Torture As Official Israeli Policy

Torture As Official Israeli Policy - by Stephen Lendman

The UN Convention against Torture defines the practice as:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain and suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity...."

The US and Israel are the only two modern states that legally sanction torture. An earlier article covered America. This one deals with the Jewish state, but let there be no doubt:

Although its language in part is vague, contradictory and protects abusive practices, Section 277 of Israel's 1977 Penal Law prohibits torture by providing criminal sanctions against its use. It specifically states in language similar to the UN Convention against Torture:

"A public servant who does one of the following is liable to imprisonment for three years: (1) uses or directs the use of force or violence against a person for the purpose of extorting from him or from anyone in whom he is interested a confession of an offense or information relating to an offense; (2) threatens any person, or directs any person to be threatened, with injury to his person or property or to the person or property of anyone in whom he is interested for the purpose of extorting from him a confession of an offense or any information relating to an offense." However, Israel clearly discriminates against Palestinians, (including Israeli Arab citizens), denies them rights afforded only to Jews, and gets legal cover for it by its courts. More on that below.

Nonetheless, the Jewish state is a signatory to the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and other international laws banning the practice. It's thus accountable for any violations under them to all its citizens and persons it controls in the Occupied Territories.

US statutes leave no ambiguity on torture. Neither do international laws like The (1949) Third Geneva Convention's Article 13 (on the Treatment of Prisoners of War). It states:

They "must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited....(these persons) must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation...."

Third Geneva's Article 17 states:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war" for any reasons whatsoever.

Third Geneva's Article 87 states:

"Collective punishment for individual acts, corporal punishments, imprisonment in premises without daylight and, in general, any form of torture or cruelty, are forbidden.

The (1949) Fourth Geneva Convention's Article 27 (on the treatment of Civilian Persons in Time of War) states:

Protected persons "shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof...."

Fourth Geneva's Articles 31 and 32 state:

"No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons."

"This prohibition applies to....torture (and) to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents."

Fourth Geneva's Article 147 calls "willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment....grave breaches" under the Convention and are considered "war crimes."

All four Geneva Conventions have a Common Article Three requiring all non-combatants, including "members of armed forces who laid down their arms," to be treated humanely at all times.

The (1966) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 7 states:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Its Article 10 states:

" All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity...."

The (1984) UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is explicit in all its provisions. It prohibits torture and degrading treatment of all kinds against anyone for any purpose without exception.

Various other international laws affirm the same thing, including the UN Charter with respect to human rights, 1945 Nuremberg Charter on crimes of war and against humanity, the (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the (1988) UN Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any form of Detention or Imprisonment, the UN (1955) Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, and (1990) UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. So does Article 5 of the International Criminal Court's (ICC) Rome Statute with regard to crimes of war and against humanity. Torture is such a crime - the gravest of all after genocide.

Israeli Torture Violates International Law

From inception to today, and especially since its 1967 occupation, Israel's military and security forces have willfully, systematically and illegally practiced torture - as official state policy against Palestinian detainees called "terrorists." Yet Israel always denies it, and its 1977 Penal Law prohibits it.

In 1987, the Landau Judicial Commission addressed the practice after two among many revelations became public:

-- defense minister Moshe Dayan's 1979 statement to Israel's Maareef daily regarding Arab prison detainees: "We will make of these detainees parasites in their societies, and we will not release them until they become like mummies, empty and full of holes from inside like Swiss cheese;" and

-- the 1980s torture scandals tarnishing Shin Bet's reputation as a respected internal security agency.

The Landau Commission condemned the practice but approved the Penal Law's "necessary defense" provision (in violation of international law) and sanctioned "psychological and moderate physical pressure" to obtain evidence for convictions in criminal proceedings. It said coercive interrogation tactics were necessary against "hostile (threats or acts of) terrorist activity" and all expressions of Palestinian nationalism.

Israel's High Court of Justice (HCJ) legitimized coercive interrogations in three 1996 cases - by plaintiffs Bilbeisi, Hamdan and Mubarak for interim injunctions against abusive General Security Service (GSS - now the Israeli Security Agency or ISA) practices. Ones cited included violent shaking, painful shackling, hooding, playing deafeningly loud music, sleep deprivation, and lengthy detainments. After due consideration, the HCJ ruled painful shackling illegal, but not the other practices.

Israel claims it never uses torture and complies with international laws and norms. International law experts, the UN Committee Against Torture, and sources like B'Tselem, United Against Torture (UAT), and the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI) disagree.

So does Dr. Afi Rabs in testimony to Israel's High Court on 14 Palestinian prisoners. They were all detained for trivial offenses like stone-throwing and tire-burning and weren't "ticking bombs." Yet they all were tortured as one detainee explained:

"I was shackled in iron cuffs that entered my flesh, and a bag was put on my head as a certain music roared in my ears and almost deafened me. They used to beat me up and kick me, and my body was full of wounds and bruises. After that I was sent to a doctor who asked me if I was tortured, and I said yes, but he didn't reply or say something. Then I was taken back and tortured again."

PCATI petitioned the HCJ, and it responded with a landmark September 1999 ruling. It reversed the Landau Commission's recommendations, barred the use of torture against detainees, but left a giant loophole. It ruled that pressure and a measure of discomfort are legitimate interrogation side-effects provided they're not used to break a detainee's spirit. But it sanctioned physical force in "ticking time bomb" cases in direct violation of international laws allowing no exceptions under any circumstances. Moreover, Israeli security forces routinely claim detainees are security threats enough to justify its interrogation practices.

In November 2001, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights disagreed. It issued "Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture" and addressed the 1999 HCJ ruling in the case of the Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. the State of Israel. It held that: "the use of certain interrogation methods by the Israel Security Agency (ISA) involving the use of 'moderate physical pressure' was illegal as it violated constitutional protection of the individual's right of dignity....While recognizing the right of Israel to protect its citizens from violence, it reiterates that no exceptional circumstances may be invoked as justification of torture" or abusive interrogation practices.

Since its 1967 occupation, the Palestinian peace and justice group MIFTA estimates that over 650,000 Palestinians have been imprisoned - or the equivalent of about one-sixth of today's Occupied Palestinian population. Currently, Israeli security forces hold around 10 - 12,000 Palestinian men, women and children detainees under deplorable conditions and many administratively without charge. According to human rights organizations like B'Tselem, Hamoked, UAT and PCATI, up to 85% are subjected to torture and abusive treatment.

PCATI's June 2008 Torture Report

PCATI is a 1990-founded "independent human rights organization" that monitors and decries "the use of torture in (Israeli) interrogations (and works for its) complete prohibition." It also provides legal counsel, aids victims, and helps lawyers representing them.

Its June 2008 report is titled "No Defense: Soldier Violence against Palestinian Detainees." It begins with a question asked Brig. General Yossi Bachar (former commander of Israel's Paratrooper Brigade) at the trial of one of his soldiers accused of abusing a Palestinian detainee: "How common is the phenomenon of beating shackled Palestinian prisoners?"

His answer: " Unfortunately I want to admit something that we are not fully aware of. These cases are not all that exceptional in their quantity....to my great regret. Many of them are not the subject of any complaint and are cloaked in various kinds of conspiracies of silence," only revealed years later and "usually only through anonymous statements...."

PCATI and other human rights organizations break the silence publicly:

-- "to describe the scope and frequency of (torture);"

-- its "moral, legal, and practical gravity;

-- to publicize (it);

-- to examine how (those responsible) address (it);

-- to clarify (its) absolute prohibition under Israeli and international law; and

-- to demand" its prohibition "by providing the relevant bodies with useful information and tools."

PCATI based its report on 90 testimonies: from Palestinian detainees and soldiers who arrested them. Also from published media information and comments from Israeli military and political figures. It covers the period June 2006 through October 2007 and is symptomatic of a broader phenomenon, largely unrevealed because most abused Palestinians "refrain from submitting complaints." As a result, PCATI's cases reflect the tip of the iceberg that's been "particularly severe over the past eight years" since the outbreak of the second Intifada in September 2000. From then until now, PCATI describes a pattern of abuse that begins from the moment of arrest.

It's done by force in violation of the prohibition of the practice and the responsibility of soldiers to guarantee detainees' (in their custody) safety, dignity and physical integrity. Instead they expose them to "ill treatment and humiliation" - on arrest and immediately thereafter, in transit, and at military bases and installations pending transfer to detention facilities.

Abuse Begins at the Start

Most often, soldiers beat Palestinians during and right after painfully shackling them. Plastic handcuffs are used that can only be tightened, not released or loosened, and subjects are kept that way (generally for hours) long enough to cause permanent injury.

In response to PCATI requests, the IDF Spokesperson provided no regulations, procedures or orders regarding use of plastic handcuffs. However, Chief Military Police Officer Order No. 9810 discusses shackling in detention facilities and states: "only metal (devices) are to be used, (and) the tightening of the shackles should be undertaken....to prevent injury to the detainee (particularly to blood vessels)."

Violence and threats are also common from the start. Besides painful shackling, subjects describe being blindfolded, threatened with weapons and death, accused of harboring suicide attackers, shouted at, beaten, kicked, punched in the face, and in at least one instance told his house would be destroyed and burned. Complaining did no good. It incited more abuse.

Treatment During Transport - From Place of Arrest to Detention Facilities

This is stage two of abuse and humiliation - inside military vehicles. Subjects are made to sit or lie on their floors and at times are thrown on them. They're bare, hot, and when soldiers step on detainees' heads or bodies (a frequent practice) abrasions and injuries result. PCATI again found no orders or procedures regulating transport, so detainees are subjected to the whims of their captors while on site commanders look the other way.

Treatment in Temporary Army Base Detention

Here, too, abusive practices continue the way one detainee described: "I was put in a small room and they beat my legs. They put me on the floor. Then I felt one of the soldiers take something from the floor and beat me on my head and shoulders....Then they took me out into a concrete yard and tied my handcuffs to a concrete pole and made me sit on the ground and they beat me. Every hour or half hour they would beat me on the face."
Lack of oversight and procedures invite ill treatment, and soldiers take full advantage. It's painful, protracted and humiliating - sometimes so extreme that subjects lose consciousness or require hospitalization.

Sting dogs are also used and trained for one of five purposes: "assault, identification of explosives, scouting, weapons and ammunition searches, or rescue and release." Mere contact with dogs terrify and humiliate detainees who feel "dishonored whenever (these animals are) close to" or touch them.

Officially, sting dogs never attack "innocent persons," according to the IDF Spokesperson. But one soldier explained that they're trained for assault and "seek humans (by) their scent." Another sergeant confirmed that these dogs attack people, "more than once," because they're trained to do it:

-- on indicators like gunshots or scent; no human order is needed;

-- they move at some distance from their handlers, alongside soldiers not trained to control them; and

-- they're trained to be highly aggressive and capable of causing serious injury.

A Sting unit commander confirmed that these dogs "neutralize and attack hostile elements....seizes a subject and won't let go." They present a serious and imminent danger to any designated target - in some cases children identified as "wanted persons." Without oversight and procedures, soldiers can easily abuse them with Sting dogs.

Under Israeli law, minors are of special concern - defined as persons under 18, or under Occupied Territory military orders, youths under 16. Israeli law affords special protection to minors, yet, in practice, it's solely for Jews.

Nonetheless, Israel is a signatory to the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child that's explicit and binding in its provisions:

-- that "every human being" below 18 is a child;

-- that the state must ensure that their economic, social and cultural rights, safety and welfare set forth in the Convention are protected "without discrimination of any kind" with regard to "race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status," including their "right to life....survival (and) development;"

-- that all measures shall be taken to protect children from physical and mental violence, exploitation or ill treatment; and

-- that children deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and not subjected to torture or other abusive or degrading treatment, in accordance with international human rights and humanitarian law.

Nonetheless, clear evidence shows that soldiers exercise no special caution in arresting and detaining minors. At times, they exploit their weaknesses - beating, abusing and terrifying them for merely throwing stones. PCATI characterizes this treatment as "just one link in a chain" of abuse beginning with arrest - in violation of international law and "accepted legal and moral standards in....Israel."

A Yesh Din human rights report showed that Occupied Territory Palestinian minors are prosecuted as adults under Israeli military law since no military juvenile courts exist. Prosecutors and judges make no distinction or reference to age nor did the IDF Spokesperson when asked to clarify special orders or procedures regarding minors. As a result, they're treated no differently than adults. No monitoring or procedures are in place, so the "grave consequences of this action can be anticipated in advance."

PCATI describes abusive practices throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and "not confined to one or two military units." Evidence obtained confirms a much broader phenomenon than testimonies revealed, and other human rights organizations concur - a pervasive, systematic practice going back "many years."

Israel Radio military correspondent, Carmella Menashe, discussed it in one broadcast:

"How can it be that....these events keep repeating themselves and....no one is bothered....And this is the morality of the IDF; these are the most basic values to which soldiers should be educated from the (start); it isn't (about) Palestinians....(it's) about normative behavior, the most basic things....(how) a soldier in the IDF (can commit such abusive acts); it (comes down to) some kind of disregard for the lives of Palestinians" who simply don't matter to these soldiers.

For their part, military officials don't recognize the phenomenon and thus end up encouraging and reinforcing it. So do the Knesset, courts and respective governing administrations.

Treatment After Arrest

Israeli military law contains the specific offense of "ill treatment" that prohibits soldiers from abusing persons in their custody. Those found guilty face up to three years in prison and under "aggravating circumstances" up to seven years. In many of the instances PCATI uncovered, abuse amounted to "torture."

According to military law, "ill treatment" may be committed by one soldier against another or against someone "in custody for which the soldier is responsible" - characterized by denying the person's liberty.

A vast discrepancy of power exists between captive and captor. It's exploited whenever soldiers use violence and abusive practices against shackled, blindfolded and defenseless detainees denigrating their human dignity. Also when they endanger their lives or health or deviate from standard procedures.

In nearly all cases examined, this, in fact, happened as soldiers committed assault or assault in "aggravating circumstances." These are military "ill treatment" offenses and civilian ones under penal code articles 378 - 382. Other penal code offenses as well such as injury, battery, forcible extortion, ill treatment of a minor, and so forth. In all cases, soldier-committed violence against shackled detainees is a "criminal phenomenon (subject to penalties) under an entire system of offenses in Israeli criminal law."

Even so, in the few cases where soldiers were prosecuted, penalties imposed were minor compared to similar civil court convictions. And rarely are commanders charged even when they order detainees harmed, or they simply witness or know abuses occur but fail to intervene. At most in these cases, higher-ranking officers go before a disciplinary hearing, get charged with conduct unbecoming an officer, and receive suspended sentences. Never do senior commanders answer for ill treatment charges against their subordinates.

Coercive Field Interrogations

The Military Justice Code authorizes no operational need to beat or ill treat detainees under arrest. But enforcement, in fact, is lax and international law dismissed. It results in what PCATI discovered in spite of military investigatory bodies responsible for interrogation and prosecution. Three exist under the Military Justice Code:

-- an examining officer;

-- the Military Police Investigation Unit (MIU); and

-- an investigative judge.

In most cases, alleged offenses are examined by an examining officer or investigative judge (in cases of death) before offenders are prosecuted in a military court. Examining officers hear witnesses, examine evidence, order suspect arrests, and recommend if prosecutions are justified. In practice, investigations are inadequate so few cases, in fact, enter the legal system and few offenders end up convicted.

According to Knesset member Ophir Paz-Pines: Unaccountability for abusing Palestinians is no "small problem - it is a big problem." It was so bad during 2003 - 2005 that the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee's Preparedness and Routine Security Subcommittee described operational debriefings as "out of control." Most complaints charged go unaddressed, and most that are end up dismissed for "lack of evidence" or because accused soldiers are believed over complainants.

The result - almost no prosecutions or convictions. At most around two a year throughout the Intifada period when abuses were rampant and extreme. Furthermore, months go by before complaints are examined during which time many accused complete their service, return to civilian life, and end up free from prosecution or conviction.

Military courts are supportive. They:

-- abstain from most investigations;

-- rely on non-professional debriefing institutions with clear conflicts of interest and histories of false reporting;

-- manage their few investigations unprofessionally with no regard for justice; so

-- allow criminal abuse to go unpunished or barely so while absolving perpetrators of their responsibility; even rare convictions show leniency and send a powerful message: Palestinian rights don't matter so act with impunity; an obvious concern is raised; Palestinians face enormous obstacles getting justice in all Israeli courts; in military ones (against their own soldiers) it's near impossible; solution: an international law requiring:

-- civilians to be tried in civil courts;

-- soldiers as well when their victims are civilians; and

-- military courts for their own personnel solely in cases of military offenses.

Further, binding rules, procedures and guidelines must be in place as well as proper training, supervision and monitoring to insure that arrests, detentions and prosecutions are justly handled. Israel's military relies solely on the "values (spirit and norms) of the IDF." They're woefully inadequate, unresponsive to Arab rights, and always produce injustice. PCATI puts it this way: "Given this reality, it is hardly surprising that an examination of the actual behavior of the military, as distinct from its declarations, also reveals denial, evasion, and obfuscation."

Thousands of Palestinians are arrested, detained and abused. With little or no accountability, here's how one Israeli soldier put it: "When you deny thousands of people a day (free) movement, it is impossible to do it in a nice way." Nonetheless, government and military officials deny there's a problem. Examples of publicly exposed abuse are called exceptions or errors in judgment that are "dealt with exhaustively," according to the IDF Spokesperson. In fact, testimonies and reports reveal a widespread phenomenon.

Denial and cover-up assure its continuance, legitimization, and destructive consequences. And guilt goes right to the top - to senior Defense Ministry generals and Ministers of Defense. To Knesset members as well and ruling party officials. A review of unclassified Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee materials from 2003 - 2008 reveals no discussion of Palestinian detainees ill treatment - in spite of "countless reports in the media....by soldiers," and by human rights organizations like PCATI, B'Tselem and others. The Committee "failed to fulfill its function and obligation" to supervise the security establishment, identify problems and propose solutions. As a consequence, human rights abuses continue unabated.

PCATI Recommendations for Change

International law is clear. As an occupying power, Israel is obligated to assure Palestinians' welfare, safety and rights:

-- recognizing the existence of the problem comes first; widespread ill treatment exists and must be addressed equitably;

-- reporting, inspection and enforcement mechanisms must be established to do it;

-- military and security forces must take the lead - through "tangible objectives for securing a drastic reduction in as short a period of time as possible (toward) the ultimate goal of completely eradicating this phenomenon;

-- high level examination of the problem should be made public, shared with commanders and soldiers, the media, and members of the Knesset - to send a clear message that this behavior won't be tolerated;

-- Defense Ministry orders, directives, procedures and guidelines should be established:

(1) to assign responsibility;

(2) define its range;

(3) how it's transfered;

(4) the command and residual responsibility for abusers to avoid the excuse that they can't be located;

(5) identify weak spots where ill treatment occurs;

(6) neutralize them by command presence or through a controlled physical space;

(7) allow no contact between dogs and detainees;

(8) give special attention to the arrest and detention of minors; and

(9) define arrest, transfer and detention procedures; the nature of an "imprisonment facility" as well as other defined guidelines and allowed procedures and practices.

In addition:

-- everything must be in writing and available to every soldier;

-- they should be fully briefed and trained;

-- no deviations should be tolerated;

-- adequate resources should be available for arrests through incarceration;

-- all arrests should be documented in detail;

-- training and procedures must assure detainee well-being, absolutely prohibit ill treatment, and require it be reported when observed;

-- assure binding and meaningful monitoring and enforcement of the rules; and

-- have the Knesset, administration and appropriate government bodies and officials involved to assure ill treatment won't be tolerated, and when it happens, those at the top share culpability.

It's up to the entire Israeli establishment to own up to the problem, recognize its gravity, and establish strong binding measures to eliminate it. Toward that end, PCATI and other human rights organizations and their supporters will continue to "expose and highlight this phenomenon" that continues to inflict great harm on defenseless Palestinians.

United Against Torture (UAT)

UAT is a (2005 established) "coalition of Israeli, Palestinian and international NGOs (united) against the practice of torture and ill-treatment in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT)...."

In December 2007, it issued its second annual report on "torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" - through the period ending October 2007. It's based on questionnaires "to various stakeholders in Israel and the OPT, including the EU Tel Aviv Delegation (ECD), European Commission Technical Assistance Office for the West Bank and Gaza (ECTAO), EU Ambassadors and/or other relevant EU contact persons in EU Missions, and NGOs particularly active in this field."

UAT states that its report doesn't address specific instances of torture and abuse. Its purpose is to provide an overview of how "the EU and its Member States contribute to the prevention and eradication of torture" in Israel and the OPT.

It cites "EU guidelines against torture and ill-treatment." Some are as follows:

--"prohibit(ing) torture and ill-treatment in law, including criminal law;

-- condemn(ing), at the highest level, all forms of torture and ill-treatment;

-- tak(ing) effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures (against torture and ill-treatment);

-- adher(ing) to international norms and procedures....;" and

-- "combat(ing) impunity to hold perpetrators liable, establish(ing) reporting procedures, and provid(ing) reparation and rehabilitation for victims."

UAT cites various international laws against torture and abuse to which Israel is a signatory, including:

-- the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR);

-- the 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), and

-- the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

International laws are clear. They not only prohibit torture and abuse, they legally bind states to undertake independent, impartial, and effective investigations into allegations and suspicions of these practices. They also require perpetrators be prosecuted and punished, that redress be afforded to victims, and that continuance of these crimes are banned.

UAT states: "if there is something (all) humanity (can) agree (on at least theoretically), it is that (preserving individual dignity in difficult situations requires that) we all conform to some elementary (common) standards of conduct." Otherwise, we risk "perishing in a mutual spiral of non-ending violence."

Israel on the Issue of Torture

Israel is a self-professed democracy, yet defines itself as a Jewish state, treats Jews preferentially, and affords them special rights and privileges denied those of other faiths. The country has no formal constitution. It's governed by its Basic Laws that guaranteed no human rights until the 1992 "Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom" passed. It authorized the Knesset to overturn laws contrary to the right to dignity, life, freedom, privacy, and property as well as to leave and enter the country. The law states:

"There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person. All persons are entitled to protection" of these rights, and "There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise."

Another Basic Law deals with "The Right to Life and Limb in Israeli Law." It implies that life is sacred and states: "Israeli law has abolished the death penalty for murder (and corporal punishment)." The 1998 "Good Samaritan Law" requires assistance be given in situations "of immediate and severe danger to another." These provisions are for Jews only because Basic Law provisions deny equality for non-Jews in spite of the following language:

Israeli law affirms "Fundamental human rights....founded upon recognition of the value of the human being, the sanctity of human life, and the principle that all persons are free." Israeli Basic Law exists "to protect human (life,) dignity and (assure that) All government authorities are bound to respect (these) rights under this Basic Law" - with one proviso: Israel is a Jewish state so all rights, benefits, privileges and protections are for Jews only. Others are unwelcome, unwanted, unequal, and afforded no protections under the law.

Further, and in spite of unambiguous international laws, torture, abuse, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment aren't designated crimes under Israeli law. But the 1977 Penal Law prohibits torture and provides criminal sanctions against it in language similar to the UN Convention against Torture.

Nonetheless, Israel maintains that it "officially proclaimed (a) state of public emergency from 19 May 1948, four days after its founding, until the present day." It remains in force "due to the ongoing state of war or violent conflict between Israel and its neighbours, and the attendant attacks on the lives and property of its citizens." It thus illegally deviates from international law provisions that differ from whatever means it chooses to protect its liberty and security. By implication, torture and ill treatment are permissible. Exceptional conditions are normal, and temporary is permanent in direct contradiction to accepted norms and standards.

UAT states: freedom "from torture and other forms of ill-treatment or punishment may not be violated under any circumstances (and) states of emergency" allow no exceptions. The right to be free from torture and abuse is sacrosanct. Permissible "temporary" deviations allow no basic human rights violations. Such acts are strictly prohibited under accepted international laws to which State Party signatories are bound at all times, under all conditions, with no exceptions.

Yet Israel inflicts torture and ill treatment "in the context of the arrest and interrogation of persons suspected of being security threats" even when no charges against them are brought and no substantiating evidence exists. So practices like the following are common:

-- beatings;

-- sleep deprivation;

-- painfully tightened hand cuffs;

-- violent shaking;

-- kicking;

-- sharp twisting of the head sideways or backwards as well as painful twisting of arms, wrists and hands under conditions when they're tied to backs or other parts of chairs;

-- the painful and injury prone "frog" crouch on tiptoes with hands cuffed behind the back;

-- the "banana" position involving bending the back in a painful arch while extending the body horizontally to the floor on a backless chair - with arms and feet bound beneath it;

-- cuffing behind the back and shackling legs in the "shabah" position - a prolonged, painful binding of detainees' hands and feet to a standard-sized unupholstered, metal frame, rigid plastic chair fixed to the floor with no armrests;

-- using informer-collaborators to get information;

-- prolonged isolation, including psychologically harmful solitary confinement in tiny cells under painfully oppressive conditions designed to crush human resistance; as well as

-- cursing, humiliating and degrading treatment, strip searches, physical threats, and other practices designed to soften up detainees for questioning.

NGOs also harshly criticize Israeli prison conditions and family hardships faced to visit loved ones. Restrictions are onerous:

-- only first-degree relatives may come; and

-- male visitors between 16 and 35 are severely restricted; brothers get only one visit a year and sons only two; wives are also restricted; and

-- families need ICRC transport help to visit prisoners inaccessible to them otherwise because of distances involved and travel prohibitions.

UAT believes that human rights violations "are at the heart of the Middle East conflict" and directly affect "Israel's own stability and security." Yet Israel won't discuss them, and little compliance pressure is applied because of the country's "special status" with the EU and, of course, Washington. As a result, in spite of persistent human rights violations, the US turns a blind eye, and EU countries prefer dialogue to punishment, including sanctions against Israel with teeth.

Palestinians throughout the Territories lose out, but Hamas and Gazans under siege feel it most. They believe the international community and fellow Arab states abandoned and betrayed them and are leaving them to rot in spite of EU member states pledging billions to help build a Palestinian state at the December 2007 Paris Conference. Given Israel's alliance with the West, past pledges made and broken, and current conditions in Occupied Palestine, it's hard to imagine any of these funds going for meaningful improvements on the ground. It's easy to believe they'll finance Israel's security state and harm Palestinian interests.

UAT underscores the problem this way:

"Israel's sensitivity (in) dealing with....human rights (issues) and the problem of torture and ill-treatment makes any dialogue on these matter particularly slow and complex...." So much so that EU member states "may become overly reluctant to raise such issues systematically, consistently and firmly, notwithstanding their legal and political duty to put human rights in the centre of their foreign and security policy."

Dialogue nonetheless is ongoing. Human rights are addressed, but "apparently not the subject of torture and ill-treatment....Given the political realities in Israel and the OPT, progress in preventing and eradicating torture and ill-treatment must be regarded as a mid-and-long-term goal" in spite of modest NGO successes.

Overall, challenges to ending torture are formidable and numerous. In dealing with Israel, "there is never a good moment to raise human rights questions (and) always a reason for not doing something...." But UAT is forthright: despite Middle East tensions, political reality, and complexity of tough issues, no excuses justify EU member states for not "strongly and consistently promot(ing) full compliance with basic and absolute legal obligations to protect individuals' most fundamental rights." Action must overcome challenges on issues like these:

-- Israel's "extreme sensitivity" to criticism of its human rights record;

-- its security argument and state of war to justify abuses and disdain for international law;

-- its lack of political will to end 41 years of occupation;

-- its lack of accountability on issues of "necessity," including sanctioning torture and abuse;

-- its abusive detention conditions, including;

(1) denying Palestinians access to legal counsel during interrogations;

(2) interrogation methods used;

(3) overall policy brutality, including torture and abuse;

(4) horrific prison conditions;

(5) inadequate medical care and unseemly role of doctors during interrogations; and

(6) highly restrictive prison visitation rules. Also:

-- limited contact between NGOs and the Israeli government and practically no chance to exert influence;

-- the EU's lack of political will to "interfere" in Israeli "affairs;" member states have practically given up because "it is not worth having a fight with Israel;"

-- EU-Israeli economic ties relegate human rights issues to second tier status; and

-- mistaken EU Middle East policy allied with America instead of forging an independent one.

UAT notes that various human rights organizations have lost faith with the international community, including the EU and UN. They prefer their own efforts and resources, legally and politically, for whatever modest gains they can get rather than none at all from ineffective nations.

UAT conclusions are as follows:

-- information on guidelines and their implementation is essential to eradicating torture and abuse;

-- NGOs are highly respected, and their information is considered accurate; but some of them have more contact with EU members than others;

-- given Israel's sensitivity and growing economic ties, EU states have considerable discomfort raising issues of torture and abuse; however, to some degree (if inadequate) they've engaged on matters of administrative detentions, the Separation Wall, and West Bank settlements; yet their efforts come down to this: with minor exceptions, no successes have been achieved and Israeli policies continue unabated; so EU efforts amount to little more than a "balancing act" - to maintain good relations with Israel for appropriate political and economic gains; and

-- on a positive note, EU states have contributed "financial assistance to civil society actors in Israel and the OPT;" but it doesn't substitute for positive pressure and action.

Recommendations

-- hearts and minds on all sides must be changed to eradicate torture and abuse;

-- America's moral leadership is defunct so EU states must take the lead and stick to their legal, political and ethical principles;

-- they must overcome individual differences and "act as one entity;"

-- they must press their advantage with Israel; economic gains have a price - improving the country's human rights record, particularly regarding torture and abuse, and complying fully with international law obligations;

-- NGOs should press for laws penalizing torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; they should also lobby for independent, impartial and competent remedies to these practices in accordance with international law; and

-- they should address all other violations and enforcement of international laws prohibiting them.

Ending the cycle of violence is challenging. Time and will are needed. It starts by respecting everyone's equal rights and their intrinsic human worth. If agreement on not resorting to violence can be achieved, "the magic key to peace, justice and true security" may be at hand, but it'll take a determined effort to turn it constructively and no time to waste doing it.

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=9899

Reinventing the Evil Empire

Reinventing the Evil Empire - by Stephen Lendman

For the West, everything changed but stayed the same, hard-wired and in place. Things just lay dormant in the shadows during the Yeltsin years, certain to reemerge once a more resolute Russian leader took over. If not Vladimir Putin, someone else little different.

Russia is back, proud and reassertive, and not about to roll over for America. Especially in Eurasia. For Washington, it's back to the future, the new Cold War, and reinventing the Evil Empire, but this time for greater stakes and with much larger threats to world peace. Conservatives lost their influence. Neocons are weakened but still dominant. The Israeli Lobby and Christian Right drive them. Conflict is preferred over diplomacy, and most Democrats go along to look tough on "terrorism." Notably their standard-bearer, vying with McCain to be toughest.

Ten former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Republics are part of NATO: the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. In addition, Georgia and Ukraine seek membership. Russia is strongly opposed. And now for greater reason after Poland (on August 20) formally agreed to allow offensive US "interceptor missiles" on its soil. A reported 96 short-range Patriot ones also plus a permanent garrison of US troops - 110 transfered from Germany, according to some accounts. Likely more to follow. In addition, Washington agreed to defend Poland whether or not it joins NATO, so that heightens tensions further.

The Warsaw signing followed the Czech Republic's April willingness to install "advanced tracking missile defense radar" by 2012. In both instances, Russia strongly objected, and on August 20 said it will "react (and) not only through diplomatic protests." Both former Warsaw Pact countries are now targets. The threat of nuclear war is heightened. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock heads closer to midnight - meaning "catastrophic destruction." It's no joking matter.

The US media downplays the threat and hails a pact Zbigniew Brzezinski (a Polish national, former Carter National Security Advisor, and key Obama foreign policy strategist) calls a watershed in the two countries' relationship - "This changes the strategic relationship between the US and Poland. There is a clear and explicit understanding that if there are negative consequences of stationing the missile shield, the US will come to Poland's defense."

On the one hand, a surprising statement from a man critical of Bush administration policies, its failure in Iraq, and the dangers of a widened Middle East war. He fully understands the heightened potential for world conflict but sounds dismissive of the threat. On the other hand, he has bigger fish to fry and apparently willing to wage big stakes on winning. The Iraq war and Iran are distractions by his calculus. The real Great Game embraces all Eurasia and assuring America comes out dominant - not Russia, not China, nor any rival US alliance.

The major media also downplay the dangers and explain nothing about the high stakes. Instead they beat up on Russia and highlight comments from Secretary Rice that missiles aren't "aimed in any way at Russia," or White House spokesperson Dana Perino saying: "In no way is the president's plan for missile defense aimed at Russia. (It's to) protect our European allies from any rogue threats" that suggests Iran, but, clearly means Russia, according to Hauke Ritz's recent analysis in Germany's influential Leaves for German and International Politics journal.

He explained that Iran's missiles can't reach Europe, and that Washington rejected Russia's proposed Azerbaijan-based joint US-Russian anti-missile system - to intercept and destroy Iranian missiles on launch. He thus concluded that Washington's scheme is for offense, not defense. That it targets Russia, not Iran, with Alaskan and other installations close to Russia as further proof. He wrote: "The strategic significance of the system consists of intercepting those few dozen missiles Moscow (can launch) following a first strike. (It's) a crucial element....to develop a nuclear first strike capacity against Russia. The original plan is for....ten interceptor missiles in Poland. But once....established, their number could be easily increased."

According to Ritz, Washington wants a missile system that "guarantee(s a) US (edge) to carry out nuclear war without (risking a) counter-strike." It can then be used for geopolitical advantage "to implement national interests," but it highlights the dangers of possible nuclear confrontation and the catastrophic fallout if it happens.

In an August 20 Veterans of Foreign Wars convention address, Bush was essentially on this theme in focusing on "terrorism" and saying: "We're at war against determined enemies, and we must not rest until that war is won." Georgia "stands for freedom around the world, now the world must stand for freedom in Georgia" - clearly linking Russia's response with "terrorism" and suggesting from his September 2001 address to a joint session of Congress and the America people that: "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Any that are "will be regarded....as a hostile state." Clearly, Russia is on his mind just as Moscow is carefully evaluating his threat.

The BBC echoed the US media, covers all the bases, mentioned the Iranian threat, singles out Russia, obfuscates facts about the conflict, sides with Washington and Poland on the new missile deal, and quoted Polish President Lech Kaczynski saying: "no one (with) good intentions towards us and (the West) should" fear the missiles. It also cited a miraculous turnaround in sentiment saying two-thirds of Poles now favor them. Astonishing since overwhelming opposition was recently evident, so it's hard imagining it shifted so fast.

High-Octane Russia Bashing - The Dominant US Media

The Wall Street Journal asserted that Poles "see the US as their strongest ally" given "two centuries of invasions and partitioning by Russia" and other European powers. It also highlighted Russia's "nuclear threat" (not Iran's) in a Gabriel Schoenfeld article painting Russia as an aggressor and America aiding its European allies.

Schoenfeld (a senior editor of the hawkish, pro-Israeli Commentary magazine) cites "Moscow's willingness to crush Georgia with overwhelming force (and claims) the Kremlin has 10 times as many tactical (short-range) warheads as the US." The "shift in the nuclear imbalance....helped embolden the bear." He ignores America's overall nuclear superiority, but it hardly matters as both countries combined have around 97% of these weapons (an estimated 27,000 world total) according to experts like Helen Caldicott - more than enough to destroy the planet many times over.

Nonetheless, Schoenfeld supports the Polish agreement in the face of a "pugnacious Russia (determined to acquire) economic and military power (and) not afraid to use threats and force to get (its) way (with) nuclear weapons central to the Russian geopolitical calculus." It's reminiscent of "the dark days of communist yore (and captures the threat of what) we and Russia's neighbors are up against."

For the moment, anti-Iranian rhetoric has subsided with Russia the new dominant villian. En route to the NATO Brussels August 18 meeting, Secretary Rice called Russia's action against Georgia a "very dangerous game and perhaps one the Russians want to reconsider." Russian "aggression" is the buzzword, and the media dutifully trumpet it.

So do the presidential candidates. John McCain was especially belligerent in denouncing "Russian aggression" and calling on Moscow to "immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory." He called for emergency Security Council and NATO meetings in hopes condemnation would follow and "NATO (can act) to stabiliz(e) this very dangerous situation." He also wants Russia expelled from the G-8 nations and an end to 10 years of partnership and cooperation.

Barak Obama first said that Russia's "aggression" must not stand and denounced "Russian atrocities." He then softened his tone somewhat with: "Now is the time for action - not just words....Russia must halt its violation of Georgian airspace and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia, with international monitors to verify that these obligations are met." But expect those comments to harden as Democrats meet in Denver, and the party's nominee will likely match his opponent's tough stance. Or at least try under a slogan of "Securing America's Future" to advance the nation's interests in the world. Beating up on Russia is now fair game and made easier with lockstep media support.

The Wall Street Journal is more hostile than most, and practically frothed in its August 16 - 17 weekend edition. It called for "Making Putin Pay (and) Turning Russia's Georgian rout into a political defeat." It cited Russian aggression "to remove President Saakasvili from the office to which he was elected in 2004 (and to) overthrow a democratic government."

It called on "western authorities (to) explore the vulnerability of Russian assets abroad (or) at least make life difficult for the holders of those assets." The Journal might remember the billions of US fixed income and other investments Russia holds - although the country's Central Bank reported late July that it pared its $100 billion in US "mortgage bonds" to $50 billion early in the year. The US Treasury reports that Russia holds around $36 billion of Treasury securities with considerably more in private hands.

The Journal then compared Russia to China and managed a slap at both. It said: "In the world of global commerce....China calculated that....staging an Olympic extravaganza (could enhance its) ambivalent reputation....By contrast, the Putin government....seems to believe its power grows in sync with its reputation as an international pariah, an outsider state," and George Bush added that "Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world" - with the Journal writer hardly blinking at such brazen hypocrisy.

Nor did Journal editorial board member Matthew Kaminski in his headlined piece: "Russia Is Still a Hungry Empire" without a hint about the Soviet Union's bloodless 1991 dissolution now down the memory hole in light of today's inflammatory headlines.

Kaminski highlights "Russian tanks rolling through Georgia (with) images of Chechnya in 1994 and '99, Vilnius '91, Afghanistan '79, Prague '68, Hungary '56" and before that Poland, the Baltics and other Eastern European states. "The war in Georgia marks an easy return to territorial expansion and attempted regional dominance."

Boris Yeltsin "tried to give Russians an alternative narrative. (He) put forward democracy as a unifying and legitimizing idea for the new Russian state." But that was swept away when "Putin took over." He's unresponsive to the idea of "partnership with the West and freedom at home." He aims to force "young democracies around Russia....back into Moscow's sphere of influence....The worldview of a Russian nationalist is hard for outsiders to comprehend," and for Kaminski one that mustn't be allowed to stand.

Nor for other Journal contributors daily (in op-eds and editorials) with some of the most outlandish attack journalism heard since before Gorbachev. Claims that "Kremlin capitalism is a threat to the West....by using its market strength in oil and gas resources to strong-arm its neighbors and outmaneuver the US and EU." And that Russia's real aim "is to replace a pro-western government with a new Russian satellite....reminiscent of the Brezhnev doctrine. (It's) part of a broader campaign (to annex new territory, expand the Russian empire, conduct) cyber attacks against the Baltic states, (assassinate enemies, and use) economic intimidation (through) cutoffs of Russian oil and gas shipments to Ukraine and the Czech Republic....It is important that Moscow pays a concrete and tangible price for its latest aggression, at least comparable to (what) it paid for the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan."

The New York Times is more measured but, on August 19, highlighted "Survivors in Georgia Tell of Ethnic Killings" with suggestions of "ethnic cleansing" - a practice that "haunted the borderlands of the old Soviet bloc." Villages were "burned and houses broken; unburied bodies lay rotting; fresh graves were dug in gardens and basements....most victims interviewed (were) ethnic Georgians....(In central Georgian) villages, some killings were carried out for revenge....some (involved) theft (and still others) seemed to be that the power balance was shifting, away from ethnic Georgians to the Ossetian separatists and their Russian backers."

Independent reporters on the ground contradicted The Times and similar US media accounts. One wrote: "Georgians living in several of the villages said the Russians occupying their land had treated them well, done nothing to encourage them to leave and offered the only protection available from the South Ossestian militias they feared most" and perhaps their own army in an effort to inflict harm and blame it on Russia.

On August 21, The Times headlined: "US Sees Much to Fear in a Hostile Russia (by) usher(ing) in a sustained period of renewed animosity with the West....problems extend(ing) far beyond (arms deals with) Syria and the mountains of Georgia." Others with "anti-American states like Iran and Venezuela." Pressuring US "military bases in Central Asia....counterterrorism, Hamas" and numerous other issues. Obama's chief Russia advisor, Stanford University professor Michael McFaul, was quoted saying Russia appears intent on "disrupt(ing) the international order" and can do it. They're "the hegemon in that region and we are not and that's a fact."

"Russia has all the leverage," according to Carnegie Moscow Center's Masha Lipman (with) potential for causing headaches" if it chooses - in the region, the UN, on Iran, Zimbabwe, and to halt "any kind of coercive actions, like economic sanctions or anything else," according to former National Security Council advisor Peter Feaver. An old post-Cold War concern is now arisen. Russia is now "a spoiler."

An August 21 AP report cites an example in its headlined piece" "Russia blocks Georgia's main (oil) port city" of Poti and continues to hold positions around Gori and Igoeti....30 miles west of....Tbilisi."

Reports from Other Sources

On August 21, Russia Today reported that "Abkhazia rallie(d) for independence (and) the Abkhazian Parliament has approved an official appeal to Russia to recognize its independence." Tens of thousands rallied in support, and on August 23, Reuters reported that South Ossetia did as well and its president, Eduard Kokoity, plans to ask Russia and the international community for recognition. Russia's Deputy Federation Council Speaker, Svetlana Orlova, told the rally that "Russia is always with you and will never leave you in the lurch."

On August 23, The New York Times reported that "the Kremlin is nearing formal recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, possibly as early as next week." Apparently likely according to Russian Regional Development Minister, Dmitry Kozak, who told Itar-Tass "support is likely (and) that after all the events that have occurred, one should not expect otherwise."

On August 21, Abkhazian President Sergey Bagapsh "appealed to Russia and to governments of other countries to recognize Abkhazia's independence," for both his province and South Ossetia. On August 20, Interfax reported that the Russian Federation Council (Russia's upper House of parliament) is prepared to recognize both provinces' independence if their people "express such a will....and if the Russian president makes a relevant decision on this score," according to Federation Council Chairman Sergei Mironov.

On August 25, Russia Today reported that (in emergency session) the Federation Council unanimously voted to ask President Medvedev to recognize Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence. Both province presidents addressed the chamber and "again said they will never agree to remain within Georgia" and are more entitled to independence than Kosovo. Konstantin Zatulin, deputy head of the Duma Committee for International Affairs in Russia's State Duma, its lower chamber, stated that his body "most probably" will go along.

At the same time, tensions remain high. Both sides continue hostile accusations. Russia maintains it's conducting an orderly withdrawal "in accordance with the international agreements (to their) previous (places) of deployment," according to Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of Russia's General Staff. US military officials at first said they saw no significant pullback. On August 22 with a clear withdrawal underway, the International Herald Tribune reported that the "US and France say Russia is not complying" with the cease fire.

Russia is observing a 1999 joint Russian-S. Ossetian-N. Ossetian-Georgian agreement prepared by the Joint Control Commission, an international South Ossetian monitoring body. It lets Russian troops secure a corridor five miles beyond either side of South Ossetia's border that extends into Georgia. It also allows Russian peacekeepers to operate under the auspices of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

On August 23, RIA Novosti reported that Nogovitsyn said Russian forces will patrol Georgia's Black Sea Poti port as "envisaged in the international agreement. Poti is outside of the security zone," he said, "but that does not mean we will sit behind a fence watching them riding around in Hummers." Nor allow Georgia to rearm for more aggression as Russia suspects, and that Georgia's deputy defense minister, Batu Kutelia, admitted doing initially. On August 22, he told the Financial Times that his government attacked the S. Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, and attempted to seize it.

On August 22, Nogovitsyn heightened tensions by claiming Georgia is now preparing for new military action against Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "We have registered an increase in (Georgian) reconnaissance activities and preparations for armed actions in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone." As a result, he said that Russia reserves the right to maintain peacekeepers in both provinces. For its part, RIA Novosti reports that America now refuses to participate with Russia in "NATO's Operation Active Endeavour naval antiterrorism exercise," according to a Russian Black Sea Fleet source. The announcement came after Russia's NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, said his country was "temporarily suspending military cooperation with NATO until a political decision on relations" between the two nations had been resolved.

Also on August 22, the Israeli Ynetnews.com published a Russian daily Kommersant interview with Washington's new Moscow ambassador, John Beyrle, sure to embarrass his superiors. He called Russia's response justified after its troops came under attack. "Now we see Russian forces which responded to attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, legitimately...." He went on to criticize Russia's over-reaction and warned about its impact on US - Russia relations as well as investor confidence. Nonetheless, his first comment is telling and quite contrary to everything from Washington and biting anti-Russian media responses.

Finally on August 23, Russia Today reported that the "local (S. Ossetian and Abkhazian) population (said) they fear Georgia might repeat its regional aggression. They also (want) Russian troops to stay in the area to shield them from any possible attacks." Russia has set up 18 S. Ossetia peacekeeping posts and plans a similar number in Abkhazia "to deter looters and the transportation of arms and ammunition."

All the News Not Fit to Print

Not a major media hint that Georgia is a US vassal state. That its military is an extension of the Pentagon. That its aggression was manufactured in Washington. That it's well-supplied and trained by America and Israel. That pipeline geopolitics is central. Beating up on Russia as well. Diverting Moscow from any planned intervention against Iran. Even enlisting Russia's cooperation - not to sell Iran sophisticated S-300 air defense missile systems and agreeing to tougher sanctions in return for perhaps Washington deferring on Georgian and Ukrainian NATO admission and recognizing S. Ossetian and Abkhazian independence. Perhaps more as well to put off greater confrontation for later under a new administration.

Clearly, however, the fuse is lit. It has been for some time. It relates to everything strategic about this vital area with its immense energy and other resources as well neutralizing Russia's power as America's top rival and key Eurasian competitor.

Controlling the region's oil and gas is crucial and what Michel Chossudovsky explains in his August 22 article titled: "The Eurasian Corridor: Pipeline Geopolitics and the New Cold War." He calls the Caucasus crisis "intimately related to the control over energy pipeline and transportation corridors (and cites) evidence that the Georgian (August 7) attack....was carefully planned (in) High level consultations (between) US and NATO officials" months in advance. On August 23, RIA Novosti said a Russian security source accused Georgia of involvement a year ago in "coordinat(ion) with NATO's plans to strengthen its (Black Sea) naval presence."

Chossudovsky discusses America's (1999) "Silk Road Strategy: The Trans-Eurasian Security System (as) an essential building block of (post-Cold War) US foreign policy." Proposed in House legislation but never enacted, it was for "an energy and transport corridor network linking Western Europe to Central Asia and eventually to the Far East." It aims to integrate South Caucasus and Central Asian nations "into the US sphere of influence." It involves "militariz(ing) the Eurasian corridor," much like Security and Prosperity Partnership plans are for North America.

Efforts are largely directed against Russia, China and Iran as well as other Eastern-allied states. It's to turn all Eurasia into a "free market" paradise, secure it for capital, assure US dominance, control its resources, exploit its people, transform all its nations into American vassals, and likely aim to dismantle Russia's huge landmass if that idea ever comes to fruition.

Russia, however, isn't standing idle and is partnered in two strategic alliances:

-- the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) since June 2001 along with China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan with Iran in observer status. It defines its goals as: "good neighborly relations;" promoting "effective cooperation in politics, trade and economy, science and technology" and more as well as "ensur(ing) peace, security and stability in the region." Given NATO's potential threat, its main purpose is military; and

-- the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) since 2003 "in close liaison with the SCO" with a heavy emphasis on security against NATO Eurasian expansionism; its members include: Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

The stakes are huge as both sides prepare to confront them. All part of the new Cold War and Great Game. Reinventing the Evil Empire and beating up on Russia as part of it. Risking a potential nuclear confrontation as well and what a new US president will inherit with no assurance a Democrat will be any more able than a Republican. And with a global economic crisis unresolved, either one may resort to the age old strategy of stoking fear, going to war, hoping it will stimulate the economy, and be able to divert public concerns away from lost jobs, home foreclosures, and a whole array of other unaddressed issues.

In early 2003, it worked. Will 2009 be a repeat? Will it deepen what author Kevin Phillips calls "the global crisis of American capitalism?" Will the Doomsday Clock strike midnight? It moved two minutes closer on January 17, 2007 to five minutes to the hour. It cited 27,000 nuclear weapons, 2000 ready to launch in minutes. It said: "We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since....Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices." It said the situation is "dire." It called for immediate preventive action. Its message went unheeded, and conditions today have worsened. The high Eurasian stakes up things further, and neither side so far is blinking.

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=9899

"Peace Mom" v. "Guardian of Power"

"Peace Mom" v. "Guardian of Power" - by Stephen Lendman

Credit both titles to the book authors. Cindy Sheehan as a mother, peace activist, and now candidate to succeed Nancy Pelosi in California's Eighth Congressional District. Pelosi as both "guardian" and possessor of what Davids Cromwell and Edwards wrote about in their powerful critique of the media.

Both women represent hugely different interests, so let readers choose which ones they prefer. First some background on both candidates.

Sheehan is a peace activist, not a politician, and think how refreshing that is. Here's some background about her from her cindyforcongress.com web site:

-- born in California to working-class parents who experienced the pain of the Great Depression;

-- raised four children, including her son Casey; killed in Iraq on April 4, 2004 at age 24 - five days after he arrived;

-- Sheehan bitterly opposed the war and begged her son not to re-enlist in August 2003: "I begged Casey not to go. I told him I would take him to Canada. (I would do) anything to get him not to go to that immoral war;"

-- as an adult mother, she attended Cerritos College and UCLA;

-- she then worked as a Youth Minister at St. Mary's Catholic Church in Vacaville, CA for eight years and coordinated an after-school program for at-risk middle school children;

-- everything changed when Casey was killed; it energized her to action;

-- she founded Gold Star Families for Peace in January 2005, an organization of family members whose relatives were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and that's dedicated "to ending the occupation in Iraq and bringing our troops home;"

-- in August 2005, she organized demonstrations close to the Bush ranch in Crawford, TX - what became known as "Camp Casey;" it drew thousands of activists and celebrities from around the world in protest against an illegal war they want stopped;

-- prior to her congressional campaign, she travelled the world to meet with world leaders about resolving the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts; the US Congress and governments of South Korea, Scotland and Canada paid her special recognition;

-- numerous organizations around the country and world now have her as a keynote speaker and honored guest;

-- she receives dozens of peace awards and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005; in addition, Dario Fo, 1997 Nobel Laureate for Literature, wrote a play about her called "Peace Mom," the same title as her book;

-- she's also now an accomplished author of three books to go along with her other achievements that have gotten her featured in the mainstream press and alternative media;

-- in sum: major achievements for a once simple "mom" who cared enough to change her life and shake the world; now she hopes to do it as a member of the 111th Congress next January and accomplished the first step toward it - in spite of a determined effort to stop her, she collected enough required signatures (by the August 8 deadline) to be on the November ballot as an independent candidate for Congress.

Nancy Pelosi is the current House Speaker and Democrat Congressional member since winning a special election in 1987. Her 8th Congressional District represents much of San Francisco and is considered one of the most liberal ones in the country. In November 2002, she became the first woman ever in Congress to lead a political party as Minority Leader. After Democrats won control of the House in the 2006 off-year elections, she was elected Speaker in January 2007.

She grew up in Baltimore in a very political family. Her late father, Tommy "The Elder" D'Alesandro, was a local party boss and served in various capacities in the city council, as a state delegate, congressman, and three times as mayor from 1947 - 1959. Her younger brother, Tommy "The Younger" D'Alesandro, also was Baltimore's mayor for one term.

Pelosi's husband, Paul, is a successful San Francisco financier and businessman. Largely because of his wealth, Pelosi is considered the ninth richest person in the House (according to OpenSecrets.org) with estimates of their net worth ranging from $25 million to three or four times that amount and a life-style to go with it. Not a model populist in a strongly Democrat district where she's been re-elected 10 times with at least 75% of the vote. Republicans need not apply, so Democrats win by showing up. At least so far.

On examination, Pelosi's record is troubling, especially after becoming Speaker and failing to deliver on promises made in the 2006 mid-term election. Along with Senate Majority Leader (Democrat) Harry Reid, they share most blame for why the July Rasmussen Reports gave Congress its lowest ever approval rating at 9% with only 2% of respondents calling its performance excellent. The other 7% called it good. The majority 91% called it fair (36%) or poor (52%). That presents opportunity for Sheehan.

Pelosi on the issues explains why. She:

-- supported the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Blily Act that repealed Glass-Steagall and allowed commercial and investment banks and insurance companies to combine; it opened the door for some of the worst financial abuses now apparent;

-- voted for the September 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for "the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States;" it began the "war on terror," the illegal wars that followed, as well as the Bush administration's coup d'etat against the Constitution and establishment of a police state;

-- opposed the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution responsible for launching the war; but she supported the Afghanistan assault and all illegal war funding;

-- on January 5, 2007 (after becoming Speaker), "informed the president" in writing of her opposition to the "surge;" only supported a non-binding February resolution against it and took no effective action to end it or the occupation;

-- supported the 2007 Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act (HR 2956); it passed the House, but the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took no further action;

-- supported the 2007 US Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health, and Iraq Accountabiity Act (HR 1591) - the first legislation for supplemental Iraq and Afghanistan funding; it called for ending the occupation by September 1, 2008; a compromise bill was agreed to by the House and Senate; it passed both Houses; George Bush vetoed it, and House Democrats failed to override; a second attempt also failed; Democrats in both Houses (backed by Pelosi) agreed to approve supplemental funding with no occupation withdrawal timetable and clear evidence that their earlier efforts were more posturing than a determined effort to end it;

-- despite considerable opposition rhetoric, indicated her support for the Iraq and Afghan wars (on December 5, 2006) after the mid-term elections when she looked assured of being elected Speaker; responding to questions said: "We will not cut off funding for the troops; absolutely not; let me remove all doubt in anyone's mind; as long as our troops are in harm's way, Democrats will be there to support them....;"

-- voted for every Bush administration Pentagon budget request since 2001; and also supported:

-- the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act - a thinly veiled scheme to destroy public education and privatize it;

-- the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act;

-- the 2001 USA Patriot Act;

-- the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act - it denied detainees habeas rights and let US forces use cruel, abusive, inhumane and degrading treatment in the interest of national security;

-- the 2006 Homeland Security Department Authorization Act;

-- the 2007 Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendation Act;

-- the 2008 and 2009 Intelligence Authorization Acts to fund 13 intelligence agencies; and

-- the 2008 FISA Amendments Act - to weaken standards of proof and warrants required for surveillance and grant telecom companies retroactive immunity for warrantless spying post-9/11.

She's also fully committed to and well-funded by the corporate interests she supports. She voted against withdrawing from the WTO, for NAFTA and for similar "free trade" agreements with Australia, Peru, Chile, and Singapore. She calls democratic Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez a "common thug."

And when it comes to Israel, she states that she and the US "will stand with (the Jewish state) now and forever." She further contends that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict isn't over the issue of occupation. "This is absolute nonsense. In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist."

Her AIPAC June 2008 conference address highlighted her "commitment to Israel's security;" that passage of the 2008 Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Reform Act will expedite sending defense equipment and services to Israel; that Israel will be "treated like NATO members;" and that America will guarantee that "Israel's qualitative military edge (will) be empirically assessed on an ongoing basis."

She also highlighted Iran as one of her main concerns and said: "Ensuring the security of Israel and the entire world demands that we do more to convince Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions and cease its support for terrorist groups." She further suggested that Iran represents an existential threat and that sanctions against it must be tightened - "and by tighten, I mean tighten."

She then added: "Thank you (for) lobby(ing) on behalf of bipartisan legislation introduced by Congressman Ackerman" by which she meant H. Con. Res. 362. It contains outlandish, unsubstantiated accusations against Iran, and if enacted and implemented, will authorize a naval blockade and be an act of war. AIPAC is committed to its passage. Pelosi is committed to AIPAC. Its 2002 - 04 president, Amy Rothschild Friedkin, (a fellow San Franciscan) is her close friend.

Finally, as House Speaker, she declared that efforts to impeach George Bush were "off the table." Most recently in an August 1 interview with James Carney of Time, Inc., she responded to a question about it as follows:

"I took (impeachment) off the table a long time ago. You can't talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can't have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda."

Pelosi, of course, turns a blind eye to very clear evidence for impeachment. On January 17, 2003, international law expert Professor Francis Boyle listed them in his "Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush" and presented it to the 108th Congress. It called for impeaching the President for high crimes and misdemeanors for:

-- "violat(ing) his constitutional oath to faithfully execute (his) office;"

-- failing to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution;

-- impos(ing) a police state and military dictatorship;

-- ramming the totalitarian USA Patriot Act (and other repressive legislation) through Congress;

-- trying to suspend the constitutional Writ of Habeas Corpus;

-- mass-round(ing) up and incarcrat(ing) foreigners;

-- kangaroo courts;

-- depriving at least two United States citizens of their constitutional rights by means of military incarceration;

-- interfer(ing) with the constitutional right of defendants in criminal cases to (be represented by) lawyers;

-- violating and subverting the Posse Comitatus Act;

-- (allowing) unlawful and unreasonable searches and seizures;

-- violating the First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion, speech, assembly, and to petition the government for redress of grievances;

-- packing the federal judiciary with hand-picked (totalitarian-minded) judges;

-- violating the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, US War Crimes Act, (UN) Convention against Torture, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights," and other violations of US and international laws and norms - "to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

Cindy Sheehan on the Issues

Her positions on key issues stand in stark contrast to Pelosi's. She's for:

-- "repealing all 'free trade' agreements;" replacing them with "fair trade" ones that respect worker rights and union empowerment to bargain on equal terms with management;

-- enacting "single-payer healthcare and affordable housing" legislation;

-- extending unemployment and food stamp benefits at a time of economic distress;

-- "compassionate and humane treatment for immigrant workers;" their right to join unions; and for an "expedited path to legalization in the form of Green Cards;"

-- ending the militarization of the border as well as funding for ICE and other government agencies that "terrorize immigrant workers (driven here by bipartisan support for unfair) 'free trade' and 'structural adjustment' policies;"

-- making quality free education a "basic human right from infants in day care centers to students in universities;"

-- "bring(ing) home our troops from all countries where (they) promote occupation, corporate greed and empire;"

-- repealing the No Child Left Behind Act and backing government-supported public education;

-- investing in the nation's infrastructure, long neglected;

-- slashing the Pentagon's budget and putting federal money into job creation (and social services);

-- reversing destructive deregulation that enables "corporate profiteers to (avoid) proper oversight and health and safety regulations; reinstating Glass-Steagall that separated investment from commercial banking and insurance operations;

-- regulating the corporate media; opposing the "multiple ownership of newspaper, cable, broadcast, internet and all other media operations;" supporting federally-funded "public labor-community broadcast and internet systems;"

-- reversing the trend to "privatize and contract out jobs (that) threat(en the nation's) workforce;" ending the privatization of federal jobs and letting all government workers join unions;

-- preventing the US Postal Service from being privatized;

-- establishing "a national energy system, for a mass transit system;" alternative fuels as well to end our dependence on oil, gas and nuclear;

-- assuring civil rights and privacy protection; ending harassment and discrimination against union members and unorganized workers;

-- repealing the Patriot Act and other repressive laws;

-- ending pervasive spying - by the government on the citizenry and corporations on their workers; and

-- repealing drug and other repressive laws that jail millions of working people in the world's largest prison population.

Sheehan v. Pelosi. "Peace Mom and supporter of people rights v. "Guardian of Power" and defender of wealth and privilege. On November 3, the people of California's 8th Congressional District will decide which agenda they prefer. So can readers.

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=9838

Blockades: Acts of War

Blockades: Acts of War - by Stephen Lendman

From July 21 - 31, Joint Task Force (mostly US, but also UK, Brazil and Italy) "Operation Brimstone" large scale war games were conducted off the US East coast in the North Atlantic. Its purpose may have been to prepare for a naval blockade of Iran. Initial reports after its completion were that participating ships were deployed to Persian Gulf and Arabian and Red Sea locations to join up with the present American strike force in the region. The major media cover none of this, and US Navy sources deny it. So precise information is unclear. From what's known, however, redeployment may be planned, and a blockade may ensue. The situation remains tense and worrisome.

Under international and US law, blockades are acts of war and variously defined as:

-- surrounding a nation or objective with hostile forces;

-- measures to isolate an enemy;

-- encirclement and besieging;

-- preventing the passage in or out of supplies, military forces or aid in time of or as an act of war; and

-- an act of naval warfare to block access to an enemy's coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft.

In 2009, it's believed that the International Criminal Court in the Hague will include blockades against coasts and ports as acts of war.

International law expert Professor Francis Boyle is very outspoken on this topic as well as on others of equal importance. He defines blockades under international and US law as:

-- "belligerent measures taken by a nation (to) prevent passage of vessels or aircraft to and from another country. Customary international law recognizes blockades as an act of war because of the belligerent use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare."

America approved these Declarations, so they're binding US law as well "as part of general international law and customary international law." Past US presidents, including Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called blockades acts of war. So has the US Supreme Court.

In Bas v. Tingy (1800), the High Court addressed the constitutionality of fighting an undeclared war. Boyle explained that it ruled that "the seizure of a French vessel (is) an act of hostility or reprisal requiring Congressional approval....The Court held that Congress pursuant to Constitutional war powers had authorized hostilities on the high seas under certain circumstances." The Court cited Talbot v. Seaman (1801) in ruling that "specific legislative authority was required in the seizure...."

In Little v. Barreme (1804), the Court held that "even an order from the President could not justify or excuse an act that violated the laws and customs of warfare. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that a captain of a United States warship could be held personally liable in trespass for wrongfully seizing a neutral Danish ship, even though" presidential authority ordered it. Only Congress has that power. "The Court's position seems consistent with a typical trespass case, where defendants are liable even when they have a reasonable, good faith (but mistaken) belief in authority to enter on the plaintiff's land."

Boyle cites "The Prize Cases" (1863) as the most definitive Supreme Court ruling on blockades requiring congressional authorization. The case involved President Lincoln's ordering "a blockade of coastal states that had joined the Confederacy at the outset of the Civil War. The Court....explicitly (ruled) that a blockade is an act of war and is legal only if properly authorized under the Constitution." It stated:

"The power of declaring war is the highest sovereign power, and is limited to the representative of the full sovereignty of the nation. It is limited in the United States to its Congress exclusively; and the authority of the President to be the Commander-in-Chief....to take that the law be faithfully executed, is to be taken in connection with the exclusive power given to Congress to declare war, and does not enable the President to (do it) or to introduce, without Act of Congress, War or any of its legal disabilities or liabilities, on any citizen of the United States."

Article I of the Constitution pertains to powers "vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Section 8 relates to powers "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and welfare of the United States...." Two Section 8 clauses relate to this article.

-- clause 14: to "make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;" and most importantly

-- clause 11: "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning capture on land and water."

The framers believed that no single official, including the President, should ever have sole authority over this most crucial of all constitutional powers because of how easily it can be abused as post-WW II history shows. In 1793, James Madison wrote that the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution....to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." During the 1787 Constitutional Convention, George Mason said that the President "is not safely to be trusted with" the power to declare war. Nonetheless, Congress only observed its responsibility five times in the nation's history, lastly on December 8, 1941 following Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor the previous day.

All treaties to which America is a signatory, including the UN Charter, are binding US law. Its Chapter VII authorizes only the Security Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to) restore international peace and stability." It permits a nation to use force (including blockades) only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security Council or under Article 51 allowing 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."

Iran poses no threat to the US, its neighbors, or any other nations, including Israel. Imposing a blockade against it violates the UN Charter and other international and US law. It will constitute an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the "supreme international crime" above all others. It will make the Bush administration, every supportive congressional member, and governments of other participating nations criminally liable.

Two more events further up the stakes. On April 3, in spite of strong public opposition, the Czech Republic agreed to the installation of US "advanced tracking missile defense radar" by 2012. On July 9, a Russian Foreign Ministry statement responded: "We will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods."

Then on August 14, Poland defied its own people and most Europeans by agreeing to allow offensive "interceptor missiles" on its soil. Legislatures of both countries must approve it, but that will likely follow. Deployment is reckless and indefensible and will head the world closer to serious confrontation.

For two countries wracked by prior wars, these actions are irresponsible and foolhardy. They further heighten tensions and assure a new Cold War arms race or much worse. Russia's deputy military chief of staff, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, stated: Poland is "exposing itself to a strike, 100%." Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said: "The deployment (aims at) the Russian Federation." Even Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk showed fear by his comment that "We have crossed the Rubicon." Yet he did it anyway. Where this is heading remains to be seen, but the signs are deeply worrisome.

So is the possibility that Washington will blockade or attack Iran before year end. Things won't likely crystallize before Congress reconvenes in September after both parties hold their nominating conventions.

Hopefully a wider Middle East war will be avoided because of what might follow. What Barbara Tuchman recounted in her 1962 book, "The Guns of August," on how WW I war began and its early weeks. Once started, things spun out of control with cataclysmic consequences. Before it ended, over 20 million died, at least that many more were wounded, and a generation of young men was erased.

Igniting another world conflict should give everyone pause. Especially given the destructive power of today's weapons and the Bush administration's design for "full spectrum dominance" and stated unilateral right to achieve it with first-strike nuclear weapons. Avoiding that possibility is the top priority of every world leader. It's unclear if any are up to the challenge.

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=9838

Corporate Media Bashes New Chavez Enabling Law Decrees

Corporate Media Bashes New Chavez Enabling Law Decrees - by Stephen Lendman

In January 2007, Hugo Chavez announced his "Bolivarian Socialism" project for the 21st century and explained its dependence on five revolutionary "motors:"

-- constitutional reform;

-- "Bolivarian popular education;"

-- redefining and changing the organs of state power;

-- an explosion of communal power at the grass roots; and

-- the "mother (Enabling) Law to make all other "motors" possible.

Under Venezuelan constitutional law, Enabling Law power is legal but limited. So despite media and opposition claims, it doesn't grant Chavez sweeping "rule by decree" authority or make him a "dictator." When the National Assembly (AN) passed the law (unanimously), even US Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs, Thomas Shannon, admitted that it's "valid under (Venezuela's) Constitution. As with any tool of democracy, it depends how it is used." Chavez had it two other times and used it responsibly by any standard or measure. He's also the fifth Venezuelan president to request it under the 1961 Constitution and the 1999 one under Article 203. It runs for 18 months and then expires.

The current one ended July 31 and empowered Chavez in the following areas, all related to the country's internal functioning:

-- to transform sclerotic bureaucratic state institutions to make them more efficient, transparent, honest and allow for greater citizen participation;

-- reform the civil service and eliminate entrenched corruption - still, a major problem;

-- advance the "ideals of social justice and economic independence" through a new social and economic model based on equitable national wealth distribution in areas of health care, education and social security;

-- modernize Venezuela's financial sectors, including banking, insurance and tax policy;

-- upgrade science and technology areas to benefit all sectors of society;

-- reform public health, prisons, identification, migration regulations, and the judiciary to improve citizen and judicial security;

-- upgrade the nation's infrastructure, transport and all public services;

-- improve and enhance the nation's military;

-- establish territorial organization norms in states and communities relating to voting and constituency size; and

-- permit greater state control over the nation's vital energy sector.

In all the above areas, Chavez was given limited constitutional power for 18 months - over only National Assembly (AN) authorized areas. He had no power to harm civil or human rights, weaken or remove his opponents, expropriate private property, or interfere with the legal right of citizens to rescind all laws by popular referendum if 10% or more of registered voters request it and only 5% for laws passed by decree. In addition, the AN may change or rescind decree-passed laws by majority vote. Unlike in America, checks and balances work in Venezuela - but not according to the hostile US media. More on that below.

On the Enabling Law's final day, Chavez enacted 26 new laws by decree - related to the armed forces, public administration, social security, agriculture, tourism, reform of the National Banking and Finance Law, and to nationalize the Bank of Venezuela. It was privately owned until 1994 at which time the government became its majority stockholder. Then in 1996 it was again privatized when Banco Santander, Spain's largest bank, bought a controlling interest.

The company wanted to sell it and asked permission as required by law. Chavez responded by reclaiming the bank's resources for all Venezuelans. He assured Santander it will receive fair compensation as was done for previous nationalizations and told bank depositors not to worry: "You will be more than guaranteed in the hands of the Republic (and) You know the banking sector of Venezuela is one of the most solid in the world." Perhaps good as gold compared to shaky US banks in serious trouble.

Chavez announced that the new laws will enhance the "great public sector," long "subordinated" in the past, to prioritize social areas in line with national and international standards. But opposition leaders weren't convinced. They called the measures "autocratic" and "non-consultative" and urged their followers to respond in the upcoming November regional and local elections.

Despite opposition claims, all the new measures comply fully with constitutional provisions and are entirely legal. Many were proposed early in the Enabling Law period, debated for over a year in the AN, and 16 additional laws weren't enacted because they're still under consideration. In all, 67 new laws were decreed from January 2007 through July 2008 covering a broad range of areas, including:

-- monetary conversion;

-- steel, cement, oil, banking, and electricity sector nationalizations;

-- the new Law on Intelligence and Counterintelligence - now revoked and to be rewritten to eliminate potentially controversial provisions;

-- promoting small and mid-sized industries as well as new types of state and community-run enterprises;

-- reorganizing the military;

-- national finance institutions as well;

-- reforming public administration laws; as well as measures on

-- price controls, agricultural policy, and food security and sovereignty.

Staged Venezuelan Street Protests Erupt

In what's now common under Chavez, "Venezuelans protest(ed his) new socialist push," according to the AP, but it was hardly a resounding denunciation. In Caracas, at most 1000 turned out chanting "freedom," and "Riot police used tear gas as they blocked hundreds of Venezuelans protesting what they call new moves by President Chavez to concentrate his power." Their charges were baseless and ludicrous and cited "blacklists barring key opposition candidates from elections and socialist decrees destroying what's left of their democracy."

The so-called "blacklist" was, in fact, a Venezuelan Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ) August 5 ruling barring 272 government and opposition candidates from running in the November elections because of corruption charges and convictions. The Court held that their ruling "is acceptable in accordance with the laws that are given for reasons of general interest, for the safety of others of society and for the common good, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 30 and 32.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights. This requirement is fully compatible with the provisions of Articles 19 and 156....of the National Constitution." The TSJ also affirmed the constitutionality of Article 105 regarding the Comptroller General's office because it assures defendants have full due process rights.

Comptroller Clodosbaldo Russian is legally empowered as Venezuela's top anti-corruption watchdog. He submitted a list of 368 names to the country's National Electoral Council (CNE) and asked that they be barred from running in November because they're being investigated for or were found guilty of corruption and misuse of public funds. CNE approved the list and asked the Supreme Court to rule on it. The Court then disqualified 272 of them.

The (2005-launched) UK-based Venezuela Information Centre (VIC) stands "in solidarity with the people of Venezuela." Its members include NGOs, academics, students, members of the media and trade unionists. It aims to provide "objective and accurate information about all trade union, social movement and political organisations in Venezuela," counteract distorted reporting, and "support the right of the Venezuelan people to determine their own future free from external intervention."

VIC's assessment of the Comptroller General's disqualification process was as follows:

-- it was "conducted strictly on legal and administrative grounds;

-- carried out as part of the constitutional and legal obligations of the Office of the Comptroller General;

-- taken following" TSJ 2005 rulings;

-- authorized under Venezuela's Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office and Venezuelan Constitution; and

-- those on the list were kept fully apprised throughout the process.

The Corporate Media Responds - Hostile As Always

In the lead was The New York Times and its on-the-scene reporter Simon Romero in an August 5 article headlined "New Decrees From Chavez Mirror Spurned Measures." Romero reported that Chavez "is using his decree powers to enact a set of 'socialist-inspired' measures that seem based on a package of constitutional changes" voters previously rejected. It sets the stage for new "confrontation between his government and the political opposition."

He quoted opposition publisher Teodoro Petkoff saying: "When the government acts, as it has now, without respecting the Constitution, and the word of the president is the law, then an act of tyranny is being committed." Romero seemed to agree.

He then objected to "a wave of takeovers of private companies," including nationalizing "a large Spanish-owned bank." He was unconcerned about "relatively minor" decrees but took aim at more far-reaching ones and some he called efforts to "formalize socialist-inspired policies on the margins of the formal economy, like a measure declaring barter a legitimate system of payment." Romero seems hopeful that "the coming regional elections have the potential to erode the president's power base," and we'll be hearing more from him in its run-up.

AP reporter Fabiola Sanchez criticized Chavez's "move(s) toward a social economy," plans "to set up neighborhood-based militias....state control over agriculture," new powers over the military, small business loans, and quoted critics saying laws were "pushed through" without "consult(ing) major business groups."

AFP reporter Carlos Diaz referred to "Chavez enact(ing aggressive) new laws with (an) iron fist increasing the state's power over the economy ahead of key regional elections." It's a resumption of his "drive to create a socialist state, significantly increase his power and resemble proposals included in a constitutional reform narrowly rejected by voters in a December referendum."

Even the Financial Times (FT) weighed in with Caracas reporter Benedict Mander headlining "Chavez accused of reviving old reforms" and citing government opponents "up in arms over a raft of decree laws they say replicate constitutional reforms" that voters rejected. He mentioned critics "warn(ing) that they'll "further scare off private investment," claimed they're "typical of Mr. Chavez's authoritarian streak (and will let him) expropriate private property without the need for the (AN's) approval." Mander also (on August 2) criticized the disqualification of opposition candidates and quoted Carter Center director of the Americas Programme, Jennifer McCoy, worrying about perceptions of clearing the way for government-backed candidates.

The Wall Street Journal was even more hostile in a Jose De Cordoba, Darcy Crowe article headlined "In Enacting Decrees, Chavez Makes New Power Grab." They called them "ambitious....decrees which formalize the creation of a popular militia and further consolidate state control over key areas of the economy such as agriculture and tourism." They referred to his "bypass(ing) Congress in making laws (and being) back on the offensive after suffering a humiliating defeat in December (that might have let him) stay in power for life."

They cited "accusations that Mr. Chavez is evading the will of the people" and quoted opposition figure Luis Miquilena saying "We are in the presence of a dictatorial government which has given a coup d'etat to the constitution. Here we have no constitution, no law and the president does exactly what he wants." It sounds like he's confusing Chavez with George Bush because he describes conditions under him accurately in stark contrast to Venezuelan democracy.

The Journal writers see things differently. They compare Chavez's government to Iran and take him to task for it. They also cite public opposition to the "Cuban Model," suggest he follows it, and quote Peter Hakim of the Inter-American Dialogue saying "Everything (he's doing) is related to the upcoming election, and it's hard to imagine he doesn't see this as important in his efforts to keep power."

Far and away the most outlandish and unfounded Journal diatribes show up in Mary O'Grady's columns. Her latest was on August 11 headlined "Chavez Sees Cuba as a Model" in which she states "The Venezuelan dictator acts more and more like Fidel" and lots more. Her accusations include "annihilat(ing)" his political competition, "put(ting) down all challengers to (his) power forcibly if necessary," transforming the country into "a centrally planned economy," using "his own version of the law," declaring opponents "guilty (of corruption) by fiat," "expanding (his) collection of political prisoners," and near excoriating Jimmy Carter and Senator Chris Dodd for calling "Chavez's Venezuela a democracy." According to O'Grady: "Get in the way of Mr. Chavez's caudillo aspirations at your peril."

These type comments aren't surprising from someone with her background: years at Wall Street as an options strategist for Advest, Inc., Thomas McKinnon Securities, and Merrill Lynch & Co. She also once worked at the hard-right Heritage Foundation before joining the Wall Street Journal in 1995 and becoming a senior editorial page writer in 1999 for her weekly America's column. It's long on the worst kind of agitprop and very short on reporting the truth.

No wonder then that neither O'Grady or other Chavez critics explain Venezuelan law or how TSJ rulings interpret it. Nor do they report how the Enabling Law works, that the nation's Constitution authorizes it, that four other presidents used it, that Chavez scrupulously complies with its provisions, and that the National Assembly (by majority vote) and Venezuelan people (by referendum) can override his decrees. How can they? It would expose their false accusations and discredit their entire argument that will heat up soon again in the run-up to November's state and local elections. Stay tuned.

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=9761

Using Georgia to Target Russia

Using Georgia to Target Russia - by Stephen Lendman

After the Soviet Union's 1991 dissolution, Georgia's South Ossetia province broke away and declared its independence. So far it remains undiplomatically recognized by UN member states. It's been traditionally allied with Russia and wishes to reunite with Northern Ossetes in the North Ossetia-Alania Russian republic. Nothing so far is in prospect, but Russia appears receptive to the idea. And for Abkhazia as well, Georgia's other breakaway province. The conflict also has implications for Transdniestria, the small independent Russian-majority part of Moldova bordering Ukraine, and for Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan.

Tensions arose and conflict broke out in late 1991. It resulted in a 1992 ceasefire to avoid a major confrontation with Russia, but things remained unsettled. Moscow maintains a military presence in the province as well as in Abkhazia and exerts considerable political and economic influence. Throughout the 1990s, intermittent conflict erupted but nothing on the order of early August 7 when Georgia acted with aggression against the S. Ossetian capital, Tskninvali.

Russiatoday.com reported the early timeline:

-- at 22:50 GMT, Tskhinvali reported heavy shelling;

-- 22:00 GMT - TASS news agency reported intensive Georgian firing on the capital's residential areas;

-- 21:27 GMT - Russia's Vesti television reported that S. Ossetia's military downed a Georgian attack plane;

-- 21:25 GMT - Georgia announced plans to withdraw half its Iraq forces because of the conflict;

-- 21:22 GMT - S. Ossetia claimed to be in control of Tskhinvali, but Georgian forces attempted to retake the city;

-- 20:36 GMT - The UN Security Council began closed-door discussions on the conflict - initiated by Georgia and the second in 24 hours;

-- 20:25 GMT - Georgia asked the US to pressure Russia to "stop (its) armed aggression;"

-- 19:08 GMT - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said "Russia is taking adequate military and political measures" to end the violence;

-- 18:56 GMT - S. Ossetia's government said it controls Tskhinvali, but fighting in one city district continued;

-- 17:35 GMT - Georgian President Saakashvili claimed that Georgia controlled Tskhinvali and most S. Ossetian villages and regions;

-- 17:20 GMT - S. Ossetian leader Kokoity asked the world community to stop Georgia's "genocide" and recognize the territory's independence; he claimed 1400 deaths in the fighting;

-- 16:46 GMT - thousands of S. Osettians fled the fighting;

-- 16:14 GMT - Russia's Air Force denied bombing a Georgian military base;

-- 14:23 GMT - reports from Tskhinvali indicated mass fires in the city;

-- 13:25 GMT - Russia's Defence Ministry accused Georgian troops of shooting peacekeepers and civilians and denying them medical help;

-- 13:16 GMT - Saakashvili accused Russia of waging war and asked for US support;

-- 12:55 GMT - Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov accused Georgia of ethnic cleansing Ossetian villages;

-- 12:04 GMT - Russia's Defence Ministry said it sent peacekeeping reinforcements to S. Ossetia;

-- 11:25 GMT - reports indicated that Tskhinvali was completely destroyed;

-- 10:33 GMT - Georgia announced a three-hour ceasefire to let civilians evacuate the conflict zone;

-- 9:36 GMT - Russia's Parliament cited Georgia's aggression as a "serious reason" to recognize S. Ossetian independence;

-- 8:18 GMT - firefights spread to Tskhinvali streets;

-- 6:51 GMT - the UN Security Council failed to approve a Russia-sponsored ceasefire call; fighting intensified;

-- 5:01 GMT - S. Ossetia sought Russian protection and help to stop the fighting; and

-- 4:13 GMT - Georgian troops resumed attacking Tskhinvali in a continued act of aggression; things remained unsettled; fighting continued and at times with ferocity.

On August 8, The New York Times reported that Georgia officials "accused Russia (on August 5) of violating the country's airspace and firing a guided missile...." Russia denied the charge, called it baseless, and said no Russian planes were in the area either August 4 or 5th. Georgia, on the other hand, said they were as a "provocation aimed only" to disrupt Georgia's peace and "change the political course of the country."

Earlier in March, Georgia accused Russia of launching missile attacks on Georgian villages in the volatile Kodori Gorge. Relations deteriorated markedly last year after Georgia arrested and deported four Russian Army officers, accusing them of spying. Moscow recalled its ambassador, cut air, sea and postal links, and deported several thousand Georgians in response. These events and others led up to the present conflict with considerable suspicions about what's behind them. The New York Times reported (August 10) that conflict had been brewing for years but suggested Russia is at fault:

-- emboldened by its Checknya successes;

-- the Kremlin's loathing of President Saakashvili - personally and politically;

-- tensions over Washington's ties with him - providing political, economic and especially military support, including a total overhaul of its forces complete with large stockpiles state-of-the-art weapons and munitions as well as training to use them;

-- Saakashvili's alliance with the Bush administration in Iraq; and

-- President Putin granting citizenship and passports to most S. Ossetian and Abkhazian adults.

Unmentioned by The Times are:

-- reasons behind the growing tensions between Washington and Moscow;

-- the Bush administration's unilateral abandonment of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM);

-- its continued provocations around the world, including in areas sensitive to Russia;

-- its massive military buildup;

-- its advocacy for preventive, preemptive and "proactive" wars with first-strike nuclear weapons;

-- NATO's role in serving America's imperial interests;

-- enlarging it with new member states, including former Soviet republics;

-- encircling Russia with US military bases;

-- situating them in former Soviet republics and regional states;

-- the strategic importance of Georgia for the Anglo-American Caspian oil pipeline; its extension from Baku, Azerbaijan (on the Caspian) through Georgia (well south of S. Ossetia), bypassing Russia and Iran, and across Turkey to its port city of Ceyhan - the so-called BTC pipeline for around one million barrels of oil daily, adjacent to the South Causasus (gas) Pipeline with a capacity of about 16 billion cubic meters annually;

-- the regional stakes involved: Washington and Russia vying to control Eurasia's vast oil and gas reserves;

-- Israel's role in the region; its interest in the BTC pipline; its negotiations with Georgia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan to have it reach its Ashkelon oil terminal and Red Sea Eilat port; its selling Georgia state-of-the-art weapons, electronic warfare systems and intelligence; its use of military advisors to train Georgian forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery tactics as well as instruction on military intelligence and security;

-- its refusal to freeze its Georgian military alliance; the dubious reliability of Haaretz citing an AP August 7 report that "Israel has decided to halt all sales of military equipment to Georgia because of (Russia's) objections....to give Israel leverage with Moscow....not to ship arms and equipment to Iran" such as sophisticated S-300 air defense missiles; the Israeli Foreign Ministry refusing comment on an arms freeze and Georgian Cabinet minister Temur Yakobashvili saying "There has been no decision by Israel to stop selling (us) weapons;"

-- believe it, and here's what Haaretz says Israel supplies: high-tech infantry weapons, artillery systems electronics, and upgrades for Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets as well as Israeli generals advising Georgia's military; Israel also sells Hermes 450 UAV spy drones according to Russiatoday.com; according to some sources, it's a virtual gold mine for Israeli defense contractors, but Haaretz reports it's much less at around $200 million a year - well below American and French sales;

-- on August 10, the Israeli ynetnews.com highlighted "The Israeli Connection" and reported "Israeli companies have been helping (the) Georgian army (prepare) for war against Russia through arms deals, training of infantry and security advice;" it was helped by Georgian citizens "who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople," and the fact that Georgia's Defense Minister, Davit Kezerashvili, "is a former Israeli fluent in Hebrew (whose) door was always open to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms;" deals went through "fast" and included "remote-piloted (Elbit System) vehicles (RPVs), automatic turrets for armed vehicles, antiaircraft systems, communications systems, shells and rockets;"

-- Russia's anger over Georgia and Ukraine seeking NATO membership and Washington's pressuring other members to admit them;

- the planned installation of "missile defense" radar in the region - in Poland, Czechoslovakia and potentially other sensitive areas, all targeting Russia, China, and Iran;

-- its provoking Russia to retarget nuclear missiles at planned "radar" locations; and

-- targeting Russia for dissolution (as the US's main world rival), diffuse its power, control Eurasia, including the country's immense resources on the world's by far largest land mass.

The New Great Game

What's at stake is what former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described in his 1997 book "The Grand Chessboard." He called Eurasia the "center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent." He continued: "The most immediate (US) task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." Dominating that part of the world and its vast energy and other resources is Washington's goal with NATO and Israel its principal tools to do it:

-- in the Middle East with its two-thirds of the world's proved oil reserves (about 675 billion barrels); and

-- the Caspian basin with an estimated 270 billion barrels of oil plus one-eighth of the world's natural gas reserves.

"New World Order" strategy aims to secure them. Russia, China, and Iran have other plans. India allies with both sides. Former Warsaw Pact and Soviet republics split this way:

-- NATO members include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania;

-- Georgia and Ukraine seek membership; while

-- Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazahkstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Kyrgystan ally with Russia.

Georgia now occupies center stage, so first some background about a nation Michel Chossudovsky calls "an outpost of US and NATO forces" located strategically on Russia's border "within proximity of the Middle East Central Asian war theater." Breakaway S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, though small in size, are very much players in what's unfolding with potential to have it develop into something much bigger than a short-lived regional conflict.

In 2003 with considerable CIA help, Georgia's President Saskashvili came to power in the so-called bloodless "Rose Revolution." Georgia held parliamentary elections on November 2. International observers called them unfair. Sackashvili claimed he won. He and the united opposition called for protests and civil disobedience. They began in mid-November in the capital Tbilisi, then spread throughout the country. They peaked on November 22, the scheduled opening day for parliament. Instead, Saakashvili-led supporters placed "roses" in the barrels of soldiers' rifles, seized the parliament building, interrupted President Eduard Shevardnadze's speech, and forced him to escape for his safety.

Saakashvili declared a state of emergency, mobilized troops and police, met with Shevardnadze and Zurab Zhvania (the former parliament speaker and choice for new prime minister), and apparently convinced the Georgian president to resign. Celebrations erupted. A temporary president was installed. Georgia's Supreme Court annulled the elections, and on January 4, 2004, Saakashvili was elected and inaugurated president on January 25. New parliamentary elections were held on March 28. Saakashvili's supporters used heavy-handed tactics to gain full control, but behind the scenes Washington is fully in charge. It pulls the strings on its new man in Georgia and stepped up tensions with Russia for control of the strategically important southern Causasus region.

On January 5, 2008, Saakashvili won reelection for a second term in a process his opponents called rigged. Given how he first gained power and the CIA's role in it, those accusations have considerable merit.

After the outbreak of the current crisis, Russia's NATO envoy, Dmitry Rogozin, accused the Alliance of "encourag(ing) Georgia to attack S. Ossetia and called it "an undisguised aggression accompanied by a mass propaganda war." Russia's Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, called attention to Georgia's "massive arms purchasing....during several years" and its use of "foreign specialists" to train "Georgian special troops."

In his August 10 article titled - "War in the Causasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?" - Chossudovsky notes how "attacks were timed to coincide with the Olympics largely with a view to avoiding frontpage media coverage" and to let saturation Beijing reports serve as distraction.

Now after days of fighting, headlines cite 2000 or more deaths (largely civilians), huge amounts of destruction, Tskhinvali in ruins, and many thousands of refugees seeking safe havens. Accounts of Georgian atrocities have also surfaced, and according to Chossudovsky they're part of a planned "humanitarian disaster (against civilian targets) rather than (an impossible to achieve) military victory" against a nation as powerful as Russia. Had Georgia sought control, a far different operation would have unfolded "with Special Forces occupying key public buildings, communications networks and provincial institutions."

So why did this happen, and what can Washington hope to gain when it's bogged down in two wars, threatening another against Iran, and thoroughly in disrepute as a result? It's part of a broader "Great Game" strategy pitting the world's two great powers against each other for control of this vital part of the world.

Bush administration plans may come down to this - portray Russia as another Serbia, isolate the country, and equate Putin and/or Medvedev with Milosevic and hope for all the political advantage it can gain. "The war on Southern Ossetia," according to Chossudovsky, "was not meant to be won, leading to the restoration of Georgian sovereignty over (the province). It was intended to destabilize the region while triggering a US-NATO confrontation with Russia."

Georgia is its proxy. Its attack on S. Ossetia is a made-in-Washington operation. But not according to George Bush (on August 10) who "strongly condemned (Russia's) disproportionate response," and Dick Cheney (on the same day) saying its military "aggression must not go unanswered, and that its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community." An EU statement agreed. It expressed its "commitment to the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of Georgia" and pretty much accused Russia of aggression.

Russia's response and capabilities are unsurprising. It counterattacked in force, battered Georgian troops, inflicted damage at will, reportedly overran the Gori military base in Senaki, moved south into Georgia proper, and largely attacked military targets with great effect. It also wants an emergency meeting with NATO and issued an ultimatum for Georgian troops to disarm in the Zugdidi District along the Abkhazia - Georgia border. For its part, Georgian officials said Russia's "wide-scale assault (is) aimed at overthrowing the government."

On August 10, the London Guardian reported that the Caucasus conflict "spread to Georgia's second breakaway province of Abkhazia, where separatist rebels and the Russian air force launched an all-out attack on Georgian forces." Abkhazia's leader, Sergei Bagapsh, said "around 1000 Abkhaz troops" engaged in a major "military operation" to force Georgian forces out of the strategic Kodori gorge. Russian army spokesman, Anatoly Nogovitsyn, told Interfax: "We do not intend to take the initiative in escalating the conflict in this region. We are primarily interested in" stabilizing Abkhazia.

On August 12, AP reported that "Russian President Dmitri Medvedev ordered a halt to military action in Georgia (today), saying it had punished (the country) and brought security for civilians and Russian peacekeepers." Nonetheless, reports are that fighting continues, and Medvedev ordered his military to quell "any emerging hotbeds of resistance or any aggressive actions...." Foreign Minister Lavrov added that Moscow won't talk to Saakashvili and said he'd "better go."

The latest AP August 13 report is that Georgian officials claim Russian tanks "seized a (Georgian) military base (and) also held onto ground in western Georgia, maintaining control of the town of Zugdidi." For its part, "Russia accused Georgia of killing more than 2000 people, mostly civilians, in South Ossetia." Witnesses confirmed that hundreds had died there, and expectations are that the death toll will rise "because large areas of Georgia (are) too dangerous for journalists to enter (to assess) the true scope of the damage."

On the Attack - The Corporate Media React

Despite the Olympic distraction, the dominant media jumped on this story and are unsurprisingly one-sided in their reports. On August 11, a New York Times editorial headlined "Russia's War of Ambition" in which it lamented that Saakashvili "foolishly and tragically baited the Russians - or even more foolishly fell into Moscow's trap...." It accused the Kremlin of "bull(ying) and blackmail(ing) its neighbors and its own people." It stated "There is no imaginable excuse for (invading) Georgia" and defended "Saakashvili's 'democratically elected' government."

It accused Vladimir Putin of "shoulder(ing) aside (Medvedev) to run the war (and) appears determined to reimpose by force and intimidation as much of the old Soviet sphere of influence as he can get away with." The US and its European allies "must tell Mr. Putin in the clearest possible terms that such aggression will not be tolerated." They'll also "need to take a hard look at their relationship with Russia going forward....Russia needs to behave responsibly. And the United States and Europe must make clear that anything less is unacceptable."

The Los Angeles Times' op-ed writer Max Boot (noted for his hard-right views) was just as one-sided in referring to the "Red Army" and saying the West must "Stand up to Russia." It must protect Saakhashvili and prevent Moscow from "replac(ing) him with a pro-Kremlin stooge." Its leaders must "stand together and make clear that this aggression will not stand." He called Russia's "excuses" for its "aggression....particularly creepy" and said they mirrored Hitler's when he "swallow(ed) Czechoslovakia and Poland." He added that "the lesson" of the 1930s must be heeded because the "cost of inaction" is too high.

David Clark in the London Guardian was also hostile in his op-ed headlined "The west can no longer stand idle while the Russian bully wreaks havoc." He described "Russian policy (as) uniquely destructive in generating instability and political division in the Caucasus" and excused Saakhashvili for his actions. He referred to "Georgia's role in maintaining the only east-west pipeline route free of Russia's monopolistic grip...." He called Georgia's security concerns "real, and Russia is the cause." David Clark is a former government adviser and now chairman of the pro-West Russia Foundation.

The Wall Street covers this story daily in news reports and commentaries. On August 11, it gave Saakashvili a half page for his op-ed headlined "The War in Georgia Is a War for the West," and he didn't mince words. He accused Russia of "waging (all-out) war on my country (that's) not of Georgia's making (nor its) choice. The Kremlin designed this war....(it's) a war about (Georgia's) independence and future (and) about the future of freedom in Europe."

On August 12, writers Gary Schmitt and Mauro De Lorenzo headlined "How the West Can Stand up to Russia," and they were just as hostile. They accused Moscow of "cutthroat politics....at home and abroad" and asked "What can the West do?" First they urge "rush(ing) military and medical supplies to Tbilisi (and) Washington should lead." It should then tell Moscow that the West has a "greater capacity to sustain a new Cold War (and aim) to put Mr. Putin and Dmitry Medvedev on their back foot diplomatically."

Then on to the larger issue of "break(ing) Russia's "stranglehold on Europe's energy supplies" and one other thing - building a "strong, prosperous and fully independent Georgia (heading for) NATO and EU membership" allied against Russia.

The Journal's same day editorial headlined "Vladimir Bonaparte" after one day earlier accusing Moscow of "Kremlin (business) Capers" and admonishing investors against "putting money into Russia." On the 12th, it warned that "Georgia is only the first stop for Eurasia's new imperialist." It referred to Putin "consolidat(ing) his authoritarian transition as Prime Minister with a figurehead president....Ukraine is in his sights, and even the Balkan states could be threatened if he's allowed to get away with it. The West needs to draw a line at Georgia."

It called on NATO to "respond forcefully....start today (and said) this is perhaps the last chance for President Bush to salvage any kind of positive legacy toward Russia (by) rally(ing) the West's response." Putin seeks to "dominat(e)....the world stage. Unless Russians see that there are costs for their Napoleon's expansionism, Georgia isn't likely to be his last stop."

Welcome to the new Cold War and new Great Game, what a new administration will inherit next year, and the very worrisome thought that it will handle things no better than the current one no matter who's elected or which party controls Congress.

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=9761

Targeting Immigrants - The Largest Ever ICE Raid

Targeting Immigrants - The Largest Ever US ICE Raid - by Stephen Lendman

The 2002 Homeland Security Act established its largest investigative and enforcement arm in 2003: the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) created "as a law enforcement agency for the post-9/11 era, to integrate enforcement authorities against criminal and terrorist activities, including the fights against human trafficking and smuggling, violent transnational gangs and sexual predators on children" - "criminal" and "terrorist" threats to the nation.

Muslims are its principal targets. So are Latino immigrants, forced to seek work here because of NAFTA's devastating effect on their lives and well-being. Turning logic, fairness and justice on its head in the current climate of fear, ICE calls them (and Muslims) "people....support(ing) terrorism and other criminal activities....against the United States" - 276,912 so-called "illegal aliens" removed from the country in FY2007 to justify its burgeoning budget to "keep America safe."

ICE deters Latinos at the border and targets them at work sites and homes with $4.8 billion of DHS' current FY 2008 $64.9 billion budget. Increasing to $5.4 billion in DHS' FY 2009 $66.3 billion request.

Below is how some of the money was spent in July 2008 alone:

-- on July 28, ICE arrested 13 Guatemalan and Mexican nationals in North Little Rock, Arkansas;

-- on July 23, it seized 58 Mexican nationals in northern Ohio;

-- on July 22, it reported 81 foreign national arrests in San Diego - 43 "criminal aliens" and 38 gang members or their associates;

-- on July 21, it reported a record number of "illegal alien" deportations from Arizona from October 2007 through June 2008 - 38,799;

-- on July 21, it arrested 43 aliens, employed by The Farms, on "administrative immigration violations;"

-- on July 18, it made 49 arrests over four days in Chicago; under "Operation Community Shield" (in partnership with local law enforcement); it targeted "illegal aliens with ties to violent street gangs in (the city's) northern and northwest suburbs;"

-- on July 17, it arrested 45 "gang members, gang associates and immigration violators" over six days in Tulsa, OK;

-- on July 16, it seized 18 "illegal aliens" at a Loveland, CO concrete plant;

-- on July 11, it reported deporting a "record number of illegal aliens from (three) Pacific Northwest states" (Washington, Oregon and Alaska) - from October 2007 through June 2008; 7345 "illegal aliens (were returned) to their home countries" - a 39% increase over the previous fiscal year period;

-- on July 9, it reported deporting 5889 "illegal immigrants" rounded up "in various cities throughout Florida" from January through June 2008;

-- on July 9, it arrested 24 "immigration fugitives and immigration violators" over five days ending July 1 in Nashville, TN;

-- on July 2, it arrested 22 "transnational gang members and their associates" in Wichita, KS;

ICE 2006 Terror Raid in Southeast Georgia - Preceding Its Largest One Ever in 2008

Over the course of two September 2006 weeks, ICE agents reigned terror on Latino residents of several southeast Georgia towns, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) November 1, 2006-filed suit in US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The case (Mancha v. ICE) remains ongoing.

It cites ICE agents illegally detained, searched and harassed Latino Americans, in violation of their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, while carrying out massive southeast Georgia raids. Five Mexican Americans are plaintiffs along with a landlord who suffered damage to his rental properties when ICE agents broke into Latino-rented trailers. SPLC's founder, Morris Dees, expressed outraged "that this could occur in America today. These ICE agents swooped into town, armed with everything but search warrants, and started rounding up people - citizens and non-citizens alike - merely because they had brown skin. Imagine the fallout if this had happened to white people."

Raids began September 1 in at least three counties and lasted several weeks. They involved dozens of agents allegedly to round up undocumented workers of a Stillmore, Georgia poultry plant. But instead of raiding the work site, agents terrorized communities - breaking into homes, stopping motorists, and threatening Latinos with tear gas and guns.

Hundreds of residents were traumatized and their constitutional rights violated. Some were children like Marie Justeen Mancha (age 15), named in the suit - a US citizen and resident of Reidsville in Tattnall County. She was alone in her bedroom preparing for school when she heard men in another room yelling: "Police! Illegals!" Two dozen armed agents surrounded her home and were intimidating. They had no search warrant, yet they detained and interrogated her anyway.

Ranulfo Perez is another plaintiff. He was outside his Adrian Emanuel County home when 15 armed men appeared suddenly and surrounded him. One grabbed his shirt, jammed a gun in his side, and threw him against his truck. He then twisted his arm behind his back, held him that way for 10 minutes, while other agents searched his home and property - illegally without a warrant. Perez was then advised to leave the area with his family for two weeks to avoid further such incidents.

SPLC's suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and a court order enjoining ICE from using similar future tactics. The Center also asked the Court to approve the claim as a class action on behalf of all affected Latinos, many US citizens targeted as illegals because of their skin color and ethnicity.

The Largest Ever ICE Terror Raid

On May 12, 2008, ICE agents conducted their largest ever terror raid against workers in Postville, IA. In an early report that day, the Des Moines Register called it the "largest workplace raid in Iowa history (resulting) in the arrest of more than 300 people (in fact, 389)."

"As two law enforcement helicopters hovered overhead, dozens (in fact, around 900) federal (ICE) agents descended on Agriprocessors Inc., the nation's largest kosher slaughterhouse" employing 968 workers. The number arrested was more than three times higher than those seized "18 months ago at the Swift (Marshalltown) plant."

On July 13, The New York Times editorialized on "The Shame of Postville, Iowa" in a rare show of outrage against abusive police state tactics. It referred to "abusing and terrorizing undocumented workers," described their shameful treatment, and deplored the the sending of "desperate breadwinners to prison" and driving their families into deeper poverty and despair. It cited Spanish-language court interpreter and Florida International University professor Erik Camayd-Freizas' "Personal Account" titled: "Interpreting after the Largest ICE Raid in US History."

Below is his account in which he said nothing could have prepared him for the prospect of helping government officials imprison hundreds of "innocent people." He went public to expose it and began with the 10AM May 12 raid involving 900 agents at the Postville, Iowa plant. At the same time, 26 federally certified interpreters headed to neighboring Waterloo with no idea why they were sent. Camayd-Freizas was one of them.

He was taken to the National Cattle Congress (NCC) and arrived early for work. It's a 60-acre "cattle fairground" that was transformed into a "concentration camp or detention center." Echoing his own thoughts, another interpreter said: "When I saw what (this) was, my heart sank." Then began "the saddest procession (he ever) witnessed," suppressed from public view, because "cameras were not allowed past the perimeter of the compound," and only a few journalists came to court the next day.

Camayd-Freizas explained: "Driven single-file in groups of 10, shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles, chains dragging as they shuffled through, the (plant) workers were brought in for arraignment, sat and listened through headsets to the interpreted initial appearance, before marching out again to be bused to different country jails, only to make room for the next row of 10."

They were mostly "illiterate Guatemalan (Spanish-speaking) peasants with Mayan last names....some in tears, others with faces of worry, fear, and embarrassment." They stood out "in stark racial contrast (to) the rest of us as they started their slow penguin march across the makeshift court." They all "waived their right to be indicted....hoping to be quickly deported since they had families to support back home." Instead, they were "criminally charged with 'aggravated identity theft' and Social Security fraud - charges they did not understand" and neither did Camayd-Freizas.

He sought more information, and here's what he learned. Of Agriprocessor's 968 employees, about 75% were apparently undocumented. Nearly 700 warrants were issued but only about 400 were arrested, including 76 women. Some were released on humanitarian grounds - 56 mothers with unattended children, a few for medical reasons, and 12 juveniles temporarily with ankle monitors or directly turned over for deportation. Over 300 were held for prosecution. Five alone had prior criminal records, and 270, in fact, were charged.

The raid devastated Postville (population 2273). Businesses were empty, and concerns grew that it might shutter the town. Besides those arrested, many fled in fear. It affected American parents as well who complained that "their children were traumatized by the sudden disappearance of so many of their friends." The school principal reported the same reaction in classrooms saying that "for children it was as if ten of their classmates suddenly died." Counselors were enlisted because they had nightmares that their parents might be seized like the workers. Even the school superintendent reacted saying "This literally blew our town away," and its future is unclear.

As for workers, here's what happened. In some cases, husbands and wives were arrested leaving small children unattended for up to 72 hours. Some mothers were then released on humanitarian grounds with ankle GPS monitors, pending prosecution and deportation, while husbands were swiftly imprisoned. The situation was desperate. Mothers had no incomes and no means of support. Sometimes one parent was documented, the other wasn't, and in many cases children were US citizens. In all cases, hundreds of families were torn apart, and the Postville economic impact was devastating.

There was more. Scattered news reports and blogs contained bigotry and racial epithets - "poorly disguised beneath an empty rhetoric of misguided patriotism (as well as) insults to anyone (showing) compassion...safely (hidden) behind cowardly nickname(s). One could feel the moral fabric of society coming apart" as a result.

Camayd-Freizas expressed disgust saying he felt "blindsided into an assignment (he) wanted no part of. In all (his) years as a court interpreter, (he) was assigned to criminal cases involving rape, murder, mayhem, narcotics, human trafficking, and terrorism." Yet nothing could have prepared him for this spectacle of injustice "put(ting) hundreds of innocent people in jail," terrorizing them, and devastating their small community.

He recounted day two in court, much like the first and ones to follow. "Throughout the day, the procession continued, ten by ten, hour after hour, the same charges, the same recitation from the magistrates, the same faces, chains and shackles, on the defendants." The whole process was an exercise of injustice "where the meat packers were massed processed" like beef. It then got more personal as he prepared to interpret for individual lawyer-client consultations.

Proceedings were rushed to comply with a 72 hour habeas writ - charge prisoners in that time or release them for deportation. It increased his angst, but it was just the beginning and he "was about to bear the brunt of (his) conflict of interest."

It came in his first interview - to let lawyers explain the government's "uniform Plea Agreement" offering three choices:

-- plead guilty to "knowingly using a false Social Security number," and the government will withdraw the more serious "aggravated identity theft" charge; the sentence will then be five months in jail, deportation without a hearing, and supervised release for three years;

-- plead not guilty, wait six to eight months for trial without bail and be imprisoned for two years if convicted; or

-- win at trial, be deported anyway, and spend longer in jail than by pleading guilty - three no-win choices.

Camayd-Freizas' first interview typified others. It was with a Guatemalan peasant, afraid for his family, who spent most of the session weeping. How did he get here, he was asked? "I walked....for a month and ten days until I crossed the river." He was desperate like many others. He came alone, met other immigrants, hitched a ride to Dallas, then Postville, when he heard there was work there. He slept in an apartment hallway with other immigrants until employed and was only working two months when he was arrested. Why did he come: "I just wanted to work a year or two, save, and then go back to my family, but it was not to be."

A simple work permit would have solved his problem and Camayd-Freizas said he, like many others are "not guilty." Most immigrants don't know about Social Security numbers, what purpose they serve, yet they were charged with illegally having them. In fact, they're illiterate in Spanish and English, and simply had plant personnel fill out their papers to be hired. In most cases, the men are the sole support of their families but don't know how they'll survive while they're in jail.

Case after case was the same, and all of them challenged Camayd-Freizas' ability to be impartial. The entire process was unjust and corrupted. Proceedings were rushed. Defendants didn't understand them. Lawyers got little chance to explain, and, when with clients, agents were always present. In addition:

-- plea agreements were for seven days;

-- ICE appointed attorneys had no immigration work expertise;

-- ones who did "were denied access" to the proceedings; and

-- prosecutors offered a Plea Agreement with no changes; take it or leave it with little time to understand or reflect - classic gross injustice against near-defenseless, traumatized victims.

Everything was "fast-tracked" and mass-processed 10 cases at a time with no possibility for due process, judicial fairness, or any compassion for desperate, innocent victims. Instead they were pressured with tactics like: "If you want to see your children or don't want your family to starve, sign here." Camayd-Freizas called it "coercion."

He and other interpreters felt "tremendous solidarity with these people." Had they lost their impartiality? "Not at all: that was our impartial and probably unanimous judgment. We (saw) attorneys hold back tears and weep alongside their clients. We (saw) judges, prosecutors, clerks, and marshals do their duty, sometimes with a heavy heart....but always with a particular solemnity not accorded to the common criminals (they're) used to encountering...."

In a private conversation with one judge, Camayd-Freizas expressed outrage: "Your honor, I am concerned from my attorney-client interviews that many of these people are clearly not guilty, yet they have no choice but to plead out." The judge concurred and responded: "You know, I don't agree with any of this or with the way it is being done. In fact, I ruled in a previous case that to charge somebody with identity theft, the person had to at least know of the real owner of the Social Security number." These people don't even know what Social Security is or what it's for.

The judge "hit the nail on the head - the "last piece of the puzzle" giving judges no discretion or decision-making power. It was a setup, a Hobson's choice, a catch-22 to force victims to plead guilty to a lesser charge, accept five months in jail and deportation, or end up worse off otherwise. Under different circumstances, workers would have received only probation and swift deportation - a far less harsh disposition.

Camayd-Freizas reacted this way: "As a citizen, I want our judges to administer justice, not a federal agency. When the executive branch forces the hand of the judiciary, the result is abuse of power and arbitrariness, unworthy of a democracy founded upon the constitutional principle of checks and balances." The final 270 charged went to jail, yet here's what Camayd-Freizas learned.

Before the raid, ICE agents found "no match" Social Security information for 737 employees - 147 numbers were invalid and never issued; the other 590 were valid but didn't match worker names. But it's not uncommon for aliens to purchase identity documents (including Social Security numbers) that match names assigned to the numbers. Yet ICE agents found only one Agriprocessor employee with a reported stolen SSN yet charged all 697 workers with:

-- unlawfully using SSNs in violation of Title 42 USC No.408(a)(7)(B);

"aggravated identity theft" in violation of 18 USC No. 1028A(a)(1); and/or

-- possession or use of false identity documents for purposes of employment in violation of 18 USC No.1546.

The charges contravened the 1998 US federal "Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act." It refers to persons "knowingly(ly) us(ing) a means of identification of another person with the intent to commit any unlawful activity or felony" - willful, harmful, felonious acts like theft or fraud. Securing work isn't an "unlawful activity" under this law. Yet ICE agents bullied workers into taking a no-win plea bargain or face much harsher penalties. The system was rigged for injustice, and that's what happened.

Camayd-Freizas called Postville a "pilot operation, to be replicated elsewhere, with kinks ironed out after lessons learned. Next time, 'fast-tracking' will be even more relentless. Never before has illegal immigration been criminalized in this fashion. It is no longer enough to deport them: we first have to (terrorize them and) put them in chains."

The scheme also absolves corporations from prosecution and at most administers penalties amounting to fines. "Criminal aliens" are the targets of choice because they're "easy pickings (and) a cheap way (for ICE to boost its) arrest statistics (and cite) meatier" numbers in its reports stating: "These incarcerated aliens have been involved in dangerous criminal activity such as murder, predatory sexual offenses, narcotics trafficking, alien smuggling and a host of other crimes." In fact, they're just desperate Latino workers trying to support their impoverished families back home. ICE uses them for:

-- political advantage;

-- larger budgets;

-- a way to increase its size and power;

-- its "Long War" against undocumented workers, mostly Latinos; and

-- to give the executive concentrated power to dilute the legislative and judicial branches.

In a climate of fear and weak checks and balances, DHS and ICE exceed their legal authority. They get multi-billions for it and brush aside criticism saying terrorism will increase without their "vigilance." So who in the other two branches will challenge them.

Camayd-Friezas refers to "an undemocratic doctrine of expediency, at the core of a police state, (where) power hinges on its ability to capitalize on public fear." Sadly, the "specter of 9/11....haunt(s undocumented) workers and their local communities across the USA" - but "A line was crossed at Postville." This isn't humane, said a Des Moines mother as part of a citizen protest on May 13. "There has to be a better way." Abolishing DHS and ICE would be a good start.

Another Bad Start - "Operation Scheduled Departure"

The National Immigration Forum (NIF) calls itself "the nation's premier immigrant rights organization - dedicated (since 1982) to embracing and upholding America's tradition as a nation of immigrants."

It responded to the latest DHS/ICE plan to encourage immigrant workers to come forward voluntarily for deportation and called the idea "another harebrained scheme that can't have been carefully thought out." It's the administration "resorting to the theater of the absurd....another gimmick (for) having failed to achieve systematic immigration reform in Congress," and a PR stunt to get immigrants "to sign away the few rights they have," smooth over systematic ICE terror, hide "reports of deaths (and abuse) in detention, limited (or no) access to health care and prescribed medications, and the hodge-podge of for-profit and government run state and local prisons (where) ICE detainees are assigned...."

According to an ICE July 31 press release, the idea is a pilot program to be tested in Santa Ana, CA, San Diego, Phoenix, Chicago and Charlotte from August 5 - 22 and may be expanded after subsequent evaluation. It offers undocumented immigrants no inducements except for 90 days to settle their affairs and avoid the possibility of arrest and detention in return for going home.

According to NIF Executive Director, Ali Noorani: "We are not going to deport our way our of our immigration mess, nor is it likely (most or many) of the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants" will leave voluntarily. "...all the raids," new schemes, "press conferences, new toys and buzzers at the border...(amount to) just throwing good....money after bad. This is nothing more than a modern day (forced removal) 'Trail of Tears' " forcing immigrants into "permanent exile" and the latest example of Bush administration injustice.

Postville's Aftermath

On May 12, ICE agents arrested 389 Agriprocessor workers; 297 couldn't prove their legal status of which 270 are now serving five months in federal prison after which they'll be deported to their home countries, mostly to Guatemala. Some to Mexico.

New American Media (NAM - founded 1996) is the country's "first and largest national collaboration and advocate of 2000 ethnic news organizations." It's been on the Postville story since it broke, and here's what it reported weeks later.

Its June 12 account highlighted a "Rush to Prosecute Leaves Immigrant Victims of Crimes Without Protection." It showed up in an ICE warrant with a "source #7 saying he or she "observed a Jewish floor supervisor duct-tape the eyes of an undocumented Guatemalan worker shut and hit (him) with a meat hook." The Des Moines Register also reported sexual abuse allegations against female workers but no redress or criminal prosecution follow-ups.

More as well from Polk County attorney Sonia Parras Konrad after interviewing 50 workers. They said Agriprocessors:

-- gave employees "false identification(s);"

-- underpaid them on the pretext of defraying "immigration fees," from $6.25 - $7.25 an hour for some of the most dangerous work anywhere under notoriously unsafe conditions;

-- "didn't allow (them) to use restrooms during 10-hour shifts;"

-- didn't pay overtime; and

-- "physically abused" them.

NAM's June 19 report headlined: "Immigration Raids Lead US to a Moral, Legal Crisis." It called Postville "a ghost town" after nearly a third of its residents were in jail following the May 12 raid. "Hundreds more hide in fear." Their children are also "too scared to go to school," so classrooms are empty.

Workers are victimized, while "few employers face civil and criminal sanctions for violating immigration and labor laws." No one at Agriprocessors has been charged despite "overwhelming evidence" that the company procured false worker documents, underpaid employees, violated labor laws, and "seriously mistreated its workers."

For its part, "ICE and federal prosecutors overstepped their powers (by) criminally charg(ing) workers" despite Congress exempting ones who use false SSNs "to engage in otherwise lawful conduct, such as to procure jobs." Overall, constitutional protections were grievously violated:

-- Fourth Amendment search and seizure provisions;

-- Fifth Amendment due process rights;

-- Sixth Amendment guarantees to a fair, speedy and public trial before an impartial jury; and

-- Fourteenth Amendment equal protection rights.

Undocumented workers (and legal Latino citizens) are vulnerable in the current climate - victims of police state tactics and justice.

A follow-up June 20 report headlined: "After Iowa Raid, Families in Limbo" with hundreds "unable to work or feed their families (as they're in jail or awaiting) deportation orders that could take months." Released workers "live in fear that immigration agents will return, crash into their homes with drawn guns, yell obscenities at them, call them dogs, and drag them away amidst screams and tears" - sheer police state terror against innocent victims.

They wear electronic ankle bracelets with attached GPS devices even to bathe and can't sleep out of fear agents will break in and terrorize them. They can't pay rent or bills and rely on charity as long as it lasts. "Their lives are on hold and loved ones are gone" - husbands, brothers, relatives, friends imprisoned throughout the Midwest. Countless stories about lives uprooted, separated families, and people desperate to survive and not knowing how.

"Raw Nerves Remain After New ICE Arrest in Iowa" was NAM's June 26 report about a single post-May 12 arrest - of an undocumented worker on the morning of June 23. Once again, the "town was turned on its head" out of fear of further ICE terror. "The June 23 action, though small, underscores how raw nerves remain....and also punctuates the fragility of the town's transition to normalcy." For Postville, there is none.

ICE agents were back for a specific target - Eduardo Ixen, "a Guatemalan handyman who worked for a local property owner." He was seized, cuffed, and taken away. Others feared they were next, and some believed they were being followed by unmarked vehicles. All Postville Latinos are uprooted, in limbo, and terrified about what's next. The community is in disarray, and its fallout affected Agriprocessors. It lost a third of its workforce, but compensated by hiring Texas homeless shelter workers and others to replace ones they lost.

According to the company, they're recruited by an Amarillo firm and sent to Postville. They're then processed by Jacobson Staffing, a Des Moines company that screens them to assure they're legally allowed in the country to work.

But a local radio station, KPVL, has a different take. Several Postville officials say new arrivals are causing problems for the town. Amarillo's homeless problem is now Postville's. Four disorderly conduct arrests were made straightaway, and a woman bussed in said she was expected to live with 10 men in a four-bedroom house with no electricity or hot water.

On July 27, AP reported that "About a thousand protesters descended on (Postville today), decrying (the May 12 raid) and calling for a change in federal immigration policies." They arrived by bus from Minneapolis, Chicago, Wisconsin, New York and New Jersey - "circled the streets (and) clutched banners and signs" like "United for immigrant and worker rights." Speakers denounced "the criminalization of people who come to the US simply to make a living."

Agriprocessors is the nation's largest kosher meat processor, owned and run by the Rubashkin family. They deny any responsibility for what happened, the legitimacy of worker complaints, and the plant's notoriously unsafe conditions. So far, no family members have been criminally charged. All remain free even after the latest New York Times August 5 report headlined "Inquiry Finds Under-Age Workers at Meat Plant."

It said: "State labor investigators have identified 57 under-age workers" at Agriprocessors, "and have asked the attorney general to bring criminal charges against the company for child labor violations....(for) egregious violations of virtually every aspect of Iowa's child labor laws." Findings show minors worked in "prohibited occupations, exposing them to hazardous chemicals, making them work with prohibited tools like knives and saws," and forcing them to work night shifts and as long as 17 hour days with no overtime pay or not all of it.

"A federal investigation is (now) under way." However, no action so far has been taken, and based on the industry's history of abusive practices and how Washington responds, any punishment levied is likely to be minor at best.

Postville, Iowa mid-summer 2008. It's now a poster child for ICE victimization - ravaged by its terror heading throughout the country unless stopped - against defenseless Latino workers. Many undocumented, others US citizens. And don't forget how innocent Muslims and others are targeted, persecuted, unjustly charged and imprisoned at a time when we're all potential victims of police state terror.

Still, NAM reports a hopeful sign in its July 22 article headlined: "Opposition builds to immigration raids." Across the country, "immigrants and activists are beginning to organize protests and high-visibility responses." Immigration activists plan to protest at the Denver August National Democratic Convention, and four members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus plan visits with Postville-impacted families and will report back to Congress and the press.

Now if others in Congress would address Muslim issues, act to free those unjustly imprisoned, and coalesce to end harsh police state terror against victims of religious and ethnic persecution. Not so far as no profiles in courage have stepped forward nor do many stand up for Latinos and other targets of choice.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Center 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=9761

War with Iran - On, Off or Undecided?

War with Iran - On, Off or Undecided? - by Stephen Lendman

There's good news and bad, mostly the latter but don't discount the good. On May 22, (non-binding) HR 362 was introduced in the House - with charges and proposals so outlandish that if passed and implemented will be a blockade and act of war. It accused Iran of:

-- pursuing "nuclear weapons and regional hegemony" that threatens international peace and America's national security interests;

-- overtly sponsoring "several terrorist groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah;"

-- having close ties to Syria;

-- possibly sharing "its nuclear materials and technology with others;"

-- developing "ballistic technology" and ICBMs exclusively to deliver nuclear weapons;

-- calling for the "destruction of Israel;"

-- refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment program despite its legality;

-- using its banking system to support proliferation and terrorist groups;

-- supporting Hezbollah to dominate Lebanon and wage war on its government (of which Hezbollah is part);

-- helping Hamas "illegally seize control of Gaza" (and) continuously bombard Israeli civilians with rockets and mortars;"

-- financing Iraqi "Shia militant groups (and) Afghan warlords (to) attack American and allied forces;"

-- destabilizing the Middle East "by underwriting a massive rearmament campaign by Syria;" and

-- seeking regional hegemony to undermine "vital American national security interests."

While stopping short of overtly declaring war, it proposes Congress:

-- prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons "through all appropriate economic, political and diplomatic means;"

-- urges the President to impose sanctions on:

(1) Iran's Central Bank and all others supporting proliferation and terrorist groups;

(2) international banks that do business with proscribed Iranian banks;

(3) energy companies with $20 million or more investments in Iran's oil or natural gas sectors since the 1996 Iran Sanctions Act; and

(4) all companies doing business with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

It further:

-- demands that the President prohibit export of all refined oil products to Iran; impose "stringent inspection requirements" on everything entering and departing the country, including international movement of its officials;

-- aims to deny foreign investors greater access to Iran's economy and give US companies preferential treatment if and when sanctions are lifted; and

-- enlists regional support against Iran and makes clear that America will protect its "vital national security interests in the Middle East," implying by war if necessary.

Sanctions As A Form of War

Under the UN Charter's Article 41, the Security Council (SC) may impose economic sanctions to deter (as Article 39 states) "any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression." Specific measures "may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations." Prior to imposition, however, the SC should determine if they're warranted, "call upon the parties concerned to comply with such provisional measures," make appropriate recommendations, and decide which specific ones, if any, to use short of armed force.

Under appropriate circumstances, and if imposed responsibly, sanctions may be warranted and have greater impact than diplomatic protests or posturing. They're also hugely less problematic and costly than conflict. However, when irresponsibly used, for imperial gain, or as acts of vengeance or political punishment, they become siege warfare and should be judged accordingly. Most often, US pressure is for these purposes in violation of the UN Charter's intent and spirit. As a result, grievous harm is caused - nowhere more horrifically than in Iraq from 1990 - 2003 when around 1.5 million Iraqis died and millions more suffered tragically and needlessly.

In far less extreme form, a similar strategy is being used against Iran - with no justification whatever. Last March, after a year of deliberations, the Security Council approved SC 1803 - a third set of Iranian sanctions for refusing to suspend its legal right to enrich uranium as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows. It followed two earlier rounds in July 2006 (SC 1696) demanding that Iran suspend uranium enrichment by August 31. When it refused, SC 1737 passed in December imposing limited sanctions. SC 1747 then tightened them in March 2007. It imposed a ban on arms sales and expanded a freeze on Iranian assets.

New sanctions extend the earlier ones but not as harshly as Washington wanted. Still they restrict dual-use technologies and authorize cargo inspections to and from the country suspected of carrying prohibited equipment and materials. They also tighten the monitoring of Iranian financial institutions and extend travel bans and asset freezes against persons and companies involved in Iran's nuclear program.

On August 5, AP reported that Germany and the SC's five permanent members (the so-called P5 + 1) "agreed yesterday to 'seek' new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program after the country failed to meet a weekend deadline to respond to an offer" discussed below. Its source is US State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos saying "we have no choice but to pursue further measures against Iran."

Now the good news. By mid to late June, HR 362 had 169 co-sponsors. More were being added, and by August 1, 252 were on board. For a time it looked sure to pass quickly. Then anti-war groups reacted - with a tsunami of emails, phone calls, letters and visits to congressional members and their staffs. In spite of heavy AIPAC pressure for the resolution it wrote, they suspended action until the bill's language is softened, so for now it's stalled in committee (but not halted), and Congress is on recess until September 7 after both parties hold their conventions.

Talking Peace, Planning War

On July 16, the New York Times called Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns' presence at the July 19 Geneva talks "the most significant diplomatic contact with Iran since" the 1979 revolution. It followed a June meeting (attended by no US representative) at which Germany and the Security Council's five permanent members presented a package of "economic and diplomatic incentives" that failed to impress the Iranians. Predictably, neither did the July 19 meeting that ended in "deadlock" because America doesn't "negotiate." It demands.

In this case, the proposal offered a so-called "freeze-for-freeze" formula, with imprecise terms, under which Iran would stop enriching uranium in return for no additional sanctions for six weeks. At that point, formal negotiations would begin with no promises of concessions or compromise. Iran was given two weeks to reply. The US delegation said that Burns' appearance was a one-time event, and by so doing revealed its deceit. For its part, Iran rejects deadlines, and its IAEA representative, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, expressed "grave concern" over America's double standards on nuclear policy.

For the Bush administration, Iran's nuclear program isn't the issue. It's mere subterfuge for what's really at stake, but first a little background. Under Reza Shah Pahlevi, Iran undertook a nuclear program in 1957 and got a US research reactor in 1967. After the 1974 oil shock, and in spite of the country's vast oil reserves, he established the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran to use nuclear power generation for a modern energy infrastructure that would transform the entire Middle East's power needs. He also wanted to reduce Iran's dependence on oil, lessen its pressure to recycle petrodollars, and ally more closely with European companies through investments.

In the 1970s, W. Germany began Iran's Bushehr civilian reactor complex. In 1978, Iran had the world's fourth largest nuclear program, the largest in the developing world, and planned to build 20 new reactors by 1995. That year, it contracted with Russia to complete the Bushehr project, supply it with nuclear fuel, and transfer potentially dangerous technology, including a centrifuge plant for fissile material. Washington became alarmed. It got the Yeltsin government to back out, but Iran's efforts continued with Russia supplying nuclear fuel, and it still does.

Earlier in 2002, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI - the opposition parliament in exile) claimed the country was pursuing a secret nuclear weapons program - including a Natanz uranium enrichment facility and an Arak heavy water one. US - Iranian confrontation followed using Iran's nuclear program as pretext. Here's what's really at issue:

-- Iranian sovereignty;

-- its independence from US control;

-- its immense proved oil reserves - third or fourth largest in the world by most estimates; also its vast proved natural gas reserves - ranked second largest in the world after Russia;

-- America's resolve to control and have veto power over them;

-- Big Oil's desire to profit from them;

-- Iran's size and location in the strategically important Middle East; its chokehold over the Strait of Hormuz through which millions of barrels of oil flow daily - about 20% of world production of around 88 million barrels;

-- its strategic ties to Russia and China on energy, other commercial, and weapons deals; both countries are Iran's largest foreign investors; Iran has vital security ties with them as well;

-- these relationships' spillover for control of Eurasia and the Caspian region's vast oil and gas reserves through two organizations - the Asian Security Grid and more important Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) as a counterweight to an encroaching US-dominated NATO;

-- its power and influence in a region the US and Israel want to dominate; and

-- the immense power of the Israeli Lobby to influence US policy, including a possible war on Iran or minimally the harshest measures just short of one.

Congress On Board with the Israeli Lobby

At AIPAC's June 2008 annual conference, most congressional members (over 300 attended), the leadership, and both parties' presidential candidates expressed uncompromising support for Israel. They also backed harsh sanctions against Iran and even war if they prove ineffective.

For its part, AIPAC's action agenda urged:

-- stopping Iran's nuclear program; getting Congress to pass HR 362 and the Senate's equivalent SR 580; "calling on the administration to focus on the urgency of the Iranian threat and to impose tougher sanctions on Tehran;"

-- urging the Senate to pass the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (S.970) - "to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by imposing additional economic sanctions against Iran, and for other purposes;" on September 25, 2007, it passed the House overwhelmingly; the Senate Finance and Banking Committees passed key provisions of the Senate version in two Iran sanctions bills;

-- supporting the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007 (HR 2347) that "authorize(s) State and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran's energy sector;" and

-- urging additional aid for Israel as the president requested, "support(ing) Israel's quest for peace, (and) press(ing) the Arab states to do more to support Israeli-Palestinian talks."

An earlier August 14, 2007 AIPAC "Issue Brief" is titled "Iran's Support for Terrorism." It claims that:

-- "the radical regime in Iran has sponsored terrorism against the United States, Israel and the West for decades;"

-- the State Department designates Iran "the world's leading state sponsor of terror, noting its support for groups such as Hamas, 'Hizballah' and Islamic Jihad;"

-- Tehran also sponsors the "insurgency in Iraq, supplied arms to the Taliban and hosted al-Qaeda terrorists;"

-- it also "relentlessly pursu(es) nuclear weapons (and thus is) a particularly implacable and lethal regime;" and

-- "only a sustained, unified international effort to isolate and sanction Iran is likely to convince it to give up these dangerous activities."

The Bush administration agrees. So do most members of Congress, the leadership, and both parties' presumptive presidential candidates in speeches at the June AIPAC conference. Obama oozed obeisance - "speaking from the heart as a true friend of Israel....when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends....who share my strong commitment (that) the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow, and forever." Though far less eloquent, McCain was equally supportive.

Obama assured attendees that he stands "by Israel in the face of all threats..speak(s) up when Israel's security is at risk (and voices concern that) America's recent foreign policy (hasn't) made Israel more secure. Hamas now controls Gaza. Hizbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the US and Israel in the Middle East in a generation....We must isolate Hamas....Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon (and) pursu(es) weapons of mass destruction....There is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran. (It) supports violent extremists....pursues a nuclear capability....and threatens to wipe Israel off the map....my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

AIPAC attendees loved it and his receptivity to attacking Iran. McCain's comments no less plus his bad humor earlier in singing "bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of a popular song on a May campaign stop. At AIPAC, he was just as supportive as Obama, wants increased military aid for Israel in FY 2009, and "foremost in (his mind) is the threat posed by the regime in Tehran....The Iranian President calls Israel a stinking corpse....it uses violence to undermine Israel in the Middle East peace process....(it supports) extremists in Iraq (killing) American soldiers....remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism....(and its) pursuit of nuclear weapons poses an unacceptable risk, a danger we cannot allow" with clear implications of what he means and what he may do as president.

Christians United for Israel (CUFI) on the "Iranian Threat"

Along with the Israeli Lobby, Bush neocons, and most Washington officials, Christian extremists from organizations like CUFI cite the "Iranian threat" as a recurrent theme, the country's hostility to Israel and desire to "eliminate" the Jewish state, the danger it may do so if it acquires nuclear weapons, and the need to confront Iran preemptively - through sanctions, isolation and war if other measures fail.

Controversial Pastor and John McCain supporter John Hagee is its founder and national chairman, and his influence is considerable. He has 18,000 supporters in his San Antonio Cornerstone Church and far more through CUFI and his global television ministry. His ideology is chilling, and as the most powerful and influential American Christian Zionist, he's a man to be reckoned with. He calls Muslims "Islamic fascists," claims they're at war with western civilization, and believes preemptive countermeasures, including belligerent ones against Iran, are a proper defense.

As keynote speaker at AIPAC's 2007 conference, he called Iran "the most dangerous regime in the Middle East (characterized by its) cruel despotism (and) fanatic militancy. If this regime (acquires) nuclear weapons this would presage catastrophic consequences not only for my country, not only for the Middle East, but for all of mankind....The fact that Iran is building nuclear weapons is beyond question....and they may be the world's first 'un-deterable' nuclear power....So the danger is clear and the question is what do we do about it...My message to you is....divest Iran," impose sanctions, isolate the country, and if these measures fail choose a "second course," the other two being "nothing" or "non-military action." From his rhetoric at AIPAC and fundamentalist preaching to his followers, it's clear which one Hagee prefers and may get if enough others in high places share his views.

Israeli Defense Minister and former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barak may one of them. On July 30, he told top US officials that Israel won't rule out a military strike against Iraq, but there's still time to pursue diplomacy. Like other Israeli officials (past and present), he stressed Iran's global threat so that for Israel "no option would be removed from the table."

Israeli Deputy Defense Minister (and possible next Prime Minister) Shaul Mofaz stated similar views. In an August 1 speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (a pro-Israeli think tank), he called Iran an existential threat, recommended diplomacy first, then added "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons - "as soon as 2010" as some in Israel claim.

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (and Mofaz rival for Prime Minister) may be one of them. On CNN August 3, she called for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran and urged the world community to support them. "Iran doesn't pay attention to talks," she said, and "time is of the essence." On the same day, US spokesperson for the US's UN mission, Richard Grenell, (in a Reuters report) voiced the same view in saying "Iran has not complied with the international community's demand to stop enriching uranium (so) the Security Council (has) no choice but to increase the sanctions...."

High Level US Opposition to War on Iran

Key Obama foreign policy advisor and former Carter administration National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is one of them. In a Washington Post March 2008 op-ed, he called the Iraq war a "national tragedy, (demagogically justified), an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster, and a global boomerang for the United States." Earlier in February 2007, in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he said it was "a historic, strategic, and moral calamity. Undertaken under false assumptions, it is undermining America's global legitimacy....tarnishing (our) moral credentials (and) intensifying regional instability."

He then laid out a "plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran (based on) Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks, followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure, then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a 'defensive' US military action" in response. This would plunge "a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan." Brzezinski's remarks were an unmistakable warning that the Bush administration may try to stampede the country into a calamitous conflict it must avoid, and it's up to Congress to stop it. He also practically called Bush neocons a cabal and warned Congress to be alert.

Later last September, Brzezinski repeated the same warning on CNN - that the Bush administration (Bush and Cheney mainly) is "hyp(ing) the atmosphere (and) "stampeding" the country to war with Iran. "When the president flatly asserts (Iran is) seeking nuclear weapons, he's overstating the facts....we have very scant (supportive) evidence (and after the Iraq calamity he) should be very careful about the veracity of his public assertions." Based on his own experience in Afghanistan in the 1980s, he's also very leery about "running the (same) risk of unintentionally" falling into Russia's trap - overreaching, paying "little regard for civilian casualties," turning Afghans against us, and being defeated and forced out of the country.

Brzezinski supports a less confrontational occupation and had this to say about a McCain administration: "if his Secretary of State is Joe Lieberman and his Secretary of Defense is (Rudy) Giuliani, we will be moving towards the WW IV (counting the Cold War as WW III) that they have been both favoring and predicting....an appalling concept" he says must be avoided.

It will be if global intelligence company Stratfor founder and head George Friedman is right. In an August 4 Barrons interview (reported on Iran's Press TV), he called Israeli war games and tough US talk geopolitical head-fake leading to an "amicable endgame in Iran." Why? Because given today's global economy, the alternative risks far outweigh potential benefits. Besides, Iran poses at most a "negligible nuclear threat" and nowhere near reason enough to go to war over.

Further, Iran has helped reduce sectarian violence in Iraq by reigning in Shia militias, and that's a key reason for lower US casualties. Barrons noted that Stratfor has a record of making accurate assessments and gained a large client base as a result. Friedman believes the US and Israel are using psychological warfare to intimidate Iran to make it more accommodative to their policies. He also says a major attack would have grave repercussions for the global economy at a time when it's most vulnerable. Iran's potential retaliatory strength might cripple a sizable amount of world oil trade, cause prices to skyrocket, and exacerbate an already shaky situation at the worst time.

He says the Pentagon has war-gamed an attack, and believes it can make short work of Iran's shore-based missile batteries and attack ships. De-mining operations would take much longer. In the meantime, oil prices could hit $300 a barrel, shipping insurance and tanker lease rates would soar, and economic stability would collapse. In the near-term, it would be "cataclysmic to the global economy and stock market."

Up to now, two years of talks on Iran's nuclear program have been more "Kabuki theater" than a real effort at serious negotiation. In addition, Friedman says Iran is "decades away" from developing a credible nuclear weapons capacity even if it intends to pursue one. At best, in his judgment, it may be able to come up with a crude device like the North Koreans managed and apparently tested in 2006. No reason to go to war over if he's right and one among many more vital issues that influential American figures cite to oppose one.

Pentagon Crosscurrents on Iran

In late June, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Michael Mullen, visited Israel - his second trip there since his October 1 appointment, but this time with a clear (official US) message according to defense analyst and former Pentagon official Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It was that "the US did not give the green light for an Israeli attack on Iran....George Bush made it clear to all parties that the first option is diplomacy," and no attack should be undertaken without White House approval. Mullen further suggested that US policy likely will remain unchanged under George Bush, and that future plans will be up to the next incumbent - a strong hint that cooler high-level Washington figures know the folly of a wider Middle East war and want no part of one.

Nonetheless, there's no assurance they'll win out, and analyst Michael Oren of the Shalem Centre told CBS News that Bush administration officials assured Israelis that Iran wouldn't be allowed to develop a nuclear weapons capacity with strong hints of an attack if one continues. Then on March 11, CENTCOM commander William Fallon was sacked following reports that he sharply disagreed with Bush administration Middle East policy. On April 24 Iraq commander, and noted super-hawk, David Petraeus was named to replace him, and following an easy Senate confirmation will take over in September.

In June 2007, another change of command occurred when George Bush replaced Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace because of his public disagreement over policy. On February 17, 2006 at a National Press Club luncheon, he responded to a question: "It is the absolute responsibility of everybody in uniform to disobey an order that is either illegal or immoral." He later added that commanders should "not obey illegal and immoral orders to use weapons of mass destruction....They cannot commit crimes against humanity." Nor should they go along with wrong-headed illegal schemes of remaking the Middle East and other regions militarily, but until Admiral Mullen's comments to Israelis it looked like a compliant Pentagon team was in place to pursue it.

Whatever's ahead, it appears high-level opposition figures have surfaced with practical (past and present) trilateralists among them. Figures like Brzezinski, Jim Baker, Henry Kissinger, George Tenet, Paul Volker, Jimmy Carter, George Soros, David Rockefeller, many other top business executives, and even GHW Bush. Their concern over present policy is having an effect, but there's no certainty about which side will prevail. However, with Congress out until September, things are on hold, and time is fast running out on a lamer-than-lame duck administration, according to some.

Even The New York Times is sending mixed messages it will have to clarify in coming weeks. In a June 10 editorial, it said: "If sanctions and incentives cannot be made to work, the voices for military action will only get louder. No matter what aides may be telling Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert - or what they may be telling each other - an attack on Iran would be a disaster," implying it's wrong, won't work and will devastate the economy. Then on July 18, it then gave Israeli historian and apologist Benny Morris op-ed space for a vicious and Orwellian headlined diatribe: "Using Bombs to Stave Off War."

In it, he states "Israel will almost surely attack Iran's nuclear sites in the next four to seven months (conventionally)." Should that "assault fail to significantly harm or stall the Iranian program....a nuclear (attack) will most likely follow." The world has "only one option if it wishes to halt Iran's march toward nuclear weaponry: the military" one by "either the United States or Israel." But America is bogged down in two wars, and "the American public has little enthusiasm" for more.

"Which leaves only Israel - the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran's leaders....Iran's leaders would do well to rethink their gamble and suspend their nuclear program." Otherwise, an Israeli attack "will destroy their nuclear facilities (even though) this would mean thousands of Iranian casualties and international humiliation."

It's high time The New York Times (and other major media voices) took a stand. Is it opposed to further regional conflict, or in James Petras' words: is it for "the nuclear incineration of 70 million Iranians and the contamination of the better part of a billion people in the Middle East, Asia and Europe" plus an unimaginable amount of retaliatory fallout with the entire Muslim world against the West and Israel.

Yet a June 2008 Presidential Task Force on the Future of US-Israeli Relations statement calls for "Cooperation on the Iranian Nuclear Challenge" and to consider "coercive options" against it, including embargoing Iranian oil and "preventive military action." It was at the time Haaretz reported that Israel conducted large-scale exercises (focusing on long-range strikes) "that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack" on Iran. Statfor's George Friedman downplayed them, called them "psychological warfare" saber-rattling, not preparations for war, and why would Israel telegraph plans if that's what it has in mind. In 1981, it gave no hint it intended to bomb Iraq's Osirak reactor, and when it came it was a surprise.

Other Crosscurrents

For brief moments earlier, positive developments surfaced, only to be swept aside by a torrent of anti-Iranian hostility. The Baker Commission December 2006 report recommended engaging Iran and Syria "constructively" and called for a "New Diplomatic Offensive without preconditions," all for naught. Then last December the National Intelligence Assessment (representing the consensus of all 16 US spy agencies) concluded that Iran "halted" its nuclear weapons program in 2003, and it remains frozen, again without effect.

At the same time, battle plans are in place under code name TIRRANT for Theater Iran Near Term. And under a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" and CONPLAN (contingency/concept plan) 8022, Washington may preemptively strike targets anywhere in the world using so-called low-yield extremely powerful nuclear bunker buster weapons. Iran is the apparent first target of choice, and US Naval carrier strike groups are strategically positioned in the Persian Gulf and Mediterranean to proceed on command.

A recent May World Tribune report cited a second carrier group in the Gulf and secret (approved but not implemented) US naval and air plans for an Iran "counterstrike" in response to "escalating tensions that would peak with an Iranian-inspired insurgency strike against US" forces - that might easily be another Gulf of Tonkin-type incident. So the question remains, are we heading for war or is it just "head-fake" as George Friedman believes?

Sy Hersh On "Preparing the Battlefield"

On June 29 in the New Yorker magazine, Hersh reported more crosscurrents and added to what's covered above. On the one hand, Congress will fund "a major escalation of covert operations against Iran," according to his high-level sources. As much as $400 million will go to minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi dissident groups, to "destabilize the country's religious leadership," aim for regime change, and gain intelligence on Iran's "suspected nuclear-weapons program."

The plan apparently involves stepped up covert CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) operations authorized by a highly classified Presidential Finding about which some congressional leaders have little knowledge and have voiced concern. By law, party leaders and ranking intelligence committee members must be briefed, but apparently it's been done selectively.

On the other hand, Hersh says Pentagon military and civilian leaders are concerned about "Iran's nuclear ambitions," but disagree "whether a military strike is the right solution." Some oppose one, want diplomacy instead, and apparently Robert Gates is one of them - a former Iraq Study Group member until he became Secretary of Defense in December 2006. In late 2007, he apparently warned the Democrat Senate caucus of grave consequences if the Bush administration preemptively attacked Iran - saying it would create "generations of jihadists, and our grandchildren will be battling (them) in America."

Admiral Mullen also is "pushing back very hard" against an attack along with "at least ten senior flag and general officers, including combatant commanders" in charge of military operations around the world. One of them is Admiral Fallon who lost his CENTCOM job for opposing an attack even though he agrees on Iran's possible threat.

Looking Ahead

More good news for what it's worth. On August 2, tens of thousands across the US and Canada protested against a possible attack on Iran. On the bad side, unprecedented numbers, in vain, did as well ahead of the Iraq war, but this time influential Washington figures support them.

With Congress on recess, it's too soon to know what's ahead, but one thing's for sure. Neocons still run things. Dick Cheney leads them, and he claims Iran intends to destroy Israel, is developing nuclear weapons, and is a "darkening cloud....right at the top of the list" of world trouble spots and needs to be addressed (along with Syria) as the next phase of "the road map to war." With five months to go and heavy firepower to call on, he and George Bush have plenty of time left (as this writer said earlier) to incinerate Iran and end the republic if that's what they have in mind. Better hope they don't or that cooler heads win out for a different way.

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=9724

Gaza Under Siege

Gaza Under Siege - by Stephen Lendman

After Hamas' January 25, 2006 electoral victory, Israel targeted Gaza oppressively. All outside aid was cut off. Sanctions and an economic embargo were imposed, and the democratically elected government was falsely called a terrorist organization and isolated. Stepped up repression followed along with repeated IDF incursions, attacks, killings, targeted assassinations, arrests, destruction of property and more in a pattern all too familiar to Palestinians for over six decades. Gazans are imprisoned in their own land and have been traumatized for months. In June 2007, things got worse after Israel placed the Territory under siege - described by some as medieval because of its extreme harshness.

On June 14, 2007, collaboratively with Israel and the US, Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas declared a "state of emergency," illegally dismissed Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh and his national unity government, and appointed his own prime minister and new "emergency" cabinet. Authority is now split. Abbas runs the West Bank. Hamas governs Gaza while Israel controls everything - land, sea, air, movement inside and between the Territories, the population registry, family unification, and all goods and services in and from Occupied Palestine. Especially Gaza under siege for nearly 14 months and solely dependent on Israel for its fuel, electricity and gas. Other essentials as well.

Hamas remains isolated. It's called a "hostile entity," and after last September 19 was squeezed by tightened sanctions. Electricity, fuel and gas were reduced and intermittently cut off. So were supplies of food, medicines, water and other essentials. Its industrial production dropped 95%, and its agricultural output is about half its pre-2007 level. Nearly all construction also stopped, and according to a new UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) report, poverty tops 50% and unemployment is nearly as high. Other unofficial estimates say 80% for both is more accurate. Things are bad and worsening.

Shops are short of everything because Israel allows in only nine basic materials. Their availability is spotty, and some essentials are banned like:

-- certain medicines;

-- restricted food items like fruit, milk and other dairy products, wheat flour, rice, sugar, salt, cooking oil, and frozen foods;

-- cleaning materials;

-- agricultural samplings;

-- herbicides and pesticides;

-- footwear;

-- clothing;

-- fabrics, threads, and buttons;

-- construction materials: cement, tin, iron, plastic pipes, asbestos, wood, nails, screws, wires, paint, etc.;

-- spare parts and supplies for manufacturing goods;

-- electrical appliances;

-- office equipment and supplies;

-- livestock and fodder;

-- books;

-- computers;

-- telephones and mobiles;

-- spare parts for communication devices;

-- tobacco and cigarettes;

-- beverages;

-- all types of motor vehicles, including spare parts (batteries, tires, engine oil, etc.);

-- elevators and their spare parts;

-- water pumps and their spare parts; and

-- the import or export of raw materials for industry, construction and agriculture - virtually everything a modern society needs to function and survive.

Compared to 9000 commodities imported before June 2007, now it's only 20. People don't get enough to eat, and conditions keep getting worse. Even fishing is restricted, idling thousands of local fishermen because anyone in open waters risks detention and harassment.

Power is in short supply - affecting hospitals, fresh water availability, sanitation, and the functioning of daily life under conditions of extreme duress. Families (including spouses) are also cut off. Some live in Gaza, others in the West Bank and Israel, and all endure prolonged separation after authorities prohibited travel from one area to the other and imposed sweeping restrictions on Egyptian and Jordanian crossings.

Earlier, family unification was denied after the Knesset passed the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law (July 2003). It bars Palestinians in the Territories with an Israeli spouse from getting citizenship or residency status in Israel so families can live together.

Thousands of married couples and their children are affected - forced to remain apart or leave Israel. The new law solely targets Palestinians. It's discriminatory, illegal, racist, unrelated to security, and one of many collective punishment acts. Besides the law, Israeli Arabs married to Gazans are barred from entering the Territory to visit families.

Here's a brief snapshot of Gaza. It measures 360 square kilometers in area or about half the size of Chicago for its 1.5 million residents - in the world's largest and most congested open-air prison. Over 40% of them live in eight densely overcrowded refugee camps, and in the best of times, their conditions are inadequate, adverse and sometimes grim. Under siege, they're intolerable.

International law (including the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention) obligates occupying powers to protect civilian populations. Its Article 3(1) specifically states:

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat (out of action) by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria."

Israel disdains the law and disagrees. After its 2005 "disengagement," it denied all "responsibility for Palestinians in the Gaza Strip" even though the argument is baseless under international humanitarian and human rights laws. Their language and interpretation are clear and require occupiers to ensure the safety and welfare of people they "effective(ly) control" - even if their forces have no fixed presence in their territory. Israeli security forces have total control over Gaza and the West Bank and operate freely in both Territories. They invade and maraud, secure their borders, key points of entry, air space, and for Gaza its coastline and open waters.

Under Fourth Geneva law, Israel is obligated to protect all Palestinians - especially the sick, wounded, children under 15, pregnant women, the elderly, infirm and disabled. It must also allow free passage of food, medicines and other essentials, let medical teams provide help, and refrain from imposing collective punishment and de facto martial law. The (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights goes further, and Israel is a signatory. It recognizes the right of every person to freedom of movement, work, an adequate standard of living, education, proper health care, and a normal family life. Its Article 1 states that "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" - including ones under occupation or "effective(ly) control(led)" by another state.

Israeli Human Rights Violations

In January 2008, John Dugard, the UN Human Rights Council's Special Rapporteur on Palestine prepared a scathing indictment of Israel's human rights violations. Leading human and civil rights organizations have their own like the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), B'Tselem, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), and the Alternative Information Center (AIC). It's an "internationally oriented, progressive, joint Palestinian - Israeli activist organization" (disseminating) information, political advocacy, grassroots activism and critical analysis of" Palestinian - Israeli societies and the conflict.

Its March 9, 2008 report is called: "The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion." Here are some highlights:

-- Gaza conditions are the worst ever under occupation; they're entirely "manmade," avoidable, and with political will reversible;

-- Gazans are effectively imprisoned; movement in and out of the Territory is "impossible;" food, water, health care, sewage treatment, sanitation and other essentials "can no longer be taken for granted;"

-- because of the siege and economic collapse, there's "little money to buy food and limited food to buy;" rising prices exacerbate the problem;

-- trucks carrying commercial and humanitarian supplies into Gaza have "plummeted" - from around 250 a day pre-crisis to a maximum of 45 a day or less;

-- extreme poverty levels have "increased sharply" making 80% of Gazans dependent on humanitarian aid when it's available - a 10-fold increase in the last decade; in 2007, households (on average) spent about 62% of their income on food;

-- 95% of Gaza's industrial operations shut down because production inputs aren't available and border closures prevent exports; construction is "paralysed;" agriculture "badly hit;" unemployment and poverty skyrocketed; in September 2000, 24,000 Gazans worked in Israel; today none do;

-- the siege destroyed public service infrastructure; Israel prevents repairs and maintenance; spare parts imports are prohibited; electricity and fuel are severely restricted; hospitals and public institutions can't function properly; power cuts last 8 - 12 hours daily; 40 - 50 or more million liters of partially and untreated sewage are daily dumped in the sea;

-- The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) says its higher - up to 60 million liters daily; in addition, raw sewage is being pumped into heavily populated areas, including three million liters recently into the Jabaliya camp storm water lagoon;

-- since Israel bombed Gaza's power plant (in June 2006), it functions at one-third of capacity but needs fuel to operate;

-- the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility (CMWU) provides drinking water and treats sewage; with limited electricity, fuel, maintenance and spare parts, the network can't function adequately; as a result, nearly one-third of Gazans have no running water; pre-siege, they all did;

-- education is so undermined that classes are cancelled; dropout rates are high because families can't afford to send their children to school; for those attending, school days are shortened; textbooks and other resources are in short supply; and failure rates are nearly 80%; 90% in math;

-- healthcare has deteriorated markedly - inside Gaza and in access to outside treatment; Gazans needing special treatment are denied exit permits; patients are dying for lack of care, including children;

-- Israel's siege "effectively dismantled the economy and impoverished" its people; "ordinary men, women and children" are collectively punished in violation of international and humanitarian law; these measures also hamper the "broader peace process itself;"

-- Israel effectively controls Gaza; it's obligated to protect its people but instead punishes them by its: military presence, attacks, extra-judicial assassinations, land and infrastructure destruction, restrictions on movement, lack of drinking water, food, medical care and other essentials, unemployment, impoverishment, and barriers to education;

-- isolating Hamas has been counterproductive; it's failed "at all levels;" a new strategy of engagement is needed: condemn the siege; go public on the humanitarian crisis; pressure Israel to end it; provide adequate emergency help; reactivate Gaza's economy; enforce international law; and work towards "an inclusive (productive) political process."

The Al Mezan Center for Human Rights also monitors Gaza's siege. It calls itself "a (non-partisan) Palestinian (NGO) based in" Gaza's Jabalia refugee camp with a mandate "to promote, protect and prevent violations of human rights in general and economic, social and cultural (ECS) rights in particular; to provide effective aid to those victims of such violations; and to enhance the quality of (community) life in marginalized (Gaza) sectors." It also provides legal aid and advocacy and raises awareness of the continued state of violence, repression and desperate conditions in Occupied Palestine, particularly in Gaza under siege.

On April 8, it produced a scathing report called "Worst Year under Occupation: 2008 1st Quarter Report on (Israeli) Violations of Human Rights in the Gaza Strip." Below are its highlights:

-- during the first quarter of 2008, Gaza experienced an "unprecedented escalation" of human rights violations - principally caused by a "serious increase" in IDF international law breaches;

-- the level of 247 killings exceeded the combined totals reached for the 2005 through 2007 first quarter periods; they nearly equal all of them for 2007;

-- public and private property destruction greatly increased; dunums of agricultural land destroyed as well;

-- Gaza's economy was crushed; the number of poor and unemployed doubled reaching "unprecedented levels" - the worst ever under occupation;

-- the international community remains silent in the face of systematic, "strangulating" collective punishment on an unprecedented scale; the lives and well-being of Gazans are affected in all ways imaginable;

-- the number of Gazans victimized and their material losses show the extent of violations under international law; the international community's failure to intervene made current conditions possible;

-- Al Mezan condems Israel's "aggression" and "gross human rights violations;" they're willful crimes of war and against humanity and one of the most extreme examples ever of collective punishment against a civilian population; Al Mazen calls on the international community to intervene - to "investigate, pursue and prosecute those who ordered and/or perpetrated (these) crimes."

US Special Middle East Envoy Criticizes Administration Policy

Last November, former NATO commander, (retired) General James Jones, was named the administration's special Middle East envoy with this endorsement: he's the "person we need to take up this vital mission....an experienced leader who can address the regional security challenges comprehensively and at the highest levels...." His assignment: draft a strategic security stabilization plan to complement Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Word is now out about a report Jones is preparing that his superiors won't like. Nor will Israelis. According to Haaretz (on July 22), it's "extremely critical....of Israel's policies in the territories and its attitude toward the Palestinian Authority's (PA) security services" - President Mahmoud Abbas' repressive shock troops doing Israel's dirty work and targeting Hamas in Gaza and its supporters in the West Bank.

Administration officials have a draft summary, and it's "arousing considerable discomfort. (It's) conclusions about Israel are scathing (and those who've seen it say it) make(s) Israel look very bad" in at least two respects:

-- it's "fairly broad definition" of West Bank security "under any final-status agreement," and

-- "its attitude toward the PA security services."

That's not all. Jones criticizes Washington as well. He blames administration figures for failing "to reform PA security services," not coordinating them, and not preparing them to "enforc(e) the law in the West Bank." Hamas controls Gaza. Administration officials and Israelis want the report buried, but Jones will apparently publish it in full. So far, its contents aren't public, and only hints about it are being discussed.

Gaza Under Siege: "an atrocity, a crime, an abomination" - Jimmy Carter

That was Carter's assessment in an April 17 speech at the American University in Cairo. Palestinians are being "starved to death," and US efforts to undermine Hamas are counterproductive. In late May, he went further on a visit to the Welsh town of Hay by calling on EU nations to break with Washington over the siege - "one of the greatest human rights crimes on earth (and) to see Europeans going along with this is embarrassing." He called on EU leaders to reassess their position if Hamas agrees to a ceasefire - and that's what's likely behind his trip and comments, although Carter knows Hamas unilaterally observed months of ceasefire in the past and again declared one on June 19. What then is Carter up to?

Last April, he met with Khaled Meshaal (Hamas' exiled leader) in Damascus at the behest of Israel and the Bush administration - not on his own or as the media said was despite fierce opposition to his trip. High-level envoys never diverge from state policy or act independently. Where they go, who they see, and what they say have a purpose, but it's not always apparent. Carter in part explained it in a comment to the London Guardian that "The top opinion pollster in Ramallah (said) that opinion on the West Bank is shifting to Hamas, because people believe Fatah sold out to Israel and the US."

For Washington and Israel, avoiding that possibility is crucial, but more importantly, the nightmarish scenario of a united Arab front (or a unified Muslim one) against the West should the Bush administration and/or Israel attack Iran, Syria and/or Hezbollah in Lebanon. A wider war is very possible, but planners know the risk - inciting the whole region or worse yet letting it become WW III.

Washington's and Israeli strategy may be shifting, but not for any humanitarian concerns. Keeping Gaza under siege and letting Hamas' support grow isn't benefitting their imperial project. But it hasn't helped Gazans either, and nothing hints it will any time soon.

A Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) Narrative Under Siege - "Swimming in Sewage"

It's one of many PCHR accounts to show how Gazans' lives have deteriorated under siege. It begins as follows: "I think the sea probably is polluted. Sometimes I get strange white marks on my skin; but we come down to the beach each day because we have nowhere else to go." That's Salim's voice speaking for himself and his friends. They go to Gaza City beach, and one of the boys today holds a plastic bottle with small fish and a crab inside. The fish are dead, and here's why. Close by, a "sewage pipe pours mucky water into streams of dark waste that flow towards the sea" where the boys swim.

People flock to beaches in summer because it's hot, but some of them are "swimming in sewage." According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), around 60 million liters of untreated and partially treated sewage pour into the sea around Gaza City daily - because fuel and electricity supplies are spotty, and conditions months ago became desperate. According to an OCHA worker, "the sea is (getting) dirtier and more contaminated because of chronic (fuel and spare parts) shortages. (We) need 14 days of uninterrupted power in order to run a proper sewage treatment cycle, for the sake of Gaza's public health."

The Gaza Coastal Municipal Water Utility (CMWU) supplies the Territory's water and manages its three sewage treatment plants. Because of power and spare parts shortages, unfiltered tap water is saline and undrinkable, and sewage plants can't function normally. It forces CMWU to dump raw sewage into the sea so it doesn't flood residential areas.

Concern is great and growing. The World Health Organization (WHO) took samples from 30 Gaza shore sites to test for human and animal fecal contaminants. It found 13 areas covering seven beaches polluted and unsuitable for swimming, including three beaches along central and southern Gaza and four others around Gaza City. The beach where Samer and his friends swim is one of them.

WHO warned that "Waterborne outbreaks are....to be avoided because of their capacity to result in the simultaneous infection of a high proportion of (the) community" - most notably with gastroenteritis, ear and eye infections, dermatitis, dysentery, respiratory and urinary tract infections, guardia, and e-coli strains. These pathogens cause these diseases and death, so it's crucial to avoid them.

Gaza can't do it without enough fuel and electricity and a major upgrading of its plants and equipment. PCHR Head of the Economic and Social Rights Unit, Khalil Shaheen, says: Israeli "restrictions are a clear violation of the universal right to health and....a clean environment. Under international humanitarian law, Israel, as an occupying power, is obligated to facilitate access to all (essential to life) amenities. Access to clean drinking (and sea) water are....basic human rights."

Israel is unresponsive. The siege continues. Essential to life needs go unfilled. Health conditions keep deteriorating, and Gaza's undrinkable tap water and contaminated sea water are two reasons why. Nothing is being done to remediate them, and Gazans are forced to endure.

Activists Plan to "breach the (Gaza) siege"

On August 6 or 7, about 40 unarmed activist members of the International Solidarity Movement, the Israeli Commission against House Demolitions and others will depart Cyprus on two wooden sailboats - to "get into the Gaza harbor and breach the siege." On board will be an 81 year Catholic nun, an 83 year old Holocaust survivor, a Nakba survivor, an Israeli professor, Palestinians from Gaza, 16 nationalities, four religions, the international press, and reportedly three members of the European Parliament. Private boats were invited to join them.

"The IDF will probably stop us but part of the point is to show that Gaza is closed off," according to spokesperson Angela Godfrey-Goldstein. The IDF's Spokesman's Office didn't comment on what if any counteraction it would take. However, Israeli ships regularly patrol coastal waters and deny all vessels access to Gaza in violation of international law.

NGOs Worldwide Call for An End to Gaza's Siege

The Global Call to Action against Poverty (GCAP) is one of many. It's a "growing alliance of trade unions, community groups, faith groups, women and youth organisations, NGOs and other campaigners working together across more than 100 national platforms....to end poverty, inequality," injustice and human suffering. It cites deep concern about Gaza's 1.5 million people suffering under Israel's siege and calls for its end. It wants world leaders and the Security Council to demand that Israel "abide by international and humanitarian law and UN resolutions....immediately (end) its (collective punishment) policy," and halt its Gaza siege.

Other NGOs voice similar demands:

-- in January 2007, 8 Israeli human rights organizations collaboratively joined an international campaign to end Gaza's siege immediately; they are:

(1) The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI);

(2) Amnesty-Israel;

(3) Bimkom - Planners for Planning Rights;

(4) Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement;

(5) Hamoked: Center for the Defence of the Individual;

(6) The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel (PCATI);

(7) Physicians for Human Rights - Israel; and

(8) Yesh Din - Volunteers for Human Rights.

Others have as well:

-- Gaza's Culture and Free Thought Association says: "We are living in fear of the devastation of our society. (Gaza's) siege is a terrible crime....tell the world - don't say you didn't know;"

-- the Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees (PARC) says: "The blockade makes export impossible so farmers are abandoning their crops; Israeli incursions result in huge destruction to lands and enterprises; almost every industry in Gaza is facing ruin; this collective punishment must end;"

-- the Palestinian Medical Relief Society says: "Gaza alone without the West Bank cannot survive; it needs free borders and access; 1.5 million people cut off with no trade or water, it's impossible;"

-- the Women's Affairs Centre says: "Gaza is a prison;" its people are trapped, and "the result is violence;" not just "factional violence, domestic violence is also increasing;" and

The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) says: "How can Gaza be a normal place; how can we live a normal life here....(we need) free movement between Gaza and the West Bank and open access to the outside world;"

Many others worldwide as well call for;

-- ending Gaza's siege;

-- Israel's illegal isolation policy;

-- the right to work and an adequate standard of living;

-- the right to health;

-- education;

-- life; and

-- 41 illegal years of occupation.

The world no longer can wait. Neither can the people of Gaza, the West Bank and their growing numbers of supporters worldwide.

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=9724