31 aug 2013
The USS San Antonio departs Naval Station Norfolk in Norfolk, Virginia on October 31, 2012
The United States of America stands exposed in the eyes of the entire world as the number-one terrorist threat to the future of humanity. Many have known this fact already, but now it is universally clear.
As the US prepares to launch an overt war on Syria (the covert war has been raging for 30 months), the vast majority of humanity can finally see through all its decades of pretense and conceit as the world’s model of democracy and international law. And what they see is the ugly opposite. The US is a terrorist state that holds international law, democracy and human rights in utter contempt. It is ready, as it always has been, to kill countless civilians for its selfish political ambitions. That is the conventional definition of “terrorism”.
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad made a profound point recently when he said that his country has faced aggression for more than two years, but only now is the real enemy revealing itself - the US and its minions. But the US terrorist state is not just being called out over Syria. It is being revealed as the enemy to the entire world.
From past wars in the Caribbean, Central America, Philippines, Vietnam and Indochina, through coups and covert ops in Iran, Iraq, Africa, to recent killing fields in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, the historical picture is now complete. All these conflicts and many more - too many to mention here - integrate into one indisputable truth. The US is the world’s biggest terror state. If it is not dealt with definitely, then the future of the world is in peril more than ever.
In previous crimes of aggression, the US ruling elite could invoke the spurious cover of “a coalition of the willing”, or the abused authority of the United Nations or NATO. It was able to do that through deployment of lies, fabrications and a supine mass media that would lend credibility to the mendacity. Now, thanks to alternative, critical media and instant global communications, the American lies don’t work any longer. In an instant, they are exposed; just like the attempt in the last few hours of US Secretary of State John to frame up Syria over alleged chemical weapons use.
The New York Times, BBC and the usual Western media mouthpieces for imperialist propaganda dutifully facilitated Kerry and his US state terrorism with bombastic, important-sounding headlines: “Kerry lays out evidence against Syria”. There was hardly a critical question raised, even though there are grounds for dozens such questions. Years ago, that kind of herd-think might have been enough to buy the US warmongers enough time to launch a war - but not any more. Within minutes of Kerry’s supposedly definitive condemnation, statements, articles, tweets and blogs were pulling the charade asunder, showing that apart from Western-media-amplified bombast, Kerry was not saying anything of value. It was just another risible repetition of earlier hyperbole and empty rhetoric. Or in short, lies.
The people of the world have reached a critical mass of intolerance towards the rogue terror states of the US, Britain, France, Israel and a few other accomplices. We have watched their relentless mass murder and exploitation of fellow humans in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. We have witnessed how this tiny group of state terrorists imposes on the vast majority of humanity their vile criminality and in the process then insult us with grotesque lies and justifications. We have seen how these rogue states have stolen land, poisoned people’s water, burnt their crops, dispossessed their homes, assassinated families with aerial drones and ground drones in the form of death squads. They have committed all these shocking crimes with lies and impunity to the point where now these state terrorists are operating in more than one country simultaneously in a permanent state of relentless war, pushing the very future of humanity to the brink.
However, despite this lawlessness and gangsterism, the people of the world are fighting back.
This week the British parliament voted against the London government’s arrogance to provide its usual criminal special relationship to the Americans. In the execution of past war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - to mention a few - Washington could rely on the trusty British imperialists to give a veneer of “coalition of the willing”. British premier David Cameron’s plans to repeat the criminality by backing Washington’s plans to bomb Syria were dealt a crushing blow by the British parliament voting against any such military action. Cameron was forced to withdraw. The vote in the British parliament is not so much a sign of ethics among Britain’s political class. It is
more a reflection of the global awakening among ordinary citizens that this insane state terrorism must stop.
The French government has also backed off earlier bellicose bravado, with French President Francois Hollande belatedly calling for a “peaceful, political solution” over the Syrian crisis. Even Washington’s reliable Canadian puppet Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that his country will not be getting involved military in Syria. It is also reported that 10 members of the NATO alliance - one-third of the total - are not willing to support American strikes. This latter grouping comprises the usual minions of the US. And we haven’t even yet acknowledged the more strident opponents, such as Russia, China, Iran and the majority of nations elsewhere in Asia, Africa and the Americas.
The people of the world have had it with elite Western rulers acting as terrorists who are holding humanity to ransom. The rulers are presiding not only over military terrorism. They are inflicting economic, social and ecological terrorism with their bankrupt capitalist smash-and-grab system. That system has reached the point of meltdown and that is why we are being pushed into relentless wars - in order for the rulers and their politician puppets to corner the remaining resources. The ultimate solution to end the wars is for the people to overthrow the economic system that US and Western elite rulers preside over. The insane criminality of the US rulers over Syria is exposing this historic challenge facing humanity.
After the British parliamentary setback the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said: “Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together. It is the goal of President Obama and our government... whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort.”
Can you believe how ridiculous these American puppets sound? What the deluded Americans do not seem to realize is that they are on their own. The only entities willing to support their aggression on Syria is Saudi Arabia and Israel. So, how’s that for credibility? The only support Washington can muster is from a feudal, sword-wielding, head-chopping regime and a criminal pariah genocidal state. Coalition of the Willing? More like Coalition of the Killing.
The United States of America stands exposed in the eyes of the entire world as the number-one terrorist threat to the future of humanity. Many have known this fact already, but now it is universally clear.
As the US prepares to launch an overt war on Syria (the covert war has been raging for 30 months), the vast majority of humanity can finally see through all its decades of pretense and conceit as the world’s model of democracy and international law. And what they see is the ugly opposite. The US is a terrorist state that holds international law, democracy and human rights in utter contempt. It is ready, as it always has been, to kill countless civilians for its selfish political ambitions. That is the conventional definition of “terrorism”.
Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad made a profound point recently when he said that his country has faced aggression for more than two years, but only now is the real enemy revealing itself - the US and its minions. But the US terrorist state is not just being called out over Syria. It is being revealed as the enemy to the entire world.
From past wars in the Caribbean, Central America, Philippines, Vietnam and Indochina, through coups and covert ops in Iran, Iraq, Africa, to recent killing fields in Afghanistan, Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, the historical picture is now complete. All these conflicts and many more - too many to mention here - integrate into one indisputable truth. The US is the world’s biggest terror state. If it is not dealt with definitely, then the future of the world is in peril more than ever.
In previous crimes of aggression, the US ruling elite could invoke the spurious cover of “a coalition of the willing”, or the abused authority of the United Nations or NATO. It was able to do that through deployment of lies, fabrications and a supine mass media that would lend credibility to the mendacity. Now, thanks to alternative, critical media and instant global communications, the American lies don’t work any longer. In an instant, they are exposed; just like the attempt in the last few hours of US Secretary of State John to frame up Syria over alleged chemical weapons use.
The New York Times, BBC and the usual Western media mouthpieces for imperialist propaganda dutifully facilitated Kerry and his US state terrorism with bombastic, important-sounding headlines: “Kerry lays out evidence against Syria”. There was hardly a critical question raised, even though there are grounds for dozens such questions. Years ago, that kind of herd-think might have been enough to buy the US warmongers enough time to launch a war - but not any more. Within minutes of Kerry’s supposedly definitive condemnation, statements, articles, tweets and blogs were pulling the charade asunder, showing that apart from Western-media-amplified bombast, Kerry was not saying anything of value. It was just another risible repetition of earlier hyperbole and empty rhetoric. Or in short, lies.
The people of the world have reached a critical mass of intolerance towards the rogue terror states of the US, Britain, France, Israel and a few other accomplices. We have watched their relentless mass murder and exploitation of fellow humans in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. We have witnessed how this tiny group of state terrorists imposes on the vast majority of humanity their vile criminality and in the process then insult us with grotesque lies and justifications. We have seen how these rogue states have stolen land, poisoned people’s water, burnt their crops, dispossessed their homes, assassinated families with aerial drones and ground drones in the form of death squads. They have committed all these shocking crimes with lies and impunity to the point where now these state terrorists are operating in more than one country simultaneously in a permanent state of relentless war, pushing the very future of humanity to the brink.
However, despite this lawlessness and gangsterism, the people of the world are fighting back.
This week the British parliament voted against the London government’s arrogance to provide its usual criminal special relationship to the Americans. In the execution of past war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya - to mention a few - Washington could rely on the trusty British imperialists to give a veneer of “coalition of the willing”. British premier David Cameron’s plans to repeat the criminality by backing Washington’s plans to bomb Syria were dealt a crushing blow by the British parliament voting against any such military action. Cameron was forced to withdraw. The vote in the British parliament is not so much a sign of ethics among Britain’s political class. It is
more a reflection of the global awakening among ordinary citizens that this insane state terrorism must stop.
The French government has also backed off earlier bellicose bravado, with French President Francois Hollande belatedly calling for a “peaceful, political solution” over the Syrian crisis. Even Washington’s reliable Canadian puppet Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said that his country will not be getting involved military in Syria. It is also reported that 10 members of the NATO alliance - one-third of the total - are not willing to support American strikes. This latter grouping comprises the usual minions of the US. And we haven’t even yet acknowledged the more strident opponents, such as Russia, China, Iran and the majority of nations elsewhere in Asia, Africa and the Americas.
The people of the world have had it with elite Western rulers acting as terrorists who are holding humanity to ransom. The rulers are presiding not only over military terrorism. They are inflicting economic, social and ecological terrorism with their bankrupt capitalist smash-and-grab system. That system has reached the point of meltdown and that is why we are being pushed into relentless wars - in order for the rulers and their politician puppets to corner the remaining resources. The ultimate solution to end the wars is for the people to overthrow the economic system that US and Western elite rulers preside over. The insane criminality of the US rulers over Syria is exposing this historic challenge facing humanity.
After the British parliamentary setback the US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said: “Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together. It is the goal of President Obama and our government... whatever decision is taken, that it be an international collaboration and effort.”
Can you believe how ridiculous these American puppets sound? What the deluded Americans do not seem to realize is that they are on their own. The only entities willing to support their aggression on Syria is Saudi Arabia and Israel. So, how’s that for credibility? The only support Washington can muster is from a feudal, sword-wielding, head-chopping regime and a criminal pariah genocidal state. Coalition of the Willing? More like Coalition of the Killing.
Finian Cunningham, originally from Belfast, Ireland, was born in 1963. He is a prominent expert in international affairs.
The author and media commentator was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted human rights violations by the Western-backed regime. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For many years, he worked as an editor and writer in the mainstream news media, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. He is now based in East Africa where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring.He co-hosts a weekly current affairs programme, Sunday at 3pm GMT on Bandung Radio. More articles by Finian Cunningham
The author and media commentator was expelled from Bahrain in June 2011 for his critical journalism in which he highlighted human rights violations by the Western-backed regime. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism. He is also a musician and songwriter. For many years, he worked as an editor and writer in the mainstream news media, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. He is now based in East Africa where he is writing a book on Bahrain and the Arab Spring.He co-hosts a weekly current affairs programme, Sunday at 3pm GMT on Bandung Radio. More articles by Finian Cunningham
Leaked documents reveal that the United States is considering Israel as one of the top spying threats facing the country’s intelligence services.
The revelation was made by a secret budget request obtained by The Washington Post from former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
“To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the community,” the FY 2013 congressional budget justification for intelligence programs reads.
According to the document, the United States is investing in “target surveillance and offensive CI [counterintelligence]” against Israel and some other countries.
Another document by Snowden also showed the US has built an “intelligence-gathering colossus” with a whopping “black budget” of $52.6 billion for the current fiscal year.
The US spy agencies spend tens of billions of dollars annually on spy programs without being able to provide “critical information to the president on a range of national security threats,” the document said.
The US intelligence budget is not allowed to be published for those outside of the intelligence community and is only made known to a portion of people who are briefed on spying operations.
According to the newly-disclosed documents, the “black budget” is larger than the sum received by the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce and NASA this year combined.
The revelation was made by a secret budget request obtained by The Washington Post from former US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.
“To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the community,” the FY 2013 congressional budget justification for intelligence programs reads.
According to the document, the United States is investing in “target surveillance and offensive CI [counterintelligence]” against Israel and some other countries.
Another document by Snowden also showed the US has built an “intelligence-gathering colossus” with a whopping “black budget” of $52.6 billion for the current fiscal year.
The US spy agencies spend tens of billions of dollars annually on spy programs without being able to provide “critical information to the president on a range of national security threats,” the document said.
The US intelligence budget is not allowed to be published for those outside of the intelligence community and is only made known to a portion of people who are briefed on spying operations.
According to the newly-disclosed documents, the “black budget” is larger than the sum received by the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce and NASA this year combined.
|
Honorific speech by Glenn Greenwald, Journalist, The Guardian
Edward Snowden receives the Whistleblower Award. For the first time Transparency International Deutschland e.V. contributes to the award, which is given every two years by the Vereinigung Deutscher Wissenschaftler (VDW e.V.) and der German Section of the International Association Of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA e.V.). With the award persons are honored, who reveal malpractices and dangerous developments for humans and society, democracy, peace, and the environment. Due to the courageous actions of Edward J. Snowden the world has gained insights into the surveillance and espionage practices of intelligence agencies. |
Every single one of us can be affected by them at any time and without there being any grounds for suspicion. The pressing problems associated with whistleblowing are analyzed in a festive dedication to the honorable Edward Snowden. The focus of the lecture by Prof. Dr. Foschepoth is the latitude of the secret services in Germany.
Through this ceremony, the awarding organizations wished to strengthen their demand to the German government to offer US citizen Snowden, in gratitude and all sincerity, accommodation and protection in Germany.
Through this ceremony, the awarding organizations wished to strengthen their demand to the German government to offer US citizen Snowden, in gratitude and all sincerity, accommodation and protection in Germany.
Jay Leno talks with President Barack Obama during a commercial break on 6 August 2013
It's time the president acknowledges that systematized discrimination against Muslims is real and thriving
I was watching President Obama employ his devilish charisma, in routine fashion, on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in early August. The banter dissipated as the interview took a more serious turn to embassy closures, Edward Snowden and, finally, Russia. Obama condemned President Vladimir Putin for Russia's recent "homosexual propaganda" bill saying:
When it comes to universal rights, when it comes to people's basic freedoms, whether you are discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, you are violating the basic morality that should transcend every country.
I was left rattled by the president's statement. Obama, who made history last year when he expressed his support for same-sex marriage, was comfortably unabashed in impugning Russian leadership on the reprehensible policy, as he should have been. But as a Muslim American, neither the irony nor the hypocrisy of his statement, championing "universal rights", was lost on me.
As we've witnessed time and time again domestically, most recently with the Associated Press revelation that the NYPD designated Muslim houses of worship and community centers as terrorist organizations, the United States is no stranger to legalizing discrimination. In the elusive pursuit of true equality, President Obama has made considerable and long overdue progress in securing the rights of the LGBT community. But he in no way can tout the badge of "basic morality" until he acknowledges that many Americans are being confronted with institutionalized discrimination in every tier of the government hierarchy. Racism, Islamophobia and prejudice run amok in our society, but when discriminatory practice is etched into law, it harkens back to a sinister time in our nation's history.
Regrettably, branding mosques as terrorist enterprises doesn't exactly move the needle given the NYPD's history of targeted surveillance and monitoring of the region's Muslim community. Invidious policy and religious profiling are not confined to the NYPD either. This is just the latest in a mounting string of offenses by government agencies against Muslim Americans. The FBI maintains an intimidatingly lengthy catalog of 15,000 spies, three times as many as there were 25 years ago. In a post 9/11 climate many of them operate as informants in mosques throughout the nation. The mosque that I grew up attending in Irvine, California, was infiltrated by one such informant, who worked so hard to plant seeds of violence and terrorism in the minds of its congregants that members of the mosque immediately reported him.
"Geo-mapping", the FBI's purported tactical crime fighting tool, was exposed as a covert mapping program to track and monitor Muslim communities engaging in constitutionally protected activity, without any suspicion of crime. Leaked FBI training materials have also cemented what we already know – the agency religiously profiles Muslims, instructing its agents that "mainstream" Muslims are terrorist sympathizers and the Muslim practice of giving charity is a cover for funding "combat".
It doesn't end there. Seven states have passed anti-Shariah legislation, redundant and extraneous laws that explicitly prohibit the use of foreign law in American courts, as already established by our nation's constitution. The bills passed in these states, most recently North Carolina, alienate the Muslim community and unfairly paint them as adherents of an archaic, anti-Western system, playing up longstanding stereotypes and stoking fears. Open-ended guidelines for Homeland Security initiatives, like the Suspicious Activity Reporting program, give credence to the subjective biases of citizens and law enforcement alike, allowing for religious profiling when dubbing something as "suspicious". And that is apart from the FBI Watch List and the TSA's No-Fly List.
TSA memos have indicated that their passenger screening process includes "things passengers might do which also might be things a terrorist would do, eg, pray to Allah right before the flight that you might have 90 virgins in heaven". Needless to say, many of these counter-terrorism measures disproportionately target Muslims. We see this disparity even in federal prison, where Muslims make up only 6% of the general federal prison population, but comprise two thirds of the inmates in Communication Management Units (CMU), prison units furtively created to isolate certain prisoners.
And all the while, the president has remained unnervingly silent.
I shouldn't have to point to statistics that most informants actually acted as agent provocateurs in terrorism probes. I also shouldn't have to cite that there is a dearth of evidence to prove that these national security measures, like the SAR program, are effective in combatting terrorism. I shouldn't have to clarify that there is no specter of Shariah law looming on the horizon and that Muslims are not looking to prop up a crescent and star flag in state capitols. And I've come undone at the thought of having to explain, again, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims being spied on, monitored, tracked and, in the case of 16 year old US citizen Abdulrahman Awlaki, killed – by federal, state and local agencies- are innocent of any wrongdoing.
My father's Islamic name should not place him on a watch list. When I pray in the airport, I should expect law enforcement to protect my right to do so, not jot notes in a security memo. And I should be able to attend my mosque without fear of reprisal, from anti-Muslim bigots and FBI spies alike. Being Muslim does not make me a criminal. I shouldn't have to say it, but secret measures that profile Muslims and veiled discriminatory policies assume as much.
This is not a "new low for the NYPD"; it's a dangerous manifestation of a foregone conclusion: in the name of national security, the civil rights afforded to Muslim Americans are being deliberately curtailed. It's time that the president acknowledges that systematized discrimination against Muslims is real and thriving, and expands the reach of his advocacy for universal human rights to include Muslim Americans.
Dark moments of institutionalized racism, alienation and ostracism besmirch this nation's history. It is all too coincidental that we recently marked the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's legendary "I have a dream" speech – the impetus that led the FBI to surreptitiously launch one of the biggest surveillance operations in history – spying on Dr King himself. The idea that the government was looking for dirt on Dr King to discredit and destroy him seems ludicrous and offensive today. Here's hoping the president sees the historical irony.
It's time the president acknowledges that systematized discrimination against Muslims is real and thriving
I was watching President Obama employ his devilish charisma, in routine fashion, on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno in early August. The banter dissipated as the interview took a more serious turn to embassy closures, Edward Snowden and, finally, Russia. Obama condemned President Vladimir Putin for Russia's recent "homosexual propaganda" bill saying:
When it comes to universal rights, when it comes to people's basic freedoms, whether you are discriminating on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation, you are violating the basic morality that should transcend every country.
I was left rattled by the president's statement. Obama, who made history last year when he expressed his support for same-sex marriage, was comfortably unabashed in impugning Russian leadership on the reprehensible policy, as he should have been. But as a Muslim American, neither the irony nor the hypocrisy of his statement, championing "universal rights", was lost on me.
As we've witnessed time and time again domestically, most recently with the Associated Press revelation that the NYPD designated Muslim houses of worship and community centers as terrorist organizations, the United States is no stranger to legalizing discrimination. In the elusive pursuit of true equality, President Obama has made considerable and long overdue progress in securing the rights of the LGBT community. But he in no way can tout the badge of "basic morality" until he acknowledges that many Americans are being confronted with institutionalized discrimination in every tier of the government hierarchy. Racism, Islamophobia and prejudice run amok in our society, but when discriminatory practice is etched into law, it harkens back to a sinister time in our nation's history.
Regrettably, branding mosques as terrorist enterprises doesn't exactly move the needle given the NYPD's history of targeted surveillance and monitoring of the region's Muslim community. Invidious policy and religious profiling are not confined to the NYPD either. This is just the latest in a mounting string of offenses by government agencies against Muslim Americans. The FBI maintains an intimidatingly lengthy catalog of 15,000 spies, three times as many as there were 25 years ago. In a post 9/11 climate many of them operate as informants in mosques throughout the nation. The mosque that I grew up attending in Irvine, California, was infiltrated by one such informant, who worked so hard to plant seeds of violence and terrorism in the minds of its congregants that members of the mosque immediately reported him.
"Geo-mapping", the FBI's purported tactical crime fighting tool, was exposed as a covert mapping program to track and monitor Muslim communities engaging in constitutionally protected activity, without any suspicion of crime. Leaked FBI training materials have also cemented what we already know – the agency religiously profiles Muslims, instructing its agents that "mainstream" Muslims are terrorist sympathizers and the Muslim practice of giving charity is a cover for funding "combat".
It doesn't end there. Seven states have passed anti-Shariah legislation, redundant and extraneous laws that explicitly prohibit the use of foreign law in American courts, as already established by our nation's constitution. The bills passed in these states, most recently North Carolina, alienate the Muslim community and unfairly paint them as adherents of an archaic, anti-Western system, playing up longstanding stereotypes and stoking fears. Open-ended guidelines for Homeland Security initiatives, like the Suspicious Activity Reporting program, give credence to the subjective biases of citizens and law enforcement alike, allowing for religious profiling when dubbing something as "suspicious". And that is apart from the FBI Watch List and the TSA's No-Fly List.
TSA memos have indicated that their passenger screening process includes "things passengers might do which also might be things a terrorist would do, eg, pray to Allah right before the flight that you might have 90 virgins in heaven". Needless to say, many of these counter-terrorism measures disproportionately target Muslims. We see this disparity even in federal prison, where Muslims make up only 6% of the general federal prison population, but comprise two thirds of the inmates in Communication Management Units (CMU), prison units furtively created to isolate certain prisoners.
And all the while, the president has remained unnervingly silent.
I shouldn't have to point to statistics that most informants actually acted as agent provocateurs in terrorism probes. I also shouldn't have to cite that there is a dearth of evidence to prove that these national security measures, like the SAR program, are effective in combatting terrorism. I shouldn't have to clarify that there is no specter of Shariah law looming on the horizon and that Muslims are not looking to prop up a crescent and star flag in state capitols. And I've come undone at the thought of having to explain, again, that the overwhelming majority of Muslims being spied on, monitored, tracked and, in the case of 16 year old US citizen Abdulrahman Awlaki, killed – by federal, state and local agencies- are innocent of any wrongdoing.
My father's Islamic name should not place him on a watch list. When I pray in the airport, I should expect law enforcement to protect my right to do so, not jot notes in a security memo. And I should be able to attend my mosque without fear of reprisal, from anti-Muslim bigots and FBI spies alike. Being Muslim does not make me a criminal. I shouldn't have to say it, but secret measures that profile Muslims and veiled discriminatory policies assume as much.
This is not a "new low for the NYPD"; it's a dangerous manifestation of a foregone conclusion: in the name of national security, the civil rights afforded to Muslim Americans are being deliberately curtailed. It's time that the president acknowledges that systematized discrimination against Muslims is real and thriving, and expands the reach of his advocacy for universal human rights to include Muslim Americans.
Dark moments of institutionalized racism, alienation and ostracism besmirch this nation's history. It is all too coincidental that we recently marked the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's legendary "I have a dream" speech – the impetus that led the FBI to surreptitiously launch one of the biggest surveillance operations in history – spying on Dr King himself. The idea that the government was looking for dirt on Dr King to discredit and destroy him seems ludicrous and offensive today. Here's hoping the president sees the historical irony.
29 aug 2013
by Stephen Lendman
All wars are based on lies. Claims about Syrian forces using chemical weapons are false. They're malicious.
They're bald-faced lies. They're repeated anyway. John Kerry wrongfully accused Syria of using chemical weapons.
It's "undeniable," he claimed. It's "a moral obscenity." He'll provide evidence, he said. He has none. It's invented. Don't expect him to explain.
Vice president Biden lied, saying:
"There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons, the Syrian regime."
"Chemical weapons have been used. Everyone acknowledges their use."
"No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria."
"We know the Syrian regime is the only ones who have the weapons."
"They've used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, they have the means to deliver those weapons, and they're determined to wipe out the places attacked by the chemical weapons."
Assad "must be held accountable."
No evidence suggests Syrian forces used chemical weapons any time throughout months of conflict. Plenty points fingers the right way.
Insurgents used them multiple times. They've been caught red-handed. They're responsible for last Wednesday's Ghouta incident.
Don't expect Obama officials to explain. Doing it compromises their regime change plans. They're longstanding. They haven't changed.
August 28 marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech. It's getting widespread media coverage.
His April 4, 1967 "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" address is ignored. It was delivered one year to the day before his state-sponsored assassination.
He called America "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." It's "on the wrong side of a world revolution," he said.
"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence, or violent co-annihilation."
"We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight."
Silence is "betrayal." He called war in Vietnam "an enemy of the poor."
"(I)t should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life (in) America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam."
"This madness must cease....We must stop now....We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam."
He called for a "revolution of values, (including) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."
He ended quoting James Russell Lowell (1819 - 1891), saying:
"Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth and falsehood, For the good or evil side...."
That time is now, said King. His dream's still unfulfilled 46 years later. Things are worse now than ever.
It bears repeating what previous articles stressed. We're living through the most perilous time in world history. America bears full responsibility.
King would be appalled. He'd be vocal. He'd denounce plans for more war. "(N)o one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America" can support militarism and violence, he said.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
"God didn't call America to" wage war. We're "criminals," said King.
"We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it."
"Our only hope (depends on) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."
He condemned America as the world's most villainous nation. It's agenda is diabolical. It's on the cusp of again proving it.
On August 28, AP headlined "Momentum grows for military action against Syria," saying:
Washington and France said "they are in a position for a strike, while the (Syrian government) vowed to use all possible measures to repel it."
At the same time, a "growing chorus of Republican and Democratic lawmakers (demand) Obama seek congressional authorization for any strikes against the Assad regime."
Charles Heyman's a former British officer. He edits The Armed Forces of the UK. He said attacking Syria without Security Council authorization greatly complicates matters.
"It's clear the governments want some form of military operation, but if the Security Council doesn't recommend it, then the consensus is that it's plainly illegal under international law," he said.
"The only legal way to go to war is in self-defense and that claim is difficult to make."
At the same time, Heyman predicts a possible three-phase campaign:
He called successfully accomplishing all three phases "key to long-term success."
Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said Rome won't back military action without SC authorization.
Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Berlin supports taking action.
Arab League members met in emergency session. On the one hand, they urged overcoming differences and agreeing on "deterrent" measures, saying:
"The council holds the Syrian regime totally responsible for this heinous crime and calls for all involved in the despicable crime to be given a fair international trial like other war criminals."
On the other, The New York Times said it opposes a retaliatory strike. Members are deeply divided.
"The vast majority of Arabs are emotionally opposed to any Western military action in the region no matter how humanitarian the cause," said The Times.
"In the region, only Turkey has pledged to support intervention."
On Monday, Saudi Arabia urged "deterrent" action. A statement said:
It "urges the international community represented by the UN Security Council to take up its responsibilities towards the tragedies and terrible massacres committed by the (Syrian) regime against its people using arms that include internationally banned chemical weapons."
A weekly cabinet meeting warned against "lack of a clear and firm decision that puts an end to these heinous massacres."
On August 27, DefenseOne.com headlined "US No Longer Seeking UN, NATO Permission to Strike Syria," saying:
Washington's "building a rapid coalition consisting of the United Kingdom, France and several Arab states."
An unnamed US official told Defense One:
"If action is taken, it probably won't be pursued through the UN or NATO."
"These aren't the only ways to undertake such action, and any response would be conducted pursuant to the law."
False! Only Security Council members can authorize military action. Only Congress can declare war. Constitutional law prohibits presidents from doing it unilaterally.
It doesn't stop them. December 8, 1941 was the last time Congress declared war. It did so on Japan. Other wars thereafter were illegal.
Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama acted extrajudicially.
Obama's readying to do it again. He's a war criminal multiple times over. He remains unaccountable. He plans more war based on lies.
He's ravaging one country after another. He wants Iran targeted and destroyed. He's incorrigible. He's lawless. He's out-of-control.
Impeaching him is a national imperative. He threatens to embroil the entire region. He menaces humanity. He risks WW III.
UN inspectors were scheduled to remain until Sunday. According to spokeswoman Alessandra Vellucci, more time may be needed.
White House spokesman Jay Carney lied, saying:
"Suggestions that there's any doubt about who's responsible for this are as preposterous as a suggestion that the attack did not occur."
"We have established with a high degree of confidence that the Syria regime has used chemical weapons already in this conflict."
"We have made clear that it is our firm assessment that the Syrian regime has maintained control of the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria throughout this conflict."
"It is also the case that the Syrian regime has the rocket capacity to deliver the chemical weapons as they were delivered with repugnant results on August 21st outside of Damascus."
He added that response options are being considered. Other reports said tactics already were chosen. Obama signed off on them.
Cruise missile attacks may begin as early as Thursday. They'll last around two or three days. Sites are chosen. They include command and control and other military related targets.
British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament. The world can't "stand idly by," he said. He called military action "legal, proportionate and specific." He lied saying so.
He said acting prevents further chemical attacks. He lied again. According to London's Telegraph:
He "made his case for military intervention against a backdrop of widespread public skepticism about the use of British military force in yet another foreign conflict, in the wake of those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya."
According to Cameron:
"What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and I don't believe we can let that stand."
Foreign Minister William Hague lied claiming failure to act harms Britain's security. He didn't explain how.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said "idly (standing by) set(s) a very dangerous precedent indeed."
Senior Tories hope Labor MPs will back Cameron. Parliament will vote later this week. It won't matter. Obama decided. So did Cameron. France is on board. So is Turkey.
According to the Telegraph, "planned intervention is understood to involve a weekend offensive." It may begin Friday.
At the same time, Cameron "retain(s) the right to act swiftly without the need to consult Parliament if circumstances required an urgent decision to approve the use of military force sooner."
In other words, he already decided to act. Parliamentary debate won't determine policy.
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby warned against a "rush to judgment." It could have "unforeseeable ramifications across the whole Arab and Muslim world," he said.
"Some of Britain's most senior military figures, including Gen. Sir David Richards, a former chief of the defence staff, and Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, warned against taking action," said the Telegraph.
According to Richards:
"The scale of involvement to make a decisive difference in Syria would be so huge that it is something that we, at the moment, cannot sensibly contemplate."
Former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said:
"We have recent experience of that in relation to the declaration of war against Saddam Hussein. Look at the way that turned out."
"MPs expressed concern that intervening in Syria could result in a repeat of Britain's involvement in Iraq," added the Telegraph.
Labor party leader Edward Miliband remains unconvinced about military action. He'll support it only if it's legal and limited.
British sources said Washington plans strikes by Friday or Saturday. They'll last two or three days.
On August 28, London's Guardian featured a spurious propaganda piece. It headlined "Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack.' "
It cites the IDF's 8200 unit. It specializes in electronic surveillance. An unnamed Mossad official claimed Syrian officials discussed using chemical weapons.
According to the Guardian:
"The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons - which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action - has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported."
What's lacking is credibility. According to Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF), "Assad may hit back at Israel for US strike, trusting Obama to tie Israel's hands against major reprisal."
"At least not in the initial stage," it added. Israeli strategists believe Assad will retaliate against Jordan.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem stressed friendly ties to the Hashmite kingdom, saying:
"We have no thought of acting against Jordan." He advised Amman not to believe otherwise.
He urged it not to sacrifice longstanding friendly relations. He knows it's involved in Washington's war.
DF said Saudi Arabia placed its Tabuk air base F-15 squadrons on alert. French Rafale bombers are based there.
Obama's limited action may exceed what's planned. According to DF, US and Israeli leaders "are keeping this prospect under their hats to avoid public panic."
On August 28, the Wall Street Journal headlined "US, Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts," saying:
US official claim "a flood of previously undisclosed intelligence, including satellite images and intercepted communications, erased any last administration doubts that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against its own people."
They lied saying so.
On August 28, Itar Tass headlined "Russia denies claims that Syrian government is to blame for chemical weapons use," saying:
John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov exchanged views. Moscow denies US claims.
Lavrov presented Russia's side. "He called for a meaningful and profound exchange of expert information on cases of chemical weapons use in Syria."
He won't get what he wants. The die is cast. Obama plans more aggressive war.
He's doing it based on lies. It's imminent. It could start any time.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
http://www.dailycensored.com/obamas-war-syria-based-lies/
All wars are based on lies. Claims about Syrian forces using chemical weapons are false. They're malicious.
They're bald-faced lies. They're repeated anyway. John Kerry wrongfully accused Syria of using chemical weapons.
It's "undeniable," he claimed. It's "a moral obscenity." He'll provide evidence, he said. He has none. It's invented. Don't expect him to explain.
Vice president Biden lied, saying:
"There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons, the Syrian regime."
"Chemical weapons have been used. Everyone acknowledges their use."
"No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria."
"We know the Syrian regime is the only ones who have the weapons."
"They've used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, they have the means to deliver those weapons, and they're determined to wipe out the places attacked by the chemical weapons."
Assad "must be held accountable."
No evidence suggests Syrian forces used chemical weapons any time throughout months of conflict. Plenty points fingers the right way.
Insurgents used them multiple times. They've been caught red-handed. They're responsible for last Wednesday's Ghouta incident.
Don't expect Obama officials to explain. Doing it compromises their regime change plans. They're longstanding. They haven't changed.
August 28 marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech. It's getting widespread media coverage.
His April 4, 1967 "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" address is ignored. It was delivered one year to the day before his state-sponsored assassination.
He called America "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." It's "on the wrong side of a world revolution," he said.
"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence, or violent co-annihilation."
"We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight."
Silence is "betrayal." He called war in Vietnam "an enemy of the poor."
"(I)t should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life (in) America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam."
"This madness must cease....We must stop now....We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam."
He called for a "revolution of values, (including) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."
He ended quoting James Russell Lowell (1819 - 1891), saying:
"Once to every man and nation Comes the moment to decide, In the strife of truth and falsehood, For the good or evil side...."
That time is now, said King. His dream's still unfulfilled 46 years later. Things are worse now than ever.
It bears repeating what previous articles stressed. We're living through the most perilous time in world history. America bears full responsibility.
King would be appalled. He'd be vocal. He'd denounce plans for more war. "(N)o one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America" can support militarism and violence, he said.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
"God didn't call America to" wage war. We're "criminals," said King.
"We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it."
"Our only hope (depends on) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."
He condemned America as the world's most villainous nation. It's agenda is diabolical. It's on the cusp of again proving it.
On August 28, AP headlined "Momentum grows for military action against Syria," saying:
Washington and France said "they are in a position for a strike, while the (Syrian government) vowed to use all possible measures to repel it."
At the same time, a "growing chorus of Republican and Democratic lawmakers (demand) Obama seek congressional authorization for any strikes against the Assad regime."
Charles Heyman's a former British officer. He edits The Armed Forces of the UK. He said attacking Syria without Security Council authorization greatly complicates matters.
"It's clear the governments want some form of military operation, but if the Security Council doesn't recommend it, then the consensus is that it's plainly illegal under international law," he said.
"The only legal way to go to war is in self-defense and that claim is difficult to make."
At the same time, Heyman predicts a possible three-phase campaign:
- militarily encircling Syria by air and sea (already in place);
- strikes against high-value command and control targets and communication centers; and
- a "massive takedown of Syrian air defenses" before targeting artillery and armor.
He called successfully accomplishing all three phases "key to long-term success."
Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said Rome won't back military action without SC authorization.
Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Berlin supports taking action.
Arab League members met in emergency session. On the one hand, they urged overcoming differences and agreeing on "deterrent" measures, saying:
"The council holds the Syrian regime totally responsible for this heinous crime and calls for all involved in the despicable crime to be given a fair international trial like other war criminals."
On the other, The New York Times said it opposes a retaliatory strike. Members are deeply divided.
"The vast majority of Arabs are emotionally opposed to any Western military action in the region no matter how humanitarian the cause," said The Times.
"In the region, only Turkey has pledged to support intervention."
On Monday, Saudi Arabia urged "deterrent" action. A statement said:
It "urges the international community represented by the UN Security Council to take up its responsibilities towards the tragedies and terrible massacres committed by the (Syrian) regime against its people using arms that include internationally banned chemical weapons."
A weekly cabinet meeting warned against "lack of a clear and firm decision that puts an end to these heinous massacres."
On August 27, DefenseOne.com headlined "US No Longer Seeking UN, NATO Permission to Strike Syria," saying:
Washington's "building a rapid coalition consisting of the United Kingdom, France and several Arab states."
An unnamed US official told Defense One:
"If action is taken, it probably won't be pursued through the UN or NATO."
"These aren't the only ways to undertake such action, and any response would be conducted pursuant to the law."
False! Only Security Council members can authorize military action. Only Congress can declare war. Constitutional law prohibits presidents from doing it unilaterally.
It doesn't stop them. December 8, 1941 was the last time Congress declared war. It did so on Japan. Other wars thereafter were illegal.
Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama acted extrajudicially.
Obama's readying to do it again. He's a war criminal multiple times over. He remains unaccountable. He plans more war based on lies.
He's ravaging one country after another. He wants Iran targeted and destroyed. He's incorrigible. He's lawless. He's out-of-control.
Impeaching him is a national imperative. He threatens to embroil the entire region. He menaces humanity. He risks WW III.
UN inspectors were scheduled to remain until Sunday. According to spokeswoman Alessandra Vellucci, more time may be needed.
White House spokesman Jay Carney lied, saying:
"Suggestions that there's any doubt about who's responsible for this are as preposterous as a suggestion that the attack did not occur."
"We have established with a high degree of confidence that the Syria regime has used chemical weapons already in this conflict."
"We have made clear that it is our firm assessment that the Syrian regime has maintained control of the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria throughout this conflict."
"It is also the case that the Syrian regime has the rocket capacity to deliver the chemical weapons as they were delivered with repugnant results on August 21st outside of Damascus."
He added that response options are being considered. Other reports said tactics already were chosen. Obama signed off on them.
Cruise missile attacks may begin as early as Thursday. They'll last around two or three days. Sites are chosen. They include command and control and other military related targets.
British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament. The world can't "stand idly by," he said. He called military action "legal, proportionate and specific." He lied saying so.
He said acting prevents further chemical attacks. He lied again. According to London's Telegraph:
He "made his case for military intervention against a backdrop of widespread public skepticism about the use of British military force in yet another foreign conflict, in the wake of those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya."
According to Cameron:
"What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and I don't believe we can let that stand."
Foreign Minister William Hague lied claiming failure to act harms Britain's security. He didn't explain how.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said "idly (standing by) set(s) a very dangerous precedent indeed."
Senior Tories hope Labor MPs will back Cameron. Parliament will vote later this week. It won't matter. Obama decided. So did Cameron. France is on board. So is Turkey.
According to the Telegraph, "planned intervention is understood to involve a weekend offensive." It may begin Friday.
At the same time, Cameron "retain(s) the right to act swiftly without the need to consult Parliament if circumstances required an urgent decision to approve the use of military force sooner."
In other words, he already decided to act. Parliamentary debate won't determine policy.
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby warned against a "rush to judgment." It could have "unforeseeable ramifications across the whole Arab and Muslim world," he said.
"Some of Britain's most senior military figures, including Gen. Sir David Richards, a former chief of the defence staff, and Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, warned against taking action," said the Telegraph.
According to Richards:
"The scale of involvement to make a decisive difference in Syria would be so huge that it is something that we, at the moment, cannot sensibly contemplate."
Former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said:
"We have recent experience of that in relation to the declaration of war against Saddam Hussein. Look at the way that turned out."
"MPs expressed concern that intervening in Syria could result in a repeat of Britain's involvement in Iraq," added the Telegraph.
Labor party leader Edward Miliband remains unconvinced about military action. He'll support it only if it's legal and limited.
British sources said Washington plans strikes by Friday or Saturday. They'll last two or three days.
On August 28, London's Guardian featured a spurious propaganda piece. It headlined "Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack.' "
It cites the IDF's 8200 unit. It specializes in electronic surveillance. An unnamed Mossad official claimed Syrian officials discussed using chemical weapons.
According to the Guardian:
"The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons - which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action - has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported."
What's lacking is credibility. According to Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF), "Assad may hit back at Israel for US strike, trusting Obama to tie Israel's hands against major reprisal."
"At least not in the initial stage," it added. Israeli strategists believe Assad will retaliate against Jordan.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem stressed friendly ties to the Hashmite kingdom, saying:
"We have no thought of acting against Jordan." He advised Amman not to believe otherwise.
He urged it not to sacrifice longstanding friendly relations. He knows it's involved in Washington's war.
DF said Saudi Arabia placed its Tabuk air base F-15 squadrons on alert. French Rafale bombers are based there.
Obama's limited action may exceed what's planned. According to DF, US and Israeli leaders "are keeping this prospect under their hats to avoid public panic."
On August 28, the Wall Street Journal headlined "US, Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts," saying:
US official claim "a flood of previously undisclosed intelligence, including satellite images and intercepted communications, erased any last administration doubts that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against its own people."
They lied saying so.
On August 28, Itar Tass headlined "Russia denies claims that Syrian government is to blame for chemical weapons use," saying:
John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov exchanged views. Moscow denies US claims.
Lavrov presented Russia's side. "He called for a meaningful and profound exchange of expert information on cases of chemical weapons use in Syria."
He won't get what he wants. The die is cast. Obama plans more aggressive war.
He's doing it based on lies. It's imminent. It could start any time.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
http://www.dailycensored.com/obamas-war-syria-based-lies/
Edward Snowden in Moscow
Newspaper reveals clauses from top secret 'black budget' meant to finance 'counterintelligence operations focused against priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel'
The Washington Post has revealed a collection of clauses from the US government's top secret $52.6 billion "black budget," meant to finance the special operations of the intelligence services, including counterintelligence operations against Israel.
The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program, which was obtained by the Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, states that US intelligence officials take an active interest in foes as well as friends. Pakistan is described in detail as an "intractable target," and counterintelligence operations "are strategically focused against (the) priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel."
The Washington Post reported that according to the government’s top secret budget, US spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats.
Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses those funds or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress, the newspaper said.
In response to inquiries from The Washington Post, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said the US has made a "considerable investment in the Intelligence Community since the terror attacks of 9/11, a time which includes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, and asymmetric threats in such areas as cyber-warfare. "Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods that allow us to obtain information to counter threats," he said.
Newspaper reveals clauses from top secret 'black budget' meant to finance 'counterintelligence operations focused against priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel'
The Washington Post has revealed a collection of clauses from the US government's top secret $52.6 billion "black budget," meant to finance the special operations of the intelligence services, including counterintelligence operations against Israel.
The 178-page budget summary for the National Intelligence Program, which was obtained by the Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, states that US intelligence officials take an active interest in foes as well as friends. Pakistan is described in detail as an "intractable target," and counterintelligence operations "are strategically focused against (the) priority targets of China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Israel."
The Washington Post reported that according to the government’s top secret budget, US spy agencies have built an intelligence-gathering colossus since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but remain unable to provide critical information to the president on a range of national security threats.
Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses those funds or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress, the newspaper said.
In response to inquiries from The Washington Post, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said the US has made a "considerable investment in the Intelligence Community since the terror attacks of 9/11, a time which includes wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction technology, and asymmetric threats in such areas as cyber-warfare. "Our budgets are classified as they could provide insight for foreign intelligence services to discern our top national priorities, capabilities and sources and methods that allow us to obtain information to counter threats," he said.
US President Barack Obama, pictured Aug. 28, 2013, faces a high burden of proof for any action in Syria
The White House prepared Thursday to issue a report accusing Syria's government of waging chemical warfare, but faces a high burden of proof due to the hangover from botched Iraq war intelligence and disquiet in Congress.
The report is meant to bolster the case for a probable US military intervention in response to a horrific gas attack in a Damascus suburb last week which killed hundreds of people.
The White House has promised the analysis this week, but though there were expectations it could be released Thursday, sources said it was not yet complete.
The release of the document will lack fanfare. Officials are expected to brief reporters in a conference call with alongside the release of the hard copy of the report.
That is a far cry from the dramatic presentation by then secretary of state Colin Powell in 2003 at the United Nations, when Washington made the case for war with Iraq.
President Barack Obama's aides stress they envisage only a "limited" punitive action in Syria and dismiss comparisons with the US invasion of Iraq, which the president built his political career on opposing.
But the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the discrediting of what was once deemed a "slam dunk" intelligence case for war are imposing a high burden of proof for the current administration.
Veteran national security analyst Anthony Cordesman termed the coming report the "most important single document in a decade" for the US government.
He said that the administration "faces the dilemma that it must limit what it says to protect US intelligence sources and methods.
"It also, however, faces the reality that the US lost the credibility to argue from authority and on the basis of its reputation more than ten years ago," Cordesman said a Center for Strategic and International Studies briefing paper.
Some reports this week suggested that the US assessment would include communications intercepts and other data from inside Syria.
But administration sources are downplaying expectations, saying the public analysis will mirror the case already made by Washington, which they consider strong.
More detailed evidence may be included in the classified briefing to top US lawmakers due to take place later Thursday.
The White House says there is no doubt that an attack took place -- citing appalling footage of dead and wounded victims on television and social media and witness and medical reports.
It says only Syrian government forces have access to chemical weapons stocks and the rockets needed to deliver them.
"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these (attacks) out," Obama told PBS television Wednesday.
But officials refuse to publicly address the notion that a rogue military officer, or another actor, could have ordered the attack outwith the official Syrian chain of command.
"The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership ... even if he's not the one that pushes the button or said, 'Go,' on this," said Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman.
"(Assad) is responsible for the actions of his regime."
Signs that the US report will not be able to directly link Assad to the attack with anything other than circumstantial evidence were bolstered by a British intelligence report released on Thursday.
The assessment said there was no credible intelligence to suggest opposition forces fired the chemical arms and that there was no "plausible alternative" to the idea that the regime was to blame.
It said that permission to use chemical arms had been delegated to a senior commander but presidential authority would be needed to authorize a large-scale change of use.
But, possibly due to the need to safeguard sensitive intelligence sources, there was no detailed evidence in the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment directly implicating Assad.
While British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament for an uncomfortable debate on Syria, there were no plans for the US Congress, which is in recess, to do likewise.
The White House will likely argue that since its proposed action in Syria will be "limited" it does not require Congress to wield its constitutionally granted power to authorize a declaration of war.
But the more time that passes before US military action, the more restive the domestic political scene becomes.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner has called on Obama to provide "meaningful consultation" with Congress though fell short of calling for authorization from Capitol Hill.
A growing number of lawmakers though have concerns and polls show Americans wary of another foreign entanglement.
"Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization," said Jerrold Nadler, a Democratic congressman from New York.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy meanwhile said on MSNBC that cruise missile attacks may make people "feel better, but it may not actually make the Syrian people safer or advance US national security interests."
The White House prepared Thursday to issue a report accusing Syria's government of waging chemical warfare, but faces a high burden of proof due to the hangover from botched Iraq war intelligence and disquiet in Congress.
The report is meant to bolster the case for a probable US military intervention in response to a horrific gas attack in a Damascus suburb last week which killed hundreds of people.
The White House has promised the analysis this week, but though there were expectations it could be released Thursday, sources said it was not yet complete.
The release of the document will lack fanfare. Officials are expected to brief reporters in a conference call with alongside the release of the hard copy of the report.
That is a far cry from the dramatic presentation by then secretary of state Colin Powell in 2003 at the United Nations, when Washington made the case for war with Iraq.
President Barack Obama's aides stress they envisage only a "limited" punitive action in Syria and dismiss comparisons with the US invasion of Iraq, which the president built his political career on opposing.
But the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and the discrediting of what was once deemed a "slam dunk" intelligence case for war are imposing a high burden of proof for the current administration.
Veteran national security analyst Anthony Cordesman termed the coming report the "most important single document in a decade" for the US government.
He said that the administration "faces the dilemma that it must limit what it says to protect US intelligence sources and methods.
"It also, however, faces the reality that the US lost the credibility to argue from authority and on the basis of its reputation more than ten years ago," Cordesman said a Center for Strategic and International Studies briefing paper.
Some reports this week suggested that the US assessment would include communications intercepts and other data from inside Syria.
But administration sources are downplaying expectations, saying the public analysis will mirror the case already made by Washington, which they consider strong.
More detailed evidence may be included in the classified briefing to top US lawmakers due to take place later Thursday.
The White House says there is no doubt that an attack took place -- citing appalling footage of dead and wounded victims on television and social media and witness and medical reports.
It says only Syrian government forces have access to chemical weapons stocks and the rockets needed to deliver them.
"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these (attacks) out," Obama told PBS television Wednesday.
But officials refuse to publicly address the notion that a rogue military officer, or another actor, could have ordered the attack outwith the official Syrian chain of command.
"The commander-in-chief of any military is ultimately responsible for decisions made under their leadership ... even if he's not the one that pushes the button or said, 'Go,' on this," said Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman.
"(Assad) is responsible for the actions of his regime."
Signs that the US report will not be able to directly link Assad to the attack with anything other than circumstantial evidence were bolstered by a British intelligence report released on Thursday.
The assessment said there was no credible intelligence to suggest opposition forces fired the chemical arms and that there was no "plausible alternative" to the idea that the regime was to blame.
It said that permission to use chemical arms had been delegated to a senior commander but presidential authority would be needed to authorize a large-scale change of use.
But, possibly due to the need to safeguard sensitive intelligence sources, there was no detailed evidence in the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment directly implicating Assad.
While British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament for an uncomfortable debate on Syria, there were no plans for the US Congress, which is in recess, to do likewise.
The White House will likely argue that since its proposed action in Syria will be "limited" it does not require Congress to wield its constitutionally granted power to authorize a declaration of war.
But the more time that passes before US military action, the more restive the domestic political scene becomes.
Republican House Speaker John Boehner has called on Obama to provide "meaningful consultation" with Congress though fell short of calling for authorization from Capitol Hill.
A growing number of lawmakers though have concerns and polls show Americans wary of another foreign entanglement.
"Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization," said Jerrold Nadler, a Democratic congressman from New York.
Democratic Senator Chris Murphy meanwhile said on MSNBC that cruise missile attacks may make people "feel better, but it may not actually make the Syrian people safer or advance US national security interests."
The administration insisted Thursday that President Obama has both the authority and the determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria, even as a growing chorus of lawmakers demanded an opportunity to vote on the issue and Britain, the United States’ closest ally, appeared unlikely to participate. Britain’s sudden withdrawal came after Prime Minister David Cameron, deserted by rebels in his own Conservative Party, lost a parliamentary vote for provisional authorization for military action in Syria.
Cameron, who had strongly backed Obama’s pledge to ensure that Syria would face “consequences” for its alleged use of chemical weapons, said he would respect Parliament’s will. Many in his government attributed the vote loss to the legacy of British participation in the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction.
A statement distributed by the White House said: “The U.S. will continue to consult with the UK government — one of our closest allies and friends. As we’ve said, President Obama’s decision-
making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.”
Both privately and publicly, administration officials continued to portray Obama as edging closer to a decision to launch a limited cruise-missile strike on Syrian military targets. As a fifth U.S. warship entered the Mediterranean, Obama’s top national security officials briefed congressional leaders on evidence that they say proves that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government killed hundreds of civilians in an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus.
But as more time has elapsed between the Syrian attack and the much-previewed U.S. retaliation, the window for questions and demands from Congress, international allies and the news media has opened wider.
Nearly 200 House members from both parties have signed letters calling on the president to seek formal congressional approval for military action.
Others agree with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said in an interview that the president has “certain powers even under the War Powers Act that he can use [in] the national interest of security, and he can act.”
But while many would support action against the Syri regime, Menendez said, “they want [Obama] to come before them and explain it.”
Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said after Thursday’s administration briefings that he would “support surgical, proportional military strikes given the strong evidence” of chemical weapons use. But Corker said that “whatever limited action is taken should not further commit the U.S. in Syria beyond the current strategy” of supporting moderate opposition forces fighting Assad’s military. He called for continued consultation and said the administration would be “far better off if they seek authorization based upon our national interests, which would provide the kind of public debate and legitimacy that can only come from Congress.”
In a telephone call Thursday with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama “briefed the speaker on the status of deliberations over Syria,” while Boehner “sought answers to concerns . . . including the legal justification for any strike, the policy and precedent such a response would set, and the objectives and strategy for any potential action,” said Boehner press secretary Brendan Buck. “Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed,” Buck said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has been in regular contact with Obama in recent days, according to Senate aides.
The White House has said that it will provide Congress with an additional classified assessment of Assad’s responsibility for what it has called an “undeniable” chemical attack and will publicly release an unclassified version this week.
But support for a military strike appeared to be quickly waning. Even in France, where President François Hollande just days ago said Syria should be “punished,” officials called for a delay in any action until United Nations weapons inspectors, who are in Syria, complete their investigation. “Before acting, we need proof,” said Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a minister and government spokeswoman.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Vienna that the investigators will continue their on-site work near Damascus on Friday and leave Syria the next day. Ban said he expects an immediate report from the inspectors, but he has made clear that their mission is only to determine whether a chemical attack occurred, not to assign blame.
At the U.N. Security Council, where Russia and China on Wednesday rejected a British-drafted resolution authorizing the use of force against Syria, the five permanent members met again Thursday. But the meeting, called at Russia’s request, lasted less than an hour and didn’t result in any action, according to U.N. officials.
State media reported that two Russian warships were traveling to the eastern Mediterranean. Russia, Assad’s principal foreign backer along with Iran, has a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, although many personnel have reportedly been evacuated in recent days.
Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, said his government would cooperate with Russia to prevent a strike against Syria, which he called an “open violation” of international law.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on “all parties to exercise restraint and calm.” Wang said that China opposes the use of chemical weapons but that the United Nations should determine what happened in Syria.
Meanwhile, the overseas edition of China’s People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s main mouthpiece, compared possible intervention in Syria to the “trick” and “excuse” used by the United States to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq. “Use of force in Syria,” Thursday’s editorial said, “would cause even graver consequences than the war in Iraq.”
Iraq has loomed large in the debate over the wisdom of an attack on Syria and the U.S. right to conduct one.
In a now-infamous presentation to the United Nations in February 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell offered audio intercepts, photographs and testimony from anonymous witnesses as proof that Hussein was developing chemical, biological and, perhaps, even nuclear weapons — despite evidence to the contrary offered by U.N. investigators.
One month later, U.S. troops invaded, backed by a multinational force whose leading contributor was Britain. Within a year, evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had collapsed. Britain’s ongoing support for the operation, with troops who remained until 2009 and the loss of 179 soldiers, was widely opposed and helped lead to the defeat of the Labor Party and Cameron’s ascension to office.
White House and State Department spokesmen Thursday parried repeated questions with assertions that Iraq — Obama opposed the 2003 invasion, calling it a “dumb war” — was different from Syria in every respect.
“As we all know in Iraq, the U.S. was trying to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. “In Syria, we know that chemical weapons not only exist but that they were used. . . . That’s undeniable.”
At the same time, Harf said, “we’re not considering analogous responses,” because Obama has repeatedly rejected full-scale U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Anne Gearan and Ed O’Keefe in Washington, Anthony Faiola in London and William Wan in Beijing contributed to this report.
Cameron, who had strongly backed Obama’s pledge to ensure that Syria would face “consequences” for its alleged use of chemical weapons, said he would respect Parliament’s will. Many in his government attributed the vote loss to the legacy of British participation in the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, based on false claims about weapons of mass destruction.
A statement distributed by the White House said: “The U.S. will continue to consult with the UK government — one of our closest allies and friends. As we’ve said, President Obama’s decision-
making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States. He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.”
Both privately and publicly, administration officials continued to portray Obama as edging closer to a decision to launch a limited cruise-missile strike on Syrian military targets. As a fifth U.S. warship entered the Mediterranean, Obama’s top national security officials briefed congressional leaders on evidence that they say proves that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government killed hundreds of civilians in an Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus.
But as more time has elapsed between the Syrian attack and the much-previewed U.S. retaliation, the window for questions and demands from Congress, international allies and the news media has opened wider.
Nearly 200 House members from both parties have signed letters calling on the president to seek formal congressional approval for military action.
Others agree with Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, who said in an interview that the president has “certain powers even under the War Powers Act that he can use [in] the national interest of security, and he can act.”
But while many would support action against the Syri regime, Menendez said, “they want [Obama] to come before them and explain it.”
Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, said after Thursday’s administration briefings that he would “support surgical, proportional military strikes given the strong evidence” of chemical weapons use. But Corker said that “whatever limited action is taken should not further commit the U.S. in Syria beyond the current strategy” of supporting moderate opposition forces fighting Assad’s military. He called for continued consultation and said the administration would be “far better off if they seek authorization based upon our national interests, which would provide the kind of public debate and legitimacy that can only come from Congress.”
In a telephone call Thursday with House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), Obama “briefed the speaker on the status of deliberations over Syria,” while Boehner “sought answers to concerns . . . including the legal justification for any strike, the policy and precedent such a response would set, and the objectives and strategy for any potential action,” said Boehner press secretary Brendan Buck. “Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed,” Buck said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) has been in regular contact with Obama in recent days, according to Senate aides.
The White House has said that it will provide Congress with an additional classified assessment of Assad’s responsibility for what it has called an “undeniable” chemical attack and will publicly release an unclassified version this week.
But support for a military strike appeared to be quickly waning. Even in France, where President François Hollande just days ago said Syria should be “punished,” officials called for a delay in any action until United Nations weapons inspectors, who are in Syria, complete their investigation. “Before acting, we need proof,” said Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, a minister and government spokeswoman.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Vienna that the investigators will continue their on-site work near Damascus on Friday and leave Syria the next day. Ban said he expects an immediate report from the inspectors, but he has made clear that their mission is only to determine whether a chemical attack occurred, not to assign blame.
At the U.N. Security Council, where Russia and China on Wednesday rejected a British-drafted resolution authorizing the use of force against Syria, the five permanent members met again Thursday. But the meeting, called at Russia’s request, lasted less than an hour and didn’t result in any action, according to U.N. officials.
State media reported that two Russian warships were traveling to the eastern Mediterranean. Russia, Assad’s principal foreign backer along with Iran, has a naval base in the Syrian port of Tartus, although many personnel have reportedly been evacuated in recent days.
Iran’s new president, Hassan Rouhani, said his government would cooperate with Russia to prevent a strike against Syria, which he called an “open violation” of international law.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on “all parties to exercise restraint and calm.” Wang said that China opposes the use of chemical weapons but that the United Nations should determine what happened in Syria.
Meanwhile, the overseas edition of China’s People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s main mouthpiece, compared possible intervention in Syria to the “trick” and “excuse” used by the United States to depose Saddam Hussein in Iraq. “Use of force in Syria,” Thursday’s editorial said, “would cause even graver consequences than the war in Iraq.”
Iraq has loomed large in the debate over the wisdom of an attack on Syria and the U.S. right to conduct one.
In a now-infamous presentation to the United Nations in February 2003, then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell offered audio intercepts, photographs and testimony from anonymous witnesses as proof that Hussein was developing chemical, biological and, perhaps, even nuclear weapons — despite evidence to the contrary offered by U.N. investigators.
One month later, U.S. troops invaded, backed by a multinational force whose leading contributor was Britain. Within a year, evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had collapsed. Britain’s ongoing support for the operation, with troops who remained until 2009 and the loss of 179 soldiers, was widely opposed and helped lead to the defeat of the Labor Party and Cameron’s ascension to office.
White House and State Department spokesmen Thursday parried repeated questions with assertions that Iraq — Obama opposed the 2003 invasion, calling it a “dumb war” — was different from Syria in every respect.
“As we all know in Iraq, the U.S. was trying to prove the existence of weapons of mass destruction,” State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. “In Syria, we know that chemical weapons not only exist but that they were used. . . . That’s undeniable.”
At the same time, Harf said, “we’re not considering analogous responses,” because Obama has repeatedly rejected full-scale U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Anne Gearan and Ed O’Keefe in Washington, Anthony Faiola in London and William Wan in Beijing contributed to this report.
28 aug 2013
Obama ignores Israel's chemical weapons abuse while targeting Syrian government that may not be responsible for recent chemical attacks.
Few major mainstream American news outlets exposed the sordid details of a 2009 United Nations (UN) fact finding report that revealed how Israel’s military illegally aimed chemical missiles at a United Nations Relief & Work Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees in a 22-day invasion of the Gaza strip that began in 2008 called “Operation Cast Lead.” As the U.S. and world media watch to learn if claims that President Barack Obama will execute a military strike against Syria, without a vote of Congress or the support of the UN, the same media outlets are burying information that suggests preparation for war could be premature. Little media attention is being paid to claims from a UN commission that Syrian rebels, not government soldiers under President Bashar al-Assad’s control, were responsible for recent chemical weapons attacks that killed over 300 Syrians.
“During our investigation for crimes against humanity and war crimes, we collect some witness testimony that has made to appear that some chemical weapons were used. In particular, nerve gas,” said Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. ”What appears to our investigation is that this was used by the opposition, by the rebels. We have no indication at all that the Syria government have used chemical weapons.”
What’s also questionable is why Obama has drawn a “line in the sand” over highly questionable allegations that Syrian soldiers used chemical weapons when the Israeli military was proven, and officials have admitted, to using chemical warfare to attack a United Nations relief compound. The facility provided shelter and medical attention to Palestinian refugees in 2009.
Cleveland Challenger obtained a copy of the 575 page 2009 UN report [PDF] that a fact finding mission headed by ex-South African Judge Richard Goldstone prepared after an investigation of the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead.
The Israeli missile and ground assault on the Gaza strip began on December 27, 2008 and ended on January 18, 2009. The attack resulted in an estimated 1100 to 14oo Palestinian deaths. 13 Israeli soldiers were killed. Four died from friendly fire.
The invasion was stimulated by Israel’s claims that rockets were being fired at Israeli’s by Hamas militants. Three Israeli civilians and one soldier were killed by Hamas’ rockets in the days leading up to the assault that led to an estimated $1.3 billion in damage to Palestinian property and businesses. Israel’s military was also accused by the UN fact finding mission of violating war protocols by using Palestinians as human shields, murdering unarmed civilians, destroying water and sewer treatment plants, and wiping out food supplies and production facilities to starve the population.
The UN commission Goldstone led met extensively with Palestinian officials, victims and survivors after the Israeli military assault. The interviews and investigation led to the discovery of information and evidence that Israel’s military deployed missiles containing “white phosphorous” against civilians and the hospital.
White phosphorous is a highly-combustible chemical agent that burns on contact with air. In humans it burns upon contact with skin and creates very deep tissue wounds. It can also cause death when inhaled. It’s customary use has been as a “smoke screen” although it is illegal to use against civilians in times of war. The UN commission found Israel’s use of the burning agent against the hospital to be particularly deplorable.
When first questioned about the white phosphorous missile allegations that struck the UNRWA compound, the Israeli military’s first response was to issue a denial. On January 15, 2009, three days before the attack ended, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the chemical weapon attack a “grave error” and allegedly apologized to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. On the same day, Israeli President Shimon Peres apologized for the attack, but added the false claim that Israeli troops were being fired upon from inside the facility.
Few major mainstream American news outlets exposed the sordid details of a 2009 United Nations (UN) fact finding report that revealed how Israel’s military illegally aimed chemical missiles at a United Nations Relief & Work Agency (UNRWA) for Palestinian refugees in a 22-day invasion of the Gaza strip that began in 2008 called “Operation Cast Lead.” As the U.S. and world media watch to learn if claims that President Barack Obama will execute a military strike against Syria, without a vote of Congress or the support of the UN, the same media outlets are burying information that suggests preparation for war could be premature. Little media attention is being paid to claims from a UN commission that Syrian rebels, not government soldiers under President Bashar al-Assad’s control, were responsible for recent chemical weapons attacks that killed over 300 Syrians.
“During our investigation for crimes against humanity and war crimes, we collect some witness testimony that has made to appear that some chemical weapons were used. In particular, nerve gas,” said Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria. ”What appears to our investigation is that this was used by the opposition, by the rebels. We have no indication at all that the Syria government have used chemical weapons.”
What’s also questionable is why Obama has drawn a “line in the sand” over highly questionable allegations that Syrian soldiers used chemical weapons when the Israeli military was proven, and officials have admitted, to using chemical warfare to attack a United Nations relief compound. The facility provided shelter and medical attention to Palestinian refugees in 2009.
Cleveland Challenger obtained a copy of the 575 page 2009 UN report [PDF] that a fact finding mission headed by ex-South African Judge Richard Goldstone prepared after an investigation of the events surrounding Operation Cast Lead.
The Israeli missile and ground assault on the Gaza strip began on December 27, 2008 and ended on January 18, 2009. The attack resulted in an estimated 1100 to 14oo Palestinian deaths. 13 Israeli soldiers were killed. Four died from friendly fire.
The invasion was stimulated by Israel’s claims that rockets were being fired at Israeli’s by Hamas militants. Three Israeli civilians and one soldier were killed by Hamas’ rockets in the days leading up to the assault that led to an estimated $1.3 billion in damage to Palestinian property and businesses. Israel’s military was also accused by the UN fact finding mission of violating war protocols by using Palestinians as human shields, murdering unarmed civilians, destroying water and sewer treatment plants, and wiping out food supplies and production facilities to starve the population.
The UN commission Goldstone led met extensively with Palestinian officials, victims and survivors after the Israeli military assault. The interviews and investigation led to the discovery of information and evidence that Israel’s military deployed missiles containing “white phosphorous” against civilians and the hospital.
White phosphorous is a highly-combustible chemical agent that burns on contact with air. In humans it burns upon contact with skin and creates very deep tissue wounds. It can also cause death when inhaled. It’s customary use has been as a “smoke screen” although it is illegal to use against civilians in times of war. The UN commission found Israel’s use of the burning agent against the hospital to be particularly deplorable.
When first questioned about the white phosphorous missile allegations that struck the UNRWA compound, the Israeli military’s first response was to issue a denial. On January 15, 2009, three days before the attack ended, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the chemical weapon attack a “grave error” and allegedly apologized to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon. On the same day, Israeli President Shimon Peres apologized for the attack, but added the false claim that Israeli troops were being fired upon from inside the facility.
South African attorney and former justice Richard Goldstone was blacklisted by Israel after he headed a fact finding mission to investigate war crimes committed against both Israeli’s and Palestinians after Isreal’s military invaded Palestine in a campaign called Operation Cast Lead. Israeli media reported, falsely, that Goldstone promised to “revoke” the report’s findings against Israel. Goldstone, who is also Jewish, was one of South Africa’s liberal justices and credited with working inside the system to undermine apartheid.
In a July 2009 report of its own findings, the Israeli government now led by President Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed the white phosphorous was supposed to have only been used as a smokescreen to protect soldiers from Hamas anti-tank crews that were claimed to have been operating adjacent to the compound. Israeli officials falsely claimed that only missile “fragments” entered the compound.
The UN fact finding group challenged the claims made by Israeli officials and accused them of understating the nature and extent of the chemical missile strikes. They identified 10 strikes inside the UNRWA compound, with seven white phosphorous container shells discharging completely or very substantially in the confines of a very limited space.
“This is not a matter of a limited number of wedges falling inside the compound or shrapnel or parts of shells landing in the compound as the shells exploded elsewhere. It is important to emphasize that we are dealing with shells exploding or discharging inside the compound in areas where hazardous material was stored.”
“Secondly, the claim that this result was neither intended nor anticipated has to be reviewed carefully. In the first place the Mission affirms the result to be reviewed is not fragments and wedges landing in the compound but ten shells landing and exploding inside the compound. It is difficult to accept that the consequences were not appreciated and foreseen by the Israeli armed forces.”
“Those in the Israeli army who deploy white phosphorous, or indeed any artillery shells, expertly trained to factor in the relevant complexities of targeting, including wind force and the earth’s curvature. They have to know the area they are firing at, possible obstacles in hitting the target and the other environmental factors necessary to ensure an effective strike. It is also clear that, having determined that it was necessary to establish a safety distance, the presence of the UNRWA installations was a factor present in the minds of those carrying out the shelling.”
“The question then becomes how specialists expertly trained in the complex issue of artillery deployment and aware of the presence of an extremely sensitive site can strike that site ten times while apparently trying to avoid it.”
Israeli government and military officials took issue with the report, but mainly focused effort at discrediting claims that they “randomly” and “intentionally” targeted and slaughtered Palestinian civilians. UN interviews revealed that Israeli soldiers herded an unarmed family of 29 into a home and bombed it.
Instead of sharing any of the details of the 575 page report with newspaper and magazine readers, and television viewers, the U.S. media concentrated all its attention on Israeli claims that denied the allegations.
In a July 2009 report of its own findings, the Israeli government now led by President Benjamin Netanyahu, claimed the white phosphorous was supposed to have only been used as a smokescreen to protect soldiers from Hamas anti-tank crews that were claimed to have been operating adjacent to the compound. Israeli officials falsely claimed that only missile “fragments” entered the compound.
The UN fact finding group challenged the claims made by Israeli officials and accused them of understating the nature and extent of the chemical missile strikes. They identified 10 strikes inside the UNRWA compound, with seven white phosphorous container shells discharging completely or very substantially in the confines of a very limited space.
“This is not a matter of a limited number of wedges falling inside the compound or shrapnel or parts of shells landing in the compound as the shells exploded elsewhere. It is important to emphasize that we are dealing with shells exploding or discharging inside the compound in areas where hazardous material was stored.”
“Secondly, the claim that this result was neither intended nor anticipated has to be reviewed carefully. In the first place the Mission affirms the result to be reviewed is not fragments and wedges landing in the compound but ten shells landing and exploding inside the compound. It is difficult to accept that the consequences were not appreciated and foreseen by the Israeli armed forces.”
“Those in the Israeli army who deploy white phosphorous, or indeed any artillery shells, expertly trained to factor in the relevant complexities of targeting, including wind force and the earth’s curvature. They have to know the area they are firing at, possible obstacles in hitting the target and the other environmental factors necessary to ensure an effective strike. It is also clear that, having determined that it was necessary to establish a safety distance, the presence of the UNRWA installations was a factor present in the minds of those carrying out the shelling.”
“The question then becomes how specialists expertly trained in the complex issue of artillery deployment and aware of the presence of an extremely sensitive site can strike that site ten times while apparently trying to avoid it.”
Israeli government and military officials took issue with the report, but mainly focused effort at discrediting claims that they “randomly” and “intentionally” targeted and slaughtered Palestinian civilians. UN interviews revealed that Israeli soldiers herded an unarmed family of 29 into a home and bombed it.
Instead of sharing any of the details of the 575 page report with newspaper and magazine readers, and television viewers, the U.S. media concentrated all its attention on Israeli claims that denied the allegations.
Carla del Ponte is a UN fact finder who’s continued to raise doubt that the Syrian military used chemical weapons containing “sarin” gas against the nation’s war weary people. What her commission did find was evidence that Syrian rebels used the illegal gas. So why is the Secretary of State John Kerry and U.S. defense Secretary Chuck Hagel pushing to attack the government for a crime a top UN official doesn’t believe they committed?
When Goldstone authored an opinion piece two years later, he said the report would have been different if Israel had cooperated and his fact finding mission had access to its officials and more information. U.S. reporters and columnists with the New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington Post used the statement to discredit the report in its 575 page entirety.
Goldstone’s opinion reflected that he’d only changed his mind about whether or not Israel “intentionally” targeted civilians in the 22 day military invasion of Palestine.
“The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
Goldstone also took the opportunity to balance a legitimate Israeli government complaint that his 2009 report concentrated the majority of its criticism on Israel and made little or no reference to Hamas’ attacks on innocent Israeli citizens.
Nothing, however, in Goldstone’s opinion two years later, denounced his fact finding mission’s findings as U.S. reporters seem to have intentionally tried to shield Israel from criticism.
As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.
When Goldstone authored an opinion piece two years later, he said the report would have been different if Israel had cooperated and his fact finding mission had access to its officials and more information. U.S. reporters and columnists with the New York Times, Washington Post and Huffington Post used the statement to discredit the report in its 575 page entirety.
Goldstone’s opinion reflected that he’d only changed his mind about whether or not Israel “intentionally” targeted civilians in the 22 day military invasion of Palestine.
“The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”
Goldstone also took the opportunity to balance a legitimate Israeli government complaint that his 2009 report concentrated the majority of its criticism on Israel and made little or no reference to Hamas’ attacks on innocent Israeli citizens.
Nothing, however, in Goldstone’s opinion two years later, denounced his fact finding mission’s findings as U.S. reporters seem to have intentionally tried to shield Israel from criticism.
As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.
White House press secretary Jay Carney answers questions about Syria and chemical weapons during his daily news briefing at the White House in Washington on Aug. 27, 2013
A senior Obama administration official said Wednesday a possible US military action against Syria would not be a limited assault.
The administration is considering more than a single set of military action and "the options are not limited just to one day" of strikes, the senior official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
US intelligence agencies are preparing a report laying out evidence against the Syrian government after reports emerged last week that an alleged chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus had killed hundreds of civilians.
The classified version of the report would be submitted to key members of Congress and a declassified version would be released publicly, according to AP.
President Obama had earlier directed the US intelligence community to gather information about the alleged attack. United Nations inspectors, who are in Syria to visit the site of the attack, have yet to release their findings.
The White House, however, says it is already convinced chemical weapons were used in last Wednesday’s incident and that the Syrian government was responsible.
"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to, threat to the United States' national security," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.
Also on Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden became the highest-ranking American official to publicly accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons on militant strongholds near Damascus.
"There's no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria, the Syrian regime," Biden said.
The government of President Bashar al-Assad has rejected any role in the chemical attack. Russia, a key ally of Syria, insists that the attack was "clearly provocative in nature," and that it was staged by foreign-backed militant groups to incriminate the Assad government.
The Pentagon has moved more warships into place in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and American war planners have updated strike targets that include government and military installations inside Syria.
A senior Obama administration official said Wednesday a possible US military action against Syria would not be a limited assault.
The administration is considering more than a single set of military action and "the options are not limited just to one day" of strikes, the senior official told the Associated Press on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
US intelligence agencies are preparing a report laying out evidence against the Syrian government after reports emerged last week that an alleged chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus had killed hundreds of civilians.
The classified version of the report would be submitted to key members of Congress and a declassified version would be released publicly, according to AP.
President Obama had earlier directed the US intelligence community to gather information about the alleged attack. United Nations inspectors, who are in Syria to visit the site of the attack, have yet to release their findings.
The White House, however, says it is already convinced chemical weapons were used in last Wednesday’s incident and that the Syrian government was responsible.
"Allowing the use of chemical weapons on a significant scale to take place without a response would present a significant challenge to, threat to the United States' national security," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday.
Also on Tuesday, Vice President Joe Biden became the highest-ranking American official to publicly accuse the Syrian government of using chemical weapons on militant strongholds near Damascus.
"There's no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria, the Syrian regime," Biden said.
The government of President Bashar al-Assad has rejected any role in the chemical attack. Russia, a key ally of Syria, insists that the attack was "clearly provocative in nature," and that it was staged by foreign-backed militant groups to incriminate the Assad government.
The Pentagon has moved more warships into place in the eastern Mediterranean Sea and American war planners have updated strike targets that include government and military installations inside Syria.
US forces are readying to strike Syria, though the West insists its goal is not regime change but to punish President Bashar Assad's government for unleashing chemical warfare on civilians.
The ground for a military intervention was laid out by US Vice President Joe Biden, who for the first time said last week's attack, thought to have killed hundreds, could only have been perpetrated by Assad's forces.
But the onrushing likelihood of action within days was met with defiance in Damascus, with regime officials pledging to fight any attack with "surprise" measures, while Syrian allies Russia and Iran warned of dire consequences.
But Britain and France also moved to back the use of force in Syria, while the White House promised to provide declassified evidence this week to prove that last Wednesday's chemical attack was the work of regime forces.
The economic cost also started to be counted, as global stocks dived and world oil prices hit a six-month high.
Analysts expect to see cruise missiles launched from US and allied submarines, ships and possibly planes, firing into Syria from outside its waters and airspace.
Biden said an "essential international norm" had been violated in Syria.
"There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria -- the Syrian regime," Biden said on Tuesday.
"The president believes and I believe that those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable."
Foreign Policy magazine reported late Tuesday that US intelligence had intercepted communications involving a Syrian defense ministry official last week in "panicked phone calls" with the leader of a chemical weapons unit.
That official was "demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people," the magazine said. It added that this is the main reason the United States is certain that Syria used chemical weapons against civilians.
During a news conference earlier Tuesday, Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Damascus would defend itself.
"We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal," he said. "The second choice is the best. We will defend ourselves."
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the American military was already prepared to act if President Barack Obama gave the order -- though White House aides said no final decision had been taken.
"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Hagel said in Brunei. "We are ready to go, like that."
French President Francois Hollande said his country was "ready to punish" those behind the chemical attacks and that he would meet the Syrian opposition's leader Thursday.
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament to discuss the crisis and slammed Syria's use of chemical weapons as "morally indefensible."
The White House said that any US action would be to defend the principle that chemical weapons should not be used -- and would not aim to topple Assad, despite previous calls for him to go.
"I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change," said Obama's spokesman Jay Carney, noting that a declassified version of a US intelligence investigation into the attack would be released this week.
Carney refused to say whether Washington would seek a UN Security Council mandate for action, despite the likelihood of a Russian veto.
A military campaign in Syria is expected to be limited in scope, likely to last only several days and to target military sites but not the chemical weapons stocks themselves, sources in Washington said.
An opposition Syrian National Coalition official said in Beirut that the group expects a Western military intervention and it has been consulted over targets, which included airports, military bases and arms depots.
"It's a question of days and not weeks," said Ahmad Ramadan, adding that "there have been meetings between the Coalition, the (rebel) Free Syrian Army and allied countries."
The White House, meanwhile, said Obama had called British Premier Cameron on Tuesday to discuss the Syria crisis, their second call in as many days. The US president has also spoken to the leaders of Australia, Canada and France.
Cameron's deputy Nick Clegg echoed US assurances about not seeking regime change. The Arab League meanwhile put the "entire responsibility" for the "horrible crime" in Syria on Assad's government.
The regime has denied it fired chemical weapons into the Damascus suburb, killing many of the victims in their beds. It says the rebels battling Assad in a vicious civil war are responsible.
Syria's ally Moscow maintained its stance against military action.
"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," a Russian foreign ministry spokesman said.
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, said on Twitter that: "The West behaves towards the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade."
Iran, Syria's main regional ally, said Western action would threaten the stability and security of the region.
But another key regional power Turkey, said the chemical attack was a "crime against humanity" that "cannot go unpunished."
Amid fears of reprisals for any Western attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed a fierce retaliation if his country came under fire.
"We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we detect any attempt to hurt us, we will react, and react fiercely," he said.
Increasing signs of impending military action hit global stock markets.
Most European equities fell sharply as investors ignored solid data from Germany and nervously eyed Syria, sending the price of safe-haven gold soaring.
Oil prices also soared, with Brent crude striking six-month highs on supply concerns.
The ground for a military intervention was laid out by US Vice President Joe Biden, who for the first time said last week's attack, thought to have killed hundreds, could only have been perpetrated by Assad's forces.
But the onrushing likelihood of action within days was met with defiance in Damascus, with regime officials pledging to fight any attack with "surprise" measures, while Syrian allies Russia and Iran warned of dire consequences.
But Britain and France also moved to back the use of force in Syria, while the White House promised to provide declassified evidence this week to prove that last Wednesday's chemical attack was the work of regime forces.
The economic cost also started to be counted, as global stocks dived and world oil prices hit a six-month high.
Analysts expect to see cruise missiles launched from US and allied submarines, ships and possibly planes, firing into Syria from outside its waters and airspace.
Biden said an "essential international norm" had been violated in Syria.
"There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria -- the Syrian regime," Biden said on Tuesday.
"The president believes and I believe that those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable."
Foreign Policy magazine reported late Tuesday that US intelligence had intercepted communications involving a Syrian defense ministry official last week in "panicked phone calls" with the leader of a chemical weapons unit.
That official was "demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people," the magazine said. It added that this is the main reason the United States is certain that Syria used chemical weapons against civilians.
During a news conference earlier Tuesday, Syria's Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said Damascus would defend itself.
"We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal," he said. "The second choice is the best. We will defend ourselves."
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the American military was already prepared to act if President Barack Obama gave the order -- though White House aides said no final decision had been taken.
"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Hagel said in Brunei. "We are ready to go, like that."
French President Francois Hollande said his country was "ready to punish" those behind the chemical attacks and that he would meet the Syrian opposition's leader Thursday.
In London, Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament to discuss the crisis and slammed Syria's use of chemical weapons as "morally indefensible."
The White House said that any US action would be to defend the principle that chemical weapons should not be used -- and would not aim to topple Assad, despite previous calls for him to go.
"I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change," said Obama's spokesman Jay Carney, noting that a declassified version of a US intelligence investigation into the attack would be released this week.
Carney refused to say whether Washington would seek a UN Security Council mandate for action, despite the likelihood of a Russian veto.
A military campaign in Syria is expected to be limited in scope, likely to last only several days and to target military sites but not the chemical weapons stocks themselves, sources in Washington said.
An opposition Syrian National Coalition official said in Beirut that the group expects a Western military intervention and it has been consulted over targets, which included airports, military bases and arms depots.
"It's a question of days and not weeks," said Ahmad Ramadan, adding that "there have been meetings between the Coalition, the (rebel) Free Syrian Army and allied countries."
The White House, meanwhile, said Obama had called British Premier Cameron on Tuesday to discuss the Syria crisis, their second call in as many days. The US president has also spoken to the leaders of Australia, Canada and France.
Cameron's deputy Nick Clegg echoed US assurances about not seeking regime change. The Arab League meanwhile put the "entire responsibility" for the "horrible crime" in Syria on Assad's government.
The regime has denied it fired chemical weapons into the Damascus suburb, killing many of the victims in their beds. It says the rebels battling Assad in a vicious civil war are responsible.
Syria's ally Moscow maintained its stance against military action.
"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," a Russian foreign ministry spokesman said.
Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, said on Twitter that: "The West behaves towards the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade."
Iran, Syria's main regional ally, said Western action would threaten the stability and security of the region.
But another key regional power Turkey, said the chemical attack was a "crime against humanity" that "cannot go unpunished."
Amid fears of reprisals for any Western attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed a fierce retaliation if his country came under fire.
"We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we detect any attempt to hurt us, we will react, and react fiercely," he said.
Increasing signs of impending military action hit global stock markets.
Most European equities fell sharply as investors ignored solid data from Germany and nervously eyed Syria, sending the price of safe-haven gold soaring.
Oil prices also soared, with Brent crude striking six-month highs on supply concerns.
27 aug 2013
The guided-missile destroyer USS Gravely (DDG 107)
Senior American officials say the United States has planned to launch missile strikes against Syria “as early as Thursday” in order to punish Damascus over the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The unnamed officials told NBC News on Tuesday that the “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at “sending a message to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities.”
On Monday night, four US warships were deployed in the Mediterranean within cruise missile range of Syria.
American defense officials said if the US wants to send a message to Assad, the most likely military action would be a Tomahawk missile strike, launched from a ship in the Mediterranean.
The US military has beefed up equipment during the past weeks. Several nuclear-powered submarines are reportedly in the waters near Syria, also cruise-missile equipped.
The report came one day after US Secretary of State John Kerry accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on Tuesday accused Kerry of lying about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, challenging Washington and its allies to provide evidence.
This is while the UN inspectors are still in Syria to investigate the chemical weapons attacks and they are not scheduled to leave the country until Sunday.
Russia and China have both warned against a US-led military intervention in Syria. Moscow says a military action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the entire region.
Russian President Vladimir Putin told British Prime Minister David Cameron in a telephone call Monday that there was no evidence that an attack had taken place or who was responsible.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned on Monday that the use of force without a U.N. mandate would violate international law.
Senior American officials say the United States has planned to launch missile strikes against Syria “as early as Thursday” in order to punish Damascus over the alleged use of chemical weapons.
The unnamed officials told NBC News on Tuesday that the “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at “sending a message to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities.”
On Monday night, four US warships were deployed in the Mediterranean within cruise missile range of Syria.
American defense officials said if the US wants to send a message to Assad, the most likely military action would be a Tomahawk missile strike, launched from a ship in the Mediterranean.
The US military has beefed up equipment during the past weeks. Several nuclear-powered submarines are reportedly in the waters near Syria, also cruise-missile equipped.
The report came one day after US Secretary of State John Kerry accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem on Tuesday accused Kerry of lying about the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government, challenging Washington and its allies to provide evidence.
This is while the UN inspectors are still in Syria to investigate the chemical weapons attacks and they are not scheduled to leave the country until Sunday.
Russia and China have both warned against a US-led military intervention in Syria. Moscow says a military action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the entire region.
Russian President Vladimir Putin told British Prime Minister David Cameron in a telephone call Monday that there was no evidence that an attack had taken place or who was responsible.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned on Monday that the use of force without a U.N. mandate would violate international law.
Syria has accused US Secretary of State John Kerry of lying by claiming there is "undeniable" evidence of a large-scale chemical weapons attack in Syria likely carried out by the regime.
A statement on the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency says Kerry's insistence on "jumping over" the work of UN experts in Syria shows that the US has deliberate intentions to exploit events.
Kerry said Monday there is "undeniable" evidence of a chemical weapons attack, with intelligence strongly pointing to President Bashar Assad's government as being responsible. President Barack Obama has not decided how to respond to the purported use of deadly gases in the August 21 attack in the Damascus suburbs, which activists say killed hundreds of people.
SANA in the statement Tuesday said Kerry has "fabricated" evidence.
The British government said Tuesday its military was drawing up contingency plans for a possible military attack on Syria.
The possible military response would be in reaction to an alleged chemical attack on civilians in Syria.
Prime Minister David Cameron is facing pressure to recall Parliament later this week to discuss the crisis in Syria.
Cameron's office said Tuesday that the UK is considering a "proportionate" response that would deter Syrian President Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons in the future.
A statement on the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency says Kerry's insistence on "jumping over" the work of UN experts in Syria shows that the US has deliberate intentions to exploit events.
Kerry said Monday there is "undeniable" evidence of a chemical weapons attack, with intelligence strongly pointing to President Bashar Assad's government as being responsible. President Barack Obama has not decided how to respond to the purported use of deadly gases in the August 21 attack in the Damascus suburbs, which activists say killed hundreds of people.
SANA in the statement Tuesday said Kerry has "fabricated" evidence.
The British government said Tuesday its military was drawing up contingency plans for a possible military attack on Syria.
The possible military response would be in reaction to an alleged chemical attack on civilians in Syria.
Prime Minister David Cameron is facing pressure to recall Parliament later this week to discuss the crisis in Syria.
Cameron's office said Tuesday that the UK is considering a "proportionate" response that would deter Syrian President Bashar Assad from using chemical weapons in the future.
A senior Israeli delegation has visited the White House to discuss recent developments in the Middle East - including the Syrian issue.
US National Security Advisor Susan Rice on Monday met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s top national security advisor, retired major general Yaakov Amidror.
The talks come as the US is preparing for a possible attack on Syria, where American authorities say the government crossed a ‘red line’ last week when it used chemical arms in its fight against militants. Damascus rejected the allegation, saying the armed groups launched the alleged chemical attack that killed hundreds of civilians.
On Sunday, Israeli President Shimon Peres called for an international action against the Syrian government. Israel has put its own military on high alert.
The US and its Western allies may launch a military strike against Syria, and the talks are set to coordinate a joint preparation for such an attack, Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Monday.
According to the newspaper, Amidror, who led the delegation, was joined by Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, head of the diplomatic security department at the Defense Ministry; Nimrod Shefer, head of the Israel Defense Forces planning department; Itai Baron, head of the research division in Military Intelligence; Jeremy Issacharoff, head of the strategy department in the Foreign Ministry, and senior officials from the Shin Bet.
Israel’s Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren was also set to join the talks, the paper said.
US National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the officials would also discuss Iran’s nuclear energy program and the Egyptian unrest among “a range of other regional security issues.”(Video on the link)
US National Security Advisor Susan Rice on Monday met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s top national security advisor, retired major general Yaakov Amidror.
The talks come as the US is preparing for a possible attack on Syria, where American authorities say the government crossed a ‘red line’ last week when it used chemical arms in its fight against militants. Damascus rejected the allegation, saying the armed groups launched the alleged chemical attack that killed hundreds of civilians.
On Sunday, Israeli President Shimon Peres called for an international action against the Syrian government. Israel has put its own military on high alert.
The US and its Western allies may launch a military strike against Syria, and the talks are set to coordinate a joint preparation for such an attack, Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Monday.
According to the newspaper, Amidror, who led the delegation, was joined by Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, head of the diplomatic security department at the Defense Ministry; Nimrod Shefer, head of the Israel Defense Forces planning department; Itai Baron, head of the research division in Military Intelligence; Jeremy Issacharoff, head of the strategy department in the Foreign Ministry, and senior officials from the Shin Bet.
Israel’s Ambassador to Washington Michael Oren was also set to join the talks, the paper said.
US National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said the officials would also discuss Iran’s nuclear energy program and the Egyptian unrest among “a range of other regional security issues.”(Video on the link)
26 aug 2013
President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials.
The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.
“We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision,” said an official who spoke about the presidential deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Missile-armed U.S. warships are already positioned in the Mediterranean.
As the administration moved rapidly toward a decision, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the use of chemical weapons in an attack Wednesday against opposition strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus is now “undeniable.”
Evidence being gathered by United Nations experts in Syria was important, Kerry said, but not necessary to prove what is already “grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense.”
The team of U.N. weapons investigators on Monday visited one of three rebel-held suburbs where the alleged attack took place, after first being forced to withdraw when their vehicles came under sniper fire. The Syrian government, which along with Russia has suggested that the rebels were responsible for the chemical attack, agreed to the U.N. inspection over the weekend.
Videos and statements by witnesses and relief organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have proved that an attack occurred, Kerry said. The U.S. intelligence report is to be released this week.
Among the factors, officials said, are that only the government is known to possess chemical weapons and the rockets to deliver them, and its continuing control of chemical stocks has been closely monitored by U.S. intelligence.
Kerry said Syrian forces had engaged in a “cynical attempt to cover up” their actions, not only by delaying the arrival of the U.N. team but by shelling the affected area continually. Any U.S. strike would probably await the departure of the U.N. inspectors from Syria.
Kerry’s statement, which he read to reporters in the State Department briefing room without taking questions, was part of an escalating administration drumbeat, which is likely to include a public statement by Obama in coming days. Officials said the public warnings are designed partly to wring any possible cooperation out of Russia — or an unlikely admission from the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — before Obama makes his decision. (Video on the link)
The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law.
“We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision,” said an official who spoke about the presidential deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Missile-armed U.S. warships are already positioned in the Mediterranean.
As the administration moved rapidly toward a decision, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the use of chemical weapons in an attack Wednesday against opposition strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus is now “undeniable.”
Evidence being gathered by United Nations experts in Syria was important, Kerry said, but not necessary to prove what is already “grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense.”
The team of U.N. weapons investigators on Monday visited one of three rebel-held suburbs where the alleged attack took place, after first being forced to withdraw when their vehicles came under sniper fire. The Syrian government, which along with Russia has suggested that the rebels were responsible for the chemical attack, agreed to the U.N. inspection over the weekend.
Videos and statements by witnesses and relief organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have proved that an attack occurred, Kerry said. The U.S. intelligence report is to be released this week.
Among the factors, officials said, are that only the government is known to possess chemical weapons and the rockets to deliver them, and its continuing control of chemical stocks has been closely monitored by U.S. intelligence.
Kerry said Syrian forces had engaged in a “cynical attempt to cover up” their actions, not only by delaying the arrival of the U.N. team but by shelling the affected area continually. Any U.S. strike would probably await the departure of the U.N. inspectors from Syria.
Kerry’s statement, which he read to reporters in the State Department briefing room without taking questions, was part of an escalating administration drumbeat, which is likely to include a public statement by Obama in coming days. Officials said the public warnings are designed partly to wring any possible cooperation out of Russia — or an unlikely admission from the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — before Obama makes his decision. (Video on the link)
|
Sec. State Kerry Prepares WMD Pretext Ahead of Syria Attack
Once again the US invokes false flag attacks and outright lies to stoke the flames of war. John "Lurch" Kerry gave a speech today that is going to lead us to WW3. Channeling Colin Powell, Dubya and the Kuwaiti Incubator Girl, "Lurch" the ketchup baron laid out a series of lies and falsehoods about the Syrian government to justify more military action in that region. Of course "Lurch" said they will never be able to find proof of who carried out the attack. The military industrial complex is going into over drive as two large wars and numerous covert ops around the world are not enough satisfy our satanic overlords. They want more blood more dead kids and Al-Qaeda outposts in every middle eastern country. It's time to call the government puppets out, they are liars. Here is an analysis from Alex Jones -- Spread it far and wide. Here is the video proof straight from the liars mouths. Don't say you didn't know, don't say you weren't warned, don't enlist in their foreign wars of aggression. Speak out and be prepared for more false flag attacks, more lies and calls for war. Chemical weapons attacks are just the beginning. Flashback: Yahoo Uncovered Syria Chemical Weapon False Flag in January. |
[John Kerry carries out WMD Bush legacy like a loyal Skull & Bones Brother Should]
Remember Bush 2nd term debates revealed that John Kerry was a bonesman like Bush.
[John Kerry admits to Skull and Bones Membership on 'Meet The Press']
[SKULL AND BONES: GEORGE BUSH AND JOHN KERRY]
Remember Bush 2nd term debates revealed that John Kerry was a bonesman like Bush.
[John Kerry admits to Skull and Bones Membership on 'Meet The Press']
[SKULL AND BONES: GEORGE BUSH AND JOHN KERRY]
|
2007
|
Newly declassified CIA documents show that the United States had a hand in Iraq’s deadly chemical attacks on Iran during the 1980-1988 war against the Islamic Republic, a new report says.
During the war, the Iraqi military attacked Iran several times using mustard gas and sarin with the help of satellite imagery, maps and other intelligence provided by the US government, the Foreign Policy magazine said, citing CIA documents and interviews with former US intelligence officials.
US officials have long denied having knowledge of the US involvement but retired Air Force Colonel Rick Francona, a then military attaché in Baghdad, said the American officials knew of Iraq’s intention.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," Francona told Foreign Policy.
In 1983, the Iraqi military carried out a chemical attack on Iranian forces and the Islamic Republic tried to take the issue to the United Nations.
Most of the evidence Iran needed at the time was among the CIA’s top secret reports and memoranda, which were all sent to the most high-ranking officials in the US. However, the US concealed the facts to block Iran’s bid at the UN.
"As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings," the CIA reported in a top secret document in November 1983. "Tehran would take such evidence to the UN and charge US complicity in violating international law."
Early in 1988, Washington even informed Baghdad of the location of the Iranian troops, knowing that Iraqi military was likely to attack Iran again with chemical weapons.
According to the documents, the satellite images, provided to Iraq in 1988, showed that Iran was going to gain a strategic advantage by using a hole in Iraqi defenses. CIA agents provided the Iraqi military with information on the movements of the Iranian troops and the location of the country’s logistics facilities as well as details about Iranian air defenses.
During the war, the Iraqi military attacked Iran several times using mustard gas and sarin with the help of satellite imagery, maps and other intelligence provided by the US government, the Foreign Policy magazine said, citing CIA documents and interviews with former US intelligence officials.
US officials have long denied having knowledge of the US involvement but retired Air Force Colonel Rick Francona, a then military attaché in Baghdad, said the American officials knew of Iraq’s intention.
"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," Francona told Foreign Policy.
In 1983, the Iraqi military carried out a chemical attack on Iranian forces and the Islamic Republic tried to take the issue to the United Nations.
Most of the evidence Iran needed at the time was among the CIA’s top secret reports and memoranda, which were all sent to the most high-ranking officials in the US. However, the US concealed the facts to block Iran’s bid at the UN.
"As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings," the CIA reported in a top secret document in November 1983. "Tehran would take such evidence to the UN and charge US complicity in violating international law."
Early in 1988, Washington even informed Baghdad of the location of the Iranian troops, knowing that Iraqi military was likely to attack Iran again with chemical weapons.
According to the documents, the satellite images, provided to Iraq in 1988, showed that Iran was going to gain a strategic advantage by using a hole in Iraqi defenses. CIA agents provided the Iraqi military with information on the movements of the Iranian troops and the location of the country’s logistics facilities as well as details about Iranian air defenses.
24 aug 2013
Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has criticized the United States for condemning his remarks over the involvement of the Israeli regime in the ouster of former Egyptian president, Mohamed Morsi.
On Tuesday, Erdogan said in a nationally televised speech that Israel was behind the military-backed toppling of Morsi last month.
His remarks angered Israel, the United States, and the new government in Cairo. The White House condemned the comments as offensive, unsubstantiated and wrong.
"Why is the White House making a statement on this? The White House should not have spoken about this. If there's somebody to speak on this, it should have been Israel," the Turkish premier said in televised remarks on Saturday.
Erdogan also noted that Washington’s condemnation “upset” him, adding, "This is very important to show the world's double standards.”
Speaking to a meeting of his Justice and Development Party on Tuesday, Erdogan blamed the Tel Aviv regime for Morsi’s ouster, saying, "What do they say about Egypt: democracy is not the ballot box. Who is behind this? It's Israel."
“We have the evidence in our hands,” he also said citing remarks made by an Israeli justice minister to a 2011 forum in France in which he allegedly said Morsi would not be to stay in power even if he won the presidential election.
Egypt has been experiencing unrelenting violence since the army toppled Morsi on July 3, suspended the constitution and dissolved the parliament.
On Tuesday, Erdogan said in a nationally televised speech that Israel was behind the military-backed toppling of Morsi last month.
His remarks angered Israel, the United States, and the new government in Cairo. The White House condemned the comments as offensive, unsubstantiated and wrong.
"Why is the White House making a statement on this? The White House should not have spoken about this. If there's somebody to speak on this, it should have been Israel," the Turkish premier said in televised remarks on Saturday.
Erdogan also noted that Washington’s condemnation “upset” him, adding, "This is very important to show the world's double standards.”
Speaking to a meeting of his Justice and Development Party on Tuesday, Erdogan blamed the Tel Aviv regime for Morsi’s ouster, saying, "What do they say about Egypt: democracy is not the ballot box. Who is behind this? It's Israel."
“We have the evidence in our hands,” he also said citing remarks made by an Israeli justice minister to a 2011 forum in France in which he allegedly said Morsi would not be to stay in power even if he won the presidential election.
Egypt has been experiencing unrelenting violence since the army toppled Morsi on July 3, suspended the constitution and dissolved the parliament.
21 aug 2013
The former foreign minister slammed the Turkish PM for his claims Tuesday that Israel was behind the military coup that ousted Egypt's President Morsi.
A day after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that Israel was behind the coup that ousted Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi, former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman responded, saying that he is the successor to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.
Erdogan told members of his party on Tuesday that "Israel is behind the coup in Egypt, we have evidence." Erdogan mentioned the words of a French Jewish intellectual as evidence, who said in 2011 that the Muslim Brotherhood will not take power even if they were to be elected since "democracy is not the ballot box." Erdogan's comments were broadcast on state television.
On a tour of Arad on Wednesday, Lieberman, who is currrently chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that "anyone who heard Erdogan's words, which were filled with hate and incitement, understands without any doubt that this is a continuation of the way of Goebbels."
"His plottings are along the lines of the Dreyfus Affair and the Elders of Zion," he added, referring to two well-known instances of anti-Semitism.
Lieberman added that he "recommends that everyone that attacked me and Yisrael Beitenu on their absolute opposition to apologize to the Turks about the Marmara (the Gaza Flotilla) incident, to draw conclusions and hold themselves to account."
Erdogan's comments on Tuesday sparked global condemnation. White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the U.S. strongly condemned the claims. "Suggesting that Israel is somehow responsible for recent events in Egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated, and wrong," he said.
In March, reconciliation efforts between Israel and Turkey began after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Erdogan to apologize for the botched raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in 2010 that killed eight Turks and one Turkish-American.
Erdogan suggested that normalization of ties with Israel would take time, hinting that Turkey wanted to ensure the victims of the flotilla raid were compensated and Israel remained committed to the easing of restrictions of goods to Gaza before restoring relations. The two countries have yet to decide on the exact sum of compensation that would be given to the flotilla victims' families.
US slams Erdogan Israel claim on Morsi ouster
The White House on Tuesday condemned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's claim that Israel had a role in toppling ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the comments were "offensive and unsubstantiated and wrong."
A day after Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed that Israel was behind the coup that ousted Egypt's President Mohammed Morsi, former Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman responded, saying that he is the successor to Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels.
Erdogan told members of his party on Tuesday that "Israel is behind the coup in Egypt, we have evidence." Erdogan mentioned the words of a French Jewish intellectual as evidence, who said in 2011 that the Muslim Brotherhood will not take power even if they were to be elected since "democracy is not the ballot box." Erdogan's comments were broadcast on state television.
On a tour of Arad on Wednesday, Lieberman, who is currrently chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said that "anyone who heard Erdogan's words, which were filled with hate and incitement, understands without any doubt that this is a continuation of the way of Goebbels."
"His plottings are along the lines of the Dreyfus Affair and the Elders of Zion," he added, referring to two well-known instances of anti-Semitism.
Lieberman added that he "recommends that everyone that attacked me and Yisrael Beitenu on their absolute opposition to apologize to the Turks about the Marmara (the Gaza Flotilla) incident, to draw conclusions and hold themselves to account."
Erdogan's comments on Tuesday sparked global condemnation. White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters the U.S. strongly condemned the claims. "Suggesting that Israel is somehow responsible for recent events in Egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated, and wrong," he said.
In March, reconciliation efforts between Israel and Turkey began after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called Erdogan to apologize for the botched raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in 2010 that killed eight Turks and one Turkish-American.
Erdogan suggested that normalization of ties with Israel would take time, hinting that Turkey wanted to ensure the victims of the flotilla raid were compensated and Israel remained committed to the easing of restrictions of goods to Gaza before restoring relations. The two countries have yet to decide on the exact sum of compensation that would be given to the flotilla victims' families.
US slams Erdogan Israel claim on Morsi ouster
The White House on Tuesday condemned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's claim that Israel had a role in toppling ousted Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the comments were "offensive and unsubstantiated and wrong."
20 aug 2013
Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Israel was behind last month’s military coup in Egypt. Erdogan told a meeting of the provincial chairs of his ruling Justice and Development, or AKP, party that he has evidence that Israel was involved in the July 3 overthrow of Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, the Turkish Hurriyet news service reported.
“Who is behind this? Israel. We have evidence,” the prime minister said, according to Hurriyet.
He cited as proof a statement by a French intellectual he identified as Jewish, who told the Israeli justice minister during a visit to France before Egypt’s 2011 elections, “The Muslim Brotherhood will not be in power even if they win the elections. Because democracy is not the ballot box,” Hurriyet reported.
The White House condemned Erdogan’s remarks.
“Suggesting that Israel is somehow responsible for recent events in Egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated and wrong,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters later Tuesday.
Turkey downgraded diplomatic ties with Israel and later expelled Israel’s ambassador following the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident in May 2010 that resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals in a confrontation with Israeli Navy commandos. The ship was trying to evade Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Erdogan in March for the incident, and representatives of the countries have met for reconciliation talks. The talks reportedly are held up over the amount of compensation that Israel is to pay to the families of the Turkish casualties and how the payments are to be characterized.
“Who is behind this? Israel. We have evidence,” the prime minister said, according to Hurriyet.
He cited as proof a statement by a French intellectual he identified as Jewish, who told the Israeli justice minister during a visit to France before Egypt’s 2011 elections, “The Muslim Brotherhood will not be in power even if they win the elections. Because democracy is not the ballot box,” Hurriyet reported.
The White House condemned Erdogan’s remarks.
“Suggesting that Israel is somehow responsible for recent events in Egypt is offensive, unsubstantiated and wrong,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters later Tuesday.
Turkey downgraded diplomatic ties with Israel and later expelled Israel’s ambassador following the Mavi Marmara flotilla incident in May 2010 that resulted in the deaths of nine Turkish nationals in a confrontation with Israeli Navy commandos. The ship was trying to evade Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to Erdogan in March for the incident, and representatives of the countries have met for reconciliation talks. The talks reportedly are held up over the amount of compensation that Israel is to pay to the families of the Turkish casualties and how the payments are to be characterized.
Legal terms of US, Israel drone use examined by UN, which asks to clarify basis of strikes in areas of conflict
The UN human rights chief is urging the United States and Israel to clarify the legal basis for the use of armed drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza.
Navi Pillay told a UN Security Council meeting Monday on protection of civilians that "the current lack of transparency surrounding their use creates an accountability vacuum and affects the ability of victims to seek redress."
Speaking by videoconference, Pillay said she is "seriously concerned about human rights implications for the protection of civilians of armed drone strikes carried out in the context of counter-terrorism and military operations including in Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza."
"I urge relevant states to clarify the legal basis for such strikes as well as the safeguards in place to ensure compliance with applicable international law," Pillay said.
The UN human rights chief is urging the United States and Israel to clarify the legal basis for the use of armed drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza.
Navi Pillay told a UN Security Council meeting Monday on protection of civilians that "the current lack of transparency surrounding their use creates an accountability vacuum and affects the ability of victims to seek redress."
Speaking by videoconference, Pillay said she is "seriously concerned about human rights implications for the protection of civilians of armed drone strikes carried out in the context of counter-terrorism and military operations including in Pakistan, Yemen and Gaza."
"I urge relevant states to clarify the legal basis for such strikes as well as the safeguards in place to ensure compliance with applicable international law," Pillay said.
18 aug 2013
|
Press TV has conducted an interview with David MacMichael, former senior CIA analyst, Washington about the issue of the NSA's spy program, which now sees the NSA's development of a new 60 million dollar data analysis lab to complement its PRISM data collection spy program. |
Peace Activist Miko Peled says the United States has been maintaining Israel as the “bully” of the Middle East through billions of dollars of military aid to Tel Aviv.
“The current political climate in the US is such that no American politician can refuse anything Israel asks for. The Israeli lobby is so strong in the US that pretty much any request that Israel makes is almost guaranteed to be accepted,” he said in a phone interview with Press TV on Saturday.
Peled made the remarks as American and Israeli officials discuss a surge in the US military aid to Israel as the two sides are in negotiations over a new 10-year military aid package.
Under an existing aid agreement between Washington and Tel Aviv signed in 2007, $30 billion of American taxpayers’ money is currently flowing to Israel, Defense News reported.
However, concerned with increasing US arms sales to countries in the region, the Israelis are asking Washington for a surge in its advanced military aid.
“Israel is not threatened by anyone right now. In fact, it’s surrounded by countries that either have no military capability or countries that are friendly with whom they have a peace agreement,” the activist said.
“But Israel continues to build this massive arsenal of arms because they want to maintain its ability to be the bully in the neighborhood, to be the bully of the Middle East,” he said.
“It allows them to attack Lebanon, It allows them to continue oppress the Palestinians, to execute horrific crimes against Palestinians using these arms,” Peled added.
The US annual military aid to Israel has been elevated from $2.4 billion to $3.1 billion through 2017 under the existing agreement but the scope of the increase in the US Foreign Military Financing levels demanded by Israel is not clear yet.
“The current political climate in the US is such that no American politician can refuse anything Israel asks for. The Israeli lobby is so strong in the US that pretty much any request that Israel makes is almost guaranteed to be accepted,” he said in a phone interview with Press TV on Saturday.
Peled made the remarks as American and Israeli officials discuss a surge in the US military aid to Israel as the two sides are in negotiations over a new 10-year military aid package.
Under an existing aid agreement between Washington and Tel Aviv signed in 2007, $30 billion of American taxpayers’ money is currently flowing to Israel, Defense News reported.
However, concerned with increasing US arms sales to countries in the region, the Israelis are asking Washington for a surge in its advanced military aid.
“Israel is not threatened by anyone right now. In fact, it’s surrounded by countries that either have no military capability or countries that are friendly with whom they have a peace agreement,” the activist said.
“But Israel continues to build this massive arsenal of arms because they want to maintain its ability to be the bully in the neighborhood, to be the bully of the Middle East,” he said.
“It allows them to attack Lebanon, It allows them to continue oppress the Palestinians, to execute horrific crimes against Palestinians using these arms,” Peled added.
The US annual military aid to Israel has been elevated from $2.4 billion to $3.1 billion through 2017 under the existing agreement but the scope of the increase in the US Foreign Military Financing levels demanded by Israel is not clear yet.
17 aug 2013
|
US and Israeli officials are discussing a surge in the US military aid to Israel as the two sides are in negotiations over a new 10-year military aid package.
Under an existing aid agreement between Washington and Tel Aviv signed in 2007, $30 billion of American taxpayers’ money is currently flowing to Israel, reported Defense News. However, Israelis are concerned with increasing US arms sales to countries in the region and are asking Washington for a surge in its advanced military aid. According to Defense News the new package would extend through 2027 and would focus on “a full spectrum of Israeli concerns, including military |
modernization needs, new threats from regional instability and the erosion of Israel’s so-called qualitative military edge (QME) due to US arms sales in the Mideast.”
The US annual military aid to Israel has been elevated from $2.4 billion to $3.1 billion through 2017 under the existing agreement but the scope of the increase in the US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) levels demanded by Israel is not clear yet.
An unnamed US official has told Defense News that QME assessments, which have never been explicitly considered in long-term FMF agreements between Washington and Tel Aviv, would be applied to the 2018-27 aid package.
At a press conference during his visit to Israel in March, President Barack Obama said he had agreed to begin discussions with Israel over extending military aid to Tel Aviv.
“Our current agreement lasts through 2017, and we’ve directed our teams to start working on extending it for the years beyond,” Obama said.
The US annual military aid to Israel has been elevated from $2.4 billion to $3.1 billion through 2017 under the existing agreement but the scope of the increase in the US Foreign Military Financing (FMF) levels demanded by Israel is not clear yet.
An unnamed US official has told Defense News that QME assessments, which have never been explicitly considered in long-term FMF agreements between Washington and Tel Aviv, would be applied to the 2018-27 aid package.
At a press conference during his visit to Israel in March, President Barack Obama said he had agreed to begin discussions with Israel over extending military aid to Tel Aviv.
“Our current agreement lasts through 2017, and we’ve directed our teams to start working on extending it for the years beyond,” Obama said.
United States defense equipment is selling like hotcakes in the Middle East, and Israel is concerned. In light of its neighbors' growing military arsenals, the country is imploring the U.S., their premier benefactor, to raise their rations so they can be sure to maintain military dominance in the region.
U.S. and Israeli officials are in initial negotiations over a new 10-year military aid package.
As Defense News reports Thursday, the package, which would extend through 2027, is focusing on a "full spectrum of Israeli concerns, including military modernization needs, new threats from regional instability and the erosion of Israel's so-called qualitative military edge (QME) due to U.S. arms sales in the Mideast."
Under the existing $30 billion aid agreement, signed in 2007, the need for Israel to maintain an "edge" over their regional adversaries was not directly accounted for. The updated, more "holistic" approach - according to Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. - will ensure the relative superiority of Israel's arsenal will become codified in the agreement.
Reporting on what they describe as "Washington's decades-long, de facto commitment to Israel's QME," Defense Newscontinues:
Oren mentioned "very large [US] contracts to the Middle East" that "raise the question of armies having capabilities similar to our own and how we make sure we can maintain our QME." Nevertheless, the Israeli envoy said Israel is not raising objections to such sales.
Latest available data by the US Congressional Research Service lists $91.9 billion in new US arms agreements to the Near East from 2008 through 2011.
"We understand that if America doesn't sell these weapons, others will," Oren said. "We also understand the fact that each of these sales contributes to hundreds or thousands of American jobs. And we have an interest in a strong and vital American economy." Israel is also asking that the new accord account for defensive measures such as the nearly $2 billion spent fortifying its borders with Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
This news comes as the U.S.'s extensive military aid to neighboring Egypt has come under fire following the Egyptian military's ongoing massacre of supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi.
The U.S. provides roughly 1.6 billion dollars, including 1.3 billion dollars in sophisticated weaponry, in annual aid to Egypt.
Plans to begin discussions for the new aid package were initially announced during U.S. President Barack Obama's recent trip to Israel. "We've directed our teams to start working on extending it for the years beyond," Obama said in a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
U.S. and Israeli officials are in initial negotiations over a new 10-year military aid package.
As Defense News reports Thursday, the package, which would extend through 2027, is focusing on a "full spectrum of Israeli concerns, including military modernization needs, new threats from regional instability and the erosion of Israel's so-called qualitative military edge (QME) due to U.S. arms sales in the Mideast."
Under the existing $30 billion aid agreement, signed in 2007, the need for Israel to maintain an "edge" over their regional adversaries was not directly accounted for. The updated, more "holistic" approach - according to Michael Oren, Israel's ambassador to the U.S. - will ensure the relative superiority of Israel's arsenal will become codified in the agreement.
Reporting on what they describe as "Washington's decades-long, de facto commitment to Israel's QME," Defense Newscontinues:
Oren mentioned "very large [US] contracts to the Middle East" that "raise the question of armies having capabilities similar to our own and how we make sure we can maintain our QME." Nevertheless, the Israeli envoy said Israel is not raising objections to such sales.
Latest available data by the US Congressional Research Service lists $91.9 billion in new US arms agreements to the Near East from 2008 through 2011.
"We understand that if America doesn't sell these weapons, others will," Oren said. "We also understand the fact that each of these sales contributes to hundreds or thousands of American jobs. And we have an interest in a strong and vital American economy." Israel is also asking that the new accord account for defensive measures such as the nearly $2 billion spent fortifying its borders with Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.
This news comes as the U.S.'s extensive military aid to neighboring Egypt has come under fire following the Egyptian military's ongoing massacre of supporters of ousted President Mohammed Morsi.
The U.S. provides roughly 1.6 billion dollars, including 1.3 billion dollars in sophisticated weaponry, in annual aid to Egypt.
Plans to begin discussions for the new aid package were initially announced during U.S. President Barack Obama's recent trip to Israel. "We've directed our teams to start working on extending it for the years beyond," Obama said in a news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.