In their most tenacious effort to control the ‘spin’ on the worst oil spill disaster in US history, BP has purchased sponsored links at the top of internet search engines, Google and Yahoo. The top listed links direct people to BP's official company website for news and information on the catastrophe.
BP spokesman Toby Odone confirmed to ABC News that the oil giant had in fact bought internet search terms.
The words ‘oil spill’, 'BP oil spill', 'Deepwater Horizon' and 'oil spill response' are among several other related search terms that all lead to the top listed sponsored links purchased by BP.
BP has not been completely forthcomming with information on the oil spill, which has damaged the companies public image.
Shortly after the Deepwater Horizon exploded on April 20, 2010, BP executives quickly underestimated the size of the disastrous oil spill. Some suggest they did it to avoid costly EPA per-gallon spill fines. The less oil spilled, the lower the fines.
A month into the spill, the public learned through independent science, that the spill was in fact a million gallon a day gusher. BP got caught in their own lie when the used a syphon pipe in one of the broken riser pipes and proudly proclaimed that they were capturing 5,000 barrels of oil a day. With the oil obviously still gushing, they had to up their spill rate to explain the reported discrepancy in their earlier estimates.
As the dead bodies of birds, turtles and dolphins began showing up on land, BP used a private security company as their ‘oil spill police’ to try to keep photographers and reporters away from the true death toll from their spill. Tides of black goo lapping a shore lined in corpses did not portray the company image Tony Hayward wanted for BP.
The world is watching the Gulf of Mexico from airplanes, boats and satellite images. Buying the links listed first on internet search engines, which direct people to the BP company website, will not hide or erase the horrors of the apocalypse unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico from the Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Yet the question remains: If BP were not trying to influence information on the Gulf oil spill, why would they buy sponsored links?
Source
Saturday, June 26, 2010
Senate bill would authorize US president to seize control of Internet
By Mike Ingram
WSWS, 24 June 2010
A bill introduced by Joseph Lieberman, Independent Senator from Connecticut and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman, would give the US president wide-ranging powers, including the ability to order Internet providers to restrict access to the global network.
The bill, entitled the “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act” (PCNAA), was presented in the Senate June 10 by Lieberman, with the support of Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware.
Known by the short name “Protecting Cyberspace,” the bill has been dubbed an Internet Kill Switch as it presents the Internet itself as a US national asset, over which the president would be given extraordinary powers in a declared “cyber emergency.” Under PCNAA, already extensive powers to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would be greatly expanded. Any company on a list created by the Department of Homeland Security that also “relies on” the Internet, telephone system, or any other component of the US “information infrastructure” could be taken under the control of a proposed new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), which would be a section of Homeland Security.
A June 10 press release from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs claims, “The bill authorizes no new surveillance authorities and does not authorize the government to ‘take over’ private networks.” But in defending the bill, Lieberman said the president should be able to “say to an electric company or to say to Verizon, in the national interests, ‘There’s an attack about to come and I hereby order you to put a patch on this, or put your network down on this part, or stop accepting any incoming [traffic] from country A,’” CNET news reported.
The Obama administration has so far stopped short of endorsing Lieberman’s bill, but Philip Reitinger, Deputy Undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said that he agreed the executive branch “may need to take extraordinary measures.” He preferred to have a single organization—that is, an arm of the DHS, rather than a new office—handle physical and Internet infrastructure. Reitinger pointed out that the 1934 Communications Act already gives the president broad emergency power. “Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act, as opposed to developing overlapping legislation,” he said.
Under the 1934 act, the president may, under “threat of war,” seize control of any “facilities or stations for wire communications.” Though dated, that definition would clearly apply to broadband providers or Web sites. Anyone disobeying a presidential order can be imprisoned for one year. In addition to making explicit the inclusion of Internet providers, a central component of the Lieberman bill is a promise of immunity from financial claims for any private company which carries through an order from the federal government.
The Lieberman bill is by no means the first attempt to impose restrictions on Internet access in circumstances when it is deemed to be in conflict with the interests of US imperialism. The 2009 CyberSecurity Act introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (Democrat from West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (Republican from Maine) proposed giving the president similar all-encompassing powers over the Internet. In the end, the most controversial proposals were pulled from the 2009 bill and instead the act required US government agencies to prepare emergency contingency plans.
The push for new security measures ultimately comes from the White House itself. In a May 2009 press statement, Barack Obama revealed that the servers of his campaign during the presidential election had been hacked and the hackers had “gained access to emails and a range of campaign files, from policy papers to travel plans.” Choosing not to comment on who might be responsible for such an action, Obama claimed this was a powerful reminder that “In this information Age, one of your greatest strengths—in our case, our ability to communicate to a wide range of supporters through the Internet—could be one of your greatest vulnerabilities.”
The president stated that cybersecurity “is a matter, as well, of America’s economic competitiveness,” asserting that “E-commerce alone last year accounted for some $132 billion in retail sales.” The president declared, “In short, America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity.”
Utilizing the kind of rhetoric most closely associated with the former Bush administration, Obama continued, “Our technological advantage is a key to America’s military dominance. But our defense and military networks are under constant attack. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country—attacks that are harder to detect and harder to defend against. Indeed, in today’s world, acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes on the computer —a weapon of mass destruction.”
After pledging to “secure America’s information and communications networks,” Obama went on to claim that none of this would infringe on the democratic rights of ordinary citizens. “Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not—I repeat, will not include—monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be—open and free.”
On the issue of monitoring private sector networks, it should be enough to point to the 3,580 data requests and 123 content removal requests made by the US government to Google between July 1 and December 31, 2009 which we noted on the WSWS in April this year. As for Obama’s supposed defense of net neutrality, we have recently drawn attention to the attack on the WikiLeaks web site, which has published video coverage contradicting the US government’s war propaganda. (See “Hands off WikiLeaks!” published June 14.)
In an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Sen. Lieberman gave some insight into the real purpose of the proposed measures when he cited the example of China. Invoking “cybersecurity” as the motivation for the bill, Lieberman said, “So I say to my friends on the Internet, relax. Take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country.” Lieberman said that “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”
China routinely shuts down or censors the Internet, not in response to war or “national emergency” but to social unrest and the threat posed by the emerging movement of the working class. That Lieberman chooses this as his example is an acknowledgement of the real purpose of the measures he proposes. As with all the attacks on democratic rights which have been carried through since 9/11, first by the Bush administration then continued under Obama, the proposed bill has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Under conditions of increasing economic and social crisis, Lieberman longs for the type of repressive powers available to the regime in Beijing.
Source
WSWS, 24 June 2010
A bill introduced by Joseph Lieberman, Independent Senator from Connecticut and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman, would give the US president wide-ranging powers, including the ability to order Internet providers to restrict access to the global network.
The bill, entitled the “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act” (PCNAA), was presented in the Senate June 10 by Lieberman, with the support of Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Tom Carper of Delaware.
Known by the short name “Protecting Cyberspace,” the bill has been dubbed an Internet Kill Switch as it presents the Internet itself as a US national asset, over which the president would be given extraordinary powers in a declared “cyber emergency.” Under PCNAA, already extensive powers to force private companies to comply with emergency decrees would be greatly expanded. Any company on a list created by the Department of Homeland Security that also “relies on” the Internet, telephone system, or any other component of the US “information infrastructure” could be taken under the control of a proposed new National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications (NCCC), which would be a section of Homeland Security.
A June 10 press release from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs claims, “The bill authorizes no new surveillance authorities and does not authorize the government to ‘take over’ private networks.” But in defending the bill, Lieberman said the president should be able to “say to an electric company or to say to Verizon, in the national interests, ‘There’s an attack about to come and I hereby order you to put a patch on this, or put your network down on this part, or stop accepting any incoming [traffic] from country A,’” CNET news reported.
The Obama administration has so far stopped short of endorsing Lieberman’s bill, but Philip Reitinger, Deputy Undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said that he agreed the executive branch “may need to take extraordinary measures.” He preferred to have a single organization—that is, an arm of the DHS, rather than a new office—handle physical and Internet infrastructure. Reitinger pointed out that the 1934 Communications Act already gives the president broad emergency power. “Congress and the administration should work together to identify any needed adjustments to the act, as opposed to developing overlapping legislation,” he said.
Under the 1934 act, the president may, under “threat of war,” seize control of any “facilities or stations for wire communications.” Though dated, that definition would clearly apply to broadband providers or Web sites. Anyone disobeying a presidential order can be imprisoned for one year. In addition to making explicit the inclusion of Internet providers, a central component of the Lieberman bill is a promise of immunity from financial claims for any private company which carries through an order from the federal government.
The Lieberman bill is by no means the first attempt to impose restrictions on Internet access in circumstances when it is deemed to be in conflict with the interests of US imperialism. The 2009 CyberSecurity Act introduced by Senators Jay Rockefeller (Democrat from West Virginia) and Olympia Snowe (Republican from Maine) proposed giving the president similar all-encompassing powers over the Internet. In the end, the most controversial proposals were pulled from the 2009 bill and instead the act required US government agencies to prepare emergency contingency plans.
The push for new security measures ultimately comes from the White House itself. In a May 2009 press statement, Barack Obama revealed that the servers of his campaign during the presidential election had been hacked and the hackers had “gained access to emails and a range of campaign files, from policy papers to travel plans.” Choosing not to comment on who might be responsible for such an action, Obama claimed this was a powerful reminder that “In this information Age, one of your greatest strengths—in our case, our ability to communicate to a wide range of supporters through the Internet—could be one of your greatest vulnerabilities.”
The president stated that cybersecurity “is a matter, as well, of America’s economic competitiveness,” asserting that “E-commerce alone last year accounted for some $132 billion in retail sales.” The president declared, “In short, America’s economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity.”
Utilizing the kind of rhetoric most closely associated with the former Bush administration, Obama continued, “Our technological advantage is a key to America’s military dominance. But our defense and military networks are under constant attack. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have spoken of their desire to unleash a cyber attack on our country—attacks that are harder to detect and harder to defend against. Indeed, in today’s world, acts of terror could come not only from a few extremists in suicide vests but from a few key strokes on the computer —a weapon of mass destruction.”
After pledging to “secure America’s information and communications networks,” Obama went on to claim that none of this would infringe on the democratic rights of ordinary citizens. “Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cybersecurity will not—I repeat, will not include—monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be—open and free.”
On the issue of monitoring private sector networks, it should be enough to point to the 3,580 data requests and 123 content removal requests made by the US government to Google between July 1 and December 31, 2009 which we noted on the WSWS in April this year. As for Obama’s supposed defense of net neutrality, we have recently drawn attention to the attack on the WikiLeaks web site, which has published video coverage contradicting the US government’s war propaganda. (See “Hands off WikiLeaks!” published June 14.)
In an appearance on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Sen. Lieberman gave some insight into the real purpose of the proposed measures when he cited the example of China. Invoking “cybersecurity” as the motivation for the bill, Lieberman said, “So I say to my friends on the Internet, relax. Take a look at the bill. And this is something that we need to protect our country.” Lieberman said that “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”
China routinely shuts down or censors the Internet, not in response to war or “national emergency” but to social unrest and the threat posed by the emerging movement of the working class. That Lieberman chooses this as his example is an acknowledgement of the real purpose of the measures he proposes. As with all the attacks on democratic rights which have been carried through since 9/11, first by the Bush administration then continued under Obama, the proposed bill has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. Under conditions of increasing economic and social crisis, Lieberman longs for the type of repressive powers available to the regime in Beijing.
Source
Rahm Emanuel’s BP Connection
Imagine if Bush were president right now, and it was revealed that his chief of staff had lived rent-free in the home of one of BP’s consultants. Yeah, that might be something the MSM would report on. Andrew Malcom on the Rahm Emanuel’s BP bennies:
In case you were tempted to buy the faux Washington outrage at BP and its gulf oil spill in recent days, here’s a story that reveals a little-known corporate political connection and the quiet way the inner political circles intersect, protect and care for one another in the nation’s capital. And Chicago.
We already knew that BP and its folks were significant contributors to the record $750-million war chest of Barack Obama’s 2007-08 campaign.
Now, we learn the details of a connection of Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayoral wannabe, current Obama chief of staff, ex-representative, ex-Clinton money man and ex-Windy City political machine go-fer.
Shortly after Obama’s happy inaugural, eyebrows rose slightly upon word that, as a House member, Emanuel had lived the last five years rent-free in a D.C. apartment of Democratic colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and her husband, Stanley Greenberg.
The rest here.
Source
In case you were tempted to buy the faux Washington outrage at BP and its gulf oil spill in recent days, here’s a story that reveals a little-known corporate political connection and the quiet way the inner political circles intersect, protect and care for one another in the nation’s capital. And Chicago.
We already knew that BP and its folks were significant contributors to the record $750-million war chest of Barack Obama’s 2007-08 campaign.
Now, we learn the details of a connection of Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago mayoral wannabe, current Obama chief of staff, ex-representative, ex-Clinton money man and ex-Windy City political machine go-fer.
Shortly after Obama’s happy inaugural, eyebrows rose slightly upon word that, as a House member, Emanuel had lived the last five years rent-free in a D.C. apartment of Democratic colleague Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and her husband, Stanley Greenberg.
The rest here.
Source
Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?
Using the McChrystal Moment to Raise a Forbidden Question
By Prof. David Ray Griffin
June 25, 2010 "Global Research" -- There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.” This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.
Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft – hire mercenaries!
There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan?
This question has thus far been considered off-limits, not to be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media. It has been permissible, to be sure, to ask whether the war during the past several years has been justified by those attacks so many years ago. But one has not been allowed to ask whether the original invasion was justified by the 9/11 attacks.
However, what can be designated the “McChrystal Moment” – the probably brief period during which the media are again focused on the war in Afghanistan in the wake of the Rolling Stone story about General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, which led to his resignation – provides the best opportunity for some time to raise fundamental questions about this war. Various commentators have already been asking some pretty basic questions: about the effectiveness and affordability of the present “counterinsurgency strategy” and even whether American fighting forces should remain in Afghanistan at all. But I am interested in an even more fundamental question: Whether this war was ever really justified by the publicly given reason: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
This question has two parts: First, did these attacks provide a legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan? Second, if not, did they at least provide a moral justification?
I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in Afghanistan?
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter. Measured by this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.
Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:
“[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.”2
In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War.” The point of the title was that, although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal, the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that many Americans did not realize it, was equally illegal.3 Her argument was based on the following facts:
First, according to international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal.
Second, there are two exceptions: One is that, if your nation has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. This condition was not fulfilled by the 9/11 attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation: Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Indeed, the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans.
The other exception occurs when one nation has certain knowledge that an armed attack by another nation is imminent – too imminent to bring the matter to the Security Council. The need for self-defense must be, in the generally accepted phrase, "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Although the US government claimed that its military operations in Afghanistan were justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this need, even if real, was clearly not urgent, as shown by the fact that the Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost a month later.
US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: “The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks,” so US troops went to Afghanistan “[u]nder the banner of . . . international legitimacy.”4
However, the language of “all necessary steps” is from UN Security Council Resolution 1368, in which the Council, taking note of its own “responsibilities under the Charter," expressed its own readiness “to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.”5
Of course, the UN Security Council might have determined that one of these necessary steps was to authorize an attack on Afghanistan by the United States. But it did not. Resolution 1373, the only other Security Council resolution about this issue, laid out various responses, but these included matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the support of terrorists, exchanging police information about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.6
The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false.
This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.
Read More...
By Prof. David Ray Griffin
June 25, 2010 "Global Research" -- There are many questions to ask about the war in Afghanistan. One that has been widely asked is whether it will turn out to be “Obama’s Vietnam.” This question implies another: Is this war winnable, or is it destined to be a quagmire, like Vietnam? These questions are motivated in part by the widespread agreement that the Afghan government, under Hamid Karzai, is at least as corrupt and incompetent as the government the United States tried to prop up in South Vietnam for 20 years.
Although there are many similarities between these two wars, there is also a big difference: This time, there is no draft. If there were a draft, so that college students and their friends back home were being sent to Afghanistan, there would be huge demonstrations against this war on campuses all across this country. If the sons and daughters of wealthy and middle-class parents were coming home in boxes, or with permanent injuries or post-traumatic stress syndrome, this war would have surely been stopped long ago. People have often asked: Did we learn any of the “lessons of Vietnam”? The US government learned one: If you’re going to fight unpopular wars, don’t have a draft – hire mercenaries!
There are many other questions that have been, and should be, asked about this war, but in this essay, I focus on only one: Did the 9/11 attacks justify the war in Afghanistan?
This question has thus far been considered off-limits, not to be raised in polite company, and certainly not in the mainstream media. It has been permissible, to be sure, to ask whether the war during the past several years has been justified by those attacks so many years ago. But one has not been allowed to ask whether the original invasion was justified by the 9/11 attacks.
However, what can be designated the “McChrystal Moment” – the probably brief period during which the media are again focused on the war in Afghanistan in the wake of the Rolling Stone story about General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, which led to his resignation – provides the best opportunity for some time to raise fundamental questions about this war. Various commentators have already been asking some pretty basic questions: about the effectiveness and affordability of the present “counterinsurgency strategy” and even whether American fighting forces should remain in Afghanistan at all. But I am interested in an even more fundamental question: Whether this war was ever really justified by the publicly given reason: the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
This question has two parts: First, did these attacks provide a legal justification for the invasion of Afghanistan? Second, if not, did they at least provide a moral justification?
I. Did 9/11 Provide Legal Justification for the War in Afghanistan?
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, international law with regard to war has been defined by the UN Charter. Measured by this standard, the US-led war in Afghanistan has been illegal from the outset.
Marjorie Cohn, a well-known professor of international law, wrote in November 2001:
“[T]he bombings of Afghanistan by the United States and the United Kingdom are illegal.”2
In 2008, Cohn repeated this argument in an article entitled “Afghanistan: The Other Illegal War.” The point of the title was that, although it was by then widely accepted that the war in Iraq was illegal, the war in Afghanistan, in spite of the fact that many Americans did not realize it, was equally illegal.3 Her argument was based on the following facts:
First, according to international law as codified in the UN Charter, disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force. Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal.
Second, there are two exceptions: One is that, if your nation has been subjected to an armed attack by another nation, you may respond militarily in self-defense. This condition was not fulfilled by the 9/11 attacks, however, because they were not carried out by another nation: Afghanistan did not attack the United States. Indeed, the 19 men charged with the crime were not Afghans.
The other exception occurs when one nation has certain knowledge that an armed attack by another nation is imminent – too imminent to bring the matter to the Security Council. The need for self-defense must be, in the generally accepted phrase, "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation.” Although the US government claimed that its military operations in Afghanistan were justified by the need to prevent a second attack, this need, even if real, was clearly not urgent, as shown by the fact that the Pentagon did not launch its invasion until almost a month later.
US political leaders have claimed, to be sure, that the UN did authorize the US attack on Afghanistan. This claim, originally made by the Bush-Cheney administration, was repeated by President Obama in his West Point speech of December 1, 2009, in which he said: “The United Nations Security Council endorsed the use of all necessary steps to respond to the 9/11 attacks,” so US troops went to Afghanistan “[u]nder the banner of . . . international legitimacy.”4
However, the language of “all necessary steps” is from UN Security Council Resolution 1368, in which the Council, taking note of its own “responsibilities under the Charter," expressed its own readiness “to take all necessary steps to respond to the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001.”5
Of course, the UN Security Council might have determined that one of these necessary steps was to authorize an attack on Afghanistan by the United States. But it did not. Resolution 1373, the only other Security Council resolution about this issue, laid out various responses, but these included matters such as freezing assets, criminalizing the support of terrorists, exchanging police information about terrorists, and prosecuting terrorists. The use of military force was not mentioned.6
The US war in Afghanistan was not authorized by the UN Security Council in 2001 or at anytime since, so this war began as an illegal war and remains an illegal war today. Our government’s claim to the contrary is false.
This war has been illegal, moreover, not only under international law, but also under US law. The UN Charter is a treaty, which was ratified by the United States, and, according to Article VI of the US Constitution, any treaty ratified by the United States is part of the “supreme law of the land.”7 The war in Afghanistan, therefore, has from the beginning been in violation of US as well as international law. It could not be more illegal.
Read More...
Gale force winds could leave Gulf oil gushing for 2 weeks
MIAMI — Gale-force winds days away from the Gulf of Mexico spill site could force at-sea workers to abandon their oil-collection efforts for two weeks, the head of the national response effort said Friday.
That timetable would conservatively unleash a half-million barrels of oil back in the sea — twice the Exxon Valdez spill. Using upper-end federal estimates of the leak, 840,000 barrels would gush out. That's 35 million gallons.
Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen described the cut-and-run plan in a conference call to reporters Friday morning in which he said, "Realistically, out of an abundance of caution," the Deepwater Horizon well would remain uncapped for "14 days."
A tropical wave in the west-central Caribbean is kicking up thunderstorms from the eastern coasts of Honduras and Nicaragua to Mexico's northeastern Yucatan Peninsula. The depression is likely to become the first tropical storm of the Atlantic hurricane season —Tropical Storm Alex — and is forecast to reach the southwestern Gulf of Mexico by early Monday.
Crews will need five days before a storm hits — 120 hours — to disconnect vessels and shut down, Allen said. Late Friday, however, operations were continuing, pushing the timetable for completing a shutdown at least to the middle of next week.
The decision to stop work will be made when a storm is predicted to reach gale-force winds — 46 mph. On Friday, maximum sustained winds in the depression were near 35 mph, the Hurricane Center said.
In other developments, BP's effort to drill a relief well through 2½ miles of rock to stop the Gulf spill is on target for completion by mid-August, the oil giant said. But BP's stock tumbled anyway over the mounting costs of the disaster and the company's inability to plug the leak sooner.
Also, a financial disclosure report released Friday shows that the Louisiana judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deep-water drilling in the Gulf has sold many of his energy investments. U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman still owns eight energy-related investments, including stock in Exxon Mobil. Among the assets he sold was stock in Transocean, which owned the rig that exploded. The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court Friday to delay Feldman's ruling "to preserve the status quo" during the government's appeal.
Source
That timetable would conservatively unleash a half-million barrels of oil back in the sea — twice the Exxon Valdez spill. Using upper-end federal estimates of the leak, 840,000 barrels would gush out. That's 35 million gallons.
Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen described the cut-and-run plan in a conference call to reporters Friday morning in which he said, "Realistically, out of an abundance of caution," the Deepwater Horizon well would remain uncapped for "14 days."
A tropical wave in the west-central Caribbean is kicking up thunderstorms from the eastern coasts of Honduras and Nicaragua to Mexico's northeastern Yucatan Peninsula. The depression is likely to become the first tropical storm of the Atlantic hurricane season —Tropical Storm Alex — and is forecast to reach the southwestern Gulf of Mexico by early Monday.
Crews will need five days before a storm hits — 120 hours — to disconnect vessels and shut down, Allen said. Late Friday, however, operations were continuing, pushing the timetable for completing a shutdown at least to the middle of next week.
The decision to stop work will be made when a storm is predicted to reach gale-force winds — 46 mph. On Friday, maximum sustained winds in the depression were near 35 mph, the Hurricane Center said.
In other developments, BP's effort to drill a relief well through 2½ miles of rock to stop the Gulf spill is on target for completion by mid-August, the oil giant said. But BP's stock tumbled anyway over the mounting costs of the disaster and the company's inability to plug the leak sooner.
Also, a financial disclosure report released Friday shows that the Louisiana judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deep-water drilling in the Gulf has sold many of his energy investments. U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman still owns eight energy-related investments, including stock in Exxon Mobil. Among the assets he sold was stock in Transocean, which owned the rig that exploded. The Justice Department asked a federal appeals court Friday to delay Feldman's ruling "to preserve the status quo" during the government's appeal.
Source
Springmeier: Government as Instrument of Foreign Tyranny
June 6, 2010
by Fritz Springmeier #65441-065
FCI
3600 Guard Rd.
Lompoc, CA.
USA 93436
Everything we do is a choice between life and death.
"See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil. . . I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live. . ." Deut. 30:15, 19.
And what kind of choices are we choosing today? God gave each of us free will to make choices. Liberty and free will are clearly more life-giving than bondage and dictatorship.
A normal person doesn't need complex definitions of freedom and liberty in order to recognize them. They are internally sensed. Still we need to keep in mind that the better part of freedom is the freedom to do the right things, and not freedom from restrictions. Life will always have restrictions and boundaries.
But how much constraint on our lives is natural (say for instance, Nature's Law of Gravity), and how much is overkill and suffocating?
Here, the California Penal Code lists 186 categories of "crimes against the Sovereignty, Executive Power, and Legislative power of the State."
Next comes 132 categories of "Crimes against the Person," and then an additional 292 categories of crimes against Public Decency, Public Peace, Property, etc.
Liberty. Some Americans assume they have it. Some don't care about it. Some have died for it. But no one is entirely content with the opposite state of affairs -- slavery.
The supposed "happy" pre-Civil War slave burned with a desire for freedom, and would rather eat crow as a freeman, than corn bread and molasses as a slave.
But the same thinking persists, that Americans can be made to be happy slaves.
In a prison lawsuit a few years ago, inmates challenged slavery in prison. The Federal Judge's decision was that there is nothing wrong with slavery in prison.
Yet, many people are not aware that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that an inmate's Constitutional Rights don't stop at the prison wall, but extend to an inmate even while he or she is incarcerated. Or do we no longer have a Constitutional right not to be forced into slavery? Interesting question.
Must we Sacrifice our liberty for some "sacred" government? Is the individual's interests shallow compared to the government's interests?
Supposedly the government is protecting us. Did the government protect America from a badly leaking oil well in the Gulf this year? They had the means, but did they use it? Who is government protecting?
We must be realistic in our expectations. A cat cannot become a mouse. But what made America great in the past was opportunity: educational opportunities, job opportunities, and spiritual opportunities. Americans developed a unique "can do" mentality, because they realized their dreams and because they had the freedom of opportunity.
How much freedom of opportunity is offered by a perfectly engineered Brave New World, where our government designs and molds its citizens' niches in life?
Not everyone is happy with their government. A former patriotic government employee is quoted in David Freed's article "The Wrong Man" The Atlantic (May 2010).
A former pro-government employee, Steve Hatfill, is quoted, "People think they're free in this country, don't kid yourself. This is a police state. The government can pretty much do whatever it wants. . . . I was a guy who trusted the government. Now I don't trust a * * * thing they do."
Steven Hatfill had his life ruined by Circumstantial evidence, until years later his innocence was vindicated.
At my trial/appeal, my sentencing Judge kept saying over and over -- "circumstantial evidence can be used to prove anything."
Indeed, that's why my case got into the books. However, the first Federal Judge I went up against was more honest; she, Judge Brown, said, "There is no evidence against this man."
By law, I am to receive 6 months halfway house time. That is my current struggle.
The U.S. Federal government is now a law unto itself. As Steven Hatfill learned the hard way, "The government can pretty much do whatever it wants."
Source
by Fritz Springmeier #65441-065
FCI
3600 Guard Rd.
Lompoc, CA.
USA 93436
Everything we do is a choice between life and death.
"See, I have set before you this day life and good, and death and evil. . . I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live. . ." Deut. 30:15, 19.
And what kind of choices are we choosing today? God gave each of us free will to make choices. Liberty and free will are clearly more life-giving than bondage and dictatorship.
A normal person doesn't need complex definitions of freedom and liberty in order to recognize them. They are internally sensed. Still we need to keep in mind that the better part of freedom is the freedom to do the right things, and not freedom from restrictions. Life will always have restrictions and boundaries.
But how much constraint on our lives is natural (say for instance, Nature's Law of Gravity), and how much is overkill and suffocating?
Here, the California Penal Code lists 186 categories of "crimes against the Sovereignty, Executive Power, and Legislative power of the State."
Next comes 132 categories of "Crimes against the Person," and then an additional 292 categories of crimes against Public Decency, Public Peace, Property, etc.
Liberty. Some Americans assume they have it. Some don't care about it. Some have died for it. But no one is entirely content with the opposite state of affairs -- slavery.
The supposed "happy" pre-Civil War slave burned with a desire for freedom, and would rather eat crow as a freeman, than corn bread and molasses as a slave.
But the same thinking persists, that Americans can be made to be happy slaves.
In a prison lawsuit a few years ago, inmates challenged slavery in prison. The Federal Judge's decision was that there is nothing wrong with slavery in prison.
Yet, many people are not aware that the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that an inmate's Constitutional Rights don't stop at the prison wall, but extend to an inmate even while he or she is incarcerated. Or do we no longer have a Constitutional right not to be forced into slavery? Interesting question.
Must we Sacrifice our liberty for some "sacred" government? Is the individual's interests shallow compared to the government's interests?
Supposedly the government is protecting us. Did the government protect America from a badly leaking oil well in the Gulf this year? They had the means, but did they use it? Who is government protecting?
We must be realistic in our expectations. A cat cannot become a mouse. But what made America great in the past was opportunity: educational opportunities, job opportunities, and spiritual opportunities. Americans developed a unique "can do" mentality, because they realized their dreams and because they had the freedom of opportunity.
How much freedom of opportunity is offered by a perfectly engineered Brave New World, where our government designs and molds its citizens' niches in life?
Not everyone is happy with their government. A former patriotic government employee is quoted in David Freed's article "The Wrong Man" The Atlantic (May 2010).
A former pro-government employee, Steve Hatfill, is quoted, "People think they're free in this country, don't kid yourself. This is a police state. The government can pretty much do whatever it wants. . . . I was a guy who trusted the government. Now I don't trust a * * * thing they do."
Steven Hatfill had his life ruined by Circumstantial evidence, until years later his innocence was vindicated.
At my trial/appeal, my sentencing Judge kept saying over and over -- "circumstantial evidence can be used to prove anything."
Indeed, that's why my case got into the books. However, the first Federal Judge I went up against was more honest; she, Judge Brown, said, "There is no evidence against this man."
By law, I am to receive 6 months halfway house time. That is my current struggle.
The U.S. Federal government is now a law unto itself. As Steven Hatfill learned the hard way, "The government can pretty much do whatever it wants."
Source
Friday, June 25, 2010
Can You Pass The Hamas Quiz?
The degree of mainstream media repression, obfuscation and nonsense concerning Hamas is endemic in the US and Canada . In my local newspaper, The Montreal Gazette, one searches in vain for meaningful coverage of the respected Goldstone Report yet reference to Barak’s mythical “Generous Offer” persists and ahistorical reporting on Hamas rockets dominates.
While one cannot entirely absolve Palestinians for their dire situation, three categorical truths should always be borne in mind to ensure that there is no confusion between victim and victimizer:
1. Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land.
2. Occupied people have the legal right to resist occupation.
3. Palestinians are the only occupied people to suffer international sanctions (while Israel enjoys significant economic, military and diplomatic support from powerful states).
The following quiz is intended to provide needed context to the reporting on Hamas in the mainstream media.
THE HAMAS QUIZ QUESTIONS:
1. Has Hamas ever deliberately attacked an American target?
2. True or False: Israel supported Hamas in the past.
3. Which groups committed the following terrorist acts in Palestine to further nationalist goals during the British Mandate period?
3.1 July 22, 1946: Terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons.
3.2 December 19, 1947: Terrorists attacked a village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 persons, including 5 children.
3.3 December 30, 1947: Terrorists attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 persons.
3.4 March 3, 1948: Terrorists drove an army truck up to a building in Haifa and escaped before the detonation of 400 pounds of explosives that killed 14 persons and injured 23.
4. Who said the following in 1998? “If I were a young Palestinian, it is possible I would join a terrorist organization.”
5. True or False: The Palestinian school curriculum incites hatred and anti-Semitism.
6. Identify the Middle East entities responsible for the following promulgations:
6.1 “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.” We aim “at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.” “The…establishment of the state of Israel [is]…entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time…”
6.2 “The [entity]…flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.”
6.3 “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.”
6.4 “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” “[We strive] to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security…”
7. Who made the following statements in 2007? “[T]here will remain a state called Israel—this is a matter of fact. …The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.” “As a Palestinian…I speak…for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land.”
8. Which party, Israel or Hamas, broke the six-month ceasefire that was agreed to in June 2008?
9. Who stated the following on Democracy Now! , a news program, on February 14, 2006? “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.”
10. Who, after serving six US secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations, wrote the following: “For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel’s attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker on the Arab-Israeli issue, than surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the needs and requirements of both sides.”
11. Who said the following: “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the Middle East and surrounding regions].”
12. According to the United Nations 1947 Partition Resolution, was the Gaza Strip to be part of the Jewish State or the Arab State?
13. Whose account of the forced expulsion of Palestinians by Jewish fighters in 1948 on the orders of David Ben-Gurion, was censored from his memoirs?
14. When Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, approximately what percentage of the population of Gaza was Jews and approximately what percentage of the land of Gaza was controlled by Israel and Jewish settlers?
15. Who made the the following 2004 statement indicating the primary motivation for Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process…And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of [the US] Congress.”
16. Who stated the following concerning Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections: “The boycott of Hamas after winning a free and fair election in 2006, and subsequent punishment of the people of Gaza, have backfired and the group may be more popular than ever. Polls show that Palestinians voted for Hamas members because of frustration with corruption in the dominant party, Fatah, and because Hamas’ humanitarian efforts and good governance of municipalities had helped people educate and provide for their children amidst a crippling occupation. The same polls show that popular support for Hamas in 2006 was not based on support for the group’s religious or political ideologies. The international community and Israel should have seized on the opportunity to persuade more Palestinians to participate in the political process, which would have done more to undermine extremist ideologies than the current course.”
17. What is the name of the Israeli soldier who was captured on 25 June 2006 by Palestinian fighters in a cross-border raid and has subsequently been held as a prisoner in Gaza by Hamas?
18. What are the names of the two Palestinians that were kidnapped from Gaza by Israeli soldiers on 24 June 2006?
19. Who made the following 2006 statement when referring to the purpose of economic pressure exerted on Gazans after the election victory of Hamas: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
20. Which US leader said the following on 25 January 2006, the day after Hamas won the Gaza elections?: “So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy….And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that’s positive.”
21. Who was the head of the United Nations fact finding mission, mandated to investigate the 2008-2009 military operations in Gaza?
22. Which human rights organization reported the following concerning the 2008-2009 military operation in Gaza ? “[We] found no evidence that Hamas…directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks….In all of the cases investigated…of families killed when their homes were bombed…by Israeli forces…none of the houses struck was being used by armed groups for military activities.…[However we did find that Israeli soldiers] used civilians, including children, as ‘human shields’, endangering their lives…”
23. Who said the following, concerning peace with the Palestinians, on 29 September 2008: “We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the [occupied] territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”
Click For Answers
While one cannot entirely absolve Palestinians for their dire situation, three categorical truths should always be borne in mind to ensure that there is no confusion between victim and victimizer:
1. Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian land.
2. Occupied people have the legal right to resist occupation.
3. Palestinians are the only occupied people to suffer international sanctions (while Israel enjoys significant economic, military and diplomatic support from powerful states).
The following quiz is intended to provide needed context to the reporting on Hamas in the mainstream media.
THE HAMAS QUIZ QUESTIONS:
1. Has Hamas ever deliberately attacked an American target?
2. True or False: Israel supported Hamas in the past.
3. Which groups committed the following terrorist acts in Palestine to further nationalist goals during the British Mandate period?
3.1 July 22, 1946: Terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem killing or injuring more than 200 persons.
3.2 December 19, 1947: Terrorists attacked a village near Safad, blowing up two houses, in the ruins of which were found the bodies of 10 persons, including 5 children.
3.3 December 30, 1947: Terrorists attacked the village of Balad al Sheikh, killing more than 60 persons.
3.4 March 3, 1948: Terrorists drove an army truck up to a building in Haifa and escaped before the detonation of 400 pounds of explosives that killed 14 persons and injured 23.
4. Who said the following in 1998? “If I were a young Palestinian, it is possible I would join a terrorist organization.”
5. True or False: The Palestinian school curriculum incites hatred and anti-Semitism.
6. Identify the Middle East entities responsible for the following promulgations:
6.1 “Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. This is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase.” We aim “at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine.” “The…establishment of the state of Israel [is]…entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time…”
6.2 “The [entity]…flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.”
6.3 “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.”
6.4 “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” “[We strive] to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine, for under the wing of Islam followers of all religions can coexist in security…”
7. Who made the following statements in 2007? “[T]here will remain a state called Israel—this is a matter of fact. …The problem is not that there is an entity called Israel. The problem is that the Palestinian state is non-existent.” “As a Palestinian…I speak…for a state on 1967 borders. It is true that in reality there will be an entity or state called Israel on the rest of Palestinian land.”
8. Which party, Israel or Hamas, broke the six-month ceasefire that was agreed to in June 2008?
9. Who stated the following on Democracy Now! , a news program, on February 14, 2006? “Camp David was not the missed opportunity for the Palestinians, and if I were a Palestinian I would have rejected Camp David, as well.”
10. Who, after serving six US secretaries of state on Arab-Israeli negotiations, wrote the following: “For far too long, many American officials involved in Arab-Israeli peacemaking, myself included, have acted as Israel’s attorney, catering and coordinating with the Israelis at the expense of successful peace negotiations. If the United States wants to be an honest and effective broker on the Arab-Israeli issue, than surely it can have only one client: the pursuit of a solution that meets the needs and requirements of both sides.”
11. Who said the following: “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the Middle East and surrounding regions].”
12. According to the United Nations 1947 Partition Resolution, was the Gaza Strip to be part of the Jewish State or the Arab State?
13. Whose account of the forced expulsion of Palestinians by Jewish fighters in 1948 on the orders of David Ben-Gurion, was censored from his memoirs?
14. When Israel disengaged from the Gaza Strip in August 2005, approximately what percentage of the population of Gaza was Jews and approximately what percentage of the land of Gaza was controlled by Israel and Jewish settlers?
15. Who made the the following 2004 statement indicating the primary motivation for Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from the Gaza Strip: “The significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process…And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda. And all this with authority and permission. All with a presidential blessing and the ratification of both houses of [the US] Congress.”
16. Who stated the following concerning Hamas’s victory in the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections: “The boycott of Hamas after winning a free and fair election in 2006, and subsequent punishment of the people of Gaza, have backfired and the group may be more popular than ever. Polls show that Palestinians voted for Hamas members because of frustration with corruption in the dominant party, Fatah, and because Hamas’ humanitarian efforts and good governance of municipalities had helped people educate and provide for their children amidst a crippling occupation. The same polls show that popular support for Hamas in 2006 was not based on support for the group’s religious or political ideologies. The international community and Israel should have seized on the opportunity to persuade more Palestinians to participate in the political process, which would have done more to undermine extremist ideologies than the current course.”
17. What is the name of the Israeli soldier who was captured on 25 June 2006 by Palestinian fighters in a cross-border raid and has subsequently been held as a prisoner in Gaza by Hamas?
18. What are the names of the two Palestinians that were kidnapped from Gaza by Israeli soldiers on 24 June 2006?
19. Who made the following 2006 statement when referring to the purpose of economic pressure exerted on Gazans after the election victory of Hamas: “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”
20. Which US leader said the following on 25 January 2006, the day after Hamas won the Gaza elections?: “So the Palestinians had an election yesterday, and the results of which remind me about the power of democracy….And there was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that’s positive.”
21. Who was the head of the United Nations fact finding mission, mandated to investigate the 2008-2009 military operations in Gaza?
22. Which human rights organization reported the following concerning the 2008-2009 military operation in Gaza ? “[We] found no evidence that Hamas…directed the movement of civilians to shield military objectives from attacks….In all of the cases investigated…of families killed when their homes were bombed…by Israeli forces…none of the houses struck was being used by armed groups for military activities.…[However we did find that Israeli soldiers] used civilians, including children, as ‘human shields’, endangering their lives…”
23. Who said the following, concerning peace with the Palestinians, on 29 September 2008: “We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the [occupied] territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”
Click For Answers
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)