd Bliss

06 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Groups of dancers in the San Francisco Bay Area, as well as elsewhere around the planet, have been rehearsing and engaging in public Flash Mobs. They show up, unannounced, start the music on a portable system, and begin dancing. They are building toward a February 14, Valentine’s Day, One Billion Rising action, scheduled for over 190 countries.

“Eve Ensler, the author of the play ‘The Vagina Monologues,’” explained Valerie Richman of Petaluma, “read a United Nations’ statistic that one of three women would be the victim of violence. So she got the idea of a billion women and those who love them standing up to strike, rise, and dance to end violence. A song was written, ‘Breaking the Chain,’ along with choreography by Debbie Allen.”

One billion women are raped, beaten or sexually abused during their lifetimes. This huge global gathering gives artistic expression to anger and grief to transform them into unifying, uplifting, and healing public events in order to “Break the Chain” of violence against women and girls.

“Strike | Dance | Rise!” is a planetary invitation. It will climax on the 15th anniversary of the annual V-Day that Ensler and others have organized in many different languages around the globe. “The ‘V’ in V-Day stands for Valentine’s Day, Victory over Violence, and Vaginas,” explained Petaluma organizer Trisha Almond.

“Dancing is an expression of the power we don’t always feel we have,” explained Diana Ellis of Petaluma. She supports “a vision of how men and women can work together in simple artistic ways to fight violence against the one billion. The problem of solving sexual violence can feel hopeless. But a billion minus one, minus one, minus one …. eventually equals zero.”

“I believe that men’s voices, feelings, experiences, suggestions and actions must be included in the dialogue about stopping violence against women,” added Richman. “It is a HUMAN issue!”

Some 400 dancers converged on downtown San Francisco on January 26. “One Billion Rising.org is a dancing revolution against the world-wide violence against women and girls on a daily basis,” reported Suzette Burrous, a mid-wife who participated in that event. “I joined this movement because I strongly support the work of VDay.org. Having performed in the ‘The Vagina Monologues’ seven times in the past, I was excited to be part of another global movement to protect and enhance the lives of women of the world.”

La Tierra community’s warm barn in the Sebastopol countryside in Sonoma County heated up on January 24. It became a hot site for an exciting dance rehearsal. Sebastopol’s lead dancer AnnMarie Ginella—a widow in her 50s with four sons—clad in a colorful One Billion Rising shirt against a black background, had expected four people to attend the rehearsal. Over a dozen came, including three men and an animated five-year-old girl with her mother and grandparents, who evoked smiles as the child watched carefully and learned the steps. By the February 3 public rehearsal in Sebastopol’s plaza some 35 dancers joined and were witnessed by many at the small town’s weekly farmers’ market.

Dominican University in San Rafael will be the site of Marin County’s February 14 action. Sister Patricia Dougherty, OP, Ph.D., chair of Dominican’s history department, sent out an invitation to faculty and staff to join the social justice effort. It will begin, appropriately enough, with a dance prayer performed by international women in the morning, directed by dance teacher Taira Restar.

“Noise at Noon” will climax the day with a march protesting violence against women and girls. It will go from the campus to downtown San Rafael. Participants are invited to “bring posters, noise makers, and high energy to protest local and global violence toward women and girls.” An afternoon teach-in described as “Breaking the Chain,” the name of the song to which participants dance, will conclude the day.

A group of six Petaluma dancers spoke to a communication class at Dominican and engaged in a Flash Mob outside the library on February 1, including a mother/daughter team. “The Flash Mobs we’ve been in have been fun,” noted Ronda Black. “You go in and dance without permission. When we went to a mall, a security guard came up and asked ‘Who is your leader?’ We responded that we don’t have a leader.”

“Violence is like climate change,” added Connie Madden. “People do not want to look at it. We need to shine a light on the violence and change what we do. Instead of the growing cultural clashes around the world, we need to find ways to come together as one human race, rather than warring tribes.”

“In Berlin over 5,000 people were involved in a Flash Mob,” noted Richman. She also explained that the group is male positive and includes men, noting that many men are also victims of violence. After the Petaluma group–mature women mainly in their 40s to 60s–demonstrated the dance, the college students jumped up to join them and learn the steps in 12 movements.

“On my knees I pray. I’m not afraid any more. I will walk through that door,” are words that open the dance. Then the dancers erupt in skillfully coordinated, crisp movements.

“We are mothers. We are teachers. We are beautiful creatures,” are other affirming words that are spoken and danced to. “I raise my hands to the sky. I’m no longer afraid” are more proud words that stimulate the dancing, as is “You don’t own me.”

“This is my body. My body is holy. In the middle of this madness, I know there is a better world. Break the rules. It’s time to break the chain,” are other words to which the dancers move.

“We can talk and talk and talk,” noted male dancer Dean LaCoe in the Sebastopol barn. “When you add music and dance, it goes to your heart.” Rehearsals help build community among its participants and are strengthening an international movement.

The Santa Rosa action is being organized “together with our Spanish speaking community,” writes julie rachanna chasen. “Undocumented Spanish speaking women who experience violence and oppression are in a doubly difficult situation in our country, as they face deportation and being separated from their children if they report to the police. We will subsequently dance to “Romper Las Cadenas” as well as “Break the Chains.”

“I am rising because I know, deep in my bones, that the systematic degradation and violation of women that is happening all over the world is linked to every other form of exploitation and oppression,” added chasen. “It’s about power over, be it power over the earth, power over immigrants, gays, power over anyone and anything that seems vulnerable, including other countries, as in war. As women and girls all over the world rise up in song and dance, with self-respect and love in our hearts, we will be part of a shift in consciousness on our planet that will lead us toward a more caring world.”

Watching the dynamic women and their male allies dance, at times I thought about my mother, Alice Miller Bliss. Her life was difficult, raising five children and dealing with a military husband who could be violent. This reporter was not the only person in the barn whose memories were evoked by the dancing. Tears could be seen on some dancers’ faces, perhaps feeling a pain, or perhaps the joy of direct action to deal with pain.

Negative memories of violence can be replaced by positive ones of togetherness, unity, and even love, as the dozen people rehearsing first in the barn and then in public began to coordinate their movements. They replaced some of their pain with the joy of being together in a vital connection against violence and for healing. When they left La Tierra’s barn–by then with its doors pushed open to the cold winter–they were highly animated by their time together creating an uplifting art form combining spoken words, music, and movement.

Feeder events are happening in Petaluma, including an art show extending from February 1 to March 3. Its call for art requested that which “is a positive expression of women; their resiliency, their sensuality; an expression of what the V-Day movement means to them; why they are RISING; or artwork relating to women’s empowerment and prevention of violence against women and girls.”

If February 14 draws anywhere near as many people as its ambitious goal, it would be the largest art event in history, including the already beautiful posters and videos available on numerous online resources. Rather than be “a shot heard around the world,” it would break silences and be a shout heard around the world, hard to ignore.

More information: www.OneBillionRising.org for video. www.HerRising.org for Bay Area Flash Mob details. www.VDay.org for material on the global movement to end violence against women and children. VDayPetaluma.org.

(Shepherd Bliss {3sb@comcast.net} teaches college part-time, has run the organic Kokopelli Farm for the last 20 years, and has contributed to two dozen books.)

By Paul Rogers

5 February 2013

@ New Internationalist

Tuareg militants, seen driving near Timbuktu on May 7, 2012, share control of northern Mali with Islamist groups and al-Qaeda fighters. Magharebia under a CC Licence

The war in Mali and the recent attack in Algeria are being seen as the start of a new phase of the war on terror across North and West Africa – an existential threat that could last decades. This is a dangerous simplification of a much more complex problem and risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, writes Paul Rogers of the Oxford Research Group.

Context

With the transformative developments in Mali in the past three weeks, and the worrying attack in Algeria , this special briefing updates and synthesizes previous analyses from Oxford Research Group during 2012, including briefings in April – Nigeria , May – al-Qaeda, June – Mali and November – al-Qaeda.

The briefing on Mali was written in June, when the expectations were of an intervention by ECOWAS troops, supported and trained by French and other Western forces, but with direct Western combat intervention, likely to be limited primarily to a few hundred Special Forces. Even with that limited Western involvement the briefing argued that:

From the point of view of the leadership of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in North Africa, and Boko Haram in Nigeria , military intervention would actually be welcome as further evidence of external interference, especially if there was French and US  involvement.

and:

there needs to be a far greater focus on negotiations… This is a matter of some urgency. Negotiations, though, must be undertaken while recognizing that the relative underdevelopment of northern Mali and the marginalization of the Tuareg people must be addressed.

The briefing on al Qaeda argued in November that:

Radical Islamist movements do not yet have transcontinental coherence across northern Africa , yet they form part of a phenomenon that is essentially a post-9/11 development and is increasing in intensity and geographical distribution. There appear to be many informal linkages, made far easier by modern communications and new social media, and they therefore connect informally with developments across the Middle East and South West Asia.

The concluding policy recommendation was that:

Military intervention in Mali should be avoided. It will inevitably involve Western military units, and this will enable Islamist propagandists to concentrate more on their message of repression of Islam by outside forces. The old concept of ‘the far enemy’ of the early 2000s could well get a new and unifying lease of life.

Key parts of the briefing on Nigeria (April) were:

• Boko Haram has some links with the al-Qaeda movement, is increasing in its impact on Nigerian society and is facing tough suppression by the Nigerian security forces.

• his use of force may be counterproductive unless underlying issues of socio-economic and other disparities within Nigeria are addressed.

Developments in 2013

At the start of this year, the EU was slowly planning its training mission for the Malian Army with the expectation that this would be a 12- to 18-month endeavor. It was also recognized that contingents from Niger , Burkina Faso , Nigeria and other ECOWAS states would have very limited capability for expeditionary land warfare and would serve primarily as garrison forces. Serious action to regain control of northern Mali was not possible before the end of the hot rainy season in September. What Western and other intelligence missed, or at least seriously underestimated, were two key factors.

• Firstly, opposition to the Mali government and separatist aspirations in northern Mali are not solely rooted in Islamist ideology but have a far greater historical context stemming from an enduring sense of marginalization that has led to many past rebellions, especially by the Tuaregs. To see what is now happening in purely Islamist/terrorist terms is a widespread yet dangerous simplification.

• Secondly, between April and December last year the rebels in northern Mali greatly consolidated their control, including the development of underground bunkers and dispersed facilities. They were anticipating air strikes as soon as they started the advance in early January, and it is possible that the recent advance was partly to incite an immediate French reaction, knowing that this would increase support for their cause, including greater potential for financial aid from private sources in western Gulf States .

From a French perspective, though, intervention was essential, given the unexpected speed of the rebel advances in early January, which may have even surprised the rebels themselves. Moreover, France had broad international support, especially among Western allies, as well as strong support from Malians in Bamako and elsewhere in the more populated south of the country. French military intervention developed rapidly, and by mid-February, there will be 2,500 French military personnel in Mali , quite possibly backed up by a similar number from ECOWAS states.

Even so, and whatever the strength of the arguments for intervention, it must be recognized that this will be hugely welcomed by the wider jihadi movement and its propagandists. What should under no circumstances be underestimated is the impact of the air strikes, in particular. Coverage is much greater in the Arab media than in the West and coverage by jihadist propagandists through the new social media will be far more graphic.

Images of Mirage and Rafael strike aircraft and of the casualties and damage will form part of a much wider narrative, joining a decade of innumerable air strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan, drone attacks in Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and Israeli strikes in Lebanon, Gaza and Sudan (widely seen as attacks by US aircraft in Israeli markings).

The Mali intervention may now be primarily French, but will be seen as more broadly Western, with UK and Canadian logistics aid, UK provision of reconnaissance aircraft and reports of US offers of drone deployments supporting this.

Furthermore, clear linkages will be made between Mali and the consistent attempts of the Nigerian government to suppress the Boko Haram and Ansaru movements even as it contributes troops to the war in Mali . This element too should not be under-estimated.

 

Three developments are likely:

• For planning purposes the Western intervention in Mali should be expected to last years rather than weeks. Recent military advances and the re-taking of northern towns are likely to lead on to a bitter guerrilla war, and reports of Malian Army atrocities against Tuareg communities will further fuel opposition.

• Just as with Syria , as the war develops, it should be expected to attract dedicated and fervent young paramilitaries, including young men with combat experience.

• As Western forces become more committed, and especially as there is graphic footage of the impact of airstrikes, Mali will be seen in more radical circles across North Africa, the Middle East and parts of South Asia as yet one more example of a Western assault on Islam.

Long-term sustainable stability for Mali will not be possible without serious efforts to address the longstanding and deep grievances that stem from marginalization of the northern territories and its peoples, especially the Tuaregs. The French together with the Malian military and authorities will need to address this issue, because there will be no unified Mali , if no solution is found to accommodate the interests of the Tuaregs and other northern populations. Socio-economic and political marginalization of the North has deep-seated roots, and the ethnic/cultural dimensions (Tuaregs historically enslaved black Africans) of this issue cannot be ignored. There is a significant and well-documented history of rebellion and resistance by Malian Tuaregs towards the colonizers (France) and later the central government.

The Malian government remained unwilling or unable to implement development projects necessary to alleviate Tuareg poverty and marginalization, failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of peace agreements reached under the Tamanrasset Accords (1991) and National Pact (1992) and the Algiers Accords (2006). A new talks process facilitated by the President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaoré, on behalf of ECOWAS, began in Ouagadougou on December 4, 2012 engaging the Malian government, Ansar Dine and MNLA. The talks, which had been due to resume on 10 January, have been postponed. Further engagement is essential.

It is the population’s resentment towards the central government over the marginalization of the northern territories , which has helped Islamists gain support there. The chances of finding a solution to combating Islamic extremism in northern Mali would have been significantly better had the Malian government looked at ways of collaborating with the Tuaregs. The only viable long-term solution is co-operation and economic development for the region.

Policy options

There are three immediate policy implications:

• Counsel against the use of air power in attacking targets deep in rebel-held areas. The rebels are prepared for this, it will have minimal effect whatever the military claim, and it is the greatest single aspect of Western action that incites wider support for the rebels.

• Recommend that the short-term function of French and other Western forces should be defensive, ensuring solely that rebel forces make no further advances.

• Frame all policy in terms of a willingness to negotiate while recognizing the underlying problem of long-term marginalization. Islamists have latched on to deep and long-standing resentment and will best be undermined by fully recognizing this.

There is no pretence that this will be easy, especially as it is clear that Western political opinion has moved a long way towards a simplistic view of this as part of an anti-jihadi war. The more it sees Mali in this light, the more it will become just that, with dangerous long-term consequences. Indeed, if Western leaders speak in terms of an existential and generational conflict across North and West Africa and act accordingly, that is precisely what they will get.

Paul Rogers is Global Security Consultant to Oxford Research Group (ORG) and Professor of Peace Studies at the University of Bradford . Anna Alissa Hitzemann, Project Officer and Peace worker on our Sustainable Security program, contributed analysis of the Tuareg dimension to this briefing.

This article originally appeared on the Oxford Research Group’s website on January 28. Crossposted under a CC Licence.

http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2013/01/31/mail-consequences-of-a-war/

By Asma Firdous

05 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Every newspaper, flared -up with news of ‘Band’ of three girls, who took part in singing and formed a ‘Band’ Pragaash to give vent to their expressions through singing, but, unfortunately it took an ugly turn and became a controversial for them, which later got a decree from a grand cleric of Kashmir. In fact, music is a powerful tool of expressing one’s feelings, and highlight the sufferings of people. The Band of teenaged girls who came to limelight in late December last year after their scintillating performance at the annual ‘Battle of the Bands’ competition have received online threats and absurd comments on facebook, although, as per the reports suggest they have decided to quit but Omar Abdullah assured them his full support. Also, the Indian media highlighted and debated the issue with full coverage and proper follow up, urged the girls to shun the decree and continue their Band Pragaash.

As I am a student and according to me, it’s an act of peculiarity and utter shame for those who posed threat to them, it may be wrong in accordance to Islam, but the history of Kashmiri culture bears testimony and has produced best singers, composers, who have had expressed their heart via singing and music. What wrong if these girls have defied their conventional, and have opted to use their way of expressing themselves. There are dozens of bands currently playing popular music of different genres in the valley. But, why targeted this band, because it comprises girls, who are always [mis]understood as slaves of men, who could remain confined to four walls and men dictate to them.

I am not a preacher, but as a teenager asking my beloved leaders (who oppose them), is it worth appreciable to muzzle the voice of these girls who attempted to voice their concern through singing? What about the cases where domestic violence is eminent and no decree is proclaimed? What about the hartal calls, rapes and crimes against women? Aren’t they invalidated by Islam? Don’t they require, reform! Our CM has done always a lip service to bring culprits to justice, and everytime justice denied, he fails to meet his promises! Shame.

I want to ask those Clerics and Leaders who always dictate terms over acts of womenfolk and never provide a solution which acceptable to all. If music is controversial, what about the DOWRY, which is undoubtedly Haraam, unlawful in Islam, and by this reason there are thousands of girls who are over aged but still waiting for their marriage proposals, the reason behind their late marriages is DOWRY which their parents cannot afford, pomp and show. Moreover, the Islamic leaders should also pronounce their verdict upon those who steal electricity, by way of hooking and tempering electric meters. Moreover, we also have in Kashmir banks which are based on interest, if they have much love to Islam, why they have not even initiated to establish an Islamic banking system in Kashmir .

I therefore, request my leaders to first deal with these issues then thinks of banning the band of girls.

Asma Firdous is a student Emailed at : ktehrika@gmail.com

By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

05 February 13

@ readersupportednews.org

When our founders were drafting the Constitution, they went out of their way to give warmaking powers to Congress, not the President.

They understood that if the President could make war on his own, he’d be no different than a king.

And they also understood, as James Madison said, that such power “would be too much temptation” for one man.

And so they vested that power in Congress.

But since World War II, one President after another has usurped that power.

The latest usurper is President Obama, who did so in Libya, and with drones, and now is prepared to do so in cyberspace.

According to The New York Times, the Obama Administration has concluded that the President has the authority to launch preemptive cyberattacks.

This is a very dangerous, and very undemocratic power grab.

There are no checks or balances when the President, alone, decides when to engage in an act of war.

And this new aggressive stance will lead to a cyber arms race. The United States has evidently already used cyber weapons against Iran, and so many other countries will assume that cyber warfare is an acceptable tool and will try to use it themselves.

Most troubling, U.S. cybersupremacy – and that is Pentagon doctrine – will also raise fears among nuclear powers like Russia, China, and North Korea that the United States may use a cyberattack as the opening move in a nuclear attack.

For if the United States can knock out the command and control structure of an enemy’s nuclear arsenal, it can then launch an all-out nuclear attack on that enemy with impunity. This would make such nuclear powers more ready to launch their nuclear weapons preemptively for fear that they would be rendered useless. So we’ve just moved a little closer to midnight.

Now, I don’t think Obama would use cyberwafare as a first strike in a nuclear war. But our adversaries may not be so sure, either about Obama or his successors.

They, too, worry about the temptations of a President.

By Joseph Kishore

05 February, 2013

@ WSWS.org

The Obama administration has concluded that the president can authorize pre-emptive cyberwar attacks, according to a secret legal review prepared by the US government. The move is part of efforts to expand the ability of the American military to use new technologies to carry out acts of aggression—with Iran and China the most immediate targets.

The discussions within the administration were reported by the New York Times in an article published on Monday.

While invariably couched in the language of “defense,” the Pentagon’s cyberwarfare plans are part of an array of offensive capabilities—in addition to and alongside economic sanctions, global spying, drone assassination strikes and more traditional military actions.

According to the Times, the administration’s legal review concludes that the president “has the broad power to order a pre-emptive strike if the United States detects credible evidence of a major digital attack looming from abroad.” The newspaper also reports on new policies “that will govern how intelligence agencies can carry out searches of faraway computer networks for signs of potential attack on the United States and, if the president approves, attack adversaries by injecting them with destructive code—even if there is no declared war.”

The doctrine of pre-emptive war was adopted by the Bush administration for the purpose of justifying military aggression against any country deemed an existent or even potential threat to the United States. The Times notes in an aside, “Pre-emption has always been a disputed legal concept,” citing the invasion of Iraq in 2003 on the fraudulent pretext of that country’s possession of “weapons of mass destruction.” Such disputes have evidently been swept aside by the Obama administration.

The importance of cyberwarfare has expanded with the increasing reliance on computer networks for the delivery of basic services. A cyber attack could take down power plants, hospitals, transportation systems or other critical infrastructure, potentially leading to economic devastation and widespread casualties.

According to the Times, decisions to authorize cyberwarfare will generally be made by the president himself. “One senior American official said that officials quickly determined that the cyberweapons were so powerful that—like nuclear weapons—they should be unleashed only on the direct orders of the commander in chief.”

China is a particular target of current or potential cyberwarfare carried out by the US. Seeing China as a principal economic and geopolitical competitor, the Obama administration has organized a “pivot” to Asia and the Pacific to focus military resources in the region.

The Times quotes Richard Falkenrath of the Council on Foreign Relations: “While this is all described in neutral terms—what are we going to do about cyber attacks—the underlying question is, ‘What are we going to do about China?’”

The report comes only days after a number of newspapers—including the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the Times itself—announced that they had been the target of hacking attacks by individuals in China, which the Times, in particular, sought to link to the Chinese government.

The most significant act of cyberwar to date, however, came not from China, but from the United States and Israel, and was directed at Iran’s nuclear program. It was revealed last year that the two countries were behind the creation of the Stuxnet virus, which infected Iranian networks in June 2010. The US military operation, dubbed Operation Olympic Games, began under Bush and was continued under Obama.

As with drone assassinations, Obama personally directed the cyber attack on Iran from the Situation Room, receiving updates on a regular basis.

Stuxnet was accompanied by the release of the Flame malware virus, also jointly developed by the US and Israel, first discovered in 2012. While originally produced to monitor Iranian government computers, the Flame virus escaped into the general population, infecting thousands of computers.

What has been disclosed publicly is only a small indication of what is already being carried out. “This is about preparing the battlefield for another type of covert action,” one former high-ranking US intelligence official told the Washington Post in June 2012, around the time that the Flame virus was first discovered. “Cyber-collection against the Iranian program is way further down the road than this.”

The Times quotes one administration official as declaring, “There are levels of cyberwarfare that are far more aggressive than anything that has been used or recommended to be done.”

Cyber actions are being coordinated by Cyber Command, originally set up under the authority of the Obama administration in 2010. It is led by General Keith Alexander, who is also the head of the National Security Agency, the military’s main spy agency. The NSA maintains vast databases of communications, foreign and domestic.

According to an article in the Washington Post last week, the military recently approved a fivefold increase in the number of personnel in the Cyber Command, from 900 to 4,900. The newspaper writes that the move is “part of an effort to turn an organization that has focused largely on defensive measures into the equivalent of an Internet-era fighting force.”

Heavily involved in developing the Obama administration’s policy on cyberwarfare is John Brennan. Obama’s pick to head the CIA, Brennan has played a central role in defending and institutionalizing the administration’s policy of extra-judicial drone assassination, including of American citizens.

The recent actions are part of a broader campaign. In mid-October of last year, Obama signed an executive order expanding military authority to carry out cyber attacks and redefine as “defensive” actions that would previously have been considered acts of aggression—such as the cutting off of computer networks.

Around the same time, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta gave a bellicose speech in which he warned of a “cyber Pearl Harbor.” A cyber attack on the US could “cause physical destruction and the loss of life” and “paralyze and shock the nation and create a new profound sense of vulnerability,” he said.

Panetta’s speech aimed both at justifying an expansion of cyberwar capabilities and preparing the ground for military action using the pretext of a cyber attack on the US.

In addition to plans for aggressive war abroad, the expansion of military cyberwarfare poses immense dangers to the democratic rights of the American people, as the administration moves to expand government control over the Internet and create the basis for military intervention and oversight within the United States.

The cyberwar plans include procedures for military action within the United States. According to the Times, the military “would become involved in cases of a major cyberattack within the United States” under certain conditions, with Panetta describing “the ‘red line’ [to justify such actions] in the vaguest of terms—as a ‘cyber 9/11.’”

By William A. Cook

04 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

“The world is ruled by neither justice nor morality; crime is not punished nor virtue rewarded, one is forgotten as quickly as the other. The world is ruled by power and power is obtained with money. To work is senseless, because money cannot be obtained through work, but through exploitation of others. And if we cannot exploit as much as we wish, at least let us work as little as we can. Moral duty? We believe neither in the morality of man nor in the morality of systems.” 

?   TadeuszBorowski ,   This Way for the Gas, Ladies and Gentlemen

This hideous and degrading picture of the human animal Borowski painted at Auschwitz : humankind without benevolence, without compassion; lacking empathy, lacking mercy; inexorable, ruthless, and malevolent; a savage, brutal animal devoid of morals but obedient to laws. Borowski believed there was no crime a man would not commit to save himself. That belief, salvation for self at the expense of justice, precludes moral virtue. Borowski, a poet and a writer, labored at Auschwitz from 1942 until the liberation of the camps; he was not a homosexual, or a Roma or a Jew; he was an observer of human nature in a place where it was bared to the bone. But if his life there brought him to the realization of the barbarity of humans, devoid of morals, then he also understood what we lost as a result of that void:

“There can be no beauty if it is paid for by human injustice, nor truth that passes over injustice in silence, nor moral virtue that condones it.”

Until and unless we eradicate injustice, we have no reason to know beauty, for all that we create is tainted by that injustice pretending all is well with our world. Truth does not exist if injustice surrounds us and we are silent in our complicity. Proclaiming moral virtue in a world awash in crimes against humanity is condoning the crimes unless we act to eradicate the crimes.

Borowski’s work came to mind during these days of Holocaust remembrance because I used his words in a commencement address to our law school some years ago. His thoughts permeate this day of remembrance. On January 29 th , Nick Cumming-Bruce writing from Geneva for the New York Times, reported that “ Israel became the first country to withhold cooperation from a United Nations review of its human rights practices on Tuesday, shunning efforts by the United States and others to encourage it to participate.”

How strange that a people who endured the horrendous human betrayal of their inalienable rights to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness should become the next perpetrators of evil against another people denied their rights of recognition of equal justice and dignity and respect and honor as neighbors in this world where all should enjoy the fruits of this earth. How can one understand the state of Israel, the state declared to be the “Jewish State,” the state that rang the rafters of the United Nations with cries against Iraq and Iranfor discrimination, for anti-Semitism, for existential threats of death to Israel, running to the UNHRC to survey nations to find those antagonistic to Israel and bring them before the Human Rights Council for public punishment and admonishment to correct their criminal behavior, indeed, to levy fines and threaten sanctions should they not relent,only to become the state that defies the same UNHRC when it is their turn for review.

Did they not find the United Nations an institution designed to protect the weak against the strong, to provide conventions that protected all peoples regardless of color, ethnic background, religious beliefs, political and economic systems, a means of regress for themselves, a small nation set in the middle of their perceived enemies,or did they understand that they could manipulate the system when convenient to gain their ends and defy it when they should be condemned. Did not the Neo-Cons and their allies damn the UN for inaction against Saddam Hussein for defying 16 UN Resolutions thus establishing the justice of an invasion of Iraq even though Israel had defied over 160 like resolutions? Have they not been vociferous in their demands that Iran be placed under sanctions and indeed invaded to prevent them from acquiring weapons of mass destruction even as they have 100s of such weapons and refuse to admit that publically or to sign the Mid-East Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, yet demand action be taken against the existential threat that Iran places against their state? Why then do they defy the UNHRC?

Let’s be as blunt as Borowski: the world is not ruled by justice or morality, it is ruled by power. Israel knows this. They have taken control of the greatest military machine the world has ever known, the United States . They control our President, our Senate, and our Congress, and they did this just as Borowski had declared, with money. If one needs proof of these assertions consider this photo of Senator Lindsay Graham as he interrogates Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, with some help from our masters.

C:UserswcookAppDataLocalMicrosoftWindowsTemporary Internet FilesLowContent.IE5MBSZ3W9Glindsay-graham-aipac[1].jpg

Neither AIPAC nor Israel fear retribution—they disdain the opinions of the peoples of this earth, they ridicule the organizations that have been established to guide nations in peaceful ways, and they laugh at the morals taught by the religions of the world, because they have no respect for those bound by a moral order. They act by sheer hutzpah, through the vetting of those who occupy an office, those who intend to run for office, and where necessary who should run for office. It is Israel ‘s agenda that our representatives attend to, not the agenda of the American people. Unending wars benefit the wealthy, they destroy the average citizen.

Unfortunately American democracy is a bidding war, an auction of offices able to be purchased by the pound. The American people no longer run the government; the forces that pay the puppet run the country. Consider the reality that the UN faces today. On November 29 they invited Palestine in as a member nation; that was anathema to the Zionist government of Israel that denied that recognition even though they are a signatory of that organization. They simply impose their law and their political determinations on all the peoples of the earth. In short, they determine what the UN will do or they will reject the world body. They can do this because they can tell the U.S. how they will vote in the Security Council. Thus the impunity. Understand that 5% of the world’s population runs the UN; 95% of the world’s population becomes mute in the oligarchical power structure that the U.S combined with Israel asserts over the wishes of the peoples of the world.

How then achieve not only peace in Palestine , but any possible justice for the people of Palestine ? The answer rests with the people of the world, not with their governments which are held beneath the gold bricks of the U.S. and Israel ; but the people are represented in the UNHRC (Human Rights Council) that has been crippled by the United States ‘ refusal to pay for operations because it admitted Palestine to participation without the US ‘ permission. Thus do the few cripple the many while denying justice to the oppressed and the occupied. It should be obvious to all that the US does not have a moral base from which it operates. It operates only for money, for the 1%, and it uses its citizens as collateral damage against those who question or attack its control. That’s AIPAC’s way, that’s PINAC’s way, that’s the way of the Neo-Cons; it’s what the Zionists learned from Nazi Germany, it’s the answer to MP David Ward’s question, “What did they learn at Auschwitz ?” They learned what Borowski learned: “The world is ruled by power and power is obtained by money.” There is no moral virtue that determines justice for people.

But for those who believe that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the opposite, the road to peace must be throughthe UNHRC and the International Court of Justice. The people of the world have spoken for 64 years through resolutions voicing in clear and bold language the crimes against humanity inflicted on the Palestinian people.The laws of the UN Conventions and the obligations of the nations of the world that have signed to be members of that organization are clear, the alleged crimes must be brought before these bodies to face justice and to bring justice. Should this not be done, both Israel and the US will recreate the laws of war so that their crimes are washed away as easily as Pilate washed his hands of the sentencing of Jesus. “The world is ruled by power”; it is happening as I write this piece.

Let’s continue the bluntness of Borowski. The UNHRC has prepared a comprehensive document to be used when Israel comes before it, a document that itemizes its crimes against humanity with focus on the Settlements and the devastation they have brought to the Palestinian people. Israel knows of this report. It will not be brought before the world court of public opinion and certainly will not be brought before a court of justice. It will not just defy the UN, it will castigate the 188 nation states that allowed Palestine to become a member state as biased and discriminatory against the Jewish State; they will flaunt the Holocaust as it represented anti-Semitism that necessitated the creation of a state for Jews as protection for their people; and it will build its case for its actions on grounds that only their military can defend their people and hence the constant cry of self-defense. Israel has no compunctions about being the sole nation to not adhere to the UN’s human rights reviews of all member states; Israel cares nothing about the UN or its purpose. It will act unilaterally because it can undo anything the UN desires to do.

Let’s understand the actions of this amoral nation. It has just attacked Syria , a recognized member of the United Nations. Syria has executed no actions against Israel that can be justified under the Geneva Conventions; the Israeli government has invaded a nation without provocation regardless of the innocent citizens that are hurt or killed, indeed oblivious of such consequences because in fact they have no conscience that questions such behavior. What would impel the government of Israel to such an act? The answer is simple: how can they force an alliance between the US and Israel that can eliminate any chance that the American government might not support Israel’s defiance of the UN, especially since the US had admonished Israel along with all the other member states about defying the call from the UNHRC. They know that the UN must condemn this act; they care not to obey any laws that restrict their drive to control all of Palestine , and if necessary, expand Eretz Israel beyond even these borders. Their end determines their actions; their laws supersede all others. Here are the words Weizmann and Ben-Gurion promised the Mandate Government:

“if further action was taken against them (by the British Mandate Government) to destroy Zionism, then there would be a blood bath. Nothing could prevent it. Nobody would be safe in Palestine  (July 12, 1946, Rhodes Archive Documents). If need be, we shall take the country by force. If Palestine proves too small, her frontiers will have to be extended” (Ben Gurion, Appendix LVc).

The announcement of the UNHRC’s review of Israel ‘s record forced Israel to yoke America to its needs and bury the defiance of the UN so that the US cannot abstain should the vote come before the UNSC. These actions foretell the response Israel would take if brought before the International Court of Justice. First, it will damn the resolution as anti-Semitic; second it will argue that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over their state as it has its own laws in place and is not beholden to laws that can supersede their own thus denying the sovereignty of Israel; and third, they will present arguments that will delay action knowing time erases memory and, as they have experienced for 64 years, the world will forget. One need only remember the abandonment of the Goldstone Report.

Borowski believed there was no crime a man would not commit to save himself. That belief, salvation for self at the expense of justice, precludes moral virtue. These are men who have traded their soul to the state in exchange for the consequences of confronting the all-powerful state. They are as Henry David Thoreau once stated, so many wooden soldiers marching to another’s tune. But for those of us who accept the transcendent reality of moral righteousness, selling of the soul cannot be an option. We bear the responsibility to act as the arbiter for the state of our soul.No educated person can escape responsibility for his or her actions. No educated person can escape the ethical obligations of a free mind. We are responsible to ourselves if we bear responsibility to meaning and truth.

The world is not bound by borders ultimately; it is bound by a moral order. No nation has the right to impose by violence its will on another by exorcising the universal principle that there exists a basic, fundamental, and inalienable right that is premised on freedom and justice, humanity and truth. If we do not lead by moral force, we are by acquiescence the followers of those who fail to act and subjects of those who impose their will. There comes a time when everyone must cry for justice, to cry for those who cannot cry for themselves.

This is the only answer to Borowski’s sorrowful lament as he witnessed the inhumanity of those in power over the weak and helpless Romas, Communists, homosexuals, the abnormal, and the Jews, a horrid mixture of calculated humiliation, degradation of spirit, physical abuse, slaughter and disregard of civilized behavior in favor of laws created by the conqueror in a raw display of arrogance against the beliefs of all other nations. Today, the nations of the world are faced with a similar power that has determined to subjugate the nations of the world by arrogance, coercion, fraud, invasion, and financial strategies that cripple nations, while undermining the one agency that has brought a semblance of civilized behavior to crisis’s around the world, the United Nations. The United Nations alone can and must take control of these two renegade states or their Nazi like behavior made possible over a prolonged period of years will negate all International laws in favor of those who will impose their power on the weak thus justifying the criminal against the victim. Should that happen, we will have allowed Borowski’s horrid picture of humanity to be the epitaph of our destroyed world.

William A. Cook is a Professor of English at the University of La Verne in southern California. He writes frequently for Internet publications including The Palestine Chronicle, MWC News, Atlantic Free Press, Pacific Free Press, Countercurrents, Counterpunch, World Prout Assembly, Dissident Voice, and Information Clearing House among others. His books include Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East policy, The Rape of Palestine, The Chronicles of Nefaria, a novella, and the forthcoming The Plight of the Palestinians. He can be reached at wcook@laverne.edu or www.drwilliamacook.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated

 

By Dr. Elias Akleh

04 February, 2013

@ Countercurrents.org

Israel has done it again. Last Wednesday January 30 th Israeli war planes violated Lebanese air space for the nth time in their way to bomb Syrian military research center. The US and the UN had also done it again. The US supported this Israeli raid as Israel’s alleged “right to protect itself”, while the UN denied Israel’s aggression claiming it could not verify it due to “bad weather conditions.”

While Israel kept silent about the raid with some of its officials hinting that Israel could have done it and has the right to do it allegedly in self defense, pro-Zionist media sources claimed that Israeli war planes targeted trucks transporting weapons to Lebanese Hezbollah on the Syrian/Lebanese border. Media outlets, including Qatari Al Jazeera, reported Israel’s fears of Hezbollah getting its hands on Syrian chemical weapons and Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles, as reported by an Israeli security officials’ chief, who spoke on condition of anonymity since he was not authorized to speak to the media.

Israel’s unfounded claimed fear of having Syrian chemical weapons in the hands of Hezbollah is a total nonsense and smoke screen in the face. If Syria wanted to transport such weapons to Hezbollah it wouldn’t do it in conspicuous convoys crossing the border. Hezbollah had demonstrated its capability to defeat and deter Israeli aggression using conventional weapons during summer of 2006 and does not need any chemical weapons. Such claims are used as a justification for aggressive interventions on the Syrian borders to relieve pressure on the anti-Syrian terrorist groups.

Syrian officials reported that Israeli war planes had violated Syrian air space and bombed the Jamraya research center in the suburbs of Damascus, far from the Lebanese borders. This research center has been the target of attacks by the American/Israeli-Turkey/Qatari supported anti-Syrian terrorists and militias; the so-called Free Syrian Army, al-Qaeda and Annusra Front. For the last seven months these mercenary terrorists were directed to attack Syria’s air defense systems and military bases in order to incapacitate Syria’s military defense capabilities. They had managed to attack one S-200 base and four surface-to-air missile bases. They have also succeeded in assassinating military scientific project managers such as Colonel Dawoud Rajiha, who was managing Syria’s long-range missile project. Yet their many attempts to attack and inflict any damage onto the Jamraya research center had failed since it was heavily protected. This job was left, then, to the Israeli air forces. The Israeli air raid shows very clearly the degree of Israel’s involvement with the anti-Syrian terrorist groups.

No official statement, Syrian or otherwise, had stated exactly what the Israeli planes had targeted. Yet some reports claim that the strike was intended to destroy Syria’s development of advance airspace defensive technology based on nuclear plasma technology developed by Iranian born nuclear engineer Mehran Keshe, known as “Tesla of physics”. It is reported that Iran gave this technology to Syria. This is the same technology Iran used to “pull” down the American spying drones in perfect conditions.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry filed a complaint letter with the United Nations Security Council urging the Council to issue a “clear condemnation of the flagrant Israeli attack on the territories of a sovereign state and the Israeli violation of the UN Charter, the international law, the Disengagement of Forces Agreement in 1974 and the relevant UNSC resolutions.”

The Israeli air raid was also condemned by the Russian government calling it “unprovoked attacks on targets on the territory of a sovereign country, which blatantly violates the UN Charter and is unacceptable, no matter the motives to justify it.” Iran, Syria’s closest regional ally, warned that the “Zionist regime’s attack on the outskirts of Damascus will have grave consequences for Tel Aviv.” Iran has a cooperative defense pact with Syria, and had previously warned that any attack on Syria would be considered an act of aggression against its own country.

The Lebanese President, Michel Suleiman, denounced the Israeli raid as flagrant aggression and accused Israel of “… exploiting the development in Syria to carry out its aggressive policies, indifferent to all the humanitarian and international treaties.”

Egyptian Foreign Minister, Mohamed Kamel Amr, denounced the Israeli attack saying “Such an assault on Arab land is entirely rejected and represents a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter and international law.” He, also, called on the international community to hold Israel accountable for its attacks on Arab countries, describing the raid as a danger to regional security and to Middle Eastern sovereignty.

When it comes to Israel’s violations of international laws and humanitarian laws, the responses of the American-controlled United Nation are very disappointing and do not hold the international laws. Claiming “unclear weather conditions” the UN stated that it could not confirm the Israeli raid. The only thing Ban Ki-Moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, could offer was his concern over the raid. The deafening silence of the UNSC about the Israeli violations of the sovereignty of its neighboring countries had encouraged Israel to continue its terrorist attacks. The UN always apply double standards when it comes to Israel; the UN either overlooks Israeli terror attacks or considers them self-defense, while Palestinian and Lebanese opposition to Israeli occupation and terrorism is considered terrorist acts. In the case of Syria the UN overlooks the anti-Syrian terrorist supporting states of US, UK, France, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. These terrorist have been involved in grave human right violations and war crimes, the latest was the cold blooded execution of 80 young men in Halab.

The American response to the Israeli raid is also very typically biased towards Israel. American officials as well as media had focused on the alleged transporting Russian-made SA-17 anti-aircraft missiles to Lebanon. The NBC reported that the missiles “would remove Israel’s critical freedom of flight over Lebanon.” This alleged freedom of flight is a violation of the air space of a sovereign country. Would Israel give this type of freedom to Syrian war plane into Israeli air space?

Ben Rhodes, the White House deputy national security advisor, warned Syria it should not “further destabilize the region by transferring weaponry to Hezbollah.” This warning implies justification for the Israeli raid and for future such raids. During an interview with French media last Friday the American Defense Secretary Panetta expressed American concern of the increasing probabilities of Hezbollah acquiring advanced weaponry from Syria. In her farewell speech, the US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia and Iran of “stepping up” military support for Syria and thus adding fuel to possible regional conflict.

Israel is the mad dog in the Middle East attacking all its neighboring countries without any provocation. The Israelis claim that acquiring advanced weapons by any of its neighboring countries means an existential threat to Israel, and thus they consider attacking and bombing that country their right of self defense. So Israel had bombed Iraq’s nuclear facility in the 1970’s, waged aggression wars against Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and lately Gaza Strip. It had bombed in 2009 Sudanese alleged arm smuggling convoys transporting weapons to Gaza, and in 2012 bombed Sudan’s small arms factory. In 2007 Israel bombed Syrian alleged nuclear facility and last week bombed Syrian research center. This twisted logic is somehow supported by the US and the UN. I wonder if this logic gives any Arab country the right to bomb Israel’s nuclear facility in Dimona or any of its chemical and biological weapons facility! Does it also give them the right to bomb any American ships carrying weapons to Israel?

Israel’s perpetual terrorism is a flagrant declaration of war against every country it had bombed. Israel, not Syria or any other Arab country, is the “destabilizing” factor of the Middle East. Israel’s latest terrorist attack on Syria could serve as the beginning of a far wider war to include Iran, driving the whole region into an inferno, whose flame would touch the whole world.

Dr. Elias Akleh is a writer living in Corona, CA., eakleh@ca.rr.com

 

 

By Feroze Mithiborwala

04 February, 2013

Countercurrents.org

I was a little benumbed whilst watching this technically advanced, but socio-politically regressive movie. Kamal Hassan has lied to all of us when he had stated that this movie is his tribute to Indian Muslims & will make them proud.

This movie had me even more worried than earlier!

The message propagated all through the course of this slick production is basically – “One Good Muslim, All the rest – Bad Muslims” .

The hero, Taufik is an Indian Muslim who saves the world, whilst the rest of the Muslims portrayed in the movie, are all committed to destruction & mayhem, all in the name of their religion.

This is the state of the world – Vishwaroopam.

Yet, let me categorically state that I do not support any cuts, or further censorship of the mobs, but will certainly strive to counter this movie & all like it – intellectually & on the ideological plane, where the true battle lies

This movie also justifies the US wars & occupation of Afghanistan in ways that even Hollywood would have felt ashamed of portraying. All this for the NRI audience I would tend to venture. My first opposition to the movie stemmed from the fact that the posters prominently posited the infamous ‘stars & stripes’ in the background & I knew that trouble was brewing. Mind you, the Indian Tri-colour is far less prominent & even missing for the most . . . so much for NRI nationalism, or for that matter that of the RNI’s, the Resident Non-Indians, the chatterati where these communal stereotypes hold sway.

And coming back to the movie, I have never ever seen so many scenes of Namaz in any single film & there is certainly a sickeningly strong overdose of Islamic imagery & the overwhelming majority of it linked to negativity & violence. The movie is one big screenplay of Namaz & Bombs, Namaz & Terror, Namaz & Violence. I wonder as to how Kamal Hassan, who is also the scriptwriter, thought that this would help the cause of Indian Muslims, knowing full well what the community has been through for the past two decades & more. The way the entire community has been ‘terrorized by the terror’ & this has led to their further demonization & isolation.

More so, the script is deeply flawed, lacks intelligence & an honest research. One would have tended to expect a little more from Bollywood after certain good movies dealing with this genre, such as ‘Dhoka’ (Mahesh Bhatt), ‘New York’ (Kabeer Khan), ‘Qurbaan’ (Saif Ali Khan), ‘My Name is Khan’ (Karan Johar & Shahrukh Khan), ‘Agent Vinod’ (Saif Ali Khan) & last but not the least ‘Tere Bin Laden’ (Abhishek Sharma), certainly the best political satire in a generation. It also had a far more genuine Bin Laden look-alike than the ones that appear in the CIA produced videos.

All of the above movies were good honest efforts & there is a common thread as well as a degree of intelligent sensitivity that has gone into researching these scripts & directing these movies, none of which faced any public opprobrium or ire, even though they were far more complex than this ignominious, outrageous ill-conceived prejudiced charade called Vishwaroopam.

Yet, I want no cuts here . . . . . . .

The two lines attributed to Rahul Bose , whom many of us consider to be our own, are the most dangerous & misleading of all the dialogues in the movie.

Rahul Bose, who plays Umar (alluding to Mullah Umar, the leader of the Taliban, I would presume), is facing an assault on his village. The Taliban have captured a few American soldiers & are on the move. The US army, attack the village where they have been led by a trace, with the help of Kamal Hassan, who plays Taufik, a RAW agent. Taufik has infiltrated the ranks of the Taliban to rise to be the ipso facto No. 2.

Wonder what the RAW itself has to comment here.

With the US helicopter gunships blazing away as they did in Vietnam & Iraq, as they do in Somalia, Yemen & Libya – & hope to in Syria – the Taliban are on the run.

Here Rahul Umar Bose makes a statement to assure his fellow Talibani’s – “Don’t worry, the Americans do not kill women & children”.

All I could think of in that Shakespearian moment was – “Et Tu Rahul!!”

To what extent can an artist such as Rahul Bose sell himself, his very moral intellect, is a question that he & many others need to seriously ponder upon.

This dialogue would be considered ridiculous & even blasphemous by the Americans themselves, who always refer to the deaths of civilians as ‘collateral damage’ , but Kamal Hassan in his willful pandering has gone even beyond the worst in Hollywood.

Thus the movie further portrays the US soldier manning the gunship, feeling sorry for killing innocents, whilst the Afghans are all portrayed as dehumanized killing machines. I do not think our immediate neighbours are going to appreciate this movie very much. But who cares, our movies are a reflection of our skewed foreign policy as it does appear. And the Afghans are not exactly a market yet.

The second statement by Rahul Umar Bose is even more dangerous for Indian Muslims & for all the secular activists who have stood by the community as it was demonised, isolated & entrapped into the false-flag terror attacks that we have witnessed since the post-9/11 world. This was the phase of ‘controlled chaos’ & ‘unending perpetual state of wars’ – to use Neoconservative terms.

Here whilst talking to Kamal Taufik Hassan, Rahul Umar Bose smilingly & nonchalantly mentions that “We were also involved in the terror attacks of Malegaon, Bombay & other Indian cities” . In the Tamil & Telegu versions , Coimbatore & Madurai are mentioned.

‘Good God!!’ , I exclaimed to myself, even dropping my popcorn – this movie is basically stating that the Taliban & Al Qaeda are active in India & thus certain sections of the Indian Muslim population are certainly enmeshed with the global terror network. This will prove to be catastrophic in the subconscious perceptions that tend to get ingrained deep into our reality.

This, Mr. Kamal Hassan, is going to be disastrous for Indian Muslims & we can all assure you that.

But where is the research may we ask? Have you not heard of ATS Chief Hemant Karkare , who even served in the RAW? Are you not aware that since 2007 the role of the Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha in terror attacks across the country is being probed? Particularly in Malegaon, Nanded, Samjhauta Express, Mecca Masjid, Ajmer, Goa & another 10 more as per the statements of the Home Ministry. Actually there are more than 16 recorded cases, but we will leave that for later. All of which are further linked to the right-wing Manuwadi Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS)?

Are you really unaware of these facts? Are you planning to leave the country, or had you already left India & were living in New York & are thus so ill-informed whilst writing the script, which lacks even an iota of honesty & responsibility?

And this is thus a question that we as secular activists must ask ourselves. Many Hollywood movies with a geopolitical strategic agenda are produced in tandem with the Pentagon, so as to further the Imperial agenda of global hegemony & the advancement of the Military-Security-Industrial-Corporate-Media Complex.

The Zionist dominated Hollywood target & portray Palestinians & Arabs in particular & Muslims in general as terrorists & fanatics & thus these societies need to be invaded & civilized – & their resources taken over for good measure.

This movie by Kamal Hassan in my estimation also certainly falls in that category of disinformation & propaganda to serve the cause of the Empire & to justify the wars, occupation & the genocide of the Afghan nation, as well as the people of Pakistan. Thus not even a fleeting reference to the drone attacks & the killings of innocents, of women & children – thus & as to how it continues to create & foster more & more militants & terrorists.

Then comes the part where there is a meeting between the leadership of the Taliban led by Rahul Umar & Al Qaeda-Osama Bin Laden. Here again I would request all those who have been taken in by the recent supposed assassination of OBL at the staged operation at Abbotabad, to read the excellent & well researched book by David Ray Griffin – ‘Osama Bin Laden Dead or Alive?’ ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/osama-bin-laden-dead-or-alive/15601 ). According to many honest experts, OBL has been dead since December 15, 2001.

It is also time, actually high time, for the Indian peace movement to address the issues of the 9/11 false-flag terror attack , which has been central, seminal & defining moment of the 21 st century, changing the very trajectory of international politics & leading to an era of wars, occupation & genocide. ( http://www.ae911truth.org/ ).

Recently more than 12,500 police stations across America received petitions by peace activists stating that the attack on WTC 1, 2 & 7 were an inside job & demanding that the investigation be reopened. This movement is being spearheaded by more than 1700 architects & engineers & they have the support of many prominent intellectuals, scholars, and human-rights activists, whistle-blowers from within the CIA-FBI, as well as vast sections of American society & the numbers are growing. ( http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/documents/AE911Truth_Police_Letter.pdf )

The reason as to why we will have to grapple with these issues is that, I personally know of Muslim youth who have been quizzed about their positions on 9/11, Bin Laden & Al Qaeda. The youth have been perplexed & horrified & left wondering as to what a job application in the engineering, IT & telecom sectors have to do with their knowledge or lack off, on these issues. With Muslim children who have tried to step out of their ghettoes & seek admission in a multi-cultural milieu, being denied & told to go back where they came from. Of Muslims being denied housing in secular neighbourhoods. All these discriminative practices have also increased in the last decade – thanks to the dominant paradigm of terror.

Now, let us get back to the movie.

Soon after the carnage at Rahul Umar’s village, we are transported into America. Here Kamal Taufik Hassan is working incognito singing & dancing to songs written by Javed Akhtar (Lyricist), as any good Muslim should be. Then a terror network begins to unravel & here we have Rahul Umar now planning to explode a Dirty-Bomb made of waste radioactive material, which the good Muslim does foil, but after saying his Namaz! Whilst in the room inside wherein lies the Dirty-Bomb, is a bad Muslim, an African-American of Nigerian descent, busy offering Namaz before he is to blow the city to kingdom come.

Herein lies another serious problem with this film & that is the tarnishing of African-American Muslims as part of the global terror network . In most Hollywood movies, they are sensitive enough to portray the African American as the FBI boss, under whom the White officers serve. But here the RAW agent is working with only Whites, presumably Anglo-Saxon agents, whilst the African-American Muslim, is in tandem with the Taliban. Another case of out-sourcing I guess.

Yet again, Kamal Hassan fails in his research. The terror attacks portrayed in the film have never occurred. Also the FBI has been entrapping Muslim youth from various ethnic backgrounds & this too is a documented fact. Since there are no serious terror threats to America, the FBI actually manufactures them, as there is no other way to justify Homeland Security & it’s vast gargantuan powers & budget. FBI agents, informers, or ex-convicts working in tandem with the FBI are sent into Muslim communities with an attempt to create terrorists. During the course of the year, a couple of youth, mainly with a criminal background do get entrapped due to intensive indoctrination about the crimes of the American Empire against their people. These youth are then further induced & provided training to carry out a terror attack. Targets are indentified, funds, bombs & ammunition provided & the day that they do carry out the attack, they are apprehended red-handed. The bombs turn out to be fake & so do the guns & that is how stupid this supposed terrorists are.

( http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 )

This information is now available in the mainstream corporate media & should have been studied by Kamal Taufik Hassan, before trying to give the FBI a positive image in India.

This movie thus is basically a propaganda tool for the FBI, as well as the US Empire. And now apart from Hollywood, they even have some of the best known names from Bollywood to do their bidding. I wonder as to how much of the financial backing of this movie came from sources such as these & this question must be asked in all seriousness.

The plot foiled, America saved, sorry, the world saved – Rahul Umar & his Taliban cohorts decide to flee to – India for God’s sake!! Thus we end with the inevitability of Vishwaroopam II-India!

Actually Kamal Taufik Hassan, might even consider shifting the next locale to Qatar, where the ‘Good Taliban’ now have a functioning office. Here they will all have ample security as the US has a vast network of naval & airforce bases. ( http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-03/20/content_789607.htm ).

So Rahul Umar Bose, the FBI-CIA & Kamal Taufik Hassan can actually sort out all their problems there itself, without dragging India into the picture.

But therein lies the threat, the clear & present danger to all of us. You can imagine the next movie where Mullah Umar is in Mumbai, or Delhi, maybe in Chennai (threatening Jajayalaitha for the way she dealt with Kamal Hassan), or in Malegaon, or in Srinagar, or Hyderabad, or in the Samjhauta Express, or in Ajmer. Thus taking the blame for all the terror attacks, that now are alleged to be the handiwork of the right-wing Abhinav Bharat & Sanatan Sanstha, as per the National Investigation Agency (NIA) & certain Anti-Terror Squads (ATS).

And then, is Osama Bin Laden & his dreaded Al-Qaeda far behind in reaching India?

The fear that it will instill amongst the ordinary masses of India & the further fear & isolation towards which will be driven the Muslim community is apparent to many.

The terror of the politics of terror . . . . . . .

Also a little sincere & not-so-secret advice to film producers, directors, financiers & aspiring writers. In case you are sure that your film (or a book) is going to bomb at the box-office, be sure to include a few scenes that you may think may be offensive to the emotions of the Muslim community. Then arrange a screening prior to the release, even though your film has been cleared by the censor board – & rest assured that a few Muslims will fall prey to your trap & voila – you have your much needed controversy.

My sincere advice to the Muslim community is the following. Islam is to great a religion for one book or a movie to harm our faith. Let us overcome our insecurities & notice that the tide is turning in our favour. The protests against the film have harmed the image of the Muslim community, even more than Vishawaroopam was planned to. We need to learn to ignore certain barbs hurled at us & do not need to fall for the traps laid for us every time.

We have every right to protest & this is our constitutional & democratic right. Our strategy should have been to evoke support & call for a debate on the movie, whilst pointing out its flaws & distortions. Demanding the cuts after the censor board had cleared the movie, has harmed our image & further portrayed the community as extremist & undemocratic.

The problem with Vishwaroopam, is that it has projected only a miniscule part of the reality of the Afghan quagmire over a period of more than three decades. But one cannot deny that today the Taliban & their ilk, do represent a form of a vitiated, extremist & a violent form of Islam. From the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha’s, to the attacks on schools & clinics, to the enforced imposition of a regressive barbaric code on women, to the public flogging & stoning, to the sectarian hatred & killings, to the destruction of Sufi Mazar’s & the genocide of the Shia’s – all this is being waged in the name of Islam. This cannot be denied by any honest God-loving/fearing Muslim.

This form of extremism is indeed alien & against the very letter, grain & spirit of Islam. Let us all stand up in unison & condemn this debasement & defilement of Islam. This we really do not venture into often enough – do we honestly?

In the course of the last 2-3 years, the truth about the terror attacks is being revealed & this is due to the sustained struggle of Muslim organizations, in tandem with our secular allies, despite all the odds, with the entire media & dominant sections of the Government-intelligence-security apparatus ranged against us – but yet we have overcome all these odds. Now is the time to reach out to all the communities that make up this great & dynamic nation & expose the true facts of the terror networks that are now being revealed. ( http://www.indianexpress.com/news/joining-the-dots/1068448/ )

If India is not to go the way of Pakistan, with its assorted Lashkar-Frankensteins, then we have to put a stop to those religious extremist forces that threaten to destroy the unity & social fabric of our nation. Now after the statement by the Union Home Minister, the tide has clearly changed in our favour & thus let’s not undermine our struggle by isolating ourselves any further by taking to the streets in the manner that we have & I was personally both angry & ashamed at the public spectacle. There is a certain degree of double-standards, intolerance & hypocrisy within the Muslim community as well.

Also I would want to appeal here to all those who rightly advised the Muslim community on the values of freedom of expression, democracy & modernity. Kindly stand up, script & produce a movie based on the charge-sheet filed by Hemant Karkare, in a movie that can be titled ‘Bharatroopam’ . I would love to see as to how many takers there would be from Bollywood, especially all the ones shouting ‘cultural terrorism’.

In terms of soft-targets, the Muslim community is far more of a soft-target, than many film makers & writers.

Yet, I will not ask for a cut, even though both my mind & my heart have suffered a few deep searing cuts.

This is because I have immense faith in the great legacy of this country. I have great faith in the teachings of Krativeer Jotiba Phule, Mahatma Gandhi, Maulana Azad, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar & Shaheed Bhagat Singh. I have great faith in the people of India, in our secular democracy.

Feroze Mithiborwala is a peace activist in Mumbai. He led the Asia to Gaza peace flotilla.

By Noam Chomsky

04 February, 2013

@ TomDispatch.com

[This piece is adapted from “Uprisings,” a chapter in Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire, Noam Chomsky’s new interview book with David Barsamian (with thanks to the publisher, Metropolitan Books). The questions are Barsamian’s, the answers Chomsky’s.]

Does the United States still have the same level of control over the energy resources of the Middle East as it once had?

The major energy-producing countries are still firmly under the control of the Western-backed dictatorships. So, actually, the progress made by the Arab Spring is limited, but it’s not insignificant. The Western-controlled dictatorial system is eroding. In fact, it’s been eroding for some time. So, for example, if you go back 50 years, the energy resources — the main concern of U.S. planners — have been mostly nationalized. There are constantly attempts to reverse that, but they have not succeeded.

Take the U.S. invasion of Iraq, for example. To everyone except a dedicated ideologue, it was pretty obvious that we invaded Iraq not because of our love of democracy but because it’s maybe the second- or third-largest source of oil in the world, and is right in the middle of the major energy-producing region. You’re not supposed to say this. It’s considered a conspiracy theory.

The United States was seriously defeated in Iraq by Iraqi nationalism — mostly by nonviolent resistance. The United States could kill the insurgents, but they couldn’t deal with half a million people demonstrating in the streets. Step by step, Iraq was able to dismantle the controls put in place by the occupying forces. By November 2007, it was becoming pretty clear that it was going to be very hard to reach U.S. goals. And at that point, interestingly, those goals were explicitly stated. So in November 2007 the Bush II administration came out with an official declaration about what any future arrangement with Iraq would have to be. It had two major requirements: one, that the United States must be free to carry out combat operations from its military bases, which it will retain; and two, “encouraging the flow of foreign investments to Iraq, especially American investments.” In January 2008, Bush made this clear in one of his signing statements. A couple of months later, in the face of Iraqi resistance, the United States had to give that up. Control of Iraq is now disappearing before their eyes.

Iraq was an attempt to reinstitute by force something like the old system of control, but it was beaten back. In general, I think, U.S. policies remain constant, going back to the Second World War. But the capacity to implement them is declining.

Declining because of economic weakness?

Partly because the world is just becoming more diverse. It has more diverse power centers. At the end of the Second World War, the United States was absolutely at the peak of its power. It had half the world’s wealth and every one of its competitors was seriously damaged or destroyed. It had a position of unimaginable security and developed plans to essentially run the world — not unrealistically at the time.

This was called “Grand Area” planning?

Yes. Right after the Second World War, George Kennan, head of the U.S. State Department policy planning staff, and others sketched out the details, and then they were implemented. What’s happening now in the Middle East and North Africa, to an extent, and in South America substantially goes all the way back to the late 1940s. The first major successful resistance to U.S. hegemony was in 1949. That’s when an event took place, which, interestingly, is called “the loss of China.” It’s a very interesting phrase, never challenged. There was a lot of discussion about who is responsible for the loss of China. It became a huge domestic issue. But it’s a very interesting phrase. You can only lose something if you own it. It was just taken for granted: we possess China — and if they move toward independence, we’ve lost China. Later came concerns about “the loss of Latin America,” “the loss of the Middle East,” “the loss of” certain countries, all based on the premise that we own the world and anything that weakens our control is a loss to us and we wonder how to recover it.

Today, if you read, say, foreign policy journals or, in a farcical form, listen to the Republican debates, they’re asking, “How do we prevent further losses?”

On the other hand, the capacity to preserve control has sharply declined. By 1970, the world was already what was called tripolar economically, with a U.S.-based North American industrial center, a German-based European center, roughly comparable in size, and a Japan-based East Asian center, which was then the most dynamic growth region in the world. Since then, the global economic order has become much more diverse. So it’s harder to carry out our policies, but the underlying principles have not changed much.

Take the Clinton doctrine. The Clinton doctrine was that the United States is entitled to resort to unilateral force to ensure “uninhibited access to key markets, energy supplies, and strategic resources.” That goes beyond anything that George W. Bush said. But it was quiet and it wasn’t arrogant and abrasive, so it didn’t cause much of an uproar. The belief in that entitlement continues right to the present. It’s also part of the intellectual culture.

Right after the assassination of Osama bin Laden, amid all the cheers and applause, there were a few critical comments questioning the legality of the act. Centuries ago, there used to be something called presumption of innocence. If you apprehend a suspect, he’s a suspect until proven guilty. He should be brought to trial. It’s a core part of American law. You can trace it back to Magna Carta. So there were a couple of voices saying maybe we shouldn’t throw out the whole basis of Anglo-American law. That led to a lot of very angry and infuriated reactions, but the most interesting ones were, as usual, on the left liberal end of the spectrum. Matthew Yglesias, a well-known and highly respected left liberal commentator, wrote an article in which he ridiculed these views. He said they’re “amazingly naive,” silly. Then he expressed the reason. He said that “one of the main functions of the international institutional order is precisely to legitimate the use of deadly military force by western powers.” Of course, he didn’t mean Norway. He meant the United States. So the principle on which the international system is based is that the United States is entitled to use force at will. To talk about the United States violating international law or something like that is amazingly naive, completely silly. Incidentally, I was the target of those remarks, and I’m happy to confess my guilt. I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to.

I merely mention that to illustrate that in the intellectual culture, even at what’s called the left liberal end of the political spectrum, the core principles haven’t changed very much. But the capacity to implement them has been sharply reduced. That’s why you get all this talk about American decline. Take a look at the year-end issue of Foreign Affairs, the main establishment journal. Its big front-page cover asks, in bold face, “Is America Over?” It’s a standard complaint of those who believe they should have everything. If you believe you should have everything and anything gets away from you, it’s a tragedy, the world is collapsing. So is America over? A long time ago we “lost” China, we’ve lost Southeast Asia, we’ve lost South America. Maybe we’ll lose the Middle East and North African countries. Is America over? It’s a kind of paranoia, but it’s the paranoia of the superrich and the superpowerful. If you don’t have everything, it’s a disaster.

The New York Times describes the “defining policy quandary of the Arab Spring: how to square contradictory American impulses that include support for democratic change, a desire for stability, and wariness of Islamists who have become a potent political force.” The Times identifies three U.S. goals. What do you make of them?

Two of them are accurate. The United States is in favor of stability. But you have to remember what stability means. Stability means conformity to U.S. orders. So, for example, one of the charges against Iran, the big foreign policy threat, is that it is destabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan. How? By trying to expand its influence into neighboring countries. On the other hand, we “stabilize” countries when we invade them and destroy them.

I’ve occasionally quoted one of my favorite illustrations of this, which is from a well-known, very good liberal foreign policy analyst, James Chace, a former editor of Foreign Affairs. Writing about the overthrow of the Salvador Allende regime and the imposition of the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in 1973, he said that we had to “destabilize” Chile in the interests of “stability.” That’s not perceived to be a contradiction — and it isn’t. We had to destroy the parliamentary system in order to gain stability, meaning that they do what we say. So yes, we are in favor of stability in this technical sense.

Concern about political Islam is just like concern about any independent development. Anything that’s independent you have to have concern about because it might undermine you. In fact, it’s a little ironic, because traditionally the United States and Britain have by and large strongly supported radical Islamic fundamentalism, not political Islam, as a force to block secular nationalism, the real concern. So, for example, Saudi Arabia is the most extreme fundamentalist state in the world, a radical Islamic state. It has a missionary zeal, is spreading radical Islam to Pakistan, funding terror. But it’s the bastion of U.S. and British policy. They’ve consistently supported it against the threat of secular nationalism from Gamal Abdel Nasser’s Egypt and Abd al-Karim Qasim’s Iraq, among many others. But they don’t like political Islam because it might become independent.

The first of the three points, our yearning for democracy, that’s about on the level of Joseph Stalin talking about the Russian commitment to freedom, democracy, and liberty for the world. It’s the kind of statement you laugh about when you hear it from commissars or Iranian clerics, but you nod politely and maybe even with awe when you hear it from their Western counterparts.

If you look at the record, the yearning for democracy is a bad joke. That’s even recognized by leading scholars, though they don’t put it this way. One of the major scholars on so-called democracy promotion is Thomas Carothers, who is pretty conservative and highly regarded — a neo-Reaganite, not a flaming liberal. He worked in Reagan’s State Department and has several books reviewing the course of democracy promotion, which he takes very seriously. He says, yes, this is a deep-seated American ideal, but it has a funny history. The history is that every U.S. administration is “schizophrenic.” They support democracy only if it conforms to certain strategic and economic interests. He describes this as a strange pathology, as if the United States needed psychiatric treatment or something. Of course, there’s another interpretation, but one that can’t come to mind if you’re a well-educated, properly behaved intellectual.

Within several months of the toppling of [President Hosni] Mubarak in Egypt, he was in the dock facing criminal charges and prosecution. It’s inconceivable that U.S. leaders will ever be held to account for their crimes in Iraq or beyond. Is that going to change anytime soon?

That’s basically the Yglesias principle: the very foundation of the international order is that the United States has the right to use violence at will. So how can you charge anybody?

And no one else has that right.

Of course not. Well, maybe our clients do. If Israel invades Lebanon and kills a thousand people and destroys half the country, okay, that’s all right. It’s interesting. Barack Obama was a senator before he was president. He didn’t do much as a senator, but he did a couple of things, including one he was particularly proud of. In fact, if you looked at his website before the primaries, he highlighted the fact that, during the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 2006, he cosponsored a Senate resolution demanding that the United States do nothing to impede Israel’s military actions until they had achieved their objectives and censuring Iran and Syria because they were supporting resistance to Israel’s destruction of southern Lebanon, incidentally, for the fifth time in 25 years. So they inherit the right. Other clients do, too.

But the rights really reside in Washington. That’s what it means to own the world. It’s like the air you breathe. You can’t question it. The main founder of contemporary IR [international relations] theory, Hans Morgenthau, was really quite a decent person, one of the very few political scientists and international affairs specialists to criticize the Vietnam War on moral, not tactical, grounds. Very rare. He wrote a book called The Purpose of American Politics. You already know what’s coming. Other countries don’t have purposes. The purpose of America, on the other hand, is “transcendent”: to bring freedom and justice to the rest of the world. But he’s a good scholar, like Carothers. So he went through the record. He said, when you study the record, it looks as if the United States hasn’t lived up to its transcendent purpose. But then he says, to criticize our transcendent purpose “is to fall into the error of atheism, which denies the validity of religion on similar grounds” — which is a good comparison. It’s a deeply entrenched religious belief. It’s so deep that it’s going to be hard to disentangle it. And if anyone questions that, it leads to near hysteria and often to charges of anti-Americanism or “hating America” — interesting concepts that don’t exist in democratic societies, only in totalitarian societies and here, where they’re just taken for granted.

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus in the MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy. A TomDispatch regular, he is the author of numerous best-selling political works, including recently Hopes and Prospects and Making the Future. This piece is adapted from the chapter “Uprisings” in his newest book (with interviewer David Barsamian), Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books).

Excerpted from Power Systems: Conversations on Global Democratic Uprisings and the New Challenges to U.S. Empire, published this month by Metropolitan Books, an imprint of Henry Holt and Company, LLC. Copyright (c) 2013 by Noam Chomsky and David Barsamian. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ShareThisShareThis

 

 

 

Comments are moderated