UN urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection

Resolution marks a surprise victory for Arab states

UN urges Israel to allow nuclear inspection

The resolution calls on IAEA chief Mohamed al-Baradei to work on the issue of Israel’s atomic sites (File)
VIENNA (Agencies)The U.N. nuclear assembly voted on Friday to urge Israel to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and place all atomic sites under U.N. inspections, in a surprise victory for Arab states.

The resolution, passed narrowly for the first time in nearly two decades, expresses concern about “Israeli nuclear capabilities” and calls on International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed al-Baradei to work on the issue.

(The resolution is)very good news and a triumph for the oppressed nation of Palestine

Tehran ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh

Initially, Western states tried to stop the resolution from going to a vote, arguing it would be counterproductive to single out Israel, particularly after a resolution had been passed the day before calling on all states in the Middle East to foreswear nuclear weapons.

But the adjournment motion was defeated and voting went ahead, with a total 49 countries in favour, 45 against and 16 abstentions.

It is the first time since 1991 that such a resolution has been adopted.

Israel’s arch-enemy Iran had spoken in favour of the resolution, describing Israel’s nuclear capabilities as “a potential threat to the peace and security of the world.”

It also undermined the integrity and credibility of the non-proliferation regime and the NPT, argued Tehran’s ambassador to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh.

After the vote, Soltanieh described the resolution as “very good news and a triumph for the oppressed nation of Palestine.”

Russia and China also backed the resolution.

Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region

David Danieli, deputy director, Israeli atomic energy commission

Israel refuses cooperation

Israel is one of only three countries worldwide along with India and Pakistan outside the nuclear NPT and is widely assumed to have the Middle East’s only nuclear arsenal, though it has never confirmed or denied it.

“The delegation of Israel deplores this resolution,” David Danieli, deputy director of Israel’s atomic energy commission, told the chamber after the vote.

“Israel will not cooperate in any matter with this resolution which is only aiming at reinforcing political hostilities and lines of division in the Middle East region.”

The measure was last voted on in 1991 when it passed by 39-31 with 13 abstentions when IAEA membership was much smaller.

Since then there has only been presidential summaries of debate on this item or motions for adjournment or no action that carried the floor.

Diplomats pointed to the increased number of abstentions — from countries ranging from India to Argentina and Nigeria as an important factor in the resolution’s adoption.

Missile Defense And Washington’s Foolish Eurasia Strategy

Missile Defense And Washington’s
Foolish Eurasia Strategy

By F. William Engdahl
Author of Full Spectrum Dominance:
Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order
Eight months into the Obama Presidency the outlines of Administration foreign policy are becoming very clear and what is emerging is a foreign policy establishment flying blind on automatic pilot, evidently unable to make the fundamental policy changes required of its new geopolitical and economic position in the world since the collapse of the Greenspan “revolution in finance” September 2008. For the first time since it emerged as the world’s dominant power after 1945 the US policy establishment is unable to combine its military “stick” with any economic “carrot.” The Obama effort marks the end of an era of geopolitics. Latest reports that Obama has decided to cancel US plans for an anti-nuclear missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic suggest that a major internal battle is underway among US policy elites over what has clearly been a failed US foreign policy strategy.
Nowhere has the deficit in creative new strategic thinking been evident than in Washington policy towards the three pivot powers of the Eurasian continent-China, Russia and Iran. The recent calculated affront to Russia by Vice President Joe Biden was typical of the impotence of recent US foreign policy to regain American advantage across the strategic expanse of Eurasia-the undisputed “key” to world hegemony.
White the Obama Administration has made big fanfare about a so-called “reset” of US-Russian relations, it is clear the reset intended is back to the disastrous (for Russia) Yeltsin era of chaos and collapse of Russian state power in the early 1990’s. What is ignored are the clear strategic-based reasons for the dramatic deterioration in US-Russian relations-Washington and Washington-led NATO have posed an existential challenge to the very survival of Russia as a nation by Washington’s series of power coups or “color revolutions,” most clearly the 2003-2004 revolutions in Ukraine and in Georgia which placed pro-NATO de facto puppet regimes in power on Moscow’s most strategic periphery.
The strategic significance of “missile defense”
Adding to the appearance as seen from Moscow that US intent is to ultimately destroy Russia was the US insistence, until now endorsed by Obama, to place highly offensive missile and radar installations into Poland and the Czech Republic, the mis-named US “ballistic missile defense.” As former US military experts have put it, missile defense is the key to nuclear first strike. Whether or not Obama definitively cancels the missile defense plans will be a decisive indication if serious US rethinking is possible or not.
Rather than take steps to reduce the danger of nuclear pre-emptive war by miscalculation, a danger which the Bush-Rumsfeld missile defense policy has created with Russia, the Obama foreign policy has been drafted by an outmoded Clinton-era policy group whose calculations are based on a triumphal US sole superpower able to dictate terms to Russia and the rest of the world.
This was most clear in the ill-conceived Biden interview with the neo-conservative Wall Street Journal at end of July during a visit to Georgia and Ukraine. He proclaimed that Russia had “a shrinking population base, they have a withering economy, they have a banking sector and structure that is not likely to be able to withstand the next 15 years, they’re in a situation where the world is changing before them and they’re clinging to something in the past that is not sustainable.” It might as well have been describing the United States but for the population base.
Vice President Biden’s recent Ukraine trip where he denigrated Russia was clearly a strategic blunder
The comments of the US Vice President, clearly approved beforehand by the White House, are read in Moscow as a US policy affirmation of crushing what remains of Russia. Even if there were some truth in the Biden coment, it far from defines the reality of Eurasian geopolitics today.
The fact that after Obama’s July meeting with Medvedev and Putin, Obama sent Biden on the provocative tour of Ukraine and Georgia made clear to Russia what Washington policy offers: nothing but negative consequences for Russia. Obama policy towards Russia was clearly nothing fundamentally different from Bush policy. As seen then in Moscow, it was a bankrupt US strategic policy, one on “automatic pilot.”
That policy, it was clear, would produce significant reactions globally that Washington was and is ill-prepared to counter, further underscoring the impotence of the United States as the global superpower. By declaring openly that Russia is not taken seriously by Washington, Biden and the Obama Administration revealed an arrogance not backed by strength in their own economic power. Russia has significant options to undercut America’s geopolitical strategy of divide-and-rule over Eurasia. Key are Russian relations with Iran, Afghanistan and China.
Washington strategy backfires
Obama strategy has been to re-establish US influence in parts of Eurasia that suffered dramatic decline during the fiasco of the Bush-Cheney era. This was evident in Obama plans to significantly pour more troops into Afghanistan. It was evident in covert US Administration support for regime change and destabilization of the Ahmedinejad government after the Iranian elections. There the goal was to weaken Iran influence in the Middle East as well as its close ties to China and Russia.
Were Washington truly able to rethink fundamentals of its geopolitical power projection it would take very different steps under the cover of the Obama regime change.
Rather than continuing the confrontation with Russia in its own security sphere of Georgia or Ukraine, it would have to consider making concessions to Russian security concerns by negotiating an end to the US missile defense as Obama suggested in the campaign debates. The fact that the Czech press suggests that has just been decided, indicates a desperate internal attempt within the US power establishment to rethink fundamentals of America’s global strength. Cancelling missile defense and easing of NATO support in Ukraine and Georgia would open the door to urgently needed Russian cooperation for a US policy with Iran and Afghanistan.
By being confrontational with Russia, Obama’s Administration had foolishly compounded its problems across Eurasia and beyond. Ironically, the US Government has just released its latest threat review. The US 2009 National Intelligence Strategy (NIS), a four-year blueprint for the intelligence services, cites Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as countries that “have the ability to challenge US interests,” not only in traditional ways, such as military force and espionage, but also in “emerging” ways, in particular cyber operations. It noted, “Russiamay continue to seek avenues for reasserting power and influence in ways that complicate US interests.”
The Obama Biden policy of denigration and confrontation, if continued, no matter how weak Russia might appear economically, would certainly make that challenge to US influence a self-fulfilling prophesy.
The fact that Ahmadinejad personally went to the Yekaterinburg, Russia annual meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in July amid the height of the US-led destabilization of his country, to talk with Russian and Chinese leaders, indicates the effect of Washington’s bankrupt foreign policy. Iran is the key factor to help politically stabilize Iraq where some 60% of the population is Shi’ite as in Iran. Russia could play a key role in stabilizing Iran where Russian technology is building the Bushehr nuclear power complex. As well, a less confrontational US policy might win cooperation of Iran in neutralizing problems in Afghanistan.
Significantly, only days after the Biden remarks about Russia, Russian newsmedia reported that Iran would receive an advanced Russian-made S-300 anti-aircraft system by the year’s end that could help fend off any pre-emptive strikes against its nuclear facilities. The first deliveries are to begin this month and be completed within 12 months.
The announcement so destabilized the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu that the Prime Minister just made a rush trip to Moscow to try to stop the sale.
Russia’s decision to sell advanced anti-aircraft defenses to Iran may have led to US scrapping of the Polish-Czech missile defense
Moscow has been diplomatically and militarily able to create a serious weakening of US influence in Africa and as well in Latin America. President Dmitry Medvedev visited four African countries in June ­ Egypt, Namibia, Nigeria and Angola.
As well, Moscow has just agreed with Venezuelan President Hugh Chavez to provide $2.5 billion line of credit to purchase Russian armoured vehicles and surface-to-air missiles.
Chavez also said he expects arrival of some ”little rockets” from Russia, which he said have a range of up to 300 kilometres and were strictly for defence purposes. Chavez cited recent Colombian government decision to permit the US military access to seven military bases on its soil as justification. ”With these rockets, it is going to be very difficult for them to come and bomb us. If that happens, they should know that we will soon have these systems installed”
Far from being an irrelevant player, as Biden and Obama were earlier prepared to declare, Russia is a decisive strategic factor in what is a growing move across the world to lessen dependence on the United States as “sole superpower.” The evident decision by Washington now to rethink its missile defense provocation of Russia indicates some in the Administration realize the US military bluff has been called. Now it remains to be seen if Washington is also willing to roll back its demand that Ukraine and Georgia join NATO. Were that to happen, it could signal a major US shift in strategic policy.

Do All US Terror Attacks Involve FBI Agents?

By JIM FITZGERALD, Associated Press Writer Jim Fitzgerald, Associated Press Writer Thu Sep 17, 7:24 pm ET

WHITE PLAINS, N.Y. – Four ex-convicts accused of plotting to bomb synagogues and shoot down military planes apparently will claim they were lured into the conspiracy with gifts including cash and fried chicken.

Defense lawyers demanded Thursday in federal court that prosecutors turn over evidence of any payments, promises or other inducements offered by an informant who infiltrated the group.

The four men are accused of plotting to destroy two synagogues in the heavily Jewish Riverdale section of the Bronx and to shoot down planes at an Air National Guard base about 50 miles north of New York City. Because the FBI was in on the plot, the bombs and missiles the men obtained were useless, prosecutors say.

The men have pleaded not guilty and are being held without bail. One of them is a petty criminal who spent a day in 2002 snatching purses and shooting at people with an airgun, while three have histories of drug convictions.

Theodore Green, attorney for defendant David Williams, 28, mentioned the entrapment defense, which generally claims that a person was enticed to do something illegal that he would not otherwise have done.

Among the enticements the defense lawyers said they had already heard about were checks of up to $25,000, gifts to the men’s families and “some kind of charge account” at a Crown fried chicken store in Newburgh, where the four men live.

“My client could go there and not pay,” said lawyer Marilyn Reader, who is defending Laguerre Payen, 27.

Susanne Brody, the lawyer for Onta Williams, 32, said that when viewing government surveillance video, there was hardly a scene “where you don’t see eating going on.” The informant paid for those meals, she asserted, and the defense wants documentation.

Green said the defense also wants to know whether the informant was acting on his own or following orders when he offered gifts — and who gave the orders. He also demanded to know “what instructions were given the cooperating witness about entrapment and any limits imposed on him.”

The defense also is seeking information about any conversations the informant had “advocating violence or holding extremist views,” Green said.

Prosecutor David Leibowitz said he had already turned over all recorded evidence of inducements, but Green said the defense also wants the government to share any knowledge, recorded or not, of other offers.

Leibowitz said he would inquire about “whether there was a Crown Chicken relationship.”

Two of the defendants, Payen and James Cromitie, 55, had spent time at a mosque in Newburgh. Green said the defense had information that the informant had approached “one or more other mosques in the Hudson Valley trying to get membership lists.”

Judge Colleen McMahon said the defense could file motions if it disagreed with the prosecution about what evidence has to be turned over. She scheduled another status conference for Dec. 4 and said jury selection would begin June 14.

About a dozen supporters of the defendants were in the courtroom, most of them friends or relatives of David Williams, who is not related to Onta Williams.

Alicia McWilliams, David Williams’ aunt, said the four men could not have organized a sophisticated plot without direction.

“They couldn’t do a barbecue,” she said.

Jamie Rubin, Cruise Missile Liberal, Calls for Hypnotizing Americans About Afghan War

Jamie Rubin, Cruise Missile Liberal, Calls for Hypnotizing Americans About Afghan War

Jeremy Scahill

September 17, 2009

Rubin joins a chorus of discredited neocons and out of touch Democrats in selling Obama’s war.

By Jeremy Scahill

Jamie Rubin, one of the leading Democratic Party hawks, was on MSNBC’s Morning Joe Wednesday to discuss Afghanistan policy. Rubin, who served as former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s top deputy in the 1990s, was a major figure in shaping and refining Clinton’s “military humanism” doctrine. He was a passionate advocate for war against Iraq, which Clinton waged militarily and economically throughout the 1990s; he was a central player in the US-led NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and, significantly, US support for the Kosovo Liberation Army, which a senior US official, Richard Gelbard, had labeled “without any questions, a terrorist group.”

Rubin is a famed cruise missile liberal who has seldom seen a war he didn’t like. It is no surprise that he would be hitting the cable shows to support the war in Afghanistan at a time when public opinion is increasingly against US involvement. Democratic lawmakers are finally questioning the Obama administration’s escalation there. Senator Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Select Committee on Intelligence and hardly a radical anti-war voice, said Sunday: “I believe the mission should be time limited, that there should be no, ‘Well, we’ll let you know in a year and a half, depending on how we do.’ I think the Congress is entitled to know, after Iraq, exactly how long are we going to be in Afghanistan.” On Sunday, Senator Richard Durbin, one of Obama’s closest friends, said, “I think at this point sending additional troops would not be the right thing to do.” And it is not just powerful Democrats asking questions. Prominent conservative George Will recently wrote in the Washington Post that it is “time to get out of Afghanistan.” While Congress is not even considering cutting off funds (only 30 House Democrats voted against war funding last round and only Senator Russ Feingold (and independent Bernie Sanders) in the Senate), the tide is changing ever so slowly.

Rubin is predictably finding himself on the side of a band of discredited neoconservatives led by William Kristol who have launched a campaign to support the US war in Afghanistan. He is not alone among Democrats. Howard Dean recently got along swimmingly with Newt Gingrich and Chris Wallace on FOX News discussing his support for the war in Afghanistan and the Center for American Progress has issued pro-war reports and done events with neoconservatives. Rubin, who is married to CNN’s Christianne Amanpour, is currently an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s School of International Politics and Public Affairs. Rubin remains an informal advisor to President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

On Morning Joe, Rubin laid out what can only be described as a crude plan to hypnotize Americans into believing falsehoods about the Afghan war. “We need to really really put to bed the issue that I think is behind everybody here, which is that this is another Vietnam,” Rubin said. “And I think that Vietnam is a terribly debilitating analogy for our country. Every time something is difficult, we say, “Uh, it’s Vietnam.’ Afghanistan and Vietnam have nothing to do with each other. The whole world is on our side in Afghanistan. The whole world was clearly not on our side in Vietnam. The people in Afghanistan prefer an outcome that is not the Taliban, while in Vietnam as you know, the situation was different. So, let’s take that analogy, throw it out the window, and deal with the facts on the ground.”

Perhaps Rubin may want to listen to Nir Rosen, the great war correspondent who actually knows from first-hand experience about those facts.

Among the many problems with Rubin’s statement is the glaring lie that the “whole world is on our side.” Quite the contrary. NATO countries are facing growing calls for disengagement from what is increasingly viewed as an American quagmire. Canadians are weary of their nation’s involvement. Remember what Rep. John Murtha said recently? “The Europeans aren’t doing a damn thing” to support the Afghan war. Perhaps Rubin missed this comment by Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House and a member of his own party: “I don’t think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or in Congress.”

Moreover, Rubin’s illogical connection of support for the US occupation and a rejection of the Taliban is dishonest acrobatics.

President Obama, Rubin says, “has to begin to build this case for what I would call resetting the clock. The reason why so many Americans are discouraged and feeling like additional troops are unwise is because they believe the clock started eight years ago when we first when into Afghanistan.”

Is Rubin serious? This sounds like someone trying to trick a kid into eating vegetables. His silliness then continued:

I think if the president, along with his generals, and the key diplomats like Richard Holbrooke can begin to lay the groundwork for a resetting of the clock and saying that it’s really now for the first time that we’ve devoted the diplomatic, military and political resources to focus on Afghanistan, to get the mission completed and that the clock should be reset for a realistic period of time—several years with a substantial military forces are going to be needed if we are going to accomplish this mission. And, anything short of that I think will be the kind of muddling through that we did in Afghanistan and in Iraq in the first five years and I think that’s the worst outcome.

Right, because a discredited US-backed election rife with fraud, escalating US troop deaths and a widening of Taliban control doesn’t look anything like muddling. Returning to the theme of hypnotism, Rubin said:

The fundamental question that the Congress is going to face and I think administration officials are struggling with is: Is Iraq a reasonable analogy now? Will the surge that worked in Iraq, is there an analogous situation in Afghanistan? If we have top level effort, if the president focuses on it, if we have additional surge of military forces, if we reset the objectives—because we lowered the objectives in Iraq, where we began working with Sunni warlords that previously we weren’t prepared to work with. So if we lower the objectives and increase the resources, I believe that we can achieve this mission.

In other words, do what the Bush folks did with their carnival of ever evolving justifications for these wars. Moreover, Rubin never did mention what “mission” he believes “we can achieve.” Unless, of course, the mission is to hypnotize people into believing that Afghanistan has nothing in common with Vietnam.

:: Article nr. 58042 sent on 17-sep-2009 20:32 ECT

Link: rebelreports.com/post/189393917/jamie-rubin-cruise-missile-liberal-calls-for

“The World Is Not Going To Take This Much Longer”

IDF brutes invade Bil’in, night-time raid, injuring those present SEE FILM



September 17, 2009

Shortly after  1:30 am, Israeli forces invaded Bil’in again. They raided the house of Abdullah Mahmoud Aburahma in an attempt to arrest him. However, he was not home at the time. Palestinian and international activists intervened by jumping over the wall into the garden since the soldiers had shut the gate closed. Some international activists were threatened with arrest unless they move back. The soldiers had sealed off the house while operating inside. They forced open two doors breaking the locks and destroying the doors. They trashed several rooms and beat Mohammed Khatib who had come to the rescue of Abdullah’s family. He was taken to hospital in Ramallah for treatment and returned to the village later.

Military reinforcement arrived in five Jeeps. Outside the house, one Palestinian activist, Emad Burnat, who was filming, was pushed to the ground. One soldier also broke his camera. Hamde Aburahma and other Palestinian journalists were threatened with arrest unless they stop filming. They hit Ashraf Aburahma, another activist, with the gun injuring his right hand.

The house of Abdullah’s brother, Khaled Aburahma, was raided as well, which traumatized his children that were pulled brutally out of their sleep. The invading forces said that until they find Abdullah, the entire neighborhood was theirs. They searched every room and trashed one room downstairs next to the store. They stole Palestinian flags, banners and posters used during demonstrations, and then left the house.

The invading forces exited the village around 3 am without any victims.

Abdullah Aburahma called all the Human Rights organizations worldwide to help stop the night raids in Bil’in, and to support the demonstrations against the occupation which is a legal activity.

more about “IDF brutes invade Bil’in, night-time …“, posted with vodpod

Using Mercenaries to Wage Unpopular Wars

Nato forces rely on illegal Afghan militias, report says
Troops in Afghanistan said to use private armies for detention and interrogation

Julian Borger

September 17, 2009

Nato forces in Afghanistan are increasingly reliant on illegal militias, often run by warlords responsible for human rights abuses and drug trafficking, according to an independent report published tomorrow.

New York University’s Centre on International Co-operation (CIC) reports that the use of private security companies and militias is growing exponentially and accounts for up to a fifth of the funds spent on Afghan reconstruction.

The CIC report, called The Public Cost of Private Security in Afghanistan, says many of the troop contingents in Nato’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) use private militias not only to guard their camps and secure convoys, but also for “black ops”, including detention and interrogation.

The militias function entirely outside Afghan law, which bans unlicensed armed groups, nor is there any legal basis for their employment in the “status of forces agreement” with the Kabul government, the CIC says in its report.

“The absence of effective oversight of the private security sector in Afghanistan undermines the credibility and safety of the government and the international stabilisation effort,” the report argues.

“Many of these private security providers serve as ready-made militias that compete with state authority and are frequently run by former military commanders responsible for human rights abuses or involved in the illegal narcotics and black market economies.”

“Financing armed, alternative power structures fulfils security needs in the short term at the cost of consolidating government authority in the long term,” the CIC report says. It gives examples of private paramilitary groups hired by US, Australian, Canadian and German forces, and refers to an incident in June in which 41 militia fighters hired by US special forces in Kandahar killed the provincial police chief and five other police officers in a gun battle to free a militia member who had been arrested earlier the same day.

Jake Sherman, one of the report’s authors, said today: “The Kandahar incident shows these groups are being employed by US special forces, and we know they are engaged in black ops.”

“I know these guys go out with them on the operations. They provide the human intelligence about the environment in which the international military are operating. But the [international forces] don’t necessarily know who they are aligned with – which political and tribal groups.”

He argued that once Nato leaves, the militias are likely to return to drug trafficking and other black market activities, better trained and better armed. “Once they are set up and armed, they are never disarmed,” Sherman said. “They become new threats to the state.”

A Nato spokesman said today it was impossible to comment on a report that had not yet been fully read and analysed.

:: Article nr. 58051 sent on 18-sep-2009 00:17 ECT

Link: www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/16/nato-forces-afghan-militias

Is America Hooked on War?

Is America Hooked on War?

The question is: What kind of country do we actually live in when the so-called U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) lists 16 intelligence services ranging from Air Force Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Security Agency? What could "intelligence" mean once spread over 16 sizeable, bureaucratic, often competing outfits with a cumulative 2009 budget estimated at more than $55 billion (a startling percentage of which is controlled by the Pentagon)? What exactly is so intelligent about all that? And why does no one think it even mildly strange or in any way out of the ordinary? – Tom Engelhardt

September 17, 2009

By Tom Engelhardt

"War is peace" was one of the memorable slogans on the facade of the Ministry of Truth, Minitrue in "Newspeak," the language invented by George Orwell in 1948 for his dystopian novel 1984. Some 60 years later, a quarter-century after Orwell’s imagined future bit the dust, the phrase is, in a number of ways, eerily applicable to the United States.

Last week, for instance, a New York Times front-page story by Eric Schmitt and David Sanger was headlined "Obama Is Facing Doubts in Party on Afghanistan, Troop Buildup at Issue." It offered a modern version of journalistic Newspeak.

"Doubts," of course, imply dissent, and in fact just the week before there had been a major break in Washington’s ranks, though not among Democrats. The conservative columnist George Will wrote a piece offering blunt advice to the Obama administration, summed up in its headline: "Time to Get Out of Afghanistan." In our age of political and audience fragmentation and polarization, think of this as the Afghan version of Vietnam’s Cronkite moment.

The Times report on those Democratic doubts, on the other hand, represented a more typical Washington moment. Ignored, for instance, was Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s end-of-August call for the president to develop an Afghan withdrawal timetable. The focus of the piece was instead an upcoming speech by Michigan Senator Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He was, Schmitt and Sanger reported, planning to push back against well-placed leaks (in the Times, among other places) indicating that war commander General Stanley McChrystal was urging the president to commit 15,000 to 45,000 more American troops to the Afghan War.

Here, according to the two reporters, was the gist of Levin’s message about what everyone agrees is a "deteriorating" U.S. position: "[H]e was against sending more American combat troops to Afghanistan until the United States speeded up the training and equipping of more Afghan security forces."

Think of this as the line in the sand within the Democratic Party, and be assured that the debates within the halls of power over McChrystal’s troop requests and Levin’s proposal are likely to be fierce this fall. Thought about for a moment, however, both positions can be summed up with the same word: More.

The essence of this "debate" comes down to: More of them versus more of us (and keep in mind that more of them — an expanded training program for the Afghan National Army — actually means more of "us" in the form of extra trainers and advisors). In other words, however contentious the disputes in Washington, however dismally the public now views the war, however much the president’s war coalition might threaten to crack open, the only choices will be between more and more.

No alternatives are likely to get a real hearing. Few alternative policy proposals even exist because alternatives that don’t fit with "more" have ceased to be part of Washington’s war culture. No serious thought, effort, or investment goes into them. Clearly referring to Will’s column, one of the unnamed "senior officials" who swarm through our major newspapers made the administration’s position clear, saying sardonically, according to the Washington Post, "I don’t anticipate that the briefing books for the [administration] principals on these debates over the next weeks and months will be filled with submissions from opinion columnists… I do anticipate they will be filled with vigorous discussion… of how successful we’ve been to date."

State of War

Because the United States does not look like a militarized country, it’s hard for Americans to grasp that Washington is a war capital, that the United States is a war state, that it garrisons much of the planet, and that the norm for us is to be at war somewhere at any moment. Similarly, we’ve become used to the idea that, when various forms of force (or threats of force) don’t work, our response, as in Afghanistan, is to recalibrate and apply some alternate version of the same under a new or rebranded name — the hot one now being "counterinsurgency" or COIN — in a marginally different manner. When it comes to war, as well as preparations for war, more is now generally the order of the day.

This wasn’t always the case. The early Republic that the most hawkish conservatives love to cite was a land whose leaders looked with suspicion on the very idea of a standing army. They would have viewed our hundreds of global garrisons, our vast network of spies, agents, Special Forces teams, surveillance operatives, interrogators, rent-a-guns, and mercenary corporations, as well as our staggering Pentagon budget and the constant future-war gaming and planning that accompanies it, with genuine horror.

The question is: What kind of country do we actually live in when the so-called U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) lists 16 intelligence services ranging from Air Force Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency to the National Reconnaissance Office and the National Security Agency? What could "intelligence" mean once spread over 16 sizeable, bureaucratic, often competing outfits with a cumulative 2009 budget estimated at more than $55 billion (a startling percentage of which is controlled by the Pentagon)? What exactly is so intelligent about all that? And why does no one think it even mildly strange or in any way out of the ordinary?

What does it mean when the most military-obsessed administration in our history, which, year after year, submitted ever more bloated Pentagon budgets to Congress, is succeeded by one headed by a president who ran, at least partially, on an antiwar platform, and who has now submitted an even larger Pentagon budget? What does this tell you about Washington and about the viability of non-militarized alternatives to the path George W. Bush took? What does it mean when the new administration, surveying nearly eight years and two wars’ worth of disasters, decides to expand the U.S. Armed Forces rather than shrink the U.S. global mission?

What kind of a world do we inhabit when, with an official unemployment rate of 9.7% and an underemployment rate of 16.8%, the American taxpayer is financing the building of a three-story, exceedingly permanent-looking $17 million troop barracks at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan? This, in turn, is part of a taxpayer-funded $220 million upgrade of the base that includes new "water treatment plants, headquarters buildings, fuel farms, and power generating plants." And what about the U.S. air base built at Balad, north of Baghdad, that now has 15 bus routes, two fire stations, two water treatment plants, two sewage treatment plants, two power plants, a water bottling plant, and the requisite set of fast-food outlets, PXes, and so on, as well as air traffic levels sometimes compared to those at Chicago’s O’Hare International?

What kind of American world are we living in when a plan to withdraw most U.S. troops from Iraq involves the removal of more than 1.5 million pieces of equipment? Or in which the possibility of withdrawal leads the Pentagon to issue nearly billion-dollar contracts (new ones!) to increase the number of private security contractors in that country?

What do you make of a world in which the U.S. has robot assassins in the skies over its war zones, 24/7, and the "pilots" who control them from thousands of miles away are ready on a moment’s notice to launch missiles — "Hellfire" missiles at that — into Pashtun peasant villages in the wild, mountainous borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan? What does it mean when American pilots can be at war "in" Afghanistan, 9 to 5, by remote control, while their bodies remain at a base outside Las Vegas and then can head home past a sign that warns them to drive carefully because this is "the most dangerous part of your day"?

What does it mean when, for our security and future safety, the Pentagon funds the wildest ideas imaginable for developing high-tech weapons systems, many of which sound as if they came straight out of the pages of sci-fi novels? Take, for example, Boeing’s advanced coordinated system of hand-held drones, robots, sensors, and other battlefield surveillance equipment slated for seven Army brigades within the next two years at a cost of $2 billion and for the full Army by 2025; or the Next Generation Bomber, an advanced "platform" slated for 2018; or a truly futuristic bomber, "a suborbital semi-spacecraft able to move at hypersonic speed along the edge of the atmosphere," for 2035? What does it mean about our world when those people in our government peering deepest into a blue-skies future are planning ways to send armed "platforms" up into those skies and kill more than a quarter century from now?

And do you ever wonder about this: If such weaponry is being endlessly developed for our safety and security, and that of our children and grandchildren, why is it that one of our most successful businesses involves the sale of the same weaponry to other countries? Few Americans are comfortable thinking about this, which may explain why global-arms-trade pieces don’t tend to make it onto the front pages of our newspapers. Recently, the Times Pentagon correspondent Thom Shanker, for instance, wrote a piece on the subject which appeared inside the paper on a quiet Labor Day. "Despite Slump, U.S. Role as Top Arms Supplier Grows" was the headline. Perhaps Shanker, too, felt uncomfortable with his subject, because he included the following generic description: "In the highly competitive global arms market, nations vie for both profit and political influence through weapons sales, in particular to developing nations…" The figures he cited from a new congressional study of that "highly competitive" market told a different story: The U.S., with $37.8 billion in arms sales (up $12.4 billion from 2007), controlled 68.4% of the global arms market in 2008. Highly competitively speaking, Italy came "a distant second" with $3.7 billion. In sales to "developing nations," the U.S. inked $29.6 billion in weapons agreements or 70.1% of the market. Russia was a vanishingly distant second at $3.3 billion or 7.8% of the market. In other words, with 70% of the market, the U.S. actually has what, in any other field, would qualify as a monopoly position — in this case, in things that go boom in the night. With the American car industry in a ditch, it seems that this (along with Hollywood films that go boom in the night) is what we now do best, as befits a war, if not warrior, state. Is that an American accomplishment you’re comfortable with?

On the day I’m writing this piece, "Names of the Dead," a feature which appears almost daily in my hometown newspaper, records the death of an Army private from DeKalb, Illinois, in Afghanistan. Among the spare facts offered: he was 20 years old, which means he was probably born not long before the First Gulf War was launched in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush. If you include that war, which never really ended — low-level U.S. military actions against Saddam Hussein’s regime continued until the invasion of 2003 — as well as U.S. actions in the former Yugoslavia and Somalia, not to speak of the steady warfare underway since November 2001, in his short life, there was hardly a moment in which the U.S. wasn’t engaged in military operations somewhere on the planet (invariably thousands of miles from home). If that private left a one-year-old baby behind in the States, and you believe the statements of various military officials, that child could pass her tenth birthday before the war in which her father died comes to an end. Given the record of these last years, and the present military talk about being better prepared for "the next war," she could reach 2025, the age when she, too, might join the military without ever spending a warless day. Is that the future you had in mind?

Consider this: War is now the American way, even if peace is what most Americans experience while their proxies fight in distant lands. Any serious alternative to war, which means our "security," is increasingly inconceivable. In Orwellian terms then, war is indeed peace in the United States and peace, war.

American Newspeak

Newspeak, as Orwell imagined it, was an ever more constricted form of English that would, sooner or later, make "all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended," he wrote in an appendix to his novel, "that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought… should be literally unthinkable."

When it comes to war (and peace), we live in a world of American Newspeak in which alternatives to a state of war are not only ever more unacceptable, but ever harder to imagine. If war is now our permanent situation, in good Orwellian fashion it has also been sundered from a set of words that once accompanied it.

It lacks, for instance, "victory." After all, when was the last time the U.S. actually won a war (unless you include our "victories" over small countries incapable of defending themselves like the tiny Caribbean Island of Grenada in 1983 or powerless Panama in 1989)? The smashing "victory" over Saddam Hussein in the First Gulf War only led to a stop-and-start conflict now almost two decades old that has proved a catastrophe. Keep heading backward through the Vietnam and Korean Wars and the last time the U.S. military was truly victorious was in 1945.

But achieving victory no longer seems to matter. War American-style is now conceptually unending, as are preparations for it. When George W. Bush proclaimed a Global War on Terror (aka World War IV), conceived as a "generational struggle" like the Cold War, he caught a certain American reality. In a sense, the ongoing war system can’t absorb victory. Any such endpoint might indeed prove to be a kind of defeat.

No longer has war anything to do with the taking of territory either, or even with direct conquest. War is increasingly a state of being, not a process with a beginning, an end, and an actual geography.

Similarly drained of its traditional meaning has been the word "security" — though it has moved from a state of being (secure) to an eternal, immensely profitable process whose endpoint is unachievable. If we ever decided we were either secure enough, or more willing to live without the unreachable idea of total security, the American way of war and the national security state would lose much of their meaning. In other words, in our world, security is insecurity.

As for "peace," war’s companion and theoretical opposite, though still used in official speeches, it, too, has been emptied of meaning and all but discredited. Appropriately enough, diplomacy, that part of government which classically would have been associated with peace, or at least with the pursuit of the goals of war by other means, has been dwarfed by, subordinated to, or even subsumed by the Pentagon. In recent years, the U.S. military with its vast funds has taken over, or encroached upon, a range of activities that once would have been left to an underfunded State Department, especially humanitarian aid operations, foreign aid, and what’s now called nation-building. (On this subject, check out Stephen Glain’s recent essay, "The American Leviathan" in the Nation magazine.)

Diplomacy itself has been militarized and, like our country, is now hidden behind massive fortifications, and has been placed under Lord-of-the-Flies-style guard. The State Department’s embassies are now bunkers and military-style headquarters for the prosecution of war policies; its officials, when enough of them can be found, are now sent out into the provinces in war zones to do "civilian" things.

And peace itself? Simply put, there’s no money in it. Of the nearly trillion dollars the U.S. invests in war and war-related activities, nothing goes to peace. No money, no effort, no thought. The very idea that there might be peaceful alternatives to endless war is so discredited that it’s left to utopians, bleeding hearts, and feathered doves. As in Orwell’s Newspeak, while "peace" remains with us, it’s largely been shorn of its possibilities. No longer the opposite of war, it’s just a rhetorical flourish embedded, like one of our reporters, in Warspeak.

What a world might be like in which we began not just to withdraw our troops from one war to fight another, but to seriously scale down the American global mission, close those hundreds of bases — recently, there were almost 300 of them, macro to micro, in Iraq alone — and bring our military home is beyond imagining. To discuss such obviously absurd possibilities makes you an apostate to America’s true religion and addiction, which is force. However much it might seem that most of us are peaceably watching our TV sets or computer screens or iPhones, we Americans are also — always — marching as to war. We may not all bother to attend the church of our new religion, but we all tithe. We all partake. In this sense, we live peaceably in a state of war.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute’s TomDispatch.com. He is the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of the Cold War and beyond, as well as of a novel, The Last Days of Publishing. He also edited The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (Verso, 2008), an alternative history of the mad Bush years.

Copyright 2009 Tom Engelhardt

RACE IN AMERICA: The Grand Denial

RACE IN AMERICA: The Grand Denial

For their four or five years (1939-1945) the Jews were given a state while we have not acquired one acre for four centuries (1619-2008) of slave labor and government sanctioned terror that even Hitler emulated with his destruction of the Jews. In order to recover from the addiction to white supremacy, America must make a searching and fearless moral inventory; she must admit to God the exact nature of her wrongs; be ready to have God remove her defects of character (being saved by the grace of Jesus Christ has not and will not solve America’s white supremacy addiction, the white Christian mythology allowed us to be burned on the cross or lynching tree, yes, strangely similar to Jesus). – Dr. Marvin X………………

By Dr. Marvin X………………
Tuesday, September 16, 2009

Denial is quite simply the evasion of reality. Denial can be personal or communal, for sometimes an entire nation can be in denial about its abominations, for they are too painful to make adjustments in the collective White America benefited from four centuries of slavery and neo-slavery. The neo slaves fought in her imperial wars against fascism abroad but were subjected to fascism upon returning home. A few slaves benefited from slavery, even having slaves themselves, yet in the end found themselves facing the glass ceiling, especially when they refused to be running dogs for imperialism now called globalism.

General Colin Powell is the most recent example. America duped him and made a fool of him before the world when he gave his fabricated United Nation’s speech to justify the invasion of Iraq .

He was replaced with a more pliant Negress in the person of Condi Rice. We are urged to recognize racial progress in her shameful role as Secretary of State.

We have achieved equality, for have we not placed ourselves (African Americans) in the position to be charged with war crimes, having justified the slaughter of a million Iraqi men, women and children in the unprovoked occupation and destruction of the jewel of Arabic culture and civilization?

But in our grand denial, blacks as well as whites will attempt to convince the world this point of view is left wing poppycock, the thoughts of a disgruntled segment of the black Americans who have failed to enjoy the benefits of capitalism, now globalism–no matter the disparities in birth and death, education, wage parity,incarceration, housing, health care, homicide and suicide, in every aspect of Americana.

To mention race is to open a can of worms best left unopened because it makes Americans nervous, uneasy, and disturbed mentally if not physically. White Americans are made to feel guilty, thus etiquette demands no mention of race in civil discourse or casual conversation because we are all too sensitive and the endgame might be violence of the worse kind.

And so we are mostly silent on the subject until this ugly monster of ours rears its head as it inevitably does from time to time, then after the most brief discussion, all sides are urged to sweep it under the carpet until the next round. Thus this racial drama continues ad infinitum without any real resolution and certainly no reconciliation.

We may have a plethora of interracial marriages with the resultant biracial children, yet nothing has been solved except for a kind of ‘don’t ask don’t talk’ racial harmony, along with the children growing up in racial confusion called the tragic mulatto syndrome, whereby they try as best they can to choose sides in this racial drama without end. Clearly,

Barak Obama is caught between the racism of his preacher and white grandmother. His endgame will be of great interest to the world at large, and even if he doesn’t become president of the US , he will have a role to play in racial politics globally.

Obviously, his persona is bigger than America , having an African father and a Muslim middle name (Hussein) than has endeared him to the Islamic world, no matter the outcome of the presidential election.

With his now classic speech on race, putting himself in league with Booker T. Washington’s Atlanta Compromise and Martin Luther King’s I Have A Dream, Obama, much to his dismay, has now become a Race Man, in the classic sense of that term whose definition escapes all but those of historical consciousness, which is most of us, black and white, except that we must now realize there is only the human race, except for those in league with me who claim membership in the Divine Race.

America’s Grand Denial can only be overcome by recovery from our racist white supremacy heritage, beginning by accepting the scientific definition of the human race (or Divine, if you agree with my spiritual notion), then entering a program of detoxification, recovery and discovery.

Detoxification includes deprogramming our white supremacy values of domination and exploitation, including patriarchal authority and capitalist greed that has lead us to the present economy, is nothing more than pimping by gunboat diplomacy.

You sell me your labor and natural resources at the cheapest price or I will take them at gunpoint, under the guise of bringing you democracy, an advance from the naked colonial era of spreading Christianity. Recovery is discarding the Grand Denial that there is a problem or that the problem has been remedied, therefore stop making whites the villain and blacks the victim, in fact, forget the entire matter, although blacks already suffer acute amnesia to the degree that they are a danger to themselves and others.

And who would tell a Jew to forget the Holocaust?

And does not the Jew remind the world at every turn what the Germans did to them? We have a thousand times more right to tell the world what happened to us than any Jew, for our suffering lasted four centuries, not four or five years.

For their four or five years (1939-1945) the Jews were given a state while we have not acquired one acre for four centuries (1619-2008) of slave labor and government sanctioned terror that even Hitler emulated with his destruction of the Jews.

In order to recover from the addiction to white supremacy, America must make a searching and fearless moral inventory; she must admit to God the exact nature of her wrongs; be ready to have God remove her defects of character (being saved by the grace of Jesus Christ has not and will not solve America’s white supremacy addiction, the white Christian mythology allowed us to be burned on the cross or lynching tree, yes, strangely similar to Jesus).

Rev. James Cone suggests America can only recover from the addiction to white supremacy by coming to an understanding of the relationship of the cross and the lynching tree. Listen to Billie Holiday’s Strange Fruit and ponder the life of Jesus Christ.

You have had Jesus in your midst for over four hundred years and crucified him on a daily basis, even unto this present hour. America must examine her census, her graveyards in the south and north, the bills of sale, the prison inmates, the mental hospital patients gone mad as a result of white supremacy addictionâ€"then make a list of all the Africans harmed, the Native Americans, the poor whites treated worse than you treated niggers, then make amends to such people, including reparations in the form of land and sovereignty.

Discovery for America in general will be when she accepts the radicalization of her culture to bring it in harmony with the global village, which involves the dismantling of institutions that perpetuate domination and exploitation of her citizens and other peace loving peoples throughout the world.

If America persists in her Grand Denial, then she must prepare for her self destruction, for it shall come at the hands of the man in the mirror, not from any external forces.

–Dr. M

Dr. M is the author of How to Recover from the Addiction to White Supremacy, A Pan African 13 Step Model, Black Bird Press, 1222 Dwight Way, Berkeley CA , $19.95.

If you would like to attend a session of the Pan African Mental Health Peer Group to Recover from the Addiction to White Supremacy, please call 510-355-6339. Marvin X is available for speaking engagements.

Check out his blog. The above essay appears in his forthcoming book The Wisdom of Plato Negro: A Hustler’s Guide to the Game Called Life, Black Bird Press, 2009.

Doctors Aiding Torture

Doctors Aiding Torture

Bosnian prisoner medical records confirmed that medical staff were present during their interrogations “and authorized (them) to proceed.” Medical personnel monitored Mohammed al Qahtani’s interrogation during nearly two months of “severe sleep deprivation and physical stress.” At one point, they rushed him to the base hospital when his heart rate dropped dangerously low. After stabilization, they returned him the next day for more interrogation. Other prisoners described doctors performing unnecessary and abusive procedures, including forced amputations, after which they were denied proper treatment. Psychiatrists and psychologists designed “extreme interrogation techniques as part of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT).” In late 2002, it was tasked “to torment detainees in interrogations….” – Stephen Lendman

by Stephen Lendman
World Prout Assembly
Sept 17, 2009

In April 2009, a confidential February 2007 ICRC torture report was publicly released. Titled, “ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen ‘High Value Detainees’ in CIA Custody,” it detailed harsh and abusive treatment from their time of arrest, detention, transfer, and incarceration at Guantanamo where ICRC professionals interviewed them.

Besides detailed information on torture and abusive treatment, they obtained damning, consistent detainee accounts of medical personnel involvement, including:

– their monitoring of and direct participation in torture procedures;

– instructing interrogators to continue, adjust, or stop certain ones;

– informing detainees that medical treatment depended on their cooperation;

– performing medical checks before and after each transfer; and

– treating the effects of torture as well as ailments and injuries during incarceration.

Condoning or participating in torture grievously breaches medical ethics and the 1975 World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Tokyo “Guidelines for Physicians Concerning Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in Relation to Detention and Imprisonment.” It states:

– in all cases at all times, “physician(s) shall not countenance, condone or participate in” torture or any other form of abuse;

– they “shall not use nor allow to be used (their) medical knowledge or skills, or health information” to aid interrogation in any way;

– they “shall not be present during any procedure during which torture or any other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment is used or threatened;”

– they “must have complete clinical independence” in treating persons for whom they’re medically responsible; and

– WMA encourages the international community and fellow physicians to support medical professionals who face “threats or reprisals resulting from a refusal to condone” all forms of torture and abuse.

Protocol I of the 1949 Geneva Conventions states:

“Persons engaged in medical activities shall neither be compelled to perform acts or to carry out work contrary to, nor be compelled to refrain from acts required by, the rules of medical ethics or other rules designed for the benefit of the wounded and sick, or this Protocol.”

On July 7, 2005 in the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Gregg Bloche and Jonathan Marks published an article titled, “Doctors and Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay” in which they cited evidence that “Health information (was) routinely available to behavioral science consultants and others” engaged in interrogations, in violation of strict medical ethics.

In early 2003, detainee medical records were readily available, and since late 2002, psychiatrists and psychologists were involved in crafting extreme stress techniques “combined with behavior-shaping rewards to extract actionable intelligence from resistant captives.”

“Wholesale disregard for clinical confidentiality” seriously breaches medical ethics “since it makes every caregiver into an accessory to intelligence gathering.” It also “puts prisoners at greater risk for serious abuse.”

In July 2006, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) published a report titled, “Report on Torture and Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Treatment of Prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba” that included evidence of medical personnel involvement in torture.

Detainee Othman Abdulraheem Mohammad was told that medical treatment would depend on his cooperation. Lakhdar Boumediene said every time he requested care he was told to ask permission from his interrogators. They “controlled his access, (and it) was granted or denied based on the interrogator’s assessment of his level of cooperation.”

Bosnian prisoner medical records confirmed that medical staff were present during their interrogations “and authorized (them) to proceed.”

Medical personnel monitored Mohammed al Qahtani’s interrogation during nearly two months of “severe sleep deprivation and physical stress.” At one point, they rushed him to the base hospital when his heart rate dropped dangerously low. After stabilization, they returned him the next day for more interrogation.

Other prisoners described doctors performing unnecessary and abusive procedures, including forced amputations, after which they were denied proper treatment.

Psychiatrists and psychologists designed “extreme interrogation techniques as part of the Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT).” In late 2002, it was tasked “to torment detainees in interrogations….”

International and US Laws Prohibiting Torture

Numerous international and US laws unequivocally ban torture under all conditions at all times with no allowed exceptions ever, for any reasons, including in times of war.

The Third Geneva Convention covers war prisoners and detainees. It prohibits torture and protects their right to be treated humanely against “violence to life and person (and) humiliating and degrading treatment” as well as to judicial fairness and proper medical treatment. The Fourth Geneva Convention affords the same rights to civilians in times of war.

The federal anti-torture statute (18 USC, 2340A) prohibits its use outside the US and defines it as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering….upon another person within his custody or physical control.”

The 1991 Torture Victims Protection Act authorizes civil suits in America against individuals, acting in an official capacity for a foreign state, who committed torture and/or extrajudicial killing.

The 1984 UN Convention Against Torture bans all forms of torture, cruel and degrading treatment in all circumstances at all times with no exceptions ever allowed.

The US Constitution’s Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.

The US Army’s Field Manual 27-10 states that military or civilian persons may be punished for committing war crimes (that include abusive interrogations) under international law. Army Field Manual 34-52 outlines interrogation procedures and specifically prohibits force, mental torture, threats, and inhumane treatment.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) bans cruelty, oppression, actions intended to degrade or humiliate, and physical, menacing, and threatening assaults. Army Regulation (AR) 190-8 protects detainees from violence, assaults, and insults, and directs that they be treated humanely with respect.

The 1996 US War Crimes Act prohibits grave Geneva Convention breaches, including (as stipulated under Common Article III) “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture (as well as) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.”

Other binding international laws also prohibit torture, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with no exceptions or justifications allowed, such as orders by field commanders, Pentagon officials, or the President of the United States.

Physicians for Human Rights (PHR)

Founded in 1986, PHR “mobilizes health professionals to advance health, dignity, and justice and promotes the right to health for all.” It also “investigates human rights abuses and works to stop them” in conflict zones, US prisons, and offshore detention facilities where torture is routinely practiced.

In 2005, it published a report titled, “Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces,” which it called the first comprehensive examination of “the use of psychological torture by US personnel in the so-called ‘war on terror,’ ” including sensory deprivation, prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, using fierce dogs to instill fear, cultural and sexual humiliation, mock executions, and threatened violence against loved ones.

It called the effects devastating and longer-lasting than physical torture, and said psychological abuse is morally reprehensible and illegal under international and US law.

In August 2009, PHR published a new report titled, “Aiding Torture: Health Professionals’ Ethics and Human Rights Violations Revealed in the May 2004 CIA Inspector General’s Report,” including ethical misconduct not previously known. It revealed the role of health professionals involved “at every stage in the development, implementation and legitimization of this torture program.”

It explained that doctors and psychologists actively participated in abusive interrogations and contributed to the physical and mental suffering of detainees. It called their actions “an unconscionable affront to the profession of medicine,” made worse by experimenting on inmates, then “aggregat(ing) data on (their) reaction to interrogation methods.”

PHR’s Steven Reisner said “They were experimenting and keeping records of the results,” a war crime under Geneva and the Nuremberg Code that requires “voluntary consent” of human subjects and prohibits experiments:

– that inflict “unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury;”

– if there’s “an a priori reason to believe death or disabling injury will occur;” and

– from being implemented if there’s reason to believe they’ll cause “injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.”

PHR’s report detailed the psychological and medical effects:

– forced shaving inflicts psychological harm “by means of humiliation, both personal and religious;”

– hooding disorients and causes acute anxiety depression, depersonalization, and abnormal behavior;

– dietary manipulation inflicts discomfort and psychological stress;

– prolonged diapering causes physical and psychological stress and harm;

– walling inflicts physical injuries as well as psychological stress, rage, and helplessness;

– confinement in a box in extreme stress positions causes extreme physical and psychological pain and trauma; and

– other abuses, including waterboarding that simulates drowning and the feeling of helplessness to prevent it.

Involvement of Medical Professionals

They help develop, implement, provide cover for, and justify torture and abusive practices. They’re actively involved in designing harmful interrogation techniques in clear violation of the law and medical ethics. They’re “complicit in selecting and then rationalizing (methods) whose safety and efficacy in eliciting accurate information have no valid basis in science.” Their actions constitute “a practice that approaches unlawful experimentation.”

CIA guidelines require health professionals, including a doctor and psychologist, to be present during enhanced interrogations, “thereby placing (them) in the untenable position of calibrating harm rather than serving as protectors and healers as” their ethical code demands.

They also participate in initial physical and psychological assessments, then monitor all subsequent interrogations. They know their actions are harmful, unethical, and illegal, yet they serve willingly.

PHR believes they should be investigated on charges of “alleged criminal conduct.” Those proved guilty should be prosecuted, lose their license, professional society memberships, and any standing in the medical community henceforth.
Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Monday – Friday at 10AM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on world and national issues. All programs are archived for easy listening.

‘Buying off’ Taliban cheapest way to end Afghan conflict

‘Buying off’ Taliban cheapest way to end Afghan conflict

LONDON: A retired British general sent to Afghanistan to explore ways of negotiating with members of the Taliban on Thursday said money might convince young fighters to give up their arms.

Lieutenant General Graeme Lamb, a former Special Forces commander who served in Iraq and has worked closely with US General David Petraeus, who oversees strategy in Afghanistan, said buying off fighters had worked elsewhere. “I always said in Iraq, you can buy an insurgency if you have enough money,” Lamb told BBC radio in an interview.

“These are local people who need to have a dialogue to understand why, and then they have the choice to have a better life,” he said of young Pashtun men fighting for the Taliban. Asked if he had money at his disposal and planned to use it to buy off fighters, Lamb was non-committal. “If somebody is on the wrong side of the wire and is inclined to come back then I have to set the conditions, or we have to set the conditions, whereby that young man comes back in, so he is not a pariah, so he’s not as he walks across the line rearrested by somebody,” said Lamb.

“It’s not a case of paying him a dollar and he’ll stop fighting for a month or two,” but more about providing opportunities for employment and a better quality of life, he said. “None of this is rocket science.” Lamb, who spent 37 years in the army, serving in Africa, South America, Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Iraq, said reconciling fighters to giving up their arms was not only about getting the fighters to agree, but getting countries like the US to understand the benefits of negotiation. The US and NATO have not presented any formal strategy for negotiating with the Taliban, who have gained strength in the past two years, stepping up attacks against US, British and other forces throughout Afghanistan. “It’s not a case of winning and losing. It’s changing people’s minds, changing people’s perceptions,” Lamb said. reuters

DALIT VOICE: Sep 16th – 30th 2009

DALIT VOICE: Sep 16th – 30th 2009

Vol. 28
Sep 16th – 30th 2009

No. 18


  • Forget petty differences to fight & finish our common Brahminical enemy


  • Brahmins demand Advani head : Caste war within BJP
  • Hindu India finds "merit" only in one caste
  • Who conspired to divide India?
  • THUS SPAKE PERIYAR : God Shiva’s one lakh years-long intercourse
  • World Prout Assembly meet
  • JEWS & JEWS OF INDIA ARE COUSINS : Here is the proof to defend DV theory


  • WHO IS CAUSING FINANCIAL CRISIS & WHY ? : Printing currency notes without backed by gold
  • Fed owned by Jews
  • Blood-curdling story of Dalit struggle for self-determination
  • British rule should have continued
  • COMMUNICATION : All 5 founding world cultures came from India’s Dalits
  • DV theory on Jews & "Jews of India" is right

© 2004 – 2009 Dalit Voice



Blood-curdling story of Dalit struggle for self-determination


Self-determination is a serious subject. And no country in the world except India is having such a large chunk of oppressed people craving for self-determination. Of these the Dalits are the main whose population exceeds the peoples residing in the entire Europe.

As the Editor of Dalit Voice, we have taken up this question seriously. Our struggle, though as old as over 3,000 years, and against the invading Aryan Brahmins. But neither the so-called Western liberal democracies, nor the United Nations bothered about us.

Even in this 21st century when it is so loudly and so proudly proclaimed that the world is reduced to a global village and every information is known to everybody interested, you will be shocked to hear that the world’s longest lasting struggle of India’s Black Untouchables, numbering over 30% of India’s 1,300 million population is hardly known to the outside world.


India’s Untouchables, who today are called Dalits, are not the only people in India fighting for self-determination. There are many others like the Tribals (10%), Backward Castes (35%) and the Muslim (15%), Sikh and Christians. The struggle of Kashmiris for self-determination is as old as the Palestinian problem.

Together we the oppressed Indians constitute over 85% of the country’s population. In other words, we form the world’s single largest oppressed population, ground to dust by a tiny, micro-minority alien community of aggressors called the Aryan Brahminical people.

But the world knows nothing of this oldest and the longest lasting Holocaust because the Brahmins as our rulers, have adopted a strategy which is far, far superior to that of the zionists who have forcibly occupied Palestine drawing the attention of the whole world.

They have successfully hidden the Hindu Holocaust under the choak of a gandhian humbug called ahimsa (non-violence).

But our struggle for self-determination is not only the world’s oldest with billions and billions of casualties but, alas, inviting no attention, to repeat, no sympathy from the so-called liberal Western democracies or even the United Nations.


Just as the zionists have stolen the land of the Arabs, the Aryan Brahmins have stolen our lands of which we are the original inhabitants.

Just as the zionists never loved Palestine, the Aryan Brahmins also never loved India or the Indians. Why then they colonised India? Does it not prove that their objective is not to improve India but to ride and persecute Dalits, Muslims etc.?

The zionists at least improved the Arab land they occupied and converted Israel into a powerful state.

But in contrast the Aryan Brahmins converted a huge smiling subcontinent into a failed state — a Sahara desert.


Every country around us has galloped and China is poised to become the world’s No.1 power. But the Brahminical India being internally weak and a house divided, it is literally sinking. But the Brahminical media in collaboration with the Western media is not allowing the truth to come out.


The Aryan Brahmins, the real rulers of India, like the Jews, are also from the Middle East, according to their own admission. That means both the Jews and Aryan Brahmins are “homeless people”.

The Jews being more honest at least tried to forcibly occupy Palestine and called it their own homeland.

But the Aryan Brahmins never, ever had a longing to belong.

Though the Jews and Brahmins, the “Jews of India” are blood brothers with common DNA and proven common biological, intellectual and psychological characteristics, the Aryan Brahmins did not ever try to go in search of their homeland.

This is not because they did not know their origin, their homeland, but because they found a huge subcontinent (India) belonging to a peace-loving people and took pleasure in persecuting its original inhabitants.

The Aryan imperialism can be called the world’s most famous case of cultural aggression on the original inhabitants of India. (V.T. Rajshekar, Aggression on Indian Culture, DSA-2001).

Rather they derived a tremendous vicarious pleasure in (silently and non-violently) sucking the blood of the innocents.

Is there any parallel to this in the entire world history? What are the Western historians doing?


That is why the Aryan Brahmins did not produce a Theodore Herzl, the father of the zionist nation.

The zionists had a craving for a nationhood and they established one in Palestine — right or wrong. But the “Jews of India” like the most detested cockroach had not even a craving for their homeland — forcibly imposing themselves on the world’s most ancient Dravidian, Adi-Dravidian people.

As the Palestinian representatives are here, we are presenting this picture of contract — between the Jews and the Jews of India — and calling for unity between the struggle of the Palestinians and the Indian Dalits.

Our Palestinian brothers at least have an open enemy but our enemy is not only concealed, disguised, but extremely cunning, secretive double-faced and dangerous. I have no words to describe its chameleon character.

At the United Nations conference on self-determination held at Durban (2001) the Jews and the “Jews of India” put up a joint struggle and saw to it that Dalits, Palestinians do not join hands.


Quite a number of “Jews of India” infiltrated the Dalit ranks in the guise of NGOs and misled our innocent people.

The Aryan Brahmins, therefore, become the world’s most dangerous enemy because it always speaks of gandhian non-violence and is never ready to engage us in open confrontation unlike as it is in Palestine.

These are the very people who killed Gandhi and yet proclaiming to the world that they are the greatest gandhians.

Yet another important difference between these two world famous enemies of humanity is that the zionists always maintained their own “identity”. They loved their religion and tradition despite all the violent attack on them throughout history.


But the Brahmins never publicly admitted their identity. They chose a misleading new identity called “Hindu”, a name given to the people of India by the Arab invaders. Look at this mischief.

Brahminists hate the Muslims from the bottom of their heart and yet embraced the name of “Hindu” given by the enemy.

The Aryan Brahmins say they are one of the most ancient peoples in the world. Fine. But why unlike the Jews they lack the national pride? And that most human quality of longing to belong? This needs a deep research.

Why they want to steal somebody else’s country?

The Jews of Israel have adopted their ancient Hebrew as their national language.

But the Brahminists have no language of their own. Some Brahmins say their national language is Sanskrit and claim it is the world’s oldest and the richest.

Fine. But not even 0.1% of Brahmins know this language. Today, India’s single largest migratory birds to the West and their heaven on earth, USA, are the Brahmins. They say one thing and do the exact opposite.


We have found a lot of thinking and some good-hearted Jews. Alan Hart, author of the epic history of Jews, who is seated beside me here, says it in his book. But we found hardly any good hearted Aryan Brahmin.

Historians say they found in Jews an acute urge to live as a free people in their own homeland. Even when Britain offered them Uganda in place of Palestine and Theodre Harzel, the father of zionist nation, himself accepted the offer, the World Jewish Congress rejected it. Such is their love for Palestine.

But why such a noble, glorious thought never comes to the Brahmins?

Ever since they left their land of birth in Middle East they have always lived in somebody else’s house. Today they are behaving as leeches sucking the blood of the innocent, hard-working Dalits.

When the Jews went to other countries, specially Palestine, everywhere they provoked violent protests, endless bloodshed.

But India did not produce any widespread, violent anti-Brahmin war and violence.

This is because the Aryan Brahmins, ever since they landed in India, injected into the veins of the natives a deadly poison which simply made the slaves enjoy their slavery.

Such a situation is unparalleled in the history of the world. Over 1,000 millions of slaves enjoying their slavery about which the outside world knows nothing. Have you heard about it?

Neither the United Nations, nor the so-called liberal democracies of the West ever bothered about us. Why? Will they explain?

Sister Eva-Maria Hardtman of Stockholm University has written some books on this subject. We thank her for her services.

This in brief is the story of the about 1,000-odd million people, the world’s single largest chunk of slaves, enjoying their slavery.

[Struggle of Indias Untouchables for self-determination. Paper presented to the LISA (London Institute of South Asia) seminar at Thatcher Room, Portcullis House, Westminster, London, on June 29, 2009).

Bill would grant emergency powers to (Massachusetts) health officials

Bill would grant emergency powers to (Massachusetts) health officials

Medfield –

Senate bill 2028, passed unanimously by the state senate April 28, empowers state and local health officials to quarantine citizens and search, close, evacuate and destroy private property if the governor declares a public health emergency.

The bill also sets a $1,000 per day fine against scofflaws and authorizes officers to arrest them.

The bill, named An Act Relative to Pandemic and Disaster Preparation and Response in the Commonwealth, is before the house and could be voted on anytime between now and June, said Wayne Weikel, Chief of Staff at the House Committee on Ways and Means. A copy of the bill can be viewed at http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st02/st02028.htm.

“On this issue, I believe there is a unity of purpose amongst those inside and outside the State House, and that is to ensure Massachusetts is properly equipped to respond in the event of a pandemic outbreak or other emergency situation. With the flu season soon to be upon us, the House Committee on Ways and Means has been conducting a thorough, yet expeditious, review of Senate Bill 2028 to ensure the needs of all Massachusetts residents will be met.  Given the gravity of the subject matter, it’s important to do this bill and to do it right,” wrote Charles A. Murphy (D-Burlington), Massachusetts House Ways and Means chairman, in a release.

Ann Lambert, a lawyer with the Massachusetts chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, isn’t a fan of the bill. “We’ve always opposed this kind of emergency health powers grant,” Lambert said.

The bill, said Lambert, gives the DPH the power to issue orders and enforce them in a public health emergency. The approach is a coercive one, she said, and the opposite of the health department’s traditional role of responding to public health emergencies with leadership through education.

The part of the bill Lambert refers to states that in the event of a pandemic or threat to public health, “…the commissioner or local public health authority may issue an order. The order may be a verbal order in exigent circumstances, and in such case it shall be followed by a written order as soon as reasonably possible.”

The specific possible orders under the law include, (but are not limited to):

·Opening private property for investigation of the premises.

·Requiring the owner to close the premises or a specific part of the premises and re-opening when the danger has ended.

·Requiring signs to notify the public of an order closing the premises

·Requiring the cleaning or disinfection of the premises.

·Requiring the destruction of the matter or thing specified in the order.

The law calls for the order to be delivered personally to the person in question, “But if that is not possible, it shall be delivered in a manner that is reasonably calculated to notify such person of it,” the bill states.

A public health authority, said Jared Cain, spokesman for Sen. Richard T. Moore, D – Worcester and Norfolk, who authored the bill, can be any healthcare worker for the state or town. “It does go down to the school nurse,” Cain said, because during a public health emergency, “You want all hands on deck.”

In the event that an order is ignored, “An officer authorized to serve criminal process may arrest without warrant any person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has violated such an order and shall use reasonable diligence to enforce such an order,” the bill states.

The bill also states that if a person is unable or unwilling to submit to decontamination or diagnosis, the state can only proceed against that person’s wishes after receiving a superior court order. While that order is being obtained, the law states officials may isolate or quarantine the person.

But, Lambert said, the bill’s approach is likely to backfire. “People resist coercive measures sometimes, when they understand them as being unnecessarily coercive,” she said.

In response to concerns that the bill would spread broad power to many people, “It actually consolidates power,” Cain said, because as the law stands now, the governor can appoint anyone to enforce public health orders in an emergency. “It would be whoever the governor sees fit,” Cain said.

Lambert said that seeking to limit the power of the governor to act during an emergency is an odd justification for the bill. She said the ACLU opposes the bill, and lists its arguments in more detail at http://www.aclum.org/news/20090904.php.

Sen. Marian Walsh, D (Suffolk and Norfolk), said she heard from numerous people in her constituency in support and opposing the bill before she voted for it. People opposing the bill said they felt it would turn Massachusetts into a police state, she said. Instead, she said the bill will prepare the state for a pandemic or health emergency, and that it would only be used in extreme cases. She added that if the bill became law, opponents could still fight the measure in court.

Sen. James Timilty D (Bristol and Norfolk), did not return a call seeking comment on his vote for the bill.

Rep. Lida Harkins, D (13th Norfolk) said she needed more time to study the bill, but noted that it might be amended a few times before it comes up for a vote in the House. “By the time it gets to the floor, it may have been changed,” Harkins said.

Rep. Richard Ross, R (9th Norfolk), said he also needed more time to look at the bill, but, “On first blush, I don’t think I could support it,” he said.

Rep. Paul McMurtry (D-Dedham) said the bill does require some serious thought on how far into individuals’ lives the state should go to protect public safety with new threats such as swine flu. “We haven’t had anything in recent history to draw a comparison,” McMurtry said. He added it would take a lot of convincing before he would support portions of the bill, such as being arrested for ignoring a quarantine order. “That seems a little extreme to me, but again, we’re talking about extreme cases,” McMurtry said.

US Drones Now Targeting India’s Enemies On Pakistani Soil

[If Kayani refuses to draw the line against drone attacks against America's enemies, then how can the govt. object when Amrika kills the Pakistanis and Kashmiris who are enemies of Amrika's partner, India?]

US Predator strike kills militant Kashmiri

Chidanand Rajghatta, TNN

WASHINGTON: A US Predator strike in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region is reported to have killed Ilyas Kashmiri, a veteran of the

Pakistan-backed separatist movement in Kashmir, marking the first time that an American attack has killed someone associated with terrorism on India’s western (and Pakistan’s eastern) flank.

Ilyas Kashmiri was operational chief of the ”Azad” Kashmir chapter of the Harkat ul-Jihad al-Islami (HuJI) who had shifted his base from Muzzafarabad to Waziristan in recent months to link up with Al-Qaida and Taliban elements, after an interlude nurturing terrorism in Pakistan’s Punjab province.

Intelligence circles say he, along with Uzbek terrorist

Najmuddin Jalolov, was killed during a September 14
airstrike in the village of Turikhel near the town of Mir Ali in Taliban-controlled North Waziristan.

The incident could mark a significant re-ordering of US actions inside Pakistan that erases the distinction between al-Qaida and Taliban elements operating against western forces in Afghanistan and terrorists striking against India.

Some indication of the potential broadening of US strikes was evident earlier this week when a top US general spoke of the blurred lines between various terrorist groups operating in Pakistan.

”Terrorists and extremists, particularly in recent years, have become much more linked. So yes, it’s al-Qaida, but it’s also the Taliban; it’s also LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba); it’s also TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan), it’s JuD (Jamaat-ud-Dawa), it’s JeM (Jaish-e-Mohammad), and all of them have the same kind of outlook,” Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told US lawmakers during a Congressional hearing, while outlining the threats emanating from the Af-Pak theater.

New Delhi has long complained that the US has beenunmindful of Pakistani terror groups operating against India even as Washington has put pressure on the Indian government not to initiate punitive strikes against Pakistan-backed terrorism.

Kashmiri, who was once considered an ISI asset, fell foul of the Pakistani military-intelligence establishment after Islamabad toned down overt support to the separatist movement under international pressure and scrutiny.

Turning rogue, he was named as a suspect several attacks inside Pakistan, including an assassination attempt on former military ruler Pervez Musharraf. He was even arrested and held for a month before he was mysteriously released.

Last year, he reportedly drafted a plan to assassinate Pakistan current military supremo, General Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani, but the plan was said to have been canceled by al-Qaida’s senior leadership.

US analysts say the Predator attack on Kashmiri came more for his association with Al-Qaida rather than his attacks on India or his having turned against his former Pakistani patrons. ”But it’s clear now that if there is any intelligence on any prominent terrorist and they were within US range, they will be hit,” says Bill Roggio, a terrorism expert who runs the online publication Long War Journal.

”That means if Hafeez Saeed or Masood Azhar showed up in Wazirstan, they will be hit, even if Pakistan does not like it.”

Hafeez Saeed, who India says is responsible for planning the Mumbai carnage, and other terrorist leaders such as Masood Azhar and Omar Saeed Sheikh are in protective custody as state guests of the Pakistan government while awaiting interminable court proceedings, and therefore currently beyond the reach of US drones.

Citing unnamed senior US officials, Roggio’s Long War Journal, which monitors terrorism in the region, says Kashmiri’s Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami, Laskhar-e-Jhangvi, Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and several other Pakistani terror groups have merged with al-Qaida in Pakistan, and operate under the name of Brigade 313. This group is interlinked with Pakistan’s Taliban and also recruits senior members of Pakistan’s military and intelligence services.

According to LWJ, Kashmiri was thought to have been one of the targets of the September 7 strike in Mir Ali. Mustafa al Jaziri, a senior military commander for al-Qaida who sits on al-Qaida’s military shura, is thought to have been killed in the strike, but Kashmiri is thought to have escaped that time.