24 sept 2013
Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) in Britain warned of the dangers facing the Aqsa Mosque in light of a rising tide of Israeli settlement projects and incursions. The Organization criticized a report by the U.S. State Department saying that it involves many fallacies and falsification of the facts and gives the occupation authorities the rights in Jerusalem while it neglects the grave violations committed by the occupation forces against the Islamic and Christian holy sites.
It asked in a statement on Tuesday Jordan, as a party in the Rome Convention that established the International Criminal Court, to take the file of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque to the International Criminal Court to prosecute those involved in the Judaization process.
The statement also urged the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League "to go to the UN Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations to demand they form committees to investigate violations of the occupation in Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque and to take concrete actions to stop them."
The AOHR called on the U.S. administration to withdraw its annual report, which "invites and encourages Israel to allow Jews to pray at the Aqsa Mosque."
It criticized the state of silence by the Arab and Islamic governments regarding the Israeli projects to Judaize Jerusalem, and called on the peoples of the world to provide all the possible material and moral support to Jerusalemites in order to thwart all projects that aim to Judaize the city and the Aqsa Mosque.
The statement pointed out that Al-Aqsa Mosque over the past few days has witnessed a series of incursions accompanied by Talmudic prayers, noting that today the Israelis plan to stage a march and roam the streets of Jerusalem.
The Organization stressed that the United States is considered a partner in serious crimes stipulated in the Rome Convention of 1998, and noted that these dangerous procedures backed by America threaten the international peace and security.
It asked in a statement on Tuesday Jordan, as a party in the Rome Convention that established the International Criminal Court, to take the file of Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque to the International Criminal Court to prosecute those involved in the Judaization process.
The statement also urged the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and the Arab League "to go to the UN Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations to demand they form committees to investigate violations of the occupation in Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque and to take concrete actions to stop them."
The AOHR called on the U.S. administration to withdraw its annual report, which "invites and encourages Israel to allow Jews to pray at the Aqsa Mosque."
It criticized the state of silence by the Arab and Islamic governments regarding the Israeli projects to Judaize Jerusalem, and called on the peoples of the world to provide all the possible material and moral support to Jerusalemites in order to thwart all projects that aim to Judaize the city and the Aqsa Mosque.
The statement pointed out that Al-Aqsa Mosque over the past few days has witnessed a series of incursions accompanied by Talmudic prayers, noting that today the Israelis plan to stage a march and roam the streets of Jerusalem.
The Organization stressed that the United States is considered a partner in serious crimes stipulated in the Rome Convention of 1998, and noted that these dangerous procedures backed by America threaten the international peace and security.
At this week’s annual top-level UN General Assembly meetings, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will honour a promise to the US to suspend a Palestinian quest for further UN recognition.
But Palestinians have made clear that the strategy is not off the table, particularly if negotiations with Israel on Palestinian statehood don’t produce an agreement by April, the target proposed by Washington.
A poll published Monday indicates overwhelming support among Palestinians for the most dramatic element of the “international strategy” — bringing up Israel on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court in connection with Israel’s continued settlement-building on war-won lands that the Palestinians want for their state.
For now, Abbas will stick to his promise to US Secretary of State John Kerry, who prodded Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations in late July, after a five-year break. “We will not apply for any agency of the United Nations this time,” Riad Mansour, the head of the Palestinian mission at the UN, said of the General Assembly meetings that began Monday.
This year’s UN diplomacy is likely dominated by Syria’s civil war and Iran’s suspected nuclear ambitions. Abbas is addressing the plenum Thursday and is to meet a series of leaders, including President Barack Obama, on Tuesday. He is also set to talk with Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
A year ago, Abbas used the General Assembly gathering to lobby for recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state at the UN. Two months later, the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the request, recognising a state of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — lands Israel occupied in 1967 — by a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions.
Israel and the US objected, arguing that such recognition harms attempts to negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood in Israeli-Palestinian talks, with US mediation. Talks between Abbas and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had broken down in 2008, and Abbas and Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed to find sufficient common ground.
Abbas has said UN recognition is not a bypass to negotiations, but meant to improve Palestinian leverage in the lopsided relationship between occupier and occupied. Palestinians say that in affirming the 1967 frontier, the UN helped counter Israeli attempts to blur that line through massive settlement building. More than a half-million Israelis now live on war-won lands, complicating any effort to partition the territory under a future peace deal.
Palestinians resumed talks with Israel in July despite low expectations, and without getting Israel to freeze settlement-building first. Yet Abbas could not afford to rebuff Obama at the time by saying no. Israel’s promise to release 104 long-held Palestinian prisoners over the course of the talks also helped bring Abbas back to the table.
Abbas, in turn, promised to suspend his UN strategy, which Israel fears will heighten its diplomatic isolation. As part of that strategy, the Palestinians would seek membership in a number of UN agencies. The most dramatic step would be to seek action by the International Criminal Court, though Abbas hasn’t yet given the green light.
The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research said 60 per cent of Palestinians back Abbas’ decision to refrain from seeking membership in UN agencies for the duration of negotiations with Israel, in return for the release of prisoners.
However, 67 per cent support going to the ICC immediately, even if it means prisoners won’t be released or Israel retaliates with financial sanctions, according to pollster Khalil Shikaki.
He said the ICC option is popular because a majority of Palestinians don’t have faith in negotiations but also oppose a return to violence. “People want revenge because they see Israel is getting away with ... the theft of their land, confiscation of their property, bringing in settlers... and they feel there’s absolutely nothing they are able to do against it,” Shikaki added.
The survey was conducted September 19-21 among 1,261 respondents, with an error margin of 3 percentage points.
Political analyst Majed Swailem said Abbas is unlikely to abandon the UN strategy, despite the current suspension.
“The UN is the only strategy for Abbas, in case the current round of negotiations fails, as is expected,” Swailem said. “By the end of the assigned nine months, he can’t continue talking without any result and, of course, will return to the UN”.
But Palestinians have made clear that the strategy is not off the table, particularly if negotiations with Israel on Palestinian statehood don’t produce an agreement by April, the target proposed by Washington.
A poll published Monday indicates overwhelming support among Palestinians for the most dramatic element of the “international strategy” — bringing up Israel on war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court in connection with Israel’s continued settlement-building on war-won lands that the Palestinians want for their state.
For now, Abbas will stick to his promise to US Secretary of State John Kerry, who prodded Israelis and Palestinians back to negotiations in late July, after a five-year break. “We will not apply for any agency of the United Nations this time,” Riad Mansour, the head of the Palestinian mission at the UN, said of the General Assembly meetings that began Monday.
This year’s UN diplomacy is likely dominated by Syria’s civil war and Iran’s suspected nuclear ambitions. Abbas is addressing the plenum Thursday and is to meet a series of leaders, including President Barack Obama, on Tuesday. He is also set to talk with Kerry, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.
A year ago, Abbas used the General Assembly gathering to lobby for recognition of Palestine as a non-member observer state at the UN. Two months later, the General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the request, recognising a state of Palestine in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem — lands Israel occupied in 1967 — by a vote of 138-9, with 41 abstentions.
Israel and the US objected, arguing that such recognition harms attempts to negotiate the terms of Palestinian statehood in Israeli-Palestinian talks, with US mediation. Talks between Abbas and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had broken down in 2008, and Abbas and Olmert’s successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, failed to find sufficient common ground.
Abbas has said UN recognition is not a bypass to negotiations, but meant to improve Palestinian leverage in the lopsided relationship between occupier and occupied. Palestinians say that in affirming the 1967 frontier, the UN helped counter Israeli attempts to blur that line through massive settlement building. More than a half-million Israelis now live on war-won lands, complicating any effort to partition the territory under a future peace deal.
Palestinians resumed talks with Israel in July despite low expectations, and without getting Israel to freeze settlement-building first. Yet Abbas could not afford to rebuff Obama at the time by saying no. Israel’s promise to release 104 long-held Palestinian prisoners over the course of the talks also helped bring Abbas back to the table.
Abbas, in turn, promised to suspend his UN strategy, which Israel fears will heighten its diplomatic isolation. As part of that strategy, the Palestinians would seek membership in a number of UN agencies. The most dramatic step would be to seek action by the International Criminal Court, though Abbas hasn’t yet given the green light.
The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research said 60 per cent of Palestinians back Abbas’ decision to refrain from seeking membership in UN agencies for the duration of negotiations with Israel, in return for the release of prisoners.
However, 67 per cent support going to the ICC immediately, even if it means prisoners won’t be released or Israel retaliates with financial sanctions, according to pollster Khalil Shikaki.
He said the ICC option is popular because a majority of Palestinians don’t have faith in negotiations but also oppose a return to violence. “People want revenge because they see Israel is getting away with ... the theft of their land, confiscation of their property, bringing in settlers... and they feel there’s absolutely nothing they are able to do against it,” Shikaki added.
The survey was conducted September 19-21 among 1,261 respondents, with an error margin of 3 percentage points.
Political analyst Majed Swailem said Abbas is unlikely to abandon the UN strategy, despite the current suspension.
“The UN is the only strategy for Abbas, in case the current round of negotiations fails, as is expected,” Swailem said. “By the end of the assigned nine months, he can’t continue talking without any result and, of course, will return to the UN”.
21 sept 2013
by Stephen Lendman
Oxford Dictionaries call rogue states “nation(s) or state(s) regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.”
They’re authoritarian or despotic and ruthless. They stop at nothing to achieve aims. They spurn human and civil rights. They possess weapons of mass destruction. They sponsor state terrorism.
William Blum’s done some of the best research. His books include “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.”
He documented how from 1945 through 2005, America tried or succeeded in toppling over 40 governments. It crushed dozens of popular movements. It slaughtered millions of people doing so.
It condemned countless others to immiseration, agony and despair. According to Blum, US policies are “worse than you imagine.”
“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy (throughout) the past century, this is what crawls out:”
“invasions, bombings, (subversion), overthrowing governments, suppressing (popular) movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing ‘news,’ death squads, torture, (chemical), biological (and nuclear) warfare, (radiological contamination), drug trafficking, mercenaries,” police state repression, and war on humanity writ large.
“It’s not a pretty picture,” said Blum. “It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.”
Bullies make more enemies than friends. America’s the unchallenged world champion. It intimidates, threatens, and otherwise pressures other nations to comply with its will. Obey or else is policy.
It’s waging longstanding war on humanity. It risks mass annihilation. It doesn’t matter. Unchallenged global dominance alone counts. Rogue states operate that way. America’s by far the worst.
It targets independent governments. It wants pro-Western puppet regimes replacing them. It wants control of the world’s resources. It wants ordinary people exploited as serfs.
It mocks democratic values. It spurns rule of law principles. It enforces its will through the barrel of a gun. It does so in other nefarious ways.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was en route to China. He was forced to fly an alternative route. Obama denied him permission to overfly Puerto Rican airspace.
The island state’s a longtime US colony. Puerto Ricans are denied independence. Since 1898, America controlled their lives.
In 1981, Puerto Rican Independentistas convicted of “seditious conspiracy” said the following:
“Our position remains clear: Puerto Rico is a nation intervened, militarily conquered and colonized by the United States.”
We are prisoners of war captured by the enemy. Our actions have always been and continue to be in the nature of fighting a war of independence, a war of national liberation.”
“The US interventionist government has absolutely no right, no say so whatsoever in regards to Puerto Rico, ourselves, or any Puerto Rican prisoner of war.”
“The US interventionist government has only one choice….and that is to GET OUT!”
“It is our right to regain and secure our national sovereignty. Nothing will stand in the way of achieving our goal.”
Their struggle continues. Even foreign leaders are affected. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua denounced what he called “an act of aggression.”
“We have received information from American officials that we have been denied travel over its airspace,” he said.
“We denounce this as yet another aggression on the part of North American imperialism against the government of the Bolivarian Republic.”
“No one can deny airspace to a plane carrying a president on an international state visit.”
“(N)o valid argument” permits preventing legitimate travel through American airspace.
Rogue states make their own rules. Maduro scheduled weekend talks in Beijing.
On April 14, Venezuelans elected him president. He won fair and square. Jimmy Carter calls Venezuela’s electoral process the world’s best.
Obama hasn’t recognized Maduro’s legitimacy. It doesn’t surprise. He treats real democratic leaders with derision. He targets them for removal.
Destabilizing Venezuela is longstanding US policy. Hugo Chavez experienced the worst of it.
Throughout his tenure, he was America’s main hemispheric bete noire. He represented the threat of a good example.
He’s gone. Chavismo lives. Washington’s war on Venezuela continues.
It’s the oil, stupid. Venezuela has the world’s largest reserves. It’s also for unchallenged global dominance. No holds barred tactics persist to achieve it.
America’s Caracas embassy is a hotbed of anti-Chavismo subversion. CIA operatives infest it. Neither country has ambassadorial-level relations.
Denying Maduro Puerto Rican air space rights won’t help things. It followed earlier hostile US acts.
In July, Maduro called Obama’s UN envoy nominee Samantha Power’s comments “despicable.”
During Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, she discussed what she called a “crackdown on civil society being carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.”
“Power says she’ll fight repression in Venezuela,” asked Maduro? “What repression?”
“There is repression in the United States, where they kill African-Americans with impunity, and where they hunt the youngster Edward Snowden just for telling the truth.”
“And the US government says they want to have good relations? What tremendous relations do they want?”
Maduro demanded an apology. It didn’t follow. Obama answered his way. Rogue state bullying is longstanding US policy.
Obama exceeds the worst of his predecessors. He governs by diktat. He heads America’s Murder, Inc. agenda.
He prioritizes targeted assassinations worldwide. He authorized killing US citizens abroad. He pronounces guilt by accusation.
He deployed special forces death squads globally. They operate covertly in 120 or more countries. He runs the world’s largest gulag.
It operates at home and abroad. Thousands of political prisoners languish inside. Guantanamo’s the tip of the iceberg.
Supermax prisons are its domestic equivalent. Brutalizing longterm isolation turns ordinary inmates into zombies.
Obama claims a divine right to detain anyone indefinitely. He does so uncharged and untried. He does it for any reason or none at all.
Rogue leaders operate that way. Obama’s by far the worst. Laws are made to be obeyed. Obama spurns them. He does so with impunity. He targets anyone challenging US imperial power.
In July, he got France, Spain and Portugal to deny Evo Morales air space rights. Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said doing so “put at risk the life of the president.”
Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia said Morales was “kidnapped by imperialism.” He blamed EU complicity with Washington.
Defense Minister Ruben Saavedra added:
“This is a hostile act by the United States State Department which has used various European governments.”
Morales was returning home from Moscow. He attended a Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF). Washington suspected he had Edward Snowden aboard.
Morales said he’s “ready to give political asylum to people who expose spying activities. If we receive a request, we are willing to consider it.” He hasn’t changed his mind.
On September 20, Press TV headlined “Bolivia plans legal action against Obama over ‘crimes against humanity.’ ”
He’s doing so after denying Maduro air space rights. At a Santa Cruz press conference, he said:
“I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity.”
“The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights.”
In solidarity with Venezuela, he’s suing in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
He called an emergency Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) meeting.
Discussion will focus on what Venezuela calls “an act of intimidation by North American imperialism.”
Morales called on CELAC members to recall their Washington ambassadors.
He urged Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas member states to boycott the upcoming UN meeting.
Maduro raised another issue. Washington set conditions on granting Venezuelan General Wilmer Barrientos visa permission to attend next week’s General Assembly session.
“They want to put conditions, if we decide to go to New York. They don’t want to give a visa to my minister,” said Maduro.
He told Foreign Minister Elias Jaua to “activate all mechanisms” regarding the visa dispute.
“US, you are not the UN’s owner. The UN will have to move out of New York,” Maduro added. He warned he’s prepared to take “the most drastic measures necessary” to ensure Venezuelan sovereignty.
“Do we want to go as tourists? We’re going to the United Nations. You’re obligated to give visas to all the delegation,” he stressed.
Note: Late word suggests Washington rescinded its Puerto Rican air space denial. According to State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, Venezuela improperly requested permission. Saying so doesn’t wash.
She claimed Caracas gave one day’s notice. Three are required, she said.
“Additionally, the plane in question was not a state aircraft, which is required for a diplomatic clearance,” she added.
“Although the request was not properly submitted, US authorities worked with Venezuelan officials at the Venezuelan Embassy to resolve the issue.”
“US authorities made an extraordinary effort to work with relevant authorities to grant overflight approval in a matter of hours.”
These type 11th hour comments ring hollow. Denying a head of state air passage rights lacks legitimacy. It does so under virtually all circumstances.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has her own bone to pick. Documents Snowden revealed show NSA spies on her lawlessly.
It monitors her phone calls, emails, and cell phone messages relating to key advisors. In response, she denounced what she called “impermissible and unacceptable.” She cancelled a planned state visit.
State owned Petrobras (PBR) is also targeted. At stake is giving big US oil giants a competitive advantage.
According to the Financial Times, PBR intends spending $9.5 billion in the next five years for improved security.
President Maria das Gracas Foster announced it, saying:
“This is a policy that is so important it has been personally approved by the board of directors.”
“The management of our goods, people, information and the wealth we create is of crucial importance.”
At stake is much more than security. Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo said Brazil intends requiring all data exchanges based in Brazil to include locally produced equipment.
Doing so will adversely impact major US suppliers. Online companies Google, Yahoo, Facebook and others are affected.
New mandates require internal servers for all data involving Brazilians. Its privacy laws will have to be obeyed.
In mid-September, Brazil and Argentina approved a broader military cooperation agreement. It calls for improved cyber defense capabilities. It does so after Snowden’s revelations.
Under Obama, America more than ever is a global menace. Imperial madness threatens world peace.
Out-of-control US policy is arrogant, misguided, and destructive. It combines state terror with war on humanity. It does so despite no enemies. It invents them out of whole cloth.
It pursues unchallenged global dominance. It bears repeating. It risks WW III. It risks mass annihilation. It risks what no responsible leader should dare. Rogue states operate that way. America’s by far the worst.
Oxford Dictionaries call rogue states “nation(s) or state(s) regarded as breaking international law and posing a threat to the security of other nations.”
They’re authoritarian or despotic and ruthless. They stop at nothing to achieve aims. They spurn human and civil rights. They possess weapons of mass destruction. They sponsor state terrorism.
William Blum’s done some of the best research. His books include “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower.”
He documented how from 1945 through 2005, America tried or succeeded in toppling over 40 governments. It crushed dozens of popular movements. It slaughtered millions of people doing so.
It condemned countless others to immiseration, agony and despair. According to Blum, US policies are “worse than you imagine.”
“If you flip over the rock of American foreign policy (throughout) the past century, this is what crawls out:”
“invasions, bombings, (subversion), overthrowing governments, suppressing (popular) movements for social change, assassinating political leaders, perverting elections, manipulating labor unions, manufacturing ‘news,’ death squads, torture, (chemical), biological (and nuclear) warfare, (radiological contamination), drug trafficking, mercenaries,” police state repression, and war on humanity writ large.
“It’s not a pretty picture,” said Blum. “It is enough to give imperialism a bad name.”
Bullies make more enemies than friends. America’s the unchallenged world champion. It intimidates, threatens, and otherwise pressures other nations to comply with its will. Obey or else is policy.
It’s waging longstanding war on humanity. It risks mass annihilation. It doesn’t matter. Unchallenged global dominance alone counts. Rogue states operate that way. America’s by far the worst.
It targets independent governments. It wants pro-Western puppet regimes replacing them. It wants control of the world’s resources. It wants ordinary people exploited as serfs.
It mocks democratic values. It spurns rule of law principles. It enforces its will through the barrel of a gun. It does so in other nefarious ways.
Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro was en route to China. He was forced to fly an alternative route. Obama denied him permission to overfly Puerto Rican airspace.
The island state’s a longtime US colony. Puerto Ricans are denied independence. Since 1898, America controlled their lives.
In 1981, Puerto Rican Independentistas convicted of “seditious conspiracy” said the following:
“Our position remains clear: Puerto Rico is a nation intervened, militarily conquered and colonized by the United States.”
We are prisoners of war captured by the enemy. Our actions have always been and continue to be in the nature of fighting a war of independence, a war of national liberation.”
“The US interventionist government has absolutely no right, no say so whatsoever in regards to Puerto Rico, ourselves, or any Puerto Rican prisoner of war.”
“The US interventionist government has only one choice….and that is to GET OUT!”
“It is our right to regain and secure our national sovereignty. Nothing will stand in the way of achieving our goal.”
Their struggle continues. Even foreign leaders are affected. Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua denounced what he called “an act of aggression.”
“We have received information from American officials that we have been denied travel over its airspace,” he said.
“We denounce this as yet another aggression on the part of North American imperialism against the government of the Bolivarian Republic.”
“No one can deny airspace to a plane carrying a president on an international state visit.”
“(N)o valid argument” permits preventing legitimate travel through American airspace.
Rogue states make their own rules. Maduro scheduled weekend talks in Beijing.
On April 14, Venezuelans elected him president. He won fair and square. Jimmy Carter calls Venezuela’s electoral process the world’s best.
Obama hasn’t recognized Maduro’s legitimacy. It doesn’t surprise. He treats real democratic leaders with derision. He targets them for removal.
Destabilizing Venezuela is longstanding US policy. Hugo Chavez experienced the worst of it.
Throughout his tenure, he was America’s main hemispheric bete noire. He represented the threat of a good example.
He’s gone. Chavismo lives. Washington’s war on Venezuela continues.
It’s the oil, stupid. Venezuela has the world’s largest reserves. It’s also for unchallenged global dominance. No holds barred tactics persist to achieve it.
America’s Caracas embassy is a hotbed of anti-Chavismo subversion. CIA operatives infest it. Neither country has ambassadorial-level relations.
Denying Maduro Puerto Rican air space rights won’t help things. It followed earlier hostile US acts.
In July, Maduro called Obama’s UN envoy nominee Samantha Power’s comments “despicable.”
During Senate Foreign Relations Committee testimony, she discussed what she called a “crackdown on civil society being carried out in countries like Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.”
“Power says she’ll fight repression in Venezuela,” asked Maduro? “What repression?”
“There is repression in the United States, where they kill African-Americans with impunity, and where they hunt the youngster Edward Snowden just for telling the truth.”
“And the US government says they want to have good relations? What tremendous relations do they want?”
Maduro demanded an apology. It didn’t follow. Obama answered his way. Rogue state bullying is longstanding US policy.
Obama exceeds the worst of his predecessors. He governs by diktat. He heads America’s Murder, Inc. agenda.
He prioritizes targeted assassinations worldwide. He authorized killing US citizens abroad. He pronounces guilt by accusation.
He deployed special forces death squads globally. They operate covertly in 120 or more countries. He runs the world’s largest gulag.
It operates at home and abroad. Thousands of political prisoners languish inside. Guantanamo’s the tip of the iceberg.
Supermax prisons are its domestic equivalent. Brutalizing longterm isolation turns ordinary inmates into zombies.
Obama claims a divine right to detain anyone indefinitely. He does so uncharged and untried. He does it for any reason or none at all.
Rogue leaders operate that way. Obama’s by far the worst. Laws are made to be obeyed. Obama spurns them. He does so with impunity. He targets anyone challenging US imperial power.
In July, he got France, Spain and Portugal to deny Evo Morales air space rights. Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca said doing so “put at risk the life of the president.”
Bolivian Vice President Alvaro Garcia said Morales was “kidnapped by imperialism.” He blamed EU complicity with Washington.
Defense Minister Ruben Saavedra added:
“This is a hostile act by the United States State Department which has used various European governments.”
Morales was returning home from Moscow. He attended a Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF). Washington suspected he had Edward Snowden aboard.
Morales said he’s “ready to give political asylum to people who expose spying activities. If we receive a request, we are willing to consider it.” He hasn’t changed his mind.
On September 20, Press TV headlined “Bolivia plans legal action against Obama over ‘crimes against humanity.’ ”
He’s doing so after denying Maduro air space rights. At a Santa Cruz press conference, he said:
“I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity.”
“The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights.”
In solidarity with Venezuela, he’s suing in the International Criminal Court (ICC).
He called an emergency Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) meeting.
Discussion will focus on what Venezuela calls “an act of intimidation by North American imperialism.”
Morales called on CELAC members to recall their Washington ambassadors.
He urged Bolivarian Alliance of the Americas member states to boycott the upcoming UN meeting.
Maduro raised another issue. Washington set conditions on granting Venezuelan General Wilmer Barrientos visa permission to attend next week’s General Assembly session.
“They want to put conditions, if we decide to go to New York. They don’t want to give a visa to my minister,” said Maduro.
He told Foreign Minister Elias Jaua to “activate all mechanisms” regarding the visa dispute.
“US, you are not the UN’s owner. The UN will have to move out of New York,” Maduro added. He warned he’s prepared to take “the most drastic measures necessary” to ensure Venezuelan sovereignty.
“Do we want to go as tourists? We’re going to the United Nations. You’re obligated to give visas to all the delegation,” he stressed.
Note: Late word suggests Washington rescinded its Puerto Rican air space denial. According to State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, Venezuela improperly requested permission. Saying so doesn’t wash.
She claimed Caracas gave one day’s notice. Three are required, she said.
“Additionally, the plane in question was not a state aircraft, which is required for a diplomatic clearance,” she added.
“Although the request was not properly submitted, US authorities worked with Venezuelan officials at the Venezuelan Embassy to resolve the issue.”
“US authorities made an extraordinary effort to work with relevant authorities to grant overflight approval in a matter of hours.”
These type 11th hour comments ring hollow. Denying a head of state air passage rights lacks legitimacy. It does so under virtually all circumstances.
Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff has her own bone to pick. Documents Snowden revealed show NSA spies on her lawlessly.
It monitors her phone calls, emails, and cell phone messages relating to key advisors. In response, she denounced what she called “impermissible and unacceptable.” She cancelled a planned state visit.
State owned Petrobras (PBR) is also targeted. At stake is giving big US oil giants a competitive advantage.
According to the Financial Times, PBR intends spending $9.5 billion in the next five years for improved security.
President Maria das Gracas Foster announced it, saying:
“This is a policy that is so important it has been personally approved by the board of directors.”
“The management of our goods, people, information and the wealth we create is of crucial importance.”
At stake is much more than security. Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo said Brazil intends requiring all data exchanges based in Brazil to include locally produced equipment.
Doing so will adversely impact major US suppliers. Online companies Google, Yahoo, Facebook and others are affected.
New mandates require internal servers for all data involving Brazilians. Its privacy laws will have to be obeyed.
In mid-September, Brazil and Argentina approved a broader military cooperation agreement. It calls for improved cyber defense capabilities. It does so after Snowden’s revelations.
Under Obama, America more than ever is a global menace. Imperial madness threatens world peace.
Out-of-control US policy is arrogant, misguided, and destructive. It combines state terror with war on humanity. It does so despite no enemies. It invents them out of whole cloth.
It pursues unchallenged global dominance. It bears repeating. It risks WW III. It risks mass annihilation. It risks what no responsible leader should dare. Rogue states operate that way. America’s by far the worst.
20 sept 2013
Here is AIPAC’s official response [PDF] to the growing possibility that Iran and the United States will negotiate to reach an agreement on the nuclear issue, It can be summed up in three words: NO, NO, NO.
Netanyahu and his lobby want war and, suddenly, they fear they won’t get it. It’s like Dickens wrote: it was the worst of times and it was the worst of times.
I think I will read AIPAC’s memo [PDF] again over Shabbat dinner. Seeing them in pain is, in itself, a blessing.
Netanyahu and his lobby want war and, suddenly, they fear they won’t get it. It’s like Dickens wrote: it was the worst of times and it was the worst of times.
I think I will read AIPAC’s memo [PDF] again over Shabbat dinner. Seeing them in pain is, in itself, a blessing.
Mushroom cloud from Castle Bravo, the largest nuclear test conducted by the US in the Marshall Islands
The United States is planning to test nuclear missiles next week on the same day that heads of states and foreign ministers from around the world are to hold a high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
The US has scheduled two test launches for its nuclear-capable Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) on September 22 and September 26.
The first nuclear missile will be launched one day after the International Day of Peace and the second one is expected to be launched on the same day the UN’s high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament will take place in New York.
“Instead of honoring the significance of these dates and working in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament, the United States has chosen to schedule two tests of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on September 22 and September 26,” Rick Wayman of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation told the Daily Times.
“We are disappointed that a test launch is scheduled for the same day as the High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament at the UN in New York,” Wayman said.
“These missiles are designed to carry nuclear warheads capable of killing thousands of times more people than the chemical weapons used in Syria,” he pointed out.
Washington has accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of using chemical weapons in an attack near capital Damascus on August 21.
Damascus has categorically rejected the allegations and even Obama’s top aide, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, admitted that Washington’s claims were based on a “common-sense test” not any “irrefutable” evidence.
Meanwhile, Russia has said it has evidence which shows militant groups operating in Syria staged the August 21 attack to incriminate the Syrian government.
As Washington plans to go ahead with its plans to test nuclear missiles next week, UN spokesperson Farhan Haq cited the UN Secretary General’s statement on the issue which said, “We should all remember the terrible toll of nuclear tests.”
The US is the only country in the world that has used atomic bombs in war. US atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August 1945.
Last year in September, it was reported that the US government was planning to undertake the costliest modernization of its nuclear arsenal in history.
The United States is planning to test nuclear missiles next week on the same day that heads of states and foreign ministers from around the world are to hold a high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament at the United Nations headquarters in New York.
The US has scheduled two test launches for its nuclear-capable Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) on September 22 and September 26.
The first nuclear missile will be launched one day after the International Day of Peace and the second one is expected to be launched on the same day the UN’s high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament will take place in New York.
“Instead of honoring the significance of these dates and working in good faith to achieve nuclear disarmament, the United States has chosen to schedule two tests of its Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on September 22 and September 26,” Rick Wayman of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation told the Daily Times.
“We are disappointed that a test launch is scheduled for the same day as the High-Level Meeting on nuclear disarmament at the UN in New York,” Wayman said.
“These missiles are designed to carry nuclear warheads capable of killing thousands of times more people than the chemical weapons used in Syria,” he pointed out.
Washington has accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of using chemical weapons in an attack near capital Damascus on August 21.
Damascus has categorically rejected the allegations and even Obama’s top aide, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough, admitted that Washington’s claims were based on a “common-sense test” not any “irrefutable” evidence.
Meanwhile, Russia has said it has evidence which shows militant groups operating in Syria staged the August 21 attack to incriminate the Syrian government.
As Washington plans to go ahead with its plans to test nuclear missiles next week, UN spokesperson Farhan Haq cited the UN Secretary General’s statement on the issue which said, “We should all remember the terrible toll of nuclear tests.”
The US is the only country in the world that has used atomic bombs in war. US atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August 1945.
Last year in September, it was reported that the US government was planning to undertake the costliest modernization of its nuclear arsenal in history.
19 sept 2013
US Secretary of State John Kerry says the United Nations Security Council must be prepared to act on Syria’s chemical weapons program next week.
"Now the test comes. The Security Council must be prepared to act next week. It is vital for the international community to stand up and speak out," Kerry said in a statement at the State Department on Thursday.
“This fight about Syria’s chemical weapons is not a game,” Kerry added. “It’s real. It’s important.”
The top US diplomat, who will join world leaders for the annual UN General Assembly in New York on Sunday, once again accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons in a deadly attack last month.
"I would say to the community of nations, time is short. Let's not spend time debating what we already know," Kerry said.
"Instead, we have to recognize that the world is watching to see whether we can avert military action and achieve through peaceful means" the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, he added.
"The complete removal of Syria's chemical weapons is possible here, through peaceful means," Kerry said.
Meanwhile, Damascus plans to make a full declaration of its chemical arms stocks by this weekend under a deal with Russia to put the weapons under international control with the goal of destroying them by mid-2014.
During a meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Thursday, Kerry called on China, which is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, to play a positive role regarding Syria.
"With negotiations ongoing at the Security Council, we look forward to China playing a positive, constructive, important role," Kerry told his Chinese counterpart.
The agreement between the US and Russia to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control has for now cooled off the war rhetoric in the region. (Video on the link)
"Now the test comes. The Security Council must be prepared to act next week. It is vital for the international community to stand up and speak out," Kerry said in a statement at the State Department on Thursday.
“This fight about Syria’s chemical weapons is not a game,” Kerry added. “It’s real. It’s important.”
The top US diplomat, who will join world leaders for the annual UN General Assembly in New York on Sunday, once again accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons in a deadly attack last month.
"I would say to the community of nations, time is short. Let's not spend time debating what we already know," Kerry said.
"Instead, we have to recognize that the world is watching to see whether we can avert military action and achieve through peaceful means" the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile, he added.
"The complete removal of Syria's chemical weapons is possible here, through peaceful means," Kerry said.
Meanwhile, Damascus plans to make a full declaration of its chemical arms stocks by this weekend under a deal with Russia to put the weapons under international control with the goal of destroying them by mid-2014.
During a meeting with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi on Thursday, Kerry called on China, which is one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, to play a positive role regarding Syria.
"With negotiations ongoing at the Security Council, we look forward to China playing a positive, constructive, important role," Kerry told his Chinese counterpart.
The agreement between the US and Russia to put Syria’s chemical weapons under international control has for now cooled off the war rhetoric in the region. (Video on the link)
16 sept 2013
New York Times published a lengthy article for Ian Lustick, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania, one of the world top seven universities titled "illusions of a two-state solution". Lustick explained the US failed to stand up to Israel's violations, and has a long history in providing a ground cover for the Israeli occupation policies; it also failed to discourage Israel from its settlement activity under the pretext that not provoking Israel would push it towards a peace agreement.
He compared the solution of establishing a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco who fell into a coma, and never stopped to be reported in the media as ‘alive’. “The news media began a long death watch, announcing each night that Generalissimo Franco was still not dead. This desperate allegiance to the departed echoes in every speech, policy brief and op-ed about the two-state solution today.”
With regard to the settlement expansions in the occupied West Bank and the doubled number of settlers under the cover of the 20-year-old Oslo Accords, Lustick believed that establishing a Muslim-ruled Palestinian state is has as potential as that of a secular Palestinian state “Strong Islamist trends make a fundamentalist Palestine more likely than a small state under a secular government.”
He indicated that “The disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project, through war, cultural exhaustion or demographic momentum, is at least as plausible as the evacuation of enough of the half-million Israelis living across the 1967 border, or Green Line, to allow a real Palestinian state to exist.”
“While the vision of thriving Israeli and Palestinian states has slipped from the plausible to the barely possible, one mixed state emerging from prolonged and violent struggles over democratic rights is no longer inconceivable. Yet the fantasy that there is a two-state solution keeps everyone from taking action toward something that might work,”
He considered that all sides have reasons to cling to two state-solution: “The Palestinian Authority needs its people to believe that progress is being made toward a two-state solution so it can continue to get the economic aid and diplomatic support that subsidize the lifestyles of its leaders, the jobs of tens of thousands of soldiers, spies, police officers and civil servants, and the authority’s prominence in a Palestinian society that views it as corrupt and incompetent.”
While for the consecutive Israeli governments, they “cling to the two-state notion because it seems to reflect the sentiments of the Jewish Israeli majority and it shields the country from international opprobrium, even as it camouflages relentless efforts to expand Israel’s territory into the West Bank,”
Conceived as early as the 1930s, the idea of two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea all but disappeared from public consciousness between 1948 and 1967. Between 1967 and 1973 it re-emerged, advanced by a minority of “moderates” in each community. By the 1990s it was embraced by majorities on both sides as not only possible but, during the height of the Oslo peace process, probable. But failures of leadership in the face of tremendous pressures brought Oslo crashing down. These days no one suggests that a negotiated two-state “solution” is probable. The most optimistic insist that, for some brief period, it may still be conceivable.
He added that many Israelis see the demise of their country as not just possible, but probable. “The State of Israel has been established, not its permanence. The most common phrase in Israeli political discourse is some variation of “If X happens (or doesn’t), the state will not survive!”
“Those who assume that Israel will always exist as a Zionist project should consider how quickly the Soviet, Pahlavi Iranian, apartheid South African, Baathist Iraqi and Yugoslavian states unraveled, and how little warning even sharp-eyed observers had that such transformations were imminent.” He followed.
He compared the solution of establishing a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with Israel to Spanish dictator Francisco Franco who fell into a coma, and never stopped to be reported in the media as ‘alive’. “The news media began a long death watch, announcing each night that Generalissimo Franco was still not dead. This desperate allegiance to the departed echoes in every speech, policy brief and op-ed about the two-state solution today.”
With regard to the settlement expansions in the occupied West Bank and the doubled number of settlers under the cover of the 20-year-old Oslo Accords, Lustick believed that establishing a Muslim-ruled Palestinian state is has as potential as that of a secular Palestinian state “Strong Islamist trends make a fundamentalist Palestine more likely than a small state under a secular government.”
He indicated that “The disappearance of Israel as a Zionist project, through war, cultural exhaustion or demographic momentum, is at least as plausible as the evacuation of enough of the half-million Israelis living across the 1967 border, or Green Line, to allow a real Palestinian state to exist.”
“While the vision of thriving Israeli and Palestinian states has slipped from the plausible to the barely possible, one mixed state emerging from prolonged and violent struggles over democratic rights is no longer inconceivable. Yet the fantasy that there is a two-state solution keeps everyone from taking action toward something that might work,”
He considered that all sides have reasons to cling to two state-solution: “The Palestinian Authority needs its people to believe that progress is being made toward a two-state solution so it can continue to get the economic aid and diplomatic support that subsidize the lifestyles of its leaders, the jobs of tens of thousands of soldiers, spies, police officers and civil servants, and the authority’s prominence in a Palestinian society that views it as corrupt and incompetent.”
While for the consecutive Israeli governments, they “cling to the two-state notion because it seems to reflect the sentiments of the Jewish Israeli majority and it shields the country from international opprobrium, even as it camouflages relentless efforts to expand Israel’s territory into the West Bank,”
Conceived as early as the 1930s, the idea of two states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea all but disappeared from public consciousness between 1948 and 1967. Between 1967 and 1973 it re-emerged, advanced by a minority of “moderates” in each community. By the 1990s it was embraced by majorities on both sides as not only possible but, during the height of the Oslo peace process, probable. But failures of leadership in the face of tremendous pressures brought Oslo crashing down. These days no one suggests that a negotiated two-state “solution” is probable. The most optimistic insist that, for some brief period, it may still be conceivable.
He added that many Israelis see the demise of their country as not just possible, but probable. “The State of Israel has been established, not its permanence. The most common phrase in Israeli political discourse is some variation of “If X happens (or doesn’t), the state will not survive!”
“Those who assume that Israel will always exist as a Zionist project should consider how quickly the Soviet, Pahlavi Iranian, apartheid South African, Baathist Iraqi and Yugoslavian states unraveled, and how little warning even sharp-eyed observers had that such transformations were imminent.” He followed.
An American author says both the United States and Israel maintain “formidable nuclear, chemical and biological weapons arsenals” but not a single word is said about their arms, Press TV reports.
“Syria threatens no one as we know and it has never used chemical weapons against its own people. The claim that it does is completely fabricated and Israel is a major threat; America is a major threat,” Stephen Lendman said.
He pointed to the danger posed to the world peace by Israeli nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and criticized the recent remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Syria’s alleged chemical weapons.
On Sunday, Netanyahu voiced support for an agreement reached by the US and Russia to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international supervision.
“We’ve been closely following and support your ongoing efforts to rid Syria of its chemical weapons,” Netanyahu said in the occupied al-Quds (Jerusalem).
The agreement was reached between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on September 14, following three days of talks in Geneva.
Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is widely known to have between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.
Lendman further added that US media literally turn truth on its head and vilify for attacking Syria.
“They [US media] blame a country like Russia for taking heroic steps to avoid another war that would be catastrophic,” Lendman, who is also radio host, said.
He added that protests are being held across the United States to rage against the possibility of a war on Syria as the Americans are fed up with 12 years of non-stop war after 9/11.
“They [Americans] want jobs; they want the economy growing; they want America’s resources spent to grow America not destroying and killing and ravaging other countries. And they made those feelings known and it took effect in Congress,” Lendman pointed out.
He expressed concern that the US might end up getting the war that President Barack Obama wants against Syria which would destroy the Syrian Republic and isolate Iran.
War rhetoric against Syria intensified on August 21, when militants operating inside the country and foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus.
The Syrian government categorically rejected the allegation, saying the militants carried out the attack to provoke foreign military intervention. (Video on the link)
“Syria threatens no one as we know and it has never used chemical weapons against its own people. The claim that it does is completely fabricated and Israel is a major threat; America is a major threat,” Stephen Lendman said.
He pointed to the danger posed to the world peace by Israeli nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and criticized the recent remarks by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Syria’s alleged chemical weapons.
On Sunday, Netanyahu voiced support for an agreement reached by the US and Russia to place Syria’s chemical weapons under international supervision.
“We’ve been closely following and support your ongoing efforts to rid Syria of its chemical weapons,” Netanyahu said in the occupied al-Quds (Jerusalem).
The agreement was reached between US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on September 14, following three days of talks in Geneva.
Israel, the only possessor of nuclear weapons in the Middle East, is widely known to have between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.
Lendman further added that US media literally turn truth on its head and vilify for attacking Syria.
“They [US media] blame a country like Russia for taking heroic steps to avoid another war that would be catastrophic,” Lendman, who is also radio host, said.
He added that protests are being held across the United States to rage against the possibility of a war on Syria as the Americans are fed up with 12 years of non-stop war after 9/11.
“They [Americans] want jobs; they want the economy growing; they want America’s resources spent to grow America not destroying and killing and ravaging other countries. And they made those feelings known and it took effect in Congress,” Lendman pointed out.
He expressed concern that the US might end up getting the war that President Barack Obama wants against Syria which would destroy the Syrian Republic and isolate Iran.
War rhetoric against Syria intensified on August 21, when militants operating inside the country and foreign-backed Syrian opposition claimed that over a thousand people had been killed in a government chemical attack on militant strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus.
The Syrian government categorically rejected the allegation, saying the militants carried out the attack to provoke foreign military intervention. (Video on the link)
Intelligence sources have revealed that the US Corps of Engineers has given a $10 million contract to Raytheon Technologies Company to detect the tunnels underneath the Egypt-Palestine border. The tunnels have been used to import essential goods to the besieged Gaza Strip and are now being destroyed by Egypt's coup government, Memo reported.
Cooperation between Egypt and the US Corps of Engineers started in 2007 but the tunnel-detection programme was stopped when President Mohamed Morsi took office. "When Egypt's military regime, which opposes the Hamas-led government in Gaza, ousted Morsi the deal with the Americans was revived," said the sources.
In 2008, they added, the US supplied the Egyptians with equipment worth $23 million to detect the tunnels, including sensors and remote control vehicles, drilling machines and infrared cameras.
Cooperation between Egypt and the US Corps of Engineers started in 2007 but the tunnel-detection programme was stopped when President Mohamed Morsi took office. "When Egypt's military regime, which opposes the Hamas-led government in Gaza, ousted Morsi the deal with the Americans was revived," said the sources.
In 2008, they added, the US supplied the Egyptians with equipment worth $23 million to detect the tunnels, including sensors and remote control vehicles, drilling machines and infrared cameras.
11 sept 2013
The agreement for the US to provide raw intelligence data to Israel was reached in principle in March 2009, the document shows
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.
But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.
Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.
"This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law," the document says.
In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.
"Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA's surveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights," the spokesperson said.
The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.
Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".
It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.
Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.
The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.
The National Security Agency routinely shares raw intelligence data with Israel without first sifting it to remove information about US citizens, a top-secret document provided to the Guardian by whistleblower Edward Snowden reveals.
Details of the intelligence-sharing agreement are laid out in a memorandum of understanding between the NSA and its Israeli counterpart that shows the US government handed over intercepted communications likely to contain phone calls and emails of American citizens. The agreement places no legally binding limits on the use of the data by the Israelis.
The disclosure that the NSA agreed to provide raw intelligence data to a foreign country contrasts with assurances from the Obama administration that there are rigorous safeguards to protect the privacy of US citizens caught in the dragnet. The intelligence community calls this process "minimization", but the memorandum makes clear that the information shared with the Israelis would be in its pre-minimized state.
The deal was reached in principle in March 2009, according to the undated memorandum, which lays out the ground rules for the intelligence sharing.
The five-page memorandum, termed an agreement between the US and Israeli intelligence agencies "pertaining to the protection of US persons", repeatedly stresses the constitutional rights of Americans to privacy and the need for Israeli intelligence staff to respect these rights.
But this is undermined by the disclosure that Israel is allowed to receive "raw Sigint" – signal intelligence. The memorandum says: "Raw Sigint includes, but is not limited to, unevaluated and unminimized transcripts, gists, facsimiles, telex, voice and Digital Network Intelligence metadata and content."
According to the agreement, the intelligence being shared would not be filtered in advance by NSA analysts to remove US communications. "NSA routinely sends ISNU [the Israeli Sigint National Unit] minimized and unminimized raw collection", it says.
Although the memorandum is explicit in saying the material had to be handled in accordance with US law, and that the Israelis agreed not to deliberately target Americans identified in the data, these rules are not backed up by legal obligations.
"This agreement is not intended to create any legally enforceable rights and shall not be construed to be either an international agreement or a legally binding instrument according to international law," the document says.
In a statement to the Guardian, an NSA spokesperson did not deny that personal data about Americans was included in raw intelligence data shared with the Israelis. But the agency insisted that the shared intelligence complied with all rules governing privacy.
"Any US person information that is acquired as a result of NSA's surveillance activities is handled under procedures that are designed to protect privacy rights," the spokesperson said.
The NSA declined to answer specific questions about the agreement, including whether permission had been sought from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance (Fisa) court for handing over such material.
The memorandum of understanding, which the Guardian is publishing in full, allows Israel to retain "any files containing the identities of US persons" for up to a year. The agreement requests only that the Israelis should consult the NSA's special liaison adviser when such data is found.
Notably, a much stricter rule was set for US government communications found in the raw intelligence. The Israelis were required to "destroy upon recognition" any communication "that is either to or from an official of the US government". Such communications included those of "officials of the executive branch (including the White House, cabinet departments, and independent agencies), the US House of Representatives and Senate (member and staff) and the US federal court system (including, but not limited to, the supreme court)".
It is not clear whether any communications involving members of US Congress or the federal courts have been included in the raw data provided by the NSA, nor is it clear how or why the NSA would be in possession of such communications. In 2009, however, the New York Times reported on "the agency's attempt to wiretap a member of Congress, without court approval, on an overseas trip".
The NSA is required by law to target only non-US persons without an individual warrant, but it can collect the content and metadata of Americans' emails and calls without a warrant when such communication is with a foreign target. US persons are defined in surveillance legislation as US citizens, permanent residents and anyone located on US soil at the time of the interception, unless it has been positively established that they are not a citizen or permanent resident.
Moreover, with much of the world's internet traffic passing through US networks, large numbers of purely domestic communications also get scooped up incidentally by the agency's surveillance programs.
The document mentions only one check carried out by the NSA on the raw intelligence, saying the agency will "regularly review a sample of files transferred to ISNU to validate the absence of US persons' identities". It also requests that the Israelis limit access only to personnel with a "strict need to know".
Israeli intelligence is allowed "to disseminate foreign intelligence information concerning US persons derived from raw Sigint by NSA" on condition that it does so "in a manner that does not identify the US person". The agreement also allows Israel to release US person identities to "outside parties, including all INSU customers" with the NSA's written permission.
Although Israel is one of America's closest allies, it is not one of the inner core of countries involved in surveillance sharing with the US - Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This group is collectively known as Five Eyes.
The relationship between the US and Israel has been strained at times, both diplomatically and in terms of intelligence. In the top-secret 2013 intelligence community budget request, details of which were disclosed by the Washington Post, Israel is identified alongside Iran and China as a target for US cyberattacks.
While NSA documents tout the mutually beneficial relationship of Sigint sharing, another report, marked top secret and dated September 2007, states that the relationship, while central to US strategy, has become overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of Israel.
"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner.
In another top secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."
Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."
"Balancing the Sigint exchange equally between US and Israeli needs has been a constant challenge," states the report, titled 'History of the US – Israel Sigint Relationship, Post-1992'. "In the last decade, it arguably tilted heavily in favor of Israeli security concerns. 9/11 came, and went, with NSA's only true Third Party [counter-terrorism] relationship being driven almost totally by the needs of the partner.
In another top secret document seen by the Guardian, dated 2008, a senior NSA official points out that Israel aggressively spies on the US. "On the one hand, the Israelis are extraordinarily good Sigint partners for us, but on the other, they target us to learn our positions on Middle East problems," the official says. "A NIE [National Intelligence Estimate] ranked them as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the US."
Later in the document, the official is quoted as saying: "One of NSA's biggest threats is actually from friendly intelligence services, like Israel. There are parameters on what NSA shares with them, but the exchange is so robust, we sometimes share more than we intended."
The memorandum of understanding also contains hints that there had been tensions in the intelligence-sharing relationship with Israel. At a meeting in March 2009 between the two agencies, according to the document, it was agreed that the sharing of raw data required a new framework and further training for Israeli personnel to protect US person information.
It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.
However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations."
It is not clear whether or not this was because there had been problems up to that point in the handling of intelligence that was found to contain Americans' data.
However, an earlier US document obtained by Snowden, which discusses co-operating on a military intelligence program, bluntly lists under the cons: "Trust issues which revolve around previous ISR [Israel] operations."
The Guardian asked the Obama administration how many times US data had been found in the raw intelligence, either by the Israelis or when the NSA reviewed a sample of the files, but officials declined to provide this information. Nor would they disclose how many other countries the NSA shared raw data with, or whether the Fisa court, which is meant to oversee NSA surveillance programs and the procedures to handle US information, had signed off the agreement with Israel.
In its statement, the NSA said: "We are not going to comment on any specific information sharing arrangements, or the authority under which any such information is collected. The fact that intelligence services work together under specific and regulated conditions mutually strengthens the security of both nations.
"NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US person information."
In its statement, the NSA said: "We are not going to comment on any specific information sharing arrangements, or the authority under which any such information is collected. The fact that intelligence services work together under specific and regulated conditions mutually strengthens the security of both nations.
"NSA cannot, however, use these relationships to circumvent US legal restrictions. Whenever we share intelligence information, we comply with all applicable rules, including the rules to protect US person information."
A number of Palestinian human rights organizations Wednesday called on the United States not to interfere in the European Union guidelines on Israeli settlements, according to a press statement. In a letter to US Secretary of State John Kerry, 13 organizations said they were “concerned by the pressure exerted by the United States on all relevant parties, including the Palestinian Authority, to postpone the implementation of or amend the guidelines.”
The European Union adopted guidelines “on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes, and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards.”
The Palestinian groups, members of the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations' Council (PHROC), said the guidelines represent EU compliance with international and European law obligations and therefore “any efforts by an external party to amend, discourage, or delay the implementation of the guidelines would be tantamount to encouraging law-abiding states to violate their legal obligations.”
PHROC welcomed the EU guidelines, which “enforce the longstanding position of the international community that Israeli settlements are illegal.”
It said the US “as a High Contracting Party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and bound to act in accordance with third state obligations related to violations of peremptory norms of international law and otherwise customary international law, should itself ensure that its cooperation with Israel is in line with the obligation of non-recognition and duty to actively cooperate to bring the violations that settlements constitute to an end.”
It said that “the United States should be lending its official and unwavering support for the implementation of the guidelines on 1 January 2014 without any change to its content.”
The European Union adopted guidelines “on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes, and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards.”
The Palestinian groups, members of the Palestinian Human Rights Organizations' Council (PHROC), said the guidelines represent EU compliance with international and European law obligations and therefore “any efforts by an external party to amend, discourage, or delay the implementation of the guidelines would be tantamount to encouraging law-abiding states to violate their legal obligations.”
PHROC welcomed the EU guidelines, which “enforce the longstanding position of the international community that Israeli settlements are illegal.”
It said the US “as a High Contracting Party to the Fourth Geneva Convention and bound to act in accordance with third state obligations related to violations of peremptory norms of international law and otherwise customary international law, should itself ensure that its cooperation with Israel is in line with the obligation of non-recognition and duty to actively cooperate to bring the violations that settlements constitute to an end.”
It said that “the United States should be lending its official and unwavering support for the implementation of the guidelines on 1 January 2014 without any change to its content.”
Israeli nuclear and chemical weapons manufacturing facility at Dimona
A newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The revelation comes in the midst of the reported use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on August 21st, although there is still no clarity as to whether the regime or the rebels carried out the attack, or whether it was an accident.
While U.S. President Barack Obama threatened to go to war with Syria over the attack, the Syrian government has denied responsibility, and has agreed to a proposal by the Russian government to open its stores of chemical weapons to international inspection and destruction.
The document revealed by Foreign Policy magazine on Monday shows that, in addition to building up a nuclear stockpile of an estimated three hundred nuclear weapons during the 1960s and 70s, the Israeli military also developed an extensive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The 1983 document stated that U.S. spy satellites had identified "a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility... at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."
"While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents," the document adds, "several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems."
The single page of a larger CIA report was discovered at the Ronald Reagan Library in California in its unredacted form – the report had been released several years ago to the National Archives, but was heavily censored.
According to the Foreign Policy report, “Israeli historian Avner Cohen, in his 1988 book Israel and the Bomb, wrote that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion secretly ordered that a stockpile of chemical weapons be built at about the time of the 1956 war between Israel and Egypt. The CIA, on the other hand, believed that Israel did not begin work on chemical weapons until either the late 1960s or the early 1970s.
The article included the following assessment from the 1983 CIA report: "Israel, finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW [chemical weapons] capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack. Its sensitivities were galvanized by the capture of large quantities of Soviet CW-related equipment during both the 1967 Arab-Israeli and the 1973 Yom Kippur wars. As a result, Israel undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas."
The Israeli government has harshly criticized the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons three weeks ago, and has encouraged President Obama's pledge to respond militarily.
Israel did sign the Convention to Ban Chemical Weapons, but the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) never ratified the treaty. Israel has never opened its nuclear facility or its chemical weapons stockpile to international inspections.
A newly-discovered document of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency revealed Monday by Foreign Policy magazine shows that the U.S. agency had decisive evidence dating back to at least the 1980s that Israel had a stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The revelation comes in the midst of the reported use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on August 21st, although there is still no clarity as to whether the regime or the rebels carried out the attack, or whether it was an accident.
While U.S. President Barack Obama threatened to go to war with Syria over the attack, the Syrian government has denied responsibility, and has agreed to a proposal by the Russian government to open its stores of chemical weapons to international inspection and destruction.
The document revealed by Foreign Policy magazine on Monday shows that, in addition to building up a nuclear stockpile of an estimated three hundred nuclear weapons during the 1960s and 70s, the Israeli military also developed an extensive stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.
The 1983 document stated that U.S. spy satellites had identified "a probable CW [chemical weapon] nerve agent production facility and a storage facility... at the Dimona Sensitive Storage Area in the Negev Desert. Other CW production is believed to exist within a well-developed Israeli chemical industry."
"While we cannot confirm whether the Israelis possess lethal chemical agents," the document adds, "several indicators lead us to believe that they have available to them at least persistent and nonpersistent nerve agents, a mustard agent, and several riot-control agents, marched with suitable delivery systems."
The single page of a larger CIA report was discovered at the Ronald Reagan Library in California in its unredacted form – the report had been released several years ago to the National Archives, but was heavily censored.
According to the Foreign Policy report, “Israeli historian Avner Cohen, in his 1988 book Israel and the Bomb, wrote that Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion secretly ordered that a stockpile of chemical weapons be built at about the time of the 1956 war between Israel and Egypt. The CIA, on the other hand, believed that Israel did not begin work on chemical weapons until either the late 1960s or the early 1970s.
The article included the following assessment from the 1983 CIA report: "Israel, finding itself surrounded by frontline Arab states with budding CW [chemical weapons] capabilities, became increasingly conscious of its vulnerability to chemical attack. Its sensitivities were galvanized by the capture of large quantities of Soviet CW-related equipment during both the 1967 Arab-Israeli and the 1973 Yom Kippur wars. As a result, Israel undertook a program of chemical warfare preparations in both offensive and protective areas."
The Israeli government has harshly criticized the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons three weeks ago, and has encouraged President Obama's pledge to respond militarily.
Israel did sign the Convention to Ban Chemical Weapons, but the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) never ratified the treaty. Israel has never opened its nuclear facility or its chemical weapons stockpile to international inspections.
10 sept 2013
FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria plus video
Syria attack like Hitler gas chambers: US
Syria attack like Hitler gas chambers: US
As of this writing, America is planning military action against Syria under the pretext that the Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons in an attack in a Damascus suburb on August 21. Leading figures in the Obama administration can be heard referring to chemical weapons as a “moral obscenity,” such that the United States has a “moral obligation” to punish the country that uses them.
Recently declassified CIA files prove that, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), US intelligence agencies actively assisted in some of the most horrific chemical weapons attacks in history, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. These CIA files are the subject of an important new exposé by reporters Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid in Foreign Policy dated August 26, 2013.
In a key military engagement in 1988, during the final period of the war, the CIA determined that Iranian forces were massing and about to break through Iraqi lines. Specifically, US intelligence agencies determined from satellite images that a planned Iranian offensive was likely to result in the capture of the strategic city of Basra, which in turn could have led to the collapse of the Iraqi military.
This information was transmitted to US President Ronald Reagan, who personally wrote in the margin of one intelligence briefing, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.” Accordingly, the US intelligence agencies were authorized to transmit as much detailed information as possible regarding the Iranian military positions to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This information was transmitted with full knowledge that Iraq’s military would take advantage of this intelligence to launch a series of illegal chemical weapons attacks.
Rick Francona, an American military attaché who was in Baghdad during this period, was interviewed for Harris and Aid’s report. “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” Francona said.
In a single day of the Iran-Iraq war, 1,500 missiles containing deadly chemical agents rained down on Iranian positions. Iraq assembled its arsenal of chemical weapons—including nerve gas, mustard gas, and anthrax —out of supplies purchased directly from western firms, including US corporations. (These “weapons of mass destruction” would later become the pretext for the US invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.)
According to Harris and Aid’s report, the declassified files “show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.”
Much of the information provided to the Hussein regime by the Americans constituted “targeting packages,” according to Francona. In other words, the United States was not just handing out satellite photographs, but was making specific recommendations about when, where, and how Iraq should carry out chemical weapons attacks.
A chemical weapons attack by Iraq on the Kurdish village of Halabja on March 16, 1988 resulted in the deaths of 5,000 civilians, producing some of the most famous and heart-wrenching images of the war. Intelligence from America was “freely flowing” to Iraq, according to Francona. At the time, the US State Department falsely claimed that Iran had carried out the attack. This remained the official US position until the late 1990s.
The declassified intelligence briefings analyze whether any harm would result to US credibility if US complicity in the Iraqi chemical weapons attacks came to light. The briefings then note that the USSR had used illegal chemical weapons in Afghanistan with only minor repercussions, and so recommended that the US could safely do the same.
During the war, Iranian diplomats appealed to the UN to investigate Iraq’s use of illegal chemical weapons. However, the UN did not take any action, citing “lack of evidence”— evidence that was in America’s possession all along.
The Iran-Iraq war, which broke out in 1980 after the Carter administration encouraged Iraq to invade Iran, was one of the most tragic and brutal in the second half of the 20th century, with both countries adopting “total war” strategies that included the targeting of civilians. The average military offensive resulted in 15,000 casualties on each side. An estimated one million people died in the conflict, and two million were maimed or wounded. While secretly working to secure the victory of Iraq, the US adopted an official position of neutrality and sold weapons to both sides.
In the later period of the war, US policy shifted towards more open backing for Iraq, including direct shipments of arms and financial assistance to the Hussein regime. In return, Hussein entered into a major oil pipeline deal with the Americans. In the final period of the war, during which the use of chemical weapons by Iraq was most intense, Reagan ordered the US Navy to intervene directly to protect tankers containing Iraq’s oil exports, effectively signaling that the US would not permit Iran to win. In 1988, Iran accepted a UN Security Council resolution ending the conflict after the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 people.
In the words of Harris and Aid, the declassified CIA documents make clear that “it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.”
The author also recommends:
The diplomacy of imperialism: Iraq and US foreign policy [12 March 2004]
Recently declassified CIA files prove that, during the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988), US intelligence agencies actively assisted in some of the most horrific chemical weapons attacks in history, which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people. These CIA files are the subject of an important new exposé by reporters Shane Harris and Matthew M. Aid in Foreign Policy dated August 26, 2013.
In a key military engagement in 1988, during the final period of the war, the CIA determined that Iranian forces were massing and about to break through Iraqi lines. Specifically, US intelligence agencies determined from satellite images that a planned Iranian offensive was likely to result in the capture of the strategic city of Basra, which in turn could have led to the collapse of the Iraqi military.
This information was transmitted to US President Ronald Reagan, who personally wrote in the margin of one intelligence briefing, “An Iranian victory is unacceptable.” Accordingly, the US intelligence agencies were authorized to transmit as much detailed information as possible regarding the Iranian military positions to the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. This information was transmitted with full knowledge that Iraq’s military would take advantage of this intelligence to launch a series of illegal chemical weapons attacks.
Rick Francona, an American military attaché who was in Baghdad during this period, was interviewed for Harris and Aid’s report. “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” Francona said.
In a single day of the Iran-Iraq war, 1,500 missiles containing deadly chemical agents rained down on Iranian positions. Iraq assembled its arsenal of chemical weapons—including nerve gas, mustard gas, and anthrax —out of supplies purchased directly from western firms, including US corporations. (These “weapons of mass destruction” would later become the pretext for the US invasion and occupation of the country in 2003.)
According to Harris and Aid’s report, the declassified files “show that senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.”
Much of the information provided to the Hussein regime by the Americans constituted “targeting packages,” according to Francona. In other words, the United States was not just handing out satellite photographs, but was making specific recommendations about when, where, and how Iraq should carry out chemical weapons attacks.
A chemical weapons attack by Iraq on the Kurdish village of Halabja on March 16, 1988 resulted in the deaths of 5,000 civilians, producing some of the most famous and heart-wrenching images of the war. Intelligence from America was “freely flowing” to Iraq, according to Francona. At the time, the US State Department falsely claimed that Iran had carried out the attack. This remained the official US position until the late 1990s.
The declassified intelligence briefings analyze whether any harm would result to US credibility if US complicity in the Iraqi chemical weapons attacks came to light. The briefings then note that the USSR had used illegal chemical weapons in Afghanistan with only minor repercussions, and so recommended that the US could safely do the same.
During the war, Iranian diplomats appealed to the UN to investigate Iraq’s use of illegal chemical weapons. However, the UN did not take any action, citing “lack of evidence”— evidence that was in America’s possession all along.
The Iran-Iraq war, which broke out in 1980 after the Carter administration encouraged Iraq to invade Iran, was one of the most tragic and brutal in the second half of the 20th century, with both countries adopting “total war” strategies that included the targeting of civilians. The average military offensive resulted in 15,000 casualties on each side. An estimated one million people died in the conflict, and two million were maimed or wounded. While secretly working to secure the victory of Iraq, the US adopted an official position of neutrality and sold weapons to both sides.
In the later period of the war, US policy shifted towards more open backing for Iraq, including direct shipments of arms and financial assistance to the Hussein regime. In return, Hussein entered into a major oil pipeline deal with the Americans. In the final period of the war, during which the use of chemical weapons by Iraq was most intense, Reagan ordered the US Navy to intervene directly to protect tankers containing Iraq’s oil exports, effectively signaling that the US would not permit Iran to win. In 1988, Iran accepted a UN Security Council resolution ending the conflict after the USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian passenger plane, killing 290 people.
In the words of Harris and Aid, the declassified CIA documents make clear that “it was the express policy of Reagan to ensure an Iraqi victory in the war, whatever the cost.”
The author also recommends:
The diplomacy of imperialism: Iraq and US foreign policy [12 March 2004]