by cameron | May 20, 2009 | geopolitics, US politics
Noam Chomsky has written a penetrating piece on the USA’s history of using torture, explaining that it isn’t a new thing and that Obama really isn’t putting a stop to the USA’s use of torture – he’s just returning their use of it to pre-Bush tactics.
As Allan Nairn, who has carried out some of the most revealing and courageous investigations of torture, points out: "What the Obama [ban on torture] ostensibly knocks off is that small percentage of torture now done by Americans while retaining the overwhelming bulk of the system’s torture, which is done by foreigners under U.S. patronage. Obama could stop backing foreign forces that torture, but he has chosen not to do so."
Obama did not shut down the practice of torture, Nairn observes, but "merely repositioned it," restoring it to the American norm, a matter of indifference to the victims. "[H]is is a return to the status quo ante," writes Nairn, "the torture regime of Ford through Clinton, which, year by year, often produced more U.S.-backed strapped-down agony than was produced during the Bush/Cheney years."
He also explains that the Obama administration is continuing to fight the courts to allow the USA to continue to send prisoners to international prisons where they will continue to be denied basic legal and human rights, away from the prying eyes of the US legal system.
While Obama, like Bush, eloquently affirms our unwavering commitment to international law, he seems intent on substantially reinstating the extremist Bush measures. In the important case of Boumediene v. Bush in June 2008, the Supreme Court rejected as unconstitutional the Bush administration claim that prisoners in Guantanamo are not entitled to the right of habeas corpus.
Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald reviews the aftermath. Seeking to "preserve the power to abduct people from around the world" and imprison them without due process, the Bush administration decided to ship them to the U.S. prison at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, treating "the Boumediene ruling, grounded in our most basic constitutional guarantees, as though it was some sort of a silly game — fly your abducted prisoners to Guantanamo and they have constitutional rights, but fly them instead to Bagram and you can disappear them forever with no judicial process."
Obama adopted the Bush position, "filing a brief in federal court that, in two sentences, declared that it embraced the most extremist Bush theory on this issue," arguing that prisoners flown to Bagram from anywhere in the world (in the case in question, Yemenis and Tunisians captured in Thailand and the United Arab Emirates) "can be imprisoned indefinitely with no rights of any kind — as long as they are kept in Bagram rather than Guantanamo."
In March, however, a Bush-appointed federal judge "rejected the Bush/Obama position and held that the rationale of Boumediene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo." The Obama administration announced that it would appeal the ruling, thus placing Obama’s Department of Justice, Greenwald concludes, "squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions," in radical violation of Obama’s campaign promises and earlier stands.
Of course, it now looks like Obama’s first Presidential act – closing down Gitmo – might not happen after all. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
(Thanks to Marcelo Castro for the link to the Chomsky piece.)
by cameron | Sep 12, 2008 | US politics
I was thinking about this over breakfast this morning…
Why, in the last sixSEVEN years, hasn’t there been another terrorist attack on the USA?
Perhaps it’s because the Dept of Home Security are doing a bang-up job keeping America safe. However, knowing what we do about how effective America’s intelligence services are (not very), that seems a very unlikely explanation.
The alternative explanation might be that the terrorists don’t need another attack because they’ve already won.
Assuming there really is a guy called Osama Bin Laden, has he won?
Here’s some questions to ask yourself:
1. Is America’s reputation abroad stronger or weaker today than it was pre-9/11?
2. Is America’s economy stronger or weaker today than it was pre-9/11?
3. Is America’s internal political climate more or less divisive today than it was pre-9/11?
4. Does America have more or less enemies today than it did pre-9/11?
BONUS QUESTION:
5. What would most Americans say the reason for the 9/11 attacks was?
I’m guessing a poll would show most think “they hate our freedom” is the answer. FAIL. I suspect most Americans have learned nothing from the last six years.
Meanwhile Americans deaths in Afghanistan hit a new high, while the US bombs Pakistan.
Meanwhile Russia sends TU-160 Blackjack bombers to Venezuela, reminding me of the Cuban missile crisis.
Before the war, White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay estimated the cost at $100 to $200 billion. So the White House got rid of him and “re-estimated” the cost at $50 to $60 billion. It’s going to end up costing over $3 TRILLION.
That’s $3 trillion of taxpayers money that would be going to healthcare, to creating alternative sources of renewable energy, or to developing better relationships with countries around the world. It’s $3 trillion that is, instead, making certain American weapons manufacturers, military contractors and construction companies, very wealthy, while the US unemployment level is at a five-year high and employment growth is the weakest since the Great Depression.
I submit to you that if bin Laden’s objective was to hurt America, he has already won.
by cameron | Mar 23, 2008 | capitalism, CIA, US politics
If you’ve seen the recent Hollywood blockbuster “Charlie Wilson’s War”, you probably think you know why the CIA decided to lend support to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan in 1980. It was to help defeat the evil invading Soviet army – right?
Wrong.
According to former CIA director Robert Gates and President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brezinski, the CIA were involved in Afghanistan at least six months before the Soviet’s invaded. Okay, I know this isn’t new news, but I’m just catching up.
The CIA, with Presidential approval, were illegally supporting terrorist forces within the country to help them attack and overthrow the pro-Soviet government run by Nur Muhammed Taraki. Taraki, who had taken power via a coup from Mohammed Daoud Khan, a member of the Royal Family, was upsetting Muslims by trying to modernize the country – including the establishment of full women’s rights and the implementation of land reform. These are things you’d think the USA would support, right?
Wrong.
The USA was doing everything they could to prevent the spread of Communism. But why?
I’ve often wondered where this American fear of communism comes from. I know we’ve all been programmed from birth to believe “communism = evil, capitalism = good”, but why? If communism is just another political idea, like being a Democrat versus being a Republican, why not just let “the people” decide what they want? Why the massive scare campaign about the ‘red terror’?
I finally figured it out. Okay, I know, I must be dumb. It’s because the powers than run the USA are wealthy white men, otherwise known as the bourgeoisie. They are, by definition, anti-Communist. They have money and power and communism would take that power away from them and disperse it amongst the people. The success of socialism or communism around the world would encourage the people inside the USA to think about the benefits of Marxism and this would run contrary to the self-interest of the American upper classes. In fact, it is probably the last thing they want the people to think about. Think about football, celebrities, game shows, Saddam Hussein, New York Governors and their expensive hookers, ANYTHING – just don’t think about a different political system which would stop protecting the position of the privileged and the wealthy.
So anyway, back to Afghanistan. When the civil war, funded and supported by the CIA, was getting out of control, President Taraki asked the Soviets to help. They told him that sending troops in would be a VERY BAD IDEA. They knew what would happen. They knew the USA would use it as a pretext for further support.
After Taraki was assassinated, allegedly by a member of his own Government, then the Soviets invaded. And the rest is history.
Why is all this important? Because it goes to show, yet again, how you can’t just believe the official version of events.
If you believe the official version of events, the CIA stopped meddling in the affairs of other countries after the Church Committee Report came out in 1975. Yeah, right.
by cameron | Feb 4, 2008 | capitalism, Iraq, Uncategorized
The world’s largest arms dealer, the USA, which is also the country with the world’s largest arsenal of nuclear weapons (it maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads… how many DO you need to destroy the world?), will spend more that $1 trillion on “defence” for the first time in history in 2008, according to this article in Le Monde. I put inverted commas around “defence” because their current strategy of non-UNSC sanctioned pre-emptive attacks can hardly be called “defence”. It’s a typical PR sleight-of-hand. Let’s call it what it is. It’s an “ATTACK” budget.
As part of this $1 trillion, the US will spend $23.4bn towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads.
The older I get, the more I read, and the more unconvinced I am becoming that democracy and capitalism contain the model for the future for the human race. If the USA is the beacon of modern democracy, then I believe we need a new system, a better system.
|
It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.
|
|
|
by cameron | Aug 2, 2007 | Iran, Iraq, Uncategorized
Paul Spoerry has some great visual aids to help us understand the motivations behind the US’s middle east policies. Like this:
******
Meanwhile, you have to love the pure frakking BALLS on the Bush administration. Who else could spin the sale of $70 Billion of weapons to the Middle East as “ensuring peace”?!!! Rice sez:
“We are helping to strengthen the defensive capabilities of our partners,” Rice said in a statement. “We plan to initiate discussions with Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states on a proposed package of military technologies that will help support their ability to secure peace and stability in the Gulf region.”
Let’s look at the track record of the countries they have sold weapons to over the last 20 years… Iraq. Afghanistan. Iran. Israel. Saudi Arabia. How’s the peace strategy working so far, Condi?
The amount of money that the US itself spends on weapons every year is just insane.
The world spends US$780 billion every year on maintaining its military and buying new weapons —that’s $2.1 billion every day. Dr Oscar Arias estimates that if just 5% ($40 billion) of that annual $780 billion were channeled into anti-poverty programmes over the next decade, the whole world could have basic social services. A further 5% over ten years could provide everybody on the planet with an income above the poverty line. UNICEF estimates that spending just $7 billion a year for the next decade could educate every child on Earth.
(source)
******
Laurel Papworth accuses my 2Web colleagues and myself of being sexist because there aren’t any women in our 2Web group!
Hey I, for one, am a HUGE supporter of the meme that we need more women in tech/web. Lots and lots. I’m sick to death of going to tech events and being surrounded by blokes. AFAIK, the 2Web group has never turned down an application for membership from a lady. If there is passive sexism involved here, it’s you girls being too passive about getting involved! Hike up your skirts girls! 🙂
******
Telstra put GPS trackers into the cars of their technicians then informed them that if they had a problem with it, “they would face a review of employment.” Classy. According to The Age:
Victoria’s Workplace Rights Advocate Tony Lawrence investigated initial reports of the tracking devices and told The Australian newspaper he had referred what he believed to be a criminal matter to police.
It puts turning off Facebook into perspective.
******
The Edinburgh Fringe Festival is back on and TPN’s man on the scene, Ewan Spence, is spending the next month chatting with the performers, audience and promoters! Catch it almost-live on TPN’s EFF show!
******
Just for something a little bit different, I’m a guest today on Rod’s Atomic Show. He wanted to talk to me about how the nuclear industry might be able to use new media to change the perception of nuclear with the general public, bypassing the not-always-independent mainstream media. Did anyone else see that show on Frontline last night about the nuclear industry in France and Canada? I saw some of it. Fascinating.
*****
John Howard and his government never cease to amaze me with how much they have become the white, straight, Christian party. Today Howard announced legislation which will overturn State legislation which allows gay couples to adopt children from overseas. We need a Bill of Rights in this country. Badly.
