Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drones. Show all posts

Saturday, December 17, 2016

6.2 - Footnote: drone war in Yemen continues

Footnote: drone war in Yemen continues

Oh, and as a very quick footnote to that: Yes, the US is still carrying out drone strikes in Yemen.

The military acknowledges four drone strikes in Yemen this year, all supposedly targeted against AQAP (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula), which controls some territory in east-central Yemen. On the other hand, relying on published media accounts, New America.org claims there have been 38 such strikes in 2016.

The actual number is uncertain, particularly because the US usually only announces such strikes if either some "high-value target" is killed or the admission is forced because of the civilian casualties it caused. But no, the drone war hasn't stopped just because we don't hear about it as often amidst the roar of war in Syria and western Iraq.

6.1 - War in Yemen; US begins to back away

War in Yemen; US begins to back away

We're going to start with something that eventually, believe it or not, turns into a sort of good news kinda.

Yemen is the poorest country in the Middle East. It has been in a bloody civil war since late 2014. Even as the world was distracted by Syria, the death and destruction in Yemen mounted.

It is estimated that upwards of 10,000 have died in what the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs calls "the forgotten war." The health service there has "completely collapsed." There are 1.5 million malnourished children the country, 370,000 of them severely malnourished. UNICEF reports that of the total population of 27 million people, an estimated 21.2 million, nearly 80% of the total, need humanitarian assistance of some kind. Half of that number is children.

Of that 27 million, 3.3 million, over 10 percent, have been forced from their homes. Over half are "food insecure," meaning they don't know from one day to the next if there will be enough food to eat. Over two-thirds lack access to safe drinking water, which is connected to a recent outbreak of cholera, with the World Health Organization recording almost 5,500 suspected cases a month ago.

I'm not going to even try to disentangle the history of the war, especially since this is hardly the first internal conflict Yemen has experienced. I will just notice that the actual fighting broke out when Houthi rebels seized control of Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, in September 2014. A few months, later, they seized the presidential compound, forcing President Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi to flee the country in late February 2015.

Since then, the fighting between supporters of the Hadi government - with outside aid coming from the US via drone strikes and from Saudi Arabia - and the Houthi - with outside aid from Iran - has continued and gotten more vicious over time. As a quick aside, to show how messy civil wars quickly become, among those supporting the Houthi are supporters of Hadi's predecessor, Ali Abdullah Saleh - who was forced from office by an uprising supported by the Houthi.

Despite the on-going brutality and suffering, neither side has gained a decisive advantage.

Okay, so what's the sorta kinda good news? Because I'd say we could use some about now.

The Good News is that there is actually - or at least it appears there is actually - a limit to the atrocities our government will tolerate for the sake of "stability" and in the name of "fighting terrorism."

Since March 2015, Saudi Arabia has been leading what we call so euphemistically call an "air campaign" in Yemen. It has consisted of attacks on hospitals, schools, markets, factories, and other clearly civilian targets. It has consisted of, that is, war crimes.

And now, belatedly and after multiple protests, but finally, the United States has decided to limit its military support to Saudi Arabia's campaign by cutting off supplies of certain weapons.

Just what weapons are involved is not certain, but it involves precision-guided munitions which the US had been supplying under the notion that such weapons can minimize civilian casualties - only to have them used by the Saudis, it appears, to more accurately target civilian and non-combatant targets. It finally got to be too much even for the cold hearts of the US military establishment.

However, the reason this is kinda sorta good news is that while we can be glad of the decision, it not nearly enough. It is not the cut-off in support that folks had hoped for. For example, the US will keep refueling the aircraft involved and will continue some other arms sales to the kingdom, including a $3.5 billion deal for Chinook cargo helicopters, which the US insists would not be part of offensive actions in Yemen.

As a result, William Hartung of the Center for International Policy called the decision to stop supplying precision-guided munitions a "weak signal," while Samah Hadid of Amnesty International said the move "falls far short of what is needed" and Rep. Ted Lieu from California called the decision to continue the re-fueling "completely bizarre."

There is one other point to consider: This is not the US's first hesitant step away from its embrace of Saudi Arabia's war crimes.

In May, Washington suspended sales of cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia and in August, the US military began to back away from supporting to Saudi Arabia's campaign, pulling out a planning team that was coordinating with the bombing campaign.

Some have suggested that those moves, and this latest one, are less about any moral judgement on Saudi Arabia, an important regional ally we historically have tried very hard to avoid offending, but are more about concerns among some US officials that by not acting, the United States could be implicated in Saudi Arabia's war crimes.

Whatever the reason and yes, however weak the signal, we still should be glad it happened. Now it's time to pull the plug on all military aid and sales to the repressive regime of Saudi Arabia. Now, that would be Good News.

What's Left #6




What's Left
for the week of December 15-21, 2016

This week:
War in Yemen; US begins to back away
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/06/middleeast/yemen-conflict/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38220785
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-38067031
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemeni_Civil_War
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34011187
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/25/civilian-casualties-war-crimes-saudi-arabia-yemen-war/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudiarabia-yemen-exclusive-idUSKBN1421UK
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/12/13/us-halts-some-saudi-arms-sales-to-over-yemen-deaths-concerns.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/20/middleeast/us-military-yemen-saudi-led-coalition/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-12-13/after-shipping-billions-weapons-saudis-obama-decides-halt-sales-following-war-crimes

Footnote: drone war in Yemen continues
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Yemen#2016
http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/yemen-analysis.html

Good News: Tech-sector workers say they will not help create Muslim database
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-surveillance-idUSKBN1422KT?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=408
http://neveragain.tech/

Not Good News: Eight of nine tech companies refuse to pledge not to help with Muslim database
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-idUSKBN13B05C
https://theintercept.com/2016/12/02/of-8-tech-companies-only-twitter-says-it-would-refuse-to-help-build-muslim-registry-for-trump/
https://blog.twitter.com/2016/developer-policies-to-protect-people-s-voices-on-twitter
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/18/police-are-spending-millions-to-monitor-the-social-media-of-protesters-and-suspects/

For the Record: website dishes out sexist advice to women
http://www.lifescript.com/well-being/m-slideshows/top_10_items_youre_too_old_to_wear.aspx?utm_source=aol&utm_medium=syn&utm_campaign=wellbeing

For the Record: Castro had faults, but we have Gitmo
http://avedoncarol.blogspot.com/2016/12/meat-nor-drink-nor-money-have-i-none.html

Update: Court delays ruling on Standing Rock
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/10/1609346/-Federal-Judge-Turns-Down-Quick-Decision-on-Dakota-Access-Pipeline-Lake-Oahe-Easement
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/12/rick-perry-dakota-access-pipeline-donald-trump

Update: DACA students advised to be in US on January 20
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/young-dreamer-immigrants-warned-stop-travel-before-trump-swears-in/?google_editors_picks=true

Update: Ohio Gov. John NotOKsich signs 20-week abortion ban
https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/12/11/dear-press-stop-calling-them-heartbeat-bills-and-call-them-fetal-pole-cardiac-activity-bills/
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/13/gov-kasich-vetoes-heartbeat-bill-signs-law-banning-abortion/21627211/
https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/12/08/1608709/-Ohio-guv-might-veto-heartbeat-bill-and-sign-forced-birthers-real-desire-a-20-week-abortion-ban
http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/12/people-are-protesting-ohios-abortion-ban-with-coat-hangers.html?utm_source=AOL&utm_medium=readMore&utm_campaign=partner

The end of the battle for Aleppo
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38308883
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-battle-for-aleppo-syrias-stalingrad-ends
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-38297986
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/12/last-rebels-in-aleppo-say-assad-forces-are-burning-people-alive.html
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/middleeast/aleppo-syria-government-gains/index.html
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2016/12/13/aleppo-civilians-killed-complete-meltdown-humanity-un/21626984/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/14/aleppo-ceasefire-syria-civilians-evacuate
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2016/dec/15/aleppo-tense-as-evacuations-set-to-begin-live-updates
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-al-nusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html

Sunday, November 06, 2016

1.1 - What we face with a Clinton administration

What we face with a Clinton administration

Hillary Clinton
This show is going to be a bit odd because I am doing it five days before the election, which means, it being a weekly show, that at least some of you are going to see it after the election is over - and what I'm going to be doing here is looking beyond the election to what will confront us after.

I'm doing this under the assumption that Hillary Clinton will be (or is now, depending on when you see this) president-elect, which despite the breathless blather about tightening national polls - which don't mean a damn thing under our presidential elector system - still seems highly likely.

So the question becomes what we of the left are going to have to deal with during a Clinton presidency.

Because Hillary Clinton, bluntly, is not nearly as progressive as she tried to paint herself during the primaries with her sudden and convenient commitment to populism, a commitment that increased in direct proportion to the shrinkage in the polling gap between her and Bernie Sanders and one which it was clear from the beginning could not be trusted: The last day of the Iowa primary campaign, she declared on the stump "I'm a progressive" only to say the very next day during an interview with Chris Matthews that "We've got to get back to the middle, the big center."

So no, not a true progressive.

Rather, she was the preferred candidate of the political, economic, and foreign policy establishments, the candidate that even though they might not be great fans of all of her proposals, she is still the one that establishment feels comfortable with, the one that establishment has confidence might rearrange the apples on the cart but will not upset it.

So we are going to find ourselves in opposition on a lot of issues and on a lot of occasions. And we had better be ready for that. We will have to watch carefully and be prepared to squawk loudly and to not care when we are told - as we will be - to be quiet and get in line behind Hillary because "OMG! Republicans!" We have got to be prepared to stand firm and not back down because just being better then the GOPpers is not good enough!

You want specifics, let me give you some on a few big issues.

Right at the top, remember that Hillary Clinton was the candidate of Wall Street, which raised $23 million for her campaign, besides having paid her at least $26.1 million in speaking fees over the years.

I have said a number of times that she has so many ties to Wall Street it looks like some kind of kinky bondage party. We are going to have to watch carefully and very likely raise a stink about who she wants to bring on board as advisers and more importantly regulators.

Because in speeches to the bankers and during the campaign she has argued for having the foxes guard the chicken coop, saying that Wall Street executives, not financial or legal experts from outside the industry, not consumer advocates, but the people who run the banks, are the best people to call in to regulate the banks.

Even in 2014, at a time everyone knew she was going to run but hadn't announced her candidacy, Politico was writing that "the big bankers love Clinton, and by and large they badly want her to be president" because she will not tamper with the Street's vast money pot.

In fact, she may even look to add to it: Tony James, president of the Blackstone Group hedge fund and someone whose name has been floated for Clinton's Treasury Secretary, has been openly promoting a plan to give financial firms control of hundreds of billions of dollars in retirement savings - and the word is Clinton's top aides are warming to the idea.

This plan would replace individual voluntary 401(k)s with a requirement that workers and employers to put a percentage of payroll aside, but not into Social Security, into individual retirement accounts to be, in James' words, "invested well in pooled plans run by professional investment managers" - in other words, by outfits like Blackstone, which could collect a fortune in fees.

What George Bush failed to accomplish - privatizing Social Security - Hillary Clinton could help along.

We also have to be prepared to make a stink not only over actions but over inactions, as there is every indication that a Clinton administration will continue the big bank protection racket of the Obama administration, lots of tough talk combined with no action.

And in keeping watch on that, we have to bear in mind that Hillary Clinton has blamed the 2008 crash on most everything except the deregulation championed by Bill Clinton and enacted during his administration and that she continues to oppose reinstating Glass-Steagall.

Beyond that, her entire supposedly "progressive" agenda consists almost entirely of nibbling around the edges, of maybe incremental change that will be presented to us as shockingly dramatic progress but which we will have to be prepared to say out loud is just not good enough.

Consider health care, where she proposes to tweak Obamacare - but she has specifically rejected single-payer in so many words, meaning anything she would do still has the failings of Obamacare in that she still relies on the insurance industry, still depends to work at all on the insurance industry thinking it's profitable enough, and the whole program is actually about health insurance, not about health care. We have to be take the opening offered by any such tweak to demand at least single-payer and even better a national health system because the Affordable Care Act is not good enough.

On climate change, she is all over the map and despite some good rhetoric on the topic, it's policies, not fine words, which matter, and on that count it doesn't look so good.

In a speech, she told an energy group that she wants to "defend natural gas" and, referring people pushing the slogan "keep it in the ground," "it" being fossil fuels, over a concern for global warming, she called them "wild" and said they should "get a life."

She finally came out against the Keystone XL pipeline after dithering about it until it was clearly unpopular, but she said she did it because it was "a distraction," not because it was a bad idea.

During the primaries she was forced to say she is against fracking but she told that same energy group that she wants to "defend" fracking and the fact is that during her time as secretary of state, she sought to export fracking to countries all over the world.

And to show how much we can trust her public assurances on the topic, she picked former Senator Ken Salazar, a big fan of fracking, to chair her presidential transition team.

Which in turn raises another issue where we have to watch and be ready to fight. Because Ken Salazar is also a big fan of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the TPP.

Clinton, as is fairly well known, had been in favor of the TPP; in fact she had called it "the gold standard" for trade agreements. But in the face of clear opposition among the public and Bernie Sanders making it an issue in the primaries, she gradually shifted her position from support to opposition. She even said she was opposed to a vote on the agreement during the lame duck Congressional session after the election.

But there is genuine reason to question how sincere that opposition is and how long past election day it will last.

There was the statement back in January by Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue that once elected, Clinton would flip back to supporting the TPP.

There was the statement in July from Virginia governor and Clinton bestie Terry McAuliffe that once in office, a few tweaks would enable Clinton to support the pact.

Her VP-to-be, Tim Kaine, is a "free trade" zealot who had been the Senate's most fanatical supporter of the TPP.

And of course there was the selection of Salazar to head the transition team.

On top of all that came leaked emails, one which made it clear that she opposed the deal at least in public because her campaign feared she would be "eaten alive" by labor and Sanders supporters if she didn't.

So even if the pact does not pass during the lame-duck session - which, happily, seems likely - that does not mean it will not come up again in the spring with a few "tweaks" that have turned it back into "the gold standard."

We will have to be prepared to fight on matters both of privacy and government secrecy. In Congress, she supported both the Patriot Act and its reauthorization. She has defended NSA spying. She has called American hero Edward Snowden "an enabler of terrorism" who should be prosecuted and imprisoned. During the first debate with TheRump she advocated an "intelligence surge," a new slogan describing, among other things, more intensive domestic surveillance.

In fact, her obsession with official secrecy is so great that as Secretary of State, she once threatened the United Kingdom with shutting off intelligence cooperation if a UK court as part of a then-current case published details of the mistreatment of a prisoner who had been wrongly imprisoned at Gitmo.

That mention of Gitmo brings us to another major concern: Hillary Clinton was not only the candidate of Wall Street, she was the candidate of the neocons - who supported her precisely because she was, in the words of one, "the candidate of the status quo" who would "resist systematic change" - and she was the candidate of the war hawks.

Clinton is a warhawk, far more than Obama ever was - which, when you consider he bombed seven countries during his administration and has troops on the ground in three, is saying something.

For example, by all accounts she was as Secretary of State the strongest voice within the White House for intervention in Libya. That worked out so well that after Qaddafi was killed -an event she quite literally laughed off as "we came, we saw, he died" - Libya descended into the chaos of a multi-sided civil war from which it still has not emerged.

She supported an expansion of the war in Afghanistan, one even bigger than the generals did, and resisted the drawdown of troops.

She has "wholeheartedly backed" the drone war in Pakistan and other nations that has killed at least hundreds of civilians and likely many more; supported so much so that as Secretary of State she had her legal counsel develop a legal rationale for expanding it.

When it comes to Israel, the only fair word is sycophant. From proposing as a candidate in 2008 a US "nuclear umbrella" over Israel, to in 2012, saying "We've gotta support Israel 110 percent here" while getting any mention of the Israeli siege of Gaza scrubbed from a ceasefire proposal, to in 2014, declaring that "If I were the prime minister of Israel, you're damn right I would expect to have [security] control" over the West Bank, she has repeatedly shown a clear bias and declared positions that would make the two-state solution in which she falsely claims to believe, impossible.

She declared a position on Iran's nuclear program that, had it been adopted, would have undermined the agreement that was reached and later said that her policy on Iran would be "distrust and verify." Which is at least consistent: During the 2008 primaries, she called Obama "naive" for saying he would be willing to talk to the Iranians.

And then there is Syria.

She has bemoaned that the US has not been more involved in Syria. As Secretary of State, she devised a plan to arm and train "moderate" rebel factions to create a "credible fighting force."

During the primary campaign she said Obama was "not tough enough" on Syria and called for more special ops troops to train local forces.

During primary debates, she called for a "safe zone" to be established in Syria, something that would require ground troops because there is no other way to secure such a zone.

And she has continued to argue for US-imposed "no-fly zones" in Syria, despite being unable during the third debate with TheRump to say what would happen if a Russian plane violated such a no-fly zone and despite having acknowledged in 2013 that imposing a no-fly zone would mean taking out air defense systems, including in populated areas, and that in doing so "you're going to kill a lot of Syrians."

Here's the bottom line on all this, as reported by the Washington Post on October 20:
In the rarefied world of the Washington foreign policy establishment, President Obama's departure from the White House - and the possible return of a more conventional and hawkish Hillary Clinton - is being met with quiet relief.
That foreign policy elite, which wants a "more assertive" foreign policy, which is eager for a "more interventionist" foreign policy, is actively looking forward to a Clinton presidency.

All of which means under President Hillary Clinton we face the prospect, the very real prospect, of more bombings and more wars in more places, including the clear possibility of a direct confrontation with Russia.

Altogether, silence, here as elsewhere, is not an option.

What's Left #1


What's Left
for the week of November 3-9, 2016

This week:

What we face with a Clinton administration
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/02/2364-rare-and-potentially-my-only.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/06/2508-update-what-to-expect-from-hillary.html
http://time.com/4532511/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-emails-john-podesta/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/927
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/11/why-wall-street-loves-hillary-112782
http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/hillary-clinton-wall-street-financial-industry-may-control-retirement-savings
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/10/nomi-prins-hillary-clinton-will-continue-the-big-bank-protection-racket.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDBt1y0rgew
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/22/emails-show-clinton-campaign-weighing-keystone-xl-decision.html
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/23/hillary-clinton-fracking/
https://theintercept.com/2016/08/16/hillary-clinton-picks-tpp-and-fracking-advocate-to-set-up-her-white-house/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/05/2472-some-updates-on-secret-trade.html
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/34629-chamber-of-commerce-lobbyist-tom-donohue-clinton-will-support-tpp-after-election
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/terry-mcauliffe-hillary-clinton-tpp-trade-226253
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/08/2588-tpp-headed-for-lame-duck-showdown.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjMGHb_I_bo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/did-wikileaks-make-hillary-clinton-look-two-faced-or-clear-eyed/2016/10/12/ae59f3ba-8fc7-11e6-a6a3-d50061aa9fae_story.html?utm_term=.a2eca67c566c&wpisrc=nl_headlines&wpmm=1
http://time.com/4532511/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-emails-john-podesta/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/journalist_hillary_clintons_criticism_of_snowden
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/23/hillary-clinton-national-security-plan-isis-baghdadi
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2009/08/here-we-go-again.html
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/02/1915-little-thing-wall-street-and.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y
http://www.voanews.com/a/libya-rival-governments-vie-control/3554992.html
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-concerned-force-libyas-capital-095220442.html?ref=gs
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2008/12/um-what-happened-to-that-no-blank-check.html
http://www.alternet.org/world/5-most-hawkish-positions-embraced-hillary-clinton
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2012/11/left-side-of-aisle-84-part-3.html
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/14/face-it-a-vote-for-hillary-clinton-is-a-vote-for-war.html
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33299-clinton-syria-fact-check-safe-zones-ground-troops
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/hillary-syria-fact-check_b_8333396.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zone-third-debate_us_58084280e4b0180a36e91a53
http://www.infowars.com/clinton-on-no-fly-zone-in-2013-youre-going-to-kill-a-lot-of-syrians-in-2016-could-save-lives/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/washington-foreign-policy-elites-not-sorry-to-see-obama-go/2016/10/20/bd2334a2-9228-11e6-9c52-0b10449e33c4_story.html#comments

Summing up: the role of the left

Re-introducing myself

Saturday, September 17, 2016

260.6 - The legacy of 9/11

The legacy of 9/11

Yeah, so it's been 15 years. We remember 9/11, oh yes we do and there are a good number of pundits and officials to make sure we do just in case we don't.

And amid the pundits and officials symbolically patting the nation on the back for how supposedly brave and resilient we are even as we have been by those same voices conditioned, like one of Pavlov's dogs, to twitch with fear at the word "Islamic" comes the news that over the Labor Day weekend, one of the legacies of 9/11 was on display: Over those three days, the US military bombed six different countries spanning Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.

It included 45 bombing raids in Iraq and Syria and 20 targets in the Libyan city of Sirte, plus attacks in Yemen, Somalia, and Afghanistan. All they needed was to hit someplace in Pakistan to have run the entire list of nations we have been bombing in recent years.

What George Bush pronounced an "extended campaign against terrorism" has become what it had to become, what it could not fail to become: an "extended campaign" of unending war, a campaign now spread to multiple nations. It is one of our legacies of 9/11.

Oh, but this spreading war is, officials insist, all necessary due to the endurance and geographic spread of al-Qaeda and its various mutations, including Daesh, that is, ISIS.

Countries we have bombed in recent years
Paul Scharre, a former Army Ranger and Pentagon official now at the Center for a New American Security, claims that the Obama administration "really wanted to end these wars," but instead has "combat operations on multiple fronts." He than added, in the most unintentionally telling remark you will hear anywhere this week, "That's just the unfortunate reality of the terrorism threat today."

Just the unfortunate reality. Indeed, that's what we're supposed to accept: That's just the way it is. Our wars are an "unfortunate reality."

It's all passive voice. The wars, or rather their causes, their roots, really have nothing to do with us. Nothing to do with anything we did or didn't do. Nothing to do with the invasions of Afghanistan or Iraq. Nothing to do with the drone attacks on Pakistan. We are merely helpless victims, passive observers almost, just doing what is necessary, never initiating anything, just responding always to others with actions that have no repercussions themselves. Because our actions provoke no response. Have no blowback. No unintended consequences. It's all just an "unfortunate reality."

Just a couple of weeks after 9/11, I wrote something about that event that began this way:
If the history of the Middle East over the last 30 years proves nothing else [remembering this is the 30 years preceding 2001], it proves beyond question that neither terrorism nor "counter"-terrorism, neither retaliation nor counter-retaliation nor counter-counter-retaliation will stop the circle of death - particularly not so long as those on each side insist on seeing themselves at the wronged innocents only defending themselves against unreasoning violence or oppression or exploitation (or all three) while viewing their adversaries as evil brutes fully aware of their own brutality. Another cycle of mayhem is simply not an answer.
And yet more cycles of mayhem, more counter-counter-counter-counter-retaliation is exactly what we've seen. And there is no sign of it ending. In fact, Scharre said the US bombing campaigns are an appropriate response because they can be sustained over time in the same way that the US has committed to long-term military presences in places such as Germany and South Korea. That is, he's saying, decades of bombing cities and towns is the same as troop presence by mutually-agreed treaty in places not at war.

That piece I wrote shortly after 9/11 ended this way:
Our best targets for "attack" in this "extended campaign" are not the actual terrorists (who likely number no more than a few thousand) but the tens of thousands, the millions, among who they recruit and from who they draw their strength. Our best weapons are bread and butter, not bombs; our best tactic reconstruction, not retaliation; our best strategy justice, not jingoism. The best way to minimize terrorism is to ensure that the dispossessed have a genuine stake in the world and don't see us as grasping bullies - and the best way not to be seen as a grasping bully is not to be one.
I'll let you decide how well what I wrote 15 years ago has stood up to time and events. But the truth remains that unending war is one of our legacies of 9/11, a legacy that has in point of fact made the world less safe than it was 15 years ago.

Jeh Johnson
One legacy, but not the only. Because we also celebrated the anniversary of 9/11 by seeing Jeh Johnson, secretary of the department for the protection of the fatherland, going around the national media circuit, pushing the latest version of "be afraid, be very afraid," this version being the dark, looming specter of "self-radicalized actors" in the US, a specter requiring what one outlet called "a modern-day version of Cold Ear-era ideological screenings."

(Apparently, the chant of "ISIS is coming! ISIS is coming!" no longer has quite the impact it once did and so some sort of re-boot was required.)

Just how much far Johnson go in spinning his around-the-campfire tales of dark and evil doings? He asserted that "in the current environment, where we have to deal with the prospect of a lone wolf actor or a self-radicalized actor, just saying there's no specific credible threat doesn't tell the whole story." So even though there is no evidence of a threat, we have to act as if there is evidence of a threat.

This is the attitude we have adopted since 9/1l, this is what the official notion of defending our rights - that is, the notion of what officialdom has adopted as to what constitutes defending our rights - has come to: deliberately promoted constant fear, even in the absence of evidence of a threat.

So much so, in fact, that under earlier this year, the FBI told high schools across the country to report to the government students who criticize government policies or "western corruption" or who say they are anarchists on the grounds that they are potential future terrorists. Schools also had it suggested to them that young people who are poor, who are immigrants, or who travel to "suspicious" countries are more likely to become terrorists. In fact, the feds claimed that that young people "possess inherent risk factors" that make them more likely to become terrorists, risk factors so broadly and vaguely defined that almost any high school student could be deemed worthy of government surveillance.

That is another legacy of 9/11.

And then there are the laws that are enabled by that reign of fear and suspicion, the first and best-known being the so-called Patriot Act, or as I call it, the Traitor Act for its impact on civil liberties and privacy, for its dramatic expansion of the ability of the spooks to poke, prod, pry, and probe into every aspect of our lives.

In the wake of its passage, I noted that no one had been able to come up with a single argument as to how if the law's provisions had been in place it would have prevented 9/11. Because there weren't any such arguments and in fact the failure over 9/11 was not in the lack of authority but in not using the authority that already existed. So I wrote that
[a]dding more such powers, more authority to invade our privacy, restrict our freedoms, track our movements, more ability to substitute suspicion for proof - all while reducing judicial oversight - only creates more opportunities for official abuse.
Diagram of data from Prism
And abuse of course followed. It's been out of the news of late, so I do have to ask: Have we forgotten what Edward Snowden revealed? Have we forgotten about the collection of phone metadata of every call within, into, or out of the US? Have we forgotten the PRISM program, under which essentially all internet traffic that passed through the US was passed through the NSA? Have we forgotten about the agency's programs to have the ability to hack into any computer system it wanted to, individual, corporate, or government, friend or foe, anywhere in the world, no matter how well protected or encoded?

Oh, yeah, right, supposedly the so-called USA Freedom Act fixed all that last year, so why worry - except it didn't: About the only thing it did was to end the bulk collection of phone metadata by the NSA under Section 215 of the Traitor Act while requiring that phone companies keep the data so the spooks could get a court order to see it. About the only thing that changed was who held the records.

Meanwhile, it did nothing about Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is what the spooks use to justify sweeping up as much of the Internet as they can get their hands on.

And it wasn't even relevant to Executive Order 12333, or "1-2-triple-3" as I understand it is known. It's a presidential directive dating from 1981 that defines US spy operations. It allows the NSA to capture and retain essentially any data it can find, including the actual content of email, phone calls, whatever, so long as the information is gathered outside the US.

But in a technologically-interconnected world unlike anything that existed when the order was first issued, a world where an e-mail from New York to New Jersey is likely to wind up on a server in, perhaps, Brazil or Japan or Britain, the restriction to "outside the US" is utterly meaningless, utterly without effect, because our personal data can very easily - is even very likely to be - stored somewhere outside the US.

The only requirement left is the open door that the information be gathered in the course of "a lawful foreign intelligence investigation." And even if that information is "incidental," having no connection to the person or group that is the supposed actual target of the investigation, EO 12333 specifically allows for the NSA to keep it. No warrant is required, no court approval is neede, no such collection need be reported to Congress, nor do the people whose personal information is "incidentally" swept up have to be told.

All of which means that the spooks' slogan has effectively become "all your data are belonging to us."

And that, too, is a legacy of 9/11.

James Clapper
And finally, let's not forget that even as the government has claimed authority to strip away all of our privacy, all of our secrets, in pursuit of the chimera of "national security," that despite a few victories, the government's own secrets are held more tightly than ever, to the point where in April, Congress was still trying to find out from James Clapper, the director of national intelligence, just how many US citizens had had their personal info "incidentally" swept into the government's databanks.

The fact is, during the Obama administration, there have been eight prosecutions of whistleblowers under the 1917 Espionage Act - more than double the number under all previous presidents combined. And know - and remember this any time someone says anything about how Edward Snowden should return because of, as Hillary Clinton put it, "all the protections we have for whistleblowers" - know that if you are charged under the Espionage Act, as Snowden surely would be, you are legally barred from arguing in your defense that the classified material you leaked was improperly classified. You can't argue it never should have been classified. You can't argue that the "secrets" were classified solely because they were embarrassing to officials and had no impact on national security. You can't argue that release of the materials was actually of benefit to the public. You can't even testify as to why you did it. So you tell me what "protections" would be available for Edward Snowden.

So what is our legacy of 9/11?

We as a people let one terrible tragedy, one serious attack, one bloody assault, stampede us into a war in Afghanistan which has killed over 100,000 people and nearly 15 years later continues seemingly without end, and a war in Iraq which has killed hundreds of thousands, opened a door to al-Qaeda and its demon spawn ISIS, and has morphed into the war in Iraq and Syria with hundreds of thousands more dead, stampede us into actually, seriously, arguing whether or not torture and other war crimes are legitimate if we do them, stampede us into living with a constant undercurrent of promoted fear sufficient to stampede us in turn into surrendering our privacy, our civil liberties, and our ability to know what is being done supposedly on our behalf by a government that increasingly is the tool of the intelligence community rather than the other way around, stampede us into passively allowing the government to decide what we know, how much of it we know, and when we know it, stampede us into heading down a slippery slope at the bottom of which is the complete loss of what it means to be a free people.

That is our legacy of 9/11. It is a legacy we need to reject - strongly and clearly.

Sources cited in links:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-reminder-of-the-permanent-wars-dozens-of-us-airstrikes-in-six-countries/2016/09/08/77cde914-7514-11e6-be4f-3f42f2e5a49e_story.html?wpisrc=nl_p1most-partner-1&wpmm=1
http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-Global-Terrorism-Index-Report.pdf
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/homeland-security-chief-hijacking-tragedy-911-scare-public-about-fears-domestic
http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/fbi-has-new-plan-spy-high-school-students-across-country
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/04/nsas-call-record-program-911-hijacker-and-failure-bulk-collection
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/search?q=snowden
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/powerful-nsa-hacking-tools-have-been-revealed-online/2016/08/16/bce4f974-63c7-11e6-96c0-37533479f3f5_story.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/02/patriot-act-usa-freedom-act-senate-vote/28345747/
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/primer-executive-order-12333-mass-surveillance-starlet
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/meet-executive-order-12333-the-reagan-rule-that-lets-the-nsa-spy-on-americans/2014/07/18/93d2ac22-0b93-11e4-b8e5-d0de80767fc2_story.html?utm_term=.09701999c148
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-nsa-intercepted-data-those-not-targeted-far-outnumber-the-foreigners-who-are/2014/07/05/8139adf8-045a-11e4-8572-4b1b969b6322_story.html?tid=a_inl
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dorothy-samuels/freedom-of-information-improvement-act_b_10535208.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-galka/in-2015-the-government-se_b_9666772.html
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/22/james-clapper-nsa-spying-us-data-collection-senate-hearing
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/16/whistleblowers-double-standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/14/obamas_war_on_whistleblowers_forced_edward
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2016/War%20in%20Afghanistan%20and%20Pakistan%20UPDATE_FINAL_corrected%20date.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_Civil_War
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=torture+okay&t=hn&ia=web
http://thenewpress.com/books/war-on-leakers

Sunday, August 07, 2016

255.4 - US militarism, Hiroshima to Libya

US militarism, Hiroshima to Libya

I'm going to spend just a couple of minutes, not going to go on a long rant about it, but just a couple of minutes to note two anniversaries: August 6 and August 9 are the 71st anniversaries of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only two times - happily - nuclear weapons have actually be set off in war and two of the greatest war crimes at least in our history if not the world's.

And yes, they were war crimes because they were so unnecessary. In the spring and summer of 1945, Japan was a defeated nation. Its army had been driven back to its own shores, its navy had been largely destroyed, its air force decimated, even its air defenses so beaten down that the military could not mount an effective defense against US air raids that had already leveled large parts of Tokyo and other major cities and ports.

So much so that, as is reasonably if not largely common knowledge by now, Japan had made overtures about surrender before the attack on Hiroshima. What is less commonly known is that the US rejected that offer because the surrender was not unconditional - only to accept essentially the same terms after the bombing of Nagasaki.

Since the bombings gained so little in the surrender terms, so little in political or military terms, it raises the question of why they were done. And the answer is simple even as it is chilling: The real target was not Japan, it was the Soviet Union, and the bombings were to show to Stalin that we had this enormous power and were ready to use it so he'd better be really, really careful about crossing us in the postwar world.

Whether or not and to what degree that attempt at intimidation, one carried out on the bodies of scores of thousands of Japanese in each of the two cities, is not important. What is important is that that was the real reason, the underlying reason, the deep reason, why Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed.

Many nations, including Germany and Japan and more recently places like El Salvador and Chile have undertaken efforts to confront and face their own pasts of violence and militarism, whether that violence and militarism was turned outward, as in the cases of Germany and Japan, or inward against their own people, as it was in El Salvador and Chile. But face them they did. It is another area in which we in the US lag far behind.

And don't expect that to change: Our Nobel peace prize Prez has bombed seven countries in seven years: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and Somalia. He tried to get Iraq to let US troops stay beyond the agreed withdrawal date, backing off only because Iraq refused to give US troops a blanket exemption from Iraqi laws. He has stretched out our presence in Afghanistan, is expanding our presence in Iraq - and has now initiated what the Pentagon is calling an "extended campaign" of bombing in Libya, another land that, like Iraq, thanks to our "help" has replaced repression that killed a few with chaos that has killed unknown thousands.

And all we got at Democratic National Convention was chest-thumping over how "tough" we have been and are being even as the Amazing Mr. O looks forward to handing over the reins to someone even more of a militarist than he has been.

A age of perpetual warfare is on us - and far too many of us don't seem to care because we are not the ones doing the dying.

And most of those who pass themselves off as "progressive" don't even have the decency to be ashamed.

Sources cited in links:
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2015/08/2156-70th-anniversary-of-bombings-of.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-security-idUSKCN10C2NF?feedType=RSS&feedName=newsOne&google_editors_picks=true
http://www.salon.com/2016/08/01/obama_clinton_and_a_permanent_state_of_war_the_never_ending_bloodshed_that_one_wants_to_talk_about/?google_editors_picks=true

Sunday, March 06, 2016

239.3 - US expands bombing/drone war to 7th majority-Muslim nation: Libya

US expands bombing/drone war to 7th majority-Muslim nation: Libya

Okay, I have, something else to talk about, a topic related to the previous ones. And as I go through this, I want you to be asking yourself how much you have heard about this, in fact, have you heard about it at all? Has any of it been mentioned, even obliquely, on the campaign trail by anyone on either side?

Three weeks ago, I told you that the Obama administration was drawing up plans for a new military intervention in Libya. The first one, in 2011, was sold as a humanitarian effort to protect Libyan civilians from a massacre but was actually a cover for assisting in overthrowing Muammar Qaddafi.

That effort was strongly endorsed by Hillary Clinton; indeed a major New York Times two-part story shows how she was the major factor in convincing Obama to do it, up to and including arming favored opposition groups. That plan went so well that after Qaddafi was killed, Libya descended into the chaos of a multi-sided civil war which has killed thousands and refugeed hundreds of thousands and from which it has not emerged. In the famous words of Rick Perry, oops.

Oh, but it's different this time! This time it's not about protecting civilians or any such nonsense, it's about opening a new front in the fight against ISIS ISIS ISIS! by taking "decisive military action" against some groups in Libya laying claim to the name.

I also said those three weeks ago that this is being planned without any debate in Congress, without any remotely plausible claims of lawful authority, without regard to the fact that it was Barack Obama himself who said in 2007 that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," and without, it seems, any consideration of how similar "decisive actions" have lead only to deepening US military involvement in Syria and Iraq, with "boots on the ground" in both places playing an increasingly hands-on role.

Okay, that was three weeks ago. What you need to know now is that our Nobel Peace Prize president, Generalissimo Hopey-Changey, has acted on those plans, bombing an ISIS-controlled area in western Libya, killing approximately 40 people, including two hostages - still without any Congressional debate, much less authorization, but with the open acknowledgement that there may be more such attacks as top military officials, such as Gen. Donald Bolduc, commander of US special operations forces in Africa, are saying that Daesh is already too strong in Libya to be "rolled back" without direct US military involvement.

Not only was this bombing done without the approval of Congress, it was done without the approval or even knowledge of the only recognized government in Libya, which decried it as "a clear and flagrant violation of sovereignty of the Libyan state."

But there's more: The US military has also deployed special operations troops to Libya, boots on the ground, to give aid and training to - you guessed it - favored militias, assuming, as we did in Iraq and have done in Syria to such great success, that we can pick out "the good guys" who will fight Daesh for us from "the bad guys" who won't. Remember the classic definition of insanity?*

There's something else you need to understand: I referred to "the only recognized government" because there are three forces, each claiming to be the legitimate government. One, the recognized one, was elected or at least came in through an election, even if it was one marked by threats and violence to the point where voting didn't even occur some places and produced a turnout of just 18%.

After that election, Islamist parties that did poorly - gaining only 30 of 200 seats in the unicameral legislature (called the Council of Deputies) - staged a coup, forcing the new government to flee the capitol of Tripoli for the eastern city of Tobruk. The Libyan Supreme Court, still in Tripoli and all but literally under the gun, annulled the election as unconstitutional, which the Islamist parties used as a basis for saying that they are the rightful government rather than the one set in Tobruk, even though that one is still the one internationally recognized.

To make this more complicated, in January the UN Security Council recognized or more accurately created a third government, which is really just a means to push for the other two governments to join with them in a national unity government. To give you an idea of the state that Libya is in, this third government is based in Tunisia because it would be too dangerous in Libya itself.

And what's our answer to this clusterfuck of social and political chaos? More bombs! More "boots on the ground!" More trying to pick out the militias with the white hats from the militias with the black hats! More more more!

And I have to be fair here, I do. It's not just the US.

The UK has also sent special forces into Libya, working with the US to aid those select local militias. What's more, French special forces, including some openly operating on the front lines, were already there.

And that may be just the beginning. The new, UN-created "government" was consciously designed to be able to provide a pretext for justifying future, deeper military involvement by "inviting" or "requesting" such a wider war. After all, US Secretary of War Ashton Carter says, he is "certain they will want help."

The US, the UK, France, and Italy have all promised to expand their military campaigns against Daesh in Libya if that "national unity government" is ever created - failing which, some fig leaf excuse can always be found, even assuming our various Generalissimos feel the need for one in a way they have not so far.

Bottom line here for us as Americans: In 2015, the US dropped nearly 24,000 bombs on six nations, every one of them Muslim-majority. We are now waging bombing and drone campaigns in at least seven countries that we, the public, know of: Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya.

And it never seems to occur to us that what we're doing isn't working. It isn't making us more secure, it's making the lives of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, of people in those countries less secure, lives which it appears we only care about as some metric in a war that shows no sign of ending or indeed doing anything other than slowly expanding, a war that has turned even those with humane instincts - and I will say I include Barack Obama in that number - into people who are cold and aloof in matters of life and death, war and peace, safety and destruction, where bombing runs are just another errand, just another everyday chore - and I include Barack Obama in that number as well.

Indeed, when that report came out a few weeks ago about the plan for a new bombing campaign in Libya, the one I cited three weeks ago, the White House pointed out in a daily press briefing that it has actually already carried out airstrikes in Libya since the 2011 war, so, y'know, what's the big deal?

The big deal is the hardening of the soul that this demonstrates, the ossification of the spirit that enables someone to present bombing another nation as a minor, almost routine matter, that enables someone to forget that what lies on the other end of that minor matter is shredded limbs and shattered lives, the remnants of what moments before were living, breathing human beings.

But, comes the response, they are the enemy! They want to kill us! They are monsters, cruel, unrelenting, unforgiving! Which, for some portion of those we destroy, would be true. Fanaticism always gives rise to brutalities in whatever form it arises, with ultimately only the justifications, not the brutalities, varying.

So yes, terrorism - or, more accurately and the distinction is important, the ideologies that drive terrorism - must be resisted. The question is not if, but how and the fact is, the undeniable fact is, what we're doing hasn't worked. It isn't working. It won't work until we realize that we keep thinking of terrorism, of driven fanaticism, as a matter of people when it is in reality a matter of ideology, a matter of an idea. And you can't bomb an idea into submission unless you're prepared to essentially commit genocide.

We have been told so many times in so many ways that the "fight against terrorism" will be an "extended campaign." Likely so.

But the truth is that our best targets for "attack" in this "extended campaign" are not the actual terrorists (who number in the thousands) but the tens of thousands, the millions, among who they recruit and from who they draw their strength. Our best weapons are bread and butter, not bombs; our best tactic reconstruction, not retaliation; our best strategy justice, not jingoism. The best way to minimize terrorism is to ensure that the dispossessed and the spiritually seeking have a genuine stake in the world and don't see us as invaders or as grasping bullies - and the best way not to be seen as an invader or a grasping bully is not to be one.

That last paragraph is pretty much the same thing I wrote in an op-ed in the weeks after 9/11. In the ensuring more than 14 years, I have found no reason to change my mind.

*Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/28/1492885/-The-invasion-of-Libya-is-in-progress
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/02/2374-bernie-sanders-just-like-hillary.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/26/the_real_benghazi_scandal_that_is_being_ignored_how_hillary_clinton_and_the_obama_administration_destroyed_libya/
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/20/u_s_kicks_off_its_new_bombing_campaign_in_libya_killing_2_serbian_embassy_workers/
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/29/pentagon-signals-support-expanded-operations-libya/81107750/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/libya-will-need-american-help-to-defeat-islamic-state-general-says-1456776041
http://news.yahoo.com/recognised-libya-govt-condemns-us-strike-jihadists-171414242.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Council_of_Deputies_election,_2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Deputies
http://intpolicydigest.org/2016/01/05/un-takes-the-wrong-road-in-libya/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/12176114/British-advisers-deployed-to-Libya-to-build-anti-Isil-cells.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/briefly-takes-center-strategic-libyan-city-37153386
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/22/un-support-libya-government-open-door-potential-uk-airstrikes-isis
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/10/obama_on_verge_of_launching_another_bombing_campaign_in_libya_after_dropping_23144_bombs_on_six_countries_in_2015/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/09/911-2.html

Saturday, March 05, 2016

Left Side of the Aisle #239




Left Side of the Aisle
for the week of March 2 - 9, 2015

This week:

Good News: partial ceasefire in Syria
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2016/0229/UN-chief-Syria-cease-fire-holding-despite-some-fighting-accusations
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-idUSKCN0W21O5
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/middleeast/syria-conflict-aid/
http://in.reuters.com/article/mideast-crisis-syria-kerry-idINKCN0W32VW

Footnote: US continues build-up in Iraq
http://www.care2.com/causes/u-s-backed-military-contractors-are-returning-to-iraq-in-droves.html
http://www.acq.osd.mil/log/PS/.CENTCOM_reports.html/5A_January_2016_Final.pdf

US expands bombing/drone war to 7th majority-Muslim nation: Libya
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/28/1492885/-The-invasion-of-Libya-is-in-progress
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2016/02/2374-bernie-sanders-just-like-hillary.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/hillary-clinton-libya.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/26/the_real_benghazi_scandal_that_is_being_ignored_how_hillary_clinton_and_the_obama_administration_destroyed_libya/
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/20/u_s_kicks_off_its_new_bombing_campaign_in_libya_killing_2_serbian_embassy_workers/
http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2016/02/29/pentagon-signals-support-expanded-operations-libya/81107750/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/libya-will-need-american-help-to-defeat-islamic-state-general-says-1456776041
http://news.yahoo.com/recognised-libya-govt-condemns-us-strike-jihadists-171414242.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Council_of_Deputies_election,_2014
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Deputies
http://intpolicydigest.org/2016/01/05/un-takes-the-wrong-road-in-libya/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/12176114/British-advisers-deployed-to-Libya-to-build-anti-Isil-cells.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/briefly-takes-center-strategic-libyan-city-37153386
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/22/un-support-libya-government-open-door-potential-uk-airstrikes-isis
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/10/obama_on_verge_of_launching_another_bombing_campaign_in_libya_after_dropping_23144_bombs_on_six_countries_in_2015/
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/09/911-2.html

RIP: al-Jazeera America
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/02/27/1492281/-Goodnight-and-good-luck-R-I-P-Al-Jazeera-America
http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/al-jazeera-america-online-operation-shut-down-1201716258/

Clown Award: right-wing attorney Kory Langhofer
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/27/1492222/-The-Right-to-allow-Video-tape-Police-Not-Allowed-According-to-Federal-Judge
http://www.citylab.com/crime/2016/02/there-is-no-first-amendment-right-to-film-cops/470670/?utm_source=atlfb
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/19/1487715/-Idaho-Republicans-wrote-a-bill-saying-schools-must-use-Bible-in-biology-and-astronomy-and-geology
http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH16SECT33-1604.htm
http://biblehub.com/joshua/10-12.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/22/1489329/-Conservative-lawyer-says-Scalia-should-get-vote-on-pending-cases-despite-handicap-of-being-dead
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kory-langhofer-scalia-vote-still-counts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE

Outrage of the Week: Islamophobic document to guide development of federal anti-terrorism programs
https://theintercept.com/2016/02/23/department-of-defense-white-paper-describes-wearing-hijab-as-passive-terrorism/
http://www.care2.com/causes/are-hijab-wearers-terrorists-a-military-paper-says-yes.html

Monday, February 15, 2016

237.4 - Bernie Sanders, just like Hillary Clinton, is more hawkish than people think

Bernie Sanders, just like Hillary Clinton, is more hawkish than people think

More hawkish than you think
Okay, speaking of the military budget, I have to go back to something I said last week because I have to give it a fuller context.

Last week, I listed among my criticisms of Hillary Clinton that she is more hawkish that most people seem to realize. What needs to be added here is that the same is true of Bernie Sanders. He's not as hawkish as she is, but the difference is much less than a lot of his supporters seem to think.

Both of them support the bombing in Syria; both of them support keeping several thousand US troops in Afghanistan until at least 2018; both of them support the drone program that has killed far more innocent civilians than it has suspected "terrorists."

And Sanders has been every bit as syncophantic about Israel as Clinton has and that's saying something, including having supported the 2014 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip that lead Human Rights Watch to accuse Israel of war crimes.

Yes, he voted against the Iraq war and yes he was opposed to US military action in Libya and yes he is less hawkish than she is about Syria. But overall it has to be said that there is not what you could call a significant difference between them on present US wars.

In fact, here is a way they might draw a difference between them that doesn't depend on sound bytes or rehearsed slogans.

The Obama administration is drawing up plans for a new military intervention in Libya. Which makes sense, of course, because the first one, which we were told was about protecting civilians but was in reality about getting rid of Muammar Kaddafi, went so well, what with Libya descending into the chaos of a multi-sided civil war from which it has not emerged.

Oh, but it's different this time! This time it's about opening a third front in the fight against ISIS! And taking "decisive military action" against some groups in Libya claiming the name!

It's being planned without any debate in Congress, without any remotely plausible claims of lawful authority, without regard to the fact that it was Barack Obama himself who said in 2007 that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation," and without, it seems, any consideration of how similar "decisive actions" have lead only to deepening US military involvement in Syria and Iraq, with "boots on the ground" in both places playing an increasingly hands-on role.

What could go wrong?

I'm sure this will come up sometime, somehow, in the primaries. See what Clinton says. See what Sanders says. And see how much, if any, daylight you can see between them.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Bernie-Hysteria--Liberal-by-Chris-Ernesto-Antiwar_Bernie-Sanders_Bernie-Sanders-Presidential-Campaign_Hypocrisy-160207-867.html
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/the-assassination-complex/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/opinion/opening-a-new-front-against-isis-in-libya.html?_r=0
http://whoviating.blogspot.com/2011/04/most-important-fact-about-libya-is-not.html
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/congress-debate-and-vote?source=c.url&r_by=1135580
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Is-America-about-to-sleepw-by-Trevor-Timm-Boots-On-The-Ground_Isis_Lybia_Syria-160131-163.html

Thursday, April 16, 2015

199.6 - Everything You Need to Know: what's wrong with the world in just one photograph

Everything You Need to Know: what's wrong with the world in just one photograph

We wrap up the week with one of our occasional features, called Everything You Need to Know. It's where you can learn a great deal about something in a very short time or space.

In this case, it's Everything You Need to Know about just how screwed up the world really is in just one photograph.

The picture is that of a four-year-old girl named Adi Hudea, taken at the Atmeh refugee camp in Syria in December 2014. The photo was taken by Osman Sagirli, who is a Turkish photojournalist.

The caption in the Turkish newspaper where it was first published told the story:
Her face suddenly drops. She squeezes her bottom lip between her teeth and gently lifts up her hands. Where she remains like that without a word.
Adi Hudea
Sagirli was using a telephoto lens, and he realized afterward that Adi thought it was a weapon.

What kind of world is it where 4-year-old children are more familiar with how to respond to having guns pointed at them than they are with a camera?

I don't know how to stop the madness. I don't have an answer. But I will be damned if I will agree that creating more blood, more death, more refugees, more terrified children, is the way out.

And I do know that this one picture is Everything You Need to Know.

By the way, if you want to do something, Doctors Without Borders, a remarkable group of people, is providing direct medical aid in hospitals and health centers inside Syria and the staff is sending medical supplies and equipment to medical networks in Syria that they cannot access themselves. There is a link below where you can make a donation.

Sources cited in links:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374712/-Stirring-photo-little-girl-surrenders-when-she-mistakes-camera-for-gun
http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/home

Information on donating to Doctors Without Borders:
https://donate.doctorswithoutborders.org/onetime.cfm

That page also contains information on what to do if  you want to specify the donation is for work in Syria.

Friday, March 13, 2015

195.7 - Obama's lovely little war: US to allow export of armed drones

Obama's lovely little war: US to allow export of armed drones

A quick look at another part of Obama's lovely little war in Iraq and Syria.

By the way, some might wonder why I keep calling it his "lovely little war." It's because this is a war - we're told it's war, we're told we're at war with terrorism or Daesh or whoever the immediate target is, we're told of the importance, the necessity, the vital nature of this war, how it's a stand for justice and freedom and milk and cookies at bedtime and apple pie and motherhood, a struggle against fanatics who would murder us in our beds if they could - but it's a war conducted, designed, to produce as few US casualties as possible, preferably none, to have all the dying, all the bleeding, all the suffering, done by others, all the risk borne by others, while we pat ourselves on the back with accolades of our greatness. In other words, a lovely little war.

Anyway, as part of our lovely little war, last month a GOPper on the House Armed Services Committee urged the Amazing Mr. O to approve selling unarmed surveillance drones to Jordan. This came in the wake of Jordan attacking Daesh targets after one of its pilots was supposed to have been burned to death by terrorists while trapped in a cage.

Well, our Nobel Peace Prize President was not going to be out militarized by some punk Congressman. So the White House recently announced that it will permit the export not just of surveillance drones but of armed drones.

The State Department said it would assess such exports on a “case-by-case basis,” including “armed systems.”

The State Department said that it would only be allowing armed drone exports to allies. But some of our allies have some of the worst human rights records in the world (think Saudi Arabia) - and they now could conceivably purchase what are, put simply, remote control killing machines from the US.

So they can have their own lovely little wars - including, perhaps, against their own internal opposition.

Sources cited in links:
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/232045-republican-pushes-drones-for-jordan
http://thehill.com/policy/defense/233003-us-okays-sale-of-armed-drones
 
// I Support The Occupy Movement : banner and script by @jeffcouturer / jeffcouturier.com (v1.2) document.write('
I support the OCCUPY movement
');function occupySwap(whichState){if(whichState==1){document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-blue.png"}else{document.getElementById('occupyimg').src="https://sites.google.com/site/occupybanners/home/isupportoccupy-right-red.png"}} document.write('');