The Crimes of "Amerika"
Articles and Interviews by John Robles
1 May, 2014 23:54
US Orchestrated Color Revolution Coming Soon to a Country Near You
John Robles and Stephen Karganovic
John Robles and Stephen Karganovic
They are not concerned with the millions of people that they kill, nor with the suffering their actions bring to the world. Their goal of global hegemony knows no conscience and any means are justifiable to attain their ends. It is a remorseless godless machine bent on global domination and must be stopped.
One of the most damaging ways that the CIA and their front company USAID destabilize countries is the organization of what has become known as the "Color Revolution". By manipulating societies through media and civil society non-governmental organizations (NGOs), carefully funding groups and powerful members of society who will do their bidding, the US is able to cause civil unrest, revolutions and even civil war, all for the sole purpose of installing leaders and governments who will do the US' bidding.
Currently the results of US manipulation are visible in Ukraine and several other countries are dealing with the same type of manipulation. The best way for the people of the world to be prepared to defend their countries and themselves from these types of attacks on sovereignty is to know what to look out for and to be educated on the sometimes extremely subtle ways that the US has of subverting sovereignty and manipulating public opinion.
One brave group of scholars and people studying the tactic recently met to discuss the issue and formulate strategies to deal with the practice. The following is the result of their meeting.
An introduction from Stephen Karganovic
The international scholarly symposium on "Coloured revolutions as an instrument of geopolitical transformation" was held at the Academy of Arts and Sciences of the Republic of Srpska on April 26, 2014. The symposium was under the auspices of the "Strategic Culture Foundation" in Moscow and "Srebrenica Historical Project" from Den Haag, the Netherlands.
Taking part in the proceedings were: Ana Filimonova, editor-in-chief of the "Strategic Culture Foundation" and scholar at the Centre for the study of the Balkan crisis of the Slavic Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Sergey Belous, M.A. in history and political analyst, Harkov, Manuel Ochsenreiter, politologist and editor of political monthly "Zuerst!", Berlin, Predrag Ceranic, professor of legal and security sciences, Banja Luka, Aleksandar Pavic, politologist, analyst at the "Strategic Culture Foundation," and director of the SCF office in Belgrade, Danijel Simic, writer and journalist, Banja Luka, Neven Djenadija, M.A. in international relations and diplomacy, University of Banja Luka, Dia Nader de al-Andari, ambassador of Venezuela in Belgrade, Serbia, Stephen Karganovic, president, "Srebrenica Historical Project," Dzevad Galijasevic, sociologist and expert on security and terrorism, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Srdja Trifkovic, professor of politics and international relations, University of Banja Luka.
Symposium participants considered the experience of other countries [e.g. the Ukraine and Venezuela] which have faced the process of "coloured revolutions" as a form of clandestine political warfare waged by foreign centres and the most efficient ways of proactively neutralizing their effects.
The summary conclusions and recommendations of symposium participants are set forth in the final document entitled "Banja Luka Declaration: A Safety Plan for the Republic of Srpska" [attached]. The final document was forwarded to the Government of the Republic of Srpska and made available to the general public.
Executive secretary of the symposium
Strategic Culture Fund, Moscow
THE BANJA LUKA DECLARATION: A SAFETY PLAN FOR THE REPUBLIC OF SRPSKA
The technology for the overthrow of noncompliant political leaders in order to replace them with subservient ones, better known as a "color revolution," has been conspicuously deployed in the Republic of Srpska over the last couple of months. Although in the Republic of Srpska this process has not reached a point where it constitutes an imminent threat to the stability of the constitutional order and sustainability of the democratic system, participants in the conference "Colored revolutions as an instrument of geopolitical transformation" consider that a proactive response is among the most efficient ways to neutralize this particular form of clandestine warfare waged by power centers from abroad.
The basic mechanism used in the implementation of this technique is exacerbation, across the broad social spectrum, of existing and often justified causes for discontentment, whereupon mass negative energy is directed toward political objectives in line with the agenda of foreign instigators. The real goals are of an entirely different nature from the proclaimed ones, for which local partisans have been led to believe that they are struggling. In that process, key roles are played by false "NGOs" specifically formed for the purpose, controlled media, and local political figures subject to blackmail, prosecution and other forms of external pressure.
"Colored revolutions" follow a standard pattern which may, to a certain extent, be adapted to local conditions. Essentially, these phenomena are manipulative and anti-democratic because they simulate popular rebellion while, in fact, they are carefully staged intelligence operations, conducted under a false flag and executed by trained cadres under the leadership of professionals. Currently, in addition to the Republic of Srpska, revolutions of this type are in progress or have been partially enacted in Venezuela and the Ukraine.
The basic measures that the leadership of the Republic of Srpska ought to implement in order to reinforce government institutions and impede the successful execution of foreign-inspired "regime change" may be divided in two general categories: social consolidation and an effective policy of social self-defense.
I Social consolidation
Some fundamental steps must be taken to restore and strengthen mutual trust between citizens and their state because only by reducing mutual estrangement in this sphere will the appearance of non-institutional movements, whose ultimate objective is the destabilization of the Republic of Srpska, be thwarted:
- At least one nation-wide television, radio and internet facility should be dedicated to the service of the Republic of Srpska, without the slightest admixture of foreign influence.
- Media should ensure that organizations which advocate solutions for problems by means other than democratic procedures prescribed by the law shall publicly and clearly be perceived as such, especially if they happen to champion any variety of "street action" and non-institutional resistance.
- All participants in public and political life should be obligated, or at least encouraged, to take a clear stand on the political status of the Republic of Srpska and, most importantly, to publicly declare whether he/she supports the inviolability of the Republic of Srpska as a distinct political entity, within or outside the framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- State media should always be open to representatives of the parliamentary political opposition and they should facilitate quality debate, including voices from a wide political spectrum.
- Quality public debate, with the participation of government and opposition on an equal footing, should be encouraged in particular with respect to such key issues as the future of the Republic of Srpska within Bosnia and Herzegovina, NATO integration, EU integration, ties with Serbia and ties with Russia.
- Following the example of Vladimir Putin's dialogues with the nation, government representatives should organize similar forums with citizens using the electronic media.
- Visible and legally effective steps should be taken to suppress corruption within the government in order to restore and strengthen citizen trust in state institutions.
- Initially at least one sector of the economy should be visibly opened to market competition under terms of equality in order to demonstrate that economic progress is possible outside the structure of corrupt political networks.
- Following the U. S. model, steps should be taken to create propitious conditions for institutionalized collaboration between science and the economy, selecting in the initial phase at least one area where fairly quick and visible results can be achieved.
- In the field of foreign policy, political, cultural, economic, and media ties should be strengthened with the Russian Federation as the only leading power whose objective is not to abolish the Republic of Srpska or subsume it within a centralized Bosnia and Herzegovina. Those ties should, as a minimum, be symmetrical to those maintained with EU states.
II Policy of social self-defense
ZERO TOLERANCE FOR LAWLESS CONDUCT – From the very beginning of any hypothetical "protests" it is necessary to strictly enforce all applicable laws (noting whether a permit for the assembly was granted, at what location, and for what length of time) and there ought to be zero tolerance for the violation of legal norms, excluding any type of violence, disrespect for instructions to disperse given over loudspeakers, infliction of physical damage to buildings or vehicles, or assaults on law enforcement personnel. "Protest" organizers regularly count on the hesitation of law enforcement to act decisively from the very start. Indecisiveness in the of response enables them to establish physical control over some symbolically significant point which subsequently becomes the focus of further activities.
EQUIPPING AND TRAINING LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL – Retaining control over public space is key to the survival of legal authorities when under attack by "regime change" organizers. That task requires superbly equipped, professionally trained and highly motivated policemen specialized in crowd control, i.e. police professionals prepared to prevent large-scale violations of public peace and order.
Regular RS Interior Ministry units are inadequately equipped and trained, tactically and psychologically, for this exceptionally complex task. That is not surprising: the challenge of crowd control in the "colored revolution" context is such that regular police are not up to the task. It is one thing to control soccer fans, and quite another to control a carefully choreographed street coup. The Special Police Unit (SJP) is primarily tasked with conducting anti-terrorist operations and combating organized crime. It has in its ranks sharpshooters, divers, an SMB team, a canine unit, etc. but it lacks crowd control specialists. The unavailability of a specialized police unit for crowd control carries a double peril, as has already been noted elsewhere on "colored revolution" battlegrounds: if the police fail to successfully place unlawful conduct under control from the beginning, the violence, accompanied by the use of weapons, may later escalate and that is precisely what the orchestrators of the protest are aiming for.
For the foregoing reasons, a specialized Intervention Unit of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Srpska should be formed and tasked with maintaining law and order along the same lines as similar specialized units which have proved efficient in other countries. Personnel for this unit should be selected according to the highest criteria from within the existing police ranks. Adequate equipment (armored transport vehicles, water guns with colored liquid, helmets and invulnerable body armor, transparent shields, gas masks, tear gas, rubber bullet sidearms, tasers, pepper spray, police dogs, horses, etc.) is indispensable for intense and continued tactical training to commence. In the area of theoretical preparation, it is of particular importance to teach members of the Intervention Unit about the technique of street revolutions, i.e. the methodology of the orchestrators and executors of "regime change." This important aspect was missing in the training given to the Ukrainian Berkut. If members of the future Intervention Unit are comprehensively instructed in the difference between appearances and the genuine nature of the "protest," they will be enabled to remain calm and firm in the performance of their tasks.
LAW ON NGO FINANCING AND ACTIVITIES. A law regulating the activities of "non-government organizations" should be adopted in the Republic of Srpska. There are a number of institutions in Banja Luka whose goals, ideological inspiration, and methods are closely analogous to Belgrade branches of the same central organization (e.g. the Helsinki Human Rights Committee, Humanitarian Law Fund, etc.) and which constitute the key logistical foundation of the "regime change" process. Those NGOs are merely local subsidiaries of Western power centers. The more important among them have been financed for years by U.S. quasi-independent outfits such as the National Endowment for Democracy and the National Democratic Institute, which receive their funding entirely or for the most part from the U.S. Treasury.
The law regulating the activities of the "NGOs" should be no more than a copy of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act, or FARA, which in the U.S. governs the activities of associations and private individuals that are financed by foreign governments. That law prescribes total transparency within the U.S. for activities that elsewhere in the world are generously financed by the U. S. State Department. In the United States, the Federal Election Campaign Act explicitly prohibits any and all foreign interference in the domestic electoral process in the U.S. However, such interference is considered legitimate and desirable when it is practiced by Washington's minions in the former SFRY (or in the successor states of the former USSR), under the pretext of "spreading democracy."
It is high time for the National Assembly of the Republic of Srpska to consider passing a law based on the American model to regulate foreign financing of the so-called non-government sector. This law need not be any stricter or more confining than its U.S. counterpart: whoever is at the receiving end of foreign funding should simply register as a "foreign agent". Thenceforward it shall be business as usual for them, but in the media and in public statements by government officials of the Republic of Srpska it will be perfectly legitimate to characterise such outfits as "foreign agencies". The rejoinder to inevitable objections about "democracy suppression" is that, on the contrary, democracy in the Republic of Srpska is strengthened and broadened through such legislation by the assimilation of the practice and experience of, purportedly, the most democratic country in the world.
Bearing in mind the experience of other countries which have been targeted by this subversive process, participants in the conference "Colored revolutions as an instrument of geopolitical transformation" believe that, in the initial phase, measures proposed to the public and the Government of the Republic of Srpska in this document should be sufficient to anticipate and counter undemocratic varieties of political change. Such attempts are quite often marked by violence, and wherever seen, without exception, have served not their falsely proclaimed goals but as an instrument for the imposition of foreign domination.
Ana Filimonova, editor-in-chief of the "Strategic Culture Foundation," M.A. in history, scholar at the Centre for the study of the contemporary Balkan crisis of the Slavic Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Aleksandar Pavić, political analyst, "Strategic Culture Foundation" and director of the SCF office in Belgrade.
Dr. Srdja Trifković, professor of politics and international relations, University of Banja Luka.
Dr. Predrag Ćeranić, professor of legal and national security sciences.
Manuel Ochsenreiter, political analyst, editor of the newsmagazine
Stephen Karganović, president, "Srebrenica Historical Project."
Banja Luka, April 26, 2014
US Regime Change Attempt Underway in Republika Srpska
The most effective weapon against these organizations is transparency and informing the public about their nefarious activities. Stephan Karganovic, the President of the Srebrenica Historical Project, discussed these issues with the Voice of Russia and actually named those responsible in the Serbskaya Republic.
Hello! This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with . He is the President of the Srebrenica Historical Project.
Hi! I'm fine, thank you.
Well, it didn't take a crystal ball, just some good analytical acumen and following the news and connecting the dots.
Indeed, the one thing that I was unable to predict was the elegant response of Russian diplomacy and the fact that without much violence Russia is apparently succeeding in neutralizing the pro-nazi thugs who have taken over in Kiev, and who apparently want to extend and consolidate their control in the eastern parts of the country, which evidently loathes everything that they stand for and does not want to be associated with such a regime.
It was pretty easy to predict that there would be disorders, that people would not be willing to accept the dictate of this unrepresentative coup government willingly, but I am really surprised and delighted that things are going the way they are, which shows that there isn't very much popular support for the coup government beyond the militants who were used to bring it to power.
So, I think there is hope for a peaceful solution, which includes the federalization of the country and respect for the rights of all the citizens of Ukraine, without destroying the country. I think these are the most important priorities.
Yes, with pleasure. It is still in progress but they haven't really taken off the ground. It has not worked according to their expectations. And there are many reasons for that. I would say the major reasons are two.
Number one, the fact that ultimately this process in the Republika Srpska is being managed by people who are outsiders, total foreigners, who do not understand the culture and the mentality of the people. So, they are giving pretty poor instructions to their people on the ground. That's one reason.
The other reason is that their on the ground collaborators are a pretty pathetic bunch. They really have not been able to find and hire a first-class team. So, that shows in the numerous mistakes that they have made so far, and as a result they are at this point not getting anywhere.
However, I would caution, when you have a lot of money that you are willing and capable to throw at people, you can always accomplish things.
So, I would not underestimate the other side. They still have a couple of months before the elections which are scheduled in October to modify their strategy or to come up with new tactics. You never know what they will come up with.
So, one has to very carefully follow this process and be ready to respond, first of all, analytically and then politically as the circumstances may warrant.
Absolutely! Absolutely, I have no doubts. I would divide their plan into three variants, at this point: plan A is elections, which are scheduled, as I said, in October of this year in the Republika Srpska and throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Each entity will have its own electoral process. President Dodik is going to be the candidate for the current government and the ruling political coalition.
The opposition, which is largely under the influence of the West has not yet selected its candidate to oppose him. And that's pretty significant. They are bickering among themselves and they have not been able to agree on who is going to be the standard bearer for the opposition. They were going to announce that this month and they recently moved that to next month, to May. So, maybe in May we will find out who the opponent of the opposition will be.
But the main thing to bear in mind is that the elections will work for them under one of two conditions. One is: if their candidate has a good chance to win and the other is; if the election could be very close and then, of course, the standard procedure is to accuse the unsuitable candidate, the non-cooperative candidate, which in this case would be President Dodik, of having stolen the election. And then, they could put international pressure on him and so on and so forth. You know how that works. We've seen that in Yugoslavia in 2000, in Georgia and in other places. So, they manipulate things for them to come up on top.
Neither of those scenarios at this point look feasible, because President Dodik, contrary to all expectations, if you look at it from purely Western point of view, which is that people vote with their pocketbooks (you know, the American political wisdom), that doesn't really work here, because in addition to that…of course, normal people do take economic and social factors into account, but here other considerations are also present. And they are very influential, and they are not so tangible. So, they have failed to take that into account.
So, I think that the electoral option is something that they are slowly going to drop, because if they go that route – whomever they put up as the opposition candidate, the way things look like now Dodik is looking forward to a victory and a pretty impressive victory.
So, I think that plan B, and then I will come to plan C, plan B is: a Ukraine-style upheaval that would be totally managed and generated with the assistance of foreign special services. How successful that would be is also questionable at this point. They have been working on two parallel tracks.
They have already laid the groundwork for this sort of Ukrainian-style upheaval. But it is not getting anywhere right now in the Republika Srpska, which, again, doesn't mean that it may not take off in a month or two, if they modify their tactics. But at this point it is not going anywhere. So, it doesn't look very promising. They have two main phony NGOs that ar e pushing that option and they have not managed to mobilize a significant following.
So, plan C I think is the ethnic card. There is a Muslim minority in the Republika Srpska, just as there is a Serbian and Croatian minority in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And they have been very active lately stirring up the Muslim minority and presenting their situation in the light that doesn't have much to do with the reality. But they are trying to portray Muslims as an oppressed and disenfranchised minority in the Republika Srpska.
Yes, exactly! It is the same formula, yes, you are absolutely right. Their pattern is the same, the template is the same wherever you go. They are not very creative. So, it is the same thing, basically.
And they are trying to stir up civil disobedience and opposition to the government in the ranks of the Muslim minority here, which, I can assure you, is fully free. All its cultural, religious and other rights are respected. So, there is no real issue there, but you can always create an issue, even when one does not actually exist. And they are working hard to do that.
Now, what I want to point out particularly relevant to this scenario is that there are very few but some Muslim extremists in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who have participated in the conflict in Syria and they keep circulating back and forth. So, there is already a cadre of a couple of hundred people in that category with military experience and, I would imagine, also links to the same special services who are conduction the rebellion in Syria, using them over there. And they can use them here in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well.
So, there is a huge potential there for trouble, if the first two scenarios fail. And then, what is important to remember is that if they succeed to play on that ethnic oppression card, that will trigger the international community, which is present in Bosnia and Herzegovina through the office of the High Representative, there are still some peacekeeping troops here.
In February, when the trouble was going on here in Bosnia, the High Representative ominously said that if it spreads, he will consider calling reinforcements.
It didn't spread at that point, but if it is made to spread in the Republika Srpska, you can see the potential for the High Representative calling in the troops and reinforcements “to restore order”, but actually to overthrow the legal and democratically elected government, which at this point seems to have every chance of being reelected, and to impose puppets in their place.
This is a very important point. The Republika Srpska is not a sovereign country. Technically, theoretically, the sovereign country is Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it consists of two entities or two provinces, that is to say the Republika Srpska and the federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
So, the security services, the army – all the major institutions that a sovereign state could have are concentrated on the federal level. So, the Republika Srpska is much more defenseless than Ukraine was before the coup on February 22nd .
Sure, I can. But that would be pretty meaningless to your listeners, because these are local groups that have no international significance.
What is important is that they are financed by all the usual suspects.
The USAID and so on and so forth. Fine! Let me tell you a couple of them.
So, let's upset them! I'm always happy to do that. One of them is called Transparency International.
Another one is called the Helsinki Parliament of Citizens of Banja Luka. Then, there is Slobodna Republika (the Free Republic), BUKA, then, there is a GEA Center for Research and Studies. There is the Initiative of Youth for Human Rights. Then, there is the Srpska Times, an English language newspaper that is being published here since a couple of months ago. And I think that it is slated to play the role of the Syria Observatory in London to provide managed news reports from the field, once things get started, which will be in English and they can easily be picked up by the western news services and then distributed throughout the world as established facts.
That's Srpska Times. You can google it and they have an Internet edition as well.
Exactly! The same idea, they are not very original.
Then, there is an Association of Veterans of the Republika Srpska. Then, there are a number of Internet portals and blogs, no point in mentioning them. They are absolutely meaningless to your listeners. Then, they already have a team of politically correct commentators and “experts”, who are ready to contribute their two cents' worth.
There is a lady by the name Tanja Topic. She is a know-it-all commentator that the Western news services regularly consult with on every issue. There is a lady economist. Her name is Svetlana Fenech.
Russia Needs to Challenge American Interests Everywhere
He likened the US Government to people living in a glass house and throwing rocks. Mr. Zrnchik also cited Ron Paul who called out John Kerry for his ridiculous invade on false pretenses comment and said that the US is no longer a capitalist country because there is no capital being formed and there is no capital being lent out and nobody wants to lend money because they don’t look at the US as being a good place for businesses to be able to grow.
And China has been very quiet while this is going on, I mean it doesn't want to tip its cards and doesn't want to get to emotionally involved. The US is talking about its "Asian Pivot" and wanting to start challenging China because China of course is starting to invest. I mean it's being a good business partner. It is not seeking to dominate, it is seeking to do business.
I heard that it was just at a trillion but I find that hard to believe given the trade inbalance that we have. That is one of the things that really hasn't been talked about in the media and I've tried to find it before. And the only thing I found is previous stuff about trade . What have you heard in the international media, I mean?
I've read that China is buying a lot of gold. I've read that the US hasn't been able to get Germany its gold back, that the Germans have been trying to get back, they said it is going to take them 20 years to transfer the gold from the US Treasury back to Germany.
So that is kind of interesting. And the problem for China is this: I mean they don't want to have a big panic when they get stuck holding however much debt that they are holding and they are holding all this devalued currency and all these devalued financial instruments.
And so there is an old saying that says: "If you owe somebody a million dollars that is your problem, but when you owe somebody a trillion dollar that is their problem."
That is kind of the position China is in right now and who knows what is going to happen. I've read more and more that a lot of these foreign countries are beginning to buy property and land and other types of things in the US of course and the US has done everything it can to try to keep China from buying major businesses and stuff like that but at some point they are not going to want the dollar. And the other problem is, I'm sure you are familiar with SDRs, right?
So Special Drawing Rights, well no one wants to work with the dollar anymore. And they were worried about the US. If the US goes ahead and it capitalizes the IMF and the World Bank with money that comes right fresh off a printing press and it wants to buy Chinese businesses but yet it doesn't want the Chinese to use any of that money to buy American businesses it becomes a very one-sided exchange very quickly.
I think I've covered the major points, the things that I wanted to discuss outside the fact that more and more the US is slipping into a fascist police state in which people have less and less rights and all you keep hearing more and more is police just beating people to death just for taking pictures of them, all different typed of police abuse, tyranny from inside the Justice Department.
The last thing that is kind of interesting is the fact that now the Justice Department is actually starting to get involved in looking at what the CIA was doing because the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee she is demanding that there be prosecutions that take place and not prosecutions because there were tortures and murders that occurred, she wants prosecutions now because the CIA started looking into the Senate.
So the fact that the CIA was carrying out torture and murder and then destroyed evidence all that is ok. But now that the Senate finally decides to start looking into ten years later this things is kind of getting to a head so it is really interesting because this thing has made the major media. And I'm wondering where that is going to play put, how they are going to try to sweep this back under the rug because of course they cannot go forward with it because the entire political establishment in the US is guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity and the like.
So the US is going to slip farther and farther into being a police state, there is going to be more and more oppression. The country is going to get poorer and poorer. And the question is how is that going to play out on the world stage and given the fact that the US is war weary the American people are just sick of having a stagnant economy in which there is no money velocity. And the only thing that keeping our head above water is continually, you know the government just grabbing more and more money and spending it on weapon systems and trying to make money off selling weapon systems to the world. It is going to be interesting to see if this thing goes to an armed conflict: how well our weapon systems are going to work.
And I've got to tell you I've been following this for a long time and I'm kind of interested in seeing how the Russian anti-ship missiles – how well they work. I watched video on them and the S300 and S400 systems and I think that the Russia is going to have to get behind Iran more. If the US is going to create this type of global instability then Russia really needs to start challenging American interests wherever and however it can.
And I don't think that the US is – when you live in a glass house you should definitely not be throwing rocks. And the US has just lost track of what it is doing and we got people like Kerry who act like little children who have been mocked so hard because of the fact that...he said we don't invade countries under false pretenses, and the Ron Paul came up and he named like ten different instances when the US invaded countries under false pretenses and not just invaded but carried out wars and occupations…
The Yakout was supposed to be faster, smaller, engage in violent end maneuvers and from what I've read they said: "Threatening nations with carrier groups is going to end up being a thing of the past."
So it is interesting how this plays out. And the old Chinese proverb: "May you live in interesting times", I can't think of a time that is more interesting than what it is right now.
And I mean it is scary world we live in and I just hope that cooler heads will prevail.
Yeah, I mean we can have peaceful trade with all these nations. I mean look what China has done for the US. If it wasn't for the fact that China being producers and making all those things they are making, I mean Americans would literally have been miserable for the last 30 years.
We've gotten great products, that was a country that was supposed to be such a threat to us and they all they wanted to do was do business and now they want to do business in Africa. And of course now the US created AFRICOM, it is starting up all this trouble in Africa it wants to keep China out of there, from being able to do business and make people's lives better.
So we could be really at the beginning of the entire new age.
And the fact that the US and the EU control money, they are really keeping all these other countries down because of the fact that they are in control of the monetary system.
The collapsing of the system right now might be the best thing that can happen for the US because the longer you try to subvert economic reality the greater the expenses. In the end it is not going to work.
You can go ahead and try to print money, you can try to create markets, you can lie, you can steal, you can do all these things and wage war and try to carry out all this nonsense but in the end an apple is still worth the price of an apple.
That is gone. The American dream is over with. There are so many people right now that are unemployed, there are so many bankruptcies, there are so many home foreclosures, there are no jobs out there .
It got so bad that the US decided that it was going to start counting fast food working from McDonalds because they make hamburgers as being a production job. I'm not kidding you. They want to be able to disguise how bad things have gotten in the US and they just keep getting worse.
Right now they created trillions of dollars and start to try dump this into the economy and the fact of the matter is we are getting really close to the time where all that money is gone. And it is false stimulation of the economy and effect which was a very small effect is gone.
So bills are going to come due and when other countries start deciding that they want..all the money that we do of course is short term and continually based on whatever the current market is they can readjust the interest rates.
We are stuck keeping the interest rates at zero because the US cannot afford to pay interest on all the money it owes, it can't afford to pay any. So to look at how the interest rates are it is ridiculous. And that is just one side of….
What kind of capitalist country? It is not a capitalist country, if there is no capital being formed and there is no capital being lent out at any interest rate and nobody wants to lend money because they don't look at it as being a good place for businesses to be able to grow. What does that tell you? I mean capitalism in the US is dead.
Yeah, we have crony capitalism, that is not true capitalism.
I would just ask your readers and listeners to look at Lou Rockwell dot com and find about the Austrian School of Economic Thought, I would ask them to look at antiwar.com. They have plenty people who are American statesmen, historians, ex-CIA people who are critical of where the government is taking the country and the people are real statesmen and honorable men and they write great articles down there.
I get all my news out there and the thing is for the last 15 years that website has been 100% spot on. Everything that it has stated going all the way back to before the Iraq war, so when it starts talking about Iran, if it starts talking about Israel, the Palestinian situation it's just spot on with everything. Everything that it says is against the US. I mean, you look at what happened in Bosnia – this is interesting to see we turned around and as told "Bosnia, we are going to tale Kosovo away from you and create Kosovars. And now they are saying they cannot do it in Crimea. It is ridiculous.
If people go there they will become well educated and very informed on ..
Yeah, actually too. You know what, here is the funny thing. RT is great too and more and more people, I was surprised because I was talking to my parents about what is going on and they said we've seen that on the RT, they quit.
Here is my parents in their seventies and they were never politically sophisticated and they were not really involved in politics or geopolitics and economics and now they said: "We no longer watch network news".
It is so ridiculous and it so blatantly apparent that even my parents said: "We don't watch them anymore". I went to my parents' house to say hi to them and my dad has got RT on and he was watching what was going on there. So it is kind of interesting.
And I certainly appreciate the chance to be able to talk with you here and get my story out and another point of view. Hopefully this will come back to the US and more Americans will listen and hear and see what is going on.
Thank you very much for having me. I look forward to talking to you in the future.
Statement from an
US President Obama's statement was typically empty of substance as was all of the empty rhetoric leading up to what was to have been the invasion of Syria and as one American commentator put it a "vacuous, inexact, and tendentious statement full of the "usual bromides about respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and democratic future of Ukraine." The statement however was typical of the US and their stance of "either you are with us or against us" when it comes to invading and overthrowing the governments of country after country.
When it comes to the statements regarding the situation in Ukraine by US President Barrack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and all of the "allies" and media outlets that serve as the US government's private-lock-step-newspeak-echo-chamber: the outright bald faced lies, cavernous omissions, acidic hypocrisy, double standards exponentially growing with each new fabrication, saber-rattling bellicose war rhetoric and twisting of facts and logic, have been so blatant, egregious and patently glib fabrications that it is enough to cause the thinking person's brain to curdle up into a little lumpy mass quivering in terror somewhere in a dark corner inside their heads as they perhaps question their own connection to reality.
The hysteria in the West surrounding Ukraine and the movement of Russian troops into the former Russian territory of Crimea to protect the millions of Russians there, is being fueled by the media and driven and directed by officials in the US corporate/government controlled media. During such a time of escalated tensions in the past some of the American people and people living in surrogate countries such as the UK may have looked toward their leaders, and in particular to the US President, for direction, information and most importantly "leadership" during such times.
However this is no longer the case and the US and western masses, who are already disillusioned, disgusted and disenchanted with their leaders and their media, will find little solace or truth coming from the US White House and unfortunately most of them already know that. Not to add insult to injury, after all Americans in reality really have no choice in who runs their country anymore and they know that better than anyone else, but a recent commentary I wrote titled "Obama: the 'hypocrite-in-chief' threatens Russia" received more than the usual responses and attacks yet no one defended Obama or seemed to take issue with my play on his "Commander in Chief" title.
Apparently for US/NATO/EU the "Ukrainian people" does not include the Russian speaking population, the Jews and all of the other minorities that have been excluded from the new Maidan-neo-nazi-mob-selected-US-puppet-government. They obviously have no right to determine their future. As for calling for an end to the violence? Obama has left out the fact that it is the US which is directly responsible for the violence and the coup in Ukraine. Which additionally takes the Ukrainian people out of the equation for self-determination.
The arrogance and of the phrase "we have made it clear that Russia can be a part…" sounds like the "master of the world" speaking from an alternative reality and completely denies the reality that Ukraine is literally in Russia's backyard and direct US meddling in Ukraine has brought about the destruction of a country that is the birthplace of Russian civilization. His use of the phrase "going forward" follows the entire US Government policy of "not looking back" which is just an attempt to escape responsibility for all of the crimes, death and destruction that the US Government has brought about on the world and the American people themselves. When the American people are all homeless in the street or living in FEMA camps I wonder how much they will want to hear "we should not look back". Sanctimoniously adding Russia to the list of countries that he allows to have an interest in Ukraine shows that the US thinks Ukraine is now theirs. They stole it and want to keep it. However this will never stand.
Of course the planners in Washington, the Pentagon and NATO are concerned, they are used to acting with impunity and invading any country they want and overthrowing any leader they want. They have spent over $5 billion dollars on their neo-nazi coup d'état of Ukraine and they do not want anyone to interfere, especially until, as Victoria Nuland put it, "everything is glued together". He ignores the religious, ethnic and language ties but that is understandable from pure ignorance, however talk about sovereignty, coming from the US which has destroyed or killed the leaders of almost 80 countries is what I imagine it would be like listening to hitler talking about human rights violations against Jews.
The rest is almost too much to even read and is making me nauseous but I will responsibly go over it for you dear reader. He continues talking about Russian forces being asked to ensure stability in Crimea and protect the substantial Russian speaking population, something they have done without a single shot being fired, as if it is an invasion. The same propaganda that the US used when the USSR was asked to maintain peace in Afghanistan.
Again hearing a war criminal and the leader of a country that has illegally invaded and destroyed almost 80 countries and who signs off on a weekly drone assassination list of innocent people around the world, and one who believes he is above international law, chide Russia which has insisted on and followed international law for decades is just too much.
He does however mention the Olympics, under the cover of which the US moved 2 warships into the Black Sea but he does not mention that the US coup in Ukraine was organized just like the Georgia/US backed invasion of South Ossetia. Apparently for the CIA the Olympics is a good cover for invading countries.
This is a direct threat and an insult to the Russian people and the Russian President and all of the people who welcomed Russian Forces in the Crimea. But I am sure the US has gone insane with jealousy after their failure at the Olympics and because their soldiers and mercenary killers have never been welcomed with flowers by anyone. Again Obama excludes Russia, Crimea, China and anyone else from the "international community".
What Obama means by "democracy" is in fact US hegemony and control, make no mistake. If he stands behind his words that "human beings have a universal right to determine their own future" then perhaps tomorrow the US will finally pull out of all of the countries it is currently occupying either by force and as a hegemon and once and for all stop meddling in countries all over the world. Also, apparently for Obama the Russian speaking population of Crimea do not count as people. How else to interpret that?
Has he informed and explained to the American people the real reasons why the US staged a coup in Ukraine and why he is supporting neo-nazis who are calling for the killing of Jews, Blacks and Russians? Has he informed the American people why the US has spent $5 billion in Ukraine when he can not even provide them with elementary health care? Can he explain why his foreign policy establishment is controlled by rabid Russo-phobes who have gone completely off the reservation? Can he explain why Russia, acountry which lost up to 40 million people defeating the Nazis, should allow neo-nazis to kill and slaughter Russians in Ukraine? And lastly can he please tell the American people and the people of the world, finally and once and for all why the US/NATO really need to annex Ukraine and what is the real purpose of NATO's global expansion? I am sure we would all like to know.
Finally this quote dated March 4, 2014 by John Kerry:
Yes America is playing a critical role in "peace, prosperity and stability". America is preventing it almost everywhere it may appear. Even in their own country with its divisive politics and decimated population.
"Peace, prosperity and stability"?! Tell that to the people of Ukraine whose country the US/CIA/NATO/EU has thrown into chaos and destroyed under the pretext of a delay in signing an EU economic agreement.
Tell that also to the people of Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (Congo). Countries where the US has organized coups, killed leaders and invaded. I am sure they will have a different point of view.
Obama: the 'Hypocrite-in-Chief'
The Russian Federation has an obligation and the right under international law to protect its citizens in Ukraine and Crimea where the population of Russians is at least 17 percent and approximately 70 percent respectively. The number of people in Ukraine of other nationalities, including the population of Jews which is about 5 percent are also under threat by the neo-nazis who have taken power. The number of people who speak Russian account for almost 90 percent of the population in Ukraine and the number of those who see it as a native language account for as many as 80 percent.
Any Russian mission in Ukraine would be strictly of a peace keeping nature and to protect the lives of the civilian population from the US backed neo-nazi thugs who have seized power in Ukraine. Therefore any portrayal in the West and in the western mass media about an "invasion" or "violation" of the territorial or political integrity of Ukraine is completely unfounded and empty propaganda.
Treaties between Ukraine and Russia as well as the requests by the Russian population and the official request by the authorities in the Crimea necessitate Russia to intervene and at a minimum protect Russian citizens, property and interests.
There is also the question of restoring order and the proper workings of the bodies of government which should represent all of the Ukrainian people to Ukraine. The country has been taken over by western backed murderous thugs, mercenaries and neo-nazis in an attempt to install a western puppet government by force and those who are calling themselves the government of Ukraine are doing so while excluding the majority of the Ukrainian population.
Also there are the wishes of the legal authorities of Ukraine and those of the President in exile to have order restored to their country, although no official statements requesting Russian assistance have been made.
The fact is that most Ukrainian "officials" are now operating at what can only be characterized as gun-point and can not make such statements without risking their lives and the lives of their families. The last is particularly important as one of the key methods for terrorizing officials that is being used by the Bandera Nazis, is to threaten the families of officials. Any government functioning under such duress must be assisted and proper order must be restored, something the West seems to have a problem with.
Dear American reader you are being fed lies by your mass media. You are being manipulated by your "leaders" into supporting something that has no place in the modern world and you are supporting another crime against peace which is being carried out in Ukraine.
The Western media have spun the situation in Ukraine as being something it is clearly not in subservient acquiescence to their corporate-intelligence-military-industrial master and leading to a condition where many in the West are in a complete and utter state of denial and in fact living in an alternative universe of their own making.
The western media is stunningly complicit in covering up what has really occurred in Ukraine, although things like the leaked Nuland/Pyatt conversation paint a true picture of the US/NATO/EU role in the coup d’état in Ukraine, the western media is forever silent and ignores the reality. Not only have such leaks been ignored but even worse, the real time live footage of "peaceful demonstrators" attacking, setting on fire, murdering and even taking hostage police officers, something which I have repeatedly said should have caused an outcry by American law enforcement officers and the US populace in general, who give their police god-like reverence, has been brushed under the carpet as if it never happened.
The coup d’état in Ukraine (let’s call it for what it was) was in no way a popular uprising. It was the result of a very expensive, long-running and orchestrated campaign by the CIA, the US State Department and other US/NATO elements. One only has to look at the marauders on Maidan Square and footage of crowds in Crimea or other Ukrainian cities to see that something is not right. A popular uprising of the people coming out in peaceful demonstrations would include crowds of all ethnicities and ages and women and even children. Not so on Maidan, we only see young ethnically Ukrainian men in bullet proof vest, military helmets, wielding steel pipes filled with cement and even armed.
These are neo-nazi thugs who the west supports, whose mob chose a government which the West was much too quick to recognize and who the West is calling a legitimate government of the people. The usurpers in the Verhovna Rada can in no way be called a legitimate government. Not one of the so-called "leaders" in Ukraine would win in a fair and peaceful democratic election. The only way they had to fulfill their mad ambitions of power was to do so through violence and the selling out of their country to their American and NATO puppet masters, central of which is Victoria Nuland former us Ambassador to NATO.
The goal of US/NATO is clear and something I have been writing about for years. They want to establish complete global military domination, they want to neutralize and finally break up Russia (into 68 autonomous regions ala Zbignew Brezhinsky) and they want to surround the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China with a missile "shield" that will guarantee a successful and unanswered nuclear first strike. That is the black agenda and that is what they are doing. Unfortunately there are troublesome people in the areas they want to control and annex, hence they continue to overthrow and replace governments in covert ways and marginalize and outright kill anyone who comes too close to exposing the true nature of their insidious military takeover.
Ukraine was a textbook CIA coup d’état using "color revolution" infrastructure and resources that were already in place and proven during the past color revolution. The only difference is the armed aspect, for which the neo-nazi groups came into effect. The neo-nazi "Bandera" groups in Ukraine have been training for over a decade for just such a scenario, they were merely finally let loose by the US/NATO.
We know US/NATO collude with, arm, fund, finance, support and even create terrorist groups. We know Al-Qaeda was created by the CIA in Afghanistan, we know they are being supported in Syria. We also know that they CIA has long funded and supported any group in any country, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, etc who is ready to overthrow a government. It does not matter to the CIA if these groups are made up of homicidal lunatics who would massacre children (Latakia Syria), or murder police and force them to their knees on public squares (Ukraine), or commit genocide (everywhere), what matters is that they allow the CIA to achieve its objectives.
It is important to underline that everything I have written about so far is illegal: forcing regime change through threats, sanctions and covert means is illegal. Arranging coup d’états is illegal. Aggressive and preventive war are illegal. Supporting, importing, training and arming destabilizing violent elements in any country is also illegal.
This is why Ukraine is a victory for international lawlessness because everything the US/NATO/CIA have been doing since, before and during 9-11-2001 has been illegal. Everything from Guantanamo, to drones, to aggressive wars to military expansion: illegal, pure and simple end of discussion. The fact that under the Patriot Act the Brezhinky/Yoo/PNAC planners passed what is called the Hague Invasion Act (which I have written about in the past), an instrument which guarantees they will never come before an international tribunal, is just a further nail in the coffin of their illegality.
It is also important to underline the "CIA/NATO Textbook" nature of the events in Ukraine which followed the OTPOR scenario used in Yugoslavia and the timeline of the Olympic Games invasion of South Ossetia.
It is also important to note the connections between the underground Tatar terrorists in Crimea and their ties to the Bandera nazis. I contend that like in Kosovo, US/NATO may bring about the calling for an independent territory by the Tatars in Crimea, which they will no doubt immediately recognize as legitimate and where they will build Camp Bondsteel 2.0.
Now that we have set the record straight and for those of you living in the western media land of Oz where truth is hidden and evil is spun as righteous perhaps it is understandable then why threats from US President Obama against Russian President Putin, the Russian Federation and the Russian people are beyond egregious, insidious or odious but pure evil and no level of spin can make them right (Strong words? Yes of course. But let’s call an apple an apple).
US President Barack Obama warning Russia and thus the President of the Russian Federation and the Russian people that: "There would be costs for any military intervention" is an insult to the Russian people and the free world and should serve to bring home to any Russians and anyone else who were in doubt about the brutal-self-serving-marginalizingl and insidious nature of US foreign policy orchestrated and controlled by Brezhinsky acolytes and neo-conservative chicken hawks who have clearly gone completely off the reservation in their delusional belief of their own exceptionalism in their plan to establish full US control of the planet and American hegemony over the world.
Make no mistake Obama knew of and signed off on US plans for Ukraine going in. If we recall Victoria Nuland’s conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt the US Ambassador to Ukraine which gave the world an insight into the true working of the US Government and the fact that Obama did not sack Nuland, the former ambassador to NATO, then it should be clear that everything is going according to plans okayed by Obama.
The irony of US supporting nazi groups to overthrow the government of Ukraine and my use of the phrase "goose stepping" should not be lost on you dear reader because that is exactly what is happening.
The entire western geopolitical-mass media-military-intelligence-political machine has been unleashed on Ukraine and is working in hyper-drive because it is finally going against the outer periphery of the Russian Federation, the hardest target it has had since 9-11.
The bellicose statements and thinly veiled threats by Obama were initially "put out there" by the likes of Susan Rice and Anders Fogh Rasmussen. In his public statements Rasmussen effectively labeled Ukraine NATO territory (a lie and a clear spin) to prepare the world audience for NATO aggression in Ukraine.
The reason for the threats from Obama, McCain, Susan Rice and even the UK’s William Hague is clear and transparent: the West has plans for Ukraine and they do not want Russia interfering in their annexing of Ukraine.
Just like Nazi Germany annexed country after country the US has been doing the exact same thing since 9-11. The bllod shed we have seen unleashed by the US/NATO since 9-11 in country after country and the testimony of former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark, who revealed a list of countries that were to be destroyed after 9-11, proves this beyond any shadow of a doubt.
The intentions of hitler and the nazis was clear, their murderous racist intentions and their plans were known to the world. However the US and NATO have hidden their doctrine of aggressive war and world domination by using creative, insidious and covert means and spinning their crimes against humanity with propaganda and language in the mass media. Hence neo-nazi murders on Maidan become "peaceful demonstrators fighting for democracy", aggressive war becomes "humanitarian intervention", global military expansion and the taking over of the world a "war on terror", any leader who is not pliant or a puppet a "despot", "dictator" or "strongman", an independent government "non-democratic" and of course any country which pursues friendly policies with Russia or demands a proper price for their resources becomes "rogue" or "a supporter of terrorism."
The fact that the US controls the bodies of international law and the bodies of last instance worldwide allows them to subvert and ignore international law to their own ends. Therefore the US funding and collusion with terrorists worldwide, with neo-nazis in Ukraine, the overthrowing of governments, the overt and covert subversions of states and their acts of aggressive war (a crime against humanity) continue to go unpunished.
This insidious manipulation of world bodies to allow them to continue to violate international laws and norms and the successful portrayal of their acts of aggressive and the subversion of states as "interventions" and "democracy" building operations makes the US clearly more evil than the nazis. The fact that the endemic American racist policies are being spread worldwide by a black man and by supposed "Zionists" who continue to operate with under the cover of and through the exploitation of the Holocaust to maintain their "untouchable" status is even more evil than anything hitler could have thought up, he himself according to DNA tests not only a Jew but also possessing some black DNA.
One has to wonder if the US President is in possession of all of his mental facilities and at the depth and complexity of his delusional architecture when after orchestrating the violent coup in Ukraine and supporting neo-nazi murderers who openly state they want to kill Russians, Jews and blacks he has the unmitigated audacity to say things like: "Any violation of Ukrainian sovereignty would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe. It would represent profound interference in the affairs of the Ukrainian people and a violation of international law."
Yes, Obama said: "Any violation of Ukrainian sovereignty would be deeply destabilizing, which is not in the interests of Ukraine, Russia or Europe." So then why is the US meddling in Ukraine? Because it is in fact the destabilization of Ukraine, Russia and Europe that the US seeks. It is part of their policy of divide and conquer and of breaking up countries and perhaps whole continents so that they are easier to control and exploit.
Unfortunately for the American people (many who want peace and just want to live their lives and not hurt anybody) brutality and force is the American way. The glorification of violence and force and subjugation is so engrained in the American psyche that it would take a hundred years to counter. Which is why many Americans can swallow and accept that demonstrators who beat unarmed police to death in front of TV cameras and shoot them to death execution style are "fighting for democracy" and "legitimate".
It is the American way to bring warships to the Olympics and drone entire families into oblivion because they are "suspected" of being terrorists. It is the American way to threaten anyone who dissents or exposes the illegality being carried by the government. Terrorizing everyone into silence or inactivity or collusion. It is the American way to demonize and threaten leaders and opponents and anyone who is not under their control. The list is too long but Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Al-Assad and Vladimir Putin are perfect examples, as are Julian Assange, Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. I might dare to humbly add myself to the list.
For the world and for Russians in particular it is hard to understand endemic American racism. It is even harder to understand that a black man in the White House is advancing racist polices, but we saw by Obama’s performance at Nelson Mandela’s funeral that he has no regard for his fellow blacks, for Africans or even for his own wife. One only has to look at the photos of him doing selfies at Mandela’s funeral to come to this conclusion and consider his betrayal of the black population in the United States who live worse than they did in the 1960s.
It does not stretch credibility or belief nor is it even apparently out of the ordinary to the average American that their black president would support neo-nazis who are openly calling for the killing of Jews, blacks and Russians. Then ends to them justify the means I suppose. And that is demonizing and crippling Russia. Never mind that 80% of Ukrainians speak Russian or are Russians themselves. This is an abstraction for Americans, as are the poor unarmed police who were beaten to death in the coup d’état.
Although Brezhnisky not long ago stated that "American hegemony" worldwide could not be obtained (a move apparently to distract the world into thinking the PNAC was finished) what we are seeing in Ukraine is part of the Neo-Con PNAC endgame. The goal of the atavism that is NATO, and its US masters is complete domination or Russia and China and their irrational hatred and plans have been heightened and speeded up by several recent events which have seen them growing more and more desperate as Russia begins to take its proper place on the world stage.
Those events include the Snowden affair, the failure to invade Syria and Iraq and the brilliant triumph at the Olympics, which the US desperately tried to through dirt on with their terrorist hysteria. But even more importantly it is Russia’s growing economic and political leadership in the world and its staunch and unwavering calls for respect for international law and the sovereignty of states that has thrown the West into a panic.
In the words of former US Deputy Secretary of Defense Neo-Con Paul Wolfowitz the US had 5 or 10 years to "clean up those old Soviet regimes before the next great super power comes up to challenge us."
US ignorance of the peoples and the groups that they support to overthrow governments and bring about their coup d’états is no more clearer than it is in Ukraine.
The people the West is calling "peaceful demonstrators" include puppets like Klitschko, neo-nazi leader Tyagnibok and the leader of the "Right Sector" the equally ignorant Dmitry Yarosh who has called on support from Chechen Terrorist leader Doku Umarov for terrorist attacks in Ukraine. Informationally challenged Yarosh had to me reminded by the head of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov that Umarov has already been liquidated and that Yarosh is headed to the same place that Umarov went to and from which no one has returned.
Yarosh, who also called for the destruction of Russia and interestingly the division of Russia into autonomous regions ala Brezhinsky recently attempted to enlist the aid of Crimean Tatars who according to Ramzan Kadyrov have agreed with him that they will not fight against Russia.
Threats against Russia by the West and by President Obama are just saber rattling bellicose rhetoric by chicken hawks who fight war from bunkers on the other side of the planet, support terrorists and perform weekly extra-judicial drone executions.
I would say that it is Nobel Peace Prize winning Obama and the leaders of what has proven itself to be the world’s number one rogue nation who truly need to "be nervous" over the events in Ukraine. After all their direct involvement in a coup d’état has been uncovered, detailed and published for the world to see, and unless international law and the UN Charter have been changed, orchestrating a coup d’état in a sovereign nation is still illegal.
The following is a list of countries where the US has organized coup d’états, supported revolutions, overthrown governments, invaded, annexed, supported groups or forces who overthrew or attempted to overthrow governments or outright executed the leaders.
Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia, Brazil, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guam, Guatemala, Haiti, Hawaii, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Korea, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Russia, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Turkey, Uruguay, USSR, Venezuela, Vietnam, Virgin Islands, Yemen, Yugoslavia and Zaire (Congo).
What they have done and are doing to Native Americans might also be added to the list and as the genocide of the indigenous peoples is the foundation of endemic "American" racism and "exceptionalism" must also be mentioned.
2 February, 2014 23:42
Hunger Strikes Continue at Guantanamo
There is a complete and almost total media blackout at the illegal extra-territorial prison being maintained by the US at Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Prisoners who have been there for more than a decade being held in conditions amounting to torture without charge and without trial have lost all hope and for over a year have been on a hunger strike attempting to end the torture they are being forced to live through day after day and year after year. The torture of having no recourse, no rights and no hope. Rather than letting these men end their own misery and starve themselves to death to end their misery, the US is force feeding them using a procedure that can only be described as torture. Famous Peace Activist Medea Benjamin spoke to the Voice of Russia and revealed that the hunger strikes continue.
Hello, this is John Robles. I'm speaking with Medea Benjamin, the cofounder and manager of Code Pink. This is part 2 of an interview in progress published earlier.
Benjamin: So Obama has less of an excuse than he had before to keep these prisoners in indefinite detention.
So I think it is a question of will he… (every excuse is starting to be peeled away) … will he really do something about this?
And I think the prisoners are sick and tired of hearing Obama say he is going to close Guantanamo, certainly what they need after all these years now is action, not words.
Robles: Yeah right! Your personal opinion, do you think he is going to do something or..?
Benjamin: I think he does want to start releasing more of these prisoners, I think he has boxed himself in, in the case of the Yemenis, the 56 Yemenis, because he had previously declared self-imposed moratorium on sending people back to Yemen. He lifted that himself.
But he has now shone of spotlight that the Republicans and others can really focus on to say Yemen is unstable, they need a rehabilitation center and it is going to take time to get that running and all kinds of things that will get in the way of a release. So I think that is a situation that he himself created it is going to be difficult to get out of.
But then there are over 20 other prisoners from other countries that could easily be released. We talked about the case of Shaker Aamer, but he is not the only one.
And then there are the countries that said that they would take other prisoners. Kuwait has its own rehabilitation center, Saudi Arabia has its rehabilitation center, there are plenty of places to send people.
So the excuses are quite threadbare at this point. I unfortunately think Obama will not be quick in doing the right thing in the year to come.
Robles: I see. There were demonstrations, I don't know if we discussed this, on the news wires a couple hours ago that there were huge demonstrations in Yemen outside the US embassy. So people there are aware, apparently there was no violence or anything. I guess that was good. And also..
Benjamin: Yes we... I'm sorry.
Robles: Go ahead, please.
Benjamin: We have been in touch with the families in Yemen, in fact we went and visited with some of them in June of last year and heard the agonizing stories of these families and the way that they would get their hopes up when their lawyers would give them news of things like they have been put on a list of cleared for release. But then their hopes have constantly been dashed.
And just like we talked about Shaker Aamer having a child that he has never met, so we met with a 12-year old girl who had never seen her father. She has been born while her father was in prison and she said that her father at that time was on a hunger strike and that he was so weak when he had a chance through the Red Cross to have a video conference with him, he could not even pick up his head.
So we heard these very agonizing stories, we continue to be in touch with the organizations in Yemen that work with these prisoners' families as well as the Human Rights Ministry in Yemen, the Minister herself is very outraged that these prisoners have not been released. And we knew they were having a demonstration today as we were having ours here in Washington DC and there were other demonstrations in the US. So it was good to be in solidarity together.
Robles: That is wonderful. Do you have anything big coming up that we should be looking out for?
Benjamin: Well, we have a lot of things that we are doing as Code Pink we are on our way to Geneva next week when the peace talks around Syria are supposed to happen.
We are there with women that are coming from different parts of the world, mostly from war-torn countries to be calling for a cease-fire and end to all from all sides being sent to the warring parties and to be calling for women to have a voice at the peace table.
We are also planning in March to have a trip to Gaza for International Women's Day, that is March, 8 to have women from different countries around the world saying:' It's time to break the siege of Gaza, the conditions there are so terrible'.
We will continue to do our efforts around the prisoners in Guantanamo as well as people who have been whistleblowers in the US giving support to Chelsea Manning, to Edward Snowden. We are doing work to try to counter the NSA spying. And then Iran and the terrible legislation that Congress is trying to pass in the Senate that would increase the sanctions against Iran just as negotiations that are taking place. So we are trying to stop that from happening. So we have a full plate in a coming month.
Robles: I see. Can I ask you about your Geneva protest?
Benjamin: We really are not doing a protest, we are actually in favor of the peace talks. But we are there to be a voice and a presence, we don't want to take any sides. We are just saying that the fighting is hurting the civilian population, that there is no military solution to this.
This is coming from a position, the reason that Code Pink is going there, is that we were very active in trying to stop the US government from getting involved militarily in Syria. And we felt very proud that we were able to stop our government from doing that, yet on the other hand to see the agony that the Syrian people are going through it doesn't seem enough to say:' We are glad, we didn't get involved militarily'.
We have to do more than that. And I think certainly we want to be calling for more humanitarian aid, for open corridors for that aid to get through. But the main thing is to say, the world has to stand up and say: 'Let's put an end in the fighting'.
Robles: Definitely. I don't know if you are aware, right now, currently as we speak, right now Al Qaeda affiliated groups are battling each other there. I mean, it is complete insanity.
Benjamin: Well, yes. I mean, the level of..I've read that there is over 1,000 armed groups in Syria right now. I mean, this is just insane.
So anybody who thinks that there is a military solution is just not watching how much splintering has gone on and how much suffering for the civilian population, the millions of refugees, the people who are internally displaced.
There has really got to be a cease-fire.
Robles: Really, really. Most of the world I think agrees 100% on that. I want to ask you regarding Guantanamo. Have you seen any movement, or whispers, or anything, amongst the lawyers or anyone regarding a possible boycott of all proceedings at that location?
Benjamin: I'm not close enough to the lawyers to know that. But I can say that there were several lawyers out on the streets with us today in the pouring rain and the cold in Washington DC in front of the White House and then the march that we had and they were just unbelievably angry.
They just could not believe what Obama has been doing, the lies they have been said in terms of things supposedly changing, the violations. And it is very interesting to see these lawyers, some of whom come from prestigious law firms that were very supportive of the Obama Administration, and to see how angry they have become.
One thing we did today which was quite profound is that we had a march that went from the White House to the National Museum of American History. And inside we set up displays of people in orange jumpsuits with hoods over their heads and signs attesting to the violation of the US Constitution.
And at first the security in the museum wanted to arrest people, throw them out and then decided no, that they were going to let this exhibit stand and so for hours we were inside the museum giving all of the visitors not only a visual but an oral discussion of how the US is violating its own constitution.
And yes, President Obama, “the constitutional lawyer” and of course “the Nobel Peace Prize winner” should have a hard time sleeping at night knowing that thanks to him these men remain in indefinite detention in the US GULAG.
Robles: I don't think he does. I mean, when I saw him laughing… laughing it up, at Nelson Mandela's funeral, any humanistic ideas I had about Obama were completely out the window, but anyway...
Benjamin: Politics is dirty and he has gotten down in the dogs and you are right probably he doesn't think very much about it when he goes to bed at night.
Robles: So, Medea, how do you do that? I mean, you put that display up there in the museum and it seems… I’ve got to hand it you sometimes you pull off some things that nobody else can. What is your secret?
Benjamin: Well, this was a coalition of groups led by a group called Witness Against Torture that is namely people from a faith-based background and there were about 60 people who are willing to get arrested in the museum if that was the way things were going to evolve.
But luckily they didn't and I think it was very beautiful to be in there and to be singing and chanting with the message 'Make Guantanamo history', so in the Museum of American History to be saying: 'Let's not just look at these rooms full of, depictions of the US Revolutionary War, the Civil War, other things throughout the history. Let's look at what we are doing right now. And how this is going to go down in history as such a shameful mark on the US.
Robles: They will have to open up an exhibit 'The Hall of Shame' or something..
Benjamin: That is right, but I don't think it is going to happen because even in the exhibit that I poked into today looking at the depiction of the War in Vietnam, it was not a very clear one talking about the use of Agent Orange, the killing of 2 million Vietnamese, the reall shame of that war.
So there is a lot of our history that is hidden from the American public.
Robles: I see. Medea, have you had… (I just want to ask you one last question if I could and anything you would like to say, please go ahead) …have you had any experience with media being more inaccessible than say it was a year ago in the US?
Have you seen anything like that going on? I mean stricter control on the media, more people being, basically shut up.
Benjamin: Are you talking about in relationship to Guantanamo?
Robles: In general, with the Snowden revelations, with Guantanamo, with government secrecy. I mean, are they winning are they losing? Are things getting out the way they were a year ago? What is the situation with media access, etc?
Benjamin: I really can’t answer that what I can say is from my own experience, in that, a lot of the times that we have had actions like the one we had today we used to get mainstream media that would cover them. We used to have CNN there, MSNBC would come there and these days we don't get any mainstream US media.
The media that we get is Russia Today, maybe we would get Al Jazeera, maybe we would get TV from Europe, from Japan, but the US media tends to ignore what the activists are doing, tends to ignore a lot of these key issues that are so damming of US foreign policy.
So unfortunately I think we have a media that is obviously under corporate control and has also been cutting back on the funding of reporters and so we have fewer and fewer reporters especially on weekends.
And it means that there is not a lot of information through the mainstream channels that can educate the American people and just to circle back to the issue of Guantanamo I would think that if there would be a poll done that most Americans wouldn't even know that we still have people in Guantanamo. They probably think everybody there was let go, it has been shut down or if they thought that anybody was left it is because they have been tried and convicted and happened to be the worst of the worst which is not true at all.
So, unfortunately I think that a lot of the reasons that the Administration can get away with policies like this is because the US mainstream media has not been doing its job.
Robles: Oh boy. And that is a problem, that is not going to be corrected any time soon as far as I know. What do you think?
Benjamin: No but thank goodness we do have alternative kinds of media from other countries and people who are anxious to get information from other sources, at least have that opportunity.
So let's hope more and more people start searching for that and it perhaps will even shame the mainstream media to start covering more of these things.
Robles: Yeah, sure, right. Let's hope they don't take the Internet away from us. What do you think?
Benjamin: Yeah, I think we have a huge movement on our hands to try to stop that from happening but it is very scary to see not only the NSA spying but in general the government and corporate control of more and more of our lives.
But thank you for the work that you are doing and for this interview and I'm actually optimistic that in 2014 we can fight back against these policies and take back some of the freedoms that we've lost in the past years.
Robles: I hope so. I've gotten some rumblings that big changes are coming up, hopefully they will be for the best.
Listen, you're going to be in Geneva, I'm sorry, what date?
Benjamin: We are going to be there from January 20 to January 24.
Robles: If people want to support you or take part or learn more about your activities where should they go?
Benjamin: They should go to our website which is codepink.org and the summit that we are having the Women’s Summit the day before the official talks start, we will be live-streaming and you can find all that information on our website.
Robles: Of course this is not only for women, you welcome men into your activities, right?
Benjamin: We welcome men into all of our activities, the summit I'm talking about is a summit for women to speak but everybody is invited to be part of it.
Robles: Ok, I'm just making sure so nobody is scared off or anything. One more time, that will be January..
Benjamin: January 20 – January 24.
Robles: January 20 – January 24 and one more time for the listeners your website..
Robles: Ok. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
Benjamin: Ok, bye bye.
Bye bye, take care.
This is the final installment of an interview with Medea Benjamin, the cofounder and manager of Code Pink. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at Voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening.
26 October 2012, 19:20
WikiLeaks Reveals US Detainee Policies: Camp Delta
The US War on Terror is an illegal war and WikiLeaks has even more proof. The aggressive invasions are a crime against humanity, the killing of civilians and people defending their homelands are war crimes, the extra-judicial executions are illegal under all international standards and laws, the drone- strikes, Obama’s daily kill list, the black sites and illegal prisons worldwide, the torture and the illegal prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are all criminal acts.
When the US declared a War on Terror, they declared a war on a brutal methodology for achieving and bringing about political change and the goals of organizations using terror to advance their agendas.
The War on Terror did not fall into the category of a normal war. First it did not fit the definition of a classic war, where one country declares war on another and armies are mobilized. It also did not have a defined enemy or field of battle, and lastly due to its nature it is an open ended and endless campaign, without borders and without limits.
Under normal circumstances the world’s population would have never allowed such an adventure with one country effectively declaring war on the world, the American public would also have questioned the questionable nature of the “War on Terror”, had it not been for the event that the Project for a New American Century said would be needed to begin an campaign of world military domination, namely the events of September 11, 2001.
Among the questions that came up with the War on Terror was what to do with those who fought back? In Afghanistan they could not be labeled prisoners of war, as no war was declared. They could not be called terrorists, as people who never did anything against the US and who were merely protecting their homes and families, could not rightfully be labeled such. So they were labeled “enemy combatants”, just one of the acts of legal twisting and obfuscation that was carried out by the US to legalize, after-the-fact, their illegal war, their illegal torture and their illegal detention.
The Site WikiLeaks has released some of the most important documents issued by the US covering the detention of these detainees, in particular the foundation document for the illegal terror prison in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, and the original pre-war-on-terror directive which had to be appended.
The original document, dated August 18, 1994 and re-issued in 2004, called for adherence to the Geneva Conventions, point 2 (d) and reads: Under the Geneva Conventions Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and for the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, on the outbreak of an armed conflict, or when persons are captured or detained by the U.S. Military Services in the course of the full range of military operations, ensure that a national-level information centre exists that can fully serve to account for all persons who pass through the care, custody, and control of the U.S. Military Services.” This directive was obviously violated at Guantanamo and worldwide at secret black sites and prisons all over the world.
According to the document released by WikiLeaks, the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for Camp Delta GTMO, Camp Delta was designed for “detained personnel”, how 15-year-old children who are attempting to defend their families can be classified as such is beyond me.
Chapter 1, point 1002 of the SOP says that "Hazing, corporal punishment, harassment, unauthorized exercises, unnecessary restriction, deprivations and demeaning treatment ‘serve no purpose’ and are prohibited.” How the torture, stress positions, isolation, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation and other practices which are all documented as taking place regularly at Guantanamo were allowed to take place as standard procedure is also beyond me.
Point 140.4, regarding staffing, calls for a Chaplain but makes no mention of what religion. This does not take into account the fact that most of the detainees, if not all are and were practicing Muslims, you can make your own conclusion on this point.
Point 105.13.d regarding deadly force is interesting because it allows the “Commanding General” to order the use of deadly force for any reason.
In the document there has been a section deleted which deals with “call to prayer”, remember the detainees are almost exclusively Muslims, points 1 to 3 are deleted but point 4 mentions scheduled time(s) as part of operations. Points 6 and 7 mention which CD tracks to play.
Point 31 states what detainees are allowed to have, this includes a “finger toothbrush, a Koran, prayer beads, an orange suit and a mask!
The document repeats several issues multiple times, namely hunger strikes, call to prayer and prisoner abuse.
The document deals little with interrogations, where torture is likely to take place. However point 3012.1 allows for detainee escort teams to leave their detainees “unattended or unsecured” as directed by the SOP for the Joint Interagency Interrogation Facility. A location that demands further research.
Point 3013.2.1 Defines the physical control that is to be maintained over the detainees, this includes two points of physical contact by each member of the escort team.
Point 4005.6 mentions a three-piece-suit, there is little information on this device, but apparently it is a metal suit which brutally holds the detainee in any position they deem necessary. Point 4005 details how detainees are to be shackled, handcuffed and an in other means “secured”.
If one follows the headings and the numbering of the document it is clear that there have been redactions and deletions. What is most glaring is the absence of any information regarding interrogations and almost nothing about abuse which could be termed torture.
In the near future, I will be going through all of the WikiLeaks releases and keep you informed.
27 September 2012, 23:47
Anti-US Protests: Catalyst for More US War
As the reaction the US film “The Innocence of Muslims” continues to rage on worldwide I have to wonder as to “The Innocence of the Americans” who have made the film, distributed it and refuse to take it down. Hard questions have to be asked in light of the fact that the popularity and support of the “War on Terror” is waning and the fact that it is an election year.
Are we to believe such a massive provocation is the work of some idiot working on his own in California or is there something else behind the whole affair?
Many experts and observers around the world believed that the worldwide anti-American protests that were set off by the US film “The Innocence of Muslims,” would have died down by now but as they cool off in one country they continue to spread to others and in some to gain strength and severity.
Decades of anti-US sentiment brought about by the US meddling in Muslim countries and constant insults to, double-standards towards, attacks on and disrespect for, the Muslim people have been brought to the surface and apparently this “Genie” which refuses to go quietly back into its bottle has become a juggernaut of rage against America.
Although the US would like to continue to paint a picture of blameless virtuousness and holier-than-thou innocence, the paint is beginning to run and the mosaic of intolerance, ignorance, double-standards and just plain pompous arrogance lying below the surface is being revealed.
The dossier on US wars in the Muslim world and its gung-ho meddling and subversion, brutal regime change and nation-building, or rather destroying, is now so voluminous that it is would require its own library to properly catalogue. Just as with the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, the world is seeing the result of, and paying the price for, US short-sightedness, lack of advance planning and any sort of care or foresight when it comes to the consequences of its actions.
The film “The Innocence of Muslims” should have been justifiably and rightfully titled, “The Stupidity of Americans” for that it was it has shown, both in the internal US dialogue and the external “diplomacy” that has ensued after the “film’s” debut. However even if the US had reacted thoughtfully and fairly and shown respect for those of the Islamic faith and those who were justifiably outraged, there is serious doubt that the current blow-back could have been prevented, such respect and thoughtfulness should have been part of US diplomacy decades ago. People the world over have long memories as opposed to the three-minute-attention-span of the average American which is something the US obviously forgets.
Even more sinister might be the Machiavellian possibility that this is something the US counts on. If we take a minute to consider the fact that the US has become a country embroiled in and hopeless trapped in a self-propagating worldwide endless war against a methodology “terror” which can never be eradicated in all its guises, a war that needs constant fuel to keep its fires roaring, then we can postulate that this was a carefully planned means of continuing the endless cycle of violence that the US is feeding on.
When events such as these take place, and events such as 9-11, I always ask the question; “Who does it benefit?” The answer may not be a pretty one but time and time again, the answer seems to be the US military industrial complex and the endless war on terror. A war used as a pretext for taking control of resources, making billions in re-building shattered countries and promoting the furthering the US militarization and the taking over of the entire planet.
According to the Pak Tribune reporting on an interview Hafiz Saeed an extremist cleric and the purported terrorist mastermind behind the 2008 attack on the Indian city of Mumbai, which he gave to Reuters, “Obama should have ordered steps to remove the film from the Internet instead of defending freedom of expression in America.” According to Saeed: "Obama's statements have caused a religious war, this is a very sensitive issue and it is not going to be resolved soon. Obama's statement has started a cultural war."
This may be true in part but the statement is extremely nearsighted and historically hollow. The fact of the matter is that the so-called-religious-war has been going on for decades and was transformed into its present overt state by George Bush using the events of 9-11 as a catalyst. Whether you call it a religious war, resource wars or steps towards global military domination the end result is the same.
As for the protests over the film; they have spread to Bangkok, Greece, India, Iran, Ireland and Nigeria and are now targeting French institutions and even Google, which has not taken the video down.
If you are engaged in an endless war on terror that is losing popularity then you need to foment as much hate and breed as many “terrorists” as possible. The only way to beat such a strategy is to ignore the provocations. You can’t fight a war if there are no enemies, no matter how hard you try to create them yourself. Or can you?
The views and opinions expressed here are my own, I can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org
25 September 2012, 10:00
Russia Says No to USAID
The Government of the Russian Federation has been forced to take measures against US interests to protect its sovereignty and after allowing USAID to operate freely on the territory of the Russian Federation for 20 years has informed the organization that, as of October 1st, it is no longer welcome. USAID has proven that its stated objectives are not keeping with its real activities in the country, activities which have served to undermine Russia and advance US interests.
As of October 1 2012, USAID (The United States Agency for International Development) is to cease all of its operations on the territory of the Russian Federation by order of the Russian Government, ending decades of deep and far-reaching involvement in post-Soviet territory.
The Russian Government has determined that USAID has been attempting to, among other things, influence the internal political processes of the Russian Federation, this is true, clear and obvious and must not be allowed to continue. However that is only the very tip of an enormous iceberg of US involvement and meddling which goes to the very foundations of Russian society.
The organization, which has for years been listed as a CIA front, would like to paint a picture of itself as an innocent “humanitarian” group trying to advance the societal interests of the countries where it is, for all intents and purposes, buying influence.
This might have been believable in the innocent days of the 90’s when much of the world still believed that the US was interested in advancing the betterment of all mankind, but things have changed. The world has grown up, and has seen that the US is bent on a path of world domination and is willing to do everything and anything to advance its own selfish imperialistic interests.
If we take off the rose-colored-glasses and look at USAID for what it really is and accept the self-admitted pretext that US financial aid is tied to the advancement of US interests, then USAID becomes another animal entirely, a world apart from the image it attempts to portray as a guardian of humanity and democracy. For what it truly and really is, when you take away the propaganda and the spin, is a US tool to undermine, coerce, usurp and force countries to bend to the American will.
The tentacles of USAID are vast and far-reaching, are everywhere and encompass everything from day-care centers to the largest private banking institutions. There is not an area of Russian society where they have not penetrated and there is not an area that has not been in some way “touched” by the hand of USAID’s 2.6 billion dollar hand. That’s right folks, $2,600,000,000.00, let’s respect that number by printing out all the zeros.
$2.6 billion: that is a very healthy investment, and an investment it was, for the US Government would not spend that kind of money if there were no strings attached. “Strings” that they need to manipulate Russia and countries worldwide to make them pliable and “friendly” to US interests. In the recent past the US has at last repeatedly officially stated and admitted that US financial assistance and aid is tied to advancing US interests.
Back in the 1990s when the US Government was more transparent and it was possible to gain information about the inner workings of the government, it was common knowledge that USAID was under the CIA in the budgetary hierarchy. The CIA was under the DCI, the Director of Central Intelligence, as was the US State Department.
Is an organization that advances US interests, is funded by the US Intelligence apparatus and strives to gain access to critical infrastructure and the most vulnerable segments of civil society under the pretext of “advancing and assisting” the societies of its target countries, something that the world’s states really want operating on their territories? Russia’s expulsion of USAID should be a wake-up call for all countries that have allowed the organization to sink its hooks into their countries.
Slowly Russia is waking up and realizing that it is an enemy and not a friend who wants to surround us with missiles and dictate to us who our enemies should be, who our friends should be and who our rulers should be. It is an enemy who supports those who divide society, blaspheme our religion and undermine our government and our elected leaders.
Since 1992 USAID has funded organizations such as the Moscow Helsinki Group which has been used as a cover for MI-6 and refuses to register its source of income and as a “foreign agent” with the Russian Government, Transparency International’s Russian branch, an organization which has consistently denigrated and demonized Russia, the Golos organization which has directly meddled in Russian elections and attempted to sow doubt as to the legitimacy of power in the Russian Federation as well as other groups and organizations which have done little to actually strengthen and improve Russian society but which have allowed thousands of Western “operatives” to operate unhindered and advance their own agendas.
USAID has a long history of funding groups and organizations all over the world that have brought about “color revolutions” the current US Ambassador to Russia’s specialty, and served to bring about regime change and the fall of governments all over the world. The meddling in Latin America is clear, widespread and examples of such are easy to find by anyone with an internet connection.
The Russian Foreign Ministry has not only told USAID to end its operations by October 1st but to also recall more than a dozen US diplomats working in Russia for USAID. Statements by US officials are unapologetic, do not deny the accusations and are almost a direct admission to meddling which they, for the most part, say will continue.
Senior US officials have issued statements such as this one from a senior US official in Moscow: “Washington will look for new ways to achieve their ends” and US State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland’s statement: “Our diplomats look forward to continuing... cooperation with Russian non-governmental organizations.”
As if to underline their wish to undermine the legitimacy of the government of Russia, and in a shameful parting shot USAID issued an ignominious statement saying they had funded some “unspecified” activities of Russia’s leading United Russia party, prompting the head of the United Russia faction in the State Duma, Andrei Vorobyov, to say "This is crafty/sly information. No funds from this organization have been received and no agreements were signed."
Countries worldwide beware and take heed, you may have allowed a Trojan horse into your country, and they may be next door, waiting for the right moment to attack.
The opinions and views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Voice of Russia.
The author can be reached at email@example.com
16 August 2012, 10:00
US and Allies Arbitrarily Violate International Law
US and Allies Arbitrarily Violate International Law
Mr. Rozoff discusses General Assembly resolutions on Syria and how the US and its allies are circumventing standard procedure in order to win a propaganda battle. “Everything that the West and its Persian Gulf allies have done over the last seventeen months has worsened the situation, [costing] more Syrian lives,” Rozoff said.
This is part 3 of the interview with Mr. Rick Rozoff – the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list.
What do you make about Kofi Annan’s sudden, I don’t know how unexpected it was for those in the know but it was unexpected for many, to see Kofi Annan all of a sudden decide not to renew his mandate?
Which was due to expire at the end of this month.
It didn’t surprise me. I would just tell you frankly, I believe that his stepping down was coordinated with the introduction of the resolution in the General Assembly which was introduced by the current Secretary General – Kofi Annan’s successor Ban Ki-moon – who lambasted the Syrian Government, made comparisons to Rwanda and Bosnia in the 1990s as though suggesting that what happened in Syria was a replication of these precedents I’ve mentioned. And again, you know, poisoned the well, or prejudiced the vote by his comments. We have to recollect that Kofi Annan himself would never have been Secretary General of UN if, the then US representative to the UN, the Secretary of State later, Madeleine Albright hadn’t single-handedly rammmed through his nomination and secured his position at the expense of Boutros Boutros-Ghali who was running for reelection for that position.
So, Kofi Annan was the US’s man in the United Nations for two terms. And if anything I was rather surprised he hadn’t tipped his hand earlier in terms of supporting the West’s position. But you know, in fact he did to some extent at the Geneva meeting with the so called action group. There were different interpretations of what came out, there was Russia’s and China’s for example and there was his which intimated or stated I think even more explicitly that Bashar Assad had to step down as President and the Government had to cede power to some sort of coalition. So, it doesn’t surprise me in the least. I think these events were coordinated and then the fact that he received a guest editorial in the Financial Times, the morning of the General Assembly vote, as I recollect last Friday, explaining his position all seems to be a fairly coordinated campaign.
What do you think about: several Russia officials made statements that the resolution actually served to worsen the situation in Syria?
Yes, it does. And everything that the West and its Persian Gulf allies have done over the last seventeen months has worsened the situation, cost more Syrian lives, led to the further destabilization, in many ways made irreparable damage to the nation of Syria, which one would now have to assume, ah, is the intent. For example Vitaliy Churkin also said after the vote last Friday [August 3, 2012] that to take the vote to the General Assembly while the Security Council was still deliberating on the Syrian issue was a violation of the UN Charter.
So, the US and its allies have again circumvented the standard procedure in order to win a propaganda battle, but a propaganda battle that will continue as we were just talking about with an escalation in the loss of Syrian lives as a result. The West and its Saudi allies and Qatari allies will sacrifice the life of every last Syrian if they accomplish their geopolitical objectives which are not only regime change in Damascus, it is also to prolong the perceived isolation of Russia and China. That’s the significance of this vote last Friday more than anything else.
Syria is much more the pretext than the actual issue being discussed because what is at issue right now – is whether the US and its allies can arbitrarily violate international law, whether they can subvert the concepts of the territorial integrity and national sovereignty of states, whether somebody sitting in the, you know, State Department can determine who has to step down as a head of state, who is going to replace him. And the US has done this in a least four occasions since early last year, I’m talking about Ivory Coast, Libya, Yemen and now Syria. And there is every reason to believe that if they are successful in Syria, then they would move on to the next countries. And I would suggest that the twelve of countries that voted against the resolution on Friday are exactly the twelve countries that are going to be targeted.
Can you list those countries for our listeners?
Yes. The twelve countries that voted against the resolution are Russia, China, Syria, Iran, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Myanmar, Nicaragua, North Korea, Venezuela and Zimbabwe.
And you think all those countries are on a hit list for regime change?
Each except for Myanmar decidedly are. And I’m a bit surprised that the former Burma, Myanmar, voted against the resolution as it had not voted against the resolution in February.
Why do you think they did this?
I have no idea. I would have thought that since Hilary Clinton’s visit to Myanmar last November that she had pretty much shifted Myanmar away from China and towards the UN. So, frankly I have no explanation for why they voted against the resolution unless they sensed something. If you’d asked me a year ago it would have been self-evident why Myanmar voted against it, because it itself was targeted for a regime change at the time. Somebody has them on the checklist and I think it is important that they are not able to make checks in each box. And if developments in Syria, that is Western and allied efforts to overthrow the Government in Syria, are thwarted with the continued opposition of Russia and China in the first place, then I don’t think we have to worry about the other eleven nations because of course Syria is one of them. But should they be successful in Syria, then I think the remaining eleven nations are likely targets.
Listen, one last question regarding Syria, which you just brought up again. About a week ago it looked like Assad was all but finished. What do you think Assad’s chances are, and the current Syrian Government’s chances are, of staying in power?
Barring a direct foreign military intervention I think, better with each passing day. The successful campaign to secure Damascus and now Aleppo, the two largest cities in the country, have given the lie to the media propaganda in the West in the first place about the fact that there was no unity within the Government, that the Syrian nation and people were divided, that the Government had no substantive support…
Yes, they were talking about everybody bailing out, that the high officials saw no future, and… after the assassination at the security building.
That’s a good point you raise. With the murder by a suicide bombing of four leading officials of the Government, including the Defense Minister, the Deputy Defense Minister…
And the Intelligence head I believe it was.
Yes. The reports in the West were that this is “the final nail in the coffin”, to quote Leon Panetta – the Pentagon Chief, with the Syrian Government and it was only a matter of days if not hours before it fell and so forth. And we’ve seen quite the reverse occur. We’ve seen the Government reestablish control over the capital Damascus, as well as Aleppo. And basically what are going on now are mopping up operations. And it also demonstrates that the Syrian military is firmly in support of the Government.
31 May 2012, 09:02
Obama’s Extra-Judicial Election Ploy
Obama’s Extra-Judicial Election Ploy
The title of a piece by the New York Times’ Jo Becker and Scott Shane, “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”, sums up for me the whole problem of Barrack Obama.
The title of a piece by the New York Times’ Jo Becker and Scott Shane, “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”, sums up for me the whole problem of Barrack Obama. Not that Barrack Obama is a problem or a bad president or that there is anything wrong with him as a person, but that he is someone that no one, so far, can really criticize. Which one might say was the beauty of putting a black man named Obama in the Oval Office; if anyone comes down too hard on him they will be branded racist or irrational for having a problem with someone named Hussein.
Perhaps I am wrong but Obama has been one of the least criticized presidents, if not “the” least criticized, that modern history has seen.
Obama is a man who is always operating on two or more conflicting fronts and is impossible to actually believe, for me anyway. The only thing we can say for sure is that he continues the policies of his predecessor and does a wonderful job of maintaining the status quo for what we can call the 1%.
This fact can be underlined by his Nobel “Peace” Prize, received and kept despite the fact he was waging two wars and, now it is revealed, openly involved in extra-judicial executions.
The first problem with the title of the piece is the naming of the list “Secret”. If it were truly secret we would never have heard about it. Which means the Oval Office has decided to make public the fact of the existence of the list, a fact which in and of itself and brings to mind even more questions, the top two being why and why now?
When there are huge “secrets” revealed in the press and for the world to ponder, such as this one, and in recent memory, such as the mountain of Wikileaks material that in fact did not contain any real secrets in my humble opinion, one has to always wonder why?
The answer to these two questions I think is quite obvious in this case. First of all the answer to the first question “why” is a complicated one but involves the psyche of the American electorate and the fact that for most Americans having a president who can play God and be judge-jury- and- executioner, or in other words a hardcore-cold-blooded-killer, is for want of a better word; “cool”.
I don’t hate Americans, I was once one, and sans uproar and cries for his removal upon knowing about this list, the American public has proven this point themselves. I am well aware that perhaps 99% of you do not agree that this is cool so no hate mail please.
The answer to the second question as to the timing of the release is more simple: Obama is up for re-election, a fact that has even affected his relations with Russia, and sadly for the state of humanity as a whole, the fact that he decides regularly on who the victims of extra-judicial executions are, will help him to get votes.
To say that the “Kill List” tests Obama’s principles is disingenuous as he could, as the most powerful man in the world, refuse to take part in such an exercise: or can he? And to say it tests his will is even worse, as if there is some insatiable force making him decide on killing people: or is there? More questions…
I have nothing against Obama personally or the fact that he is not white, neither am I, in fact I am darker than Obama, so don’t attack me there, but morally any leader who attempts to step outside of the laws and norms of the law and wield such power, namely the “decider” on extra-judicial executions, deserves to face justice.
For most of the civilized world, executions, even judicial ones, are illegal, but for the United States they are just one of the “tools” available to the president in his “War on Terror”, a euphemism for the killing of poor Islamists on the other side of the world who hate America.
Those who allow extra-judicial executions should also be tried but of course, as we learned with George Bush, justice never comes for American presidents, or his enablers. Unless they are involved in some minor private tryst, as we learned with William Clinton.
According to the New York Times when US President Obama decided on the killing of an American cleric in Yemen, Mr. Obama told colleagues that the decision was “an easy one”. I think that clears up any questions remaining about his “principles” in this regard.
Ahem... Hopefully he will not add me to his list.
Have a great day!
The opinions and views expressed here are my own.
6 April 2012, 16:41
The World’s Judge, Jury and Executioner
The World’s Judge, Jury and Executioner
Dear readers and listeners, if you would like to get a hold of me or comment on anything I have written please visit me on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/JohnARoblesII.
The Victor Bout case proves innocence is an inconvenient truth for the US, as is jurisdiction, rule of law, human rights, international norms, the Geneva Conventions, the territorial integrity of sovereign nations, etc. etc.
There are so many egregious errors and over-steppings of the bounds of what can be accepted as normalcy in this case that one is want where to begin. To make some sense of the utter magnitude of this international miscarriage of justice is not easy because for all intents and purposes there is no sense to be made here.
The case against Victor is rotten to its very core and its very foundation is so shaky that no sane person anywhere else but in the US would have pursued it. I may be wrong in your opinion but I do not think I am exaggerating or over-stating the seriousness of this matter.
At the core of this case is something that should never have been allowed to stand because it has set such a dangerous earth shaking precedent that there is really little way that the world can go back. The simple premise that the US has some sort of “right” to arrest the citizen of another country, a person who is not and never was any sort of US National, in a third country for a violation of US laws that only apply to the US and its territories which never actually occurred, based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, is more than just ludicrous, it is insane.
If this is the case and the first and most basic premise used by the US in the entire Bout case is in fact insane, or shaky if you like, then it must not be allowed to stand by the international community.
This tenet that the US is basing their aggressive wars on, this belief they are using to continue arming rebel groups worldwide, over-throwing governments, targeting for death anyone they wish and more, this twisted self-serving belief that anyone or anything, anywhere in the world, at any time who is against the United States of America is a criminal and can be liquidated, must not be allowed to be used anymore to undermine the integrity of the entire planet. 9-11 is over, they cannot be allowed free reign any longer.
Even if Victor Bout was guilty their case is hilarious. Let’s turn the tables and look at it from the other side and from the precedent this sets. Even if he assisted in some way in delivering weapons to FARC this is not illegal everywhere in the world. SO what jurisdiction did the US have to illegally kidnap Bout in Thailand? Is it a US territory? Thailand allowed this to happen so they gave up their sovereignty because like everyone they are afraid of the world’s policeman, and judge, jury and executioner.
Georgia for example was armed by the US, they killed UN sanctioned Russian Peacekeepers and civilian Russian citizens, that is a crime under international law, so the world’s policeman must arrest; Condelezza Rice, George Bush, and every American that played any role in that act of aggression. What about Iraq and Afghanistan, the same thing?
We saw this first in Afghanistan, and I was shocked that they were allowed to arrest, or kill, or torture anyone who fought back when the US Forces aggressively attacked their country. My thought, and tell me if I am wrong, is that if some soldier comes into my house and starts killing my family you better believe I am going to fight back to the death. But the world’s policeman says this is a crime, (defending your loved ones) if the US wants to kill your father you better not try to save his life, you had better not pick up that grenade to throw it back because if you do you are an enemy combatant and will be taken to Guantanamo and tortured to death. Isn’t that exactly what they did in Afghanistan?
What about Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Egypt, China, Peru, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Iran, Yemen, and every other country where the US has supplied and armed insurgents, rebels, extremists, and fanatics? The killing and overthrowing of governments these people were responsible for were acts which were illegal in all of those countries were they not? So let us call the world’s policeman to arrest every American involved in those crimes.
While we are at it let’s arrest every manufacturer of American weapons, every official, designer, employee and distributor at Raytheon, General Electric, General Dynamics, and so on and so forth. I mean their weapons are used to kill innocent women and babies. While we are at it, if we follow the logic they used to kidnap, torture and entrap Bout, let’s arrest everyone involved is selling and manufacturing at Colt, Smith and Wesson, Remington and every other maker of arms. Why? Well these weapons are used by criminals to commit crimes, to kill cops and the like, so just like Bout, the suppliers of these weapons must also be held responsible. Right?
Wrong! The world’s policeman says so. No matter what country you live in anywhere in the world you must follow US law. If the US wants to sell weapons to Syrian fanatics, or Chechen terrorists, or Albanian murderers this is okay and acceptable. But you must do nothing against US interests, or you will be hunted down, arrested, tortured, or simply taken out by a drone.
Yes I said this too loud and too clear, but this is in fact the reality we are faced with and it is time people all over the world woke up. We can play with words, and be politically correct and make things look nice and not so bad but in reality we have all been enslaved by the US. Or have we? Stand up, or stand down. It’s up to you.
Have a nice day, wherever you may be.
26 January 2012, 18:08
Dereliction of Duty
Pro fessor Eugene R. Fidell
fessor Eugene R. Fidell
Interview with Mr. Eugene R. Fidell, a teacher of military justice, a Senior Research Scholar in Law and a Florence Rogatz Visiting Lecturer at Yale Law School
Photo courtesy of Yale University
I’d like to get your reaction to the Haditha ruling, please.
I hate to fall back on the phrase that it’s complicated. It is complicated, but let me say a few words about where we are and where we should be going from here because that may be constructive. The US military is a very well disciplined, law abiding military force. Nevertheless in any military force of this size there are going to be some incidents that happen that clearly cross the line. In this case, the case did not even get to the jury, instead it was aborted by the commanding general, who made a deal with the defendant, that the defendant would plead guilty to only a minor charge of dereliction of duty and would receive no time in jail.
Why was that?
We don’t know the exact reason why the General made that decision. It’s not a decision made by the central authorities, and the position that I have taken on this matter is that the Government owes the American public, as well as people around the world, an explanation for why this deal was made and why the case did not continue through the trial process. It is the last in a series of cases that have fizzled, and I think people in Iraq are entitled to an explanation. And frankly, I think people in the United States are entitled to an explanation. Maybe there is one, but so far it hasn’t become public.
Let’s just look at the military cases. Now, it is a fact that many of the results of these cases that have arisen in Iraq and to some extent in Afghanistan have been very surprising. We are dealing in the United States right now with the chapter that is only now closing in Iraq. And I think before that chapter closes the American people and people around the world have a right to an explanation and an accounting of how disciplinary issues have come out. Particularly because the United States has elected not to be party to the Rome Statute, the created the International Criminal Court, and that means we have to rely on our own courts to dispense justice. So, I think people, even though it may be an unpopular position, I think people in the United States should be wanting, and I hope many of us do want, an accounting, so, that this is quite surprising outcome can be explained, if it is possible to explain.
This is a good chance to maybe prevent, if we can, some backlash, I mean a lot of people in the world would say that apparently the United States thinks that an Iraqi life is not worth anything.
Look, there is no question that the Iraqi people have a great deal to complain about. The United States has tried to underscore the importance of justice, so that this won’t happen again and so the people who are guilty of war crimes will pay an appropriate penalty.
Ok, sir, you’ve mentioned the word “war crime”, would you qualify this as a war crime?
If civilians who are unarmed died in this conflict, in this particular incident, then it certainly would be a war crime. We don’t prosecute war crimes as such, what we do is prosecute them as whether it’s murder or manslaughter, we don’t use the construct of “war crime”, but I’m using that for this purpose because that’s the common understanding. The defendant here at least complained or contended that the circumstances were sufficiently unclear, that he and the other people who participated in these fatalities should not be punished. I think that’s a hard case to make, given the number of fatalities and unfortunately because of the way the case has unfolded, and the deal that was made between the defendant and the commanding general, we are never going to get a solid answer to that. And that, I think, is going to leave the Iraqi people extremely unnourished and extremely disappointed.
Apparently one of the victims was an old man in a wheelchair, there were women and children, they were in bed. It’s hard for people to find some justification in that.
Right, I have no brief for the people who were charged in this case, none whatever. However I will simply report that their contention has been that they were taking fire from a house or houses in which these deaths occurred, their instructions were to clear the houses and the events moved so quickly that they didn’t have time to ask a lot of questions, they just had to fire. I’m not here to defend that, I’m simply reporting. I think it’s in a way unfortunate that the world has been deprived of a trial at which these matters could be fully ventilated.
In the last ten years and especially since 9\11 the US has moved away from the Geneva Conventions.
There was time under the prior Administration that that contention could be made, however the incumbent President, Barak Obama has made it perfectly clear that the policy of his Administration is to adhere closely to the Geneva Conventions, and I think that but for some frustrations that have been imposed by Congress, which does not do everything that he wants done, such as closing Guantanamo, he has been steadfast in that and his preference indeed has been to try terrorism cases, at least domestic terrorism cases, in the civilian courts rather than through military commissions.
So, you believe he is sincere in his desire to close Guantanamo?
I believe he is absolutely sincere, it’s unfortunate that he hasn’t had the kind of working majority even in the Senate where the Democrats have a technical majority to do what he wants done.
What would you say to critics that say that the US has isolated themselves from the international community, that this case should have been tried in the Hague for example?
No, there is no substantial body of opinion in the United States that this case should have been tried in Hague.
Of course in the United States, there is not going to be any opinion of that.
Well, it’s true that we’ve been quite resistant to that, but I have to point out that under the Rome Statute that governs the International Criminal Court, there is a doctrine of complementarity, which relies on national authorities in the first instance to investigate and prosecute war crimes and we, I think would argue that our military justice system is robust and fair. Whether it has functioned properly in this particular case is a question on which opinions will likely vary.
So, you don’t see the US ever becoming a signatory to the International Court, do you?
At this point I don’t see that happening as a political matter and we’ve been very jealously guarding our sovereignty with respect to war crimes. So, perhaps the next Administration or the one after that there will be some progress but at the moment I think this is an area, where we going to have to be responsible for our own fate.
10 January 2012, 11:18 31 August 2012, 18:57
US Defense Act 2012: Open Ended War
US Defense Act 2012: Open Ended War
Professor Scott Horton
Professor Scott Horton
Interview with Scott Horton, New York attorney known for his work in emerging markets and international law, an expert in the law of armed conflict, a contributing Editor to Harper's Magazine where he covers legal and national security issues and writes No Comment, a widely read blog about human rights and international law. He also lectures at Columbia Law School and is a co-founder of the American University in Central Asia
I’d like to ask you some questions regarding the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. Why is a provision that would allow indefinite detention of even American citizens being pushed through in this Bill?
That’s an excellent question. In fact, the Obama administration has been celebrating the success of military efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of the president senior advisors talk about a victory over Al-Qaeda, they say the members of the terrorist combatants have been reduced into the hundreds. But Republicans in the Senate had been pushing quite aggressively for a measure designed to declare a forever war, basically war that has no end and to designate the American homeland itself as part of the battlefield and in that connection the both of those matters somewhat controversial but in connection with this effort they’d also introduced sections designed to give a U.S. Statutory basis to the president’s authority to detain American citizens and I think that’s had quite a bit of negative backlash in the United States both among Conservatives and among Liberals.
Why would the U.S. want an open-ended war?
There is no military reason for this and in fact most of the generals in Pentagon consider it to be not very smart. Of course, they’d rather define a war in terms that it could be won, that they could claim victory. So, this is purely a partisan political exercise, which has been driven largely by the Republicans and in this case I think they have a number of different points: one is to prevent the administration claiming the victory in the current conflict; but another is to force Barack Obama to keep Guantanamo open forever to prevent him from his campaign pledge to close Guantanamo, there are whole series of provisions designed to do this.
Who’s benefiting from this endless war on terror?
The bottom-line here is that people who press an idea: boundless executive power and authority at the expense of civil liberties come up on top because these measures basically undermine the Bill of Rights and the protections in the Bill of Rights by elevating the role of military law and the role of military in the criminal justice system so that Bills has a much more powerful presidency and weakens the position of the judiciary and the normal civil administration of justice.
How does this fly in the face of Habeas Corpus: the 4th Amendment regarding unreasonable seizure, the 5th Amendment, which prohibits the deprivation of liberty, the 6th Amendment, the Universal declaration of human rights, etc.?
It’s all basically designed to establish the precedence of military law that is law of war, law of conflict over civil liberties, particularly the civil liberties that are found in the American Bill Of Rights but also International Doctrines, International Govermenets and International Customary Law.
What’s really going on here?
The defenders of the legislation say they are not doing anything new, that all they are doing is stating the law that already exists and the president has the power to arrest the American citizens who are fighting for their enemy. In war time, of course, during World War II in fact there were Americans who fought on the side of the Germans and the Italians during the war who were captured and held as prisoners of war. I think they are correct about that but the concern we have here is that this war is really rather loosely defined, it’s war against terrorists, the terrorist group, the groups that are associated with them are the enemy and the definition of who would be enemy changes all the time, so I think we get a lot of borderline cases where for political reasons organizations are described suddenly as the enemy and people who had anything to do with them are described as having a provided material support to them and they can be treated as an enemy in this term. So, I think the changing definition, departures from traditional laws of war are what cause the real concern here.
So, I mean, basically they could come in with tanks and just take control of any city if they want?
That’s one of the major concerns civil libertarians have raised about this legislation because at the end of the American Civil War there was the Statute issued, the Posse Comitatus Act, which outlawed the use of the military as a domestic police force in the United States. And I think these measures seem to be undermining the Posse Comitatus Act, they seem to be opening the door for the use of the military for police purposes on the territory of the United States. That’s a big concern. And I think a lot of the procedures we see: American citizens being tried and others being tried before military tribunals. If we look at examples around the world where democratic societies had deteriorated into dictatorships – in Latin America, also in Europe between the wars, and in South-East Asia and other places, it consistently follows the pattern like this when we see a termination or suspension of civilian justice and we see introduction of the military justice procedures, so what’s been done in the Statute is chilling.
We are almost out of time, I am sorry. So, president Obama originally threatened to veto this Bill, then apparently he changed his mind.
He objected to the limitations on his authority as Commander-in-chief, there are also raised questions about some of the civil liberties issues. But the bottom-line is that this is an appropriation’s bill that contains the salary for military officers, their pensions – these questions put a lot of pressure on him to find a way to accommodate and we are expecting, I think, in next couple of days to see a signing statement issued by the president, which is going to state how he interprets it and I think a lot of us now are expecting that he will try to address some of the concerns in the civil liberties area winning sides legislation. If not, there’s going to be a lot of disappointment among his followers. The very important consideration here is Guantanamo: what’s going to happen with this Guantanamo facility. We might call this Statute the Guantanamo Forever Act that seems designed to force the administration to keep Guantanamo opened forever and to send new people there, which I think is very disagreeable to Barack Obama who, of course, pledged to close it but seems to be facilitating political objectives of the Republic
US and Habeas Corpus: Interests First, Freedoms Second
US and Habeas Corpus: Interests First, Freedoms Second
Interview with Debra Sweet, Director of The World Can't Wait, which is a series of websites and a movement in the US. They are active and attempting to stop, among other things, aggressive wars by the US.
My first question regards the National Defense Authorization Act, under which an Indefinite Detention Clause was passed, also censorship under the SOPA act. Starting with the PATRIOT Act, it seems like human rights have been stripped away one after the other in the US. Would you characterize the US as a police state?
I don’t know that I would characterize the US across the board as a police state. Certainly, in many other countries and historically there are places where people can’t even gather, not to mention US-backed states, where protesters have been shot and killed during the Arab Spring with impunity. A lot of that comes back to the US backing of very authoritarian governments around the world. One can say that, since 9/11, since the Bush regime used the attack on the World Trade Center as a pretext to unleash an endless war on the world, apparently it’s been continued by the next administration. Civil liberties and the protection of the first ten amendments have been, which are known in the US as the Bill of Rights, has been severely restricted and now we see that what the US instituted 10 years ago, on January 11th 2002, when it opened its illegal prison in Guantanamo, it allowed the US for years to hold men with no access to Habeas Corpus right, no charges against them. And, in fact, there have been very intense court battles within the US to try to get those men any rights at all. And, in fact, 171 are still being held indefinitely. All this has become a model, as a way that the US can keep people indefinitely without charges and now, as you are mentioning, under the law that Barack Obama signed last Saturday, on the last day of the year, there is a situation where the US now, through the President, can hold people indefinitely under custody of the US military. And this definitely includes US citizens, as well as anyone else. This is under charges “suspicion of involvement with terrorism”. You may call it a police state – and it has a real fascist tinge to it, because it’s setting out a situation where people can be grabbed based on what the President thinks you are thinking about and presumably held by the military forever either in this country or outside of it. And we understand that the US has employed “black sites”, third-country prisons, in addition to what it’s done in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Guantanamo.
As far as I know, Habeas Corpus is gone in the US. For all intents and purposes, the PATRIOT Act addition killed it, right?
I don’t like to make statements like that. There certainly are people who are being charged and tried and there is some due process. People are not literally all the time just locked away. However, there is a direction here and it’s extremely alarming. The attacks on Habeas Corpus began with disallowing people who were not citizens from having those rights. Now, we see citizens suffering, in fact, targeted assassination by the Obama administration. Three US citizens were killed in 2011 in drone strikes in Yemen not on the basis of having been charged, convicted of any crimes, not on the basis of having been sentenced to death by a court by because they were put on a CIA targeted assassination list and that these assassinations were authorized clearly by Barack Obama – and he says that he did it. This is a change. The Bush administration had somebody killed in a targeted drone strike years ago but they never claimed responsibility for it. It wasn’t public, they didn’t argue that it was OK under the international law.
How many people right now are being held indefinitely for crimes that they might commit against the US?
This is exactly why we are having a protest next Wednesday, January 11th, in Washington – because there are probably 2,000 men being held by the US in Bagram, Afghanistan, at a prison at the air force base. And because the Obama administration argues so that these men are being held in a war zone they cannot have Habeas Corpus rights. These men are held without charge. Who knows why they are being held. A lot of Afghani families only learn that their male members have been taken to this prison in Bargam because they cannot find them anywhere else. We don’t have a list from the Red Cross about who they are. We don’t have a list of charges, there is no lawyer who could go in and visit them. And this is in Afghanistan, where the US is “to set up a democratic country.”
This is what’s going on all over the world with the US. I find it extremely disturbing.
You really have to go to ask the question what kind of a government occupies other countries for a decade, which is what’s happening in Afghanistan. I know that the popular idea is that the Iraq war’s over and that the US has withdrawn troops, but clearly the occupation continues. The US has no intention of giving up its sphere of influence in Iraq. It is now making serious threats against Iran. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain – all of these military governments have been propped up by the US all along. People’s righteous demands for political freedom and just the right to live have not been listened to by the US in any serious sort of way. Note, the US continues to have secret talks with the Egyptian military and prop up this government. So, the US is not in these countries either to bring democracy, to stop the weapons of mass destruction or to do anything than to further its interests as an aggressive imperialistic actor. We have a slogan in World Can’t Wait: Humanity and the Planet Come First.
29 December 2011, 20:18
Where Will America’s Imperial Hubris Lead To?
Interview with Rick Rozoff, the manager of the Stop NATO website and mailing list and a contributing writer to Global Research.ca.
Can you give us the latest on NATO and your predictions for 2012, as far as the ABM system in Europe and NATO global expansion in general? I know it’s a big question.
The past year, of course, has been a momentous one. I think it’s has been a very troubling one in many regards. What we’ve seen this year in regard to NATO and what we’re likely to see an intensification of next year, 2012, is a follow-up on the strategic concept, as they call it, adopted at the Lisbon summit in November 2010, which is unveiling and unleashing NATO as an increasingly global political and military player. We saw this with the seven-month air war campaign against Libya, of course, earlier this year when NATO flew an estimated 26,000 air missions against a small country with six million people, over 9,000 of which were combat sorties. We are seeing that as a template. That’s pretty much what NATO officials and heads of state of major NATO countries have characterized it. We are likely to see more of that most prominently, of course, – it can’t be missed – in one manner or another in relation to Syria, but with any number of other potential military interventions. Your listeners are probably aware of the fact that the Collective Security Treaty Organization met in Russia two days ago, on the 10th anniversary of the founding of the only security block within the CIS, amongst former Soviet States. And one of the statements – rather straightforward and candid – was warning about military intervention in the internal affairs of the countries beset by domestic problems. That’s clearly an allusion to the Libyan action by the major NATO powers but also in reference to the current crisis in Syria. A Wednesday statement by the White House saying that the government of Bashar al-Assad “does not deserve to rule Syria” is an indication that, far from being humbled by the recent symbolically important, I suppose, withdrawal of the final US military forces from Iraq, far from being humbled by the debacle on Iraq and the equally catastrophic experience in Afghanistan, the US is still ordering heads of state to resign, as they did earlier this year in Ivory Coast, in Libya and may tomorrow in Belarus, Venezuela and a number of other countries. We still see the imperial hubris of the major Western countries, US in the first instance, in determining who else is not fit to govern most every country in the world.
What was the connection with Gbagbo? You mentioned Ivory Coast.
Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Obama and other major US officials ordered Gbagbo to step down. They didn’t recognize the results of the runoff election last December in Ivory Coast. The irony is – it’s so transparent it has to be undeniable – in the US a comparable situation, of course, and a far worse situation, existed in 2000 where George W. Bush received half a million votes less than his opponent and through the decision made by the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, Bush, the recipient of the fewer votes was designated the elected president of the United States. Something comparable happened with the decision by the Elections Commission in Ivory Coast but the US, which has one set of rules for itself and another for the rest of the world, determined that the decision reached by the court in Ivory Coast was invalid and the one in 2000 in the US was valid, because it was in the US.
I thought that maybe there was a NATO connection that I hadn’t heard anything about there in Ivory Coast.
No, there wasn’t a NATO connection, but French military forces were instrumental in assaulting government buildings in Abidjan, the commercial capital of the country, and directly in the capture of Gbagbo. NATO countries, if not collectively under the banner of NATO, were certainly instrumental there. I’ve sighted that as part of the pattern over past year Washington has ordered in some many ways heads of state to step down, including Saleh, the President of Yemen, Assad in Syria, and Gbagbo in Ivory Coast and Gaddafi in Libya. So, it’s four heads of state that they ordered to step down this year.
Can you tell our listeners a little bit about Kosovo and Serbia?
16 August 2011, 13:18
Obama and His Illegal Extrajudicial Killings
Professor Marjorie Cohn
Interview with Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School in San Diego and the editor of The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse . Can you give us a quick definition of what exactly constitutes an extrajudicial execution? It’s a targeted assassination.
Interview with Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School in San Diego and the editor of The United States and Torture: Interrogation, Incarceration and Abuse.
Can you give us a quick definition of what exactly constitutes an extrajudicial execution?
It’s a targeted assassination. Sometimes it’s called a political assassination, and it’s an unlawful and deliberate killing carried out by order of or with the acquiescence of a government, and it’s outside of any judicial framework. In other words, there is no court that is deciding that it is lawful or not.
Where would cases such as this be prosecuted or can they be prosecuted?
There are national laws. Assassinating is not allowed under international law, and that’s very clear. In a 1998 report, United Nation’s Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial summary or arbitrary executions said that extrajudicial executions can never be justified under any circumstances, not even in time of war. In the US, assassinations were considered to be unlawful, especially explicitly since President Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. And every president since Gerald Ford has renewed that ban on assassinations until George W. Bush, who signed an executive order basically authorizing assassinations in the US. Even though Bill Clinton, when he was president, signed that ban on assassinations, he actually tried to kill Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan but narrowly missed him. And, of course, we know that Barack Obama did give the order to assassinate Osama bin Laden, and that order was carried out. Obama signed the order authorizing the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
Did the so-called war on terror release the US from the law in this regard?
No, not at all. The US is still bound by international law. Much of the international law is also incorporated in the US Constitution. Yet, under the so-called war on terror, there have been many illegal things that have been done by the US government – first, by the George W. Bush Administration and then by the Obama Administration. And I say the “so-called war on terror” because terrorism is a tactic, it is not an enemy. You don’t declare war on a tactic. And yet, under the guise of the so-called law on terror, many laws have been violated by both of these administrations.
I hate to do this, but, to compare the George Bush Administration and Obama’s presidency, how far away from Bush, do you think, Obama has gone? Or has he pretty much continued the same policies?
I think that, unfortunately, Obama has continued a lot of the illegal policies of the Bush Administration and, in some instances, has taken them even further. For example, even George W. Bush didn’t explicitly authorize indefinite detention – holding someone for ever with no charges. And yet Obama signed an order authorizing indefinite detention. Both administrations used what we call the “state’s secret privilege”, and the Obama Administration has continued to use it to try to prevent people who have been tortured from litigating their cases in court, from trying to get relief in court for the torture.
Are executions only ordered against foreign nationals?
Obama tried to carry out the assassination of a US citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, who has not been charged with any crime in the US, and there was an unmanned drone attack in Yemen, aimed at al-Awlaki, missed him but killed two people “believed to be al-Qaeda militants.” Here you have another thing that the Obama Administration has done, which goes far beyond what even Bush did, that is stepping up the use of these unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia. And there was a report that has just come out from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that states that 168 children have been killed in the seven years of CIA drone strikes in Pakistan. That accounts for 44% of the minimum figure of 385 civilians, who are reported to have been killed by these drone attacks. I have seen higher numbers as well. And this is something that continues. There are also illegal assassinations in sovereign countries that many times ended up killing civilians. And, even if they were to kill so-called al-Qaeda militants, this would also violate the law, just like the targeted assassination of Osama bin laden violated the law, because, unless you are in the middle of a pitched battle, where the laws of war apply, you have to arrest people and bring them to trial. Even the Nazi leaders were brought to trial, and, of course, they committed some of the most notorious crimes ever known to man. After the Holocaust, Winston Churchill wanted to just execute the Nazi leaders without trial, but the US government opposed the extrajudicial executions of Nazi officials, who had committed genocide against millions of people, and Justice Robert Jackson, a Supreme Court Justice who took a leave from the Supreme Court to service Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg, told President Harry Truman “We could execute or otherwise punish the Nazi leaders without a hearing. But undiscriminating executions or punishments without definite findings of guilt, fairly arrived at, would not set easily on the American conscience or be remembered by children with pride.” But, eventually, I think these people will be brought to justice by other countries. Universal jurisdiction is a well-used, well-settled doctrine. In fact, the US has used it. So, I think, that eventually, these people will be brought to justice. But not likely in the US.