Color Revolutions, Old and New

Color Revolutions, Old and New - by Stephen Lendman

In his new book, "Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order," F. William Engdahl explained a new form of US covert warfare - first played out in Belgrade, Serbia in 2000. What appeared to be "a spontaneous and genuine political 'movement,' (in fact) was the product of techniques" developed in America over decades.

In the 1990s, RAND Corporation strategists developed the concept of "swarming" to explain "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects which they applied to military conflict by other means. More on this below.

In Belgrade, key organizations were involved, including the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute. Posing as independent NGOS, they're, in fact, US-funded organizations charged with disruptively subverting democracy and instigating regime changes through non-violent strikes, mass street protests, major media agitprop, and whatever else it takes short of military conflict.

Engdahl cited Washington Post writer Michael Dobbs' first-hand account of how the Clinton administration engineered Slobodan Milosevic's removal after he survived the 1990s Balkan wars, 78 days of NATO bombing in 1999, and major street uprisings against him. A $41 million campaign was run out of American ambassador Richard Miles' office. It involved "US-funded consultants" handling everything, including popularity polls, "training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel vote count."

Thousands of spray paint cans were used "by student activists to scrawl anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia," and throughout the country around 2.5 million stickers featured the slogan "Gotov Je," meaning "He's Finished."

Preparations included opposition leader training in nonviolent resistance techniques at a Budapest, Hungary seminar - on matters like "organiz(ing) strike(s), communicat(ing) with symbols....overcom(ing) fear, (and) undermin(ing) the authority of a dictatorial regime." US experts were in charge, incorporating RAND Corporation "swarming" concepts.

GPS satellite images were used to direct "spontaneous hit-and-run protests (able to) elude the police or military. Meanwhile, CNN (was) carefully pre-positioned to project images around the world of these youthful non-violent 'protesters.' " Especially new was the use of the Internet, including "chat rooms, instant messaging, and blog sites" as well as cell phone verbal and SMS text-messaging, technologies only available since the mid-1990s.

Milosevic was deposed by a successful high-tech coup that became "the hallmark of the US Defense policies under (Rumsfeld) at the Pentagon." It became the civilian counterpart to his "Revolution in Military Affairs" doctrine using "highly mobile, weaponized small groups directed by 'real time' intelligence and communications."

Belgrade was the prototype for Washington-instigated color revolutions to follow. Some worked. Others failed. A brief account of several follows below.

In 2003, Georgia's bloodless "Rose Revolution" replaced Edouard Shevardnadze with Mikhail Saakashvili, a US-installed stooge whom Engdahl calls a "ruthless and corrupt totalitarian who is tied (not only to) NATO (but also) the Israeli military and intelligence establishment." Shevardnadze became a liability when he began dealing with Russia on energy pipelines and privatizations. Efforts to replace him played out as follows, and note the similarities to events in Iran after claims of electoral fraud.

Georgia held parliamentary elections on November 2. Without evidence, pro-western international observers called them unfair. Saakashvili 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, parliament's scheduled opening day. While it met, Saakashvili-led supporters placed "roses" in the barrels of soldiers' rifles, seized the parliament building, interrupted Shevardnadze's speech, and forced him to flee for his safety.

Saakashvili declared a state of emergency, mobilized troops and police, met with Sherardnadze 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 with strong US backing in plotting and executing his rise to power. US-funded NGOs were also involved, including George Soros' Open Society Georgia Foundation, Freedom House, NED, others tied to the Washington establishment, and Richard Miles after leaving his Belgrade post to serve first as ambassador to Bulgaria from 1999 - 2002, then Georgia from 2002 - 2005 to perform the same service there as against Milosevic.

Ukraine's "Orange Revolution" followed a similar pattern to Georgia and now Iran. After Viktor Yanukovych won the November 21, 2004 run-off election against Viktor Yushchenko, it erupted following unsubstantiated claims of fraud. Yanukovych favored openness to the West but represented a pro-Russian constituency and was cool towards joining NATO. Washington backed Yushchenko, a former governor of Ukraine's Central Bank whose wife was a US citizen and former official in the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations. He favored NATO and EU membership and waged a campaign with the color orange prominently featured.

The media picked up on it and touted his "Orange Revolution" against the country's Moscow-backed old guard. Mass street protests were organized as well as civil disobedience, sit-ins and general strikes. They succeeded when Ukraine's Supreme Court annulled the run-off result and ordered a new election for December 26, 2004. Yushchenko won and was inaugurated on January 23, 2005.

In his book, "Full Spectrum Dominance," Engdahl explained how the process played out. Under the slogan "Pora (It's Time)," people who helped organize Georgia's "Rose Revolution" were brought in to consult "on techniques of non-violent struggle." The Washington-based Rock Creek Creative PR firm was instrumental in branding the "Orange Revolution" around a pro-Yushchenko web site featuring that color theme. The US State Department spent around $20 million dollars to turn Yanukovych's victory into one for Yushchenko with help from the same NGOs behind Georgia's "Rose Revolution" and others.

Myanmar's August - September 2007 "Saffron Revolution" used similar tactics as in Georgia and Ukraine but failed. They began with protests led by students and opposition political activists followed by Engdahl's description of "swarming mobs of monks in saffron, Internet blogs, mobile SMS links between protest groups, (and) well-organized (hit-and-run) protest cells which disperse(d) and re-form(ed)."

NED and George Soros' Open Society Institute led a campaign for regime change in league with the State Department by its own admission. Engdahl explained that the "State Department....recruited and trained key opposition leaders from numerous anti-government organizations in Myanmar" and ran its "Saffron Revolution" out of the Chaing Mai, Thailand US Consulate.

Street protesters were "recruited and trained, in some cases directly in the US, before being sent back to organize inside Myanmar." NED admitted funding opposition media, including the Democratic Voice of Burma radio.

Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, Washington tried to embarrass and destabilize China with a "Crimson Revolution" in Tibet - an operation dating from when George Bush met the Dalai Lama publicly in Washington for the first time, awarded him the Congressional Gold Medal, and backed Tibetan independence.

On March 10, Engdahl reported that Tibetan monks staged "violent protests and documented attacks (against) Han Chinese residents....when several hundred monks marched on Lhasa (Tibet's capital) to demand release of other monks allegedly detained for celebrating the award of the US Congress' Gold Medal" the previous October. Other monks joined in "on the 49th anniversary of the Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule."

The same instigators were involved as earlier - NED, Freedom House, and others specific to Tibet, including the International Committee for Tibet and the Trace Foundation - all with ties to the State Department and/or CIA.

The above examples have a common thread - achieving what the Pentagon calls "full spectrum dominance" that depends largely on controlling Eurasia by neutralizing America's two main rivals - Russia militarily, China economically, and crucially to prevent a strong alliance between the two. Controlling Eurasia is a strategic aim in this resource-rich part of the world that includes the Middle East.

Iran's Made-in-the-USA "Green Revolution"

After Iran's June 12 election, days of street protests and clashes with Iranian security forces followed. Given Washington's history of stoking tensions and instability in the region, its role in more recent color revolutions, and its years of wanting regime change in Iran, analysts have strong reasons to suspect America is behind post-election turbulence and one-sided Western media reports claiming electoral fraud and calling for a new vote, much like what happened in Georgia and Ukraine.

The same elements active earlier are likely involved now with a May 22, 2007 Brian Ross and Richard Esposito ABC News report stating:

"The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a 'black' operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current and former officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter on ABCNews.com. The sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity....say President Bush has signed a 'nonlethal presidential finding' that puts into motion a CIA plan that reportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda, disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and international financial transactions."

Perhaps disruptions as well after the June 12 election to capitalize on a divided ruling elite - specifically political differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader/Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on one side and Mir Hossein Mousavi, former president Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri on the other with Iran's Revolutionary Guard so far backing the ruling government. It's too early to know conclusively but evidence suggests US meddling, and none of it should surprise.

Kenneth Timmerman provides some. He co-founded the right wing Foundation for Democracy in Iran (FDI) and serves as its executive director. He's also a member of the hawkish Committee on the Present Danger (CPD) and has close ties to the equally hard line American Enterprise Institute, the same organization that spawned the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), renamed the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) for much the same purpose.

On the right wing newsmax.com web site, Timmerman wrote that the NED "spent millions of dollars during the past decade promoting color revolutions in places such as Ukraine and Serbia, training political workers in modern communications and organizational techniques." He explained that money also appears to have gone to pro-Mousavi groups, "who have ties to non-governmental organizations outside Iran that (NED) funds."

Pre-election, he elaborated about a "green revolution in Tehran" with organized protests ready to be unleashed as soon as results were announced because tracking polls and other evidence suggested Ahmadinejad would win. Yet suspiciously, Mousavi declared victory even before the polls closed.

It gets worse. Henry Kissinger told BBC news that if Iran's color revolution fails, hard line "regime change (must be) worked for from the outside" - implying the military option if all else fails. In a June 12 Wall Street Journal editorial, John Bolton called for Israeli air strikes whatever the outcome - to "put an end to (Iran's) nuclear threat," despite no evidence one exists.

Iran's rulers know the danger and need only cite Iraq, Afghanistan, and numerous other examples of US aggression, meddling, and destabilization schemes for proof - including in 1953 and 1979 against its own governments.

On June 17, AP reported that Iran "directly accused the United States of meddling in the deepening crisis." On June 21 on Press TV, an official said "The terrorist Mujahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) has reportedly played a major role in intensifying the recent wave of street violence in Iran. Iranian security officials reported (the previous day) that they have identified and arrested a large number of MKO members who were involved" in the nation's capital.

They admitted to having been trained in Iraq's camp Ashraf and got directions from MKO's UK command post "to create post-election mayhem in the country." On June 20 in Paris, MKO leader Maryam Rajavi addressed supporters and expressed solidarity with Iranian protesters.

In 2007, German intelligence called MKO a "repressive, sect-like and Stalinist authoritarian organization which centers around the personality cult of Maryam and Masoud Rajavi." MKO expert Anne Singleton explained that the West intends to use the organization to achieve regime change in Iran. She said its backers "put together a coalition of small irritant groups, the known minority and separatist groups, along with the MKO. (They'll) be garrisoned around the border with Iran and their task is to launch terrorist attacks into Iran over the next few years to keep the fire hot." They're perhaps also enlisted to stoke violence and conduct targeted killings on Iranian streets post-election as a way to blame them on the government.

On June 23, Tehran accused western media and the UK government of "fomenting (internal) unrest." In expelling BBC correspondent Jon Leyne, it accused him and the broadcaster of "supporting the rioters and, along with CNN," of setting up a "situation room and a psychological war room." Both organizations are pro-business, pro-government imperial tools, CNN as a private company, BBC as a state-funded broadcaster.

On its June 17 web site, BBC was caught publishing deceptive agitprop and had to retract it. It prominently featured a Los Angeles Times photo of a huge pro-Ahmadinejad rally (without showing him waving to the crowd) that it claimed was an anti-government protest for Mousavi.

Throughout its history since 1922, BBC compiled a notorious record of this sort of thing because the government appoints its senior managers and won't tolerate them stepping out of line. Early on, its founder, John Reith, wrote the UK establishment: "They know they can trust us not to be impartial," a promise faithfully kept for nearly 87 years and prominently on Iran.

With good reason on June 22, Iranian MPs urged that ties with Britain be reassessed while, according to the Fars news agency, members of four student unions planned protests at the UK embassy and warned of a repeat of the 1979 US embassy siege.

They said they'd target the "perverted government of Britain for its intervention in Iran's internal affairs, its role in the unrest in Tehran and its support of the riots." Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Hassan Ghashghavi, wouldn't confirm if London's ambassador would be expelled. On June 23, however, AP reported that two UK diplomats were sent home on charges of "meddling and spying."

State TV also said hard-line students protested outside the UK embassy, burned US, British and Israeli flags, hurled tomatoes at the building and chanted: "Down with Britain!" and "Down with USA!" Around 100 people took part.

Britain retaliated by expelling two Iranian diplomats. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon demanded an immediate end to "arrests, threats and use of force." Iran's official news agency, IRNA, reported that the Iranian Foreign Ministry rejected Ban's remarks and accused him of meddling. On June 23, Obama said the world was "appalled and outraged" by Iran's violent attempt to crush dissent and claimed America "is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs."

Yet on June 26, USA Today reported that:

"The Obama administration is moving forward with plans to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents, records and interviews show, continuing a program that became controversial" under George Bush. For the past year, USAID has solicited funds to "promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran," according to its web site.

On July 11, 2008, Jason Leopold headlined his Countercurrents.org article, "State Department's Iran Democracy Fund Shrouded in Secrecy" and stated:

"Since 2006, Congress has poured tens of millions of dollars into a (secret) State Department (Democracy Fund) program aimed at promoting regime change in Iran." Yet Shirin Abadi, Iran's 2003 Nobel Peace prize laureate, said "no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept" US funding for this purpose. In a May 30, 2007 International Herald Tribune column, she wrote: "Iranian reformers believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best Washington can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone."

On June 24, Brent Scowcroft, former National Security
Advisor to Gerald Ford and GHW Bush, told Al Jazeera television that "of course" Washington "has agents working inside Iran" even though America hasn't had formal relations with the Islamic Republic for 30 years.

Another prominent incident is being used against Iran, much like a similar one on October 10, 1990. In the run-up to Operation Desert Storm, the Hill & Knowlton PR firm established the Citizens for a Free Kuwait (CFK) front group to sell war to a reluctant US public. Its most effective stunt involved a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl known only as Nayirah to keep her identity secret.

Teary eyed before a congressional committee, she described her eye-witness account of Iraqi soldiers "tak(ing) babies out of incubators and leav(ing) them on the cold floor to die." The dominant media featured her account prominently enough to get one observer to conclude that nothing had greater impact on swaying US public opinion for war, still ongoing after over 18 years.

Later it was learned that Nayirah was the daughter of Saud Nasir al-Sabah, a member of Kuwait's royal family and ambassador to the US. Her story was a PR fabrication, but it worked.

Neda (meaning "voice" in Farsi) Agha Soltani is today's Nayirah - young, beautiful, slain on a Tehran street by an unknown assassin, she's now the martyred face of opposition protesters and called "The Angel of Iran" by a supportive Facebook group. Close-up video captured her lying on the street in her father's arms. The incident and her image captured world attention. It was transmitted online and repeated round-the-clock by the Western media to blame the government and enlist support to bring it down. In life, Nayirah was instrumental in Iraq's destruction and occupation. Will Neda's death be as effective against Iran and give America another Middle East conquest?

Issues in Iran's Election

Despite being militant and anti-Western as Iran's former Prime Minister, Mousavi is portrayed as a reformer. Yet his support comes from Iranian elitist elements, the urban middle class, and students and youths favoring better relations with America. Ahmadinejad, in contrast, is called hardline. Yet he has popular support among the nation's urban and rural poor for providing vitally needed social services even though doing it is harder given the global economic crisis and lower oil prices.

Is it surprising then that he won? A Mousavi victory was clearly unexpected, especially as an independent candidate who became politically active again after a 20 year hiatus and campaigned only in Iran's major cities. Ahmadinejad made a concerted effort with over 60 nationwide trips in less than three months.

Then, there's the economy under Article 44 of Iran's constitution that says it must consist of three sectors - state-owned, cooperative, and private with "all large-scale and mother industries" entirely state-controlled, including oil and gas that provides the main source of revenue.

In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow more privatizations, but how much is a source of contention. During his campaign, Mousavi called for moving away from an "alms-based" economy - meaning Ahmadinejad's policy of providing social services to the poor. He also promised to speed up privatizations without elaborating on if he has oil, gas, and other "mother industries" in mind. If so, drawing support from
Washington and the West is hardly surprising. On the other hand, as long as Iran's Guardian Council holds supreme power, an Ahmadinejad victory was needed as a pretext for all the events that followed. At this stage, they suspiciously appear to be US-orchestrated for regime change. Thus far, Iran's Revolutionary Guard, Basij militia, and other security forces have prevailed on the streets to prevent it, but it's way too early to declare victory.

George Friedman runs the private intelligence agency called Stratfor. On June 23 he wrote:

"While street protests in Iran appear to be diminishing, the electoral crisis continues to unfold, with reports of a planned nationwide strike and efforts by the regime's second most powerful cleric (Rafsanjani) to mobilize opposition against (Ahmadinejad) from within the system. In so doing he could stifle (his) ability to effect significant policy changes (in his second term), which would play into the hands of the United States."

Ahmadinejad will be sworn in on July 26 to be followed by his cabinet by August 19, but according to Stratfor it doesn't mean the crisis is fading. It sees a Rafsanjani-led "rift within the ruling establishment (that) will continue to haunt the Islamic Republic for the foreseeable future."

"What this means is that....Ahmadinejad's second term will see even greater infighting among the rival conservative factions that constitute the political establishment....Iran will find it harder to achieve the internal unity necessary to complicate US policy," and the Obama administration will try to capitalize on it to its advantage. Its efforts to make Iran into another US puppet state are very much ongoing, and for sure, Tehran's ruling government knows it. How it will continue to react remains to be seen.

"Swarming" to Produce Regime Change

In his book, "Full Spectrum Dominance," Engdahl explained the RAND Corporation's groundbreaking research on military conflict by other means. He cited researchers John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt's 1997 "Swarming & The Future of Conflict" document "on exploiting the information revolution for the US military. By taking advantage of network-based organizations linked via email and mobile phones to enhance the potential of swarming, IT techniques could be transformed into key methods of warfare."

In 1993, Arquilla and Ronfeldt prepared an earlier document titled "Cyberwar Is Coming!" It suggested that "warfare is no longer primarily a function of who puts the most capital, labor and technology on the battlefield, but of who has the best information about the battlefield" and uses it effectively.

They cited an information revolution using advanced "computerized information and communications technologies and related innovations in organization and management theory." They foresaw "the rise of multi-organizational networks" using information technologies "to communicate, consult, coordinate, and operate together across greater distances" and said this ability will affect future conflicts and warfare. They explained that "cyberwar may be to the 21st century what blitzkrieg was to the 20th century" but admitted back then that the concept was too speculative for precise definition.

The 1993 document focused on military warfare. In 1996, Arquilla and Ronfeldt studied netwar and cyberwar by examining "irregular modes of conflict, including terror, crime, and militant social activism." Then in 1997, they presented the concept of "swarming" and suggested it might "emerge as a definitive doctrine that will encompass and enliven both cyberwar and netwar" through their vision of "how to prepare for information-age conflict."

They called "swarming" a way to strike from all directions, both "close-in as well as from stand-off positions." Effectiveness depends on deploying small units able to interconnect using revolutionary communication technology.

As explained above, what works on battlefields has proved successful in achieving non-violent color revolution regime changes, or coup d'etats by other means. The same strategy appears in play in Iran, but it's too early to tell if it will work as so far the government has prevailed. However, for the past 30 years, America has targeted the Islamic Republic for regime change to control the last major country in a part of the world over which it seeks unchallenged dominance.

If the current confrontation fails, expect future ones ahead as imperial America never quits. Yet in the end, new political forces within Iran may end up changing the country more than America can achieve from the outside - short of conquest and occupation, that is.

A final point. The core issue isn't whether Iran's government is benign or repressive or if its June 12 election was fair or fraudulent. It's that (justifiable criticism aside) no country has a right to meddle in the internal affairs of another unless it commits aggression in violation of international law and the UN Security Council authorizes a response. Washington would never tolerate outside interference nor should it and neither should Iran.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14148

America's "Bases of Empire"

America's "Bases of Empire" - by Stephen Lendman

Besides waging perpetual wars, nothing better reveals America's imperial agenda than its hundreds of global bases - for offense, not defense at a time the US hasn't had an enemy since the Japanese surrendered in August 1945.

So when they don't exist, they're invented as former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles W. Freeman, Jr., suggested in a May 24, 2007 speech to the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs:

"When our descendants look back on the end of the 20th century and the beginning of this one, they will be puzzled. The end of the Cold War relieved Americans of almost all international anxieties." As the world's sole remaining superpower, "We did not rise to the occasion."

"We are engaged in a war, a global war on terror, a long war, we are told....How can a war with no defined ends beyond the avoidance of retreat ever reach a convenient stopping point? How can we win (any war let alone the hearts and minds of millions) with an enemy so ill-understood that we must invent a nonexistent ideology" for justification.

In his 2006 book, "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic," Chalmers Johnson discussed the known number of foreign US bases by size and branch of service. According to the Department of Defense's Base Structure Report (BSR) through 2005, it totaled 737 but likely exceeds 1000 today with so many new ones built since then - some known, others secret and always others planned.

Johnson also highlighted the fallout - unacceptable noise, pollution, environmental destruction, expropriation of valuable public and private land, and drunken, disorderly, and abusive soldiers committing crimes that include rape and murder that often go unpunished under provisions in US-imposed Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs).

An excerpt from his book reads:

"Once upon a time, you could trace the spread of imperialism by counting up colonies. America's version of the colony is the military base; and by following the changing politics of global basing, one can learn much about our ever more all-encompassing imperial footprint and the militarism that grows with it....even more than in past empires, a well-entrenched militarism (lies) at the heart of our imperial adventures." To such an extreme that "each year we spend more on our armed forces than all others nations on Earth combined" to garrison troops "in more than 130 countries."

The Pentagon lists them in its annual Base Structure Report, but "its official count of between 737 and 860 overseas installations is incomplete" because excluded are numerous secret ones - for espionage, unofficially shared with host countries, or other reasons not disclosed.

The bases reflect "force projection" for global dominance and are positioned to strike any nation that might challenge it, friend or foe. But they come at a great cost - well over $1 trillion annually with all homeland, foreign, and other budget categories included. According to Johnson, a far greater one as well, the same dynamic that doomed past empires unwilling to change - "isolation, overstretch, the uniting of local and global forces opposed to imperialism, and in the end bankruptcy" as well as the end of democracy, loss of personal freedoms, and tyranny.

During WW II, Brits complained that GIs were "overpaid, overfed, oversexed, and over here." Despite the war, some called it the US "occupation," and UK historian David Reynolds discussed it in his book, "Rich Relations: The American Occupation of Britain, 1942-1945." He borrowed the word from George Orwell's December 1943 comment that "It is difficult to go anywhere in London without having the feeling that Britain is now Occupied Territory."

Today, millions in countries globally feel the same, and with good reason. Even at peace, America's presence is intrusive, hostile, and at the expense of the host country populations.

A new book is now out titled "The Bases of Empire: The Global Struggle against US Military Posts," a collection of important articles on America's worldwide empire and military presence that enforces it.

It's edited by Catherine Lutz, Brown University Professor in the Department of Anthropology, Watson Institute for International Studies with a forward by Cynthia Enloe, Clark University Research Professor, Department of International Development, Community and Environment and Women's Studies.

Enloe dispels some common myths in her forward:

-- about Americans believing that foreign bases benefit the host country populations;

-- the notion that other countries request our presence;

-- that the US military is the most "civilized" in the world, and

-- their presence is for other nations' security "in an age of an allegedly diffuse (and ill-defined) 'global terror,' (that) trumps any other 'lesser' concerns."

Contributors to "The Bases of Empire" reflect a powerfully opposite point of view as well as Enloe in her forward and Lutz in her detailed introduction, discussed below.

Introduction - Bases, Empire, and Global Response

Lutz cites the "unprecedented....global omnipresence and unparalleled lethality of the US military, and the ambition with which it is being deployed around the world." Its presence shows that America stands "able and willing to control events in other regions militarily" and proves it through numerous foreign wars and other hostile interventions, directly or through proxies.

Citing data from DOD's 2007 Base Structure Report (BSR), she states:

"Officially, over 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees are massed in 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories. There, the US military owns or rents 795,000 acres of land, and 26,000 buildings and structures valued at $146 billion."

However, the numbers are misleading as they exclude the massive base and troop presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, former Soviet republics, and Warsaw Pact countries as well as unknown numbers of secret facilities in numerous other nations. They consist of three types:

-- Main Operating Bases (MOBs) like the Iraq Balad Air Base housing 30,000 troops, 10,000 contractors, and covering 16 square miles plus another 12-square mile "security perimeter." MOBs are large and permanent, have extensive infrastructure, command and control headquarters, accommodations for families in non-war zones, hospitals, schools, recreational facilities, and nearly anything available in a typical US city.

-- Forward Operation Sites (FOSs) that are also major installations but are smaller than MOBs, and

-- Cooperative Security Locations (CLSs) that are small, austere, called 'lily pads," - to preposition weapons, munitions, and modest numbers of troops.

Lutz highlights the fallout:

"The environmental, political, and economic impact of these bases is enormous and, despite Pentagon claims that the bases simply provide security to the regions they are in, most of the world's people feel (not at all) reassured by (their) global reach," and with good reason.

Farm and public land is expropriated for their use. Toxic pollution is enormous as well as extensive environmental damage. Noise levels from round-the-clock aircraft are intolerable, and around numerous bases America is at war. It also imprisons and tortures thousands, props up despotic rulers for its own advantage, and virtually holds the entire planet hostage to its extremist agenda.

Lutz says this book describes US militarism globally and campaigns to hold America accountable for the "damage and to reorient (host) countries' security policies in other, more human, and truly secure directions."

For its part, America occupies the world, reflects a hostile presence, trains about 100,000 local forces in 180 countries as partners, and turns a blind eye to human rights abuses, by its own troops and those of host nations.

Besides its presence in fixed bases, the Pentagon is involved in "jungle, urban, desert, maritime, and polar training exercises across wide swathes of landscape" - always intrusive and often provocative as in the Philippines. After it was forced to give up its bases in 1992, US troops remained in the country despite strong popular opposition and the Philippine constitution prohibiting the basing of foreign forces. No matter, US military and civilian personnel lobby to change local laws to accommodate America's access.

Laws are there for legitimate reasons, one of which is the focus of this book - the impact and costs that a foreign presence has on host countries' people. Lutz explores why it's there, how it's configured, popular myths, and "the global movement to push back or expel (it) altogether."

The Purpose of US Bases

They reflect empire, an aim to dominate everywhere, a sense of "racial, cultural, or social superiority," and a success when "wealth is extracted from peripheral areas and redistributed to the imperial center."

The Pentagon claims they're in place to:

-- defend the homeland with a forward or global presence; and

-- provide other nations with security.

In fact, they're to control trade, resources, local supplies of cheap labor, and political, economic, and social life of host countries. They also force them to support American imperialism, including foreign wars despite harmful fallout to local populations.

A Short History of US Bases

-- they go back to colonial America, then grew to a "frontier project" to remove Native Indians for a new nation with European settlers;

-- in 1938, 14 foreign bases existed; post-WW II "an astounding 30,000 (large and small) installations" were in about 100 countries; by 1948, it was 2000;

-- besides creating America coast-to-coast and the 1846 - 48 Mexican war, US history reflects three imperial periods:

(1) the 1898 Spanish-American war conquest and occupation of foreign territory and acquisition of bases in them;

(2) World War II and its Cold War aftermath established the "bulk of the US basing system;" even so, from 1947 - 1990, America was asked to leave France, Yugoslavia, Iran, Ethiopia, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Algeria, Vietnam, Indonesia, Peru, Mexico, and Venezuela; in the 1990s and later, the Pentagon was forced out of the Philippines, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Puerto Rico's island-municipality Vieques, Uzbekistan, and Ecuador, and decided voluntarily to leave elsewhere;

(3) post-9/11 militarism under George Bush neocons advanced the goal of "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.

Common Myths about US Foreign Bases

Why do sovereign nations and the US public tolerate them? One explanation is that "the bases are naturalized or normalized, meaning that they are thought of as unremarkable, inevitable, and legitimate," and militarism supports these notions as the way to bring order to a dangerous world.

The Pentagon argues their legitimacy on these grounds:

-- "utilitarianism and realism" as follows:

(1) to secure America by deterring attacks and preventing or removing military challenges;

(2) overseas forces represent America's first line of defense; and

(3) "potential security challenges in Asia" require American intervention to prevent or intervene to "restore order."

Strategic language justifies them to project power anywhere in the world and "contend with (any) uncertainty (regarding America's) security challenges."

Bases also "serve the national economic interests of the United States, ensuring access to markets and commodities needed to maintain the American standard of living...." Also to react to any threat, maintain trade, keep commerce routes open, and assure the dollar remains the world's dominant reserve currency. In a word, to have America's footprint everywhere with a military presence for enforcement.

US forces are a "visible expression of the extent of America's status as a superpower" and its goal to keep it that way unchallenged. It suggests that more bases are better and a way to project a visible presence everywhere or close by.

A second argument "sees them as positive expressions of American character, and particularly its humanitarian ethos." The Pentagon portrays itself as a benefactor, a liberator, and helper on the scene at times of natural or other disasters. We claim bases are "gifts to other nations, both as defense sites and as wealth generators. They represent American altruism and sacrifice" when, in fact, they're for hardline dominance intolerant of opposition, national sovereignty, democratic freedoms, and social justice.

They also fail on their own terms. Instead of providing safety and security, they incite antagonism, opposition and blowback against an American occupier and enemy. Yet they proliferate on the notion that "humans are naturally violent and that war can be a glorious and good venture." It's also hugely profitable for the defense establishment and related industries, energy and technology to name two.

The World Responds

"Social movements have proliferated around the world in response to the empire of US bases." For some, just their presence is an affront to national sovereignty and pride. Others reject their purpose - aggressive wars, continued violence, and all the other above-cited fallout wherever they're located. Globally, these bases "represent a massive injustice" to host nations and communities where they're located.

Despite providing jobs for local workers, wages are poor, benefits few if any, and most Pentagon dollars flow to large military contractors, other major US corporations, and selected local business elites. Ordinary people are exploited and entirely left out, especially in developing countries, hence their opposition to militarism and foreign occupation.

"With the end of the Cold War, the central pretext for most US bases evaporated, and calls for their return were renewed." In 1991, a successful Philippine movement ousted them with a post-Ferdinand Marcos constitution declaring:

"foreign military bases, troops or facilities shall not be allowed in the Philippines except under a treaty duly concurred in by the Senate and, when the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose."

In 2003, sustained direct action campaigns and political lobbying also succeeded in Vieques, Puerto Rico, in part because naval activities caused environmental and health damage - a core issue wherever US bases are located.

"The Bases of Empire includes 10 articles by different writers, divided in two parts: Mapping US Power and Global Resistance.

Part I includes:

-- Joseph Gerson's "US Foreign Military Bases and Military Colonialism: Personal and Analytical Perspectives;"

-- John Lindsay-Poland's "US Military Bases in Latin America and the Caribbean;"

-- David Heller and Hans Lammerant's "US Nuclear Weapons Bases in Europe;" and

-- Tom Englehardt's "Iraq as a Pentagon Construction Site."

Part II includes:

-- Roland Simbulan's "People's Movement Response to Evolving US Military Activities in the Philippines;"

-- Katherine McCaffrey's "Environmental Struggle after the Cold War: New Forms of Resistance to the US Military in Vieques, Puerto Rico;"

-- Ayse Gil Altinay and Amy Holmes "Opposition to the US Military Presence in Turkey in the Context of the Iraq War;"

-- Kyle Kajihiro's "Resisting Militarism in Hawaii;" and two other articles discussed below.

David Vine and Laura Jeffrey's "Give Us Back Diego Garcia: Unity and Division among Activists in the Indian Ocean."

Diego Garcia is an 84-square mile British-controlled Indian Ocean island in the Chagos archipelago, lying strategically half way between Asia and Africa, and the reason the Pentagon wants it.

It was home to indigenous Chagossians, British citizens, before being expelled between 1967 - 1973 to let America have their island-state as a military base. In flagrant denial of their human rights, the were mass-exiled to Mauritius and Seychelles, 1300 miles away, where they remain in abject poverty and despair. The population had no say, and those who objected were lied to and told they had no choice because their removal was "legal" under colonial rule.

In their new home, life was hellish. They were consigned to a society foreign to their simple ways and weren't able to adjust. On Diego Garcia, they had their own home, grew their own food, fished, and worked on plantations. In exile, they needed jobs to survive but couldn't get them. By the mid-1970s, most were unemployed, impoverished and began to die, but the British Foreign Office and High Commission told them to let the Mauritius and Seychelles governments handle it.

Chagossians are UK citizens entitled to the same rights as other Brits, but all they got was 1000 pounds (around $1600 today) in exchange for renouncing their right to return, agreed to on a document they couldn't read.

The history of this episode was hidden until the 1990s when declassified documents were found in the National Archives at Kew in London. They proved a conspiracy between Britain and America that the International Criminal Court's (ICC) Article 7 calls a "deportation or forcible transfer of a population (and) and crime against humanity."

Britain's action also violated the UN Charter's Article 73 that obliges a colonial government to obey its "sacred trust" to protect the human rights of its people. Instead, America and the UK engaged in cover-up and deception that continued for a decade and went to the highest levels of both governments. Involved were prime minister Harold Wilson and Queen Elizabeth along with presidents Johnson, Nixon and others.

Everything was hidden, including financial kickbacks Washington made that were concealed from Congress and Parliament. That changed once the truth came out. On November 3, 2000, the British High Court stunned the government, cited the Magna Carta, annulled the original deportation order, and effectively ruled that British subjects were entitled to go home. However, the victory was short-lived as a year later Chagossians were back in the High Court seeking compensation for their ordeal.

This time a hostile judge called their case "unmeritorious" and denied their claim. Three months later, the Foreign Office minister responsible for Chagos sent an "order-in-council" to the Queen for her automatic approval that overturned the High Court 2000 victory, banning Chagossians from ever returning home.

Nonetheless, they pursued their case, again before the High Court. On May 11, 2006, a damning verdict condemned the expulsion order as "repugnant" and overturned the Blair government's "order-in-council." Thus far to no avail, yet Chagossians still fight for their right of return and an end to their decades-long plight.

They held an April 18, 2009 meeting, met with the Royal Commonwealth Society in late May, made their case, but it remains unresolved. The UK Chagos Support Association said at the time:

"the original people of Chagos are dying of broken hearts and spirit. They are still waiting for justice to be done and it seems like this is dragging until all the people who really have the right to fight for the cause no longer have a voice. It has been 45 years and we believe it is time that justice is done and peace is found." Thus far, Britain and Washington won't agree. Imperial considerations take precedence over all else.

Kozue Akibayashi and Suzuyo Takazato's "Okinawa; Women's Struggle for Demilitarization."

Okinawa is Japan's southern-most and poorest prefecture. It's also home to dozens of US military bases since 1945. In his book "Nemesis," Chalmers Johnson cited a history of abuse - from 1998 - 2004 alone, 2024 reported crimes and accidents in which US forces were involved. Only one led to a court-martial, 318 others to administrative discipline, and the rest were absolved, yet they involved robberies, assaults, rapes and reckless homicides. Okinawa's women and girls suffered most.

Akibayashi is a researcher at the Institute for Gender Studies at Toyko's Ochanomizu University. Takazato is an activist fighter for women's rights, especially against the threat of US military personnel-committed rape and sexual assaults. She's also a City Council member of Okinawa's capital, Naha, and helped found Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence and the Rape Emergency Intervention Counseling Center of Okinawa, established after three US Marines gang-raped a 12-year old girl on September 4, 1995.

After Japan surrendered in 1945, America wrote its constitution, and occupied the country ever since, now with 88 bases in a nation smaller than California. Thirty-seven are on Okinawa, a tiny sliver of land about the size of a large US city, so it's easy to understand why its people are long-suffering and justifiably angry.

They've been practically pushed into the Pacific to accommodate America's occupation, forced to relinquish their most valued real estate, and put up with over six decades of all the above-cited abuses. Their greatest outrage is over the SOFA's article 17 covering criminal justice. It states:

"The custody of an accused member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component (shall) remain with the United States until he is charged."

It means when US personnel commit crimes, including rape and murder, Japanese investigative authorities have no exclusive access to suspects until they're indicted in court. That alone hamstrings investigations enough to make prosecutors reluctant to press charges because they can't get enough evidence for trials. Further, the longer things drag out, the easier it is for the Pentagon to whitewash crimes and transfer guilty parties to new locations, far removed from Okinawa.

The most serious incident was the above-cited 1995 rape. The 12-year old girl involved was also beaten, then left on a beach after which the three Marines returned to their base in a rented car. In October, 85,000 Okinawans protested. They demanded Japanese and American authorities address the issue after the Pentagon initially refused to hand over suspects to Japanese police. Usually they never do anywhere, but this case was an exception. Because of political pressure, the Marines were arrested, tried in a Japanese court, convicted and sentenced to prison terms for their crime - seven years for two of them and six and a half for the other.

This case highlights what Okinawans and other people have endured for decades. SOFAs let the Pentagon run its affairs unaccountable to host country laws, including on Okinawa. The result everywhere is that US personnel get away with rapes, drunken brawling, muggings, drug violations, reckless driving and related accidents, arson, and criminal homicide, especially in host countries with non-white populations - abuses unchanged for decades on Okinawa.

As a result, Akibayashi and Takazato concluded:

-- "Integral elements of misogyny infect military training....The military is a violence-producing institution to which sexual and gender violence are intrinsic....The essence of military forces is their pervasive, deep-rooted contempt for women, which can be seen in military training that completely denies femininity and praises hegemonic masculinity," and

-- "The OWAAMV (Okinawa Women Act Against Military Violence) movement illustrates from a gender perspective that 'the protected,' who are structurally deprived of political power, are in fact not protected by the militarized security policies; rather their livelihoods are made insecure by these very policies." Gated bases don't deter violence outside them and result in local populations being oppressed and denied their rights when it happens.

America's "Bases of Empire" menace world societies. Okinawan women and young girls bear testimony to how grievously.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14024

Obama's Financial Reform Proposal - A Stealth Scheme for Global Monetary Control

Obama's Financial Reform Proposal: A Stealth Scheme for Global Monetary Control - by Stephen Lendman

When politicians plan reform, it's wise to be skeptical and hold on to your wallets. So fixing the economy by bailing out Wall Street is wrecking it, and Obama's proposed health care reform taxes more, provides less, places profits above human need, avoids the most vital solutions, and leaves a broken system in place.

Now there's "Financial Regulatory Reform, A New Foundation: Rebuilding Financial Supervision and Regulation" - announced June 17 with Obama saying he'll send Congress a plan to create new government agencies, give the private banking cartel Federal Reserve more power, and address five major problems needing regulatory and legislative measures to fix.

Addressing business executives in the White House East Room, he said:

"A culture of irresponsibility took root from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street" with no mention that months of it worsened on his watch. "A regulatory regime basically crafted in the wake of a 20th century economic crisis - the Great Depression - was overwhelmed by the speed, scope and sophistication of a 21st century global economy." In fact, 30 years of deregulation since the late 1970s, not technology, caused speculative excesses, market bubbles, and inevitable collapses that always follow.

Of course, these problems are endemic under a system that's crisis-prone, unstable, anarchic, ungovernable, and self-destructive through repeated cycles of booms creating bubbles, then busts, followed by recessions or depressions with today's collapse grave enough for Michel Chossudovky to call it "far more serious than the Great Depression (because all) major sectors of the global economy are affected."

Proposed Financial Reforms

An 89-page Treasury Department pdf is available online for those inclined to read it. Along with an introduction and summary of recommendations, its five major objectives are to:

I. "Promote Robust Supervision and Regulation of Financial Markets

II. Establish Comprehensive Regulation of Financial Markets

III. Protect Consumers and Investors from Financial Abuse

IV. Provide the Government with the Tools it Needs to Manage Financial Crises (and)

V. Raise International Regulatory Standards and Improve International Cooperation"

The introduction cites "the most severe financial crisis since the Great Depression," admits that its "roots....go back decades (and states that) the government could have done more to prevent many of" them. Proposed reforms include:

-- a new regulatory "Financial Services Oversight Council;"

-- more power to the Fed over "all firms that could pose a threat to financial stability, even those that do not own banks" such as insurance companies;

-- stronger capital standards for all financial firms;

-- a new "National Bank Supervisor" over all federally chartered banks;

-- registering hedge fund advisors;

-- new regulation of securitization and derivatives markets;

-- increased market transparency and the effectiveness of credit ratings agencies;

-- originators of loans packaged into securities to retain some of the credit risk;

-- broker and loan originator compensation changes away from income up front to spreading it out over time and making it dependent on the performance of loans they make;

-- a new "Consumer Financial Protection Agency" to safeguard them from potentially harmful complex financial products, including securities, mortgages and credit cards;

-- "stronger regulations to improve the transparency, fairness, and appropriateness of consumer and investor products and services;"

-- new ways to "resolve nonbank financial institutions whose failure could have serious systemic effects;"

-- changing the Fed's "emergency lending authority to improve accountability;"

-- establishing "wind down" authority to take over large financial firms like AIG, Fannie and Freddie; and

-- international reforms, including greater oversight of global financial markets and more control through a process whereby G-20 countries cooperate in regulating transnational companies. This looks like the most insidious, outlandish, and dangerous provision. More on it below and its likely importance.

The report suggests other proposals may follow and that "More can and should be done in the future." So what to make of it all given that it's still a plan, congressional and other critics are attacking some of its provisions, whatever emerges is still a ways off, and large banks, insurers and other influential financial firms have final say on new laws and regulations affecting them, so likely changes coming may further taint an already deeply corrupted system.

America has a legacy of failed public agencies as well as regulatory and legislative reform - for lack of teeth, oversight, and most important because financial and other industries end up self-regulating, consolidating, and growing more powerful at the expense of the public interest. Giving the Federal Reserve more power lets banking giants make their own rules, decide how and whether to enforce them, and thus mainly operate as they wish because no one in Washington dares challenge them.

Michael Hudson agrees in his new article titled: "Instead of Real Financial Reform, Obama's Plan capitulates to Wall Street." He explains that supposed reforms promote "Wall Street's 'product,' debt creation, at the expense of the economy at large, and lets financial chieftains continue to self-regulate the debt industry - and by the way, to keep all their gains from the past decade's worth of fraudulent lending, scot-free....(He) achieved what no Republican could have: rescuing the Bush administration's pro-creditor policies that fostered the Bubble Economy in the first place."

The plan is laden with a "false diagnosis" and "fatal flaws," so clearly what's proposed are "wrong-headed cures (but hardly) by accident." If it's largely accepted as is, Wall Street will get precisely what it wants - a veneer of regulatory cover to keep wrecking the economy and stealing the public blind.

Simon Johnson is also critical. He's a former IMF chief economist, now teaching at MIT's Sloan School of Management. After reviewing Obama's plan, he expressed great skepticism. Even though large banks and other financial institutions caused the global crisis, no wrongdoing on their part is cited nor are punitive measures proposed. He states:

"There appears to be no mention that corporate governance within these large banks failed totally. How on earth can you expect these banks to operate in a responsible manner unless and until you address the reckless manner in which they (a) compensate themselves, (b) destroy shareholder value, and (c) treat boards of directors as toothless wonders? The profound silence on this point from the administration - including some of our finest economic, financial, and legal thinkers - is breathtaking...."

"Based on what we see so far, there is little reason to be encouraged. The reform process appears to have been captured at any early stage - by design the lobbyists were let into the executive branch's (planning process), so we don't even get to have a transparent debate or to hear specious arguments about why we really need big banks."

Johnson (like Hudson) added that financial giants are pleased with Obama's plan, and why not. They or their lobbyists wrote it. On June 16, even The New York Times suggested it in Stephen Labaton article headlined: "Obama Sought a Range of Views on Finance Rules." Over several weeks, "executives from an array of industries caught up in the financial crisis came to Washington....to make their case for how the new regulatory landscape should look. They came from big banks and small ones, insurance companies, stock exchanges, hedge funds and mutual funds" as well as consumer groups and labor for appearance sake only.

"Now lobbyists....will head to Congress to try to influence the final product" with no doubt they will so once again consumer interests will be shortchanged - perhaps globally given events reported earlier this year and discussed below.

Steps Toward Global Money and Banking Control

In her April 18, 2009 article titled "The Tower of Basel: Do We Really Want the Bank for International Settlements Issuing Our Global Currency," Ellen Brown quoted Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the London Telegraph (April 7) saying:

On April 2, "A single clause in Point 19 of the communique issued by the G-20 leaders amounts to a revolution in the global financial order."

"We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250 (billion) into the world economy and increase global liquidity...SDRs are Special Drawing Rights, a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund that has lain dormant for half a century."

"In effect, the G-20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global 'quantitative easing.' In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body."

Brown agrees and highlighted the article's subtitle: "The world is a step closer to a global currency, backed by a global central bank, running monetary policy for all humanity." What might it be, she asked? The Bank of International Settlements (BIS) - the secretive 55-member nation, central bank of central bankers. Based in Basel, Switzerland, it's run by the monetary authorities of six dominant nations - America, Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Japan and Britain.

Objective V in Obama's financial reform plan addresses "Rais(ing) International Standards and Improving International Cooperation" by promoting global control in a single paragraph:

"The United States is playing a strong leadership role in efforts to coordinate international policy through the G-20, the Financial Stability Board, and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. We will use our leadership position in the international community to promote (an) initiative compatible with the domestic regulatory reforms described in this report."

Near the end of the plan, it recommends "Strengthen(ing) the Financial Stability Board....complet(ing) its restructuring and institutionaliz(ing) its new mandate to promote global financial stability by September 2009." It also urges "work(ing) with the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) and standard setters to develop macroprudential tools" with Obama asking other nations to follow America's lead.

What is the FSB, and why is it important?

The Financial Stability Forum (FSF) Becomes the Financial Stability Board (FSB)

Founded at a Bonn, Germany meeting in 1999 when Bundesbank president, Hans Tietmeyer, recommend it to G-7 finance ministers and central bank governors, the FSF consists of central bankers and finance ministers of about a dozen key nations working together for their mutual self-interest.

A decade later at the G-20's April 2 London Summit, these nations agreed to let a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) regulate their economies henceforth as stated in a concluding communique:

"In particular we agree:

-- to establish a new Financial Stability Board (FSB) with a strengthened mandate, as a successor to the Financial Stability Forum (FSF), including all G-20 countries, FSF members, Spain, and the European Commission;

-- that the FSB should collaborate with the IMF to provide early warning of macroeconomic and financial risks and the actions needed to address them; (and)

-- to extend regulation and oversight to all systemically important financial institutions, instruments and markets."

The G-20's same day's press release headlined: "Financial Stability Forum re-established as the Financial Stability Board (with an) expanded membership (and) a broadened mandate to promote financial stability."

It "consists of a Chairperson, a Steering Committee, the Plenary with member countries, SSBs (standard setting bodies) and international financial institutions, and a Secretariat. The Chair oversees the Steering Committee, the Plenary and the Secretariat. The FSB Plenary is the decision making organ of the FSB." It has a "full-time Secretary General and an enlarged Secretariat based in Basel (to) support the FSB." Membership also obligates countries to "implement international financial standards (including 12 International Standards and Codes)...." with no elaboration about them except in broad terms left for outsiders to imagine what's meant.

Plenary members include G-20 nations, Spain and the European Commission - represented by their central bankers, immediate deputies, heads of their main regulatory agency, deputy finance ministers, SSB chairs, central bank committees, and representatives of the IMF, World Bank, BIS and OECD - together the world's monetary movers and shakers.

The FSB appears to be a step closer toward global monetary control under the direction of the G-7 dominated BIS, IMF and other international lending agencies. Given its inclusion in Obama's financial reform proposal makes the entire package suspect and perhaps just cover for the above-outlined sinister scheme - as well as letting Wall Street be self-regulating.

In her June 21 article titled "Big Brother in Basel: Have We Traded Our National Sovereignty for Financial Stability," Ellen Brown cites Internet rumors "that the new agency benignly called the Financial Stability Board (FSB) is the latest sinister development in the covert consolidation of global financial power in a few private hands," - namely dominant G-7 central bankers controlling the BIS, IMF, and other international lending agencies.

She and this writer believe that Orwell was "25 Years Too Early," but might not have imagined the scenario now playing out as a way to "pull off a private global dictatorship (by): (1) creat(ing) a global crisis; (2) appoint(ing) an 'advisory body' to retain and maintain 'stability;' and (3) 'formaliz(ing)' the advisory body as global regulator" - supposedly to fix a broken system but in fact to be a "bloodless coup" with the public none the wiser until it's too late.

So far, there's still time to prevent it provided enough concerned people know the danger, spread the word to others, and urge them to pass it on. Otherwise, holding on to your wallets won't matter because everything in them will be emptied the result of (banker-controlled) regulatory bodies pulling off the greatest ever financial heist - a global coup d'etat. The time to stop it is now and expose Obama as a frontman for grand theft and power.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14024

Reviewing F. William Engdahl's "Full Spectrum Dominance:" Part I

Reviewing F. William Engdahl's "Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order:" Part I - by Stephen Lendman

For over 30 years, F. William Engdahl has been a leading researcher, economist, and analyst of the New World Order with extensive writing to his credit on energy, politics, and economics. He contributes regularly to business and other publications, is a frequent speaker on geopolitical, economic and energy issues, and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Engdahl's two previous books include "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order" explaining that America's post-WW II dominance rests on two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world's reserve currency along with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.

Engdahl's other book is titled "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation" on how four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting all life forms to force-feed GMO foods on everyone - even though eating them poses serious human health risks.

Engdahl's newest book is reviewed below. Titled "Full Strectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order," it discusses America's grand strategy, first revealed in the 1998 US Space Command document - Vision for 2020. Later released in 2000 as DOD Joint Vision 2020, it called for "full spectrum dominance" over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any adversary, including with nuclear weapons preemptively.

Other means as well, including propaganda, NGOs and Color Revolutions for regime change, expanding NATO eastward, and "a vast array of psychological and economic warfare techniques" as part of a "Revolution in Military Affairs" discussed below.

September 11, 2001 served as pretext to consolidate power, destroy civil liberties and human rights, and wage permanent wars against invented enemies for global dominance over world markets, resources, and cheap labor - at the expense of democratic freedoms and social justice. Engdahl's book presents a frightening view of the future, arriving much sooner than most think.

Introduction

After the Soviet Union's dissolution in late 1989, America had a choice. As the sole remaining superpower, it could have worked for a new era of peace and prosperity, ended decades of Cold War tensions, halted the insane arms race, turned swords into plowshares, and diverted hundreds of billions annually from "defense" to "rebuild(ing) civilian infrastructure and repair(ing) impoverished cities."

Instead, Washington, under GHW Bush and his successors, "chose stealth, deception, lies and wars to attempt to control the Eurasian Heartland - its only potential rival as an economic region - by military (political, and economic) force," and by extension planet earth through an agenda later called "full spectrum dominance."

As a result, the Cold War never ended and today rages with over a trillion dollars spent annually on "defense" in all forms even though America has no enemy, nor did it after the Japanese surrendered in August 1945. So the solution was to invent them, and so they were.

Post-Soviet Russia, "The 'new' Cold War assumed various disguises and deceptive tactics until September 11, 2001" changed the game. It let George Bush "declare (a) permanent (Global War on Terror) against an enemy who was everywhere and nowhere, who allegedly threatened the American way of life, justified (police state) laws," and is now destroying our freedoms and futures.

The roots of the scheme go back decades - at least to 1939 when powerful New York Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) insiders planned a post-war world with one nation alone triumphant and unchallengeable.

Engdahl's book is a geopolitical analysis of the past two decades - peering into "the dark corners of Pentagon strategy and actions and the extreme dangers ('full spectrum dominance' holds for) the future," not just to America but the entire world.

Things are so out-of-control today that democratic freedoms and planetary life itself are threatened by "the growing risk of nuclear war by miscalculation" or the foolhardy assumption that waging it can be limited, controlled, and safe - like turning a faucet on and off. The very notion is implausible and reckless on its face, yet powerful forces in the country think this way and plan accordingly.

The Guns of August 2008

On the 8th day of the 8th month of the 8th year of the new century, a place few people in the West ever heard of made headlines when Georgia's army invaded South Ossetia - its province that broke away in 1991 and declared its independence. For a brief period, world tensions were more heightened than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when only cooler heads avoided possible nuclear war.

Like then, the crisis was a Washington provocation with tiny Georgia a mere pawn in a dangerous high-stakes confrontation - a new Great Game that 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 explained that America's urgent task was to assure 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 is key to controlling the planet, and its the main reason for NATO's existence. From inception, its mission was offense.

Post-Cold War, Washington used the illusion of democracy to dominate everywhere - with the long arm of the Pentagon and NATO as enforcers. Euphoric East Europeans couldn't know that American-style democracy was even more repressive than what had ended. Decades of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe propaganda was soon revealed to be no different than the Soviet system they rejected and in some ways much worse.

Western-imposed "shock therapy" meant "free market" hokum, mass privatizations, ending the public sphere, unrestricted access for foreign corporations unemcumbered by pesky regulations, deep social service cuts, loss of job security, poverty wages, repressive laws, and entire economies transformed to benefit a powerful corporate ruling class partnered with corrupted political elites. Globally, Russia got billionaire "oligarchs," China "the princelings," Chile "the piranhas," and in new millennium America the Bush-Cheney "Pioneers" and Obama Wall Street Top Guns wrecking global havoc for self-enrichment.

As for ordinary people, Russia is instructive for what's heading everywhere:

-- mass impoverishment;

-- an epidemic of unemployment;

-- loss of pensions and social benefits;

-- 80% of farmers bankrupted;

-- tens of thousands of factories closed and the country de-industrialized;

-- schools closed;

-- housing in disrepair;

-- skyrocketing alcoholism, drug abuse, HIV/AIDS, suicides, and violent crime; and

-- a declining population and life expectancy because the country was looted for profit and all safety nets ended; what Milton Friedman called "freedom."

Mikhail Gorvachev tried to revitalize Soviet Russia with Glasnost and Perestroika but failed. In return for agreeing to "shock therapy" and nuclear disarmament, GHW Bush promised no eastward NATO extension into newly liberated Warsaw Pact countries. The Russian Duma, in fact, ratified Start II, providing a firm disarmament schedule - contingent on both countries prohibiting a missile defense deployment as stipulated under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).

On December 14, 2001, the Bush administration withdrew from ABM and much more. It claimed the right to develop and test new nuclear weapons (in violation of NPT), rescinded the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, greatly increased military spending, refused to consider a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty to increase already large stockpiles, and claimed the right to wage preventive wars under the doctrine of "anticipatory self-defense" using first-strike nuclear weapons.

The door was now open for enhanced militarization, creation of the US Missile Defense Agency, and proof again that trusting America is foolhardy and dangerous. Both GHW Bush and Bill Clinton lied by enticing former Warsaw Pact countries into NATO, one by one.

At the beginning of the 1990s, Zbigniew Brzezinski described America's arrogance this way:

"Presidential travels abroad assumed the trappings of imperial expeditions, overshadowing in scale and security demands the circumstances of any other statesman (reflecting) America's anointment as the world's leader (to be) in some respects reminiscent of Napoleon's self-coronation."

Brzezinski understood the dangers of imperial arrogance, causing the decline and fall of previous empires. Even a superpower like the US is vulnerable. He was very comfortable with an American Century, only leery of the means to achieve and keeping it. In 2008, with 28 NATO country members, including 10 former Warsaw Pact ones, Washington sought admission for Georgia and Ukraine, and did so after announcing in early 2007 the planned installation of interceptor missiles in Poland and advanced tracking radar in the Czech Republic, both NATO members.

Allegedly for defense against Iran and other "rogue" states, it clearly targeted Russia by guaranteeing America a nuclear first-strike edge, and that provoked a sharp Kremlin response. Washington's deployment is for offense as are all US/NATO installations globally.

Vladimir Putin expressed outrage in his February 2007 Munich International Conference on Security address stating:

"NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders. (It) does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represent a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact?"

Putin's speech drew a storm of US media Russia-bashing. Last August, it got this writer to comment in an article titled "Reinventing the Evil Empire," saying: Russia is back, proud and re-assertive, and not about to roll over for America, especially in Eurasia. For Washington, it's back to the future with a new Cold War, but this time for greater stakes and with much larger threats to world peace.

Over the past two decades, Washington upped the ante, encroaching on Russia's borders and encircling it with it with NATO/US bases clearly designed for offense and to block the spread of democratic freedoms to former Soviet Republics. "Diabolical propaganda" made it work by projecting imperial America as a colonial liberator bringing "free market" capitalism to the East. It succeeded as "long as the United States was the world's largest economy and American dollars were in demand as (the) de facto world reserve currency...." For decades, America "portray(ed) itself as the beacon of liberty for newly independent nations of Africa and Asia," as well as former Soviet Republics and Warsaw Pact nations.

Geopolitical Reality - America's New Manifest Destiny, Global Expansion to the Vastness of Eurasia

For over a century, America sought "total economic and military control over (Soviet) Russia" through the full strength of its military-industrial-security sectors - by war or other means. From 1945, the Pentagon planned a first-strike nuclear war, an "all out conventional war (called) TOTALITY (as) drafted by General Dwight Eisenhower" per Harry Truman's order, the same man who used atomic weapons against a defeated Japan instead of accepting its requested surrender.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, America's superpower supremacy depends on "precluding Eurasian countries from developing their own defense pillars or security structures independent of US-controlled NATO," especially to prevent a powerful China-Russia alliance capable of serious challenge, along with other Eurasian states, notably oil rich ones.

As geopolitical strategist Halford Mackinder (1861 - 1947) observed in his most famous dictum:

"Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland;

Who rules the Heartland commands the World-Island;

Who rules the World-Island commands the World."

Mackinder's World-Island was Eurasia, all of Europe, the Middle East and Asia.

Early in the last century and notably post-WW II, America determined to rule even at the risk of all out nuclear war. For its part, Britain intended to stay in the game, and in April 1945, Winston Churchill urged Dwight Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt "to launch an immediate full-scale war against the Soviet Union, using up to 12 captured German divisions (as) cannon fodder to destroy Russia once and for all."

Instead, Washington invented a post-war enemy, and got Europe and Asian countries to feel threatened enough to agree to US dictates, even ones contrary to their own interests. As for America, in 1945, Truman ordered Eisenhower "to prepare secret plans for a surprise nuclear strike on some (Soviet) cities (despite knowing the Kremlin) posed no direct or immediate threat to the United States" or its close allies.

A nuclear-armed Russia with intercontinental missile capabilities halted the threat - until the 2001 Bush Doctrine asserted the right to wage preventive wars, with first-strike nuclear weapons, to depose foreign regimes perceived dangerous to US security and interests. That was the strategy behind the 2008 Georgian conflict that could have escalated into nuclear war.

Defused for the moment, "a number of leading US policy makers (see Russia today) as unfinished business (and seek its) complete dismemberment (as) an independent pivot for Eurasia." Nuclear superiority, encirclement, and "diabolical propaganda" are three tools among others to finish the job and leave America the sole remaining superpower. Disempowering Russia and China will create an open field for a "total global American Century - the realization of 'full spectrum dominance,' as the Pentagon called it."

Today, under Obama as under Bush, the risk of nuclear war by miscalculation is highest in nearly half a century. With America the clear aggressor, Russia may feel its only option is strike first while able or delay and face the consequences when it's too late. The closer offensive nuclear missiles are to its borders, the nearer it gets to disempowerment, further dismemberment, and possible nuclear annihilation.

Its reaction left few doubts of its response. In February 2007, Strategic Rocket Forces commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov said "Moscow would target US Ballistic Missile Defense sites with its nuclear arsenal if Washington" proceeded with its plans. Putin delivered harsh rhetoric and announced Russia would spend $190 billion over the next eight years to modernize its military by 2015 and that state-of-the-art weapons would take precedence. His message was clear. A New Cold War/nuclear arms race was on with Russia ready to contend "out of national survival considerations," not a desire for confrontation.

"Missile Defense" for Offense

On March 23, 1983, Ronald Reagan proposed the idea in a speech calling for greater Cold War military spending, including a huge R & D program for what became known as "Star Wars" - in impermeable anti-missile space shield called the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The idea then (and now) was fantasy, but a glorious one for defense contractors who've profited hugely ever since.

The Clinton administration gave it modest support until the National Missile Defense Act of 1999 proposed an active missile defense "as soon as is technologically possible...."

When George Bush became president, Donald Rumsfeld wanted war preparations to include missile defense and space-based weapons to destroy targets anywhere in the world quickly for "full spectrum dominance." The strategy included "deployment of a revolutionary new technique of regime change to impose or install 'US-friendly' regimes throughout the former Soviet Union and across Eurasia."

Controlling Russia - Color Revolutions and Swarming Coups

"Swarming" is a RAND Corporation term referring to "communication patterns and movement of" bees and other insects and applying it to military conflict by other means. It plays out through covert CIA actions to overthrow democratically elected governments, remove foreign leaders and key officials, prop up friendly dictators, and target individuals anywhere in the world.

Also through propaganda and activities of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the International Republican Institute (IRI), and National Democratic Institute (NDI) - posing as NGOs but, in fact, are US government-funded organizations charged with subverting democracy, uprooting it where it exists, or preventing its creation by criminally disruptive means. Methods include non-violent strikes, mass street protests, and major media agitprop for regime change - much like what's now playing out in Iran after its presidential election.

Other recent examples include the Belgrade 2000 coup against Slobodan Misosevic, Georgia's 2003 Rose Revolution ousting Eduard Shevardnadze for the US-installed stooge, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the 2004-05 Ukraine Orange Revolution, based on faked electoral fraud, to install another Washington favorite, Viktor Yushchenko. The idea is to isolate Russia by cutting off its economic lifeline - the "pipeline networks that (carry its) huge reserves of oil and natural gas from the Urals and Serbia to Western Europe and Eurasia..." They run through Ukraine, a nation "so intertwined (with Russia) economically, socially and culturally, especially in the east of the country, that they were almost indistinguishable from one another."

Achieving geopolitical aims this way is far simpler and cheaper than waging wars "while convincing the world (that regime change was the result of) spontaneous outbursts for freedom. (It's) a dangerously effective weapon."

In 1953, cruder CIA methods toppled democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh - the agency's first successful coup d'etat to install Reza Shah Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran.

In 1954, it deposed the popularly elected Jacobo Arbenz and replaced him with a military dictator - on the pretext of removing a non-existent communist threat. Arbenz, like other targets, threatened US business interests by favoring land reform, strong unions, and wealth distribution to alleviate extreme poverty in their countries.

Short of war, various tactics aim to prevent them: "propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, bought elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, transportation strikes, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination (culminating in) a military (or other coup to install) a 'pro-American' right-wing dictator" - while claiming it's democracy in action. For decades, countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and other world regions have been frequent victims.

Since the CIA's 1947 creation, "national security" and a fake communist threat justified every imaginable crime from propaganda to economic warfare, sabotage, assassinations, coup d'etats, torture, foreign wars and much more.

However, by the 1960s, new forms of covert regime change emerged along the lines that RAND studies called "swarming" - the idea being to develop social manipulation techniques or disruptive outbreaks short of wars or violent uprisings. After 2000, as mentioned above, they played out in Central Europe's Color Revolutions. According to State Department and intelligence community officials, "It seemed to be the perfect model for eliminating regimes opposed to US policy," whether or not popularly elected. Every regime is now vulnerable to "new methods of warfare" by other means, including economic ones very much in play now and earlier.

Organizations like the Gene Sharp Albert Einstein Institution, George Soros' Open Society Foundation, Freedom House and others are very much involved, and Sharp's web site admits being active with "pro-democracy" groups in Burma, Thailand, Tibet, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Belarus, and Serbia. They all conveniently "coincided with the US State Department's targets for regime change over the same period."

Eurasian Pipeline Wars

Central to the current conflict is control of the region's vast oil and gas reserves, and as long as Russia can use its resources "to win economic allies in Western Europe, China, and elsewhere, it (can't) be politically isolated." As a result, Moscow reacts harshly to military encirclement and bordering Color Revolutions - hostile acts, the geopolitical equivalence of war.

For America to remain the sole superpower, controlling global oil and gas flows is crucial along with cutting off China from Caspian Sea reserves and securing the energy routes and networks between Russia and the EU.

It's why America invaded and occupies Afghanistan and Iraq, incited Baltic wars in the 1990s, attacked Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, threatens Iran repeatedly and imposes sanctions, and keeps trying to oust Hugo Chavez. For its part under Vladimir Putin, Russia's economy began to grow for the first time in decades. It's rich in oil and gas, and uses them strategically to gain influence enough to rival Washington, especially in alliance with China and other former Soviet states like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, united in the 2001-formed Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Iran and India having observer status.

Under Bush-Cheney, Washington reacted aggressively. "full spectrum dominance" is the aim with Russia and China the main targets. Controlling world energy resources is central, and nothing under Obama has changed. Iraq's occupation continues and Afghanistan operations are enhanced with increased troop deployments under newly appointed General Stanley McChrystal's command - a hired gun, a man with a reputation for brutishness that includes torture, assassinations, indifference to civilian deaths, and willingness to destroy villages to save them.

As long as Russia and China stay free from US control, "full spectrum dominance" is impossible. Encircling the former with NATO bases, Color Revolutions, and incorporating former Soviet states into NATO and the EU are all part of the same grand strategy - "deconstruct(ing) Russia once and for all as a potential rival to a sole US Superpower hegemony."

Vladimir Putin stands in the way, "a dynamic nationalist (leader) committed to rebuilding" his country. In 2003, a defining geopolitical event occurred when Putin had billionaire oligarch, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, arrested on charges of tax evasion and put his shares in giant Yukos Oil group under state control.

It followed a decisive Russian Duma (lower house) election in which Khodorkovsky "was reliably alleged" to have used his wealth for enough votes to gain a majority - to challenge Putin in 2004 for president. Khodorkovsky violated his pledge to stay out of politics in return for keeping his assets and stolen billions provided he repatriate enough of them back home.

His arrest also came after a report surfaced about a meeting with Dick Cheney in Washington, followed by others with ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco. They discussed acquiring a major stake of up to 40% of Yukos or enough to give Washington and Big Oil "de facto veto power over future Russian oil and gas pipelines and oil deals." Khodorkovsky also met with GHW Bush and had ties to the Carlyle Group, the influential US firm with figures like James Baker one of its partners.

Had Exxon and Chevron consummated the deal, it would have been an "energy coup d'etat. Cheney knew it; Bush knew it; Khodorkovsky knew it. Above all, Vladimir Putin knew it and moved decisively to block it" and hit hard on Khodorkosky in the process. It "signaled a decisive turn....towards rebuilding Russia and erecting strategic defenses." By late 2004, Moscow understood that a New Cold War was on over "strategic energy control and unilateral nuclear primacy," and Putin moved from defense to a "new dynamic offensive aimed at securing a more viable geopolitical position by using (Russia's) energy as the lever."

It involves reclaiming Russia's oil and gas reserves given away by Boris Yeltsin. Also strengthening and modernizing the country's military and nuclear deterrent to enhance its long-term security. Russia remains a military powerhouse and displays impressive technology at international trade shows, including the S-300 and more powerful S-400, reportedly more potent than comparable US systems.

Controlling China with Synthetic Democracy

From the 1940s to today, America's China strategy has been "divide and conquer," only tactics have varied from "big stick" to "carrot-and-stick" diplomacy. Key is to keep Russia and China from cooperating economically and militarily, "maintain a strategy of tension across Asia, and particularly Eurasia" (that, of course includes the Middle East and its oil riches) - for the overarching goal of total "control of China as the potential economic colossus of Asia."

With America embroiled in Eurasian wars, policy now "masquerad(es) behind the issues of human rights and 'democracy' as weapons of psychological and economic warfare."

Another initiative as well is ongoing - the 2007 AFRICOM authorization, the US Africa Command to control the continent's 53 countries no differently than the rest of the world, using military force as necessary. China's increasing need for Africa's resources (including oil), not terrorism, is the reason.

The 2008 Army Modernization Strategy (AMS) focuses on "full spectrum dominance," controlling world resources, and the prospect of wars for three to four decades to secure them. China and Russia are most feared as serious competitors - the former for its explosive economic growth and resource requirements and the latter for its energy, other raw material riches, and military strength.

AMS also included another threat - "population growth" threatening America and the West with "radical ideologies" and hence instability as well as unwanted "resource competition" that expanding economies require - everything from food to water, energy and other raw materials. These issues lay behind AFRCOM's creation and strategy for hardline militarism globally.

America's second president, John Adams, once said: "there are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt," or more broadly economic warfare. With much of US manufacturing offshored in China, both methods are constrained so an alternative scheme is used - human rights and democracy by an America disdaining both at home or abroad.

Nonetheless, in 2004, the State Department's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor targeted China on these issues with millions in funding, headed by a right-wing conservative, Paula Dobriansky. She's a CFR member, NED vice chairman, Freedom House board member, senior fellow at the neo-conservative Hudson Institute, and member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) at which she endorsed attacking Iraq in 1998. Now she targets China with "soft warfare" strategy that's just as deadly.

Other tools include the Dalai Lama organizations in Tibet, Falun Gong in China, "an arsenal of (global) NGOs" carefully recruited for their mission, and, of course, the Western media, including public television and radio in America and BBC globally.

Weaponizing Human Rights - From Darfur to Myanmar to Tibet

In targeting China, Washington's human rights/democracy offensive focused on Myanmar, Tibet, and oil-rich Darfur. Called the "Saffron Revolution" in Myanmar (formerly Burma), it featured Western media images of saffron-robed Buddhist Monks on Yangon (formerly Rangoon) streets calling for more democracy. "Behind the scenes, however, was a battle of major geopolitical consequence" with Myanmar's people mere props for a Washington-hatched scheme - employing Eurasian Color Revolution tactics:

-- "hit-and-run swarming" mobs of monks;

-- connecting protest groups through internet blogs and mobile text-messaging links; and

-- having command-and-control over protest cells, dispersed and re-formed as ordered with no idea who pulled the strings or why - a hidden sinister objective targeting China for greater geopolitical control and destabilizing Myanmar to do it.

Also at stake is control of vital sea lanes from the Persian Gulf to the South China Sea with the Myanmar coastline "providing shipping and naval access to one of the world's most strategic waterways, the Strait of Malacca, the narrow ship passage between Malaysia and Indonesia."

Since 9/11, the Pentagon tried but failed to militarize the region except for an airbase on Indonesia's northernmost tip. Myanmar rejected similar overtures - hence its being targeted for its strategic importance. "The Strait of Malacca, linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans, (is) the shortest sea route between the Persian Gulf and China. (It's) the key chokepoint in Asia" so controlling it is key. China has close ties to Myanmar. It's provided billions in military assistance and developed the infrastructure. The country is also oil-rich, on its territory and offshore.

China is the world's fastest growing energy market. Over 80% of its oil imports pass through the Strait. Controlling it keeps a chokehold over China's life-line, and if it's ever closed, about half the world's tanker fleet would have thousands of extra miles to travel at far higher freight costs.

In summer 2007, Myanmar and PetroChina signed a long-term Memorandum of Understanding - to supply China with substantial natural gas from its Shwe gas field in the Bay of Bengal. India was the main loser after China offered to invest billions for a strategic China-Myanmar oil and gas pipeline across the country to China's Yunnan Province. The same pipeline could give China access to Middle East and African oil by bypassing the Malacca Strait. "Myanmar would become China's 'bridge' linking Bangladesh and countries westward to the China mainland" trumping Washington should it succeed in controlling the Strait - a potential geopolitical disaster America had to prevent, hence the 2007 "Saffron Revolution" that failed.

India's Dangerous Alliance Shift

From 2005, India was "pushed into a strategic alliance with Washington" to counter China's growing influence in Asia and to have a "capable partner who can take on more responsibility for low-end operations" - directed at China and to provide bases and access to project US power in the region. To sweeten the deal, the Bush administration offered to sell (nuclear outlaw) India advanced nuclear technology. At the same time, it bashed Iran for its legitimate commercial operations, and now Obama threatens hardened sanctions and perhaps war without year end 2009 compliance with clearly outrageous demands.

Part II continues Engdahl's important analysis to conclusion.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14024

Iran's Election and US - Iranian Elections

Iran's Election and US - Iranian Relations - by Stephen Lendman

In the run-up to Iran's June 12 presidential election, early indications suggested the media's reaction if the wrong candidate won. On June 7, New York Times writer Robert Worth reported "a surge of energy (for) Mir Hussein Mousavi, a reformist who is the leading contender to defeat Mr. Ahmadinejad (and) a new unofficial poll (has him well ahead) with 54 percent of respondents saying they would vote for him compared with 39 percent for Mr. Ahmadinejad." No mention of who conducted the poll, how it was done, what interests they represented, or if Mousavi winning might be the wrong result. More on that below.

Writing for the influential far right Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Fariborz Ghadar described the contest as "pit(ting) the hard-line Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against two relatively moderate and one conservative challenger." In spite of one or more independent polls showing Ahmadinejad way ahead, he suggested that "the outcome (isn't) all that clear." More on the poll results below.

The Wall Street Journal sounded a similar tone in calling Ahmadinejad's opponents "two reformists and one conservative (who) criticized his government for its lack of tolerance. Each has promised more personal and social freedom if elected."

Newsweek quoted Iranian historian Mohammed Javad Mozafar saying:

"The choice is....between democracy and an authoritarian government. If Ahmadinejad wins, that means the end of this reformist dream for a while. Many of these young people will be depressed and even leave the country. But if Mousavi wins, that means the citizens have won despite Ahmadinejad's deceitful policies and the support he receives from above (meaning Iran's Guardian Council and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei)."

The dominant US media repeated similar comments to the above ones, so their post-June 12 response was no surprise.

On June 13, Robert Worth and Nazila Fathi in The New York Times headlined: "Protests Flare in Tehran as Opposition Disputes Vote," then described "the most intense protests in a decade....with riot police officers using batons and tear gas against opposition demonstrators who claimed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had stolen the presidential election."

The Wall Street Journal called the election "a sham" and cited the AP reporting that "election authorities were miraculously able to count millions of paper ballots (in just hours) after the polls closed to hand Mr. Ahmadinejad his supposed victory." It quoted writer Laura Secor in the New Yorker saying: "What is most shocking is not the fraud itself, but that it was brazen and entirely without pretext."

Perhaps she meant "precedent," but either way she ignored two stolen US elections for George Bush and the shameful media response to them.

Also disturbing are more moderate, supposedly even-handed, and progressive US voices. On June 13, Stephen Zunes asked "Has the Election Been Stolen in Iran?" Again with no evidence he wrote:

"....predictions of knowledgeable Iranian observers from various countries and from across the political spectrum were nearly unanimous in the belief that the leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would (win) decisively.." Given the results, "the only reasonable assumption was that there has been fraud on a massive scale."

Juan Cole admitted "difficulties of catching history on the run (and said evidence) may emerge for Ahmadinejad's upset that does not involve fraud," yet he concluded on first reaction that "this post-election situation looks to me like a crime scene."

The Nation magazine has had a shameful record since inception. In more recent years, it called the US-led NATO Serbia-Kosovo aggression "humanitarian intervention." Initially it supported the Afghanistan war and the Iraq war in its run-up and early months. In 2000 and 2004, it ignored blatant electoral fraud for George Bush. It attacks Hugo Chavez, and was hostile to Jean-Bertrand Aristide during his years as Haiti's President. It called the 2008 US presidential campaign the "Obama Moment" for his "historic candidacy" and keeps supporting him despite his brazen betrayal of voters who elected him.

Now it's at it again in a June 13 Robert Dreyfuss article headlined, "Iran's Ex-Foreign Minister Yazdi: It's a Coup" in which (without no substantiating evidence) he called the election "rigged," referred to Ahmadinejad as "radical-right," and said "his paramilitary backers were kept in office." Now "Iran's capital (is) steeped in anger, despair, and bitterness" as he almost cheerled for a "color revolution" with comments like:

"For years, the hardline clergy and their allies, including Ahmadinejad, have feared nothing more than an Iranian-style 'color revolution.' Now, Mousavi - with solid establishment credentials, an Islamic revolutionary pedigree second to none, and an outspoken pro-reform message - finds himself at the head of a green parade" in contrast to "Ahmadinejad's Red Tide," a reference to "the red-armband-wearing, virtual fascist movement in support of reelecting" him.

A lack of journalistic and analytical integrity on the left and right continues to hype fraud without a shred of supportive evidence, so something sinister may be visible on Iranian streets. If true, the Obama administration likely is behind it or at least in support, so Iranians need remember their history.

More on that below, but first some background. Four candidates participated, each of whom was vetted and approved by Iran's Guardian Council and most importantly Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - a system similar to America where democracy is illusory because party bosses choose candidates, big money controls them, key outcomes are predetermined, horse race journalism and media hype substitute for honest coverage, independent voices are suppressed, vital issues go unaddressed, voter disenfranchisement is rife, and corporate-run electronic voting machines decide winners, not the electorate.

In Iran, the Guardian Counsel's approved candidates seek closer relations with America and less confrontation. In deference to Iran's business and elitist interests, they favor austerity measures against Iranian workers. In March, Ahmadinejad's budget called for reduced spending by eliminating subsidies on water, fuel and electricity but kept "targeted" ones in place for the nation's poor.

On November 6, Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama on his election and wrote: "The great civilization-building and justice-seeking nation of Iran would welcome major, fair and real changes, in policies and actions, especially in this region." On February 10, he said he was willing to negotiate "in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect," short of surrendering Iranian sovereignty. Given 30 years of confrontation since 1979, it's doubtful that's enough, despite recent hints of rapprochement from Washington.

The four candidates included:

-- current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; in 2005, he scored a decisive second round victory over former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (61.69% - 35.93%), one of Iran's wealthiest men, notoriously corrupt, and despised by Iranian workers and the poor; since elected, Ahmadinejad has been mischaracterized, misquoted, and vilified in Washington, Tel Aviv, and the West for supporting Palestine's legitimate Hamas government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran's right to peaceful commercial nuclear power development; he's supported by Iran's military, conservative elements, Iranian workers, and the nation's urban and rural poor;

-- Mir Hossein Mousavi served earlier (from 1981 - 1989) as Iran's Prime Minister (before constitutional changes ended the position) and is currently president of the Iranian Academy of Arts and a member of the Expediency Discernment Council and High Council of Cultural Revolution; earlier he served as Foreign Minister; as Prime Minister, he was hardline and anti-Western during the Iran - Iraq war when he imposed austerity measures to finance it; today, he draws support from portions of Iran's ruling elite and urban middle class, especially students and youths who favor better relations with America;

-- Mohsen Rezaei is a politician, economist, and former Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC) commander; he's currently Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council and drew sparse support in the June 12 election; and

-- Mehdi Karroubi is a cleric and former parliamentary speaker; he's currently chairman of the National Trust party and founding member and former chairman of the Association of Combatant Clerics party; he also scored poorly in election results that came down to a contest between the two leading candidates.

On June 13, Iran's Interior Minister, Sadeq Mahsouli, announced the following results after which street protests erupted:

-- turnout was 85% of eligible voters

-- Ahmadinejad won with 62.63%

-- Mousavi was second with 33.75%

-- Rezaei got 1.73%

-- Karroubi had 0.85%, and

-- 1.04% of ballots were voided.

Evidence that Ahmadinejad Really Won

One or more independent pre-election polls conducted several weeks before June 12 provide evidence of Ahmadinejad's strong victory, and it shouldn't surprise. It was comparable to his sweeping 2005 runoff win in which he trounced former President Rafsanjani as explained above. This time, no second round was needed because only two dominant candidates contested. The others needn't have bothered as final results showed.

Although Iran is a theocracy with standards leaving a lot to be desired, it's one of the few Middle East countries holding real elections, unlike regional monarchies or dictatorial states like Egypt where Hosni Mubarak has ruled for nearly 30 years and wins easily with well over 90% of the "vote" in little more than a sham process.

Pre-Election Independent Poll Results

Ken Ballen is president of Terror Free Tomorrow: the Center for Public Opinion, a nonprofit institute that researches attitudes toward extremism. Patrick Doherty is deputy director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation Washington-based think tank chaired by Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

On June 15 in the Washington Post, they reported the results of their May 11 - 20 poll based on 1001 nationwide Iranian voter interviews (in all 30 provinces) with a 3.1% margin of error.

While Western media reported a surge for Mousavi, the results showed Ahmadinejad way ahead. "The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, (Iran's second largest ethnic group after Persians), to woo Azeri voters." Yet poll results showed they favored Ahmadinejad 2 - 1.

Also, 18 - 24 year-olds strongly supported Ahmadinejad while Mousavi scored well only among university students and graduates and Iran's "highest-income" earners. The writers concluded "the possibility that the vote (was) not the product of widespread fraud" but reflected the electorate's true choice. They also said:

"Before other countries, including the United States, jump to the conclusion that the Iranian presidential elections were fraudulent, with the grave consequences such charges could bring, they should consider all independent information. The fact may simply be that the reelection of President Ahmadinejad is what the Iranian people wanted."

Perhaps so according to University of Michigan Professor Walter Mebane. He used statistical and computational "election forensics" to detect fraud in comparing 366 Iranian district results with those in the 2005 election and concluded that "substantial core" local results were in line with basic statistical trends. "In 2009, Mr. Ahmadinejad tended to do best in towns where his (2005) support was highest, and he tended to do worst (where) turnout surged the most." He didn't rule out the possibility of manipulation but found no evidence to prove it.

Nonetheless, Washington may be capitalizing on a pretext to stir trouble with large protests continuing for days. Obama hinted it in a June 12 statement several hours before polls closed by saying: "....just as has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well is that you're seeing people looking for new possibilities" - perhaps aided by covert CIA mischief, comparable to earlier decades of subversion, beginning in Iran in 1953.

America's Post-WW II Meddling in Iran

Before becoming Prime Minister in 1951, Mohammed Mossadegh served in parliament beginning in 1944 and also worked with other members of the National Front of Iran (Jebhe Melli) to establish democracy, free of foreign influence, especially with regard to oil.

In December 1944, he introduced a bill to bar foreign country oil negotiations, yet Britain retained control through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) at a time Iran's southern region had the world's largest known reserves. In late 1947, the government demanded a greater revenue share but Britain refused. In 1951, one month before Mossadegh became Prime Minister, Iran's parliament nationalized the AIOC and paid fair compensation for it.

Economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. Iranian assets were also frozen in British banks. Major Anglo-America oil interests supported London, while a CIA coup aimed to oust Mossadegh. Conceived by Theodore Roosevelt's grandson Kermit, it took two attempts to succeed, and began each time by filling the streets with protesters against a leader The New York Times called "the most popular politician in the country." Nonetheless, a military showdown followed against pro-Mossadegh officers with each side staking their careers on choosing the winning one.

Mossadegh was ousted. Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to power. Sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained their client state until February 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and deposed him.

F. William Engdahl explained it in his important book, "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order." In 1978, a White House Iran task force recommended ousting the Shah and replacing him with Ayatollah Khomeini, then living in France. It was part of a larger scheme to balkanize the Middle East along tribal and religious lines and create an "Arc of Crisis" from Central Asia to the Soviet Union.

Doing it in 1978 became urgent at a time the Shah was negotiating a 25-year oil agreement with British Petroleum (BP), but talks broke down in October. BP demanded exclusive rights to future output but refused to guarantee oil purchases. The Shah balked and looked for new buyers in continental Europe and elsewhere.

He also sought to create a modern energy infrastructure built around nuclear power generation to transform the region's power needs. He envisioned 20 new reactors by 1995, wanted to diversity Iran's dependence on oil to weaken Washington's pressure to recycle petrodollars, and also increase investments in leading continental European companies.

Washington was alarmed, tried to block the plan but failed, and resorted instead to destabilization, starting with cutting Iranian purchases. Economic pressures and oil strikes followed along with US and UK agitators fanning religious discontent and other turmoil. The Carter administration urged Iran's Savak secret police to crack down as a way to arouse anti-Shah sentiment. Western media highlighted it, gave Khomeini a public stage to speak and prevented the Shah from responding.

In January 1979, things came to a head. The Shah fled the country, Khomeini returned, and proclaimed a theocratic state. By May, he cancelled Iran's nuclear plans. America thought it could control him and his nation's oil but calculated wrongly. Tensions built, thirty years later they continue, and post-June 12 they may again be coming to a boil.

Iranian Street Protests and Their Ominous Possibilities

Leading up to and after the Iranian election, The New York Times played its customary role as lead media gatekeeper/instigator doing what it does best - sanitizing news, filtering out uncomfortable truths, and presenting distorted opinions for the powerful interests it represents.

Roger Cohen's June 17 op-ed said 40 million Iranian "votes (were) flouted," many of whom "have crossed over from reluctant acquiescence to the Islamic Republic into opposition. (The Republic) has lost legitimacy. It is fissured. It will not be the same again." Does he know something we don't?

He called Mousavi "the reformist of impeccable revolutionary credentials." He's "a credible vehicle for a reform regime that serves to preserve it - an acceptable compromise to most Iranians." No matter that most of them apparently preferred Ahmadinejad, an outcome neither Cohen nor the Times accepts, or perhaps they and Washington do to be able to use his victory to incite trouble.

On June 17, The Times' feature story highlighted "Iranians angry at the results of last week's election (marshaled) tens of thousands (in) the streets (in spite of) signs of an intensified crackdown....the government expanded (it) with more arrests and pressure against journalists to limit coverage of the protests."

Scant mention was made of huge pro-Ahmadinejad crowds in central Tehran nor has there been in other media reports, especially on television where, not surprisingly, coverage has been distorted, one-way, and hostile to the Iranian president and regime, much as it's always been.

What's going on? Are anti-Ahmadinejad protests spontaneous or are covert instigators inciting them?

The Pak Alert Press reported that former Pakistani Army General Mirza Aslam Beig claims that the CIA distributed around $400 million inside Iran to incite revolution. In a June 15 interview with Pashto Radio, he cited "undisputed" intelligence proving interference.

"The documents prove that the CIA spend $400 million inside Iran to prop up a colorful-hollow revolution following the election" to incite regime change for a pro-Western government. He called Ahmadinejad's victory "a decisive point in regional policy and if Pakistan and Afghanistan unite with Iran, the US has to leave the area, especially (from) occupied Afghanistan."

Writing in the New Yorker's June 29, 2008 issue, Seymour Hersh said "Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country's religious leadership."

Involved is support for Iranian dissidents and "gathering intelligence about Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program." Perhaps later to disrupt the presidential election with Hersh saying Bush's Finding "focussed on undermining Iran's nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change (by)working with opposition groups and passing money," according to a person familiar with its contents. His account is a year old but may be relevant to today, hopefully something he'll substantiate in a future report given what's now playing out.

On June 16, Computerworld's Robert McMillan reported more of it in writing about key Iranian web sites knocked offline. "On (June 15), sites belonging to Iranian news agencies, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's supreme leader (Khamenei) were knocked offline after activists opposed to the Iranian government posted tools designed to barrage these websites with traffic."

"This type of attack, known as a denial of service (DoS) attack, has become a standard political protest tool, and has been used by grassroots protesters" in previous cyber-incidents, including Georgia in 2008. Initial efforts were to recruit Iranian protesters, but international users are now being targeted.

Dancho Danchev is a security consultant. He counted 12 Iranian sites under attack, including news agencies, the Foreign Affairs Ministry, National Police, and Ministries of Interior and Justice. Iranian officials have responded in kind to prevent protesters from social networking. Iran's General Internet service was also disrupted for a short time. It's again operating but anything may happen going forward. Computer World said Twitter "emerged as the major source of information on the protests, and is being" picked up in major media coverage.

Of interest is a June 18 Yaroslav Trofimov Wall Street Journal online article headlined "Some Israelis Prize Ahmadinejad's Role." He explained that some high level Israelis prefer him in power. One is Mossad chief, Meir Dagan, telling a closed Knesset committee hearing that his controversial reputation "makes it easier for Israel to enlist international support against Iran's nuclear program." Mousavi winning, however, would have created "a graver problem."

Israeli officials said that in the 1980s, Mousavi "jump-started Iran's nuclear drive" as prime minister. Both he and Ahmadinejad "pose the same threat. But it's better for Israel that you have a leader with a very dangerous ideology who speaks clearly so that nobody can ignore him," according to Knesset deputy speaker Danny Danon. A more soft-spoken president promising improved relations "would have made it harder for us to recruit the world to our side," he added, and the same argument holds for America.

Addressing the issue of a stolen election, Dagan dismissed it out of hand in saying alleged ballot-stuffing in Iran is no worse than common electoral fraud in all democracies. In his judgment, protests will fizzle in several days.

Ardesir Ommni, co-founder and president of the American Iranian Friendship Committee (AIFC), headlined his June 16 Mathaba.net article "Iran: Another Face of Velvet Revolution" in suggesting that Ahmadinejad's opposition "is doing its utmost to create unrest and prepare the ground for a velvet takeover" much like others in Georgia and Ukraine as well as twice before in Iran.

It's not "realizable in Iran," he said, "because the workers and farmers, the millions who gave the lives of their children for the cause of independence and sovereignty, defend the Revolution and their real President who has frustrated the schemes and plots of the warmongers. (They're proud that) Ahmadinejad has defied and resisted the war threats and sanctions by the same powers that have ruined the lives of" millions throughout the world and want no part of it themselves.

On June 15, Marxist.com editor Alan Woods expressed another view in headlining "Iran: the Revolution has begun." He cited "dramatic events" with hundreds of thousands in Tehran and other city streets disputing the election results. Some marched silently. Others were vocal, angry and confronted by riot police crackdowns.

"The protests have marked the most serious display of discontent in the Islamic Republic in years. The breath of the mass movement is unprecedented (expressing) the accumulated rage and frustration that has been accumulating for the past 30 years....Power is slipping from the trembling hands of the leaders and passing to the streets....Nobody can say where events will end. But one thing is certain: Iran will never be the same again....the Iranian Revolution has begun!"

Woods sees it growing and suggests it's progressing "through a whole series of stages before it has finally run its course. But in the end we are sure that it will triumph. When that moment comes, it will have explosive repercussions throughout the Middle East, Asia, and the whole world."

Who can say if he, Ommni, or others are right or if Washington is plotting regime change, much like before in Iran and throughout the world. Thus far, events are fast moving with no clear outcome in sight. It remains to be seen whether Iranians or imperial America will prevail, then what happens next in this volatile part of the world.

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 Monday - Friday for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13972

Afghanistan's Operation Phoenix

Afghanistan's Operation Phoenix - by Stephen Lendman

On June 15, AP reported that "Gen. Stanley McChrystal, a four-star American general with a long history in special operations, took charge of US and NATO troops in Afghanistan (today), a change in command the Pentagon hopes will turn the tide in an increasingly violent eight-year war."

McChrystal is a hired gun, an assassin, a man known for committing war crime atrocities as head of the Pentagon's infamous Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) - established in 1980 and comprised of the Army's Delta Force and Navy Seals, de facto death squads writer Seymour Hersh described post-9/11 as an "executive assassination wing" operating out of Dick Cheney's office.

A 2006 Newsweek profile called JSOC "part of what Vice President Dick Cheney was referring to when he said America would have to 'work on the dark side' after 9/11." It called McChrystal then "an affable but tough Army Ranger" with no elaboration of his "dark side" mission.

In his May 17 article titled "Obama's Animal Farm: Bigger, Bloodier Wars Equal Peace and Justice," James Petras called him a "notorious psychopath" in describing him this way:

His rise through the ranks was "marked by his central role in directing special operations teams engaged in extrajudicial assassinations, systematic torture, bombing of civilian communities and search and destroy missions. He is the very embodiment of the brutality and gore that accompanies military-driven empire building."

His resume shows contempt for human life and the rule of law - a depravity Conrad described in his classic work, "Heart of Darkness:" the notion of "exterminat(ing) all the brutes" to civilize them, and removing lesser people to colonize and dominate them by devising battle plans amounting to genocide.

In June 2001, McChrystal became Chief of Staff, XVIII Airborne Corp. After the Afghanistan invasion, he was appointed Chief of Staff, Combined Joint Task Force 180, Operation Enduring Freedom. In September 2003, he was Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC). In February 2006, he became Commander, Joint Special Operations - Command/Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, United States Special Operations, then in August 2008 General Director, the Joint Staff until his current appointment as US/NATO Afghanistan commander.

Detailed information of his role in these capacities is classified and unacknowledged, but Human Rights Watch (HRW) revealed some of what he directed in its July 22, 2006 report titled "No Blood, No Foul" - meaning short of drawing blood, all abuses were acceptable and wouldn't result in investigations or prosecution.

HRW reported soldiers' firsthand accounts of detainee abuse by Task Force 20/121/6-26/145 at Baghdad's Camp Nama (an acronym for Nasty-Ass Military Area) and elsewhere in Iraq.

JSOC's assignment was (and still is) to capture or kill "high-value" combatants, including Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, and many hundreds of Iraqis targeted in sweeping capture and extermination missions that include lots of collateral killings and destruction.

Through most of 2003 and 2004, detainees were held at interrogation facilities like Camp Nama at Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). With good reason, it was off-limits to the ICRC and most US military personnel. In summer 2004, it was moved to a new location near Balad and also had facilities in Fallujah, Ramadi and Kirkuk.

US personnel and former detainees reported torture and abuse as common practice, including beatings, confinement in shipping containers for 24 hours in extreme heat, exposure to extreme cold, death threats, humiliation, psychological stress, and much more.

Sergeant Jeff Perry (a pseudonym he requested to avoid recrimination) was a Camp Nama special interrogator during the first half of 2004. He said task force members were military special forces and CIA personnel, none of whom revealed ranks or last names to maintain secrecy.

Five interrogation rooms were used, the harshest called the "black room" where everything was black with speakers in the corners and on the ceiling. A table and chairs were in one corner for a boom box and computer.

Detainees were stripped naked and subjected to stress standing, sleep deprivation, loud noise, strobe lights, beatings, dousing with cold water, and other abuses.

Harshness levels were less severe in other rooms, the "soft room" being least extreme and used for cooperating detainees. However, throughout interrogations, they were shifted from one room to another, but those put in the "black room" were considered the most high-value.

Treatment authorization in writing or by computer came from the camp's command structure - signed by "whoever was in charge at the time" reporting to McChrystal or one of his subordinates.

Sergeant Perry saw him visit Camp Nama several times, and said its commanding officer told interrogators that the White House or Donald Rumsfeld were briefed on the information they obtained. He also learned that the facility was "completely closed off" and secret, and that ICRC, other investigators, and the Army's Criminal Investigation Command (CID) were forbidden access to it.

In March 2006, The New York Times published a feature article based on interviews with over a dozen US personnel who served at Camp Nama or were familiar with its operations. Their accounts corroborated Perry's and included details of other abuses. Much of the same information came out about torture at Guantanamo and other overseas US prisons, including Camp Cropper, Iraq (near Baghdad Airport) now expanded to hold up to 2000 detainees.

HRW reviewed hundreds of "credible allegations of serious mistreatment and torture (as) standard operation procedure" at locations throughout Iraq involving special forces, CIA, and others. Its report is based on firsthand accounts from three locations between 2003 - 2005 when McChrystal was in charge of Special Ops.

On March 31, 2009 on Democracy Now, Seymour Hersh said US forces conducted assassinations in a dozen or more countries, including in Latin and Central America. "And it's been going on and on and on," he said. George Bush "authorized these kinds of actions in the Middle East" and elsewhere...." Now Obama's doing the same thing.

"And the idea that the American president would think he has the constitutional power or the legal right to tell soldiers....to go out and find people based on lists and execute them is just amazing to me...."

During his tenure, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld gave the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) authority to carry out killings anywhere on the globe. Hersh said "it operates out of Florida, and it involves a lot of wings." One is "the Joint Special Op - JSOC. It's a special (Navy Seals and Delta Force) unit....black units, the commando units....And they promote from within. It's a unit that has its own promotion structure. And one of the elements....about getting ahead....is the number of kills you have," especially high-value targets. Cheney was deeply involved. Robert Gates likely is now.

Targeting goes on in a lot of countries besides Iraq and Afghanistan, including Colombia, Eritrea, Madagascar, Kenya, or anywhere to "kill people who are believed....to be Al Qaeda....Al Qaeda-linked or anti-American" - fictitious outside enemies without which Obama's wars can't continue nor could they under George Bush..

In his book "America's War on Terrorism," Michel Chossudovsky uncovered evidence that Al Qaeda was a CIA creation from the Soviet-Afghan 1980s war, and in the 1990s Washington "consciously supported Osama bin Laden, while at the same time placing him on the FBI's 'most wanted list' as the World's foremost terrorist."

He remains so today, even though David Ray Griffin's new book ("Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?") provides convincing evidence that he died in late 2001, a conclusion many US counterterrorism experts support and believe his conveniently timed video messages are fakes.

Capturing or Killing Bin Laden

In a January 2009 CBS television interview, Obama suggested that he's dead by saying "whether he is technically alive or not, he is so pinned down that he cannot function. My preference (is) to capture of kill him. But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, then we will meet our goal of protecting America."

Nonetheless, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs responded to the latest purported bin Laden statement that it's "consistent with messages we've seen in the past from al Qaeda threatening the US and other countries that are involved in counterterrorism efforts."

So it's no surprise that top administration orders reach field commanders like McChrystal to capture or kill the usual suspects. From known reports about him, he carries them out with relish.

The Obama administration gave him carte blanche authority to choose his staff for their assigned mission - expand the Af-Pak war with more troops, funding, stepped up counterinsurgency, targeted killings, and secret drone and other attacks against any targets he chooses in either country. He'll also have more political control, possibly with a Washington-appointed civilian authority to run the Afghanistan government day to day, making Hamid Karzai more of a figurehead than currently.

Obama's war aims to pacify the country and Afghan/Pakistan border areas through scorched earth terror, targeted assassinations, and as much mass killing as it takes to prevail. McChrystal has the job, a man one observer said "comes from a world where killing by any means is the norm and a blanket of government secrecy provides the necessary protection." All the greater with Obama's endorsement.

Former 82nd Airborne Division commander General David Rodriquez, Defense Secretary Gates' top military aide, will be his deputy. Gates praised McChrystal for his "unique skill set in counterinsurgency" and said the mission of both men and their team "requires new thinking and new approaches by our military leaders." Clearly implied are the Special Ops skills they possess in what an unnamed Defense Department official called "unconventional warfare....to track and kill insurgents."

These tactics kill many hundreds, displace hundreds of thousands, and enrage civilians on both sides of the Af-Pak border. Yet pursuing them is Obama's top war strategy priority that may include Iraq as violence there heats up.

Operation Phoenix

From 1968 - 1973, the CIA ran or was involved in the Phoenix Program with US Special Forces and its own Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Special Operations Group (MACV-SOG) involving covert missions to crush the National Liberation Front (NLF resistance called the Viet Cong or VC). One person involved called the operation a "depersonalized murder program" to remove opposition and terrorize the population into submission.

In 1975, Counterspy magazine said it was "the most indiscriminate and massive program of political murder since the Nazi death camps of world war two." It even targeted certain US military personnel considered security risks and members of the South Vietnamese government.

In simple terms, the program conducted mass killings and seizures of suspected NLF members and collaborators with special emphasis on high-value targets - by some estimates around 80,000 or more before it ended.

Wayne Cooper was a Foreign Service officer at the time. He spent 18 months in Vietnam, most of it as a Phoenix advisor at Cantho in the Mekong Delta. He called the operation a "disreputable, CIA-inspired effort, often deplored as a bloody-handed assassination program (and) a failure."

In the mid-1960s, it began as a CIA "Counter Terror (CT) program "never recognized by the South Vietnamese government." It "recruited, organized, supplied and directly paid CT teams whose function was to use Vietcong techniques, kidnappings and intimidation - against the Vietcong leadership."

By 1968, the program was expanded and called Intelligence Coordination and Exploitation (ICEX), then Phoenix. From General William Westmoreland and "Ambassador-for-pacification Robert Komer" on down, "neutralizing" the VC was top priority.

Westmoreland took charge. A Civil Operations and Rural Development Support (CORDS) organization was established, under which Phoenix was run. Cooper cited numerous problems for its failure and criticized experts sifting through them to get it right next time. He called the program a "gimmick" unable to "compensate for South Vietnam's" popular opposition to the war and concluded that no counterinsurgency can succeed under those circumstances.

Certainly not in Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries historically opposed to foreign occupations with a record of brave resistance to end them. They represent what the CIA called Vietnam during that earlier era - "the grand illusion of the American cause;" the latest Washington misadventures no matter how long they go on, whatever amounts are spent on them, or how much mass killing and destruction persist under any command. America hasn't won a war (or fought a legal one) since WW II, something Obama might consider as he plans his next move.

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 Monday - Friday at 10:00AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13972

New UN Report Denounces America's Human Rights Record

New UN Report Denounces America's Human Rights Record - by Stephen Lendman

On May 26, the UN Human Rights Council issued a report titled "Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development - Report of the Special Rapporteur (Philip Alston) on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions."

Alston was damning in his criticism regarding "three areas in which significant improvement is necessary if the US Government is to match its actions to its stated commitment to human rights and the rule of law:"

(1) Its imposition of the death penalty under which innocent people are executed. Alston was shocked about "glaring criminal justice system flaws," citing Texas and Alabama as examples, but many other states are as derelict. He criticized politicized judges and recommended that Congress "should enact legislation permitting federal court habeas review of state and federal death penalty cases on their merits."

He condemned the 2006 Military Commissions Act and its provisions that violate international human rights and humanitarian law with regard to due process and fairness.

(2) America needs "greater transparency into law enforcement, military, and intelligence operations that result in unlawful deaths." Domestically, it provides inadequate information about deaths of immigrants and other detainees, but the worst failures are in international military and intelligence operations.

(3) The government fails to "provide greater accountability for potentially unlawful deaths in its international operations." It ignores civilian casualties, both their number and conditions under which they occur, and fails to provide ordinary people, including US citizens, with basic information regarding investigations and prosecutions when laws were violated. It fails to assure safeguards are in place to prevent so-called collateral damage - that is, civilians wrongfully (and at times willfully) targeted and killed.

Overall, "there have been chronic and deplorable accountability failures with respect to policies, practices and conduct that (cause) alleged unlawful killings - including possible war crimes - in the United States' international operations." Effective investigations have been lacking and guilty parties, throughout the chain of command, haven't been punished. Even worse, private contractors and civilian intelligence personnel have been granted "a zone of impunity" because of failures to hold them accountable. Alston recommends a national "commission of inquiry" and a special prosecutor to conduct thorough investigations "independent of the pressure on the political branches of Government."

More on this below.

In June 2008, Alston spent two week in America meeting with federal and state officials, judges and civil society groups, as well as victims and witnesses in five US cities. As a signatory to international human rights laws, including the four Geneva Conventions, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and Convention against Torture, the US is bound by their provisions and required to hold its civilians and military personnel accountable when they violate them.

Domestic Issues

The federal government, 35 states, and US military impose death penalties, often executing innocent people for failing to assure proper due process and fairness. Alston addressed the federal death penalty and its application in Texas and Alabama, the former for its largest number of US executions, the latter for having the nation's highest per capita rate of them.

Yet since 1973, 130 death row inmates nationwide were exonerated, and their numbers keep growing. Since 1977, 13 in Illinois were also declared innocent and freed, a state where governor George Ryan took unprecedented steps:

-- on January 31, 2000, he declared a moratorium on further executions after acknowledging a deeply flawed system under which innocent men and women are executed;

-- then in January 2003, he commuted the sentences of all 156 death row prisoners - an action only matched by the Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia (June 29, 1972) when it struck down capital punishment at the state and federal levels, calling existing statutes unconstitutional, "arbitrary and capricious," and commuted the sentences of all 629 inmates on death row - until it reinstated it in Gregg v. Georgia on July 2, 1976.

Ever since, well over 1100 executions took place and three times that number await them on death row. Far too often they're innocent victims of injustice, people of color, poor, and unable to effectively deal with a hostile prosecutorial system, at least because:

-- inadequate laws and/or practices don't protect them "governing the preservation of evidence (including DNA) or because of the passage of time;"

-- after convictions, some state laws disallow use of DNA evidence; to countermand this, a federal law should mandate it as standard procedure;

-- in some cases, biological evidence isn't relevant; and

-- in others, "evidentiary or procedural issues preclude a just or reliable basis for imposing the death penalty."

The result is a deeply flawed criminal justice system affecting victims, their families, and communities when real criminals remain at large. Yet government officials are often indifferent to the problem, at both state and federal levels. Alston recommends changes:

-- action to address the lack of judicial independence and inadequate right to counsel;

-- a top-to-bottom criminal justice system analysis and overhaul followed by reforms, especially for racial disparities in capital cases; and

-- federal court reviews of all injustice claims when capital punishment is at issue.

Unfortunately, Alston doesn't challenge the death penalty but believes federal and state laws should only impose it for the "most serious crimes." However, who's to decide and on what basis.

He also says foreign nationals denied the right to consular notification were unfairly treated and should be provided review and reconsideration.

Judicial Independence

Texas, Alabama, and other states "have partisan elections for judges." However, "as research and practice show," this system "jeopardizes the right of capital defendants to a fair trial and appeal." Also, there's a direct correlation between public support for the death penalty and decisions made to impose it. "There is no such correlation in non-elective states." State officials told Alston that getting re-elected depends on supporting the death penalty and imposing it from the bench - even at times by overriding jury decisions for life in prison.

Right to Counsel

The right is fundamental but not applied if counsel quality is poor, as so often is the case when court-appointed or low-income defendants can't afford better representation. State funding to provide it is inadequate, and one Texas official told Alston that defense counsel competency in the state is "abysmal." Major reforms are needed to repair a broken system, in Texas and nationwide.

Racial Disparities

Persons of color in America are most vulnerable to receive death sentences in capital cases - especially if victims are white. Yet federal and state officials are indifferent to the problem or deny one exists. When confronted with evidence from various studies, they claim they were conducted by anti-death penalty advocates and dismiss the results. It's never been a good time to be poor, black, or Latino in America, especially when confronted by a hostile criminal justice system claiming to be impartial.

Systematic Evaluation of the Criminal Justice System

Far too little is done at the state or federal levels to ensure wrongful death penalties aren't imposed. Their frequency demands serious redress - firm measures to halt injustices this grave.

Federal Habeas Corpus Review

Habeas suits can be filed in federal courts to challenge death penalty convictions, but not easily. The 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) denies them on many grounds, imposes a six-month statute of limitation for filing, and restricts access to federal evidentiary hearings. Other problems also exist that limit defendants' rights even when wrongfully convicted - such as emphasizing "finality" over the right of due process and fairness. Serious reform measures are needed to redress this.

Most Serious Crimes

The definition is vague and applies to an intention to kill resulting in the loss of life as determined by a judge and jury. However, capital punishment may be imposed for crimes like running large illegal drug operations according to the 1994 Federal Death Penalty Act. Other crimes as well, including treason, terrorism, rape, kidnapping, and in the military for desertion or mutiny.

Consular Notification

America is party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR). It grants foreign nationals the right to contact their consulates for help, but too often they're prevented from doing it - in Texas, for example, where the state legislature failed to authorize its courts to provide this review. At the federal level as well by Congress not doing it. Alston says VCCR is "a bedrock principle of international law" affecting not just foreign nationals on death row in US states, but "equally to any American who travels to another country." It's up to Congress to fix this.

Deaths in Immigration Detention

In June 2008, the federal government acknowledged at least 74 immigrant detention deaths since 2003. Newspaper reports suggest far higher numbers. They result from various causes, including denying medical care, poor quality or delayed care, and "inappropriate medication." Overall, the treatment of immigrants in detention is deplorable with little attention paid to basic needs along with abusive treatment by authorities.

Killings by Law Enforcement Officials

The Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) compiles data covering homicides (usually by other inmates but also by guards), suicides, "arrest-related killings," and other judicially related deaths.

Statistics on resulting prosecutions and convictions aren't available, but it's "clear that (their) number....is small...." It means serious offenses are committed against numerous people trapped in the criminal justice system that too often affords little of it to the most vulnerable.

International Operations - The Death Penalty Under the Military Commissions Act

From the time of their arrest and internment, Guantanamo detainees were denied any measure of due process and fairness. Five are charged with capital offenses under the Military Commissions Act (MCA), and others also may face the death penalty under this travesty of a law. Although Obama ordered a stay of Commission proceedings to decide on procedures to follow, he left open the likelihood that prosecutions will proceed under MCA provisions, and if done, they'll violate US obligations under international humanitarian law.

MCA "utterly fail(s) to meet basic due process standards." Several of its most egregious flaws include:

-- Guantanamo detainees were tortured and subjected to cruel and abusive treatment;

-- statements coerced through torture will be used as evidence at trials;

-- whatever America says is classified will be unavailable to defense attorneys;

-- detainees may be convicted by evidence he has never seen or knows anything about; and

-- second and third-hand hearsay evidence will be allowed at trial.

"The MCA's provisions constitute a gross infringement on the right to a fair trial and it would violate international law to execute someone under this statute."

Detainee Deaths at Guantanamo

Full knowledge of detainee deaths isn't known, including their number and causes. Alston cites five reported, four called suicides, the other attributed to cancer. Custodial powers are required "to ensure and respect the right to life." As such, they bear responsibility for detainee deaths and are obligated to investigate and publicly report their findings and whatever evidence supports them. So far, DOD has stonewalled all efforts to comply, except to release redacted autopsy and other internal investigation reports.

Lack of Transparency Regarding Civilian Casualties

DOD officials told Alston that it doesn't compile data on Afghan or Iraqi civilian casualties because body counts don't relate to the effectiveness or legality of military operations. Yet doing it is important to judge if America is serious about avoiding them altogether and keeping them to a minimum when they happen. No evidence suggests that's so.

Private Contractors

Credible reports indicate that private security and other contractors engage in indiscriminate and otherwise questionable force against civilians, causing numerous casualties that may number in the thousands. Little of this gets reported and transparency overall is lacking. "The most comprehensive study to date found that few firms ever report shooting incidents, that such incidents are often misreported, and that SIRs (serious incident reports) that are filed are almost uniformly cursory and uninformative." As a result, private contractors get away with murder because no authority holds them accountable.

Civilian Intelligence Agencies

What's true for contractors, applies to the CIA as well with credible reports of at least five custodial deaths from torture or other means. Claimed investigations were conducted. CIA involvement was never confirmed or denied. Its Inspector General told Alston that cases involving possible unlawful killings are classified, and no one so far has been prosecuted nor will they as Obama ruled out the possibility.

Transparency and Accountability for Unlawful Killings and Custodial Deaths

Failure to assure transparency and "effective investigations into, and meaningful prosecution of, wrongful deaths means the (US) Government cannot fulfill its obligation to ensure accountability for violations of the right to life."

Military Justice System Failures

In Afghanistan, Alston witnessed a lack of transparency first hand and the Government's unwillingness to be held accountable for illegal conduct. Most often investigations are quashed or inadequately done. Moreover, they're never against senior officers, and light sentences are administered to the few convicted. America fails in its "legal obligation to effectively punish violations (or observe) the rule of law," as vital in war as in peace.

One study "of almost 100 detainee deaths in US custody between August 2002 and February 2006 found that investigations were fundamentally flawed." They also violated the military's own regulations for investigations, and resulted in "impunity and a lack of transparency into the policies and practices that may have contributed to the deaths."

Chief Warrant Officer Lewis E. Welshofer Jr.'s sentencing is typical of others. After being convicted of negligent homicide and dereliction of duty for the death of Iraqi Major General Abedd Hamed Mowhoush, he was confined to base for two months, fined $6000, and reprimanded by letter. Welshofer's "sentence is not an anomaly."

Notable in all cases is that "command responsibility," the recognized basis for criminal liability since WW II, is absent from the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and US War Crimes Act. It means commanders go unprosecuted and accountability is undermined.

Civilian Justice System Failures

"For far too long, there has been a zone of de facto impunity for killings by private contractors (PCs) and civilian intelligence agents operating in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere." It's not for lack of an applicable legal framework. It's because "US prosecutors have failed to use the laws on the books to investigate and prosecute PCs and civilian agents for wrongful deaths," some of which occur from torture, abuse as well as willful homicides.

The DOJ has prosecutorial authority over PCs, civilian government employees, and former military personnel suspected of war crimes under two of its operations:

-- the US Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia for detainee abuse cases; and

-- the Domestic Security Section (DSS) of DOJ's Criminal Division for unlawful shootings committed while protecting convoys.

Both fall way short, and DSS representatives acknowledged the lack of convictions but withheld information on allegations received, investigations undertaken, or their status. "The lamentable bottom line is that DOJ has brought a scant few cases against PCs for civilian casualties, achieved a conviction only in one case involving a CIA contractor, and brought no cases against CIA employees....this vacuum is neither legally nor ethically defensible."

Ensuring Transparency and Accountability

It's only possible through the "will to enforce the rule of law," yet Alston's conclusion is that outcome is highly unlikely. "In short, war crimes prosecutions in particular are 'politically radioactive' " and won't happen. However, there are other steps the government can take to increase transparency and accountability:

-- create a national "commission of inquiry" to conduct independent investigations of policies and practices causing deaths and other abuses; and

-- appoint an independent special prosecutor, free from institutional or political pressures to the greatest degree possible.

In both cases, fundamental requirements require independence, impartiality, competence, and the power to obtain all sought information. Adequate funding is also essential and the right to publicly report findings and recommendations.

"The most credible response to the military justice system's investigative failure and sentencing distortions would be the creation of a Director of Military Prosecutions (DMP) position" - much like in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the UK "to ensure greater separation between the chain of command and the prosecution function."

The DOJ should also establish a special office solely to investigate and prosecute cases involving PCs, civilian government employees, and former military personnel.

Reparations for Civilian Casualties

International law mandates that compensation for human rights violations be paid, and in some instances to families it has been. But it's much too little for the families of too few victims.

The Foreign Claims Act requires payment of legal claims arising from negligent or wrongful deaths caused by military personnel outside of combat. Other programs also exist, including the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) for "condolence payments" and in Afghanistan authorization of "solatia payments."

However, these are ad hoc efforts, and the "lack of systematic compensation for civilian casualties caused by private contractors is acute." As their employer, the government bears ultimate responsibility but shuns it.

Targeted Killings: Lack of Transparency Regarding the Legal Framework and Targeting Choices

Credible evidence shows America engages in targeted killings on the territory of other states, and senior officials admit using drones for this purpose. Yet when queried, answers are evasive, not forthcoming, and disturbing justifications are given that violate the letter and spirit of international law.

Recommendations - For Domestic Issues

-- enforce due process and fairness in death penalty cases;

-- reform the system of partisan elected judges;

-- public defenders should be competent, well funded, and oversight of this function should be independent of the executive and judicial branches;

-- commissions should be established to review cases of wrongful convictions - discovered through subsequent exonerations;

-- ways the death penalty is administered and implemented should be evaluated and changed;

-- racial disparities in death penalty impositions need to be addressed and corrected;

-- congressional legislation should let federal courts review death penalty cases on their merits;

-- capital punishment should be used sparingly and only for the most serious crimes of willful killings; (ideally, it should be banned entirely as no civil society worthy of the name has the right to claim an eye for an eye);

-- foreign nationals should have their executions stayed until proper consular reviews and reconsiderations are conducted;

-- immigration detention deaths should be promptly reported and investigated; and

-- Homeland Security should assure proper medical and other essential care is provided, consistent with international standards.

Guantanamo Detainees

The Military Commissions Act violates international laws and shouldn't be used for capital case prosecutions. Ones conducted should assure due process according to international human rights and humanitarian law requirements.

International Operations

-- civilian casualties should be tracked and publicly disclosed;

-- the DOD should ensure military justice transparency by establishing a central office of "registry" to track cases from investigation through final disposition and should include upcoming hearings, investigative findings, rulings, pleadings, testimony transcripts, and other pertinent materials;

-- comprehensive criminal jurisdiction over armed conflict offenses should be ensured and "command responsibility" should be codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and War Crimes Act;

-- federal legislation should be enacted to provide criminal jurisdiction over private contractors and civilian employees, including the CIA and other intelligence branches;

-- an independent commission of inquiry and special prosecutor should be established to investigate practices causing deaths and other abuses; also a Director of Military Prosecutions to hold everyone throughout the chain of command responsible for their alleged crimes;

-- an office to investigate and prosecute private contractors, civilian government employees, and former military personnel should be created within the DOJ;

-- enhanced reparations programs should be established to provide adequate compensation to families of those wrongfully killed;

-- targeted killings must stop; reasons for them in lieu of capture should be explained and whether states in which they occur gave consent; specifically, international laws must be scrupulously enforced; and

-- collaterally killed civilian numbers should be disclosed, by drones or other attacks, and measures should be in place to avoid them or hold them to a minimum.

In summary, Alston called America's human rights record "deplorable," and in need of major changes. In response, the Obama administration charged him with violating his mandate by accusing the US of failing to properly investigate allegations of unlawful US military killings in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Acting deputy at the US mission in Geneva, Larry Richter, said: "We do not believe that military and intelligence operations during armed conflict fall within the special rapporteur's mandate." Much more important is his lack of power to act on the crimes he discovered. Still he deserves credit for revealing what US authorities try hard to suppress and ignore.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13972

Israeli War Crimes Against Children During Operation Cast Lead

Israeli War Crimes Against Children During Operation Cast Lead - by Stephen Lendman

Following Israel's Operation Cast Lead, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) documented the toll on Gaza's children and published it in May. It did so "in response to the unprecedented number of children who were killed (and injured) by (the Israeli Defense Forces) during the offensive on Gaza." According to international standards, the Convention on the Rights of the Child's (CRC) definition was used to apply to anyone under age 18.

PCHR reviewed IDF killing of Gaza's children since the beginning of the Second Intifada in September 2000, then focused on the 313 youth deaths during the recent conflict. Its evidence comes from eye-witness accounts of the willful targeting of civilians, including women and children. Also covered are the psychological scars and "alarming scale of physical injuries" leaving some children blind and many others (as well as adults) permanently disabled by the loss of limbs and psychological trauma.

PCHR's report bears testimony to Israel's contempt for international laws, its imperial agenda, culture of violence, disdain for peace, genocidal intentions, disparagement of Arabs and Islam, and its scorn for Palestinian lives and welfare.

PCHR presented 13 case studies in its report. Briefly discussed below, they represent a small fraction of the many hundreds killed and thousands more grievously harmed.

Introduction

Since the September 2000 Second Intifada, Israeli forces killed 1179 children, including 865 in Gaza as part of a decades-long policy of collectively punishing millions of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, mostly civilian men, women, and children.

Israel calls self-defense "terrorism" and justifies its actions as responses to militant missile or other attacks. PCHR's investigations "have consistently undermined these claims," and condemns all killing, especially of children.

In September 2006, the London Independent's Donald Macintyre headlined his story: "Gaza: The children killed in a war the world doesn't want to know about." He wrote about more than 37 children under 18 killed since June 25 during Israel's Operation Summer Rain, according to PCHR figures, out of an overall 228 total, mostly civilians.

He highlighted a "forgotten war in the Middle East" with young boys, girls and adults blown apart by Israeli shells and missiles, but who notices. He said the IDF attacks heavily populated areas indiscriminately on the pretext of fighting a "terrorist infrastructure." He stressed that "attention (was) diverted from Gaza as Israel launch(ed) a full military invasion of southern Lebanon" yet civilian deaths mounted in both areas. He listed by name Gazan children under 18 killed and by what means - from airstrikes, while playing football, missiles, shrapnel, tank or artillery shells, and shot in the head or chest at close range. Khitam Mohammed Rebhi Tayey was one - age 11. Aya Salmeya another - age 9.

Israel rarely responds to public outrage or investigates its crimes, including against children. The few times it does turn into whitewashes. After 11 days on March 30, 2009, military advocate general Avichai Mandelblit closed the IDF's inquiry into Israeli soldiers' accounts of Operation Cast Lead crimes and dismissed them as unfounded.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Protection for Children

Various laws apply, including the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As protected persons, they're to be safeguarded against willful killing, coercion, corporal punishments, torture, collective penalties and reprisals.

CRC was the first legally binding international instrument incorporating all human rights for children, including civil, cultural, economic, political and social. They're now universally agreed on non-negotiable standards and obligations supporting their rights.

CRC's Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict took effect on February 12, 2002. Israel ratified it on July 18, 2005 and CRC in 1991. The Optional Protocol strengthens children's rights, recognizes that they require special protection, and condemns their being targeted in armed conflicts, especially in schools, hospitals or at home. Israel is legally bound under both laws and Geneva, yet disdains them repeatedly, especially by "willful killing" through indiscriminate attacks or deliberately targeting civilian areas or structures.

Truth and Lies: Operation Cast Lead and Civilian Deaths

Besides vast destruction and mass population displacement, 313 children were killed among the 1414 who died over a 23-day period. Of the 5300 injured (many seriously), 1606 were children. In all cases, the vast majority were noncombatants.

Of the children killed:

-- most were at home or nearby;

-- around one-third were girls and the rest boys;

-- almost 15% were under age 5 and another one-fourth between 5 and 10;

-- the remainder were between 11 and 17;

-- the "overwhelming majority" were killed in densely populated residential areas;

-- 46% were killed in northern Gaza;

-- 38% in Gaza City;

-- 9% in Khan Yunis and Rafah and 7% in less densely populated areas.

Israel used conventional and illegal weapons. The former included missiles, artillery and tank shells, mortars, and automatic weapons.

Others included:

-- white phosphorous that burns flesh to the bone and can be fatal; it's use is prohibited in civilian areas;

-- flechettes that are 4cm long darts used as anti-personnel weapons; they penetrate to the bone and can cause multiple horrific injuries; up to 8000 of them can be packed into one artillery shell; on explosion, they travel at high speed in multiple directions up to around 300 meters; and

-- various other internationally prohibited weapons that PCHR investigations uncovered and condemned.

Its case studies show a consistent failure of Israeli forces to protect civilian lives, especially those of children. They document indiscriminate attacks against densely populated neighborhoods in grave violation of international laws.

To safeguard civilians and non-military areas and structures, IHL requires that precautions be taken in any attack, and civilian protection is paramount. Israel pays no heed and attacks indiscriminately in grave violation of the law.

Case Study One - The Olaiwa Family

Gaza City's Isma'il (age 7), Mo'men (age 13), Mo'tassem (age 14) and Lana Olaiwa, (age 9) and their mother Amal were killed when an artillery shell struck their home on January 5, 2009. Three other family members were injured, including Amal's husband, Haider, and her eldest son, Muntasser.

Two survivors were too badly injured to be interviewed. PCHR spoke to Fadwa Olaiwa, Haider's sister, who lived two floors below. She said that 42 extended family members lived in the four-story house. The shell killed five of them in their kitchen where Amal was cooking.

When Fadwa heard the explosion, she ran upstairs and saw what happened. She found Amal decapitated by the refrigerator and the other bodies close by. Haider, Muntasser and Ghadir were taken to Gaza City's al-Shifa Hospital. Haider sustained permanent facial and jaw injuries. Ghadir's right arm was seriously injured. She and her father's hearing were badly damaged. Muntasser had serious liver and stomach shrapnel wounds requiring two operations. Metal is still embedded in his right leg, and he continues to undergo treatment.

PCHR investigations confirm that no combatants or military targets were close by at the time of the attack. Artillery shells were fired indiscriminately, have a range of up to 60 km, and were used against entire areas, including civilian ones. This attack and many others like it constitute war crimes on two counts under Articles 8(2)(b)(ii) and (iv) of the International Criminal Court Statute.

Case Study Two - the al-Dayah Family

In the Zaytoun district of eastern Gaza, 22 family members were killed when a bomb struck their home - including 12 children and a pregnant woman. The explosion destroyed the house and buried many of the family inside. Only two family members survived, 28-year old Aamer and his brother Rida. Those killed included:

-- Fayez Musbah Hasham, age 60

-- Kawkab Sa'id Hussein, age 57

-- Radwan Fayez Musbah, age 22

-- Sabrin Fayez Musbah, age 24

-- Raghda Fayez Musbah, age 34

-- Eyad Fayez Musbah, age 36

-- Rawda Hilal Hussein, age 32

-- Ali Eyad Fayez Musbah, age 10

-- Khitam Eyad Fayez Musbah, age 9

-- Alaa' Eyad Fayez Musbah, age 7

-- Raba'a Eyad Fayez, age 6

-- Sharaf Al-Din Eyad Fayez, age 5

-- Mohammed Eyad Fayez, age 7 months

-- Ramez Fayez Musbah, age 27

-- Safaa' Saleh Mohammed, age 20

-- Baraa' Ramez Fayez, age 1.5

-- Salsabil Ramez Fayez, age 5 months

-- Tazal Isma'il Isma'il Mohammed, age 28 and 8 months pregnant

-- Amani Mohammed Fayez, age 6

-- Qamar Mohammed Fayez, age 5

-- Arij Mohammed Fayez, age 3, and

-- Yousef Mohammed Fayez, age two

On February 3, 2009, PCHR interviewed Aamer al-Dayah (who was home) and his brother, Rida who was outside the house when attacked. Aamer said 24 family members shared seven apartments in the building. When it was struck, the force knocked Aamer unconscious, and he awakened under rubble. Rida was at a nearby mosque at the time. He rushed home, freed Aamer and his twin brother Radwan inside, still alive but only barely until he died on January 9.

Both survivors told PCHR that the explosion flung some family members meters outside their home while others inside were burned beyond recognition. They had no advance warning of an immanent attack, but PCHR fieldworkers learned there was military activity nearby. However, all al-Dayah family members were civilians. The IDF attack gravely breached international law and constitutes two war crime counts under Articles 8(2)(b)(ii) and (iv) of the International Criminal Court Statute.

According to IHL principles, Israeli forces used excessive and disproportionate force against a known civilian target resulting in the death of 22 al-Dayah family members - a crime Palestinians will long remember.

Case Study Three - the al-Battran family

On January 16, six al-Battran family members were slaughtered in their al-Bureji refugee camp home by an Israeli aircraft fired missile. Killed were Manal and five of her children:

-- Manal, age 32

-- Islam, age 15

-- Eman, age 9

-- twin sister Ehsan, age 9

-- Bilal, age 6 and

-- Izziddin, age 3

One year old son Abdul Hadi and Amal's husband Issa survived. On February 25, PCHR interviewed Issa's brother, Diaa' who was in the house next door at the time of the attack. When he heard the explosion, he ran over and discovered the bodies, burnt and shorn of some body parts.

According to al-Battran family members, Issa hadn't seen his wife and children since Operation Cast Lead began for fear of being assassinated. The day of the attack was the first time in January he was with them, only to pack clothing before heading to a safer location. He survived three earlier attempts to kill him because of his position in the Izz ad-Din Al Qassam Brigades.

Shrapnel at the scene identified a US-made Hellfire missile providing clear evidence of US involvement. Killing noncombatants is a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the International Criminal Court Statute.

Other Case Studies - Further Examples of War Crime Attacks on Noncombatants, Including Children

(1) On January 16, two projectiles killed four Abu Eita family members outside their home, the youngest 2.5 year old Malak Abu.

(2) On January 9, two projectiles destroyed their house and killed six Salha family members, the youngest Bahaa, age 5

(3) On January 5, a projectile killed Mohammed Hijji. Earlier their home was commandeered by Israeli forces. Family members were held prisoners inside, then forced to be human shields so they could occupy a nearby house. Afterwards the family was ordered to evacuate Zaytoun where they lived, then shot at while leaving, killing their 2.5 year old daughter Shahd. Relatives and Arafat family members told to leave were also fleeing. In progress, one woman was shot and killed. Nine others were wounded. All are civilians, including children.

(4) on January 14, a projectile killed 14 year old Izziddin al-Farra in Qarara village in eastern Gaza while he and his friend Abdul Ghani were bicycling on a rural road. Abdul sustained a serious head injury.

(5) On January 4, Israeli forces shot and killed 1.5 year old Farah al-Helu. Family members were in their home. Soldiers entered, shot and killed 62 year old Fouad, then ordered the family to evacuate. Outside they were shot at, injuring three family members and killing Farah who bled to death. One family member described their ordeal. They tried crawling to safety. Most did but three others were struck and lay in the street. Farah bled to death because emergency care was denied - further evidence of a war crime atrocity.

(6) On December 29, a bombing of an adjacent mosque destroyed the Balousha family Jabaliya refugee camp home. Five of eight daughters were killed, the youngest Jawaher age four. Five others were injured and another five homes were seriously damaged.

(7) On January 6, two projectiles struck the yard of Mo'in Deeb's Jabaliya refugee camp home when 10 family members were there. Ten were killed instantly, the youngest Nour Mo'in age 3. Others were injured, four critically. One subsequently died. Another had both legs amputated.

(8) On December 29, a bomb struck the al-'Absi family Yibna refugee camp home in Rafah while those in it were sleeping. Three children died instantly, the youngest Sidqi age 4. Their mother sustained critical injuries. Four other children were also injured.

(9) On January 17, a white phosphorous artillery shell struck the area around a Beit Lahiya school killing Bilal al-Ashqar (age 6) and Mohammed al-Ashqar (age 4). Two other family members were seriously injured. Their mother sustained critical head injuries and loss of her right hand. Her 19 year old daughter had her leg blown off. All were sheltering there at the time.

(10) On January 5, a projectile struck a house where the Abdul-Dayem family was attending a condolence ceremony. Those inside fled across the street and were struck by two tank shells containing flechettes. Three family members, including one child, were killed instantly. Two others, including a child, subsequently died of their injuries.

PCHR summarized the 23-day toll as follows:

"Alongside the 313 children killed by Israeli forces during (Operation Cast Lead), 1606 children were injured, with some sustaining horrific disabilities, head and spinal injuries, facial disfiguration, burns and amputation."

Most were in their homes at the time. Others in shelters for their safety. Some of the injured couldn't access medical care resulting in their permanent disability, infection, and for some their death. Even at hospitals, doctors were overwhelmed, under-resourced, and forced to deliver care under battlefield conditions.

The toll on parents and children was horrific, and some surviving adults face a lifelong task of caring for their permanently disabled offspring. Those who lost parents require help from relatives. The stench of death, injury, vast destruction, displacement, and Gaza still under siege pervades the Territory. The conflict's psychological impact inflicted collective trauma - unrelieved and hardly noticed by Israel, America, the West, and most Arab states.

Children more than others suffer most and now experience "anger, sleeping difficulties, nightmares, avoidance of situations that are reminders of the trauma, impairment of concentration, and guilt" because they survived while others didn't. Post Traumatic Stress Disorders (PTSD) approach epidemic levels, but fortunately Gaza's Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP) provides some of the best care of its kind in the Middle East. Years of conflict honed their skills.

After hostilities ended, they assessed the psychological damage on children and learned that the overwhelming majority personally witnessed traumatic events that could seriously impair their mental health. For example:

-- 98% of children said they didn't feel safe;

-- 96% didn't think they could protect themselves;

-- 97% thought their families couldn't protect them;

-- 90% heard bombing;

-- 89% saw homes destroyed from it;

-- 65% were forced to evacuate their homes;

-- 61% saw their neighbors' homes bombed;

-- 54% were either physically detained in their homes by soldiers or were trapped inside them during bombings and/or shellings; and

-- 55% said they were told that one or more of their family members or relatives were killed.

Psychologist Hassan Ziyada said: "These children reported high levels of trauma and insecurity that will impact on the psychological and intellectual development....(They're) suffering continual long-term trauma due to the psychological, social and economic effects of the recent offensive, the siege and closure of Gaza, and the internal political situation. This (attack) came at a very difficult time for all the people of Gaza, especially children, who were already suffering acute feelings of anxiety and powerlessness....Children in Gaza are continuing to exhibit long-term symptoms of hyperactivity, deterioration of their cognitive abilities, instrusive memories and hyper arousal and anxiety."

Ziyada believes many children will develop long-term depression from the loss of loved ones and friends that contribute to a feeling of abandonment. He also said they're experiencing physical body pain, headaches, stomach aches, insomnia and aggressive behavior.

In an appendix, PCHR listed all 313 children killed by name, gender, age, location, date of attack, and date of death. The youngest was one month old Al-Mu'tasim Bellah Mohammed Ibrahim al-Samouni. Also one month old Hala 'Isam Ahmed al-Mnei'i. Israel expressed no regrets nor did America.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13859

Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations

Readying Americans for Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations - by Stephen Lendman

At least three US federal laws should concern all Americans and suggest what may be coming - mandatory vaccinations for hyped, non-existant threats, like H1N1 (Swine Flu). Vaccines and drugs like Tamiflu endanger human health but are hugely profitable to drug company manufacturers.

The Project BioShield Act of 2004 (S. 15) became law on July 21, 2004 "to provide protections and countermeasures against chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents that may be used in a terrorist attack against the United States by giving the National Institutes of Health contracting flexibility, infrastructure improvements, and expediting the scientific peer review process, and streamlining the Food and Drug Administration approval process of countermeasures."

In other words, the FDA may now recklessly approve inadequately tested, potentially dangerous vaccines and other drugs if ever the Secretaries of Health and Human Services (HHS) or Defense (DOD) declare a national emergency, whether or not one exists and regardless of whether treatments available are safe and effective. Around $6 billion or more will be spent to develop, produce, and stockpile vaccines and other drugs to counteract claimed bioterror agents.

The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act slipped under the radar when George Bush signed it into law as part of the 2006 Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863). It lets the HHS Secretary declare any disease an epidemic or national emergency requiring mandatory vaccinations. Nothing in the Act lists criteria that warrant a threat. Also potential penalties aren't specified for those who balk, but very likely they'd include quarantine and possible fines.

The HHS web site also says the Secretary may "issue a declaration....that provides immunity from tort liability (except for willful misconduct) for claims of loss caused, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from administration or use of (vaccine or other pharmaceutical) countermeasures to diseases, threats and conditions determined by the Secretary to constitute a present, or credible risk of a future public health emergency...."

The industry-run US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) notoriously rushes inadequately tested drugs to market, putting their efficacy and safety into question, and turning those who use them into lab rats. It includes everyone if a mass vaccination is ordered on the mere claim of a public emergency - no proof required.

The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (S. 3678) is the other worrisome law, effective December 19, 2006. It amended "the Public Health Service Act with respect to public health security and all-hazards preparedness and response, and for other purposes." Even its supporters worry about issues of privacy, liability, and putting profits over public health. Critics express greater concerns about dangerous remedies for exaggerated or non-existant threats as well as mass hysteria created for political purposes.

At least one other measure is also worrisome - The Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (MSEHPA). So far it's just a proposal by the Center for Law and the Public's Health - "A Collaborative at Johns Hopkins and Georgetown Universities (as) a primary, international, national, state, and local resource on public health law (and) policy for public health practitioners, judges, academics, policymakers, and others."

MSEHPA is now "track(ing) legal responses to the emerging international response to the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) outbreak, including declarations of public health emergency at the international, national, state, and local levels...." even though forensic evidence can't confirm any H1N1 deaths. No emergency exists anywhere, and reporting one is all hype to sell dangerous drugs to unsuspecting people globally.

On its web site, the ACLU says this about MSEHPA:

It's "written in a way that doesn't adequately protect citizens against the misuse of the tremendous powers that it would grant in an emergency. (It's) replete with civil liberties problems. Its three top flaws are that:

(1) It fails to include basic checks and balances (by) grant(ing) extraordinary emergency powers (that) should never go unchecked. (It) could have serious consequences for individuals' freedom, privacy, and equality."

(2) "It goes well beyond bioterrorism (with) an overbroad definition of 'public health emergency" that may be anything a local or national authority declares for any reason with no conclusive evidence for proof.

(3) "It lacks privacy protections (and) undercut(s) existing protections for sensitive medical information."

MSEHPA worries other organizations besides the ACLU, both conservative and progressive - including the Free Congress Foundation, American Legislative Exchange Council, conservative association of state legislators, Human Rights Campaign, and Health Privacy Project.

The Real Threat of Dangerous, Mandatory Vaccinations

In the wake of the hyped Swine Flu scare, media reports suggest mass vaccinations are coming. The May 6 Kimberly Kindy - Ceci Connolly Washington Post one, for example, headlined "US May Add Shots for Swine Flu to Fall Regimen" without saying they'll be mandatory but reading between the lines suggests the possibility this year or later.

The writers report that "The Obama administration is considering an unprecedented fall vaccination campaign" to include regular and Swine Flu shots, the latter because it's "spreading across the globe."

HHS' Dr. Robin Robinson said "We are moving forward with making a vaccine," and if the government proceeds with a national program, enough supply will be produced to provide two doses for all Americans with spokespersons like National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Anthony Fauci, claiming adverse reactions aren't to be expected and adding another shot for Swine Flu "should not present a problem."

The New York Times also hypes the scare with reports of city schools closed after unconfirmed Swine Flu cases, a few adult deaths blamed on H1N1 bringing the claimed total in the city to seven, and the World Health Organization (WHO) saying on June 3 that it's moving closer to declaring a worldwide (Level 6) Swine Flu pandemic - even though none exists.

With all the hype, misinformation, and willful lies WHO's Dr. Keiji Fukuda, in charge of flu, said only 117 deaths globally have been "blamed" on Swine Flu and any warning may include the caveat that the virus isn't very lethal. A more accurate statement would explain that no forensic evidence links any deaths to H1N1, and influenza annually kills about 30,000 people in America alone - something the major media never report or that scattered accounts of any type flu deaths worldwide are no cause for alarm or reason for scary headlines.

It's also unconscionable for the WHO, US and other nations' officials to spread lies, deception, and hysteria so major pharmaceutical companies can foist dangerous vaccines and other drugs on unsuspecting people, harming their health and making them vulnerable to later diseases and possible early deaths.

Massachusetts May Be A Forerunner of What's to Come

On April 28, the Massachusetts Senate unanimously passed a pandemic flu preparation bill that rises to the level of martial law. If approved by the House and signed into law, it will mandate among other measures:

-- "vaccination, treatment, examination, or testing of" all individuals involved in providing health care - as perhaps step one before ordering the same process for all state residents;

-- owners or occupiers of all premises "to permit entry into and investigation of the premises;"

-- closure, evacuation, and decontamination of all suspected facilities; and

-- restricting or prohibiting "assemblages of persons."

Other states may be planning similar measures as precursors to mandatory nationwide vaccinations and overall suspension of civil liberty protections.

Adverse Vaccination Effects on Gulf War Troops

Before deploying to the Persian Gulf in 1990 - 91 (and thereafter to the present), all US troops got a standard series of inoculations against infectious diseases - the same ones given to all US citizens traveling to the region. After arriving, 150,000 also got anthrax vaccinations and 8000 botulinum toxoid ones even though concerns were raised about adverse long-term health consequences.

A National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) study was conducted to assess them with results released in September 2000. In December 1997, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced that all US military forces would receive anthrax vaccinations. The Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP) began in March 1998 even though IOM found little published peer-reviewed scientific information on its safety.

In its study, IOM reported evidence of an association between vaccinations studied and transient acute common health effects, including redness, swelling, and fever commonly associated with other vaccinations. However, conclusive proof of long-term problems wasn't determined - likely because study findings were skewed not to find them. More on that below.

IOM also studied botulinum toxoid vaccines and found evidence of an association between the vaccine and transient acute local and systemic effects similar to anthrax vaccinations. Again, conclusive proof of long-term adverse health effects wasn't found - another very dubious conclusion as evidence below explains.

Military personnel usually get multiple vaccinations. IOM studied their effects but didn't prove or disprove any long-term adverse effects. However several independent studies of British Gulf War veterans found some link between multiple vaccinations and later health problems.

Gary Matsumoto is a New York-based award-winning investigative journalist. His 2004 book, "Vaccine A: The Covert Government Experiment That's Killing Our Soldiers and Why GIs are Only the First Victims" took sharp issue with IOM results and the Pentagon's denial of Gulf War syndrome.

Investigating the shadowy vaccination development world, he discovered US military-employed doctors and scientists conducted secret medical experiments on US citizens in violation of the Nuremberg Code and fundamental medical ethics.

For its part, Nuremberg established legal medical experimental standards now incorporated into ethical medical codes, including:

-- requiring voluntary consent of human subjects without coercion, fraud, deceit, and with full disclosure of known risks;

-- experiments should avoid "all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury;"

-- experiments should never be conducted if there's "an a priori reason to believe death or disabling injury will occur;"

-- risk "should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved..;" and

-- experiments should be terminated if there's reason to believe they'll cause "injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject."

According to Matsumoto, the Pentagon violated these and other standards, betrayed the troops, and the fundamental duty of military and civilian leaders to protect them. Since at least 1987, biowarfare development trumped the welfare of tens of thousands of GIs used as human guinea pigs for inoculation with experimental unlicensed anthrax vaccines containing squalene - an oil-based adjuvant (to enhance immunity) known for decades to cause severe autoimmune diseases in lab animals, yet administered involuntarily without disclosure of its harmful effects to human health. Matsumoto wrote:

"The unethical experiments detailed in this book are ongoing, with little prospect of being self-limiting because they have been shielded from scrutiny and public accountability by national security concerns." He suggested the "writing (was) on the wall" of what's to come with prospects now it may be soon.

"When UCLA Medical School's Michael Whitehouse and Frances Beck injected squalene combined with other materials into rats and guinea pigs back in the 1970s, few oils were more effective at causing the animal versions of arthritis and multiple sclerosis." In 1999, immunologist Dr. Johnny Lorentzen at Sweden's Karolinska Institute found that on injection, an "otherwise benign molecule like squalene can stimulate a self-destructive immune response," even though it occurs naturally in the body.

Other research shows that squalene is the experimental anthrax vaccine ingredient that caused devastating autoimmune diseases and deaths for many Gulf War veterans from the US, UK, and Australia, yet it continues in use today and for new vaccines development in labs. There's a "close match between the squalene-induced diseases in animals and those observed in humans injected with this oil: rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus."

Other autoimmune diseases are also linked to humans injected with squalene. "There are now data in more than two dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers, from ten different laboratories in the US, Europe, Asia and Australia, documenting that squalene-based adjuvants can induce autoimmune diseases in animals...observed in mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits. Sweden's Karolinska Institute has demonstrated that squalene alone can induce the animal version of rheumatoid arthritis. The Polish Academy of Sciences has shown that in animals, squalene alone can produce catastrophic injury to the nervous system and the brain. The University of Florida Medical School has shown that in animals, squalene alone can induce production of antibodies specifically associated with systemic lupus erythematosus."

Micropaleontologist Dr. Viera Scheibner conducted research into the adverse effects of adjuvants in vaccines and wrote:

Squalene "contributed to the cascade of reactions called "Gulf War syndrome. (GIs developed) arthritis, fibromyalgia, lymphadenopathy, rashes, photosensitive rashes, malar rashes, chronic fatigue, chronic headaches, abnormal body hair loss, non-healing skin lesions, aphthous ulcers, dizziness, weakness, memory loss, seizures, mood changes, neuropsychiatric problems, anti-thyroid effects, anaemia, elevated ESR (erythrocyte sedimentation rate), systemic lupus erythematosus, multiple sclerosis, ALS, Raynaud's phenomenon, Sjorgren's syndrome, chronic diarrhea, night sweats and low-grade fever."

Matsumoto's book includes numerous case studies of GIs afflicted with one or more of the above syndromes, their devastating effects, and the outlandish US government reaction - failing to acknowledge their existence or a connection between them and administered vaccines. Also denying the effects of other toxic Gulf theater exposures (like depleted uranium) as well as withholding meaningful treatments or protocols.

US Army Captain George L. Skypeck spoke eloquently for many when he said:

"Was the character of my valor less intense than those at Lexington? Was the pain of my wounds any less severe than those at Normandy? And was my loneliness any less sorrowful than those at Inchon? Then why am I forgotten amonst those remembered as 'heros?' "

If mass vaccinations are ordered, millions of Americans may ask: Why do you keep using unsafe vaccines and other drugs when clear evidence shows their dangers? Why do you jeopardize all Americans by unleashing a future plague of serious illnesses, diseases, and disabilities? Why have you willfully and maliciously ruined my health?

Immunologist Dr. Pamela Asa first recognized autoimmune diseases showing up in GIs that mirrored those in lab animals injected with oil formulated squalene adjuvants. By 1997, hundreds of millions of dollars had been spent testing vaccines containing them, in animal studies since 1988 and human clinical trials since 1991 - by leading research institutes like NIH, the National Cancer Institute, and the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

According to Matsumoto, today, "Squalene adjuvants are a key ingredient in a whole new generation of vaccines intended for mass immunization around the globe" even though researchers at Tulane Medical School and the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research proved "that the immune system responds specifically to the squalene molecule."

The immune system "see(s) and recognizes it as an oil molecule native to the body. Squalene is not just a molecule found in a knee or elbow - it is found throughout the nervous system and the brain." When injected in the body, the immune system attacks it as an enemy to be eliminated. Eating and digesting squalene isn't a problem. But injecting it "galvanize(s) the immune system into attacking it, which can produce self-destructive cross reactions against the same molecule in the places where it occurs naturally in the body - and where it is critical to the health of the nervous system."

Once self-destruction begins, it doesn't stop as the body keeps making the molecule that the immune system is trained to attack and destroy.

Immunologist Dr. Bonnie Dunbar also did extensive research on hepatitis B-inflicted illnesses and found similar autoimmune processes involved in molecular mimicry in people with devastating neuroimmune syndromes after getting vaccine injections.

Matsumoto says "Squalene is a kind of trigger for (a) real biological weapon," what Soviet researchers called "a biological time bomb!!" and Matsumoto says is "the immune system." When its "full repertoire of cells and antibodies (attack) tissues they are supposed to protect, the results can be catastrophic." He and Dr. Pam Asa conclude that "Oil adjuvants are the most insidious chemical weapon ever devised," including ones with squalene - something the Soviets knew could be used as a weapon in the 1980s.

Matsumoto says that "the real problem with using squalene (isn't) that it mimics a molecule found in the body; it is the same molecule. So what American scientists conceived as a vaccine booster (or what's now being developed in labs) was another 'nano-bomb,' instigating chronic, unpredictable and debilitating disease. When the NIH....argued that squalene would be safe because it is native to the body, just the opposite was true," and, of course, still is. "Squalene's natural presence in the body made it one of the most dangerous molecules ever injected into man" and using it in vaccines is outlandish and criminal.

So why does Washington sanction its use? According to Matsumoto: "scientists in the United States are now literally invested in squalene. Army scientists who developed the second generation anthrax vaccine have reputations to protect and licensing fees to reap (as well as) worldwide rights to develop and commercialize the new recombinant vaccine for anthrax" and ones for other health threats.

Disturbingly, "Many of the cutting-edge vaccines currently in development by the NIH and its corporate partners contain squalene in one formulation or another. There is squalene in the prototype recombinant vaccines for HIV, malaria, herpes, influenza (including the swine strain), cytomegalovirus and human papillomavirus." Some of these "are intended for mass immunization(s) around the globe" and that possibility should terrify everyone enough to refuse any mandate or doctor's prescription to take them.

Another problem is that "Autoimmunity (takes) years to diagnose" because early symptoms (headaches, joint pain, etc.) are so vague they can easily be from other causes.

From inception, vaccines have always been dangerous enough for some experts to call them biological weapons undermining health, manipulating and crippling the immune system, and creating the possibility of future debilitating diseases. So Big Pharma's solution is new, more potent genetically engineered vaccines and drugs that may end up harming or killing many who take them, especially people with weakened immune systems.

Matsumoto and others sounded the alarm to alert everyone to avoid these poisons masquerading as protective drugs. In fact, they benefit only the bottom lines of companies that manufacture them and scientists reaping generous royalties.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13859

Obama's Outreach to Muslims - Empty Rhetoric, Same Old Policies

Obama's Outreach to Muslims: Empty Rhetoric, Same Old Policies - by Stephen Lendman

As well as anyone, Edward Said understood the West's long-standing antipathy to Islam - reflected in Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations" article in the summer 1993 issue of Foreign Affairs and later a 1996 book.

He wrote that future conflicts won't be "primarily ideological or primarily economic. The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural....the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future" - demagogically suggesting a benevolent, superior West confronting a belligerent, hostile, inferior Muslim world. In other words, good v. evil.

Said called him and others like him, "ignorant," a "clumsy writer," and an "inelegant thinker" using a "gimmick" to suggest a "war of the worlds" pitting good guys against bad ones.

Post-9/11, it was easier than ever for America to declare war on Islam, abroad and at home - a policy no different under Obama than for eight years under George Bush. Empty rhetoric changes nothing, in Cairo or elsewhere. Facts on the ground are clear, unequivocal, and hostile - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Occupied Palestine. Also toward Iran, Syria, elected Hezbollah Lebanese officials, the legitimate Palestinian Hamas government, and targeted Muslim Americans at home - for their activism, prominence, charity, religion and ethnicity. It's the wrong time to be Muslim in America and most anywhere else in the world.

Around 1.5 billion Muslims want change and the basic respect they deserve. In the spirit of noted US civil rights activist, Fannie Lou Hamer, they're "sick and tired of being sick and tired," colonized and exploited, targeted and slaughtered, vilified as terrorists, occupied and oppressed, falsely charged, convicted, and sentenced in kangaroo-court proceedings, imprisoned and tortured, or viewed the way Edward Said explained in his noted book, "Culture and Imperialism" - as "the strange (inferior, Orient, East, them)" v. "the familiar (superior, Europe, West, us)." They deserve much better, yet remain a political target of choice.

Until that changes and high-sounding speeches become policy, empty rhetoric will fall on deaf ears. We've heard it before, yet the more things change, the more they stay the same under Democrat and Republican administrations.

Obama's Cairo speech was profoundly disingenuous, much like others past and more recently. He decried the "killing of innocent men, women, and children," yet US forces slaughter them daily in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and supply Israel with billions of dollars and the latest weapons and technology to commit slow-motion genocide against millions of Palestinians, deny their legitimate self-determination, and right of their refugees to return home as international law demands.

Also, Iraq and Afghanistan remain occupied, the former with unchanged troop levels for the duration if necessary and thousands more for the latter under a new commander, general Stanley McChrystal, known for his brutality as leader of the Pentagon's infamous Joint Special (death squad) Operations (JSO). No exiting timelines are in sight for either country. Human rights abuses and war crimes occur daily, and torture, extraordinary renditions, and military tribunals remain official US policies as they did under George Bush.

America is a serial aggressor and abuser of binding human rights laws. High-sounding rhetoric changes nothing. Obama claimed America "did not go (to Afghanistan) by choice, we went of necessity....we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there....Iraq was a war of choice (but) I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein."

"Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future - and leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August (and) why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, (and) all our troops....by 2012."

Secret provisions in the Pentagon's 2008 Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) indicate otherwise. They flagrantly violate Iraqi sovereignty and authorize the building of permanent US bases, camps, and prisons inside the country. They immunize US forces, civilian security, and private contractors from criminal prosecution. They assure Iraqi "democracy" is illusory.

Their officials have no say over US operations, including incursions into other countries. They require Washington's approval before concluding any agreements with other countries. Key Iraqi ministries stay under US control, including defense, interior, and oil. No timeline is stipulated for America's withdrawal. Conditions depend on Iraqi force readiness, the removal of "security threats" in neighboring countries (namely, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Hamas in Palestine), and national reconciliation (meaning a defeated resistance). Unacknowledged is that America is in Iraq to stay, and the same holds for Afghanistan.

The historical record shows what Obama won't say. America came to Japan in 1945 and South Korea in 1950, both close US allies, and remained there ever since. Obama plans the same fate for Iraq, Afghanistan and numerous other strategic countries where America intends permanent occupations towards its goal of "full spectrum dominance" globally, including by preemptive wars with first-strike nuclear weapons.

Obama also claimed he's "taking concrete actions to change course (and) unequivocally prohibited the use of torture" at a time the practice remains official policy and continues reprehensibly in US-run prisons, including Guantanamo, and secretly in ones in other nations doing our bidding.

Obama said nothing about the millions of Iraqi deaths, refugees, and mass human misery since the Gulf War, subsequent sanctions, and 2003 conflict. He ignored the destruction of the "cradle of civilization," subjugation of a sovereign state, and infliction of the same fate on Afghanistan. He declared his support for democracy, peace, human rights, mutual understanding, and social justice while bringing none to the region and backing its most reprehensible tyrants.

He declared an "unbreakable" bond with Israelis and demanded that Palestinians "must abandon violence." He acknowledged "more than 60 years" of their pain and dislocation but was silent on its cause, the vast slaughter and destruction from Operation Cast Lead, the daily incursions in the West Bank and Gaza, the latter Territory under a medieval siege, and the viciousness of a rogue occupier bringing death, destruction, and human misery to a civilian population in violation of binding human rights laws and norms.

He referred to a "stalemate" pitting "two people with legitimate aspirations" against each other in conflict. "It is easy to point fingers," he said, but "the only resolution (for peace is for) both sides" to accept a two-state solution as stipulated in "the road map" leading solely to isolated bantustans after Israel seizes all valued land, leaves worthless scrub patches behind, and ethnically cleanses large numbers of Palestinians to bordering countries if they'll have them.

"The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," but supplies billions in aid to build them, opposes the legitimate right of Palestinian refugees to return home, backs the corrosiveness of a racist and belligerent Zionism, supports conflicts against an occupied people, and rogue Mahmoud Abbas Fatah elements to divide, conquer, and solidify Israeli hardline rule.

Obama mentioned nuclear weapons as another source of tension, "reaffirmed America's commitment (for) a world" without them, acknowledged Iran's right to "peaceful nuclear power," ignored Israel's nuclear arsenal (likely 200 - 400 warheads), and so far as known, Iran's full compliance with NPT. America and Israel are nuclear outlaws. Israel is the region's most destabilizing force. America has that "honor" globally.

Overall, Obama proposed no concrete measures to redress decades of Palestinian grievances, nor those of Iraqis, Afghans, Pakistanis, and others in Eurasia - the region America covets for its vast energy and other resource riches.

He came, saw, spoke, made empty gestures and no promises, except about America's permanent imperial presence in partnership with Israeli rule. Obama puts a new face on long-standing policy, but no change of America's global aim - for unchallengeable dominance in this resource-rich part of the world with hardline militarism for enforcement. The Arab street harbors few illusions that it'll be otherwise going forward. 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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13859

Obama Administration Targets Environmental and Animal Rights Activists As Eco-Terrorists

Obama Administration Targets Environmental and Animal Rights Activists as Eco-Terrorists - by Stephen Lendman

What began under George Bush continues under Barack Obama - targeting dedicated activists with "one of today's most serious domestic terrorism threats," according former FBI Deputy Assistant Director of Counterterrorism John Lewis before a Senate panel in May 2005. Called "eco-terrorism," it grew out of the 2001 USA Patriot Act that created the federal crime of "domestic terrorism" and applied it to US citizens as well as aliens.

In his February 2002 testimony before the House Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, the FBI's Domestic Terrorism Section Chief, Counterterrorism Division, James Jarboe defined eco-terrorism as:

"the use or threatened use of violence of a criminal nature against innocent victims or property by an environmentally-oriented, subnational group for environmental-political reasons, or aimed at an audience beyond the target, often of a symbolic nature."

As a result, innocent people are targeted, accused, convicted and sentenced to hard time for constitutionally protected non-violent environmental activism or supporting animal rights. The so-called AETA 4 are four recent ones and face prosecution under U.S.A. v. Buddenberg for conspiracy to commit animal enterprise terrorism.

On February 19 and 20, the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force arrested Joseph Buddenberg, Maryam Khajavi, Nathan Pope, and Adriana Stumpo and charged them with conduct relating to protesting, chalking the sidewalk, chanting, and leafleting - constitutionally protected rights under the First Amendment, but no matter.

In a February 20 press release, the FBI called the four "animal rights extremists suspected of terrorizing University of California researchers (and said they) used force, violence, or threats to interfere with the operation of the (U of C) in violation of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act." More on that below.

The FBI cited specific "threatening incidents" beginning in October 2007:

-- on October 21, 2007, demonstrating outside a U of C professor's residence in El Cerrito, CA; wearing bandanas to hide their faces; trespassing on his front yard; chanting slogans; and accusing him "of being a murderer because of his use of animals in research;"

-- on January 2008, demonstrating outside the private residences of several U of C researchers; dressed in black and wearing bandanas to hide their faces; marched, chanted, and chalked "defamatory" comments on sidewalks outside their residences;

-- on February 24, 2008, "attempted to forcibly enter the private home of a Santa Cruz U of C researcher; when her husband opened the door, a struggle ensued and he was hit by an object;" one of the individuals charged then yelled, "We're gonna get you;" and

-- on July 29, 2008, "a stack of flyers titled 'Murderers and torturers alive & well in Santa Cruz July 2008 edition' was found at the Cafe Pergolesi in Santa Cruz;" they contained names, addresses, and telephone numbers of several U of C researchers and said "animal abusers everywhere beware we know where you live we know where you work we will never back down until you end your abuse;" the defendants were charged with producing and distributing the fliers after which "two firebomb attacks outside researchers' Santa Cruz homes (occurred), both of which are still under investigation by the FBI."

Most often, what the FBI and DOJ charge and what, in fact, is true is highly divergent. In this case, the AETA 4 did nothing more "criminal" than exercise their First Amendments rights, and, in so doing, neither threatened nor terrorized anyone. Like many other instances in a post-9/11 environment, and often earlier, the FBI and criminal justice system targets innocent victims, portrays them as criminals, manipulates evidence against them, prevents defense attorneys from access to any called "classified," uses dubious paid informants, and scares juries to convict. As a result, numerous victims of injustice languish behind bars as political prisoners, some serving life sentences despite having committed no crime.

That was true under George Bush and a Republican Congress and is no different under Barack Obama and a Democrat one. Enough police state laws were enacted to convict the most saintly if authorities wish to do so. And it's happening with greater frequency by manufacturing terror threats. The dominant media trumpet them. Both parties use them for political advantage and try to silence dissent. They also make false claims to convince the public that dangerous "terrorists" are being arrested, charged, tried and convicted.

Nearly always, those affected are innocent victims of police state injustice at a time we're all as vulnerable as the AETA 4.

Indictment of AETA 4 - United States of America v. Buddenberg et al - Filed March 12, 2009 in US District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose)

Count One - Conspiracy

From about October 2007 - July 2008, "the defendants conspired to use and caused to be used a facility of interstate commerce for the purpose of damaging and interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise (and) did intentionally place a person in reasonable fear of death of, and serious bodily injury to that person, a member of the immediate family of that person, and a spouse and intimate partner of that person by a course of conduct involving threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal trespass, harassment, and intimidation...."

Count Two - Force, Violence, and Threats Involving Animal Enterprises

....defendants used and caused to be used a facility of interstate commerce, for the purpose of damaging and interfering with the operations of an animal enterprise, and in connection with that purpose did intentionally" commit the same acts described above.

Status of the Case

On May 22, 2009, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) joined with defense counsel from the Civil Liberties Defense Center (CLDC) in a motion to dismiss the indictment and asked the Court to strike down the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as unconstitutional on grounds of "overbreadth (and) vagueness." CCR stated:

"These are doctrines that allow individuals to challenge laws that chill speech and advocacy and require people to guess at a statute's meaning and scope."

CCR attorney Matthew Strugar said:

"To characterize protest and speech as terrorist activities is ludicrous. And it is not just animal rights activists who are in danger here. The AETA is so broad and unclear it could be used to suppress lawful protests and boycotts by any activists across the spectrum, no matter what the issue. The law must be struck down."

CCR said the AETA 4 "actions are clearly and traditionally protected by the First Amendment (yet) The Department of Justice brazenly calls these young activists 'terrorists....' "

The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA)

On November 27, 2006, AETA became law, replacing the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act. Using broad and vague language, the new law criminalized First Amendment activities advocating for animal rights like peaceful protests, leafleting, undercover investigations, whisleblowing, and boycotts. These legal acts are now crimes under AETA. It equates peaceful protest-related activities with violence and terrorism.

Its proponents include prominent industries that exploit animals for profit. They argued that animal rights activism was increasing, their facilities were being targeted, and tough laws were needed for protection. They claimed:

-- existing federal and state laws were inadequate; and

-- activist "attacks" disrupted "vital services" that millions of Americans require.

AETA expands the 1992 law by imposing far harsher penalties than for comparable offenses under other laws and defines "disruptive" activities to include peaceful protests for consumer boycotts, advocating harmful practice reforms, and whisleblowing that results in "losses and increased losses" exceeding $10,000.

It goes further as well. It legalizes expanded surveillance of animal rights organizations, including criminal wiretapping. It also lets courts find probable cause for the vague crime of economic damage or disruption without requiring hard evidence that a person or group planned to commit these acts.

AETA exempts "lawful public, governmental or business reaction to the disclosure of information about an animal enterprise," but that provision only applies to economic disruption claims, not damage, so it makes it hard to distinguish between the two.

The law also:

-- covers facilities that use or sell animals or animal products;

-- includes any person, entity, or organization connected to an animal enterprise;

-- applies to any form of advocacy;

-- criminalizes claimed threatening conduct and protected speech as well as communication with others who engage in these practices;

-- potentially includes any form of communication such as emailing, telephoning, or distributing materials across state lines in support of abusive animal activity boycotts; and

-- protects corporate animal abusers with a vested interest in silencing dissent.

Overall and in deliberately vague language, it equates legal protests and civil disobedience with terrorism even when no violence is involved and no physical harm caused. It claims First Amendment rights don't apply in support of animals or when advocating against abusive animal practices. It places profits above constitutionally protected rights.

The Coalition to Abolish AETA

It calls itself "a national grassroots network of activists, lawyers, independent journalists and concerned citizens. (They) work collaboratively to more strategically coordinate grassroots education and outreach, legislative advocacy, media, litigation and public pressure to more effectively reverse the erosion of rights enshrined in the AETA. (It) also works to support animal protection advocates and other progressive activists to continue their work despite the chilling effect of the AETA and other repressive legislation."

The Coalition is a joint project of CLDC and CCR and urges people nationwide to join with them in their effort to "undermine (destructive) corporate interests."

It calls AETA unconstitutional by criminalizing protected activities in support of profits. It believes it's part of a larger corporate - government conspiracy to stifle dissent, constrain social activism, and exploit public fear of peaceful acts called "terrorism." It strives to build grassroots activism to challenge the law and all other forms of oppression. It supports open dialogue, mutual trust, patience, transparency, respect, and a determination to achieve justice. It asks all those who agree to join with them for a common purpose.

CCR calls AETA a "dangerous, Sedition Act like law." It says it will be used to criminalize lawful protests and turn petty offenses into major ones. It believes it's critically important that the AETA 4 indictment be dropped and AETA repealed to protect our constitutional right to dissent.

On June 8, the defendants have a status hearing in US District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). If convicted, they face up to 10 years in prison for exercising their First Amendment rights.

Another Criminal Injustice Witch-Hunt Prosecution

On December 1, 2008, this writer wrote about the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation Charity (HLF), the largest US Muslim one until the Bush administration declared it a terrorist organization, froze its assets, shut it down, and falsely claimed it was funneling millions of dollars to Hamas.

In fact, HLF provided essential relief to Palestinian refugees in Occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan as well as aid for the needy in various other countries, including Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, Turkey and America. Its major activities included:

-- financial aid to needy and impoverished families;

-- a sponsorship program for orphaned children;

-- various social services;

-- educational services;

-- medical and other emergency work; and

-- community development, including help to rebuild Palestinian homes - ones Israel willfully and illegally demolished.

Five HLF leaders were arrested, indicted, tried, and on November 24, 2008 convicted on 108 counts, including supporting a terrorist organization, money laundering, and tax fraud. It was a retrial after a jury in October remained deadlocked on 197 counts against four defendants and acquitted the fifth on all but one charge.

Sentencing was on May 27 and harsh:

-- for Chairman Ghassan Elashi - 65 years

-- President and CEO Shukri Abu Baker - 65 years

-- volunteer Mufid Abdulqader - 20 years,

-- New Jersey office director Abdulrahman Odeh - 15 years, and

-- California office director Mohammad El-Mezain - 15 years.

The Court reaffirmed the jury's $12.4 million money judgment against all the defendants, except El Mezain not convicted of money laundering.

From inception, HLF and its principals were unjustly targeted for their charity and prominence as the largest Muslim charity in America. Nancy Hollander, representing Abu-Baker, said the defendants will appeal on a number of issues, including an anonymous testimony of an expert, that she said was a first.

"Our clients were not even allowed to review their own statements because they were classified - statements that they made over the course of many years that the government (illegally) wiretapped. They were not allowed to go back and review them. They were statements from alleged co-conspirators that included handwritten notes. Nobody knew who wrote them; nobody knew when they were written. There are a plethora of issues."

Clearly it's the wrong time to be Muslim in America as well as an environmental or animal rights activist. It was true under George Bush and no different under Barack Obama.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13804

Remembering Father Gerry

Remembering Father Gerry - by Stephen Lendman

The Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti's (IJDH) Brian Concannon knew him well, and posted this on IJDH's web site on his passing:

"Reverend Gerard Jean-Juste (1947 - 2009), a tireless advocate for justice for Haitians in Haiti and the US, passed away today, May 27, 2009. Fr. Gerry's passing is a great loss to all of us at IJDH and BAI (Bureau des Avocats Internationaux in Haiti)."

In an on-air interview, Concannon added:

"So every time there's been a dictatorship in Haiti in the last 20 years he was one of the top people out there resisting it. He was also a leader in the United States where we've got a problem of treating Haitian immigrants discriminatorily. He not only achieved results including ending all three of those dictatorships, but what's probably (most) important was how he achieved (them) - because he was a steadfast proponent of nonviolent tactics including sit-ins, demonstrations, popular education, those kinds of things. He was very effectively able to channel the Haitian people's desire for justice into concrete activities."

Friends, associates, bloggers, and many others paid tribute to this champion of the poor and oppressed, a Liberation Theologian, and ardent Fanmi Lavalas supporter - the party President Jean-Bertrand Aristide headed until US Marines ousted him to exile on February 29, 2004.

William Grimes in The New York Times headlined: "The Rev. Gerard Jean-Juste, Champion of Haitian Rights in US, Dies at 62."

In a glowing, moving tribute, Directeur du Centre Haitien's Professor Bell Angelot wrote:

"Like Jeremiah the prophet, he knew the inside of a prison. Like Martin Luther King, Jr. he preached love. Like Mahatma Gandhi he lived non-violence and overcame violence. Just as Moses never reached the Promised Land, he too, did not see the day of the complete liberation of the Haitian people."

"Father Jean-Juste was always coupled to what's just and morally right. A powerful spirit has left this earth, and our mourning darkens the whole city....But though the prophet is gone, his light remains. (He) was one of the pioneers of Liberation Theology alongside Jean- Bertrand Aristide of Haiti, Leonardo Boff of Nicaragua and Oscar Romero of Salvador....."

"He is not dead/He lives on! His body succumbed to the vicissitudes: to pains that even defied science, to evil his heart and brain could no longer bring order to, to political shocks that his conviction and his morale could no longer endure. In the name of the larger Lavalas Movement, we bid farewell to (this blessed man) and wish him a good journey....Thank you very much brother/compatriot, we shall continue to be the Sentinels."

Reverend Jesse Jackson knew Jean-Juste since the 1980s and once traveled with him to see the Pope in Rome. Expressing sorrow, he said: "The burden he puts upon those who remain is to continue his unfinished business. He lived in the eye of the gun, but without fear....he is a martyr whose legacy will live a long time."

In a recorded statement from exile in South Africa, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide said Father Gerry "will always live in the thoughts of those who love him. It is there you triumph over death" and the evil he resisted to the end.

Others said "I've lost a brother....My father! My friend! A role model for the rights of the less fortunate."

Bill Quigley called him a "Jesus-like revolutionary. In jail and out, he preached liberation of the poor, release of prisoners, human rights for all, and a fair distribution of wealth....(He) was a scourge to the unelected coup governments of Haiti, who served at the pleasure, and usually the direction, of the US government. (In America) he fought against government actions (to deport) black Haitians while welcoming Cubans and Nicaraguans and others....Mon pere, our brother, your spirit....lives on."

Fr. Gerry worked tirelessly for the less fortunate, was the first Haitian ordained a priest by the US Catholic Church, and according to attorney Ira Kurzban who represented his Miami-based Haitian Refugee Center:

"He was a person who spent his whole life committed to justice for the poor" despite being harassed, intimidated, falsely charged with murder, illegally possessing weapons and conspiracy, and jailed twice by the US-installed Latortue government. Then in December 2005, he was diagnosed with leukemia in prison.

Medical anthropologist, healer, humanitarian, co-founder of Partners in Health to treat the poor, and board member of the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti Dr. Paul Farmer broke the news at the time saying:

"I visited Father Gerry just before Christmas because I had heard reports that his health was deteriorating...I examined him, obtained the necessary specimens and brought them to the laboratory. When his neck first began to swell some months ago, he thought it was due to a beating he'd received in jail. But the swelling on both sides of his neck increased, followed by fatigue and swollen lymph nodes elsewhere."

"A definitive diagnosis is in: Father Gerry has (what later was confirmed as chronic lymphocytic leukemia). So he is not only a prisoner of conscience, one of hundreds in Haiti, but a sick prisoner who needs more than prayers and letters of support. He needs proper medical care and, probably chemotherapy," hard to get anywhere in Haiti and impossible "in a Haitian prison." Farmer said his symptoms were progressing rapidly, could damage his immune system, would make him susceptible to common prison infections and diseases, and might end up killing him.

On October 13, 2004, Haitian police arrested him while feeding hungry children in his parish on charges of being "a threat to public order," or in other words no charges, so they made one up. After several weeks, he was released following outcries from supporters, but it was only the beginning of his ordeal.

In July 2005, he was arrested again on charges of murdering journalist Jacques Roche even though he was out of the country at the time of the killing. On July 28, Amnesty International named him a prisoner of conscience, its highest honor. On January 26, 2006, the murder charges were dropped, but he was indicted on illegal weapons possession and conspiracy.
Then on January 29, he was provisionally released on humanitarian grounds to receive proper medical care in Miami.

On September 11, 2006, the University of San Francisco awarded him an honorary doctorate in recognition of his human rights and social justice work. On November 26, 2007, the Port-au-Prince Court of Appeals heard challenges to his illegal weapons and conspiracy charges but declined to dismiss them, even though the prosecutor said no evidence existed.

Finally, in June 2008, the remaining charges were dropped. All were bogus and intended only to intimidate and harass, disrupt his social justice work, and remove a persistent thorn - a beloved humanitarian and champion of the poor from continuing his work and speaking forcefully against what former Prime Minister Yvon Neptune called Haiti's "political machine of injustice" and all forms of violence.

In September 2005, Port-au-Prince's archbishop Joseph Serge Miot suspended Fr. Gerry from his parish duties at the city's St. Claire Catholic Church on grounds he might run for president, something the Vatican prohibits. Jean-Juste was in prison at the time, couldn't register if he considered running, and immediately appealed. The Vatican, however, supported Miot. The suspension remained, and likely it was less about politics than the Liberation Theology Fr. Gerry practiced.

Rome has long supported some of the most repressive dictators globally. In Haiti also even though it excommunicated Francois (Papa Doc) Duvalier in 1959 for expelling clergy critical of his rule. However, in 1966, Pope Paul IV capitulated, reversed the excommunication, and gave Duvalier veto power over Haitian clerical appointments.

The Vatican hardly notices what Haitians now endure, their deep poverty and deprivation, and how oppressively Washington-backed governments treat them. Only humanitarian opposition engenders its ire, the kind no one practiced better than Fr. Gerry.

He was born in Cavaillon, Haiti in 1947, grew up in Les Cayes in the Southeast, studied for the priesthood in Canada, was ordained in 1971, then returned to Haiti to minister to the poor. After refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the Jean-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier government later in 1971, he came to America, worked at the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in Boston, and earned two degrees from Northeastern University - in engineering technology in 1974 and civil engineering in 1977.

In 1979, he co-founded the Miami Haitian Refugee Center to help thousands of Haiti's poor find asylum in America from repression and deep poverty at home. International law protects them, but it hardly mattered then or now.

Being poor and black, Haitians aren't wanted so they're denied the same rights afforded more favored immigrants like Europeans and Cubans. They're rounded up on arrival, denied refuge, placed in detention under deplorable conditions, and treated like criminals before most often being deported back home. Fr. Gerry worked tirelessly on their behalf and against America's discriminatory immigration policies. In 1980, he told the Miami Herald:

"Haitian people had no rights in Haiti, and they have no rights here. They are starving, they are being separated from their families, they cannot work."

Haitian Women of America's executive director, Marleine Bastien, told the AP:

"We were out in the streets, demonstrating nearly every day on behalf of other Haitian immigrants. I can still in my mind's eye see (Fr. Gerry) lying on the ground when buses were taking refugees without process - lying there in the path of the buses."

In 1980, a US District Court ruled for the Center against the Immigration and Naturalization Service's "wholesale violations of due process" and racial bias for its mass deportation policy. It ordered a new hearing for thousands of Haitians - represented by the Center and other organizations in a class-action suit.

After Jean-Bertrand Aristide's February 1991 election, Fr. Gerry returned to Haiti to help his country's poor and represent the Haitian diaspora abroad. However, after the September military coup, he went into hiding, only resuming his work publicly after Aristide's 1994 return.

After the February 2004 coup, the Washington-installed Latortue government began the above-described ordeal that led to his illness and death. Tears and tributes now honor him. The best way for us all is to support others who continue his work - with far more than just lip service.

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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13804

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now

Daniel Estulin's "True Story of the Bilderberg Group" and What They May Be Planning Now - by Stephen Lendman

For over 14 years, Daniel Estulin has investigated and researched the Bilderberg Group's far-reaching influence on business and finance, global politics, war and peace, and control of the world's resources and its money.

His book, "The True Story of the Bilderberg Group," was published in 2005 and is now updated in a new 2009 edition. He states that in 1954, "the most powerful men in the world met for the first time" in Oosterbeek, Netherlands, "debated the future of the world," and decided to meet annually in secret. They called themselves the Bilderberg Group with a membership representing a who's who of world power elites, mostly from America, Canada, and Western Europe with familiar names like David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel, Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Lloyd Blankfein, George Soros, Donald Rumsfeld, Rupert Murdoch, other heads of state, influential senators, congressmen and parliamentarians, Pentagon and NATO brass, members of European royalty, selected media figures, and invited others - some quietly by some accounts like Barack Obama and many of his top officials.

Always well represented are top figures from the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), IMF, World Bank, Trilateral Commission, EU, and powerful central bankers from the Federal Reserve, the ECB's Jean-Claude Trichet, and Bank of England's Mervyn King.

For over half a century, no agenda or discussion topics became public nor is any press coverage allowed. The few invited fourth estate attendees and their bosses are sworn to secrecy. Nonetheless, Estulin undertook "an investigative journey" that became his life's work. He states:

"Slowly, one by one, I have penetrated the layers of secrecy surrounding the Bilderberg Group, but I could not have done this withot help of 'conscientious objectors' from inside, as well as outside, the Group's membership." As a result, he keeps their names confidential.

Whatever its early mission, the Group is now "a shadow world government....threaten(ing) to take away our right to direct our own destinies (by creating) a disturbing reality" very much harming the public's welfare. In short, Bilderbergers want to supplant individual nation-state sovereignty with an all-powerful global government, corporate controlled, and check-mated by militarized enforcement.

"Imagine a private club where presidents, prime ministers, international bankers and generals rub shoulders, where gracious royal chaperones ensure everyone gets along, and where the people running the wars, markets, and Europe (and America) say what they never dare say in public."

Early in its history, Bilderbergers decided "to create an 'Aristocracy of purpose' between Europe and the United States (to reach consensus to rule the world on matters of) policy, economics, and (overall) strategy." NATO was essential for their plans - to ensure "perpetual war (and) nuclear blackmail" to be used as necessary. Then proceed to loot the planet, achieve fabulous wealth and power, and crush all challengers to keep it.

Along with military dominance, controlling the world's money is crucial for with it comes absolute control as the powerful 19th century Rothschild family understood. As the patriarch Amschel Rothschild once said: "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes its laws."

Bilderbergers comprise the world's most exclusive club. No one buys their way in. Only the Group's Steering Committee decides whom to invite, and in all cases participants are adherents to One World Order governance run by top power elites.

According to Steering Committee rules:

"the invited guests must come alone; no wives, girlfriends, husbands or boyfriends. Personal assistants (meaning security, bodyguards, CIA or other secret service protectors) cannot attend the conference and must eat in a separate hall. (Also) The guests are explicitly forbidden from giving interviews to journalists" or divulge anything that goes on in meetings.

Host governments provide overall security to keep away outsiders. One-third of attendees are political figures. The others are from industry, finance, academia, labor and communications.

Meeting procedure is by Chatham House Rules letting attendees freely express their views in a relaxed atmosphere knowing nothing said will be quoted or revealed to the public. Meetings "are always frank, but do not always conclude with consensus."

Membership consists of annual attendees (around 80 of the world's most powerful) and others only invited occasionally because of their knowledge or involvement in relevant topics. Those most valued are asked back, and some first-timers are chosen for their possible later usefulness.

Arkansas governor Bill Clinton, for example, who attended in 1991. "There, David Rockefeller told (him) why the North American Free Trade Agreement....was a Bilderberg priority and that the group needed him to support it. The next year, Clinton was elected president," and on January 1, 1994 NAFTA took effect. Numerous other examples are similar, including who gets chosen for powerful government, military and other key positions.

Bilderberg Objectives

The Group's grand design is for "a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace, policed by one world army, and financially regulated by one 'World (Central) Bank' using one global currency." Their "wish list" includes:

-- "one international identify (observing) one set of universal values;"

-- centralized control of world populations by "mind control;" in other words, controlling world public opinion;

-- a New World Order with no middle class, only "rulers and servants (serfs)," and, of course, no democracy;

-- "a zero-growth society" without prosperity or progress, only greater wealth and power for the rulers;

-- manufactured crises and perpetual wars;

-- absolute control of education to program the public mind and train those chosen for various roles;

-- "centralized control of all foreign and domestic policies;" one size fits all globally;

-- using the UN as a de facto world government imposing a UN tax on "world citizens;"

-- expanding NAFTA and WTO globally;

-- making NATO a world military;

-- imposing a universal legal system; and

-- a global "welfare state where obedient slaves will be rewarded and non-conformists targeted for extermination."

Secret Bilderberg Partners

In the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is dominant. One of its 1921 founders, Edward Mandell House, was Woodrow Wilson's chief advisor and rumored at the time to be the nation's real power from 1913 - 1921. On his watch, the Federal Reserve Act passed in December 1913 giving money creation power to bankers, and the 16th Amendment was ratified in February creating the federal income tax to provide a revenue stream to pay for government debt service.

From its beginnings, CFR was committed to "a one-world government based on a centralized global financing system...." Today, CFR has thousands of influential members (including important ones in the corporate media) but keeps a low public profile, especially regarding its real agenda.

Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. called it a "front organization (for) the heart of the American Establishment." It meets privately and only publishes what it wishes the public to know. Its members are only Americans.

The Trilateral Commission (discussed below) is a similar group that "brings together global power brokers." Founded by David Rockefeller, he's also a leading Bilderberger and CFR Chairman Emeritus, organizations he continues to finance and support.

Their past and current members reflect their power:

-- nearly all presidential candidates of both parties;

-- leading senators and congressmen;

-- key members of the fourth estate and their bosses; and

-- top officials of the FBI, CIA, NSA, defense establishment, and other leading government agencies, including state, commerce, the judiciary and treasury.

For its part, "CFR has served as a virtual employment agency for the federal government under both Democrats and Republicans." Whoever occupies the White House, "CFR's power and agenda" have been unchanged since its 1921 founding.

It advocates a global superstate with America and other nations sacrificing their sovereignty to a central power. CFR founder Paul Warburg was a member of Roosevelt's "brain trust." In 1950, his son, James, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "We shall have world government whether or not you like it - by conquest or consent."

Later at the 1992 Bilderberg Group meeting, Henry Kissinger said:

"Today, Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow, they will be grateful. This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil....individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government."

CFR planned a New World Order before 1942, and the "UN began with a group of CFR members called the Informal Agenda Group." They drafted the original UN proposal, presented it to Franklin Roosevelt who announced it publicly the next day. At its 1945 founding, CFR members comprised over 40 of the US delegates.

According to Professor G. William Domhoff, author of Who Rules America, the CFR operates in "small groups of about twenty-five, who bring together leaders from the six conspirator categories (industrialists, financiers, ideologues, military, professional specialists - lawyers, medical doctors, etc. - and organized labor) for detailed discussions of specific topics in the area of foreign affairs." Domhoff added:

"The Council on Foreign Relations, while not financed by government, works so closely with it that it is difficult to distinguish Council action stimulated by government from autonomous actions. (Its) most important sources of income are leading corporations and major foundations." The Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford Foundations to name three, and they're directed by key corporate officials.

Dominant Media Partners

Former CBS News president Richard Salant (1961 - 64 and 1966 - 79) explained the major media's role: "Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have."

CBS and other media giants control everything we see, hear and read - through television, radio, newspapers, magazines, books, films, and large portions of the Internet. Their top officials and some journalists attend Bilderberg meetings - on condition they report nothing.

The Rockefeller family wields enormous power, even though its reigning patriarch, David, will be 94 on June 12 and surely near the end of his dominance. However, for years "the Rockefellers (led by David) gained great influence over the media. (With it) the family gained sway over public opinion. With the pulse of public opinion, they gained deep influence in politics. And with this politics of subtle corruption, they are taking control of the nation" and now aim for total world domination.

The Bilderberger-Rockefeller scheme is to make their views "so appealing (by camouflaging them) that they become public policy (and can) pressure world leaders into submitting to the 'needs of the Masters of the Universe.' " The "free world press" is their instrument to disseminate "agreed-upon propaganda."

CFR Cabinet Control

"The National Security Act of 1947 established the office of Secretary of Defense." Since then, 14 DOD secretaries have been CFR members.

Since 1940, every Secretary of State, except James Byrnes, has been a CFR member and/or Trilateral Commission (TC) one.

For the past 80 years, "Virtually every key US National Security and Foreign Policy Advisor has been a CFR member.

Nearly all top generals and admirals have been CFR members.

Many presidential candidates were/are CFR members, including Herbert Hoover, Adlai Stevenson, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter (also a charter TC member), George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and John McCain.

Numerous CIA directors were/are CFR members, including Richard Helmes, James Schlesinger, William Casey, William Webster, Robert Gates, James Woolsey, John Deutsch, George Tenet, Porter Goss, Michael Hayden, and Leon Panetta.

Many Treasury Secretaries were/are CFR members, including Douglas Dillon, George Schultz, William Simon, James Baker, Nicholas Brady, Lloyd Bentsen, Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, and Tim Geithner.

When presidents nominate Supreme Court candidates, the CFR's "Special Group, Secret Team" or advisors vet them for acceptability. Presidents, in fact, are told who to appoint, including designees to the High Court and most lower ones.

Programming the Public Mind

According to sociologist Hadley Cantril in his 1967 book, The Human Dimension - Experiences in Policy Research:

Government "Psycho-political operations are propaganda campaigns designed to create perpetual tension and to manipulate different groups of people to accept the particular climate of opinion the CFR seeks to achieve in the world."

Canadian writer Ken Adachi (1929 - 1989) added:

"What most Americans believe to be 'Public Opinion' is in reality carefully crafted and scripted propaganda designed to elicit a desired behavioral response from the public."

And noted Australian academic and activist Alex Carey (1922 - 1988) explained the three most important 20th century developments - "The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy."

Web of Control

Numerous think tanks, foundations, the major media, and other key organizations are staffed with CFR members. Most of its life-members also belong to the TC and Bilderberg Group, operate secretly, and wield enormous power over US and world affairs.

The Rockefeller-Founded Trilateral Commission (TC)

On page 405 of his Memoirs, David Rockfeller wrote:

"Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it."

In alliance with Bilderbergers, the TC also "plays a vital role in the New World Order's scheme to use wealth, concentrated in the hands of the few, to exert world control." TC members share common views and all relate to total unchallengeable global dominance.

Founded in 1973 and headquartered in Washington, its powerful US, EU and East Asian members seek its operative founding goal - a "New International Economic Order," now simply a "New World Order" run by global elites from these three parts of the world with lesser members admitted from other countries.

According to TC's web site, "each regional group has a chairman and deputy chairman, who all together constitute the leadership of the Committee. The Executive Committee draws together a further 36 individuals from the wider membership," proportionately representing the US, EU, and East Asia in its early years, now enlarged to be broadly global.

Committee members meet several times annually to discuss and coordinate their work. The Executive Committee chooses members, and at any time around 350 belong for a three-year renewable period. Everyone is a consummate insider with expertise in business, finance, politics, the military, or the media, including past presidents, secretaries of state, international bankers, think tank and foundation executives, university presidents and selected academics, and former senators and congressmen, among others.

Although its annual reports are available for purchase, its inner workings, current goals, and operations are secret - with good reason. Its objectives harm the public so mustn't be revealed. Trilaterals over Washington author Antony Sutton wrote:

"this group of private citizens is precisely organized in a manner that ensures its collective views have significant impact on public policy."

In her book, Trilateralism: The Trilateral Commission and Elite Planning for World Management, Holly Sklar wrote:

Powerful figures in America, Europe, and East Asia let "the rich....safeguard the interests of Western capitalism in an explosive world - probably by discouraging protectionism, nationalism, or any response that would pit the elites of one against the elites of another," in their common quest for global dominance.

Trilateralist Zbigniew Brzezinski (TC's co-founder) wrote in his Between Two Ages - America's Role in the Technotronic Era:

"people, governments and economies of all nations must serve the needs of multinational banks and corporations. (The Constitution is) inadequate....the old framework of international politics, with their sphere of influence....the fiction of sovereignty....is clearly no longer compatible with reality...."

TC today is now global with members from countries as diverse as Argentina, Ukraine, Israel, Jordan, Brazil, Turkey, China and Russia. In his Trilaterals Over America, Antony Sutton believes that TC's aim is to collaborate with Bilderbergers and CFR in "establishing public policy objectives to be implemented by governments worldwide." He added that "Trilateralists have rejected the US Constitution and the democratic political process." In fact, TC was established to counter a "crisis in democracy" - too much of it that had to be contained.

An official TC report was fearful about "the increased popular participation in and control over established social, political, and economic institutions and especially a reaction against the concentration of power of Congress and of state and local government."

To address this, media control was essential to exert "restraint on what newspapers may publish (and TV and radio broadcast)." Then according to Richard Gardner in the July 1974 issue of Foreign Affairs (a CFR publication):

CFR's leadership must make "an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece," until the very notion disappears from public discourse.

Bilderberg/CFR/Trilateralist success depends on finding "a way to get us to surrender our liberties in the name of some common threat or crisis. The foundations, educational institutions, and research think tanks supported by (these organizations) oblige by financing so-called 'studies' which are then used to justify their every excess. The excuses vary, but the target is always individual liberty. Our liberty" and much more.

Bilderbergers, Trilateralists and CFR members want "an all-encompassing monopoly" - over government, money, industry, and property that's "self-perpetuating and eternal." In Confessions of a Monopolist (1906), Frederick C. Howe explained its workings in practice:

"The rules of big business: Get a monopoly; let Society work for you. So long as we see all international revolutionaries and all international capitalists as implacable enemies of one another, then we miss a crucial point....a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism is for their mutual benefit."

In the Rockefeller File, Gary Allen wrote:

"By the late nineteenth century, the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain a monopoly was to say it was for the 'public good' and 'public interest.' "

David Rockefeller learned the same thing from his father, John D., Jr. who learned it from his father, John D. Sr. They hated competition and relentlessly strove to eliminate it - for David on a global scale through a New World Order.

In the 1970s and 1980s, Trilateralists and CFR members collaborated on the latter's "1980 Project," the largest ever CFR initiative to steer world events "toward a particular desirable future outcome (involving) the utter disintegration of the economy." Why so is the question?

Because by the 1950s and 1960s, worldwide industrial growth meant more competition. It was also a model to be followed, and "had to be strangled in the cradle" or at least greatly contained. In America as well beginning in the 1980s. The result has been a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich, shrinkage of the middle class, and plan for its eventual demise.

The North American Union (NAU)

The idea emerged during the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. David Rockefeller, George Schultz and Paul Volker told the president that Canada and America could be politically and economically merged over the next 15 years except for one problem - French-speaking Quebec. Their solution - elect a Bilderberg-friendly prime minister, separate Quebec from the other provinces, then make Canada America's 51st state. It almost worked, but not quite when a 1995 secession referendum was defeated - 50.56% to 49.44%, but not the idea of merger.

At a March 23, 2005 Waco, Texas meeting, attended by George Bush, Mexico's Vincente Fox, and Canada's Paul Martin, the Security and and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) was launched, also known as the North American Union (NAU). It was a secretive Independent Task Force of North America agreement - a group organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE), the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and CFR with the following aims:

-- circumventing the legislatures of three countries and their constitutions;

-- suppressing public knowledge or consideration; and

-- proposing greater US, Canadian and Mexican economic, political, social, and security integration with secretive working groups formed to devise non-debatable, not voted on agreements to be binding and unchangeable.

In short - a corporate coup d'etat against the sovereignty of three nations enforced by hard line militarization to suppress opposition.

If enacted, it will create a borderless North America, corporate controlled, without barriers to trade or capital flows for business giants, mainly US ones and much more - America's access to vital resources, especially oil and Canada's fresh water.

Secretly, over 300 SPP initiatives were crafted to harmonize the continent's policies on energy, food, drugs, security, immigration, manufacturing, the environment, and public health along with militarizing three nations for enforcement.

SPP represents another step toward the Bilderberg/Trilateralist/CFR goal for World Government, taking it one step at a time. A "United Europe" was another, the result of various treaties and economic agreements:

-- the December 1951 six-nation European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC);

-- the March 1957 six-nation Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community (EEC);
also the European Atomic Energy Commission (EAEC) by a second Treaty of Rome;

-- the October 1957 European Court of Justice to settle regional trade disputes;

-- the May 1960 seven-nation European Free Trade Association (EFTA);

-- the July 1967 European Economic Community (EEC) merging the ECSC, EAEC and EEC together in one organization;

-- the 1968 European Customs Union to abolish duties and establish uniform imports taxing among EEC nations;

-- the 1978 European Currency Unit (ECU);

-- the February 1986 Single European Act revision of the 1957 Treaty of Rome; it established the objective of forming a Common Market by December 31, 1992;

-- the February 1992 Maastricht Treaty creating the EU on November 1, 1993; and

-- the name euro was adopted in December 1995; it was introduced in January 1999 replacing the European Currency Unit (ECU); euros began circulating on January 2002; they're now the official currency of 16 of the 27 EU states.

Over half a century, the above steps cost EU members their sovereignty "as some 70 to 80 per cent of the laws passed in Europe involve just rubber stamping of regulations already written by nameless bureaucrats in 'working groups' in Brussels or Luxembourg."

The EU and NAU share common features:

-- advocacy from a influential spokesperson;

-- an economic and later political union;

-- hard line security, and for Europe, ending wars on the continent between EU member states;

-- establishment of a collective consciousness in place of nationalism;

-- the blurring of borders and creation of a "supra-government," a superstate;

-- secretive arrangements to mask real objectives; and

-- the creation of a common currency and eventual global one.

Steps Toward a North American Union

-- the October 4, 1988 Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between the US and Canada, finalized the previous year;

-- at the 1991 Bilderberg meeting, David Rockefeller got governor Bill Clinton's support for NAFTA if he became president;

-- on January 1, 1994, with no debate under "fast-track" rules, Congress approved WTO legislation;

-- in December 1994 at the first Summit of the Americas, 34 Hemispheric leaders committed their nations to a Free Trade of the Americas agreement (FTAA) by 2005 - so far unachieved;

-- on July 4, 2000, Mexican president Vincente Fox called for a North American common market in 20 years;

-- on February 2001, the White House published a joint statement from George Bush and Vincente Fox called the "Guanajuato Proposal;" it was for a US-Canada-Mexico prosperity partnership (aka North American Union);

-- in September 2001, Bush and Fox agreed to a "Partnership for Prosperity Initiative;"

-- the September 11, 2001 attack gave cover to including "security" as part of a future partnership;

-- on October 7, 2001, a CFA meeting highlighted "The Future of North American Integration in the Wake of Terrorist Attacks; for the first time, "security" became part of a future "partnership for prosperity;" also, Canada was to be included in a "North American" agreement;

-- in 2002, the North American Forum on Integration (NAFI) was established in Montreal "to address the issues raised by North American integration as well as identify new ideas and strategies to reinforce the North American region;"

-- in January 2003, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE - composed of 150 top CEOs) launched the "North American Security and Prosperity Initiative" calling for continental integration;

-- in April 2004, Canadian prime minister Paul Martin announced the nation's first ever national security policy called Securing an Open Society;

-- on October 15, 2004, CFR established an Independent Task Force on the Future of North America - for a future continental union;

-- in March 2005, a CFR report titled Creating a North American Community called for continental integration by 2010 "to enhance, prosperity, and opportunity for all North Americans;" and

-- on March 23, 2005 in Waco, Texas, America, Canada and Mexico leaders launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) - aka North American Union (NAU).

Secretive negotiations continue. Legislative debate is excluded, and public inclusion and debate are off the table. In May 2005, the CFR Independent Task Force on the Future of North America published a follow-up report titled Building a North American Community - proposing a borderless three-nation union by 2010.

In June and July 2005, the Dominican Republic - Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) passed the Senate and House establishing corporate-approved trade rules to further impoverish the region and move a step closer to continental integration.

In March 2006, the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) was created at the second SPP summit in Cancun, Mexico. Composed of 30 top North American CEOs, it serves as an official trilateral SPP working group.

Secret business and government meetings continue so there's no way to confirm SPP's current status or if Barack Obama is seamlessly continuing George Bush's agenda. In an earlier article, this writer said:

SPP efforts paused during the Bush to Obama transition, but "deep integration" plans remain. Canada's Fraser Institute proposed renaming the initiative the North American Standards and Regulatory Area (NASRA) to disguise its real purpose. It said the "SPP brand" is tarnished so re-branding is essential - to fool the public until it's too late to matter.

Bilderbergers, Trilaterists, and CFR leaders back it as another step toward global integration and won't "stop until the entire world is unified under the auspices and the political umbrella of a One World Company, a nightmarish borderless world run by the world's most powerful clique" - comprised of key elitist members of these dominant organizations.

In April 2007, the Transatlantic Economic Council was established between America and the EU to:

-- create an "official international governmental body - by executive fiat;

-- harmonize economic and regulatory objectives;

-- move toward a Transatlantic Common Market; and

-- a step closer to One World Government run by the world's most powerful corporate interests.

Insights into the 2009 Bilderberg Group Meeting

From May 14 - 17, Bilderbergers held their annual meeting in Vouliagmeni, Greece, and according to Daniel Estulin have dire plans for global economies.

According to his pre-meeting sources, they're divided on two alternatives:

"Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty (or) an intense but shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency."

Other agenda items included:

-- "the future of the US dollar and US economy;"

-- continued deception about green shoots signaling an end to recession and improving economy later in the year;

-- suppressing the fact that bank stress tests were a sham and were designed for deception, not an accurate assessment of major banks' health;

-- projecting headlined US unemployment to hit 14% by year end - way above current forecasts and meaning the true number will be double, at minimum, with all uncounted categories included; and

-- a final push to get the Lisbon Treaty passed for pan-European (EU) adoption of neoliberal rules, including greater privatizations, fewer worker rights and social benefits, open border trade favoring developed over emerging states, and greater militarization to suppress civil liberties and human rights.

After the meeting, Estulin got a 73-page report on what was discussed. He noted that "One of Bilderberg's primary concerns....is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos (toward) their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet."

Estulin also noted some considerable disagreement between "hardliners" wanting a "dramatic decline and a severe, short-term depression (versus others) who think that things have gone too far" so that "the fallout from the global economic cataclysm" can't be known, may be greater than anticipated, and may harm Bilderberger interests. Also, "some European bankers (expressed great alarm over their own fate and called the current) high wire act 'unsustainable.' "

There was a combination of agreement and fear that the situation remains dire and the worst of the crisis lies ahead, mainly because of America's extreme debt level that must be resolved to produce a healthy, sustainable recovery.

Topics also included:

-- establishing a Global Treasury Department and Global Central Bank, possibly partnered with or as part of the IMF;

-- a global currency;

-- destruction of the dollar through what longtime market analyst Bob Chapman calls "a stealth default on (US) debt by continuing to issue massive amounts of money and credit and in the process devaluing the dollar," a process he calls "fraud;"

-- a global legal system;

-- exploiting the Swine Flu scare to create a WHO global department of health; and

-- the overall goal of a global government and the end of national sovereignty.

In the past, Estulin's sources proved accurate. Earlier, he predicted the housing crash and 2007 - 2008 financial market decline, preceded by the kind of financial crisis triggered by the Lehman Brothers collapse. Watch for further updates from him as new information leaks out on what the world's power elites have planned going forward.

Estulin will be the featured guest on The Global Research News Hour Tuesday, June 2. He can be heard live or afterwards through the program archive.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre of Research for 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 Monday - Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13720