Francis Boyle's "Palestine Palestinians and International Law"

Francis Boyle's "Palestine Palestinians and International Law" - by Stephen Lendman

Francis Boyle is a distinguished University of Illinois law professor, activist, and internationally recognized expert on international law and human rights. He also lectures widely, writes extensively, and authored many books, including the subject of this review: "Palestine Palestinians and International Law." In addition, he's represented, advised and/or testified pro bono in numerous cases involving anti-war protesters and activists, the death penalty, human rights, war crimes and genocide, nuclear policy and bio-warfare, Canada's Blackfoot Nation, the Nation of Hawaii, and the US Lakota Nation.

Boyle is currently a leading proponent of an effort to impeach George Bush, Dick Cheney and other administration figures for their crimes of war, against humanity and other grievous violations of domestic and international law. Earlier in 1987 he was the Palestinian Liberation Organization's (PLO) legal advisor in the drafting of its 1988 Declaration of Independence. Then from 1991 - 1993, he served in the same capacity for the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations in the run-up to the Oslo process.

Palestine Palestinians and International Law reviews his work during that period, prior 1980s and earlier events that led to it, and what followed in its aftermath. Like all Boyle's work, it's rich in international law and makes a powerful, easy to follow case for Palestinian self-determination. Relevant events and the law are reviewed:

-- from the 1922 League of Nations Mandate;

-- to the 1947 UN Partition Plan;

-- to the 1987 first Intifada;

-- to the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence;

-- to around 130 nations diplomatically recognizing the Palestinian state;

--to the UN granting Palestine all rights as a member state except to vote;

-- to Oslo's betrayal;

-- to the second Intifada and shortly thereafter over the book's timeline through 2002.

Standing in Solidarity with the Palestinian People

It's been true about Boyle for over 20 years for a man who's "not Arab....not Jewish....not Palestinian....(and) not Israeli." He's an international law expert and a powerful advocate for enforcing it. As a student nearly 40 years ago, he became convinced that:

-- "the world had inflicted a terrible injustice upon the Palestinian people in 1947 - 1948;

-- there would be no peace in the Middle East until this injustice was somehow rectified; and

-- the Palestinian people were certainly entitled to an independent nation state of their own."

He notes how prominent people like himself are treated - like "the proverbial skunk at (a) garden party" but cites the early influence of others - the University of Chicago's Professor Leonard Binder, his Harvard doctoral supervisor Professor Stanley Hoffman and others who've proudly supported Palestinian rights.

After Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982, Boyle tried to organize what little opposition there was among international law professors. Few had the courage to speak out the way Boyle always does. He also wrote an essay included in a later book: "Dissensus Over Strategic Consensus." It was a comprehensive critique of the Reagan administration's Middle East policy from an international law perspective. In other writings as well he covered Reagan's bogus "war against international terrorism" with special emphasis on the Middle East.

Little has changed to the present with all administrations since Reagan supporting Israel's "serial massacres upon the Palestinian people." Boyle recounts how two decades after the June 1967 war he and Ramsey Clark were invited to a scheduled UN 20th Anniversary Commemorative Session. They both spoke on the Palestinians' right to declare an independent state under international law and practice. It's the first step before creating a Palestinian government, and Boyle addressed it in a Memorandum of Law for the PLO to consider. He completed it just as the first Intifada erupted in December 1987, titled: "CREATE THE STATE OF PALESTINE."

It lay dormant until the PLO UN Mission discussed it in July 1988. Boyle was asked: "Why should the PLO create an independent Palestinian state?" His answer: If you don't, "you will forfeit the moral right to lead your People." On November 15, 1988, the Palestine National Council (PNC) adopted Boyle's Memorandum and "proclaimed the existence of the new independent state of Palestine." Immediately after the Reagan denied Yasser Arafat a visa to attend the UN General Assembly. Instead, he spoke at a Special Session in Geneva. It was called so he could address the world body as an official head of state. Further, this was "the real start of the Middle East Peace Process - by the Palestinian people themselves."

In addition, Boyle's prediction came true. Palestine was an "instantaneous success" and eventually achieved de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states. It also became a de facto, not de jure, UN member, but it's "only a matter of time."

Creating the State of Israel

The material below reviews Boyle's "CREATE THE STATE OF PALESTINE" Memorandum of Law. In March 1988, he presented it to the PLO, and it's now a public document. He believes that without Israeli and American acquiescence, the rest of the international community can play a positive role in creating and preserving a legal and political status quo conducive to a final peace settlement based on a two-state solution. He cites the 1946 precedent when South Africa illegally and unsuccessfully tried to annex South West Africa (SWA), now known as Namibia.

Just as the League of Nations awarded Britain the Mandate for SWA in 1920, it did as well for Palestine in 1922. In his 1918 Fourteen Points Address, Woodrow Wilson addressed the issue of world peace and the importance of granting newly liberated territories self-determination to preserve it. The Paris Peace Conference and Treaty of Versailles focused on Central and Eastern Europe. People in Africa, the Middle East and Far East "would have to wait."

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations established a mandate system - in three categories:

-- Class A: sufficiently developed states to be provisionally recognized as independent nations; Palestine was later included;

-- Class B: needing further development; included were Western and Central African states; and

-- Class C: included South West Africa to be "administered under the laws of the Mandatory as integral portions of its territory."

The League of Nations Council had jurisdiction over Mandatories while the actual Mandates were international treaties between the Council of the League and mandatory powers. This system remained in place until the end of WW II and creation of the UN. Article 77 (1)(a) of its Charter provided that League mandated territories be placed under UN trusteeship via an agreement between the mandatory power and General Assembly.

Such agreements for the SWA and Palestine Mandates were never concluded. South Africa refused the former, and Britain let the UN General Assembly take over and adopt its 1947 Partition Plan. It was never implemented because conflict intervened and became Israel's 1948 "War of Independence."

As for SWA, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 2145 in 1966. It declared the Mandate terminated and that South Africa had no legal right to administer the territory. It also decided SWA would become independent according to the wishes of its people. In 1968, General Assembly Resolution 2372 affirmed it by redesignating the new nation Namibia. In a June 1971 advisory opinion, the World Court held that South Africa's continued presence in the country was illegal and its occupation must end.

In 1973, the General Assembly recognized the South West African People's Organization (SWAPO) as the Namibian people's legitimate representative. Finally in September 1978, the Security Council adopted Resolution 435 establishing the implementing independence machinery for the country. Following UN supervised elections, Namibia should have been free and independent. However, the Reagan administration blocked it. It took a 20 year war of independence before it was achieved in 1990. Based on the Namibian precedent, Boyle proposed in the 1980s that "the Palestinian people proceed forthwith to create the state of Palestine."

He states certain characteristics must be in place for the world community to recognize it:

-- "a determinable territory;" it doesn't have to be fixed and determinate; its borders may be negotiated; the new state is comprised of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem; Palestinians have lived there for millennia; they're entitled to it as their nation state;

-- a fixed population;

-- a functioning government; in 1988, Yasser Arafat declared the PLO as Palestine's Provisional Government; and

-- the capacity to enter into relations with other states; about 130 nations recognize Palestine; others haven't because it lacks effective "control" of its territory; still others disagree and say Israel isn't in control; it's an occupier; on December 15, 1988, The General Assembly recognized Palestine's legitimacy and accorded it UN observer status;

Palestine can easily satisfy these criteria, and all UN Charter states (including the US and Israel) have provisionally recognized Palestinians an independent in accordance with UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4). Further, as the League's successor, the General Assembly has exclusive legal authority to designate the PLO as the Palestinian peoples' legitimate representative.

The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the PLO's legislative body and is empowerered to proclaim the existence of Palestine. According to the binding 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren are automatically citizens of the new state. In addition, diaspora Palestinians no longer would be stateless. Those living in Israel and Jordan would have dual nationalities, and those in the Occupied Territories would remain "protected persons" according to the Fourth Geneva Convention - until a final peace settlement is reached.

The Proclamation of Independence must then create the Government of Palestine (GOP). As a final step, it should direct the GOP to claim the right of Palestine and its people to UN membership. It requires approval by both the Security Council and General Assembly according to five conditions. Applicants must be:

-- a state;

-- peace loving;

-- accept the Charter's obligations;

-- be able to carry them out; and

-- be willing to do it.

The US has provisionally recognized Palestine as an independent nation. According to UN Charter Article 80(1), it's barred from reversing its position by vetoing a Security Council Resolution calling for Palestine's UN admission. Any veto would be illegal and subject to further Security Council action under the Charter's Chapter VI. Ultimately, the Security Council only recommends admissions. The General Assembly affirms them by a two-thirds majority.

It can go further as well by enacting a complete international legal regime for the new state and require all members refrain from recognizing Israel's illegal occupation. Boyle suggests even harsher measures - Charter Article 41 authorized sanctions against the Israeli government.

Then there's the right to vote as a member state. The UN Charter Article 80(1) and League Covenant Article 22(4) mandates the General Assembly to let Palestinians participate in UN activities as a member. Voting rights should follow.

The original Mandate also is relevant. Under UN Charter Article 80(1), several of its articles empower the General Assembly to recognize the Palestinian state and take all necessary measures to end Israel's illegal occupation. The Mandate contemplated the creation of the state and Palestinian government and the right of its people to live freely therein.

Boyle envisions a two-state solution with a "special status for Jerusalem." The process began on November 15, 1988 with the Palestinian Declaration of Independence in Arabic. The PLO's Executive Committee would then serve as its Provisional Government. It was a "remarkable opportunity for peace" because the PNC also accepted the UN's 1947 Partition Plan (Resolution 181) - for Jewish and Arab states and an international trusteeship for Jerusalem. Today it'll accept much less based on the 1967 boundaries of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as provisions of UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

The Declaration is Palestine's foundational document. It's "determinative, definitive, and irreversible." UN bureaucracy willfully sabotaged the original English translation so the PLO prepared its own. The US Declaration of Independence was its model. It's four pages long and published in Boyle's book.

The International Legal Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination and an Independent State of Their Own

Following the December 1987 first Intifada outbreak, its Unified Leadership asked the PLO to proclaim a new state of Palestine - "in recognition of the courage, suffering, and bravery of the Palestinian people living under Israeli occupation." It became inevitable after Jordan's King Hussein ended all forms of administrative and legal ties to the West Bank. Then on November 15, 1988, the PNC acted as explained above.

As far back as 1919, the League of Nations provisionally recognized Palestinian statehood in its League Covenant Article 22(4) and its 1922 Mandate for Palestine - awarded to Britain. After its 1988 proclamation, the PNC began working for a comprehensive peace settlement. Its Declaration of Independence accepted the General Assembly's 1947 Partition Plan so as to reach an historic accommodation for a good faith two-state solution.

It also declared:

-- its commitment to the UN Charter's purpose and principles; the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), policy, and principles of nonalignment;

-- its natural right to defend the Palestinian state and to reject "the threat or use of force, violence and intimidation against its territorial integrity and political independence or those of any other state;"

-- its willingness to accept UN supervision on an interim basis to terminate Israel's occupation;

-- its call for an International Peace Conference on the Middle East based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338;

-- its asking for Israel's withdrawal from occupied Palestinian lands - since 1967, including East Jerusalem;

-- its willingness to accept a voluntary confederation between Jordan and Palestine; and

-- its "rejection of terrorism in all forms, including state terrorism...;" that got the Reagan administration to begin dialogue on December 14, 1988; in June 1990, the Bush administration suspended it alleging that the PLO violated its pledge; from then until now, US administrations call self-defense "terrorism" even though it's an inherent (individual and state) right under "customary international and humanitarian law:"

-- Article 51 of the UN Charter;

-- the four 1949 Geneva Conventions; and

-- the 1907 Hague Regulations on Land Warfare.

The PNC accepts them. Israel doesn't and won't observe fundamental laws to which it's a signatory. Other nations are also culpable. Under common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, all countries are obliged to pressure Israel to comply. America is especially culpable as Israel's co-conspiratorial supplier of weapons, equipment, supplies, many billions in loans and grants, and various other benefits generously provided. Without them, Israel couldn't wage aggressive wars or be strong enough to intimidate the region. Today no country threatens Israel (or America) despite claims to the contrary.

On the same day the General Assembly recognized Palestine it called for a UN-sponsored Middle East Peace conference based on the following principles:

-- ending Israel's occupation of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem;

-- guaranteeing security for all regional states;

-- resolving the Palestinian refugee problem;

-- dismantling illegal Israeli settlements;

-- placing Palestine under interim UN supervision; and

-- requesting the Security Council to consider measures to convene an International Peace Conference on the Middle East.

The PLO was very receptive and expressed willingness to cooperate and negotiate in good faith. It agreed to be flexible, including over Jerusalem's final status. The 1947 Partition Plan called for an international trusteeship administered separately from Jewish and Arab territories.

Israel and Washington were obstructionist from the start. They're deterrents to regional peace, and without their cooperation they'll be none. This must end. The world community must no longer tolerate it. The fate of millions of Palestinians and Arab peoples are at stake.

The Future Peace of Jerusalem

As UN Ambassador in 1971, GHW Bush endorsed the position of his predecessor, Charles Yost, who considered East Jerusalem "occupied territory and hence subject to the provisions of international law governing the rights and obligations of an occupying power." The Fourth Geneva Convention requires it, and apparently it meant something back then.

Bush supported what later became Security Council Resolution 298 in September 1971.

-- it affirmed that "acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissable;"

-- it deplored "the failure of Israel to respect the previous resolutions by the UN (regarding) the status of the City of Jerusalem;"

-- it confirmed that "all legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel to change (Jerusalem's status) are totally invalid...; and

-- urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all previous measures and actions and take no further steps..."

Like other resolutions it opposes, Israel ignored this one. With US help, the Security Council never enforced it. So far, however, Washington maintains its embassy in Tel Aviv and not the Jewish capital. Yet the Israeli Lobby got Congress to pass the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 that states in section 3:

-- as a statement of US policy, "Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of the State of Israel;" and

-- the "US Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999."

The Constitution's Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 empowers presidents to perform diplomatic recognition functions. No president thus far moved on the Jerusalem Embassy Act. The Embassy remains in Tel Aviv. The battle for Jerusalem continues. Boyle proposed a solution:

-- withdraw the Israeli army from the city;

-- replace it with a UN peacekeeping force;

-- Israel and Palestine may both press their claims for the city or portions thereof; Palestine may claim it as its sovereign territory and capital; it could construct its parliament and capital district in East Jerusalem;

-- city residents would either be Israeli or Palestinian citizens or could hold dual nationalities; they'd be issued UN identity cards authorizing their right to live in the city; and

-- Jerusalem would be free, open and undivided; neither side would surrender its rights; the UN would retain control for an indefinite period, and historical precedents are many - Vatican City and the District of Columbia to cite two; if both sides agree, workable solutions are possible and decades of conflict can end - at least on this issue.

The Palestinian Alternative to Oslo

Before Oslo was finalized on August 20, 1993, Boyle prepared a confidential memorandum for the Palestinian Delegates to the Middle East Peace Negotiations - delivered on December 1, 1992, months ahead of the September 13, 1993 White House lawn signing ceremony. Boyle reproduced it in his book, titled: "The Interim Agreement and International Law." It's lengthy, covered 30 pages and for good reason. It included numerous potential legal traps Israeli and American negotiators would likely set. Unless prepared to counter them, Palestinians would be hopelessly ensnared in a web of deceit and betrayal. As things turned out, that's precisely what happened because Arafat and others in Tunis rejected Boyle's advice. The Memorandum is briefly reviewed below.

In late October 1992, Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi approached Boyle to consult on legal issues related to the so-called Interim Agreement (IA). His Memorandum of Law followed. Nearly everything he feared, in fact, happened. His advice is discussed below:

-- place no trust in Israeli and American assurances; they're worthless and won't be honored;

-- America is racist and deceptive; neither they nor Israelis will abide by their commitments; "they are not and could never be 'honest brokers' for peace;"

-- as part of a Palestinian strategic vision, it's vital to reject the (1978) Camp David approach - to these or any future negotiations;

-- don't count on a written "interconnection" between an IA and a Final Settlement for protection; based on how Camp David was negotiated, it's very doubtful they'll ever be a Final Settlement; Israelis and Americans will "stall, drag out, and indefinitely postpone and delay it" while they continue to occupy your territory, kill your people, destroy your homes, and steal your land;

-- the IA should be negotiated as though it's the Final one; the Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority (PISGA) must have independent legislative authority to build a Palestinian state;

-- UN Resolution 242 must be preserved - to establish a "just and lasting (Middle East) peace (and) withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;"

-- Resolution 242's deceptive language must be addressed; otherwise Israel will exploit it to its advantage; their negotiators thrive on ambiguity; at best, only partial withdrawal may be achieved, and they'll be no assurances it won't be reinstated on whatever pretexts Israel employs;

-- Resolution 242's actual text must be considered; its literal language doesn't protect the Palestinian people, and therein lies its trap; Israeli negotiators will exploit it;

-- to preserve 242's claims, demand two co-sponsors (the US and Russia) secure a new UN resolution expressly recognizing 242's validity; 338 as well; Israel will be legally bound under UN Charter Article 25; if the US balks, it will be an expression of bad faith by a dishonest broker;

-- Letters of Invitation and Assurances are no guarantee of protection once an IA is approved; Israel and America can work around them;

-- Palestinians must act independently without Jordan or other outside parties; they should deal solely with Israel; Letters of Invitation and Assurances assure this right;

-- once an IA is drafted, submitting it for PNC debate and approval comes next; Israel may do the same in the Knesset; if both sides approve, UN registration is next - as a treaty or international convention; technical matters must be handled properly; otherwise formal diplomatic recognition may be lost;

-- under any IA, Fourth Geneva Convention rights must be preserved; Israel will argue a state of belligerency no longer exists; it's one of many traps to avoid;

-- Fourth Geneva's Article 6, paragraph 6 clarifies the importance of protecting one's rights; otherwise too little will be accomplished and justifiable claims will be lost;

-- nothing should be done to jeopardize international consensus support for Fourth Geneva rights; Palestine already ratified the four Geneva Conventions; they affirm Palestinian rights under them;

-- handling jurisdiction, laws, and Israeli Military regulations is crucial; nothing should be signed that "regularizes" or "legalizes" them; Israel is a belligerent occupier; no action should be taken to affirm it; "otherwise, you will never get rid of them;"

-- how to do it? through customary and conventional laws of belligerent occupation; one publication covers them - the Department of the Army Field Manuel 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (July 1956); Geneva and Hague required it be produced; it can be used to end the occupation - a district-by-district withdrawal to Israeli military bases on Palestinian lands; they'll be "effectively" confined there; those lands will thus be "liberated;" any further incursion will be illegal;

-- consider the "awesome implications" of one FM 27-10 sentence: "If, however, the power of the (occupier) is effectively displaced for any length of time, its position towards the inhabitants is the same as before occupation;" it means international law will recognize pre-1967 Palestine and the right of its people to self-government;

-- ending Israeli control depends on "absolute guarantees" that Israeli forces will be confined to their bases and barred from reentering Palestinian lands;

-- if accomplished, Palestine will be liberated; its pre-1967 laws and institutions reestablished; and Palestinian self-government will be restored; the PISGA will be empowered; it's crucial it not be a puppet government under international law; that's precisely what Israelis want (and got under Oslo through today); they want the same arrangement the Nazis set up throughout occupied Europe; avoid it at all costs; "let the Israelis do their own dirty work;" gain agreement among the Palestinian people; avoid any chance for civil war; it's Israel's "final solution;"

-- resolution of a Final Settlement must be agreed on; success depends on it; Israel and America will fight it; don't give in; otherwise Israel will maintain control indefinitely;

-- the PISGA must have independent powers - over all pre-1967 laws, institutions, councils, administrative bodies, courts, everything;

-- Israelis and Americans will devise ways to deceive you; be sure PISGA's power comes from general elections and from independent legislative authority over Palestinian lands and the people;

-- PISGA must be empowered to enact laws; its legislature authority will be the progenitor of Palestinian sovereignty;

-- settlers may be given permanent resident alien status or the equivalent of a "green card" in America; Palestinian citizenship as well without renouncing other citizenship held;

-- no Israeli "settlements should be allowed;" henceforth; Israelis on Palestinian lands would be subject to its laws; however, they should be allowed to live anywhere and not be forced to move;

-- Israeli military bases on Palestinian lands won't come under local laws or courts as long as its forces remain confined; the IDF will maintain jurisdiction on them for both military and civilian personnel; under no circumstances should they have jurisdictional authority over liberated Palestinian lands and its people;

-- in theory, it's possible that the IDF may withdraw to some existing settlements and establish military bases there; however, allowing it risks losing sovereignty;

-- refuse to defer Jerusalem's status for a Final Settlement; it's a trap because the 1989 US-Israel Land-Lease and Purchase Agreement calls for the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem by July 1996; there must be an "iron-clad" guarantee this won't happen until a Final Settlement is negotiated, approved, ratified, implemented and accepted by both sides.

Boyle's document was profound, detailed and crucially important at the time. Had it been adopted, 15 years of pain and betrayal might have been avoided. We'll never know.

From the Oslo Accords to the Al Aqsa Intifada

In all negotiations, going back to pre-Oslo, Israel never bargained in good faith. Nor does it now. When he was Legal Advisor to the Palestinian Delegation to Middle East Peace Negotiations (from 1991 - 1993), Boyle was asked his opinion on the "closest historical analogue" to Israel's offer. "A bantustan" that followed from the disingenuous Camp David Accords, he replied. It offered autonomy for the Palestinian people, not Palestinian land. Even worse, Israel wanted the Palestinian interim self-goverment to function as its enforcer, an extension of the IDF to do its dirty work, and it got it.

Under Dr. Haidar Abdul Shaffi's chairmanship, the Palestinian Delegation rejected Israel's proposal and asked Boyle to draft an alternative. "Do whatever you want," he said. "But do not sell out our right to our State." Boyle assured him he wouldn't despite enormous PLO pressure to give in.

Boyle's alternative was reviewed in the preceding section. The Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations approved it. At first, so did the PLO leadership. In the end, however, Arafat accepted Oslo even though he was "fully informed and properly advised" against it. Dr. Abdul Shaffi boycotted the signing ceremony. He abhorred Oslo and wanted nothing to do with it.

Boyle is kinder to Arafat than this writer in past articles - that he sold out and chose Oslo as his get-out-of-Tunis free pass plus whatever benefits accrued to the leadership. They were substantial. Boyle believes Arafat took what he could get and hoped to "prove that the Palestinians were willing to live in peace and harmony with Israel" throughout a five-year test period. One can only guess if he felt that would lead to an independent Palestinian State within pre-1967 borders. However, given past Israeli - Palestinian relations, he was either foolish, disingenuous, or ill advised by those around him in Tunis even though Oslo promised final status negotiations on all unresolved issues. Fifteen years later, they're still unresolved and not even discussed.

Oslo I led to Oslo II in Taba, Egypt in September 1995, then countersigned in Washington four days later. It made things worse, not better, but that's how Israel negotiates. It called for further Israeli troop deployments and divided the West Bank into Areas A, B and C plus a fourth area for Greater Jerusalem. It gave Israel total control and furthered its settlement expansion.

The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum came next on September 4, 1999. It implemented Oslo II and other agreements since Oslo I, including a 1994 Protocol on Economic Relations; a Cairo Agreement on Gaza and the Jericho Area the same year; a (1994) Washington Declaration and Agreement on Preparatory Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities; and a 1995 Protocol on Further Transfer of Powers and Responsibilities.

"Permanent status" Camp David talks followed in July 2000. Clinton, Arafat and Ehud Barak attended. Once again, betrayal was certain, yet the major media called Barak's offer "generous" and "unprecendented," and that Arafat spurned peace for conflict. Barak insisted he sign a "final agreement," declare an "end of conflict," and give up any legal basis for additional land. There was no formal offer in writing, and no documents or maps were presented.

Barak again offered a bantustan; the West Bank would be divided into four isolated cantons; placed under Palestinian administration; and surrounded with expanding settlements and other Israeli-controlled land. The deal was duplicitous. It dashed any hope for peace. Arafat had to reject it. Nonetheless, he was unfairly blamed and paid dearly for it.

His trouble began on September 28, 2000. Before becoming prime minister, Ariel Sharon was the main instigator. Accompanied by over 1000 Israeli troops and police, he staged a provocative visit to Islam's third holiest site - the Haram al-Sharif sacred shrine and Al-Aqsa Mosque. It ignited uncontainable violence and second Intifada the following day.

On October 7, The Security Council responded (14 - 0 with the US abstaining) with Resolution 1322. Its paragraph 1 stated that the SC "Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram al-Sharif (and) subsequent violence." It was substantial and Israeli-provoked. Its paragraph 3 "Calls upon Israel, the occupying power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention." Israel ignored the resolution and continued to commit extreme acts of violence against Palestinian civilians.

Throughout the five year Intifada, the toll was horrific. Many thousands of Palestinians were killed, injured, maimed, disabled, extra-judicially assassinated and imprisoned. In addition, many homes were destroyed, over two million dunums of land were confiscated, an illegal Separation Wall was built, and over a million trees were uprooted. Under international law, these are crimes of war and against humanity. They continue daily to the present. Washington is equally culpable as Israel's main supporter - in billions of annual grants and loans, the latest in modern weapons and technology, and more. As long as the partnership continues, chances for a viable and lasting Middle East peace are impossible. It appears both countries want it that way.

Preserving the Rule of Law in the War Against International Terrorism

The US Code defines "international terrorism," and many writers and scholars do as well. They boil down to wholesale or retail, the former by far the more important. Retail is by individuals or groups and generally minor in nature. States, in contrast, are wholesale perpetrators. According to Boyle: "the overwhelming majority of "terrorist" acts - whether in number or in terms of sheer human and material destructiveness - have always been committed by strong states against weak (ones), as well as by all governments against their people." America and Israel have the "dubious distinction" of being the world's leading "terrorist" states. Events post-9/11 underscore it.

The Geneva Declaration of Terrorism (for which Boyle served as Rapporteur) states that "Terrorism originates from the statist system of structural violence and domination that denies the right of self-determination to peoples...." It manifests itself in:

-- police state practices;

-- introducing or transporting nuclear weapons through the territory or territorial waters of other states or international waters;

-- conducting military exercises or war games near another state to threaten it;

-- an armed attack that threatens civilians in another state;

-- creating or supporting armed mercenaries to subvert the sovereignty of another state;

-- plots, assassinations or attempted ones against officials of other states or national liberation movements;

--covert intelligence operations to destabilize another state;

-- state disinformation campaigns;

-- arms sales in support of regional wars;

-- subverting civil liberties, constitutional protections and the rule of law on the pretext of countering terrorism; and

-- developing, testing and deploying nuclear and space-weapons capable of inflicting genocide and ecocide.

America is culpable on all counts. Israel as well except perhaps for not introducing or transporting nuclear weapons as above described.

After taking office in January 1981, the Reagan administration declared war on "international terrorism" as the keystone of its foreign policy and more. It supported repressive regimes and redefined terrorism to justify its actions. It also drastically changed US Middle East policy with respect to Israel.

Prior to Reagan, Washington generally sought stability through peaceful settlements of international disputes. Even during the Vietnam years, that approach was never entirely abandoned. Israel, in contrast, opts for retaliation and reprisal even though international law prohibits them. On matters of self-defense, the Reagan administration was much like Israel. Succeeding ones as well, but none more flagrantly than GW Bush.

Like Israel, it practices military retaliation and reprisal, "preemptive, preventive" and "pro-active" attacks, kidnapping suspected terrorists, hijacking aircraft in international airspace, destabilizing governments, fomenting military coups, assassinations, and indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas. It made Americans vulnerable to what the CIA called "blowback" in 1954 - the unintended consequences of our hostile acts like those enumerated above.

In contrast, the UN Charter explains under what conditions violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use. And Article 51 allows the "right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member....until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security." In other words, justifiable self-defense is permissible. Charter Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or authorized by the Security Council.

Three General Assembly resolutions (Boyle calls "seminal") concur and absolutely prohibit "non-consensual military intervention:"

-- the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty;

-- the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and

-- the 1974 Definition of Aggression.

Despite clear principles of international law, most terrorism acts are by strong states against weak ones. What can be done? Boyle cites several institutions and procedures to prevent, regulate and reduce international threats and use of force:

-- the UN Security Council;

-- "enforcement action" by appropriate regional organizations acting with authorization of the Security Council under Article 53 and Chapter VIII of the Charter;

-- peacekeeping operations and monitoring forces under Chapter VI of the Charter;

-- General Assembly authorized peacekeeping operations;

-- peacekeeping operations and monitoring forces from relevant regional organizations;

-- the "good offices" of the UN Secretariat;

-- the International Court of Justice;

-- the Permanent Court of Arbitration; and

-- numerous other institutions and bodies as well.

Reagan and GW Bush spurned peace to pursue "radical, extreme and excessive policies" with no heed to the rules and spirit of international laws and norms. The Clinton administration was also culpable in numerous ways. Most flagrantly by the repressive sanctions that killed over 1.5 millions Iraqis (including one million children) during the 12 years they were operative, mostly during his tenure.

Today "apocalyptic military aggression" is possible under George Bush's first strike nuclear attack policy. America is the greatest threat to world peace and the "sole 'rogue elephant' of international law and politics. (For humanity's sake, this administration) must be restrained (along with its Israeli partner). Time is of the essence" even with its scant six months left in office.

What Is To Be Done?

Israel is a serial aggressor, a rogue state, operating outside the law. Palestinians and others pay dearly. The world community must no longer tolerate it. Boyle suggests "new directions."

(1) Suspend Israel from all UN organs and bodies, including the General Assembly; its legal basis is simple; its UN admission basis was conditional on its accepting General Assembly Resolution 181 - the 1947 Partition Plan; Israel repudiated 181 and 194 as well - granting Palestinian refugees the right of return among other provisions; Israel chooses violence and spurns peace; the UN exists to maintain and enforce it; warrior states have no place in it; the General Assembly has UN Charter powers under Chapter IV; it must use them to expel Israel and send a message to other rogue states as well, one in particular.

(2) Peace depends on strict observance of international law; the General Assembly must demand it and require Resolutions 181 and 194 to be the basis for further Israeli - Palestinian negotiations; also other appropriate Security Council resolutions, the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, the 1907 Hague Regulations, and other relevant international law.

(3) America functions as a dishonest broker; it has no place in Middle East negotiations; it can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict if it wishes; it never has and never will.

(4) The General Assembly should adopt "comprehensive economic, diplomatic, and travel sanctions" against Israel according to the terms of the 1950 Uniting for Peace Resolution.

(5) The General Assembly should establish an International Criminal Tribunal for Palestine (ICTP) to prosecute Israeli war criminals; it can be done by majority vote under Charter Article 22; Boyle doubts the ICC will do it and notes that the Bush administration has done everything possible to sabotage it; its authorizing Rome Statute established the Court in July 1998; it became operative in July 2002; as of June 2008, 106 states are members; America is not; Israel first rejected the Rome Statute, then signed it, but in 2002 informed the UN it would not ratify the treaty using similar evasive language as the US.

(6) The Palestinian government must sue Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) - for acts of genocide in violation of the 1948 Genocide Convention; after six decades of crimes of war and against humanity, Palestine's claims are valid; Israel has willfully tried to destroy the Palestinian people and deny them any hope for a viable sovereign state; for aiding and abetting Israel, America is equally culpable; in Boyle's judgment, taking action would send a powerful message and be "a severe defeat for Israel in the court of world public opinion;" for America also.

(7) World governments and people of conscience should organize a comprehensive economic divestment and disinvestment campaign against Israel; it can be modeled after the successful anti-apartheid one; the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid is the standard; it applies to Israel; it defines apartheid as a "crime against humanity" and guilty parties international criminals; a grassroots campaign is already underway but it needs strengthening and official worldwide government support.

Since the inception of the Israeli Divestment/Disinvestment Campaign, Boyle has advised students on tactics. He recommends they replicate efforts their predecessors used against apartheid South Africa. He also explains how pro-Israeli administrators will treat them - with "punitive, repressive, vindictive, and retaliatory tactics....including criminal prosecutions and student disciplinary" actions. The risks are considerable, legal rights notwithstanding. Against "Israel's genocidal apartheid regime," academic freedom, tenure, rights and due process won't apply. Justice won't come easily, but it's up to people of conscience to fight for it. How much longer can they wait?

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9671

The Bush Administration's Secret Biowarfare Agenda

The Bush Administration's Secret Biowarfare Agenda - by Stephen Lendman

When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it's:

-- spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles;

-- renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons;

-- abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs;

-- refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles - already dangerously too high;

-- spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA;

-- advocates preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of "anticipatory self-defense" and remaking the world to be like America;

-- rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons; in November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research - a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree;

-- GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits "the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons....;" on May 22, 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention's implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void; "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes - the genetic constitution of individual organisms.

A Brief Modern History of Biowarfare

-- the Hague Convention of 1907 bans chemical weapons;

-- WW I use of poison gas causes 100,000 deaths and 900,000 injuries;

-- Britain uses poison gas against Iraqis in the 1920s; as Secretary of State for War in 1919, Winston Churchill advocates it in a secret memo stating: "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes;"

-- the 1928 Geneva Protocol prohibits gas and bacteriological warfare;

-- in 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads infects human subjects with cancer cells - under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations; Rhoads later conducts radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients;

-- in 1932, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins on 200 black men; they're not told of their illness, are denied treatment, and are used as human guinea pigs to follow their disease symptoms and progression; they all subsequently die;

-- in 1935, the Pellagra Incident occurs; after millions die over two decades, the US Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease;

-- In 1935 - 1936, Italy uses mustard gas in conquering Ethiopia;

-- In its 1936 invasion, Japan uses chemical weapons against China; in the same year, a German chemical lab produces the first nerve agent, Tabun;

-- in 1940, 400 Chicago prisoners are infected with malaria to study the effects of new and experimental drugs;

-- the US has had an active biological warfare program since at least the 1940s; in 1941, it implements a secret program to develop offensive and allegedly defensive bioweapons using controversial testing methods; most research and development is at Fort Detrick, MD; beginning in 2008, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs will also conduct it; production and testing are at Pine Bluff, AR and Dugway Proving Ground, UT;

-- from 1942 - 1945, (US) Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on about 4000 servicemen;

-- in 1943, the US begins biological weapons research at Fort Detrick, MD;

-- in 1944, the US Navy uses human subjects (locked in chambers) to test gas masks and clothing;

-- during WW II, Germany uses lethal Zyklon-B gas in concentration camp exterminations; the Japanese (in Unit 731) conduct biowarfare experiments on civilians;

-- in 1945, German offenders get immunity under Project Paperclip; Japanese ones as well - in exchange for their data and (for Germans at least) to work on top secret government projects in the US;

-- in 1945, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) implements "Program F;" it's the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoride - a key chemical component in atomic bomb production; it's one of the most toxic chemicals known and causes marked adverse central nervous system effects; in the interest of national security and not undermining full-scale nuclear weapons production, the information is suppressed; fluoride is found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods; compounds of the substance are also commonly used for cavity-prevention, but few people understand its toxicity;

-- in 1946, VA hospital patients become guinea pigs for medical experiments;

-- in 1947, the US has germ warfare weapons; Truman withdraws the 1928 Geneva Protocol from Senate consideration; it's not ratified until 1974 and is now null and void under George Bush;

-- in 1947, the AEC's Colonel EE Kirkpatrick issues secret document #07075001; it states that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects;

-- in July 1947, the CIA is established; it begins LSD experiments on civilian and military subjects with and without their knowledge - to learn its use as an intelligence weapon;

-- in 1949, the US Army releases biological agents in US cities to learn the effects of a real germ warfare attack; tests continue secretly through at least the 1960s in San Francisco, New York, Washington, DC, Panama City and Key West, Florida, Minnesota, other midwest locations, along the Pennsylvania turnpike and elsewhere; more on outdoor testing below;

-- after the (official) 1950 Korean War outbreak, North Korea and China accuse the US of waging germ warfare; an outbreak of disease the same year in San Francisco apparently is from Army bacteria released in the city; residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms;

-- in 1950, the DOD begins open-air nuclear weapons detonations in desert areas, then monitors downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates;

-- in 1951, African-Americans are exposed to potentially fatal stimulants as part of a race-specific fungal weapons test in Virginia;

-- in 1953, the US military releases clouds of zinc cadium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, Canada, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, VA - to determine how efficiently chemical agents can be dispersed;

-- in 1953, joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in New York and San Francisco - exposing tens of thousands of people to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii;

-- in 1953, the CIA initiates Project MKULTRA - an 11 year research program to produce and test drugs and biological agents that can be used for mind control and behavior modification; unwitting human subjects are used;

-- in 1955, the CIA releases bacteria from the Army's Tampa, FL biological warfare arsenal - to test its ability to infect human populations;

-- from 1955 - 1958, the Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research (on over 1000 subjects) - to study its effect as an incapacitating agent;

-- in 1956, the US military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, GA and Avon Park, FL - to test the health effects on victims;

-- in 1956, Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, specifically states bio-chemical warfare isn't banned;

-- in 1960, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence authorizes LSD field tested in Europe and the Far East;

-- in 1961, the Kennedy administration increases chemical spending from $75 - $330 million; it authorizes Project 112 - a secret program (from 1962 - 1973) to test the effects of biological and chemical weapons on thousands of unwitting US servicemen; Project SHAD was a related project; subjects were exposed to VX, tabun, sarin and soman nerve gases plus other toxic agents;

-- in 1962, chemical weapons are loaded on planes for possible use during the Cuban missile crisis;

-- in 1966, the New York subway system is used for a germ warfare experiment;

-- in 1968, the Pentagon considers using some of its chemical weapons (including nerve gas) against civil rights and anti-war protesters;

-- in 1969, an apparent nerve agent kills thousands of sheep in Utah; Nixon issues two National Security Memoranda in 1969 and 1970; the first (in November 1969) ends production and offensive use of lethal and other type biological and chemical weapons; it confines "bacteriological/biological programs....to research for defensive purposes" and has other loopholes as well; the second (in February 1970) orders existing stockpiles destroyed, confines "toxins....research and development (to) defensive purposes only," and declares only small quantities will be maintained to develop vaccines, drugs and diagnostics - a huge exploitable loophole;

-- in 1969, the General Assembly bans herbicide plant killers and tear gases in warfare; the US is one of three opposing votes; despite being banned, open-air testing intermittently continues to the present, and the Pentagon apparently authorized it in its most recent annual report; it calls for developmental and operational "field testing of (CBW) full systems," not just simulations, and followed it up in a recent March 2008 test; in Crystal City, VA, it released perflourocarbon tracers and sulfur hexaflouride assuring residents it's safe; it's not and may harm persons with asthma, emphysema and other respiratory ailments;

-- in 1969, DOD's Dr. Robert MacMahan requests $10 million to develop a synthetic biological agent for which no natural immunity exists;

-- from the 1960s through at least the 1980s, the US assaults Cuba with biological agent attacks;

-- in 1970, US Southeast Asian forces conduct Operation Tailwind using sarin nerve gas in Laos; many die, including civilians; Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Joint Chiefs Chairman, confirmes the raid on CNN in 1998; under Pentagon pressure, CNN retracts the report and fires award-winning journalist Peter Arnett and co-producers April Oliver and Jack Smith because they refuse to disavow their report;

-- in 1971, US forces end direct use of Agent Orange in Southeast Asia; also in 1971 with CIA help, an anti-Castro paramilitary group introduces African swine fever into Cuba; it infects a half a million pigs and results in their destruction; a few months later a similar attack fails against Cuban poultry; in 1981, a covert US operation unleashes a type 2 dengue fever outbreak - the first in the Caribbean since the turn of the century involving hemorrhagic shock on a massive scale; over 300,000 cases are reported, including 158 fatalities;

-- in 1975, the Senate Church Committee confirms from a CIA memorandum that US "defensive" bioweapons are stockpiled at Fort Detrick, MD - including anthrax, encephalitis, tuberculosis, shellfish toxin, and food poisons;

-- in 1980, Congress approves a nerve gas facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas;

-- during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the US supplies Iraq with toxic biological and chemical agents; Ronald Reagan signs a secret order to do "whatever (is) necessary and 'legal' " to prevent Iraq from losing the war;" a 1994 congressional inquiry later finds that dozens of biological agents were shipped, including various strains of anthrax and precursors of nerve gas (like sarin), gangrene, and West Nile virus;

-- in 1984, Reagan orders M55 rockets retooled to contain high-yield explosives and VX gas; his administration begins researching and developing biological agents allegedly for "defensive purposes;"

-- in 1985 and 1986, the US resumes open-air biological agents testing; it likely never stopped;

-- in 1987, Congress votes to resume chemical weapons production;

-- in 1989, 149 nations at the Paris Chemical Weapons Conference condemn these weapons; after signing the treaty, it's revealed that the US plans to produce poison gas; at the UN, GHW Bush reaffirms the US commitment to eliminate chemical weapons in 10 years; the US implements the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 - "to implement....the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction....;"

-- in 1990, GHW Bush signs the 1989 act making it illegal for the US to develop, possess or use biological weapons; Bush also signs Executive Order 12735 stating: the spread of chemical and biological weapons constitutes an "unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;"

-- following the Gulf War, reports surface about US forces' health problems - later called Gulf War Syndrome; the likely cause - widespread use of depleted uranium, other toxic substances, and the illegal use (on nearly 700,000 theater forces) of experimental vaccines in violation of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation; over 12,000 have since died and over 30% are now ill from non-combat-related factors; they've since filed claims with the VA for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits;

-- in 1997, Cuba accuses the US of spraying crops with biological agents;

-- in 1997, the US ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) banning the production, stockpile and use of these substances;

-- in 2001, the Bush administration rejects the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) citing 38 problems with it, some called serious; claiming a need to counter chemical and biological weapons threats, it's spending multi-billions illegally to develop, test and stockpile "first-strike" chemical and biological weapons that endanger homeland security and threaten good relations with other countries;

-- all along, a BWC loophole allows appropriate types and amounts of biological agents to be used for "prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes" - construed to be defensive; it also permits "research," not "development;" the CIA took full advantage to conduct programs for offense, not defense or to further peace; further, the BWC includes nothing about genetic engineering because it didn't exist at the time.

The US Secret Bioweapons Program

In November 2001, Michel Chossudovsky used this title for his Global Research.ca article. It was when "an impressive military arsenal of aircraft carriers and gun-boats" was building up in the Persian Gulf in preparation for "a major bombing operation....against Iraq" at a future designated time.

Back home, the administration used the 2001 anthrax attacks as "justification for extending the 'campaign against international terrorism' to Iraq....Washington singled out Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya of violating the international treaty banning weapons of germ warfare."

At the same time, ample evidence "confirms that the US has built an extensive arsenal of biological weapons (in blatant violation) of international laws and covenants." It was enlarged in the 1980s and 1990s but significantly expanded under George Bush on the pretext of being strictly "defensive" and to "curb the use of germ warfare by 'rogue states.' "

On October 29, 2002, the London Guardian reported that "Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned that the US is (illegally) developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare" - ironically at the same time it accused Iraq of these same type violations.

University of Bradford international security professor Malcolm Dando and University of California microbiology lecturer Mark Wheelis accused the Bush administration of "encouraging a breakdown in arms control" treaties by secretly conducting these programs. Dando said they include:

-- developing a cluster bomb to disperse bioweapons;

-- building a bioweapons plant from commercially available materials to prove "terrorists" can do it;

-- genetically engineering a more potent anthrax strain;

-- producing dried and weaponized anthrax spores in quantities far larger than for research;

-- researching and producing hallucinogenic weapons such as BZ gas; and

-- developing "non-lethal" weapons similar to the gas Russia used to end the 2002 Moscow theater siege that killed around 170 people and injured hundreds.

In February 2008, the Sunshine Project suspended operations, but its website is still accessible. It was an NGO dedicated to banning and "avert(ing) the dangers of" bioweapons. In 2001, it accused the Bush administration of advancing "a plan to undermine international controls on biological weapons."

On May 8, 2002, it issued a press release titled "US Armed Forces Push for Offensive Biological Weapons Development - genetically engineered microbes that attack items such as fuel, plastics and asphalt" in violation of international law. The proposals date from 1997 and involve the (Washington, DC) Naval Research Laboratory and the (Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas) Armstrong Laboratory. They come at a time when the US rejected "legally-binding" UN inspections of "suspected" facilities producing weapons "explicitly for offense."

Additional documents have been suppressed and those known "are probably only the tip of the iceberg....The National Academies are also concealing related documents. After the Sunshine Project requested copies....on March 12, 2002, (they) placed a 'security hold' on the public file" without explanation. "The research proposed by the Air Force and Navy raises serious legal questions. Under the (1989) US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, development of biological weapons, including those that attack materials, is subject to federal criminal and civil penalties." It also prohibits development, acquisition and stockpiling of agents intended as bioweapons.

On May 21, 2004, AP reported that arms control advocates warned the Bush administration that "proposed research for a new (Fort Detrick) Homeland Security center may violate an international ban on biological weapons and encourage other countries to follow." Experts said proposals for the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) flout bioweapons prohibitions by crossing the line between "defensive" research and banned weapons development.

On July 31, 2007 the London Guardian reported that the US is "Building (a) Treaty-Breaching Germ War Defence Centre" near Washington, DC" - NBACC. It's to be completed in 2008 and will be a "vast germ warfare laboratory intended to help protect the US against an attack with biological weapons, but critics say the laboratory's work will violate international law and its extreme secrecy will exacerbate a biological arms race (by) accelerat(ing) work on similar facilities around the world."

It will house "heavily guarded and hermetically sealed chambers....to produce and stockpile the world's most lethal bacteria and viruses" - forbidden by the 1972 BWC and 1989 US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The Fort Detrick facility will be used for the new 160,000 square foot lab, and it's authorization coincided with the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, and along with 9/11, unleashed everything that followed.

DHS calls Fort Detrick the home of "The National Interagency Biodefense Campus." Besides NBACC, other agencies there include:

-- the Health and Human Services' (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID);

-- the Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Unit (FDWSRU); and

-- the Department of Defense's US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID).

DHS says USAMRIID "conduct(s) basic and applied research on biological threats (to provide) cutting-edge medical research for the warfighter against biological threats." International law and bioweapons expert, Francis Boyle, disagrees. He says the "program constitutes clear violations of the international (1972 BWC) arms control treaty....ratified by the United States in 1975." He also cites BWC's preamble that states in part:

"....Parties to this Convention (are) Determined to act with a view to achieving effective progress towards general and complete disarmament, including the prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction, and convinced that the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons and their elimination, through effective measures, will facilitate the achievement of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control...." The BWC goes on to say that use of these weapons are so "repugnant to the conscience of mankind....that no effort should be spared to minimize this risk."

In Boyle's view, Fort Detrick's NBACC and USAMRIID heighten risks because their work involves: "acquiring, growing, modifying, storing, packaging and dispersing classical, emerging and genetically engineered pathogens." This work is an "unmistakable hallmark of an offensive weapons program" in violation of the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act that he authored. Even worse according to Edward Hammond, former director of the Sunshine Project: Recreating the deadly 1918 "Spanish flu" germ that killed an estimated 40 million worldwide (or other dangerous pathogens) increases "the possibility of (a) man-made disaster, either accidental or deliberate....for the entire world." If a single viral particle or cell escapes or is unleashed, an enormous outbreak may result with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The Fort Detrick plan derives from a Bush Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-10) written April 28, 2004. It states: "Among our many initiatives we are continuing to develop more forward-looking analyses, to include Red Teaming efforts, to understand new scientific trends that may be exploited by our adversaries to develop biological weapons and to help position intelligence collectors ahead of the problem." Boyle calls it "a smoking gun" aimed at the BWC.

"Red Teaming means that we actually have people out there on a Red Team plotting, planning, scheming and conspiring how to use biowarfare" and sooner or later will unleash it using living organisms for military purposes. They may be viral, bacterial, fungal, or other forms that can spread over a vast terrain by wind, water, insect, animal, or humans, according to Jeremy Rifkin, author of "The Biotech Century." Rifkin also asserts it's "impossible to distinguish between defensive and offensive research in the field," and given this administration's penchant for lying and secrecy, other nations will be justifiably suspicious.

The Bush administration proceeded anyway. Since 9/11, it spent or allocated around $50 billion on bioweapons development through 11 federal departments and agencies, including DOD and DHS. For FY 2009, it wants an additional $8.1 billion or $2.5 billion more than in FY2008. It calls its program preventive and defensive and cites Project BioShield as an example. It became law in July 2004 as a 10 year program to develop countermeasures to biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents. It was, in fact, a gift to companies like Gilead Sciences, the company Donald Rumsfeld led as chairman from 1997 to 2001 (and remains a major shareholder) until he left to become George Bush's Defense Secretary.

It would have also required every American to be vaccinated under the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005. It passed the Senate but not the House and would have, under a public emergency, allowed experimental or approved drugs to be used with insufficient knowledge of their safety - in violation of the Nuremburg Code on medical experimentation. It also would have immunized companies from liability and denied those harmed the right to sue.

Private Bioweapons Labs Cashing In

According to the Sunshine Project, "scores of US universities and biotechnology companies (since 2001) have benefitted handsomely from billions of dollars in 'biodefense' cash. Across the country, 'biodefense' labs are sprouting up like weeds. The unrelenting spigot of federal money (has) thousands of scientists and technicians" doing bioweapons research on some of the deadliest pathogens. But the problem is much greater than that:

-- projects underway are illegal;

-- immense secrecy enshrouds them; and

-- federal oversight is so lax that NIH safety guidelines aren't enforced and CDC poorly identifies problems it should address; as a result, "accidents are popping up everywhere" amidst a "pervasive cover-up culture" that hides them - in direct violation of federal rules and responsible practice that:

(1) require government agencies to protect the public from dangerous pathogens, and

(2) obligate research labs to disclose the nature of their work; failure to do so suggests alleged biodefense research is, in fact, cover for offensive biowarfare programs to complement Fort Detrick and other government site efforts.

The Sunshine Project believes about 400 private bioweapons labs now operate around the country with no public disclosure of their activities - and plenty of reasons to worry Francis Boyle that the Bush administration is up to mischief. It "sabotaged the Verification Protocol for the BWC (and) fully intend(s) to (engage in) research, development and testing of illegal and criminal offensive biowarfare programs." That prospect should frighten everyone.

Reporter Sherwood Ross for sure. He calls the administration's project "the costliest, most grandiose research scheme ever attempted (with) germ warfare capability....going forward under President Bush and in defiance of" US and international laws. Far worse, where once "germ warfare was an isolated happenstance, (today's efforts elevate it) to an instrument of (deadly and loathsome) policy.

Other Recent Developments

On February 21, 2008, the Sidney Morning Herald reported that the Bush administration rejected claims made by Indonesian Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, in her book titled: "It Is Time for the World to Change! God's Hand Behind Bird Flu Virus." She questions whether the US is using bird flu samples collected from developing nations to develop biological weapons, not new vaccines as claimed.

On July 20, 2008, the Jakarta Post reported: "If there were a "National Darling Award" contest....Supari would probably win it. (Her) supporters praise her as a great third world heroine who dares challenge the global structure of injustice and inequality perpetrated by powerful states (like the US) and networks of international institutions. Most of the praise is based on opinions" from her new book mentioned above.

She claims the US is transferring virus samples to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It's one of two US nuclear weapons labs that will operate new biological research facilities capable of researching and developing dangerous pathogens in violation of the BWC and US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. California-based Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is the other one. On January 25, it began operating a new Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) lab. In August, Los Alamos is scheduled to complete a federally mandated environmental study for a similar lab to begin operations shortly thereafter. Given the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy, Supari's accusations may be justified.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) establishes biosafety classifications. BLS-4 ones, like for Ebola, are the most dangerous, in part, because no known cures exist. Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore currently operate BLS-2 labs. They'll now have BLS-3 ones to study infectious agents able to cause serious or fatal illnesses if inhaled. But there's no way to know if both labs, Fort Detrick, others like the former Edgewood Arsenal (now the Edgewood Area at the Aberdeen Proving Ground), Oak Ridge Ridge National Laboratory, and still more we don't know about will secretly research any type pathogens, including the most dangerous ones, for any purpose - offense or defense.

What is known is that government labs will study pathogens posing serious public health and safety threats. Ones like anthrax, botulism, brucellosis, plague, Rickettsia, tularemia, Avian influenza, H5N1 (the recent strain reported and called the most dangerous), and valley fever plus whatever others are planned but kept secret.

Most important is this. These labs conduct weapons research, so they'll likely focus on bioweapons and not follow BWC "prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes" guidelines. For example, vaccines and potential biological weapons defenses may, in fact, be for offense. Distinguishing between the two is impossible so other nations and figures like Supari are suspicious.

They're not comforted by Lawrence Livermore's Lynda Seaver. On February 12, she told Arms Control Today that the US is "a signatory to the Biowarfare Convention and does not conduct bioweapons research." She also said most work there will be unclassified. On February 15, however, a CDC spokesperson suggested otherwise and informed Arms Control Today that Lawrence Livermore security restrictions are tight as they are at Los Alamos, Fort Detrick and other US weapons research facilities. They bar transparency and place strict limits on sharing select agents research to prevent other nations from knowing it exists or its purpose.

Further, later this year DHS will complete construction of the new Fort Detrick lab (NBACC), and a new $500 million animal research facility is planned. Both will have BLS-3 and 4 capabilities. They'll work on the most dangerous known pathogens and conduct controversial type threat assessment research - to develop and produce new biological weapons and develop defenses against them. Once again, differentiating between offense and defense is impossible, and given their penchant for deception and secrecy, no one takes Bush administration officials at their word nor should they.

Francis Boyle's "Biowarfare and Terrorism"

Boyle drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act and covers it in his 2006 book. It's now codified in Title 18 of the US Code, sections 175 - 178 and was the implementing legislation for the landmark 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

MIT molecular biology professor Jonathan King wrote this about the book in its forward:

It "outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup....Boyle reveals how the new (multi-) billion-dollar US Chemical and Biological Defense Program has been reoriented (endorsing "first strike" CBW use in war) to accord with the Neo-Conservative pre-emptive strike agenda - this time by (illegal) biological and chemical warfare." This "represent(s) a significant emerging danger to our population (and) threaten(s) international relations among nations." These programs "are always called defensive (but) with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely."

"Boyle (also) sheds new light on the motives for the (2001) anthrax attacks, the media black hole of silence (about them), and why the FBI may never apprehended the perpetrators of this seminal crime of the 21st century." They killed five people, injured 17 others, and temporarily shut down Congress, the Supreme Court, and other federal operations. Army scientist Dr. Steven Hatfill was unfairly implicated as a "person of interest" but was never charged. He sued the Justice Department and in June was awarded $2.8 million and a $150,000 annuity for violating his privacy, leaking false and inflammatory information, costing him his job and reputation, and blasting his name all over the media for days. It was the beginning of the frightening events that followed.

Boyle is currently a leading proponent of an effort to impeach George Bush, Dick Cheney and other high-level administration figures for their crimes of war, against humanity and other grievous violations of domestic and international law. In his "Biowarfare and Terrorism," he sounds an alarm about the administration's bioweapons program and what it means for humanity. He fears "a catastrophic biowarfare or bioterrorist incident or accident (is) a statistical certainty." It highlights enormous new risks plus other frightening ones like the possibility of nuclear war and catastrophic fallout from it. That, permanent wars, a potential Andromeda Strain, police state justice, and destroying the republic are but five among other threats since the advent of George Bush and his roguish team.

In "Biowarfare and Terrorism," Boyle addresses the bioweapons threat as an expert on the subject and gives readers an historical perspective. He asserts that the US government dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms development, production, and buildup that endangers all humanity with its potential. It's part of an extremist agenda for unchallengeable power and right to unleash "proactive" wars with the most aggressive weapons in its arsensal - nuclear, chemical, biological, others, space-based ones, and new ones in development.

Since WW II, America has actively developed, tested, and used terror weapons, including biological ones. Even after Nixon ended the nation's biowarfare programs, they never stopped. The CIA remained active through a loophole in the law, then the Reagan administration reactivated what Nixon slowed down. It acted much like the current regime with many of the same officials espousing similar extremist views - that America must exploit its technological superiority and not let laws, norms, or the greater good deter them.

The Bush administration raised the stakes and threatens all humanity. Boyle believes it used 9/11 and the anthrax attacks to stampede Congress and the public into aggressive wars and a menu of repressive laws. He also thinks the FBI knows who's behind the anthrax attacks: criminal US government elements planning a police state and another frightening enterprise - to fight and win a future biowar. A possible nuclear one as well. Boyle sounds the alarm about what may lie ahead and its potential consequences.

In October 2003, the National Academy of Sciences did as well. It warned about the "misuse of tools, technology, or knowledge base of (bioweapons) research for offensive military or terrorist purposes." That's the present risk. It makes everyone unwitting subjects of a recklessly endangering experiment.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9671

Jeff Halper's "An Israeli in Palestine" - Part II

Jeff Halper's An Israeli in Palestine (Part II) - by Stephen Lendman

According to Israeli-based author and journalist Jonathan Cook, Halper's book is "one of the most insightful analyses of the Occupation I've read. His voice cries out to be heard" on the region's longest and most intractable conflict. Part II continues the story.

Part III: The Structure of Oppression - Expanding Dispossession, The Occupation and the Matrix of Control

What 1948 left undone, 1967 completed - securing control over the entire "Holy Land" with the seizure of Gaza, the West Bank and all of Jerusalem. Nishul's fifth stage began and today includes expanding West Bank settlements and continued displacement inside Israel.

After the Six-Day War, all Palestinians came under military rule, and "a comprehensive Matrix of Control was implemented to perpetuate Israeli control forever." A problem arose, however, as international law prohibits an occupier from remaining permanently. Israel's Attorney General, Meir Shamgar, got around it in typical Israeli fashion. No "occupation" exists so Israel didn't violate Geneva or other international law. In other words, "occupation" only occurs when one sovereign state conquers another, so presto - Palestine wasn't sovereign and Israel did nothing illegal.

This has no legitimacy in international law, yet Israel gets away with it, and it's the reason it calls the West Bank (and formerly Gaza) "disputed," not "occupied." Furthermore, Shamgar's ruling affected Supreme Court decisions ever since and lets Israel expand its settlement project on annexed Palestinian land.

Immediately after the 1967 war, the Labor government began "integrating Judea, Samaria and Gaza to Israel." After Menachem Begin's 1977 election, he appointed Ariel Sharon to head a Ministerial Committee on Settlements and gave him the job to do it. He was charged with two tasks:

-- create irreversible "facts on the ground;"

-- prevent any chance of a sovereign Palestinian state; and begin implementing a formal "Matrix of Control" - an almost "invisible system...behind a facade of 'proper administration,' thus protecting Israel's" democratic image to this day.

It has four modes of control:

(1) Administrative, Bureaucracy, Planning and Law as Tools of Occupation and Control

They include rules, restrictions, procedures and sanctions under Military orders regulating everything in Occupied Palestine. For example, 72% of the West Bank was classified as "state lands" making seizure a simple administrative task. A further 400 square miles were designated as closed "military zones," and more restrictions covered zoned "nature reserves."

Military commanders also have authority to prohibit Palestinian construction for security reasons or to ensure "public order." Hundreds of other military orders forbid Palestinian building around army bases, installations, settlements, or within 200 meters on each side of main roads. This effectively closes off tens of thousands of acres from their rightful owners. At the same time, settlement expansion continues, and measures in place use every means possible to advance them.

Administrative restrictions among them like requiring Palestinians to get permits to plant crops on their own land, sell it, or have them for their own use. Opening banks and businesses are also curtailed through a process of licensing and inspections to harass the owners and harm the Palestinian economy.

Control encompasses everything. Resistance is called "terrorism," and legal gymnastics justify assassinations in the name of national security. Mass imprisonments as well. Uncharged victims held administratively. Extensive use of torture. All of it under the radar with a wink and a nod from the West.

(2) Economic Warfare

From 1967 to the Oslo process, "asymmetric containment" defined economic policy in the Territories. The idea was to keep cheap products and labor from competing advantageously with Israel and to prevent Palestinians from gaining economic strength. So constraints were placed on them:

-- preventing their opening a bank;

-- implementing tariffs and subsidies to advantage Israeli businesses;

-- various import controls disadvantaging Palestinians;

-- de-developing the Palestinian economy through lack of infrastructure development, housing and key services;

-- expropriating agricultural land;

-- preventing Palestinian produce from reaching Israeli markets; and

-- implementing internal closure policies to impede Palestinian business inside the Territories.

Israel eased off somewhat during the Oslo years, but the Paris Economic Protocol annex to Oslo II (in 1995) assured total Israeli control over the Palestinian economy. Today economic closure is total under strict Israeli measures:

-- control over industrial and commercial enterprise licensing;

-- issuance of import and export permits; and

-- a nightmarish bureaucracy controlling all facets of Palestinian commerce.

It devastated the economy. Most manufacturing is shut down, and 70% of Palestinians companies either closed or severely cut production and staff. Unemployment is staggering - 67% in Gaza and 48% in the West Bank at the time of Halper's writing. Today it's higher. Without jobs, Palestinians have no income source. Poverty levels are at 75% or higher. Most people live on $2 a day or less. External food and other aid is essential. Still 30% or more of Palestinian children under age five suffer from malnutrition. With Gaza now under siege, it's far higher there and dangerously so. It remains to be seen what effect the cease-fire will have.

Israel also controls fuel, water, electricity, phone and other services, and when available they're at higher prices than Israelis pay. The result is "profound structural imbalances in the Palestinian economy and (an) artificial dependence upon Israel." A "deliberate de-development" scheme as well is in place with international investment cut off and Gaza's airport and sea port destroyed during the second Intifada.

Conditions are so extreme that one UN official complained that he doesn't "know of another conflict area in the world" with these type problems. Nor is there one the entire world is so dismissive of or practically so.

(3) Creating "Facts on the Ground"

Israel began the process with the Six Day War still raging. Ever since, disconnected cantons were created to cement settlements and make control irreversible. Following the Gulf War, the Madrid peace conference promised hope and was the catalyst for Oslo. They established a vaguely-defined negotiating process, specified no outcome, and let Israel delay, refuse to make concessions, and continue colonizing the Territories.

In return, Palestinians got nothing for renouncing armed struggle, recognizing Israel's right to exist, and leaving major unresolved issues for indefinite later final status talks. They include an independent Palestinian state, the Right of Return, the future of Israeli settlements, borders, water rights, and status of Jerusalem as sovereign Palestinian territory and future home of its capital.

Oslo I led to Oslo II in September 1995. It called for further Israeli troop redeployments beyond Gaza and major West Bank population centers and later from all rural areas except around Israeli settlements and designated military zones. The process divided the West Bank into three parts - each with distinct borders, administrative and security controls - Areas A, B and C plus a fourth area for Greater Jerusalem:

-- Area A under Palestinian control for internal security, public order and civil affairs;

-- Area B under Palestinian civil control for 450 West Bank towns and villages with Israel having overriding authority to safeguard its settlers' security; and

-- Area C and its water resources under Israeli control; settlements as well on the West Bank's most valuable land.

The Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum followed and was agreed to by Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak in September 1999. It implemented Oslo II and other post-Oslo I agreements. Months later came "permanent status" talks in July 2000. Promises became betrayal, and Barak's "generous offer" was fake leaving Arafat no choice to reject it. But not without being blamed for spurning an "unprecedented" chance for peace. Barak insisted Arafat sign a "final agreement," declare an "end of conflict," and give up any legal basis for additional land in the Territories. There was no Israeli offer in writing, and no documents or maps were presented.

Barak's offer consisted of a May 2000 West Bank map dividing the area into four isolated cantons under Palestinian administration surrounded by expanding Israeli settlements and other Israeli-controlled land. They got no link to each other or to Jordan. They consisted of:

-- Jericho;

-- the southern canton to Abu Dis;

-- a northern one, including Nablus, Jenin and Tulkarm; and

-- a central one, including Ramallah. Gaza was left in limbo as a fifth canton and "resolved" when Israel "disengaged" in August and September 2005 but kept total control; the right to reenter any time for any reason; and, as it turned out, to impose a medieval siege.

Barak's deal was no deal, all take and no give, with no chance for reconciliation or resolution of the most intractable issues. Halper calls it "a subtle yet crucial tweaking of the Matrix." Rather than defend all Israeli settlements, Barak defined seven "blocs" to remain under Israeli control under any future agreement.

Overall, Israel maintains total control of the Territories and occupies most of the West Bank with expanding settlements, by-pass roads, Separation Wall, military areas and no-go zones. Palestinians are tightly confined in disconnected cantons. Checkpoints and other obstacles restrict free movement, and no possibility exists for a viable sovereign state as of now.

Halper gave a "brief tour" of Israel's settlement blocs. Below they're listed briefly:

-- the Jordan Valley as Israel's eastern "security border;" it separates Palestinians from Jordan;

-- the "Western Samaria" bloc centered around the city of Ariel; it virtually divides the West Bank;

-- the Modi'in bloc connects the Western Samaria Bloc to Jerusalem; it contains some of the West Bank's richest agricultural land;

-- the three settlement blocs of (1)Givat Ze'ev, (2) Ma'aleh Adumim and (3) Gush Etzion, Efrat-Beitar, Illit, comprise "Greater Jerusalem;" they contain 97 square miles and house 80,000 settlers; along with Israeli-controlled Jerusalem and its 240,000 settlers, it dominates the West Bank, destroys its territorial contiguity, and prevents any hope for a viable Palestinian state; and

-- the Hebron bloc in the southern West Bank.

They're all linked by 29 highways and by-pass for-Jews only roads. Finally, there's the Separation Wall. Construction began in June 2002. The World Court ruled it illegal. Israel continues building it. It's nearly complete, and when finished will be 721 kilometers in length or five times longer than the Berlin Wall and more imposing with its sensors, trenches, security roads, mine fields, checkpoints, terminals, watchtowers, surveillance cameras, electronic sensory devices and military patrols using killer dogs. It entraps 50,000 Palestinians, steals their land, and has nothing to do with purported security. It's a plain and simple land grab combined with enclosing Palestinians inside disconnected cantons.

(4) Military Controls and Military Strikes

Israel's Matrix conceals its "Iron Fist" that when unleashed is very visible and destructive. During both Intifadas, major operations were launched killing hundreds of Palestinians and wounding thousands more, mostly innocent civilians. Operations Defensive Shield (March-April 2002), Rainbow (May 2004), Summer and Autumn Rains (second half 2006) are just three among many. Israel's "Iron Wall" shows no mercy.

Concluding Dispossession: Oslo and Unilateral Separation

Oslo represented nishul's sixth stage, "a kind of occupation-by-consent," according to Halper. It's explained above with a few more comments to add. Israel's "security" is key to any peace process. So is getting Palestinian acquiescence to all Israeli demands and being willing to act as its enforcer. The process was flawed by design, collapsed under its own weight, led to the second Intifada, and awakened peace activists to be more proactive for their cause. It also inspired Halper to establish ICAHD, and he's been active in it since.

Oslo's failure got Israelis to "hunker down" and make "security" their foremost issue. It also explains their willingness to elect Ariel Sharon Prime Minister. Halper says "Everything he did had a clear focus and purpose: beating the Palestinians into submission, extending Israel's sovereignty to the Jordan River and preventing the establishment of a viable Palestinian state." He would complete the final nishul stage, and by luck he took power along with George Bush, his close friend and willing co-conspirator. They had a common agenda and 9/11 advanced it - in four decisive stages:

(1) Defeating the Palestinians Once and For All

It began with Sharon's controversial visit to the Haram/Temple Mount on September 28, 2000 before he was elected Prime Minister. It ignited the second Intifada the result of years of frustration over a "dead-end" peace process. It was also inspired by Hezbollah's forcing Israel's May 2000 South Lebanon withdrawal.

Anger and discontent built and finally erupted on September 29. Israel responded harshly. A cycle of resistance and retaliation followed, and the struggle persisted since despite its formal 2005 end. The first five days were especially bloody. Before a single Israeli soldier was targeted, the IDF unleashed over a million projectiles - bullets, shells, air-to-surface missiles, chemical weapons and more against a civilian population in clear violation of international law that classifies this as war crimes. Palestinian deaths numbered over 170. Another 7000 were wounded. It was just the beginning, and Sharon once in office unleashed it full force with Khan Yunis and its refugee camp one of his first targets.

With 60,000 residents, it's one of the most crowded places on earth. The IDF attacked it and obliterated an entire neighborhood. In April 2002, it invaded Jenin's refugee camp, home of 13,000 Palestinians in the northern West Bank. It cut it off from outside help. Jenin city as well. Hundreds of buildings were destroyed. People were buried under rubble. Power and water were cut off. Food and essentials kept out, including medical aid, and dozens of mostly civilian men, women and children were killed and many more injured and displaced.

Similar campaigns went on throughout the West Bank that took a terrible toll on the people and left all its cities "smoldering." Palestinian infrastructure was notably targeted - houses, roads and physical infrastructure. Institutional also, including government ministry data banks for Health, Education, and Higher Education. Affected were NGOs, research institutes, human rights organizations and everything a modern state needs to function.

It was the beginning of the end for Yasser Arafat. No longer a "reliable" ally, he was targeted for removal. His Ramallah headquarters was destroyed, save for a room or two where Sharon imprisoned him. Every Palestinian city, town and village was under siege as well and subjected to police state repression, curfews and midnight raids against helpless civilians. Thousands of acres of farmland and olive groves were leveled. "Security" is always the reason. Harassment explains it better - the beating of all resistance out of contained people with no outside support for help. David v. Goliath hardly defines it.

(2) Completing the Matrix of Control

The Separation Wall is the end process and is now nearly complete. Israel has all the choice land and settlements it needs, and in September 2004 unveiled a plan for Palestinian-only roads to assure they stay disconnected from Israeli ones.

(3) Getting American Approval for the Annexation of the Settlement Blocs

For this, the Road Map was announced in March 2003. George Bush was reluctant but agreed. If serious, it held promise, but that was too much to expect. From the start, it was a dead letter, and Israel's intransigence killed it although technically it's still alive. It promises a two-state solution, but not the one Israel envisions - disconnected, cantonized and no state at all for Palestinians who reject it out of hand. It can only work if imposed unilaterally and only for so long. For now, Bush is on board with Israel. Negotiations are at a dead end, and the year end Annapolis conference was a combination tragedy and travesty. It was the first time in memory the legitimate government of one side was excluded from discussions, and that alone doomed them.

(4) Implementation of the Cantonization Plan

In December 2003, Sharon launched some called "the maneuver of the century." It refers to his 2005 Gaza "disengagement" as a ploy to secure greater West Bank control and give up nothing in return. In March 2006, he suffered a stroke, became incapacitated, and Ehud Olmert took over to "nail down" Sharon's key objective - "a permanent solution, an end of the Occupation based on the notion of cantonization." It would have to be unilateral as Palestinians were offered nothing.

Olmert conceived his "Convergence Plan" to control all land Israel wants and maintain separation from Palestinians. It's the same idea as Begin's Palestinian "autonomy," Sharon's cantonization, unilateral separation, the Matrix of Control, and the Oslo process while it lasted. A Palestinian state would be offered between Israel's two eastern borders, a mere truncated territory with no potential and little sovereignty. It will be imposed unilaterally, but that contradicts the Road Map that requires negotiation. So Olmert switched his "convergence" to "realignment" - finessing a border one. Palestinians get their state but a "transitional" one with "provisional borders," according the Road Map's Phase II. The problem is no Phase III will follow to assure an "independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state."

If Israel manages this, it wins and Palestinians lose. It can claim the Occupation's end, a two-state solution in place, and the conflict for the victor ended. So far, Palestinians want none of it. Olmert is beset with corruption problems, and final resolution remains a long way off.

Part IV: Overcoming Oppression - Redeeming Israel

Here's where things now stand. "Israel/Palestine (is) at a crossroads." Israel's political leadership believes it's won. The settlement project is in place. It "ensures permanent control over the entire Land of Israel." Palestine is cantonized. The "facts on the ground" are established. America is on board. So are Europeans. The Arab world is indifferent. A mere political act will make Occupation permanent. Israel offers no concessions, Palestinians have no say, and as of now have no chance for a fair and equitable solution - or so Israel thinks. Is it so?

Halper's view is this, and many share it: Ultimately, Israel will fail in its attempt "to transform its Matrix of Control (and permanent Occupation) into a stable, peaceful state of affairs." Oppressed people everywhere "have one source of leverage: the power to say 'no.' " And Palestinians have said it for six decades. For six more if they have to. For as long as it takes to get the justice they deserve. For all their wishes? Maybe not, but enough to matter and be able to end the most intractable conflict anywhere. Be assured - it will happen, one way or other, at some future time.

Hamas is a powerful symbol - of the future - the power to say "no," or as Halper puts it: "To hell with"......Israel, its Matrix of Control, America, the international community, the dismissive Arab world, and corrupted Fatah. We won't submit; won't play your rigged game; won't let you crush us; won't let you deny us our rights; in the end you'll come to us, and we'll prevail. If six decades of struggle doesn't prove it, what then will. We'll give you six more, and more still. Had enough? Now we'll set the terms. Think it can't happen? Read on.

One day Israel and the world community will reach an inevitable conclusion. The price of Occupation is too great - regional instability, global also, continued war, maybe nuclear, and a potential cost far too great to risk. Push will come to shove when it's too great to chance.

Palestinians like Jews and people everywhere have national rights of self-determination provided they don't impinge on others with equal rights. Ethnocracies like Israel don't work. Nor do they in the Muslim or Christian worlds. And understand the distinction. France for the French and Mexico for Mexicans aren't the same as Israel for the Jews. France like most countries have Christians, Jews, Muslims, whatever - all entitled to equal rights under law. Israel only affords them only to Jews - an untenable system doomed to fail. When it's realized, push will have come to shove, and then some.

So where are we, and what's ahead? Halper doesn't have a solution, but he offers an approach based on "indispensable" elements:

(1) National expression for the two peoples -

Jews and Palestinians both claim self-determination rights in the same country. Logically, it calls for a two-state or bi-national one-state solution.

(2) Viability -

The two-state option requires real sovereignty for Palestinians to be viable - self rule, over borders, basic resources, and so forth.

(3) Refugees -

The Right of Return is essential or something close enough to matter. Most important - Palestinians have the right to choose. International law backs them. It doesn't give Israel a pass.

(4) A regional dimension -

Adopting a regional approach opens new options. Middle East countries have a stake in what affects them.

(5) Regional Security -

Israel's only chance for peace and stability is to achieve a just peace with the Palestinians and integrate fairly in the greater region. Playing hegemon won't do it. In the end, militarism always fails.

Enormous obstacles must be overcome to achieve any meaningful settlement: locked in attitudes, decades of failure, unresponsive governments, much the same for the UN, so where does that leave things - world public opinion, people of conscience, on a global scale, from the grassroots, creating a groundswell for change. Can it happen? Not easily, but Halper offers a "reframing."

(1) Conceptualizing the conflict: how to secure mutual national rights -

Reconciling mutually opposing rights is key to a meaningful just solution.

(2) Defining the problem: security v. occupation and a proactive expansion policy -

Palestinians have been conciliatory; willing to compromise; accept a two-state solution based on pre-1967 borders (22% of historic Palestine); Israel flatly refuses; diktats, not compromise is its strategy; "security" the mantra; the outcome - win-lose.

Only a rights-based win-win solution can work; one under international law; apartheid is untenable; human rights reframing advances the de-colonization argument; why elsewhere but not in Israel.

Sum it up and here are Halper's choices:

(1) a traditional two-state solution -

A viable Palestinian state in the Occupied Territories is unrealistic given Israeli settlements with 500,000 Jews in them.

(2) An "Israel plus-Palestinian minus" two-state solution: the Israeli option -

It's a non-starter for Palestinians - a semi-sovereign, hardly viable, disconnected, South African-style apartheid system.

(3) A single-state solution: multi-national and democratic -

The best choice, but is it workable? Transforming a Jewish state into a democratic one faces enormous obstacles. Maybe one day but not soon.

(4) A regional confederation -

It's more complex, "less elegant," but for Halper the only workable choice, and he compares it to the EU - balancing national autonomy with freedom to live and/or work anywhere in the union. It neutralizes Occupation, gets Palestinians out of their trap by allowing them wider economic, social, and geographic opportunities within the region. It's fair and win-win, and he suggests a "two-stage" process:

(a) A Palestinian State alongside Israel -

Essentially what now exists for starters with "stage two" to follow; a "way out of the trap" - an international community regional confederation guarantee within, for example, a decade. That assures viability.

(b) A regional confederation leading to a wider Middle East confederation -

The international community must take charge; set the terms; get everyone on board; and begin say with Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Later bring in Egypt, others and eventually all regional states - a full-blown Middle East Union, like the EU.

Settlements can stay in place; Israel needn't offer Palestinians citizenship; but nishul must stop, allow Palestinians out of their trap; and bring an end to conflict because its reason no longer exists. Details are important and must carefully be worked out, but on a fair and equitable basis to both sides and all regional states. It's no simple task, maybe one too great, but look at the possibilities:

-- ending the longest and most intractable conflict anywhere;

-- stopping it from getting worse; endangering the region; beyond it as well;

-- transforming Israel from an ethnocracy to a legitimate democratic state diplomatically recognized by its neighbors; and

-- allowing Jews and Muslims to live in peace; then both with everyone everywhere; imagine the possibilities; the alternative is hopelessness: Jews will also suffer; ethnocracy is self-destructive; the way out is justice; a little compromise for a lot of gain; win-win; Halper sees Israel going beyond peace to redemption, committed to human rights, and beginning the journey to get there.

What About Terrorism?

First off, distinguish between individual/group v. the far greater state kind. Then consider aggressors and victims, one act begetting another, an eventual vicious circle, and nations claiming the high ground when they're at fault - "worthy" victims of "unworthy" ones even when they act in self-defense.

The real issues is life. It's sacred, and taking it from non-combatants is terrorism. It's also "illegal, immoral and prohibited." Self-defense against combatants is another matter fully justified under international law as is the right to resist with arms. Israel says otherwise, blames its victims, and so far has avoided accountability. That no longer can stand, and Halper suggests a "better language" to hold all terrorist acts accountable.

It exists so let's use it - the language of human rights. It's codified in law, and it's high time it's applied universally. It's precise, inclusive and condemns all forms of terror - by individuals, groups and most importantly states. And judicial bodies exist to enforce it - the International Criminal Court (ICC) for example to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. The principle of "universal jurisdiction" also exists that requires other states to bring rights violators (including heads of state) to trial if their own nation won't do it.

Halper sees human rights and applying international law as key to genuine peace and conflict resolution. States, of course, are the obstacle. They won't police themselves, and in-place institutions have proved weak. Changing things requires people action - international civil society demanding justice; doing it proactively; marshaling enough voices to make them heard; refusing to take no for an answer. Think impossible? Think again.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Here's the problem. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict involves far more than two peoples. Far more than the region. It's global and resonates everywhere and affects everyone. For the Middle East alone, regional peace is impossible without a just settlement of the conflict. Absent that and anything is possible - all bad.

Globally, the entire world is affected. For Halper, it's brought him "full circle," a Jew, an Israeli in Palestine seeing his "own people coopted by Israel's security framing and disempowered." Disadvantaged as well considering the alternative. He's part of an effort to change things and suggests four strategic elements:

(1) A global, regional, local and personal vision

The last two decades have seen the emergence of a vibrant international civil society - thousands of peace and human rights organizations of all types together with activists, intellectuals and concerned people everywhere standing up against injustice and demanding resolution. So far, the other side outmuscles them, but who knows for how long. New tools are around like the Internet that connects people everywhere. Alternative media as well, including online choices attracting growing audiences fed up with the mainstream's mind-numbing array.

That combination against injustice has power. Omnipotent - no. Effective - why not, and in enough numbers it works. Social movements comprised of ordinary people have enormous political clout. They can win when they're of a mind to, but it's no simple task. It takes muscle-flexing, exercising "disruptive power," according to Frances Fox Piven, and look what it brought America - ending slavery, labor and civil rights and a liberating revolution from Britain. Why not one freeing Palestinians from Occupation. But it needs an effective program for action. Here's Halper's:

-- reframe the conflict; make it rights-based; include other choices also; mobilize civil society; get support within governments; UN officials; anyone from anywhere to stand up for justice.

ICAHD has "two meta-campaigns:

-- an "anti-apartheid" one involving resistance and ending the Occupation employing various tools and strategies; once an apartheid regime is in place, have planned responses to counteract it;

-- a "60 Years Later: Marking 1948" one highlighting displacement and dispossession;

-- both campaigns focus on other issues as well - home demolitions, the Separation Wall, the entire Matrix of Control, boycotts, disinvestment, sanctions, holding Israel accountable, and framing everything within a "Big Picture" meta-campaign strategy.

Redeeming Israel fits in as well. Making it an "exclusive patrimony" created a "violent nightmare....a self-defeating enterprise." The more Jews "try to Judaize Palestine, the more (they) destroy it" and themselves. The situation is untenable and begs for an alternative. Political Zionism is "exhausted." A prosperous and formidable Jewish state has failed - to achieve "accommodation, justice, peace and reconciliation" with Palestinians, the region, and international civil society.

A "New Cultural Zionism" is needed, disassociating itself from self-defeating politics and its corrupting violence. What's good for Jews is good for Arabs is good for everyone. Halper "can't argue with that." Can anyone?
His book is powerful, enlightening, and important to read and act on.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9609

Mukasey to Congress: Defy the Rule of Law

Mukasey to Congress: Defy the Rule of Law - by Stephen Lendman

Along with other past and present administration officials, Attorney General Michael Mukasey supports lawlessness and police state justice. Weeks after the Supreme Court's landmark (June 12) Boumediene ruling, he addressed the conservative, pro-war American Enterprise Institute (on July 21) and asked Congress to overrule the High Court - for the third time. His proposal:

-- subvert constitutional and international law;

-- authorize indefinite detentions of Guantanamo and other "war on terror" prisoners (including US citizens designated "enemy combatants"); and

-- deny them habeas rights, due process, and any hope for judicial fairness.

Since June 2004, the (conservative) High Court made three landmark rulings. Twice Congress intervened, and Mukasey wants a third time. In Rasul v. Bush (June 2004), the Court granted Guantanamo detainees habeas rights to challenge their detentions in civil court. Congress responded with the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) of 2005 subverting the ruling.

In June 2006, the Supreme Court reacted. In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, it held that federal courts retain jurisdiction over habeas cases and that Guantanamo Bay military commissions lack "the power to proceed because (their) structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions (of) 1949."

In October 2006, Congress responded a second time. It enacted the Military Commissions Act (MCA) - subverting the High Court ruling in more extreme form. In its menu of illegal provisions, it grants the administration extraordinary unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate, torture and prosecute alleged terrorist suspects, enemy combatants, or anyone claimed to support them. It lets the President designate anyone anywhere in the world (including US citizens) an "unlawful enemy combatant" and empowers him to arrest and detain them indefinitely in military prisons. The law states: "no (civil) court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider any claim or cause for action whatsoever....relating to the prosecution, trial or judgment of....military commission(s)....including challenges to (their) lawfulness...."

On June 12, 2008, the High Court again disagreed. In Boumediene v. Bush, it held that Guantanamo detainees retain habeas rights. MCA unconstitutionally subverts them, and the administration has no legal authority to deny them due process in civil courts or act as accuser, trial judge and executioner with no right of appeal or chance for judicial fairness.

On July 21, Mukasey responded, and immediately the ACLU reacted in a same day press release headlined: "Attorney General Wants New Declaration of War Allowing Indefinite Detention and Concealment of Torture." It called Mukasey's speech "an enormous executive branch power grab....authoriz(ing) indefinite detention(s) through a new declaration of armed conflict." He asked Congress to redefine habeas through legislation "that will hide the Bush administration's past wrongdoing - an action that would undermine the constitutional guarantee of due process and conceal systematic (lawless) torture and abuse of detainees."

Like his two predecessors, Mukasey mocks the rule of law and supports harsh police state justice. He wants Congress to "expand and extend the 'war on terror' forever" and let the president detain anyone indefinitely without charge or trial. ACLU's Washington Legislative Director, Caroline Fredrickson, called this "the last gasp of an administration desperate to rationalize what is a failed legal scheme" - that the Supreme Court thunderously rejected three times.

Mukasey proposes lawlessness and cover-up, "but there is no reason to think that Congress will assist him." It "won't fall for this latest (scheme) to (suppress) its wrongdoing." Besides, the House Judiciary Committee is now investigating whether high-level administration officials authorized torture and abuse. Mukasey wants to hide it and is asking Congress to "bury the evidence."

The ACLU is righteously outraged by this latest attempted power grab. It rejects Mukasey's lawlessness and states there is "no need to invent yet another set of legal rules to govern the detention and trial of prisoners held on national security grounds, and the rules that (Mukasey) is proposing are fundamentally inconsistent with" constitutional and international law.

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) Responds

After Mukasey's September 17, 2007 nomination for Attorney General, CCR issued the following November 1, 2007 statement:

"Michael Mukasey is not fit to be Attorney General because he supports torture, illegal spying on Americans, and limitless powers for the Executive Branch." As the "country's highest law enforcement official," he's obligated "to enforce the law" - not make excuses for the government when it's in violation. CCR stands "firmly against Mukasey's nomination....Our country cannot afford to make compromises to our laws, our morals, and our humanity any longer." The Senate must reject Attorney General candidates who'll "undermine American justice and shred the Constitution."

CCR expressed equal outrage on July 21. Its Executive Director, Vincent Warren, denounced Mukasey's proposal in the following excerpted statement:

"What Mukasey is doing is a shocking attempt to drag us into years of further legal challenges and delays. The Supreme Court has definitively spoken" in Boumediene v. Bush and its two prior rulings. "For six and a half years," the administration and Congress "have done their best to (deny due process) and prevent the courts from reviewing the legality of the detention of the men in Guantanamo. Congress should be a part of the solution this time by letting the courts do their job."

For the past six years, CCR litigated for Guantanamo detainee rights and continues to do it. It organized and coordinated over 500 pro bono lawyers for everyone held there illegally. Most recently, it represented plaintiffs in the landmark Boumediene v. Bush case - argued on December 5, 2007 and ruled on June 12, 2008.

The Wall Street Journal Reports and Editorializes

Its July 22 article states: "Mukasey Seeks Law on Detainees - Congress Is Urged to Limit Rights of Terror Suspects....in light of a rebuke by the Supreme Court." It quotes Mukasey wanting:

-- legislative "principles" for "practical" limits on the right of detainees to challenge their incarceration;

-- Congress to give the administration freedom to detain combatants "for the duration of the ('war on terror') conflict;"

-- a "reaffirmation of something that was enacted in legislation after September 11, 2001" (a menu of harsh repressive laws);

-- no "enemy combatants" released in (or brought to) the US (even to appear in civil court);

-- no intelligence (or harsh interrogation) methods revealed (so evidence of torture and abuse is suppressed), and

-- military officers (and intelligence officials) to be excused from testifying (because what they know is damning).

On its editorial page, the Journal is supportive. It called Mukasey's proposal "modest" on a "difficult" issue over which "different judges even on the same court will disagree." Mukasey wants congressional "guidance" because there's risk of "inconsistent rulings and considerable uncertainty."

According to the Journal, Mukasey "was right in stepping forward to say that someone has to take responsibility for the consequences of the Supreme Court's 5 - 4" Boumediene ruling. It wants "Congress (to) give one court jurisdiction over (all detainee) cases" and not let the process "bog down into a Babel of conflicting procedural and legal rulings." Mukasey is "right" to ask Congress to settle the issue, (regardless of three landmark High Court rulings). In other words:

-- constitutional and international laws don't apply;

-- judicial fairness is a dead letter;

-- presidential power is supreme; and

-- Congress must support the executive and overrule the highest court in the land....A "modest (police state) proposal" according to the Journal and one it clearly supports.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9609

Jeff Halper's "An Israeli in Palestine" - Part I

Jeff Halper's An Israeli in Palestine (Part I) - by Stephen Lendman

Jeff Halper is an American-born Israeli Professor of Anthropology as well as a peace and human rights activist for over three decades. In 1997, he co-founded the Israeli Committee Against Home Demolitions (ICAHD), and as its Coordinating Director "organized and led nonviolent direct action and civil disobedience against Israel's occupation policies and authorities."

ICAHD's mission is now expanded well beyond home demolitions. It helps rebuild them and resists "land expropriation, settlement expansion, by-pass road construction, policies of 'closure' and 'separation," and much more. Its aim is simple, yet hard to achieve - to end decades of Israeli-Palestinian conflict equitably and return the region to peace. For his work, Halper was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006.

Besides his full-time work, he writes many articles, position papers, and authored several books. His latest and subject of this review is An Israeli in Palestine: Resisting Dispossession, Redeeming Israel. Israeli-based journalist Jonathan Cook (jkcook.net) authored two insightful books on the conflict that are highly recommended. Information can be found on his web site and much more. He calls Halper's book "one of the most insightful analyses of the Occupation I've read. His voice cries out to be heard" on the region's longest and most intractable conflict.

Halper is a "critical insider" and insightful commentator of events on the ground that he witnesses first hand. This review covers his analysis in-depth - in two parts for easier reading. It exposes Israeli repression and proposes remedial solutions. It provides another invaluable resource on the conflict's cause, history, why it continues, and a just and equitable resolution.

Introduction

Halper's observation about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is accurate. Knowing how to end it isn't the issue. Overcoming fear and Israeli obstruction is at its heart. There are "no sides," and Halper stresses that as a "chief claim of (his) book." Critical discussion and effective action must involve everyone this conflict affects as the way to "get out of this mess" and achieve justice.

Thinking "out of the Box" is key, reframing the issue, offering an alternative way, and using it to open "possibilities for resolution foreclosed (by) security framing." Halper has a "clear, empowering message: if we the people lead, our governments will follow." But it takes empowering ourselves to do it and a commitment for the task. The goal - a "win-win" peace for all parties on a global scale taking into account "equality, human rights, international law, justice, peace and development." Make no mistake. Israel bears most responsibility for the conflict, continuing it, and preventing its just resolution. Overcoming that is no small task, and 60 years of trying so far have failed.

Part I: Comprehending Oppression - The Making of a Critical Israeli

One home demolition transformed Halper from a progressive, liberal-left Zionist to his post-Zionist state. It was a year after ICAHD's creation, but he'd yet to see demolitions firsthand. He described his background and values - third-generation American, small town midwest, Conservative Jew (as differentiated from Orthodox or Reformed), not religious, but believing in the "essential rules of life" that he learned as a child: play fair, don't hit other kids, ask forgiveness when fall short, and take nothing belonging to others. He's now lived in Israel for 35 years, arrived as a young doctoral student, is very much an Israeli, and saw his Jewishness transform into "Israeliness."

He was never a committed Zionist, then over time saw how destructive and racist it is. It made Israel a colonial state and redemption requires that it "transverse a long and painful trail from de-colonization through reconciliation" to a new political form that's just, equitable and inclusive for all its inhabitants.

Conflict was never inevitable, but a combination of "exclusivist nationalism" and high-level ideologues led pre-1948 Jews to be confrontational, not conciliatory toward Arabs. Conflict resulted and normalcy was sacrificed. Sixty years later, Israel is deeply polarized, a colonial enterprise, hugely repressive to Palestinians, including Israeli Arab citizens. In Halper's judgment and many others, "the present situation is untenable." His task is "hasten a just peace and, in the process, help Israel" transcend Zionism and "redeem itself from (its) worse-than-colonial situation...." He begins with a vital question. "Why in the hell did (Israel) demolish (one) family's home" that he witnessed with horror.

The Message of the Bulldozers

What bulldozers destroy, 200 settlements restored for 500,000 Jews in 150,000 housing units. It's on Palestinian agricultural land where zoning restrictions deny them building permits. Since 1967, Israel demolished over 18,000 Palestinian homes, a process now routine, and nearly always for no security reason. Halper calls it a "national obsession," collective punishment, in defiance of international law that Israel disdains. For Palestinians, it's traumatic and devastating. It renders men powerless and emasculating for being unable to provide a family home.

For women, it's worse - dispossession and loss of one's life that's like losing loved ones. Children as well are affected, traumatized, and rendered scared and insecure. It causes bed-wetting, nightmares, fear of abandonment, a drop in grades, leaving school, and exposure to domestic violence that results from parents' emotional upheaval.

Palestinians have no recourse. They get demolition notices. No formal legal, administrative process or orders accompany them. No warning or time to remove belongings. Barely time enough to escape alive, and at times not that when army policy destroys homes on top of residents suspected of being "wanted." Demolitions may be carried out immediately, months later or even years, and nearly always in early morning when inhabitants may be sleeping or at other times when they're most vulnerable.

Five government bodies control the process on both sides of the Green Line:

-- the Civil Administration under the Ministry of Defense in the West Bank and formerly in Gaza;

-- the Ministry of Interior and Jerusalem municipality in the city; and

-- the Ministry of Interior, Israel Lands Authority and Ministry of Agriculture inside Israel with jurisdiction over Bedouin homes; in addition, Jewish-dominated municipalities control the process in "mixed" cities like Lod, Ramle and Jaffe.

It affects Palestinians, never Jews and is part of a process to "de-Arabize" lands and confine their inhabitants to small disconnected enclaves (Sharon's "cantons") on about 15% of the entire country. It encompasses Areas A and B in 42% of the West Bank and 3.5% of Israel where Arabs are confined by zoning, social pressure and plain fear if they show defiance. Another 1% is in East Jerusalem.

Israeli zoning and master plans authorize demolitions and deny building permits in ways to seem non-discriminatory. It's hardly so in a country where Jews control 95% of the land from which Palestinians are barred.

Take Jerusalem for example. West Jerusalem is for Jews and its East portion maintains an artificial 72-28% Jewish majority over Arabs for a 220,000 Palestinian population. They're in highly circumscribed enclaves. Israeli settlements took 35% of their land, and over half of East Jerusalem is designated "open green space." Palestinians can own but not build on it. The result: Palestinian housing and communal needs are confined to 11% of East Jerusalem and only 7% of all Jerusalem as Palestinians can't live in Jewish West Jerusalem. Here's how it works:

-- Palestinian Jerusalem residents can't get building permits; the result is a 25,000 housing unit shortage;

-- fewer homes mean higher prices; impoverished Palestinians can't afford them; not even cheaper ones unless they build their own;

-- unlike Jews - to retain their Jerusalem residency, Palestinians must continually prove that the city is their "center of life;"

-- in spite of inadequate housing, Israel's Municipality grants Arabs only around 150 to 350 building permits a year, yet demolishes 150 or more existing homes at the same time;

-- even when obtainable, permits are too expensive for most Palestinians to afford; for Jews, however, fees are often waved or subsidized;

-- even with a permit, Palestinians may only build on 25% of their land; the result is severe overcrowding;

-- Jews, in contrast, have spacious accommodations in West and East Jerusalem;

-- Palestinians also face discrimination for municipal services; they're marginalized on budgets and essential needs like water, sewage, roads, parks, lighting, post offices, schools and other services; and

-- East Jerusalem "neighborhoods" serve isolated Palestinian populations in disconnected enclaves, and the city is being transformed "into a region dominating the entire central portion of the West Bank."

A similar system exists for the West Bank and for the same reasons - confinement, induced emigration and continued Israeli expansion. Civil Administration "Master Plans" zone 70% of the West Bank as "agricultural land" and prohibit Palestinian building. The 1995 Oslo II agreement also divided the Territory into Areas A, B, C and D (for Jerusalem) and H-1 and H-2 in Hebron. Further division established reserves for Jews only; security zones; closed military areas; "open green spaces" for Jewish-only housing developments in over half of East Jerusalem leaving Palestinians confined to unconnected cantons surrounded by Israeli settlements, restricted roads and hundreds of permanent and "flying" checkpoints.

A restricted interconnected highway and bypass road system links settlements and effectively incorporates them into Israel proper like suburbs are to downtown cities. These and other Israeli measures violate international law under which home demolitions constitute war crimes. They violate Fourth Geneva Convention provisions, especially Article 53 that states: "Any destruction by an Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons....is prohibited."

UN Resolution 1544 (May 2004) obligates Israel to observe Fourth Geneva law and deplores the deteriorating conditions on the ground. Israel remains defiant. Creating a Jewish "ethnocracy" on both sides of the Green Line takes precedence. Home demotions continue, and Israel's "nishul" displacement policy advances it overall. Halper refers to "the Message of the Bulldozers: Get out. You do not belong here." We uprooted you in 1948, and we'll do it again throughout the "Land of Israel." Palestinians have no right to claim a home in "our" country.

Part II: The Sources of Oppression - The Impossible Dream, Constructing a Jewish Ethnocracy in Palestine

War or peace. Conflict or resolution. What do Israelis think? Halper believes most "want to get on with their lives. 'Peace and quiet' best describes (their) aspirations." But things are never that simple in the "Holy Land." Most Jews think ending the conflict is unattainable and accept Ehud Barak's notion that we have "no partner for peace." What then? Confrontation is inevitable, "hunker down, get on with our lives," and let the army and government keep us safe. Everything comes down to personal security, so let the devil take the hindmost.

Barak's contention and the second Intifada's (September 2000) onset highlight the issue. Israelis also "live in a bubble," much like Americans. Their perceptions and opinions are formed. They don't grasp political realities, and affairs of state aren't their thing. Nor do they care. They have their own lives to get on with, but Halper asks why can't they "break out of the Box?" Three elements explain it:

-- a national ideology - an ethnocracy and its political system;

-- an obsession with security; and

-- "small group decision-making."

Understanding Zionism is important; its reliance on suppression, violence and dispossession; its belief in exclusivity and privilege; and how politics derives from ideology. It purports to be democracy but won't countenance it for non-Jews. It demands an ethnically pure state where half of its inhabitants aren't Jewish and have few rights afforded Jews and virtually none that matter most.

Zionism justifies it, and its roots explain. The Jewish Diaspora "maintained an ethno-nationalism within a (religious) framework." Especially for 1000 years in Europe, mostly Eastern and Central. Jews were poor and lived apart from Christians in segregated communities. They embraced nationalism that was "organic, tribal as opposed to (western) civil nationalism." From this crucible, Zionism emerged and the notion that Jews deserve a homeland. Palestine was chosen to be returned to its rightful owner. Arabs have no claim to a land exclusively for Jews. It explains the "Israeli bubble," an ideological myopia, and an inability to admit any shortcomings when it comes to relations with Arabs.

Israel is an ethnocracy. It's the antithesis of democracy. Israelis won't admit it, but its leaders refer to a "Jewish democracy." A notion right out of Orwell. Structural inequalities highlight it. Israeli Arabs may vote, sit in Parliament, but government decisions aren't "legitimate" without a "Jewish majority." The Law of Return affords it to Jews alone. Then there's land, housing, education and many other examples of Jewish favoritism compared to discrimination and denial to Arabs. On virtually everything, even small things. What holidays are celebrated, having Jewish (not civil) law regulate marriages, citizenship, death, inheritance, and so forth. It's forbidden to bury non-Jews (even soldiers) in Jewish cemeteries.

The Ciitizenship and Entry into Israel Law prohibits Israeli Arab spouses from the West Bank, Gaza or any Arab country from entering Israel, getting residency rights or citizenship. It's to counter the "demographic problem" or the threat that a faster-growing Palestinian population will one day outnumber Jews in the land of Israel and change its Jewish character.

Policy stems from this and the notion of a two-state solution, one unacceptable to Palestinians, because it's based on an unworkable idea - keeping Arabs out of "our land" and having all of greater Israel's best parts for Jews. Palestinians get what's left, what's least valued, with settlement blocs kept untouchable, and expanding them as well. So some kind of Palestinian state will be finessed that by definition will amount to separated cantons in an "artificially supported prison-state." It can't work and assures no end to conflict.

It's so untenable, yet Israelis buy it. How so? Because security framing sells it. Jews are isolated and endangered, Arabs hostile, conflict inevitable, and everything comes down to "either we 'win' or 'they' do" - a clash of civilizations with no political solution and "civilian militarism" essential in daily life. This justifies "tribal nationalism and ethnocracy," and Halper lists its main elements:

-- Israel the victim; fighting to survive; Arabs are permanent enemies; reject peace; are bent on Israel's destruction; conflict is inevitable;

-- Palestinian "terrorism" is the core of the problem; Israel's not responsible and acts only in self-defense;

-- no Occupation exists; the Territories are "disputed;" and

-- no political solution is possible; Israel must retain total control; maintain "Fortress Israel;" allow a separate Palestinian state; bantustan-style only, non-viable, semi-sovereign, encircled by Israel, and subject to the will of its powerful neighbor.

These notions are untenable. They foreclose any chance for peace, reconciliation, real security, and a fair and equitable solution to the region's longest and most intractable conflict. Yet Israel continues it for its own purposes, blames the victims for its own transgressions, and gets away with it because of western backing, mostly by America, and Palestinians have to fend for themselves.

Repeatedly through the years, Israel spurned compromise, avoided peace, and opted for conflict and repression. Halper cites examples. There are many, but few in the West know them:

-- Israel met with Arab states in 1949; it rejected territorial concessions and refused to let 100,000 Palestinian refugees return - a small percent of those displaced;

-- also in 1949, Israel refused Syria's peace treaty offer;

-- before his assassination, Jordan's King Abdullah negotiated, but Israel rejected his peace overtures;

-- in 1952-53, Syria's pro-American leader tried and failed as well;

-- so did Egypt's Nasser;

-- overall, Israel remained inflexible; it felt empowered by its successful armistice negotiations that left it politically, territorially and militarily superior to its neighbors;

-- in 1965, Egypt extended peace overtures and was rejected;

-- after the 1967 war, Palestinians wanted peace, an independent state, but were rebuffed as well;

-- so was Sadat in 1971;

-- Arafat as well in the early 1970s; Henry Kissinger flat turned him down and rejected all contact;

-- Sadat was again rebuffed in 1978, a year before Camp David;

-- in 1988, the PLO publicly recognized an Israeli state within the Green Line;

-- in 1993, the PLO did again;

-- doubling the settler population between 1993-2000 foreclosed a viable two-state solution;

-- Sharon was uncompromisingly rejectionist;

-- in 2006, Olmert dismissed the Prisoners' Document whereby all Palestinian factions (Hamas included) sought a politically-crafted two-state solution;

-- since fall 2006, Syria's Assad made repeated peace overtures; Israel dismissed them and remains hostile to Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas' democratically elected government; it's confined to Gaza; kept under siege; relentlessly targeted for removal; and since June 19 sticking to an Egyptian-brokered cease-fire that may in the end prove tenuous.

Israel chooses conflict over peace. It continues its settlement program. Palestinians are shut out, and something has to give. Without rethinking Zionism and reframing an obsession with security, nothing will. Things will keep worsening, resolution will get harder, and global fallout greater. There's a bad ending out there unless decisive measures counteract it far greater than a momentary letup in fighting.

Dispossession (Nishul): Ethnocracy's Handmaiden

Security alone can't explain decades of Israeli policy. "Something else was going on," according to Halper - Nishul, dispossession, transfer, "de-Arabization," "Judaization" ethnocracy's "natural extension." Its logic is simple. A Jewish state can't be viable with a sizable Arab population. Worse still is a majority one even more able to demand equality. Preventing it and empowering Jews is thus policy. It defines Zionism's agenda, its roots go back over 100 years, and nishul is at its core. In seven stages according to Halper:

-- localized from 1904-1914; early Zionist arrivals began it; they saw themselves as "returning natives" and used terms like "conquest" and "colonization;" buying land from absentee Arab landlords and removing Palestinian peasants began the process; resistance to the idea began early; nishul progressed slowly;

-- from 1918-1947, systematic Jewish expansion along with nishul; the 1917 Balfour Declaration spurred it; it gave Arabs assurances but betrayed them; Jewish population grew; it was 17% of Palestine by 1932; grew faster in the 1930s; Arabs revolted from 1936-1939; Zionists adopted a "compulsory transfer" policy to counter it; Jewish sovereignty over all Palestine became a priority; accommodation with Arabs was rejected; the 1942 Biltmore Program was firm - "Palestine (would) be constituted as a Jewish Commonwealth;" Palestinians were left out entirely;

-- active nishul - 1948; post-war, Jews were one-third of the population; partition was considered; the UN's 1947 resolution gave Jews 56% of the land, the Arab majority 42% with 2% left under internationalized trusteeship (including Jerusalem); nishul became necessary; at minimum, Gen Gurion wanted 80% of Palestine; the 1948 war secured 78%; ethnic cleansing (mass-nishul) out of which Israel was created; born in blood; thereafter immersed in it; all the while blaming the victims;

-- from 1948-1966 - consolidating nishul; most Arabs were removed (up to 80%); the problem was how to keep them out; as a condition for its creation, Israel agreed to UN Resolution 194 and international law guaranteeing the Right of Return; on June 16, 1948, its Cabinet barred it; it remains policy today; Kafkaesque laws let Israel appropriate Palestinian land, bar them from owning it, and give refugees no rights in perpetuity; Halper cites four policy stages from other sources he quotes:

(1) Israel claims sovereignty - the "Abandoned Areas Ordinance" Section 1 (A) defines them as "any area captured by the armed forces or surrendered to them" or land abandoned;

(2) freezing the 'lack of ownership" - the (1948) Provisional Council of State created a "Custodian" for "abandoned areas;" various laws, regulations, military orders, and extra-legal means facilitated the expropriation of Palestinian land;

(3) "Israelification" - from "lack of ownership" to Israeli ownership; various laws and legal maneuvers empowered government agency seizures; and

(4) De-Arabization - land was nationalized to protect its "Jewish character;" by 1962, 92.6% of the land belonged either to the state or Jewish National Fund; Palestinians got the remaining 7.3%; they were classified "internal refugees" (more Orwell) and prohibited from returning to their homes; laws were strengthened; the "Basic Law: Israel Lands - 1960" prevents lands or houses built on State Lands or on Jewish National Agency-controlled ones from being sold, leased or rented to Israeli Arabs; they've seen their ownership shrink from 93% pre-1948 to 25% in the immediate aftermath to 4% in 2007;

-- from 1967 to the present - occupation, colonization, and a permanent "Matrix of Control;" it defines the Palestinian dilemma today;

-- from 1993-2000 - post-Oslo attempts to complete nishul; de-Arabization and Judaization formalized an apartheid system; permanent domination defines it; from 1948 to 1966, the military administered it; thereafter, a mixed regime replaced it - martial law for Arabs; expansive space exclusively for Jews with generous subsidies for enticements; and

-- from 2001 to the present, adopting unilateral "separation" - completing the nishul process; de-Arabization shifted to confinement; nishul proceeds in the Territories as well; its goal is to expand Israeli control over the entire country and confine Palestinians to isolated bantustans under Israeli control.

The Narrative of Exodus

It refers to Leon Uris' novel about a "heroic little Israel standing bravely against hoards of bad Arabs....(a) familiar colonial narrative (portraying) an idealized image of Israel" that boils down to bad fiction. Arabs are villainous while Jews come off as "righteous victims" after centuries of persecution. They were "attacked by five Arab armies" bent on their destruction, and have fought to survive ever since. Powerful stuff and in hardcover sold over 550,000 copies in more than 40 printings. In paperback it topped seven millions sales by the late 1980s, still sells, and became a hit film in 1960.

Poor little Israel. It's the world's fourth most powerful military power, has a formidable nuclear arsenal, yet it still casts itself as victim. Against what must be asked as no regional country threatens it nor do the Palestinians with light arms and crude homemade rockets for protection.

Halper says he's often asked: "How can Jews (treat Arabs so harshly) after what they have been through? It does not come from Jewish culture." Biblical times perhaps but not thereafter. But some believe a "latent manifestation of power, violence, exclusivity and cruelty," surfaced as an ethnocracy after 2000 years of latency. Palestinian rights are denied, and showing compassion is seen as "weakness." Israel's existence as an ethnically-defined state requires it to be hard line against adversaries, external enemies and internal ones. Otherwise, its whole colonial enterprise is jeopardized. Unless victims come off as unworthy, Israel can't justify its actions. Maintaining the Exodus spirit allows them. It filters out reality with a reverse narrative of truth.

Part II will continue the story. Watch for it on this site.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9609

Torture As Official US Policy

Torture As Official US Policy - by Stephen Lendman

Post-9/11, torture has been official US policy under George Bush - authorized at the highest levels of government. Evidence of its systematic practice continues to surface. First some background.

On September 17, 2001, George Bush signed a secret finding empowering CIA to "Capture, Kill, or Interrogate Al-Queda Leaders." It also authorized establishing a secret global network of facilities to detain and interrogate them without guidelines on proper treatment. Around the same time, Bush approved a secret "high-value target list" of about two dozen names. He also gave CIA free reign to capture, kill and interrogate terrorists not on the list. It was the beginning of events that followed.

On November 13, 2001, the White House issued a Military Order regarding the "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism." It "determined that an extraordinary emergency exists for national defense purposes, that this emergency constitutes an urgent and compelling government interest and that issuance of this order is necessary to meet the emergency."

It defined targeted individuals as Al Queda and others for aiding or abetting acts of international terrorism or harboring them. These individuals shall be denied access to US or other courts and instead tried by "military commission" with the power to convict by "concurrence of two-thirds of the members."

On December 28, 2001, Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals, Patrick Philbin and John Yoo, sent a Memorandum to General Counsel, Department of Defense, William Haynes II titled: "Possible Habeas Jurisdiction over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." It said federal courts have no jurisdiction and cannot review Guantanamo detainee mistreatment or mistaken arrest cases. It further stated that international laws don't apply in the "war on terror." This laid the groundwork for abuses in all US torture prisons.

On January 18, 2002, Bush issued a "finding" stating that prisoners suspected of being Al Queda or Taliban members are "enemy combatants" and unprotected by the Third Geneva Convention. They were to be denied all rights and treated "to the extent....consistent with military necessity." Torture was thus authorized. The 2006 Military Commissions Act (aka the "torture authorization act") later created the Geneva-superceded category of "unlawful enemy combatant" to deny them any chance for judicial fairness.

International law expert Francis Boyle spoke out about this lawless designation: "this quasi-category (created a) universe of legal nihilism where human beings (including US citizens) can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried by kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism" on the pretext of as protecting national security.

The January 18 memo was preceded by a January 9 one to William Haynes II - co-authored by John Yoo, and Special Council Robert Delahunty. It read in part:

Regarding "international treaties and federal laws on the treatment of individuals detained by the US Armed Forces (in) Afghanistan....the laws of armed conflict (don't) apply to the conditions of detention and the procedures for trial of members of al Queda and the Taliban militia." These treaties "do not protect members of the al Queda organization (or) the Taliban militia."

On January 19, 2002 Donald Rumsfeld sent a memo to the Joint Chiefs titled: "Status of Taliban and al Queda." It stated that these detainees "are not entitled to prisoner of war status for purposes of the Geneva Conventions of 1949." It gave commanders enormous latitude to treat prisoners "to the extent appropriate with military necessity" or essentially as they saw fit.

On January 22, 2002, Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, Jay Bybee (now a federal judge), issued a Memorandum to Counsel to the President, Alberto Gonzales and William Haynes II. It was titled: "Application of Treaties and Laws to al Queda and Taliban Detainees." It covered the same ground as the Yoo/Delahunty memo plus added misinterpretations of international law with regard to war.

On January 25, 2002, Alberto Gonzales, then issued a sweeping memo to George Bush. In it he called the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and "obsolete" and said the administration could ignore Geneva law in interrogating prisoners henceforth. He also outlined plans to try prisoners in "military commissions" and deny them all protections under international law, including due process, habeas rights, and the right to appeal. In December 2002, Donald Rumsfeld concurred by approving a menu of banned interrogation practices allowing anything short of what would cause organ failure.

On February 7, 2002, the White House issued an Order "outlining treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees." It stated that "none of the provisions of Geneva apply to our conflict with al-Qaida (or Taliban detainees) in Afghanistan 'or elsewhere throughout the world...' " It meant they'd be afforded no protection under international law and could be treated any way authorities wished, including use of torture as was later learned.

A virtual blizzard of similar memos followed covering much the same ground to allow all measures banned under international and US law (including the 1996 War Crimes Act, 1994 Torture Statute and the Torture Act of 2000). The War Crimes Act is especially harsh. It provides up to life in prison or the death penalty for persons convicted of committing war crimes within or outside the US. Torture is a high war crime, the highest after genocide.

Two other memos particularly deserve mention - written by John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Jay Bybee and David Addington (Cheney's legal counsel). One was for the CIA on August 2, 2002. It argued for letting interrogators use harsh measures amounting to torture. It said federal laws prohibiting these practices don't apply when dealing with Al Queda because of presidential authorization during wartime. It also denied US or international law applies in overseas interrogations. It essentially "legalized" anything in the "war on terror" and authorized lawlessness and supreme presidential power.

On March 14, 2003, the same quartet issued another memo - this one for the military titled: "Military Interrogation of Alien Unlawful Combatants Held Outside the United States." It became known as "the Torture Memo" because it swept away all legal restraints and authorized military interrogators to use extreme measures amounting to torture. It also gave the President as Commander-in-Chief "the fullest range of power....to protect the nation." It stated he "enjoys complete discretion in the exercise of his authority in conducting operations against hostile forces."

Military law expert and Yale University lecturer, Eugene Fidell, called it "a monument to executive supremacy and the imperial presidency....(and) a road map for the Pentagon (to avoid) any prosecutions." It denied due process is applicable and virtually all other constitutional protections. It argued against any prohibition banning "cruel and unusual treatment." It was a document that would make any despot proud. So much so that in late 2004, Office of Legal Counsel head, Jack Goldsmith, rescinded the Memorandum saying it showed an "unusual lack of care and sobriety in (its) legal analysis (and it) seemed more an exercise of sheer power than reasoned analysis."

Nonetheless, other administration documents authorized continued use of practices generally reflecting John Yoo's views. They may inflict "intense pain or suffering" short of what would cause "serious physical injury so severe that death, organ failure, (loss of significant body functions), or permanent damage" may result.

The President's July 20, 2006 Executive Order (EO) was one such document, titled: "Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency." It pertained to "a member or part of or supporting al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated organizations (who might have) information that could assist in detecting, mitigating, or preventing terrorist attacks....within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror...."

It authorized the Director of CIA to determine interrogation practices. Based on what's now known, they include sleep deprivation, waterboarding or simulated drowning, stress positions (including painfully extreme ones), prolonged isolation, sensory deprivation and/or overload, beatings (at times severe and life-threatening), electric shocks, induced hypothermia, and other measures that can cause irreversible physical and psychological harm, including psychoses.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) on Bush Administration Use of Torture

In a secret 2007 report, the ICRC concluded that CIA interrogators tortured high-level Al Queda prisoners. Abu Zubaydah was one, a reputed close associate of Osama bin Laden and Guantanamo detainee. He was confined in a box "so small (that) he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position" and stay that way. He and others were also "slammed against the walls," waterboarded to simulate drowning, and given other harsh and abusive treatment.

The report also said Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the supposed chief 9/11 planner, was kept naked for over a month - "alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room." Most excruciating was a practice of shackling prisoners to the ceiling and forcing them to stand for as long as eight hours. Other techniques included prolonged sleep deprivation, "bright lights and eardrum-shattering sounds 24 hours a day."

ICRC's Bernard Barrett declined to comment but confirmed that Red Cross personnel regularly visit Guantanamo detainees, including high-level ones. They also "have an ongoing confidential dialogue with members of the US intelligence community, and we would share any observations or recommendations with them."

In her new book just out, "The Dark Side," Jane Mayer went further using sources familiar with ICRC's report. She wrote it "warned that the abuse (at torture prisons) constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the US government in jeopardy of being prosecuted." She also explained that Red Cross investigators based their report largely on prisoner interviews. However, CIA officers she spoke to confirmed what ICRC disclosed. More on Mayer's book below.

Presidential July 20, 2007 Executive Order (EO) 13440: Interpretation of the Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation Operated by the Central Intelligence Agency

The EO is noteworthy for what it doesn't say, not what it does. Its language is reassuring but avoids stopping short of the administration's official policy of torture. Or real compliance with Geneva's Common Article 3 that states in part:

(1) Noncombatants, including "members of armed forces who laid down their arms....shall in all circumstances be treated humanely...."

...."the following acts are prohibited at any time and in any place....:

-- violence to life and person (including) murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

-- taking of hostages;

-- ....humiliating and degrading treatment;"

-- sentencing or executing detainees "without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees....recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples;" and

-- assuring wounded and sick are cared for.

Various human rights organizations weighed in on the EO. Washington Director of Human Rights First, Elisa Massimino, said: The Order "fails to make clear whether (CIA authorized) interrogation techniques are still permitted." If CIA interprets the Order "as authorization to (continue using) techniques such as waterboarding, stress positions, hypothermia, sensory deprivation (and overload), sleep deprivation and isolation, it sends a powerful - and dangerous - message" that these and other banned practices are permissible. Bush's EO avoided clarity and left considerable leeway for abuse.

New Yorker Writer Jane Mayer's New Book: "The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals"

Mayer's book reflects what the ICRC reported and is now common knowledge except for more grim details and personal accounts. Prior to its release, the publisher's promotion commented:

"The Dark Side is a dramatic, riveting, and definitive narrative account of how the United States made terrible decisions in the pursuit of terrorists around the world - decisions that not only violated the Constitution to which White House officials took an oath to uphold, but also hampered the pursuit of Al Queda. In gripping detail...Jane Mayer relates the impact of these decisions - US-held prisoners, some of them completely innocent, were subjected to treatment more reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition than the twenty-first century."

"The Dark Side" recounts the fallout from the above administration documents and more. It reveals high-level contempt for the law to advance an imperial project. The story is gripping and comprehensive. It's about an American gulag throughout the world where mostly innocent detainees are held secretly outside the law and subjected to ritual abuse, humiliation and excruciating torture - day after day repeatedly. Some don't survive. All who do remain scarred for life.

Mayer states that decisions were taken at the highest levels - to make "torture the official law of the land in all but name," and it's no longer secret. Her evidence is compelling and comes from military officers, intelligence professionals and other conservative Bush appointees - "hard-line law-and-order stalwarts in the criminal justice system" who came forward nonetheless, and apparently for good reason.

Unlike past lawless periods, this time is different given the menu of what occurred post-9/11: an array of

-- illegal aggressive wars and the possibility of others;

-- police state laws enacted;

-- extremist Executive Orders;

-- similar National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives; military orders and signing statements;

-- "unitary executive" authority assumption granting unlimited presidential powers;

-- lawless and pervasive spying on Americans;

-- turning elections into shams;

-- gutting the Constitution, article by article, including the Bill of Rights;

-- ending any sense of checks and balances;

-- ignoring international laws and norms;

-- establishing an official policy of secrecy;

-- silencing dissent and free speech;

-- conducting massive sweeps against Muslims, Latino immigrants and other designated targets;

-- convicting innocent people (mostly Muslim men) in US courts and holding them as political prisoners;

-- constructing US-based concentration camps for declared enemies of the state to be used if martial law is declared;

-- using NORTHCOM, DHS, CIA, FBI, NSA and private paramilitary security forces to militarize the continent; and

-- ending the rule of law, crushing any sense of democracy, and heading the country for tyranny.

Instituting the above fell to a small group of lawyers known as the "War Council." Also other select high-level officials reporting to Dick Cheney and George Bush as head co-conspirators. They seized on 9/11 to establish what David Addington called a "new paradigm" authorizing vast new executive powers in the "war on terror." They believe the US legal system is "a burden" to be countered by "error-prone legal decisions whose preordained conclusions were dictated by Addington" as Dick Cheney's legal counsel following Lewis Libby's resignation.

Their view is hard-line and simple. On matters of national security (meaning anything), presidential authority isn't "limited by any laws." It's empowered "to override existing laws that Congress had specifically designated to curb him" and thus render checks and balances and the Constitution null and void.

For these men, everything changed post-9/11. The gloves came off. Conventional law enforcement methods were inappropriate, and only global conflict without end can keep us safe. It sounds bizarre and like the ravings of madmen, and maybe to a degree they are. But very smart and cunning ones who've led us to the current brink.

In 2001, Max Waxman served as special assistant to then national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. He told Mayer that the decision to go to war (post-9/11) was made with "little or no detailed deliberation about long-term consequences" because none were thought necessary. But it set us on "a course not only for our international response, but also in our domestic constitutional relations."

It also worked for the executive as a wartime commander-in-chief with considerable help from Congress, the courts, and the media. It left him free from accountability after what Mayer calls "the worst intelligence failure in the nation's history." Others see it differently - in "deep state" terms as Peter Dale Scott defines it. He refers to facts in every society and culture "which tend to be suppressed because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so." In other words, covert criminal policies, unaccountable, lawless and self-serving that hide disturbing truths like both Kennedy and King assassinations, the Korean and Vietnam wars, and the more recent 9/11 event.

The War Council wasn't concerned if extremist policies were banned. Only security matters and supreme presidential power. A discussion of policy was missing, according to Mayer, "not just (about) what was legal, but what was moral, ethical, right, and smart to do." These were peripheral matters because "fundamentally, the drive for expanded presidential authority was about (unlimited) power" outside of the law.

Prior to her book's release, she wrote articles for The New Yorker on torture, and her book is largely based on them. One on November 14, 2005 was titled "A Deadly Interrogation - Can the CIA legally kill a prisoner?" It was about CIA officer Mark Swanner who "performed interrogations and polygraph tests for the Agency...." In 2003, an Iraqi Abu Ghraib prisoner in his custody, Manadel al-Jamadi, died during an interrogation. His head was covered with a plastic bag. It inhibited his breathing, and according to forensic pathologists, he suffocated. Subsequently US authorities "classified Jamadi's death as a 'homocide.' " Yet Swanner wasn't charged and continued to work for the Agency.

Post-9/11, the DOJ "fashioned secret legal guidelines that appear to indemnify CIA officials who perform aggressive, even violent interrogations outside the United States" - to win the "war on terror." In 2001, Dick Cheney condoned it in a Meet the Press interview saying: We may have to go to "the dark side" in handling terrorist suspects. "It's going to be vital....to use any means at our disposal."

Subsequently, administration officials sought to turn the CIA loose and protect its "classified interrogation protocol." The idea was to give the Agency "flexibility" to make "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment permissible. It means anything goes regardless of US and international laws and norms.

Another Mayer article appeared on August 13, 2007 titled: "The Black Sites - A rare look inside the CIA's secret interrogation program." In military terminology, such sites are locations where "black" projects are conducted. Post-9/11, they refer to secret CIA or military prisons outside the country with no oversight, accountability, detainee rights, and where torture and abuse are freely practiced.

Mayer discussed the case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an Al Queda leader, supposed lead architect of the 9/11 attacks, and the CIA's claim that he confessed to killing Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. No evidence supported it, and Mayer called his confession "perplexing." He had no lawyer, was detained at black sites for over two years, and in 2006 was sent to Guantanamo. No one witnessed his confession, and it was certain he was tortured. It was also at the time of the US Attorney scandal when critics called for Gonzales' resignation. Further, in 2002, a Pakistani named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh had already been convicted of Pearl's abduction and murder, but that hardly mattered to US authorities.

They continued to interrogate Mohammed. It was part of a secret CIA program in which detainees were held in "black sites" outside the country - out of sight, out of mind, and subject to "unusually harsh treatment." In 2006, the program was supposedly suspended when George Bush said CIA detainees were being sent to Guantanamo. It followed the June 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld Supreme Court ruling granting habeas rights to Guantanamo prisoners. It also acknowledged that Geneva's Common Article 3 was violated. The October 2006 Military Commissions Act followed. It overrode the High Court to allow "alternative interrogations methods" to continue.

Secrecy and unlimited presidential authority are the hallmarks of this administration so everything in the "war on terror" is classified and permissible. Even few congressional members know much, and those who do won't say, let alone act to uphold the law.

Mayer notes how since the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the ICRC "played a special role in safeguarding" prisoner rights. "For decades, governments allowed (their) officials (access to) detainees, to insure that (proper treatment was) being maintained." However, Red Cross personnel were denied permission to interview US prisoners for five years. When they finally saw Mohammed, a spokesman declined to comment because ICRC's work is confidential.

Nonetheless, information leaked out to confirm what's now known. CIA interrogation methods are "tantamount to torture, and (responsible) American officials....could have committed serious crimes." Other Geneva breaches also along with violations of US law. Mayer characterized ICRC's revelations as having "potentially devastating legal ramifications." She also mentions an unnamed CIA officer, supportive of current policy, but worried that "if the full story of the CIA program ever surfaced, Agency personnel could face criminal prosecution." Within CIA, he said, there's a "high level of anxiety about political retribution" regarding the interrogation program. Some CIA operatives even took out liability insurance to help defray potential legal bills. Others saw the operation as a "can of worms (that might) become an atrocious mess."

Based on Mayer's account, it's far more than that - a systematic scheme to rewrite laws and norms; to make any practice permissible; to break and destroy human beings through intense coercion and psychological stress - without letup; and to avoid all accountability. Regarding torture: "It's one of the most sophisticated, refined programs ever," one expert explained. "At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail....It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. (They) fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling."

Mohammed's case is typical and shows what he was put through when accounts of his ordeal leaked out. Initially he was told: "We're not going to kill you. But we're going to take you to the brink of your death and back." He was first taken to a secret Afghanistan prison near Kabul International Airport - distinctive for its absolute lack of light and known by detainees as the "Dark Prison." Another one north of Kabul was called the "Salt Pit." An infamous 2002 death occurred there when a detainee was stripped naked and left chained to the floor in freezing temperatures until he died.

Mohammed endured some of these abusive practices. He was taken to Afghanistan by a team of "black-masked commandos attached to the CIA's paramilitary Special Activities Division." According to a report titled "Secret Detentions and Illegal Transfers of Detainees," he and others were "taken to their cells by strong people (in) black outfits, masks that covered their whole faces and dark visors over their eyes." It was a carefully choreographed 20 minute routine during which detainees are "hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories (amounting to sodomy), placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location."

Stripping demonstrates the captors' omnipotence and and debilitates detainees. Interrogators were advised to "tear clothing from (them) by firmly pulling downward against buttons and seams....pulling detainees off balance." Techniques also include the "Shoulder Slap, Stomach Slap, Hooding, Manhandling, Walling," and a variety of "Stress Positions."

Mohammed said he was placed in his own cell, kept naked for several days, and questioned by female interrogators for added humiliation. He was also attached to a dog leash and yanked to propel him into walls in his cell. In addition, he was suspended from the ceiling by his arms so that his toes barely touched the ground and he was unable to sleep. It caused intense pain and swelling to his legs. He may have also been beaten with electric cables, commonly used against other detainees. Some also got repeated electric shocks.

Mohammed further described being chained naked to a metal ring in his cell in a painful crouch - for prolonged periods in alternating intense heat and extreme cold when he was doused with ice water, a banned practice that can cause hypothermia. Other detainees were bombarded with deafening sounds round the clock for weeks or even months. This and other practices went on endlessly, and its effect was shattering. Detainees "lost their minds." You could "hear people knocking their heads against walls and doors, screaming their heads off." Attempted suicides were common, and some succeeded.

Mohammed was later secretly taken to a "specially designated (Polish) prison for high-value detainees." Up to a dozen others like him were there, but no first-hand accounts emerged of what happened. However, "well-informed sources" said it was far more high-tech than in Afghanistan - including hydraulic doors, video surveillance and more.

From what's known from others who were there, Mohammed was kept in a prolonged state of sensory deprivation, perhaps as long as four months. He was also waterboarded multiple times. There was no exposure to natural light, and the only human contact was with silent masked guards. The ICRC report seemed to confirm that he was kept shackled and naked, except for a pair of goggles and earmuffs. Meals came sporadically to keep prisoners disoriented. It was largely tasteless and barely enough to sustain him.

Under this type treatment, virtually everyone breaks down, and Mohammed was no exception. He ended up confessing to so many crimes, he was barely credible. In addition to the Pearl murder, he said he planned to assassinate Presidents Clinton and Carter, Pope John Paul II and a great deal more, including plots to blow up New York suspension bridges and the Panama Canal - anything to end the pain. Later on, like many other detainees, he said he lied "to please his captors."

As for taking blame for Daniel Pearl's killing, one of Pearl's friends said: "I'm not interested in unfair justice, even for bad people. Danny was such a person of conscience. I don't think he would have wanted all of this dirty business. I don't think he would have wanted someone being tortured. He would have been repulsed." So are all people of conscience at a grim time in our history.

Mayer recounts Mohammed's ordeal as well as Abu Zubaydah's and others in her book. She also notes that Dick Cheney "saw to it that some of the sharpest and best-trained lawyers in the country, working in secret in the White House and US Department of Justice, came up with legal justifications for a vast expansion of the government's power in waging war on terror. As part of the process, for the first time in history, the United States sanctioned government officials to physically and psychologically torment US-held captives, making torture the official law of the land in all but name." This "extralegal counterterrorism program presented the most dramatic, sustained, and radical challenge to the rule of law in American history."

The Bush White House adopted a "doctrine of presidential prerogative." It functions in secret and allows no challenge to its authority. In the "war on terror," everything is permissible even against innocent victims. And Mayer found there are many. She revealed a classified 2002 CIA report stating that one-third of Guantanamo's 600 prisoners (at the time) have no connection to terrorism. In fact, the number was far higher as most sent there were snatched randomly for bounty and victimized by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Major General Michael Dunlavey agreed and suggested up to half of Guantanamo detainees were innocent of any crime. A Seton Hall University Law School study put the number even higher.

CIA, however, later lowered their estimate to 50 unjustifiably detained. But either way it contradicted the administration's claim that Guantanamo held "the worst of the worst" even though most never were charged with a crime and none so far have been tried. They continue being held at black holes sites, totally outside the law, and for most without any hope again for a normal life. After what they've endured, that's impossible. It's America's darkest hour, and Mayer powerfully recounts it.

Late News on Torture Victims

Salim Hamdan was captured during the Afghanistan invasion, held at Guantanamo, and accused of being Osama bin Laden's personal driver. After US District Court judge James Robertson's July 17 ruling (that may be appealed in light of the Boumediene decision), he'll be the first detainee tried by a military commission (possibly beginning July 21) in which he'll receive no due process and no hope for judicial fairness. On July 15, he testified at a pretrial hearing and described everyday life at Guantanamo - a six year ordeal of interrogation, torture, isolation, sexual humiliation and more. A snapshot follows:

-- his "confessions" were made under extreme duress - torture; his lawyer is trying to exclude them from trial; there's practically no chance he'll succeed;

-- "Camp Echo," where was held, "is like a graveyard where you place a dead person in a tomb;"

-- according to prosecutors, he was disciplined 84 times; his counsel said 15 were for trying to speak to other detainees - "through walls, through vents and in the recreation yard;"

-- he described an interrogation by a woman who touched his thigh and groin area; "She behaved in an improper way; She came very close with her whole body towards me. I couldn't do anything;"

-- he described months in isolation, multiple episodes of sleep deprivation, including Operation Sandman for 50 days in 2003, and being force-fed - by military personnel in white coats; they strapped him down and snaked a tube through his nose to his stomach; "Doctors, butchers, I couldn't tell the difference;" it's a very painful procedure;

-- during one month of FBI interrogation, guards rapped on his cell door every five to ten minutes all night to wake him;

-- a tape of his first interrogation was revealed; he said he was a Muslim charity worker, not a bin Laden employee; nonetheless he underwent harsh battlefield questioning with his arms and legs bound, a soldier's boot on his shoulder to keep his head bowed, and a "bag over my head;"

-- he described persistent back pain and no medical treatment;

-- he's charged with transporting weapons for Al Queda and helping bin Laden escape after 9/11; he calls himself a Muslim charity worker, not a terrorist; a judge in Washington will shortly rule on whether he should be tried in federal court; on July 14, several hundred current and former European officials asked the judge to block the military tribunal saying it was "clearly at odds with the most basic norms of fair trial and due process."

In another July 15 development, the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals made two rulings, both 5 - 4. One (reversing a June 2007 three-judge panel decision) allows the Bush administration to order indefinite military detentions of civilians captured in the US. A second held that Ali al-Marri, a Qatar citizen held at the Charleston, SC naval brig, may challenge his detention in federal court but will remain imprisoned without charge. The decision is disturbing because the court was vague about about what type new proceeding is allowed. The Bush administration may also appeal to the Supreme Court so al-Marri and others like him remain in limbo.

He's the only known person in mainland custody held as an "unlawful enemy combatant." Defense intelligence official, Jeffrey Rapp, calls him (without evidence) an Al Queda "sleeper agent" sent to America to commit mass murder and disrupt the banking system. He was arrested in Peoria, IL where he lived with his family.

His lawyer, Jonathan Hafetz, called the court's decision disturbing. It means "the president can pick up any person in the country - citizen or legal resident - and lock them up for years without the most basic safeguard in the Constitution, the right to a (fair and speedy) criminal trial."

Final Comments

On February 17, 2008 in a New York Times Op-Ed, Air Force Colonel Morris Davis, former chief Guantanamo military commissions prosecutor, went public. He resigned last year because political operatives and military superiors pushed prosecutors to file charges before trial rules were written. He also called the tribunals tainted by political influence and by evidence obtained through torture. He further accused Pentagon general counsel, William Haynes II, of saying detainee acquittals would make the US look bad. "We can't have acquittals, we've got to have convictions." In 2004, three other prosecutors also quit, calling the process rigged.

Davis explained his prosecutorial standard - "that evidence derived through waterboarding was off limits. That should still be our policy. To do otherwise is not only an affront to American justice, it will potentially put prosecutors at risk for using illegally obtained evidence."

"Unfortunately, I was overruled....and I resigned my position to call attention to the issue - efforts that were hampered by my being placed under a gag rule and ordered not to testify at a Senate hearing. While some high-level military and civilian officials have rightly expressed indignation on the issue, the current state can be described generally as indifference and inaction....Military justice has a proud history; this was not one of its finer moments."

Guantanamo convictions are only justifiable "after trials we can truthfully call full, fair and open. In that service, we must declare that evidence obtained by waterboarding be banned in every American system of justice." Hopefully he means all evidence gotten through torture and abuse.

On another matter following the Supreme Court's important June 12 Boumediene v. Bush decision, the administration is reportedly preparing to transfer Guantanamo's remaining 265 detainees to mainland locations. Boumediene overrode the 2006 Military Commissions Act by ruling Guantanamo prisoners have habeas rights and can challenge their detention in civil courts. The administration has several choices. It can stall, ignore the Court, act as reportedly rumored, or ask Congress to pass new supportive legislation.

Currently around 80 detainees are to be tried in military commissions. Another 65 can be repatriated home, leaving 120 others. According to Boumediene, they all have habeas rights unless Bush administration officials obstruct justice to prevent it. Given what they've done, a smooth road to justice is far from certain. George Bush was noncommittal about Boumediene saying only that the ruling was being analyzed. Both presidential candidates favor closing Guantanamo, then transferring prisoners to US military prisons. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas is a likely possibility.

Another issues involves "prison ships," and in 2005, the UN's Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism took note. He spoke of "very, very serious" allegations that the US was secretly detaining terrorist suspects aboard special ships at various locations around the world, notably in the Indian Ocean.

The UK legal action charity, Reprieve, believes up to 17 floating prisons are involved where detainees are held under torturous conditions and subjected to harsh and brutal treatment, in some cases worse than Guantanamo. Details have emerged from US administration and military sources as well as the Council of Europe, various parliamentary bodies, journalists, and former prisoner testimonies.

The USS Bataan is one ship mentioned, and a former Guantanamo detainee described his treatment on board. About 50 in total were there. They were closed off in the ship's bottom area and beaten more severely than at Camp X-Ray. Reprieve's Director, Clive Stafford Smith, said: "The US administration chooses ships to try to keep their misconduct as far as possible from the prying eyes of the media and lawyers. We will eventually reunite these ghost prisoners with their human rights."

"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them." The Bush administration's response so far: silence.

Leaving aside other countries, America, to some degree, has practiced torture for many decades, and especially since the CIA's establishment in 1947. During the Vietnam War, Paul Blackstock wrote an essay titled the "Moral Implications of Torture and Exemplary Assassination" for the Carnegie Council On Ethics and International Affairs. He described widespread CIA and special forces torture saying this policy created a situation wherein "for the majority of private individuals (the) intolerable (became) tolerable." That's the situation today in the Middle East, Central Asia, Guantanamo, on prison ships, and at all secret US black sites worldwide.

Unless exposed, denounced and stopped, it's heading to mainland America and maybe a neighborhood near you. It's no idle threat given that, on July 14, the ACLU revealed that the nation's terrorist watch list hit one million names - based on the government's own reported numbers. It's also symbolic of what's wrong with "this administration's approach to security - unfair, out-of-control, a waste of resources, (treating) the rights of the innocent as an afterthought," and recklessly endangering what little freedom remains. Even worse, by Bush administration standards, there is none.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of The Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9569

Drought and Israeli Policy Threaten West Bank Water Security

Drought and Israeli Policy Threaten West Bank Water Security - by Stephen Lendman

Fresh water is precious everywhere but especially in one of the driest, hottest places on earth - the Middle East. It's why it's a strategic resource and the reason countries like Israel do everything possible to secure a reliable supply. In the words of former prime minister Moshe Sharett: "Water to us is life itself." It shapes Israeli policy going back to the early Mandate period.

A Brief History

Post-WW I, Zionists wanted Sykes-Picot borders altered to include the Jordan River, Lower Litani, east coast of the Sea of Galilee and Lower Yarmouk headwaters and tributaries. These affect Palestine, southern Lebanon, Syria and the Jordan Valley. Efforts to secure them fell short because French opposition blocked them. But it didn't prevent further regional hydrological studies. They were needed because by WW II's end accommodating a growing Palestinian and Jewish population grew acute.

Israel's "War of Independence" followed in 1947-48. It assured water sovereignty as well. Israel was free to act unilaterally - to tap and develop all available resources plus whatever it could seize later on. They'd be needed after Israel's 1950 Law of Return was passed. It granted Jews worldwide special rights - to emigrate freely and become citizens of the land of Israel. It brought in waves of new immigrants requiring considerable water resources for them, but Israel's supply was inadequate. At the time, four states shared the Jordan-Yarmouk watershed. Developing it was essential. Each had growing needs so securing a dependable supply was vital.

Several regional water-sharing proposals failed in part because Israel linked them to recognizing the Jewish state. It also rejected solutions not in its strategic interest and acted unilaterally instead. Take its National Water Carrier project. Construction began in the late 1950s and early 1960s and became the country's largest water project - to transfer Sea of Galilee northern water to highly populated areas in the center and south and to facilitate efficient water use. To neighboring Arab states, however, it was a hostile act, and they responded with their own diversion plans. Israel viewed them as a national security threat.

Confrontation followed. The National Water Carrier was targeted. Israel retaliated against Syrian construction sites. Skirmishes broke out, and the 1967 war resulted. Officially it began on June 5, 1967. Others, including Ariel Sharon, said it started two and a half years earlier when Israel acted against diverting the Jordan River. Earlier, Ben-Gurion warned that Jews and Arabs would battle over strategic water resources and determine Palestine's fate. Its people as well. Aside from other strategic aims for land and regional control, Israel secured water rich lands in southern Lebanon, Jordan, the Golan, and West Bank.

It fully exploited them and is a key reason why the Golan was never returned. West Bank water is another issue. It has three principle aquifers supplying about one-quarter of Israel's needs, including for its settlements and nearly all of what West Bank Palestinians get. They are:

-- the Yarkon-Tanninim Aquifer supplying Israel with about 340 million cubic meters (mcm) of water annually - to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv mainly; Palestinians get far less - about 20 mcm a year;

-- the Nablus-Gilboa Aquifer supplying about 115 mcm annually, largely for agricultural irrigation in Galilee-based kibbutzim and moshavim cooperative settlements;

-- the Eastern Aquifer supplying about 40 mcm a year to Jordan Valley-based settlements; another 60 mcm go to Palestinians.

Water also comes from the upper Jordan River and its tributaries - the Sea of Galilee, the Yarmouth, and lower Jordan River. Palestinians are denied most of it. As their population grows, shortages have become more acute because of Israel's restrictive policies.

Israel's Water Policy in the Territories

The policy works this way - to preserve an unequal division of western, eastern, and northern West Bank aquifer supply. It was the same for Gaza's aquifer prior to disengagement. The result is a hugely disproportionate distribution policy causing growing shortages for Palestinians. Israel does little to alleviate it. It invests little in infrastructure leaving 20% of West Bank Palestinians unconnected to a running-water system:

-- around 227,000 in 220 West Bank towns and villages;

-- another 190,000 only partially connected; and

-- even in towns and villages with a water network, most often supply is irregular - only on some hours of the day and sometimes rotationally; in distant areas, supply may be disconnected for days or weeks; it's part of Mekorot's (Israel's National Water Company) discriminatory policy to assure settlers are adequately supplied.

In addition, Israeli maintenance (for Palestinians) is shoddy. Water pipes are old and leak, and in some cases more than 50% of fresh water is lost. Qalqiliya and Tulkarm have been especially affected.

Consider the disparity between Israeli and Palestinian supply. For Palestinians, per capita West Bank consumption is 60 liters a day - for domestic, urban, rural, and industrial use. It's far below the minimum 100 daily liters required according to the World Health Organization. In contrast, look how much Israelis get - 280 liters a day per capita for domestic, urban and rural use or about four and a half times more than Palestinians. Including industrial use, and it's 330 liters or five a half times Palestinian consumption.

Israeli Violations of International Law on Water in the Occupied Territories

By integrating Occupied Territory water resources into its legal and bureaucratic system and denying Palestinians the right to develop them for their own use, Israel violates international law under Articles 43 and 55 of the 1907 Hague Regulations. Also Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention relating to treating "all protected persons....with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are...."

Then there's Article 6 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses. It requires water division between states to be reasonable and equitable. Not according to a specific formula but with regard to seven factors:

-- the watercourse's shared natural features - its geography, climate, hydrology, and so forth;

-- each state's social and economic needs;

-- its population;

-- how watercourse use in one state affects another;

-- watercourse existing and potential uses;

-- watercourse resources conservation, protection and development and the cost of measures to assure them; and

-- planned or existing use alternatives.

Taking international law and all the above factors into account, Palestinian rights are severely compromised.

Water security is crucial for Israel. Securing and preserving supply essential. In the occupied West Bank, Arabs are prohibited from drilling new wells without special permission, but it's practically impossible to get and won't likely change. Many existing wells were also sealed to restrict Palestinians to a very low quota, far below Israelis. Most West Bank water goes to Israel and the expanding settlement population. Jordan River water is also diverted - from 50 to 75%. As its population grows, so does its water needs. It was one among other factors behind the 1982 Lebanon invasion - to control the Litani River in the country's south. It remains out of reach today, but a richer resource would be to secure access to major rivers like the Nile, Euphrates or Seyhan and Ceyhan in Turkey.

Since the 1990s, water and other environmental issues were among the most important in Israeli bilateral relations. Its October 1994 peace treaty with Jordan included five annexes. Two addressed water and environmental concerns.

The water rich Golan has been a stumbling block toward a similar deal with Syria. It's much the same in bilateral Palestinian talks. The Territories' water resources have been over-exploited for years, but precious little of it for Palestinian use. It's a major destabilizing factor and obstacle to real peace and security. So many issues are at stake. One rarely discussed is the inequitable distribution of scarce and valued water resources.

Summer 2008 Drought Compounds the Problem

Israelis nearly always have enough water for their needs - agricultural, drinking, bathing, watering lawns, washing cars, and filling swimming pools for those who have them. In contrast, Palestinians have precious little. In summer it's always worse, but this year the most severe draught in a decade made it grave. In the northern West Bank, consumption is at about one-third the minimum required. It's because rainfall this year has been less than two-thirds normal. In southern areas, it's barely over half. Cities like Tubas, Jenin, Nablus and the Southern Hebron hills have been especially impacted.

According to Palestinian Water Authority estimates, the West Bank's water shortfall is from 42 to 69 mcm. Its consumption is 79 mcm making emergency supplies needed. Throughout the West Bank, per capita consumption is about 66 liters (for domestic, urban, rural and industrial use), far below the World Health Organization's 100 liter minimum for personal needs.

Making matters worse is the price of privately purchased water that constitutes 50% of West Bank supply - from 15 to 30 shekels or three to six times higher that Israelis pay. Because of this year's shortfall, it's heading higher and putting an impossible burden on impoverished Palestinians to buy enough of it. The alternative is drinking from questionable sources after amounts collected in cisterns run dry - stagnant water or from dirty springs that may expose users to frequent and serious illnesses.

Oslo II's Broken Promise

The 1995 Oslo II agreement assured "the equitable utilization of joint water resources for implementation in and beyond the interim period." It never happened because Israel's Palestinian dealings are nearly always duplicitous. It sets traps and uses devious language to assure interpretations go its way.

Post-Oslo II, a Joint Water Committee (JWC) was established to approve new West Bank water and sewage projects. It's composed of an equal number of Israeli and Palestinian representatives, but that's where equality ends. All decisions are by consensus, but no procedure is in place to settle disputes when agreement can't be reached. As a result, Israel can veto Palestinian requests for new wells - even though Oslo II assured it.

Desalinization Plans

The publication New Scientist has covered "the latest science and technology news, reports, developments and research" for over 50 years. In May 2004, it reported that Israel had a "secret plan for a giant desalination plant to supply (privatized) drinking water to (Palestinians in) the West Bank." It was to preserve fresh water supplies for Israelis, but here's the catch. Israel won't fund it nor can Palestinians. It means the world community or possibly the US would have to do it. Just as bad, if it's ever completed, is the cost as leading hydrologists point out: "desalinating seawater and pumping it to the West Bank....would cost around $1 per cubic meter," an impossible amount for Palestinians to pay at an exchange rate of 3.3 shekels to the dollar. Many if not most Israelis as well.

Nonetheless, Alvin Newman, USAID's Tel Aviv head of water resources, supported the project, and with good reason. If funding is secured, it would mean lucrative business contracts for favored USAID contractors. Palestinians, on the other hand, are fearful. They object to desalinization plans dependent on their abandoning claims to West Bank water - resources beneath their own land. Ihad Barghothi, Palestinian Water Authority's head of water projects said at the time: "We cannot do that (nor do we) have the money or expertise for desalination."

Gaza is another issue. It depends almost exclusively on small wells tapping the coastal aquifer. But as the water table falls, it's being increasingly polluted by salt sea water. UN scientists conclude that within 15 years (from 2004) Gaza will have no drinkable water and will have to import its needs. But even now the World Health Organization reports that Gaza's water quality falls below its acceptable standards due to the aquifer's degradation. Besides that, 40% of Gaza homes lack running water, according to the Palestinian Water Authority.

Another possible solution is an approved and apparently funded so-called ocean depth reverse osmosis plant to provide the Territory's supply. It's another method of desalinating sea water, but here again there's the cost.

New Scientist points out that if these two projects become reality they'll make "Palestine more dependent on desalination than almost any other nation in the world." And given the cost of desalinated water, it will be out of reach for the great majority of impoverished Palestinians.

Palestinian Resilience and Nonviolent Resistance

Palestinian resilience is impressive despite overwhelming obstacles. Take Nahhalin village, 20 kilometers southeast of Bethlehem where the Applied Research Institute of Jerusalem (ARIJ) is active. For the past 17 years, it's represented Palestinian interests - economic, social, natural resources management, sustainable agriculture, politics, and water management.

In 2007, it began a waste water treatment project it will replicate in other rural areas to provide new sources of water for irrigation. In Nahhalin, ARIJ's water and environment research unit will install on-site waste water treatment systems for about 180 homes accommodating 1800 people. The project is scheduled for completion in 2010. Wherever else it's used, it'll manage waste water and improve access to fresh supplies. ARIJ believes its plan is one of the most feasible and economical ways to provide a sanitary use for household waste water. When in place, it'll increase agricultural productivity and food security, a vital Palestinian concern.

ARIJ sees other benefits as well. Treatment units will be manufactured locally to provide much needed jobs. In addition, these type projects further peace and are powerful nonviolent resistance acts.

The Palestinian Hydrology Group (PHG) complements ARIJ's efforts with its own projects. It's an NGO "promot(ing) the role of women in civil societies in managing local water and its related environmental resources to ensure transparency, good water governance and just and equal provision of water and sanitation services to the rural and marginal communities in the West Bank and Gaza."

One of its projects is in the northern West Bank villages of Jayyus and Karr Jammal near Qalqilya where Israel's Separation Wall cuts off off farmers from their lands. PHG is helping them maintain pumps and irrigation systems so they have greater control of their natural resources despite overwhelming Israeli restrictions. It's another expression of their nonviolent resistance and it's spreading.

International law is supportive. It recognizes non-discriminatory access to adequate fresh water as a fundamental human right and requires occupying powers to assure it. The UN General Assembly also affirmed Palestinians' right to self-determination and control of their natural resources - in Resolutions 1803 (1962), 2672C, (1970), 2787 (1971) and 3098D (1980).

In December 1966, it adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Article 1(1) affirms self-determination, and Article 1(2) states: "All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence." It's now up to the international body to enforce its own rulings.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9569

Sami Al-Arian: From Exoneration to Criminal Indictment

Sami Al-Arian: From Exoneration to Criminal Indictment - by Stephen Lendman

A personal note. I've twice before written about Al-Arian and discussed his case on my radio program with his wife and daughter. Since February 20, 2003, he's been unjustly imprisoned. The FBI hounded him for 11 years. It falsely accused him of backing organizations fronting for Palestinian Islamic Jihad - a 1997 State Department-designated "Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO)." It's one of 30 organizations so-designated that year. In 1999, three were removed. Another was added in 2001 for a total of 28. Sixteen of them are Arabic/Muslim and include Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, Hezbollah and Al Queda. Their ideologies differ from western standards. Washington thus calls them FTOs that "engage in terrorist activity (and) threaten the security of US nationals or the national security of the US."

In August 2001, Palestinian Islamic Jihad's (PIJ) General Secretary, Dr. Fathi Shikaki, agreed to be interviewed. He called the organization "an independent, Islamic, and popular movement with Islam (advocating) grassroots popular action and armed struggle (for the) liberation of (Occupied) Palestine." In this respect, it's no different from the Vichy French resistance. They were renown freedom fighters. So were the Mujahideen (when they were on our side) against the Soviets in Afghanistan and Serbia in the Balkans.

As Michel Chossudovsky noted in a September 2001 Global Research.ca article titled "Who is Osama Bin Laden?:" ....while the Islamic Jihad - featured by the Bush administration as "a threat to America" - is blamed for the (9/11 attacks), these same Islamic organizations constitute a key instrument of US military intelligence in the Balkans and the former Soviet Union." In other words, they're (unwittingly) used to further US interests and at the same time justify Washington's war on Islam (aka the "war on terrorism").

Shikaki denied that PIJ or the Islamic Jihad Movement (IJM) practice "terrorism." On the contrary, "terrorism is practiced by a state (Israel) that is fully supported by the West. (It and especially America back) dictatorial regimes that are tyrannical, oppressive and practice human rights abuses on massive scales....Tens of thousands of Islamists have been arrested and....held under severe conditions." However, "only a small segment used violence against the state-sponsored and state-supported violence."

How can Palestinians be called terrorists. We "scream from pain and suffering and (are) defending (our) land against Jewish soldiers....We are calling for peace based on justice, rights and dignity. We must be dealt with as equals and as carriers of a great civilization. Only then will peace prevail in our region and the whole world....Our state is Palestine....As for the Jews, they have lived peacefully with us for centuries....They could (always) live among us freely, but not as a political entity....We don't espouse throwing the Jews into the sea (but) there will be no peace unless Palestine is returned to the Palestinians."

Al-Arian: Falsely Targeted For Supporting "Terrorism"

Because of his faith, ethnicity, political activism and prominence, Al-Arian became a prime target. He was falsely vilified for supporting terrorism. Then at the behest of Governor Jeb Bush and despite his tenured status, the University of South Florida fired him following his February 20, 2003 arrest. Ever since, he's been imprisoned and held in brutalizing and dehumanizing confinement in over a dozen maximum and other federal prison facilities. Only his spirit sustains him.

His June 2005 trial was a travesty. It lasted six months, cost about $50 million, and in the end Al-Arian was exonerated on eight false terrorism charges. On nine lesser ones, jurors were deadlocked 10 - 2 for acquittal.

Al-Arian is a Palestinian refugee, a distinguished professor and scholar, community leader and civil activist. His crime - being an activist Muslim at the wrong time in America. After his exoneration, prosecutors planned to retry him but instead struck a secret plea bargain with his lawyers. It stipulated:

-- he neither engaged in or had any knowledge of violent acts;

-- that he would not be required to cooperate further with prosecutors;

-- and that he would be released on time served and deported voluntarily to his country of choice.

He remained in custody pending sentencing and deportation on May 1, 2006. Yet he's still imprisoned and his ordeal continues. In October 2006, assistant prosecutor Gordon Kromberg violated plea bargain terms by subpoenaing Al-Arian before a grand jury. It was to entrap him on perjury and obstruction of justice charges through clever and manipulative questioning.

At the time, he said this about all Muslims that should have automatically disqualified him: "If they can kill each other during Ramadan, they can appear before the grand jury - all they can't do is eat before sunset. I believe Mr. Al-Arian's request is part of the attempted Islamization of the American Justice System. I am not going to put off (his) grand jury appearance just to assist in what is becoming the Islamization of America." Following these comments, Al-Arian's attorney accused Kromberg of anti-Muslim bias and asked him to recuse himself. He denied the request and called Al-Arian before the grand jury.

He refused to testify and was held in contempt. He refused again before a newly convened grand jury, was again held in contempt, and had his sentence extended without mitigation until April 7, 2008. On March 3, 2008 (three weeks before his scheduled release and deportation), Al-Arian was again ordered to appear before another March 19 grand jury. He again refused, remained imprisoned, and on June 26 was indicted on two counts of criminal contempt.

Al-Arian's case is crucially important. It shows the peril of being Muslim in America. It also represents a disturbing abuse of the grand jury system before which Al-Arian has no obligation to testify. It's at a time our constitutional checks and balances have eroded, our civil liberties are weakest, a president has usurped "unitary executive" powers to claim the law is what he says it is, and when we teeter on the edge of tyranny unless these practices are stopped.

Law Professor and Lead Al-Arian Counsel Jonathan Turley

Turley calls Al-Arian's case "a classic perjury trap used repeatedly by the government to punish those individuals who could not be convicted before an American jury." All the more so if you're Muslim, high-profile, and easily exploited for political advantage.

On June 30, Al-Arian was arraigned before Judge Leonie Brinkema of the US District Court for the Eastern District of Columbia. Turley was denied the right to meet with him in advance and wasn't prepared to enter a plea. The Court did it for him - "not guilty." His trial is scheduled to begin on August 13, 2008.

Turley requested that Al-Arian be released on bail. He's not charged with terrorism, has no passport, and isn't a flight risk. Since charges involve contempt, there's no reason to hold him. He's lived in the country since 1975, has lawful alien status, his children are US citizens, and they have deep ties here. In addition, citizens have volunteered to be custodians, and Al-Arian is willing to be continually monitored under home confinement. Turley calls the government's actions "purely gratuitous and retaliatory under (these) conditions."

He further requested a bond hearing, and Judge Brinkema agreed. During his Florida trial, friends offered millions in property as security. They were denied. Prosecutors asked for a one-day trial. Turley requested three days and told Judge Brinkema that counsel believes Al-Arian's indictment is "invalid on its face." He didn't refuse to cooperate. He'd already given two detailed affidavits establishing that he had no knowledge of any crimes committed by the International Institute of Islamic Thought (a Herndon, Virginia think tank) or its officers. He also repeatedly asked to take a polygraph exam for verification. He was denied.

Turley also explained that the day before his indictment the government expressed satisfaction with his affidavits. By indicting him, "the government's long pattern of retaliation against Dr. Al-Arian has now degraded further into raw thuggery." It has no interest in truth and justice. It intends to act outside the law by whatever means it takes to keep an innocent man imprisoned. Al-Arian is now at Alexandria, VA City Jail awaiting his bond hearing.

On July 10 it was held, and for the first time since his February 2003 arrest there was good news - at least so far. Over strong government objections, Judge Brinkema agreed that Al-Arian is not a flight risk or danger to his community and granted him bail. But it's not over yet because DOJ is sure to fight it. One possible way according to Turley - having ICE officials hold him for deportation and keep him imprisoned until his trial.

Turley cited Judge Brinkema's "significant statements in the hearing:

-- that she was getting "strange signals" about this case; that "the government should not be found to have harassed efforts for another government to accept Dr. Al-Arian under his plea agreement;

-- that the plea agreement still applies and the government is required to deport him "with expedition;"

-- should ICE resume custody, the deportation provision would be triggered; and

-- Judge Brinkema wants confirmation that Al-Arian already gave the government detailed statements and repeatedly offered to take a polygraph exam to prove his truthfulness.

Prosecutor Kromberg twisted the truth to deny Al-Arian bail. Turley expertly countered him. The week of July 14 he'll submit pre-trial motions and (formally) request Al-Arian's release on bail. DOJ will surely fight it. The case is far from resolved, and according to Turley: "Things are likely to become stranger still as the government continues its long campaign to hold Dr. Al-Arian by any means or method. We remain hopeful, however, that (he'll) be vindicated and (allowed) to leave the country" as his plea bargain stipulates.

Yassin Aref - Another Muslim Political Prisoner

A personal note. I've twice before written about Aref, discussed his case with his lawyers on my radio program, and have personal contact with him in prison. Like others of his faith, he was hunted down, rounded up, held in detention, kept in isolation, denied bail, restricted in his right and access to counsel, tried on secret evidence and trumped-up charges, then convicted in a kangaroo court proceeding and given a long prison term.

Like Al-Arian and other Muslims, Aref was targeted for his faith and ethnicity. He's an innocent man and another victim of police state justice. He's now serving a 15 year sentence at the secret Terre Haute, Indiana federal penitentiary's Communication Management Unit (CMU). Opened in December 2006, it's for "high-security risk" Muslim and Middle Eastern prisoners to limit or cut them off entirely from outside contact. Doing so violates the Supreme Court's 2004 Johnson v. California decision and Prison Bureau regulations. However, the courts and Congress haven't intervened.

Aref appealed on March 24, 2008 before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York. After the proceeding, one of his pro bono trial lawyers, Stephen Downs, was hopeful but cautious. He explained that predicting the outcome was uncertain at best and foolhardy at worst.

On July 2 in United States v. Aref, the (three-judge panel) Appeals Court rendered a unanimous decision. Aref was denied, and unless a motion for rehearing or the Supreme Court decides otherwise, he'll remain imprisoned for 15 years. The Court issued an 11 page summary order rejecting evidentiary challenges and other defendant claims. Appeals Court lawyers Terrence Kindlon and Kathy Manley expressed profound disappointment with Kindlon saying: "I feel like somebody hit me in the face with a pie....We were feeling some optimism here. We thought there were some significant issues that dealt not just with the law but with some of the events that occurred throughout the course of the trial....I can honestly say I strongly and respectfully disagree with the decision."

A Schenectady, NY columnist, Carl Strock, was also dismayed and commented: "I thought the arguments (for reversal) were compelling, but I could hardly imagine an appeals court overturning a jury verdict in something so sensitive as Muslim terrorism, even if the terrorism was" bogus. The ruling "means it's OK for the FBI to lure law-abiding citizens (or legal residents) into doing something illegal" or that government prosecutors can claim (with secret evidence unavailable to counsel) is illegal and then arrest, charge and convict them for it. "That's the long and short of this case."

It's also OK for federal judges to assure jurors that the government has "good and valid (prosecutorial) reasons" even when there are none. The same government claimed "valid reasons" to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. We now know there were none.

Kindlon said he's preparing an en banc motion for rehearing before the full Appeals Court and a writ of certiorari petition to the Supreme Court asking it to review the lower court ruling. Winning a reversal in either court will be daunting given the preponderance of hard right federal judges on the bench. It shows what all Muslims (and the rest of us) are up against despite the important Boumedienne v. Bush Supreme Court decision. It ruled Guantanamo detainees have habeas rights even if they're not US citizens and are held outside the country. Despite having them, however, getting justice in US federal courts may prove a bridge too far. Especially for those targeted as enemies of the state with or without evidence.

Like Al-Arian, Aref is an innocent man. His crime is being Muslim at the wrong time in America. He committed no crime and was victimized by an FBI frame. I have direct contact with him in prison. We exchange letters and occasional emails when he's allowed to send and receive them. He's a friend and a supremely gracious and decent man. Injustice to him, Al-Arian and others denies it to everyone. Today we're all Yassin Arefs and Sami Al-Arians, Boumedienne v. Bush notwithstanding.

"I Am Not Surprised"

On the web site maintained for him (yassinaref.com), Aref responded to the Appeals Court decision in prose and poetry. Below are extended excerpts.

"I am not surprised. When they arrested me....I was shocked the next morning when they took me to court. I was surprised to see all those police, marshals and media, and I was really confused: what was all that about? Who am I (to be so important)? What did I do? What was going on? All of it was unbelievable. I (told) the marshals that there is a law in this country and I did nothing wrong, so the judge will free me and let me go back to my family."

He didn't and refused me bail, "claiming I was a flight risk and danger to the community, even" though I have no "travel documents and there was 50 cents in my wallet, plus I am stateless and have no country to go to. Above all, I did nothing wrong (and) have (nothing) to hide.

Then while....in jail....I understood what was going on....it's not me, it's politics and discrimination....if I was not a Muslim and Imam....never would I have been targeted (or) indicted" or tried without evidence. Even if they" tried me, no "jury (would) find me guilty," and if they did no judge would accept it. Even if the judge did, no "appeal court" would go along. "But all of this happened....because I was a foreigner, a Muslim who had a little beard.

All the government did was misrepresent their evidence to confuse the court and prevent justice from taking place." Everyone in the drama played a role. "But still I am happy because I did nothing wrong and harmed no one....what they did to me is wrong and not fair, and I believe the truth will never die and people will find it sooner or later."

The government "dishonored justice and humiliated the Constitution, not me. Anyone who knows me....knows I am innocent." Knows I'm not "a dangerous wild animal who must be locked down in an isolated unit. I am just a scapegoat for the (government's wrong policies and a victim (of) their nonsensical ongoing war." Millions of others are suffering like me.

"The government....know(s) very well I had nothing to do with terrorists or (have any) anti-American (beliefs) or (approve of) violence, and that never in my life did I participate in any fighting or....support any terrorists....I am just a Muslim and a stateless Kurd....Let the government celebrate their victory for destroying my family and for putting an innocent man in prison. Let the media" and appeals court support what they did. It changes nothing. "I am innocent and did nothing wrong.

I am grateful for everyone who has supported me, wished and prayed for the best for me and felt sorry for my family....They cannot put hate in my heart and revenge in my thoughts. I know it's not over, and I hope you believe the same and stay firm until justice takes place and the truth comes out. Please do not forget my family."

We never will Yassin or stop supporting your struggle for justice. Or other innocent victims like yourself.

For Muslims in America, Their Ordeal Continues

Rumors are circulating about new police state tactics later this summer - so the DOJ may open new investigations without evidence of wrongdoing. Merely on the basis of an undisclosed "terrorist profile" or "pattern of behavior" suggesting suspects should be watched and interrogated about their Muslim or Arab-connected activities. Other grounds as well - where they travel as well as their occupation, race or ethnicity. It means millions of Americans will be targeted at a time no one's civil liberties are protected. Bogus charges will be brought against innocent people, and if they're Muslims and called "terrorists" imagine what little justice they'll get.

Congress won't help either. It gutted the Fourth Amendment further after both Houses passed and George Bush signed (on July 10) the FISA Amendments Act of 2008. It's FISA on steroids and more by granting telecom companies retroactive immunity to conduct warrantless spying post-9/11. Obama and McCain supported it. So did most others in Congress. Everyone has reason to fear it. Muslims most of all. They've suffered hugely since 9/11. No letup is in sight. This is how a police state works. Congress, the courts, and executive are on board. So is his successor. Expect little change in 2009 and no open public debate. The law of the land is now lawlessness. No one is safe, and there's no place to hide.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9569

McCain's Nomination - A Possible September Surprise?

McCain's Nomination - A Possible September Surprise? - by Stephen Lendman

Party conventions are less than two months off, and already rumors are circulating. When the Democrats hold theirs from August 25 - 28, Obama is the virtually sure nominee. According to some, however, things aren't settled for Republicans a week later. Presumptive nominee John McCain may not be as certain as most people think, and why so should be asked.

For one thing, he trails in the polls (including in key battleground states like Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania) but not enough to be worrisome (in most of them), and the latest June Reuters/Zogby one is typical. It shows Obama ahead by about five points, and in recent months he's been up by from 6 to 10 and in one poll down six to McCain. It's much the same from a June Financial Dynamics one, but shows up much differently when respondents are asked which party's candidate they'll support. In recent months, Democrats have been strongly favored - since January from up 6 to 15 with three of the five survey months showing double digit leads.

That's indeed worrisome, and it showed up last March 29 in the Cook Political Report. It noted that by "almost every available gauge, Republicans are in deep trouble. Except that is, for the one that counts most - the presidential election trial heat." Back then, Obama or Clinton v. McCain came out pretty even with either side gaining an edge in different polls but not by much.

Fast forward to June 14, and the Cook Report said this: "After Clinton dropped out (Democrats quickly united and in Gallup polls) Obama is holding a steady 7-point lead, his largest since Gallup began tracking in March. (Further) Democrats now routinely hold a 6-to-8 point advantage on party identification. So Obama will have a distinct edge if he is as popular among Democrats as McCain is among Republicans. (He) represents the embodiment of change, which is an advantage in this political climate" when voters are begging for it. Yet it's too early to predict an outcome, and months earlier the Cook Report called the race a toss-up. It still says "anyone has a 50-50 chance of picking the winner today."

That view may change after the latest Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll came out June 25 - conducted from June 19 - 23. Right or wrong, it was hugely different from others up to mid-June. It showed Obama with a "sizable" lead over McCain, and here are the numbers:

-- head to head in a two-man race, Obama leads McCain by 49% to 37%;

-- however, in a four-man race (including Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr), Obama outscores McCain 48% to 33% for a 15 point spread.

Conclusion: Nader, Barr, and a Green Party candidate are running; others likely also but not enough to matter unless a prominent figure unexpectedly does as an independent; alternate candidates at this stage are taking votes from McCain, most likely Republican ones. Why so? Largely because voters trust Obama more on their top concern - the economy. Other domestic issues also while McCain scores higher on national security matters.

Most significant is McCain's "passion gap" among conservatives - 58% support him, but 15% are for Obama and another 13% undecided. In contrast, 79% of self-described "liberals" back Obama. Further, and equally significant, more than half (55%) of McCain supporters lack enthusiasm, and only 13% are "very enthusiastic." It's mirror opposite for Obama - 81% of his backers are "enthusiastic" and nearly half "very enthusiastic."

Two Times/Bloomberg poll results highlight McCain's problem. First is George Bush's approval rating. It scored the lowest ever: 23% with 73% disapproving of his job performance.

Second is the Christian right's feeling that McCain isn't solid on its issues, and as a senator flip-flopped on key ones. Supporting abortion in cases of rape and incest, for example, and wanting stem cell research to go forward. Also his reference to Pat Robinson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance" in his 2000 presidential campaign. He later apologized, but it may be too little, too late.

Discord In the Ranks

Rumblings below the surface have Republicans worried. It's clear from the above poll results and in a May 11 AFP report. It noted that "many party members (are) having a hard time accepting (McCain and they're) showing it with symbolic votes against him in" primaries. Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina to name three recent ones. It worries party leaders that "as many as 25% of Republicans want a different candidate" based on how many preferred other choices than McCain. Why so? Because his "reputation as a party maverick and a compromising moderate" makes him unpredictable. It also disgruntles "the party's most conservative and ideological members," and they've got plenty of clout to matter.

In recent weeks, however, McCain fought back by tilting noticeably to the right the way he's often done in the past. His speeches focused on conservative red meat issues like the Iraq war, national security, and appointing conservative High Court Justices while avoiding controversial ones like abortion, gay rights and others the religious right opposes. Nonetheless, his electability problem showed up in a May Wall Street Journal poll. It gave Bush a 27% approval rating, and 43% think McCain is "too closely aligned with the Bush agenda." That spells trouble (like the Times/Bloomberg results), and Democrats are exploiting it.

There's also McCain's temperament, his unimpressive intellect, unpredictability, his bigotry, arrogance, hardheadedness, legendary temper, instability, and his genius for making enemies among the faithful he needs for support. Observers also describe some recent speeches as wooden, halting, mechanical, bumbling, uninspiring, mean-spirited, and clearly no match for Obama who outclasses him. Then consider how Alexander Cockburn described him last February in a CounterPunch article: "a dunderhead in statecraft, devoid of self control, capricious in moral standards and an imbecile in his lack of political judgment." Worst of all it shows, and "the better people get to know (him), the less they care for him." The public as well that's shifting more to Obama as the two candidates face off with four months to go until November.

More reasons are McCain's flip-flops on long-held positions - on defense spending, domestic spying, torture, the estate tax, Social Security, balanced budgets, immigration, taxes, and numerous others - to convince conservatives he's one of them, pretend he's also centrist, but end up satisfying neither side because he's not believable. He may triangulate around domestic issues like abortion and campaign finance reform but in most respects he's conservative, hard right, and pro-business down the line. And on foreign policy, he's a super-hawk, as extremist as any, a shoot-first kind of guy, and an unabashed adherent of the Bush-Cheney doctrine, much like Joe Lieberman who's rumored as one of his vice-presidential choices.

Consider another issue as well - widely reported on July 3. The pro-McCain Wall Street Journal headlined: "McCain Shakes Up Campaign Organization." It went on to say he did it "for the second time in a year (because he) lags behind....Obama in the polls and faces criticism that his message is fractured and his operation is disorganized." McCain approved the changes after close aides told him his presidential hopes were endangered, and his campaign had to be revamped to save it.

The Journal reported more bad news as well by comparing his war chest to Obama's. Through May, Obama raised $287.5 million, had $43.1 million in cash on hand, continues to raise about $1 million a day, and expects to bring in another $200 million by November 4. In contrast, McCain trails badly and surprisingly so for a Republican. He raised $119 million, had $36 million in cash on hand left, and new campaign-finance loopholes may net him tens of millions more. That plus whatever public funding brings in, however, will still leave him well behind.

On July 6, AP reported more trouble as well. For starters, McCain's "trying to succeed a deeply unpopular fellow Republican in a year that favors Democrats." He also lacks a "coherent message let alone much of a strategy." His "troubles are so acute that he recently gave (his) senior advisor "full operational control" of his campaign and "scaled back the duties of (his) campaign manager." Republican pollster, Steve Lombardo, stated his concern: " McCain's got "no big theme around which to build a winning campaign." He needs a "big strategic message (to) show differences between" him and Obama to help him win.

At best, GOP insiders are "cautious." They worry that every poll shows McCain behind, and "on voters' most important issues, (he) trails on (all of them) but Iraq and terrorism. He also lags in key states," including key battleground ones. And when "it comes to message and strategy, McCain has appeared to flounder." One more thing as well. "McCain's campaign is roughly 300-strong compared with Obama's 1000-person plus operation." Another sign of a mismatch, so far at least.

McCain's Health As A Campaign Issue

Then there's the health issue and delay in releasing his medical records. His former bouts with skin cancer raise questions about his fitness. He's had one or more very common squamous cell carcinomas, but three more serious "thin" melanomas and one a potentially deadly deep one since 1993. On June 18 Dermatologist Kevin Berman explained the risks in a SkinCancerConnection.com piece.

Three of McCain's tumors were diagnosed as "melanoma in-situ," meaning they were caught early, were superficial, hadn't penetrated into deep layers of skin, so hadn't spread to other parts of his body. His deep melanoma is another matter. It was diagnosed and treated in 2000 after it penetrated to a depth of 2.2 mm on his face and was excised "with wide margins (through) a lymph node dissection that showed that the cancer had not spread to the lymph nodes and 'presumably' not to any other internal organs." The five-year survival rate in this case is about 80%, so Dr. Berman asks is McCain's health an issue.

Overall, younger patients do better than older ones, and McCain will be 72 in August. In addition, women survive better than men, and limb melanomas turn out better than facial ones for which McCain was treated. However, everyone is unique, and "the fact that (he's been) cancer free for 8 years is a good sign that (he's) cured." But it's no guarantee for anyone, let alone a man with a history of skin cancer.

Further, melanoma is deadly and "can reappear later without any warning on any internal organ," so it's unwise to say McCain is "out of the woods" and the reason periodic checks are necessary. He gets full body ones every three months because it's uncommon to have had this many melanomas. That alone is reason for concern.

Dr. Berman's prognosis: he won't place odds on reoccurrences or complications, nor will he predict how McCain's history will affect his campaign or his health as president if elected. His only advice is to avoid excessive sun and suntanning, use a good sunscreen when exposed, and hope a good set of genes provide protection. McCain doesn't have them, however.

On May 23 (a quiet time ahead of the Memorial Day weekend), he released an astonishing 1173 pages of medical records (covering 2000-2008 only), including what relates to his August 2000 melanoma surgery. They showed no evidence of a recurrence, and his primary care physician, Dr. John Eckstein, said: "While it is impossible to predict any person's future health, today I can find no medical reason or problems that would preclude Senator McCain from fulfilling all the duties and obligations of the president of the United States." We find "no evidence of metastasis or recurrence of the invasive melanoma as we approach the eighth anniversary of that operation." Mr. McCain's prognosis is "very good" because the greatest risk comes within "the first few years after surgery."

The records also revealed:

-- a history of kidney stones;

-- high cholesterol;

-- nasal allergies;

-- a recent colonoscopy in which six benign polyps were removed;

-- occasional brief episodes of "benign postitional vertigo" (dizziness) when he stands up too quickly, but it's "not a precursor for a stroke;" and

-- a "significantly reduced range of motion" in his shoulders, arms and right knee from his wartime injuries and as a POW.

Overall, he was pronounced healthy and cancer-free.

He takes simvastatin for high cholesterol; hydrochlorothiazide for kidney stone prevention; aspirin to prevent blood clots; the antihistamine Zyrtec for nasal allergies; Ambien CR to aid sleep while traveling; and a multivitamin.

In 1999, McCain released 1500 earlier medical documents prior to his presidential run against George Bush. They were part of a US Navy project to assess the health of former POWs. They showed normal psychological tests and mental state and judged he had readjusted "exceptionally well" to civilian life. A 1974 psychiatric evaluation described him as "ambitious, competitive and energetic" with no evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) despite admitting twice he attempted suicide in captivity.

For now at least, McCain's health seems not an issue unless there's something hidden or his enemies or Obama want to make it one. Consider also at least six past presidents who were incapacitated for a time, unable to fulfill their duties as a result, but remained in office nonetheless - Lincoln, Garfield, Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson.

Health As A Campaign Issue and For Serving Presidents

Consider four in particular who as candidates ran and were elected president in spite of debilitating or soon to be worrisome health problems. Woodrow Wilson (1913-1921 in office) for one. On October 3, 1919 (in his second term), he suffered a disabling stroke that doctors should have predicted from his history. Prior to his first election, he had atherosclerosis. He suffered a stoke in 1896 that caused marked weakness of the right upper limb and "sensory disturbances" in his fingers. For a time, he couldn't write normally. He suffered a recurrence of right upper limb weakness in 1904 and lost vision in his left eye in 1906.

Up to and after his first 1912 election, he had multiple other neurological problems, and from 1915-1919 severe headaches causing double vision and signs of heart weakness. Wilson was a sick man, was twice elected president anyway, hid his condition from officials and the public, and when incapacitated remained president anyway.

Franklin Roosevelt (1933-1945 in office) was another example from prior to his first election. A 1921 poliomyelitis attack (at age 39) left him paralyzed below the hips. Between 1920 and 1932, he developed an enlarged pigmented lesion above his left eye that some believe was a malignant melanoma. As president, it was excised, leaving a scar above the eyebrow. In 1944, his health was so poor, he was advised not to run a fourth time. In January that year, he complained of headaches, "seemed strangely tired, even in the morning," and once blacked out at his desk. He was gravely ill, but kept it hidden.

In March 1944, hypertensive heart disease and high blood pressure were discovered, and he was diagnosed as cyanotic from poor circulation. By month's end, he was worse with congestive heart disease. He had a series of other problems throughout the year, was in no condition to remain president, yet he ran and was reelected in November. On April 12, 1945, he died at age 63, and, considering his wartime stress, it's a wonder he lasted that long. A stroke of good luck as well that disaster was avoided because a leader in his condition was commander-in-chief but couldn't perform his duties.

Jack Kennedy was done in by an assassin, not his health, but had he lived long enough it might have. Some around him said "from a medical standpoint, (he) was a mess." He was hospitalized more than three dozen times in his life and given last rites on three occasions.

He nearly died of scarlet fever at age 2 years, 9 months. He contracted measles, whooping cough and chicken pox the same year, and as a child, was susceptible to upper respiratory infections and bronchitis. He suffered jaundice in 1935, had a history of sports-related injuries because "his physique was inadequate," and his mother remembered him as "a very, very sick little boy." He began taking steroids for colitis in the 1930s and developed later complications from it, including duodenal ulcer, back problems, and underactive adrenal glands known as Addison's disease.

He had a host of other problems as well, including a likely bout of malaria as a naval officer in the Pacific. The 1960 presidential campaign exhausted him (at age 43) because he overdid it for a man in his health. His Addisonism was diagnosed in 1947, at the time told he had one year to live, and was given his last rites shortly after. Yet as senator and president, it was hidden, and one observer called it "one of the most cleverly laid smoke screens ever put down around a politician('s)" health.

Finally, there's Ronald Reagan. After childhood, he had a series of health problems but nothing debilitating or serious - severe nearsightedness, fractures, urinary tract infections, prostate stones, hearing loss, temporomandibular (jaw) joint degeneration, osteoarthritis in his right thumb, and in 1967 a "trans-urethral prostatectomy" because of his history of "benign prostatic hypertrophy and several episodes of prostatitis."

Things changed, however, after he was shot in March 1981. He was lucky and might have died from loss of blood alone, and only modern surgical care saved him. He had polyps removed in 1984 and a more serious one surgically in 1985. Some minor skin cancer as well in 1987. Alzheimer's disease was another matter, and there were early signs in his presidency long before he was officially diagnosed (at age 83) or the public learned of it.

Straightaway in Cabinet meetings, he forgot the names of his officers. At other times his trusted aides and visiting dignitaries and once referred to his vice-president as "Prime Minister Bush." In Brazil he toasted the people of Bolivia, and on one memorable occasion went completely blank when asked a question, until his wife Nancy whispered a response in his ear. After being shot, he became disoriented, and it took months for him to recover but likely never fully. Those around him began to speculate, and it became noticeable in his second term. Alzheimer's progresses slowly, and though marginalized with it in office, he survived to age 93 when he died at his California home in June 2004.

John McCain - Will He or Won't He Be Nominated in September

Writer Steve Rosenbaum thinks maybe not, and if so, it will be a "genuine September Surprise." Why so? He thinks around mid-August, he and/or the party will decide he can't win, but he'll cite health or another excuse for dropping out. True or not, he looks bumbling and uncertain on stage and at times like he's about "to keel over."

As bad or worse, he's got tepid Christian right support. The public sees him as pro-war as George Bush, and they want the Iraq one at least ended. Further, Bush's endorsement is a kiss of death, and he may rue the day he got it. That along with his temper, unpredictable flip-flops, and a legion of enemies on the Hill make him vulnerable to stepping down or being dumped. But not to "sit this one out" and hand Obama the election, according to Rosenbaum. Not this time at least when Republicans plan to win and keep the presidency even though Democrats seem poised for big congressional gains.

They'll do it the same way as in 2004, electoral fraud aside. They'll "swift boat" Obama John Kerry-style, dig up any dirt they can find, play up the race card, call him soft on national defense, say he plans to raise taxes, whatever it takes to tear down a candidate who looks like a winner - and do it with a fresh new face, but a well-known conservative one or at least conservative enough. The possibilities range from Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell to Michael Bloomberg, Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar with a host of others as well - all without McCain's baggage.

Can it happen? Why not, according to Rosenbaum, and he's not alone thinking it. It may be Republicans best chance to win, although changing horses this late ups the odds against it. Nonetheless, some party faithful want a bona fide conservative and nearly anyone but McCain. Others hate his flip-flops and at least one calls him the most flawed candidate ever and the Republican from Hanoi, referring to allegations that he got preferential POW treatment after his father, Admiral JS McCain, became CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command over all Vietnam forces.

An organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" feels a lot of questions remain about his time in captivity. They want answers, and feel he's obligated to provide them. So far he hasn't. It fuels criticism and doubts, and it's not doing his campaign or the party any good.

Will it sink him? Who knows, but we're into July, the convention is approaching, so party brokers have little time left to decide. Let him run and maybe lose, or if elected be unacceptable because he's too unpredictable. Stay tuned. If Rosenbaum and others are right, a September surprise is coming, and the fireworks are about to start.

On the other hand, Republicans may stick with a likely loser, someone many insiders dislike, go for a 1976 repeat, turn things over to a Democrat, let him deal with their mess, then retake the presidency next time around. Either way, whoever takes over next year faces an unenviable task. Maybe one too great for any head of state.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9506

Legitimizing Permanent Occupation of Iraq

Legitimizing Permanent Occupation of Iraq - by Stephen Lendman

Washington is currently negotiating two accords with the al-Maliki government to take effect after expiration of the UN's military mandate on December 31. One agreement is for a long-term "strategic framework" to establish "cooperation in the political, economic, cultural and security fields." Or according to the administration - to defend Iraq's "sovereignty and integrity of its territories, waters, and airspace."

The other is a so-called "status of forces agreement" (SOFA) to provide legitimacy for the US occupation beginning January 1, 2009. Following the 2003 invasion, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1511. It officially recognized the "Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)" and authorized a multinational force to bring "stability" to the country. Part of the agreement was for the mandate to be reauthorized each year. It's been done "at the request of the Iraqi government." By late 2007, al-Maliki asked for a mandate extension "for the last time" to officially end Iraq's international peace and security threat designation that's been in place since August 1990.

In November 2007, George Bush and al-Maliki signed a preliminary US - Iraq political, economic, and security agreement. Part of it is for an indefinite US military presence. Final completion was to be by July 31, 2008, but with the date fast approaching and widespread opposition, things may likely change.

For months, US plans generated considerable opposition - within and outside Iraq. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani objected. So has Iran and a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians who vowed to veto any agreement not approved by the country's Council of Representatives. On May 29, they further said that any US - Iraq bilateral agreement must "obligate the occupying American military forces to fully withdraw from Iraq." On May 28, Muqtada al-Sadr went further. He called for protests against the ("forces of darkness") SOFA and issued orders to:

-- raise awareness of its terms;

-- unite political opposition against it;

-- participate in weekly protests;

-- hold a national referendum or if denied gather millions of opposition signatures;

-- form political and religious delegations in opposition;

-- set a timetable for the occupation's end;

-- inform the Iraqi government it has no right to sign an agreement; and

-- to have the Hawza Shiite religious academy become more active and stand against an agreement that's clearly against the interests of the Iraqi people.

Within the US, some in Congress object that George Bush claims authority as commander-in-chief to constitutionally bypass lawmakers and deal unilaterally with the Iraqi government. Others like Yale Law School Professors Oona Hathaway and Bruce Ackerman concur and believe the agreement "moves far beyond" traditional accords and must be subject to congressional review.

In a February 15, 2008 Washington Post.com op-ed, they state "The Bush administration is so intent on securing its legacy in Iraq that it is once again ignoring the Constitution....it is well on its way toward (deepening America's) commitment without the congressional support the Constitution requires."

They cite examples:

-- exempting civilian contractors from prosecution under Iraqi laws; it assures their immunity elsewhere as well; current federal law "only subjects contractors working in support of the Defense Department to prosecution in American courts for felonies in Iraq;" civilian security forces (like Blackwater Worldwide), the State Department, CIA and others will be in a "no-law" status, subject only to the will of the president; civilians may thus commit murders, rapes, robberies, other lawless acts and get away with them; "no (known) existing status of forces agreement....contains anything like this wide-ranging exemption;"

-- exempting military personnel as well who can be court-martialed but rarely are;

-- allowing the president to exceed his constitutional authority as commander-in-chief; he's only in charge of the military, "not all Americans working overseas;"

-- even worse, most administration plans are secret and what's learned comes out in leaks; more on that below; and

-- Congress held hearings on January 23 and February 8 - "on the legitimate scope of the Iraqi agreement;" the administration refused to testify.

Hathaway and Ackerman conclude by calling for a congressional resolution "declaring invalid any military agreement (going) beyond the traditional (SOFA) limits." No president may unilaterally bypass Congress. It's "especially wrong for a lame-duck (one) to make such a (controversial) commitment (that's) at the very center of the debate among the candidates vying to succeed him."

On July 4, Imam Sadreddin al-Kabandji (an aide to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani) issued a statement. It pressed the Baghdad government to hold a national referendum regarding US forces remaining in the country. Speaking for Iraq's supreme Shiite leader, he stated: "The Iraqi nation regards with concern the Iraqi-American treaty whose contents are not exactly known....The treaty (must be made public and) presented to the people and the clergy." It's unacceptable that the government is negotiating with the Americans "behind closed doors."

Status of Forces Agreements - An Explanation

The DOD's Defense Technical Information Center web site explains a SOFA as follows:

-- "an agreement that defines the legal position of a 'visiting' military force deployed in the territory of a friendly state." It delineates "the status of visiting military forces (and) may be bilateral or multilateral. Provisions pertaining to the status of visiting forces may be set forth in a separate agreement, or they may form a part of a more comprehensive agreement. These provisions describe how the authorities of a visiting force may control members of that force and the amenability of the force or its member to the local law or to the authority of local officials. To the extent that agreements delineate matters affecting the relations between a military force and civilian authorities and population, they may be considered as civil affairs agreements."

In his 2004 book, The Sorrows of Empire, Chalmers Johnson said this about SOFAs:

"America's foreign military enclaves, though structurally, legally, and conceptually different from colonies, are themselves something like microcolonies in that they are completely beyond the jurisdiction of the occupied nation. The US virtually always negotiates a 'status of forces agreement' (SOFA) with the ostensibly independent 'host' nation" - a modern day version of 19th century China's "extraterritoriality" granting foreigners charged with crimes the "right" to be tried by his (or her) own government under his (or her) own national law.

SOFA experts Rachel Cornwell and Andrew Wells added:

"Most SOFAs are written so that national courts cannot exercise legal jurisdiction over US military personnel who commit crimes against local people, except in special cases where US military authorities agree to transfer jurisdiction." As a result, when crimes occur, the military can simply whisk offenders out of the country before local authorities can react or at least before they're arrested.

As of September 2001, the Pentagon acknowledged SOFA agreements with only 93 countries. The total number is unknown but much higher. Some are too embarrassing to reveal, and many or most are kept secret. Overseas military bases aren't colonial outposts in the traditional sense. They're run by the DOD, CIA, NSA, DIA, and other official or secret state agencies. In September 2001, the Pentagon acknowledged the existence of 725 foreign bases. Today the number likely tops 1000. Further, DOD's (2001) Manpower Report indicated that over one-quarter of a million military personnel were deployed in 153 countries. Those numbers also are higher with Iraq and Afghanistan forces approaching 200,000 and no imminent signs of a pullback.

Depending on their location, families may or may not accompany their military spouses, and as Johnson explains: "except in Muslim countries (at least so far) these bases normally attract impressive arrays of bars, brothels, and the criminal elements that operate them near their main gates." As a result, bases "unavoidably usurp, distort, or subvert whatever institutions of democratic government may exist with the host society." It's a "recipe for the endless series of 'incidents' that plague (SOFA) nations (and easy to understand why) local residents get very tired of sexual assaults, drunken driving" and more serious crimes and abuses over which they have no control or chance for redress.

Reverse things and imagine how outraged US citizens would be if another country garrisoned troops close by with all the resultant fallout: besides murder, rape and other crimes, there's unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental destruction, appropriation of valued public real estate, and unaccountable soldiers getting drunk, causing damage, ignoring local customs, speeding and accosting local women when they're not raping or killing them.

It's one reason why we don't generally grant other nations basing rights here. So except for when foreign ships berth in our ports for short periods, US citizens never interact with another country's military or experience the fallout from it.

In his newest book, Nemesis, Johnson explains how SOFAs work. They're legal contractual "alliances" with other countries implementing mutually agreed on arrangements. They let us garrison US troops and civilian personnel - either on a new or existing facility. They're based on "common objectives" and "international threats to peace." In final form, they put US personnel as far as possible outside domestic law and spell out host country obligations to us. Except for our reciprocal NATO agreements, they also give our military and civilian personnel special privileges unavailable to ordinary citizens of host nations. Unlike western European countries with clout, most others are small, weak or occupied and have little muscle against our type bullying.

Then there are the above-cited SOFA problems. Is it surprising then that South Koreans, for example, object to our presence and a great deal more. A recent article reported tens of thousands on Seoul streets against President Lee Myung-bak in defiance of state repression threats. Their complaints are many and were triggered by the government's decision to allow potentially tainted US beef imports.

An earlier article relates to this one. It explained how angry South Koreans are about US military unaccountability for nearly six decades. Americans "defame our national sovereignty and commit many crimes, but we can't do anything about it except watch because of the unfair (SOFA)." Korean authorities have asked for remediating provisions. DOD granted virtually nothing. The same is true most elsewhere. Our reputation as a world-class bully is well deserved.

The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security between the United States and Japan - A SOFA Example

It was signed on January 19, 1960 with language intended to be reassuring. For example:

-- to settle international disputes peacefully;

-- work for international peace and security;

-- "refrain....from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state (or do anything) inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations;" in the 1960s and 1970s, Southeast Asians were apparently exempted; today it's Iraqis, Afghans and others;

-- strengthen free institutions and promote stability and well-being;

-- eliminate conflict;

-- to protect Japan's security and international peace in the Far East, America "is granted the use by its land, air and naval forces of facilities and areas in Japan" - to be governed by a "separate agreement" replacing the one signed in February 1952 and thereafter amended; and

-- many other reassurances in 10 articles about which the people of Okinawa object.

It's Japan's poorest and most southerly prefecture - a sort of equivalent of America's Puerto Rico. It's also a battleground pitting Okinawans against Washington and their own government in Tokyo. An expert on the region, Chalmers Johnson, puts it this way: "the Japanese-American SOFA....shield(s) (US) military felons from the application of Japanese law." It's the same type "unequal treaty" imposed on Japan after Commodore Perry's 1853 armed incursion.

But it didn't deter Donald Rumsfeld in 2003. In meeting with Japanese officials, he "press(ed) anew for the Japanese government to relent on a long-standing US demand for fuller legal protections (for our forces) accused of crimes while serving in Japan." Most often, it means committing them against Okinawans where the majority of them are based - plus their families and civilian DOD employees.

Okinawa is an extreme example because it's small and America uses 19% of its choicest real estate. Yet it's typical of what happens everywhere US forces are based in varying degrees. Johnson calls it "American military imperialism....easily reproduced in Germany, Italy, Kosovo, Kuwait, Qatar, Diego Garcia, and elsewhere, and more recently Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Iraq."

It augurs ill for the continued occupation of Iraq as a war zone. Since August 1990, the 1991 Gulf war, 12 years of sanctions, and the current Iraq war, America has disdained Iraqi interests, its welfare, culture, religion and lives. The country is occupied against the will of its people. Resistance has been continuous and fierce; human suffering immense; the death, injury, displacement and illness tolls unimaginable. Reassuring Iraqis of our benign intentions henceforth is impossible. Continued conflict is guaranteed plus all the resultant fallout Okinawans and other host nations face.

Take what outrages Okinawans most after decades of occupation - the SOFA-related article 17 covering criminal justice. It states: "The custody of an accused member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component (shall) remain with the United States until he is charged." It hamstrings Japanese investigators and denies them exclusive access until or unless suspects are indicted in court. As a result, prosecutors are reluctant to press charges because they can't get evidence for trial.

Examples on the island are frequent, but one was particularly grievous. In September 1995, two marines abducted a 12-year old girl, beat and raped her, left her on a beach, and returned to their base in a rented car. In October, 85,000 Okinawans protested. They demanded redress after the US military refused to let local police take custody.

Imagine the situation in Iraq where US military, Blackwater, and other security forces are unaccountable. In the case of Blackwater, it's "the world's most powerful mercenary army," has friends in high places, and employs "some of the most feared professional killers" anywhere. It operates outside the law, is protected by the Pentagon, and freely practices street violence. A SOFA will legalize it taking any possibility for redress off the table.

US - Iraq SOFA - Leaked Information

In late June, the Arabic newpaper, Awan, leaked 20 pages of the draft proposal. The web site roadstoiraq.com highlighted parts of it and noted a color-coded way of citing what's agreed on, not yet agreed on, and major differences. Below is a brief account of what it says:

-- attacking other countries from Iraq 'isn't' prohibited;

-- provisions governing the presence and activities of US forces, private contractors and US employees are identified;

-- activities agreed on include: "operations and training, transit, support and related activities, aerial refueling, maintenance of vehicles, ships and airplanes, providing suitable residences for employees and their workplaces, mobilizing forces and materials storage, and other goals and activities" to be later agreed on;

-- the US and Iraq "desire" for provisions to be "temporary;"

-- the agreement will support security and defense relations between the two countries "after the end of the transitional period....and peace will exist;"

-- unnamed provisions "postponed for now until later development;"

-- "detained members of the (US military) and civilian (contractors and employees shall be) delivered to the American forces;" the US military may also detain Iraqis;

-- "the Iraqi government authorizes the civilian elements to use force against others in case of self-defense; there will be no issue of juridical prosecutions;"

-- Iraq won't "invite a third country or international organization for logistic-support, training or (to aid) Iraqi security forces;" the Iraqi negotiator wants this provision removed;

-- "both sides seek regular consultation" at the political and military levels on defense and security cooperation;

-- issues of concern: Iraq's ability to secure its borders; training, supplying, establishing and developing Iraqi security forces' logistics, administration, and infrastructure; strengthening them as well; improving joint military cooperation, training, and exchange of expertise, academics, information and other military activities; and

-- the US ambassador commented obliquely that the "executive agreement is under the president's authorization; any pledge (involving US forces) and spending American money requires an agreement authorized by Congress; in the current US internal political situation, Congress unlikely will agree with this (so) the executive agreement will establish a suitable situation that can be developed in the future;" he's saying the president will act unilaterally and do as he pleases; Congress and Iraqis will be powerless;

The above information is very sketchy, but the issues are clear. Iraq is occupied, and a state of war exists. The Iraqi president and parliament are impotent. The Bush administration will pressure or bypass Congress and implement what it wishes. Another possibility is getting the Security Council to extend the current mandate. Either way, a new president in 2009 will enforce it. The Iraqi people are entirely left out. Iraqi officials may insist on their rights, and Washington may nominally agree in principle. But past agreements show how this one will be managed. Language will be vague and deceptive so, in the end, it'll be business as usual. Whatever Washington wants it will get. The Iraq government provides only fig leaf cover. The security accords are to provide international legitimacy once the UN mandate expires on December 31.

Indefinite occupation is planned and to be enforced by dozens of permanent military bases, including at least five mega-ones. On June 5, Patrick Cockburn reported in the London Independent that "Bush wants 50 military bases, control of Iraqi airspace and legal immunity for all American soldiers and contractors." Regardless of the November election, US personnel are currently immune under Paul Bremer's CPA Order 17, and a secret deal is being negotiated to make US occupation indefinite on Washington's terms.

Besides permanent bases and immunity from Iraqi law (largely written by Washington), the deal gives US military forces a free hand. It lets them carry out operations inside Iraq, presumably anywhere in the region as well, and grants the right to arrest Iraqis. Cockburn states: this "will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country." Deal or no deal, that's assured as long as Iraq is occupied against the will of its people.

So far it continues because the country's most influential (Shiite) religious leader hasn't intervened. Should Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani choose to, all bets are off. Iraq is largely Shia and al-Sistani greatly revered. In 2003, he forced US authorities to allow a referendum on a new constitution and a parliamentary election. He publicly opposes the SOFA unless four conditions are met according to a June 7 Iran Radio report cited on University of Michigan professor Juan Cole's Informed Comment web site - "transparency, defending national governance, national consensus, and approving the agreement by the Iraqi parliament."

The report (without attribution) also claimed Washington pledged $3 billion in bribes to win over Iraqi lawmakers - or around $11 million per parliamentarian and a tough offer to refuse if true. If they balk, the alternative may sway them - squeezing the country and officials in multiple ways, including blocking release of $50 billion in Iraqi oil revenue assets. They're from the earlier sanctions period and now on deposit at the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

Consider the latest, however, on a saga taking many twists and turns and no clear resolution in sight. In a July 7 news conference, al-Maliki surprised attendees. He said chances for a security pact are practically nil given the amount of internal opposition to it. Instead, he'll seek a limited ("memorandum of understanding") extension of the current mandate. And with no suggestion of numbers, he'll also link it to a US force withdrawal timetable.

On July 8, al-Maliki's National Security Advisor, Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, said Iraq is waiting "impatiently for the day when the last foreign soldier leaves" the country and wants firm dates for withdrawal. Getting them is another matter and statements mean little without actions. From the G-8 summit, George Bush's response means plenty, and it shows what Iraqis are up against: "It is important to understand that these are not talks on a hard date for a withdrawal."

Then there's al-Sistani to be reckoned with, a man even Bush takes seriously. If he gets more vocal and means it, the coming months will prove interesting. Yet he's caught on the horns of a dilemma. US support let Shias win majority control of parliament. On the other hand, Washington runs everything so control is only nominal. It remains to be seen if al-Sistani comes around to that view and draws the line on the SOFA and other security measures. Maybe on the oil giveaway as well, a topic for a separate article.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9506

Supreme Court, Inc.: Supremely Pro-Business

Supreme Court, Inc.: Supremely Pro-Business - by Stephen Lendman

Pro-business Supreme Court rulings are nothing new, and it's likely most damaging one ever occurred in 1886. In Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway, the High Court granted corporations legal personhood. Ever since, they've had the same rights as people but not the responsibilities. Their limited liability status exempts them. They've profited hugely as a result and have continued to win favorable rulings since. Today more than ever from the Roberts Court. One observer described its first full (2006-07) term as a "blockbuster" with the Court's conservative wing prevailing in most key cases. It's much the same in 2007-08, and it shows in its pro-business rulings.

Take its June 21, 2007 Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd decision for example. In fraud cases, the Court set strict investor suit guidelines in ruling for Tellabs against its shareholders. This and similar rulings got Robin Conrad, executive vice-president of the US Chamber of Commerce and head of its litigation team, to describe the 2006-07 Court term "our best (one) ever" with business winning 12 of 14 cases and another at the time to be decided. When it was, business won that one, too.

One was the Court's $80 million punitive damage award reversal in Philip Morris USA v. Williams, a lung cancer victim widow. But that paled compared to the DOJ's June 2005 turnaround. It pertained to its landmark tobacco industry civil racketeering settlement. Instead of the original $130 billion agreed on, it sought just 8% (or $10 billion) in spite of a government expert's testimony. He stated that the larger sum was essential to fund meaningful smoking-cessation programs to counter a "decades-long (industry) pattern of material misrepresentations, half-truths, deceptions and lies that continue to this day."

The June 2006 Bell Atlantic v. Twombly decision was another for business. It henceforth raised the bar for plaintiffs in alleged antitrust conspiracies. And the (April 17, 2007) Watters v. Wachovia one prevented states from regulating subsidiaries of national banks' just as the subprime crisis was emerging. Stripped of that power, consumers remain vulnerable to predatory lending practices any time.

It's no different for business in the current term, and it showed up prominently in three late June decisions and two notable January ones. In Regents of the University of California v. Merrill Lynch (on January 22), the Court threw out a huge lawsuit - for restitution from Enron's collusion and fraud against investors. In dismissing the case, it effectively immunized Enron's bankers from any liability in the company's malfeasance.

Earlier (on May 31, 2005), it did the same thing for Enron's accountant, Arthur Andersen. In unanimously overturning its obstruction of justice conviction, it found jury instructions were inappropriate. They "failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing" because jurors were told to convict Andersen if it had an "improper purpose" even if it thought it was acting legally.

On January 15, 2008, it issued a similar ruling in Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. It dismissed charges against cable TV set-top box makers in a scheme with Charter Communications. It involved over-charging customers for equipment, then rebating revenue to Charter in purchased advertising.

In Davis v. Federal Elections Commission, the Court (on June 26) struck down the "Millionaire's Amendment" McCain-Feingold Act provision. It let candidates accept larger than normal contributions against wealthy opponents with enough resources to outspend them. They have no restrictions and may self-finance as "robustly" as they wish.

Then on June 26, the Court distorted the Second Amendment in siding with the gun lobby. In District of Columbia v. Heller, Antonin Scalia and four other Justices said they were well "aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country." However, "constitutional rights necessarily (take) certain policy choices off the table." The Court will not "pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer had a different view. They called the decision "law-changing (and) a dramatic upheaval in the law."

A day earlier on June 25, another far-reaching decision came down. After 19 years, the Exxon Valdez matter was settled with implications far beyond this one case. In Exxon Shipping v. Baker, the Court reduced an original $5 billion in punitive damages to $500 million and ended the lengthy litigation process. It began on March 24, 1989 when the Exxon Valdez spilled 11 million gallons of crude into Prince William Sound, Alaska and changed the lives of its people forever. They're now denied meaningful restitution and worse.

The case is significant in its precedent-setting implications. Yet they began showing up earlier in High Court rulings involving lesser punitive damage award amounts. In BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore (May 20, 1996), the Supreme Court said $2 million in punitive damages was excessive in a case involving $4000 in compensatory ones. It declined to define what's constitutionally acceptable, but noted that the maximum penalty under Alabama's Deceptive Trade Practices Act (where BMW's plant is located) is $2000.

In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell (April 7, 2003), the Supreme Court called a $145 million punitive award excessive in a case involving $1 million in compensatory damages. It didn't impose a "bright line" rule on the permissible amount but cautioned that any ratio greater than nine-to-one is unreasonable. It further suggested that this case "would likely justify" a one-to-one ratio.

These and similar cases lower the bar for future malfeasance settlements. They give business more latitude to be reckless and make it easier than ever to be negligent and get away with it. After Exxon Shipping v. Baker, the price is even lower so business is freer to endanger the public and know right wing courts are supportive. Even worse are the constitutional implications, the protections it no longer affords, and government's failure to fulfill its minimum function.

When it works, it's to ensure the public welfare. It's so stated in the Preamble and Article I, Section 8 that "The Congress shall have power to....provide for....(the) 'general welfare' of the United States" - the so-called "welfare clause." It long ago eroded. They're mere words on parchment paper because governments lie, connive, misinterpret and discharge their duties in their own self-interest and for society's privileged class. The public is denied. Now more than ever as the people of Alaska can attest.

The Exxon Valdez Case

At 12:04AM on March 24, 1989, the BBC reported that "An oil tanker has run aground on a reef off the Alaskan coast, releasing gallons of crude oil into the sea. The Exxon Valdez got into trouble in Prince William Sound when it hit Bligh Reef, splitting its side open and releasing oil, with reports of an eight-mile slick. High winds are affecting attempts to suck (it) from the sea's surface and residents have reported poor air quality as emergency crews try to burn off its top layer."

The report continued that booms were ineffective. Environmentalists battled to save 10 million sea ducks. Seals and other fauna as well. The Coast Guard used chemicals to break up the slick, but local officials said Exxon responded too slowly. The tanker was a mile off course. The captain was in his quarters at the time, and businessmen said tourism would be affected. What about local fishermen and Native Alaskans. BBC didn't say even though they were most affected. It later reported that the Exxon Valdez was repaired, remained a single-hulled tanker, was renamed the Sea River Mediterranean, and was banned from Alaskan waters.

In its final March 25, 1989 edition, the Anchorage Daily News reported the following:

-- a hasty debate began on how to prevent a disaster "in one of America's most sensitive coastal zones;"

-- never before was so much oil spilled into such a "rich and confined northern coastal environment;"

-- the area (then) represented a "$100 million commercial fish(ing industry) and its abundance of birds and marine mammals;"

-- immediate concerns focused mainly on three wildlife species: sea otters, immature salmon, and spawning herring; sea birds, ducks, and other fauna as well;

-- fishermen in Cordova and Valdez "were just getting ready to fish" when it happened; they were furious about the accident; in 1971, they sued to stop the transAlaskan pipeline because they feared spills in the Sound; they settled out of court and got an oil industry commitment (reneged on) for state-of-the-art spill equipment and trained personnel on site to operate it;

-- the area is ecologically rich in flora and fauna;

-- the slick was spreading, expected to hit the beaches, and threatened one of the state's "most ambitious ocean ranching programs;" its long-term effects were feared, and a state Department of Fish and Game biologist said "the potential for serious problems is just staggering;" the Cordova District Fisherman's United vice-president said it was "like getting hit with a 25-ton sledge hammer."

Station KTUU Anchorage reported key oil spill timeline events:

-- June 20, 1977: oil first enters the Prudhoe Bay Pump Station One pipeline;

-- July 28, 1977: oil reaches Valdez;

-- August 1, 1977: the first tanker, Arco Juneau, sails out of Valdez; many thousands more followed;

-- 9:12PM, March 23, 1989: the Exxon Valdez leaves Valdez carrying 53 million gallons of crude;

-- 12:04AM, March 24, 1989: the ship strikes Bligh Reef spilling 10.8 million gallons of its cargo;

-- 7:27AM, March 24, 1989: the oil slick is about 100 feet wide and four to five miles long;

-- 10AM, March 24, 1989: a urine sample shows Capt Joe Hazelwood with a blood alcohol content of 0.10%;

-- 12PM, March 24, 1989: the Exxon Baton Rouge arrives to take oil from the damaged tanker; the slick is now three miles wide and five miles long;

-- 6PM, March 24, 1989: cleanup crews use dispersant but it's ineffective;

-- 8:15PM, March 25, 1989: 15,000 gallons are burned; it's the only time "in situ" burning was allowed;

-- 11:59PM, March 25, 1989: the slick's leading edge is 16.5 miles southwest of Bligh Reef;

-- March 29, 1989: In Anchorage Superior Court, two Prince William Sound fishermen file the first lawsuits against Exxon, the Alyeska Pipeline Service Company (TAPS), and the state Department of Environmental Conservation for damages from the accident and botched cleanup efforts;

-- by August 15, 1989, 140 lawsuits were filed against Exxon; the same day, the state of Alaska sues the company charging gross deception about its ability to transport crude safely and clean it up when it failed;

-- on October 23, 1989: Exxon sues the state of Alaska for interfering in and slowing the cleanup process;

-- on February 27, 1990: an Anchorage federal grand jury indicts Exxon and other oil defendants on five counts - two felony and three misdemeanor charges;

-- on March 13, 1991: in Juneau, Exxon settles claims with the state and federal government for $1 billion;

-- on September 30, 1991: state and federal authorities reach a second deal with Exxon; it's similar to the first except that Alaska intended to share scientific and legal data with other potential plaintiffs;

-- on July 13, 1993: Alyeska agrees to pay $98 million to settle claims with Native corporations, fishermen, business owners and others;

-- on September 16, 1994: in Exxon Shipping v. Baker, an Anchorage jury awards $287 million in compensatory damages and $5 billion in punitive ones to 32,677 fishermen, Native Alaskans, landowners and other aggrieved parties;

-- on December 6, 2002: the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals orders punitive damages reduced to $4 billion;

-- Exxon appeals and on January 28, 2004: District Court Judge H. Russell Holland raised the amount to $4.5 billion plus $2.25 billion in interest; his ruling referred to Exxon's "recklessness....(that) did not cause only economic harm....(it) caused harm beyond the purely economic; the social fabric of Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet was torn apart;" so were the lives of the aggrieved who "suffered from severe depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, or a combination of all three;"

-- on December 22, 2006: following more appeals, the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals reduced punitive damages to $2.5 billion;

-- on May 23, 2007: Exxon appeals to the Supreme Court; and

-- on June 25, 2008: the High Court reduced the amount to $500 million - the equivalent of about 1.5 days profit from its 2008 first quarter operations or hardley enough to matter; ExxonMobil is the world's largest corporation; it had 2007 sales of $404 billion and $40.6 billion in profits; in nominal GDP terms, it ranks 23rd in size ahead of Norway, Austria, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela; with rising oil prices, Exxon's sales now run at an annualized rate of nearly $470 billion; in nominal 2007 GDP terms, it ranks 18th ahead of Sweden, Indonesia, Belgium and Switzerland.

The True Exxon Valdez Story

When the Exxon Valdez ran aground, Capt. Joe Hazelwood was off duty. He was drunk and below deck sleeping it off. The first and second mates weren't around either. The third mate was in charge and might have avoided a problem had the ship's radar been on. It wasn't because it's complicated, expensive to operate, was broken, and Exxon hadn't repaired it for a year prior to the accident. Why not? To save money with no regard for the consequences if it were needed.

Greg Palast's investigative work uncovered a trail of company fraud and coverup - of "doctored safety records, illicit deals between oil company chiefs, and programmatic harassment of witnesses." It was also "brilliant(ly) success(ful in) cheating the natives." He amassed four volumes of evidence. Almost none of it was reported. Here are some highlights:

-- 10 months in advance, a six company Alyeska Owners Committee internal memo warned that containing an oil spill "at the mid-point of Prince William Sound (wasn't) possible with present equipment;" that's where the Exxon Valdez ran aground; proper equipment would cost millions of dollars; the law required it; the companies promised to install it, but never did;

-- another memo said dispersants alone would be used against spills, and the committee decided that Alyeska would respond only "to oil spills in Valdez Arm and Valdez Narrows;"

-- previous small spills were hidden as "oil-in-water" events;

-- a confidential 1984 letter from Capt. James Woodle, Alyeska's Valdez Port commander, warned that "Due to a reduction in manning, age of equipment, limited training and lack of personnel, serious doubt exists that (we) would be able to contain and clean up effectively a medium or large size oil spill;" Woodle reported a previous Valdez spill coverup; "his supervisor forced him to take back (the report saying), 'You made a mistake. This was not an oil spill;' "

-- the law requires shippers to maintain "round-the-clock oil spill response teams;" Alyeska hired specially qualified Natives for the job, trained them with "special equipment to contain an oil slick at a moments notice;" then in 1979 they were fired; sham teams were created; names of untrained workers were listed on them; and equipment "was missing, broken or existed only on paper;" when the 1989 spill occurred, "there was no Native response team, only chaos."

Exxon drew fire, but British Petroleum (now BP) is just as culpable as Alyeska's major shareholder (46% at the time). "Exxon is a junior partner, and four other oil companies are just along for the ride." Capt. Woodle and other key people worked for BP, yet the company stayed well out of the spotlight. It also had "scandalous" evidence about the Valdez problem. Capt. Woodle personally "delivered his list of missing equipment and 'phantom' personnel (letter) directly (to) BP's Alaska chief, George Nelson."

The company hid the evidence, trumped up bogus marital infidelity charges against Woodle, bought him off to leave the state and not return, and also went after Charles Hamel, an independent oil shipper. He discovered the Valdez problems, reported them to BP, and then was spied on and hounded to silence him.

The Exxon Valdez story is clear. Profit considerations trump all others. Alyeska promised safety, but delivered betrayal, and Palast explained the problem this way: In shipping oil, "the name of the game is 'containment' because, radar or not, some tanker somewhere (will) hit the rocks. Stopping an oil spill catastrophe is a no-brainer....if a ship (hits) a reef (it's only necessary) to surround (it) with a big rubber curtain (a 'boom') and suck up the corralled oil. In signed letters to the state and Coast Guard, BP, ExxonMobil and partners promised that no oil would move unless the equipment was (available) and the oil-sucker ship (the 'containment barge') was close by....The oil majors fulfilled their promise the cheapest way: They lied."

When the Exxon Valdez hit Bligh Reef, no equipment was there. If it had been as promised, they'd have been no disaster and no need for the Supreme Court to reward Exxon and cheat Native Alaskans and fishermen.

The oil industry was well-served by "the fable of the drunken skipper." It turned Alyeska's lawlessness into a "one-time accident" because of "human frailty." It "made the spill an inevitability, not an accident" and assures future ones are coming and not just in Alaska.

In the late 1990s, an Exxon Prince William Sound brochure pronounced the water "clean and plant, animal and sea life are healthy and abundant." In fact, it's mirror opposite. Palast revisited Alaska in 1999. On Chenega, rocks were still being scrubbed with 20 tons of sludge removed from beaches that one summer. At Nanwalek village, the state declared clams poisoned from "persistent hydrocarbons" and inedible. The Montague Island sea lion rookery is empty. The herring never returned, and salmon still have abscesses and tumors. All along the beaches it's the same. "Kick over a rock and you'll get a whiff of an Exxon gas station."

Since 1989 on a positive note, Clarkson Research Services reports that 77% of oil tankers are double-hulled compared to 6% in 1989. On the other hand, spills and shoddy industry practices remain common, and oil now tops $140 a barrel. Back then, it was $13.58 in January. What about the Exxon Valdez? It's still single-hulled, and this year a Hong Kong company bought it to carry bulk ore. It's now called the Dong Fang Ocean.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM - 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9506