USA IMPERIALISM AND ITS CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY , PART THREE

2008-09-26T13:58:00.000-07:00

MORE ON THE ASTONISHING SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE COMBINED PSYCHIATRY-BIG PHARMA PROPAGANDA AND ZIONIST PROPAGANDA
by Benjamin Merhav

In my previous blog for the outlaw of psychiatry I posted my article which exposes the similarities between psychiatry and zionism : http://7thoutlawpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-on-similarities-between_30.html

Now, with the official prosecution and persecution of Dr. Matthias Rath's voluntary efforts to save the lives of AIDS victims in South Africa, we can see zionist fingerprints in the Big Pharma campaign against Dr. Rath too, as the second article below reveals. Thus, for example, Big Pharma's campaigners use a typically zionist propaganda idiom : "denialism". As everybody knows the zionist propaganda attacks have got 2 weapons against the critics of zionism : "antisemitism" and "denialism (of the Holocaust)". Both are designed to distract people from the truth, namely, that the zionist hierarchy is not onlly racist against non Jews, but also against all people of jewish background who are opposed to racism and to fascism.

Also the very methods used by Big Pharma's stooges in South Africa, namely, lies and bully tactics, are typically zionist propaganda methods, as anyone familiar with the methods used by the zionist lobby in Washngton, would know.

Below are two articles, the first (with the poster), downloaded from the website of Dr. Matthias Rath's foundation, reveals the truth. The second article, attacks and maligns not only Dr. Rath but also the Dr Tshabalala-Msimang, the former Minister for Health in South Africa, who supported Dr. Rath's initiatives to help AIDS victims there.

http://www.end-aids-business.org/

http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/nat_vit/index.html

Results of a Nutrient Community Health Program in People Affected by AIDS in South Africa

The links on this page access the results of a nutrient community health program in people living with AIDS in South Africa. The program was organized and conducted by the South African National Civic Organization (SANCO) and the micronutrients used were provided to SANCO free of charge by the Dr. Rath Health Foundation. The micronutrients donated in this program have never been sold within South Africa or anywhere else in the world.
This community health program consisted of the voluntary participation of members of poor South African communities affected by AIDS. They received the micronutrients from local SANCO community members free of charge and without any instructions to alter medications or lifestyles.
The only feedback provided by the participants in this program was the completion of questionnaires about their wellbeing at the beginning of the program and at regular intervals thereafter. The most important results of the evaluation of these questionnaires are published on this website.
This nutrient community health program was the largest program of its kind ever carried out since the AIDS epidemic began. The results from the program show that micronutrients can improve the symptoms of immune deficiencies – including those characterized by the WHO as AIDS-defining – as assessed by the questionnaires.

The Solid Scientific Rationale

The scientific rationale for the use of vitamins and other micronutrients in supporting immune function is not new. Over the past century, no less than nine Nobel Prizes have been awarded to vitamin research, the majority in relation to the importance to their essential role in optimizing immune response.
The collection of these important data was done against the fierce opposition of organizations in South Africa dedicated to the promotion of anti-retroviral drugs as the primary answer to the AIDS epidemic. In December 2005, two of these organizations, the South African Medical Organization (SAMA) and the so called Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) filed a complaint in the South African courts, trying to obstruct this program by characterizing: (a) the micronutrients as "illegal drugs;" (b) the SANCO community centres as illegal clinics and (c) the nutrient community health program as an "illegal study."
While the leadership of SAMA has been historically close to pharmaceutical interests, the TAC is an organization that "organizes rented crowds for the drug industry" to "force the government to spend millions of Rand on toxic drugs." *
In June 2008 the court in Cape Town ruled that no unregistered drugs should be used and no illegal clinical studies be conducted. By using this careful phrasing, the court avoided stopping this nutrient community health program.
While the ruling is being appealed from both sides, we decided to publish the results collected so far in this important community health program for the benefit of:
(a) The people of South Africa affected by AIDS
(b) Governments of the world desperately trying to find solutions to help control this pandemic
(c) Scientists, doctors and other health professionals to launch a worldwide effort in the area of medicine and health, to confirm the importance of vitamins and other micronutrients in the fight against immune deficiencies and AIDS.
While micronutrients are no "cure" for AIDS, they are an important answer to immune deficiencies caused by malnutrition. In light of the deadlock of ARV research – most recently exemplified by the discontinuation of its entire ARV research by Roche, one of the world's largest ARV manufacturers – micronutrients allow the research community to gain time until a cure or vaccine for AIDS can be found.

A Service to All Mankind

With the support of this nutrient community health program and the publication of these results, we provided a service to all mankind:

This nutrient community health program is the largest program of its kind documenting the benefits of micronutrients for people affected by AIDS
Never before has the possibility of halting and, in many cases reversing, the symptoms of AIDS as assessed by the patients themselves been documented in a larger number of people
No study with ARV drugs has ever been published showing similar outcomes and improvements in the wellbeing of people affected by AIDS.

We are confident that the significance of the results of this nutrient community health program is evident to all visitors to this website and that you will help to disseminate the information to everyone who should know about it.
We are also confident that every step the ARV lobbyists undertake to block this information will ultimately contribute to the worldwide acceptance of this breakthrough in the global battle against immune deficiencies and AIDS.

* These two statements, characterizing the activities of the TAC, were found non-objectionable by the same Cape Town court in a previous case.

============================

http://www.aidsmap.com/en/news/A2227FBE-A007-4721-9597-39FD47820C08.asp

A new day for health in South Africa: Manto is replaced as health minister by TAC supporter

by Theo Smart

September 26, 2008

Activists and health workers in South Africa celebrated outside the Cape Town parliament building last night after the news that Dr Manto Tshabalala-Msimang has been replaced as South Africa’s Minister of Health by Barbara Hogan, one of the few African National Congress (ANC) Members of Parliament who spoke out openly against AIDS denialism in former president Thabo Mbeki’s government.

Barbara Hogan supported the Treatment Action Campaign’s (TAC) early efforts to get the government to provide antiretroviral therapy (ART) in the public health system.

In addition, Dr Molefi Sefularo was appointed as the Deputy Minister of Health. As MEC of the Northwest Province, Dr Sefularo supported the roll-out of PMTCT and ART and helped write the National HIV and AIDS and STI Strategic Plan for South Africa, 2007-2011.

“We believe that the period of politically supported AIDS denialism has ended with the appointment of the Minister of Health,” a TAC press release declared.

The change of government in South Africa
The cabinet changes were announced yesterday, after the newly appointed South African President Kgalema Motlanthe was sworn in to replace Thabo Mbeki ,who was recalled by the ANC last weekend after a prolonged power struggle with ANC party President, and former Deputy President Jacob Zuma.

President Motlanthe, is a well-respected veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle who until recently has kept out of the spot light. Seen as belonging to neither camp within the divided ANC, he was selected as a consensus candidate to lead the country, at least until elections next year, when Zuma is expected to run for President.

Already being seen as a bridge builder, President Motlanthe appointed a mix of Zuma and Mbeki supporters into government, as well as other respected politicians who have remained above the fray. Dr Tshabalala-Msimang, a staunch Mbeki ally, will actually remain in government, occupying President Motlanthe’s former position as Minister in the Presidency. Though this is something of a promotion, it may not be a long-lasting one.

What is important is that Dr Tshabalala-Msimang has effectively been transitioned out of the Health Department.

The inglorious career of Dr Tshabalala-Msimang
During Dr Tshabalala-Msimang’s tenure as Minister of Health over two million South Africans died of HIV.

Sometimes called Dr Beetroot, for promoting a diet of beets, African potatoes, garlic and lemon as a remedy for people with HIV, she initially resisted the roll-out of treatment to prevent mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) and of ART in the country. Instead, she supported the right of AIDS denialists such as Dr Matthias Rath’s to sell high-dose vitamin ‘cures’ without scientific evidence of benefit.

Even after the government moved to begin introducing appropriate HIV care through the public sector (partly as the result of legal action by the AIDS Law Project and TAC), she has been accused of trying to stall it.

South Africa’s current HIV programme got underway in earnest while she was on a leave of absence to have a liver transplant. It was during this period, while the Deputy Minister of Health Nozizwe Madlala-Routledge was in charge of the Department, that the National Strategic Plan was drafted. When the Minister came back to duty, they are reported to have clashed, and Dr Tshabalala-Msimang declined to deliver an invited address at a national AIDS conference because she reportedly felt that the Deputy Minister had a more prominent position in the conference programme. Shortly afterward, Mbeki fired the Deputy Minister. Yesterday, however, in an interesting turn of fortune, Madlala-Routledge was elected the new Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly.

Infighting within the department has been typical of the former administration’s management style and there are many reports that morale in the department of health is extremely low.

Treatment activists have long called for the Minister’s removal. At the first South African TB conference in July this year, activists conducted a silent protest during a plenary talk by Dr Tshabalala-Msimang, holding up signs saying that “South Africa needs real leadership in the fight against TB and HIV.”

The new Minister
Minister Hogan does not come from a health background. She too is a veteran of the anti-apartheid struggle, joining the ANC after the 1976 riots. She was arrested for treason by the apartheid government, tortured and imprisoned for eight years (with one year in solitary confinement).

Since release, she has been deeply involved in the ANC, and served for a time in Mbeki’s government as Finance Portfolio Chairperson, until she was dismissed by Mbeki in part for her stand on HIV/AIDS (according to the TAC press release).

But she has continued to play a role in the fight against HIV, serving on the board of the Amandla AIDS Fund (AAF) established in 2003 with a $2.5 million donation from Carlos and Deborah Santana. AAF provides ART, care, treatment and prevention services to people and children with HIV. Serving with her on the board are Archbishop Desmond Tutu, TAC’s Zachie Achmat and Luyanda Ngonyama, Head of the AIDS Law Project Mark Heywood, Dr Jerry Coovadia, and Dr Fareed Abdullah.

In an interview with News24.com, she said the biggest challenge for the Department of Health “is HIV/AIDS and all the strains that it places on the health system. I would thoroughly endorse the roll-out of antiretrovirals and any way we can accelerate that, the better.”

Minister Hogan said she welcome’s the opportunity to work with TAC. “I'm not saying we will always agree but I've always had a good relationship with the TAC and NGOs involved in that sector and I think you need to mobilise every possible sector of society at the moment, from the private sector to the NGO sector to the government sector, to improve our health services.”

TAC joyous
For their part, TAC is clearly eager to work with Minister Hogan. In fact, about 50 of the activists serenaded her outside her flat in Cape Town’s City Bowl last night.

According to an report in the Star, she came down to greet the activists. Fatima Hassan of the AIDS Law Project hugged her and announced that it was “the happiest day of her life.” (Also see this report).

But TAC acknowledges there will be tremendous challenges ahead.

“Hogan's biggest challenges will be to meet the treatment and prevention targets of the HIV/AIDS National Strategic Plan, integrate TB and HIV treatment, develop a feasible human resources plan for health workers and undo the considerable legacy of AIDS denialism left by her predecessor. The TAC will do all that it can to assist her and the Department of Health to meet these challenges.”

2008-09-16T14:23:00.000-07:00

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/printer_27778.shtml

Russia
The ghost of Stalingrad
By Eric Walberg*
Sep 16, 2008, 09:35

This will appear in the next issue of Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/

Russia is determined to bring NATO’s expansion eastward to a halt. Can it prevail? asks Eric Walberg

NATO’s metamorphosis from Cold War Euro-policeman into the unabashed global military arm of the United States over the past 18 years has left a trail of debris from the Balkans to Afghanistan that will take decades to clear. It is a flagrant violation of the agreement James Baker III made with Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev that the US would not extend the borders of NATO eastwards in return for Moscow allowing a united Germany to be a member of NATO. Russia was still in disarray and in no position to protest when the Eastern European countries and the Baltics joined, but as this policy of expansion turned into a blatant encirclement of Russia and a conquest of the Middle East, a furious, now self-confident Russia has finally drawn the line, at least in its immediate neighbourhood, with Georgia and Ukraine the last straws.

In a provocative analogy, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev called Georgia’s 8 August attack on Ossetia Russia ’s 9/11, and said Russia would react the same even if Georgia is accepted as a prospective member of NATO. He announced to the Russian Information Agency 31 August “Five Points of Russian foreign policy” already dubbed the Medvedev Doctrine, as a response to what we might call the Bush I/ Clinton / Bush II Doctrine, i.e., the dismemberment of the USSR / Russia to ensure a US-dominated unipolar world. They include:

a commitment to the principles of international law,

a statement that “the world should be multipolar”,

the wish to have peaceful friendly relations with all nations,

the intent to protect its citizens “wherever they may be”, and

the decisive fifth point: “as is the case of other countries, there are regions in which Russia has privileged interests. These regions are home to countries with which we share special historical relations and are bound together as friends and good neighbours. We will pay particular attention to our work in these regions and build friendly ties with these countries, our close neighbours.”

The crisis in Georgia will be seen by future historians as the beginning of the end for the grandiose plans of the US to bring its version of a New World Order in Eurasia to fruition, if not “Russia’s 9/11”. Instead of a seemingly inexorable march towards the Volga and the dismantling of the Russian Federation — recall this was Hitler’s goal — we are now witnessing war preparations at full tilt across the globe, with little Georgia as the catalyst.

The spider’s web of intrigue surrounding Georgia is thick indeed. It even reaches as far as Iran , which Israel appeared to be preparing to attack using nearby Georgian bases as a launching pad. This plan has been thwarted for the moment, though Iran proceeded last week with its war games to test its defences in anticipation of a US/Israeli attack from farther afield.

As Georgia welcomes a permanent US military presence to help restore its battered army, Russia is expanding its military presence at Tajikstan’s Gissar Airport. As the US positions missiles in Russia’s neighbours Poland and the Czech Republic, Russia is preparing to hold joint naval drills with US neighbour Venezuela (10-14 November) and station long-range anti-submarine patrol aircraft there “temporarily”.

The Russian navy has resumed its (or rather its predecessor’s) presence in different regions of the world’s oceans. A naval task force from Russia’s Northern Fleet conducted a two-month tour of duty in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic from December 2007 to February 2008.

Russian Armed Forces in the Americas

Russia’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko insisted that Russia’s decision to send its armed forces to Venezuela was made before Russia’s war with Georgia. “This deployment had been planned in advance, and it’s unrelated to the current political situation and the developments in the Caucasus.” But the announcement was made just a week after Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned that Russia would mount an unspecified response to recent US aid shipments to Georgia.

Thankfully, the war is still at the level of hot air. “Go ahead and squeal, Yankees,” Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said in a national broadcast in which he announced the exercises. The US mocked the announcement. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack poked fun at Russia’s navy, expressing surprise that “they found a few ships that can make it that far.” Just in case Venezuela is too far from US shores for the outmoded Russian vessels, Russia has signaled it is keen to restore military and intelligence ties with Cuba. There are rumours it is seeking a naval base in Vietnam.

Not to be left out of the increasingly complex maritime equation, in June the US Navy announced it was re-establishing the Fourth Fleet, disbanded in 1950, which would direct naval operations in the Caribbean and Latin America. It is also negotiating with Georgia and Turkey to establish a naval base at the Georgian port of Poti. One of the responsibilities of US Special Forces in the region is to ensure the security of an oil pipeline passing through Georgia.

As US “aid” flows to the Black Sea in US warships, Russian military hardware flows to the Caribbean, as Venezuela recently bought 24 Russian Sukhoi fighter jets, as well as submarines and missiles. Chavez has said that he would allow Venezuela to be a strategic base for Russian bombers should it be required. “In Venezuela they will always have a green light, they will be welcome, because Russia is an ally of Venezuela,” said Chavez. He proceeded to expel the US ambassador last week until after the November presidential elections.

Iran and Syria

Sergei Markov, a United Russia Duma member, sees this as posturing rather than the prelude to setting up a permanent base in the Americas. “We need bases on the territory of Iran and Syria where our strategic interests lie.” While it indeed looks like Russia will re-establish a permanent presence in the Mediterranean using a Soviet-era base in Tartus, Syria, this talk of bases in Iran is a new development. It is rumoured that Russia may set up bases there and supply Tehran with the cutting edge S-300 missile system to help protect its nuclear facilities from airstrikes.

“Our territorial integrity will be restored, I am more convinced of this than ever,”

- Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili

But apart from Venezuela, the main posturing is going on in Tbilisi, where President Mikhail Saakashvili insisted the West would help his country regain control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the separatist regions of Georgia recognised as independent nations by Russia and a trickle of other countries, including Nicaragua and Belarus. “Our territorial integrity will be restored, I am more convinced of this than ever,” Saakashvili said in a televised appearance. “This will not be an easy process, but now this is a process between an irate Russia and the rest of the world.”

The hot air and military strutting by this collection of antagonists is beginning to look like the calm before the storm. If it is true that US military were part of the invasion of South Ossetia, if only as advisors, this could mean that Russian soldiers might have been killed by U.S. soldiers, something that never happened even during the height of the Cold War. During the Cold War, “the sides were very careful of each other. They were careful not to come too close,” said Alexander Pikayev. “The risk of direct military clashes is much higher. This situation is much riskier than the Cold War.” Both US presidential candidates are talking tough, and vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin said, “We will not repeat a Cold War”, presumably meaning she preferred a hot one.

Ukraine and Georgia and Azerbaijan

In such a hair-trigger atmosphere, Ukraine and Georgia can kiss any dream of joining the ersatz Western “defence” alliance do svidania.
Nevertheless, last week Vice President Dick Cheney toured ex-Soviet countries the US considers threatened by Russia, including Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan, promising Georgia $1 billion (where do these nice round sums come from?), vowing the US will continue to back the country’s NATO application and saying that Moscow’s intervention “cast grave doubt on Russia’s intentions and on its reliability as an international partner.” In Ukraine, he spoke of the “threat of tyranny, economic blackmail and military invasion or intimidation” from Russia. That is an interesting slant on the Medvedev Doctrine. The reader can easily conjure up appropriate words that Medvedev might use to describe the Bush I/ Clinton/ Bush II Doctrine.

Ukraine is now embroiled in a mud-slinging match, with the collapse of the coalition government 3 September, when President Viktor Yushchenko withdrew his support over the refusal of Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko to back the president in his support for Georgia and condemnation of Russia. Yushchenko accused Tymoshenko of “treason and political corruption”, over her failure to back a pro-US stand, and of seeking Moscow ’s support of her likely presidential bid. Ukraine’s pro-Russian former prime minister Viktor Yanukovich, who heads the Party of Regions, did not rule out the possibility of forming a parliamentary majority with the Yulia Tymoshenko bloc. Such a move would remove from the discussion the entire issue of a Ukrainian application to join NATO. Tymoshenko could well pull off a metaphorical coup by campaigning in the upcoming presidential elections on a sober platform of peace with Russia , which would very likely hand her the presidency with the support of the large Russian population of Ukraine as well as astute Ukrainians.

Another such scandal is brewing in Georgia itself, with the arrest of former president Zviad Gamsakhurdia’s son Tsotne as a Russian spy smack in the middle of Cheney’s visit to Georgia . He was charged in late 2007 with an attempted coup and links with Russian security services after opposition protests against Saakashvili. The voices of sensible Georgians, fed up with President Mikheil Saakashvili’s reckless chauvinism, are clearly being cut in the bud, as he consolidates a very nasty dictatorship backed by the United States and Israelis. Of course, all Western media coverage of Georgia slavishly supports this loose cannon, but Medvedev’s description of him as “a political corpse” probably is closer to the truth.

NATO bent on surrounding Russia

It is hard not to sympathise with the Russians. The Black Sea, once the domain of the Soviet navy, now is the home of three NATO members — Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania — and two applicants, Georgia and Ukraine . If the two applicants join the alliance, Russia’s Black Sea coastline would be surrounded by NATO. The volatile Caucasus would then be the playground of the US.

“Now it looks like there is a certain red line that exists in the heads of Russian leadership and they are willing to do anything to stop it from being crossed,” said Nikolai Petrov, at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “And this red line is Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO.”

“We remember very well the Tonkin Gulf incident”

-Sergei Markov
United Russia Duma

Russia ’s success in thwarting the Georgian attempt to wrest back Ossetia has shown its resolution. Russian warships have been sent to the coast of nearby Abkhazia. In the relatively close proximity in which the Russian and U.S. war ships operate there and elsewhere in the Black Sea , one misunderstanding could create an international incident. “We remember very well the Tonkin Gulf incident” in which untrue reports of North Vietnamese ships firing on US ships started the Vietnam War, said Markov. This was seconded by Republican California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher in a sharp criticism of US support for the Georgian attack.

Aleksandr Dugin, whose ideas about the United States' weakening geopolitical standing are popular with many Russian leaders, said Russia was challenging US dominance and that confrontation may be unavoidable. Russia’s move into Georgia was “an irreversible decision that will mean in the future a serious, profound, irreversible confrontation with the United States. The stakes are so hig that Moscow has placed all its chips on the table.”

Shanghai Cooperation Organisation

It is not surprising that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, which includes Russia, China and the former Soviet Asian republics Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, are supporting Moscow for “assisting peace and cooperation in this region.” Nor that Armenia and Belarus also support Russia, and the non-Yushchenko forces in the Ukraine are backing away from the flirtation with NATO. It is clear now that the US has insufficient power to cope with the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Both were to have been an essential part of a US policy to militarily control Eurasian rivals, especially Russia and China.

If the Russians hold firm, and it is worth remembering their spectacular defeat of the Nazis at Stalingrad in this regard, this crisis will defuse with or without fireworks, US hawks will find their feathers clipped, and the world will adjust to a “post-America” multilateral sanity.

"The bottom line here is a very mundane one: the EU is Russia’s neighbour and dependent on it for gas, whether her politicians like it or not."

- Eric Walberg

The tide has already turned. The latter-day Dr Strangelove was pointedly ignored on his cheerleading tour of countries supposedly threatened by Russia, except by his pal Saakashvili, and the European Union disregarded the US veepee’s bluster, hammering out an agreement with Russia to replace Russian troops with EU observers in undisputed Georgian territory by 1 October.

The bottom line here is a very mundane one: the EU is Russia’s neighbour and dependent on it for gas, whether her politicians like it or not. It is one thing for the US to wage wars far from its shores, as it is doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to play war games in other people’s backyards, as it is doing in Poland and Georgia, but it is quite another thing to expect a war-weary Europe to sign up and prepare to freeze in the dark.

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at www.geocities.com/walberg2002/

This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!

2008-09-15T02:55:00.000-07:00

The following extremely important message was emailed to me today by Hajja Romi Elnagar .
DANGER ALERT :U.S. Nuclear Weapons Being “Guarded” by Israel

Publication time: 26 September 2007, 10:27

American supporters of Israel were delighted to learn that an Israeli company, Magal Security Systems-owned in part by the government of Israel-is in charge of security for the most sensitive nuclear power and weapons storage facilities in the United States.

The largest perimeter security company in the world, Magal started out as a division of Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI)-which was owned in part by the government of Israel. In recent years, however, Magal evolved into a publicly-traded company, although IAI (and thus the government of Israel) still holds a substantial share in the highly successful firm.

What all of this means is that the government of Israel will actually have control over the security of America's nuclear weapons.

Supporters of Israel say that this is a splendid idea, since Israel is said to be perhaps America's closest ally on the face of the planet. However, there are some critics who question the propriety of America's super-sensitive nuclear security being in the hands of any foreign nation, particularly Israel which, even today, officially denies that it is engaged in the production of nuclear arms.

Be that as it may, however, Magal's global interests are quite broad-ranging. Having secured 90 percent of Israel's borders through a wide-ranging array of super-modern "space age" technology, Magal has now branched out internationally.

Not only does Magal provide security for American nuclear facilities, but it also does likewise for most major nuclear facilities in Western Europe and Asia. In addition, the Israeli firm also provides security for Chicago's O'Hare Airport and, for the last fifteen years, has kept watch on the Queen of England's famed Buckingham Palace in London. What's more, Magal provides security for 90% of the American prisons that utilize electronic systems. Magal brags that its other clients around the globe include: borders, airports, industrial sites, communication centers, military installations, correctional facilities, government agencies, VIP estates and residences, commercial buildings and storage yards.

There is hardly a major country or major enterprise that does not have Magal's security specialists keeping a close watch on their activities.

Clearly, Magal is no small enterprise. While 27% of its total sales are in the Israeli market, its largest market is in North America, which currently accounts for 35% of its sales.

However, Magal's American outreach is expected to increase substantially, especially now that firm has set up a Washington, D.C. office which will promote its products to federal agencies and to the members of Congress who provide funding for federally-supervised security projects across the country at all levels: local, state and national.

And with current U.S. Homeland Security Chief, Michael Chertoff, not only a strong supporter of Israel but also the son of a woman who has strong Israeli ties-even including service with El Al, the national airline of Israel-Magal, owned in party by Israeli Aircraft Industries-will be a clear-cut favorite in the eyes of the power brokers in official Washington who have the power to grant lucrative security contracts.

At the moment, Magal has four U.S.-based subsidiaries: two in California, Stellar Security Products, Inc. and Perimeter Products Inc., as well as the New York-based Smart Interactive Systems, Inc., and the Virginia-based Dominion Wireless, Inc.

All told, the Israeli company holds a 40% share in the worldwide market in perimeter intrusion detection systems and is working to expand its business in the protection of oil pipelines.

Magal is also said to be quite interested in guarding water lines around the globe, particularly in the United States. In fact, Magal may have an inside shot at getting a monopoly in guarding America's water supplies.

On July 19, the Bush administration's Environmental Protection Agency announced a "partnership" with the Israeli Ministry of National Infrastructures to improve what they called "water supply system security in the United States and Israel." Since Magal is so highly respected in Israel, it's an even bet that Magal will soon be guarding the U.S. water supply.

By Michael Collins Piper

Correspondent for American Free Press and author of "The New Jerusalem:Zionist Power in America", "The High Priests of War," and "Final Judgment," which details the Mossad role in the JFK assassination conspiracy.

http://kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2007/09/26/8910.shtml

2008-09-14T17:46:00.000-07:00

USA rulers now provide the zionist apartheid regime of Israel with the bombs to attack Iran (and start a nuclear world war ?)

The following message was emailed to me today by Citizens For Legitimate Government in the USA. Below, following the message, are the relevant news items from online zionist dailies in Israel.

"Breaking News and Commentary from Citizens For Legitimate Government

14 Sep 2008

http://www.legitgov.org/

All items are here:

http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

U.S. to sell Israel Air Force 1,000 bunker-buster bombs 14 Sep 2008 Despite 'reservations' in Washington regarding a possible Israeli strike on Iran, the American administration will supply Israel with sophisticated weapons for heavily fortified targets, the U.S. administration announced. The U.S. Department of Defense announced it would sell the Israel Air Force 1,000 new smart bombs, rumored to significantly enhance the IAF's military capabilities.

Congress notified of bunker buster sale to Israel 14 Sep 2008 The US Department of Defense has notified Congress of a potential sale to Israel of 1,000 smart bombs capable of penetrating underground bunkers, which would likely be used in the event of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. The notification to Congress was made over the weekend by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the Pentagon responsible for evaluating foreign military sales. The deal is valued at $77 million and the principal contractor would be Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

Medvedev: Attack on Iran will endanger entire world 14 Sep 2008 Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Friday, "We know that certain players are planning an attack against Iran. But we oppose any unilateral step and military solution to the nuclear crisis," he added."

==========================

w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m
_{Last update - 21:27 14/09/2008}

U.S. to sell IAF smart bombs for heavily fortified targets

_{By Aluf Benn and Amos Harel}

Despite reservations in Washington regarding a possible Israeli strike on Iran, the American administration will supply Israel with sophisticated weapons for heavily fortified targets, the U.S. administration announced.

The U.S. Department of Defense announced it would sell the Israel Air Force 1,000 new smart bombs, rumored to significantly enhance the IAF's military capabilities. The deal was approved amid public and secret messages from Washington, with the Americans expressing their reservations about a possible Israeli strike against the Islamic Republic's suspected nuclear sites.

The Pentagon's announcement, which came on Friday, said the U.S. will provide Israel with 1,000 units of Guided Bomb Unit-39 (GBU-39) - a special weapon developed for penetrating fortified facilities located deep underground.

The $77 million shipment, which includes launchers and appurtenances, will allow the IAF to hit many more bunkers than currently possible. Although each bomb weighs 113 kilograms, its penetration capabilities equal those of a one ton bomb, according to professional literature.

Most U.S. Air Force aircraft are able to carry a pack of four of these bombs in place of a single one-ton bomb. The bomb's small size allows a single-strike aircraft to carry more of the munitions than is possible utilizing currently available bomb units, thus increasing firepower, or, alternatively, allowing the aircraft to fly longer distances to deliver a single bomb.

During demonstrations, the GBU-39 - labeled by the manufacturer, Boeing, as a Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) - has successfully penetrated more than 1.8 meters of thick reinforced concrete with a 23-kilogram warhead. The GPS-guided weapon is said to have a 50-percent probability of hitting its intended target within 5-8 meters, which should minimize collateral damage.

The estimated value for the bomb's GPS version, which military experts have called the latest development in the bunker-buster line, is around $70,000 to $90,000 for each individual bomb.

The U.S. has already supplied Israel with earlier versions of bunker busters. In 2005, the Pentagon authorized the sale of GBU-28 to Israel, in a move that commentators construed as a hinted threat aimed at Iran. Haaretz reported earlier this month that the U.S. was hesitant about selling Israel heavier busters.

The Pentagon's announcement also said that the U.S. would help upgrade the Israel Defense Forces' patriot anti-aircraft missiles - which Israel uses as part of its missile-interception array. Israel will also receive 28,000 LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon) tube launchers for land forces.
=====================

Israel slated to buy US smart bombs

Sep. 14, 2008
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

The US Department of Defense has notified Congress of a potential sale to Israel of 1,000 smart bombs capable of penetrating underground bunkers, which would likely be used in the event of a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The notification to Congress was made over the weekend by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the branch of the Pentagon responsible for evaluating foreign military sales. Congress has 30 days to object to the deal.

The deal is valued at $77 million and the principal contractor would be Boeing Integrated Defense Systems.

The bomb Israel wants is the GBU-39, developed in recent years by the US as a small-diameter bomb for low-cost, high-precision and low-collateral damage strikes.

Israel has also asked for 150 mounting carriages, 30 guided test vehicles and two instructors to train the air force in loading the bombs on its aircraft.

The GPS-guided GBU-39 is said to be one of the most accurate bombs in the world. The 113 kg. bomb has the same penetration capabilities as a normal 900 kg. bomb, although it has only 22.7 kg. of explosives. At just 1.75 meters long, its small size increases the number of bombs an aircraft can carry and the number of targets it can attack in a sortie.

Tests conducted in the US have proven that the bomb is capable of penetrating at least 90 cm. of steel-reinforced concrete. The GBU-39 can be used in adverse weather conditions and has a standoff range of more than 110 km. due to pop-out wings.

In its recommendation to Congress, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency wrote that Israel's strategic position was "vital to the United States' interests throughout the Middle East."

"It is vital to the US national interests to assist Israel to develop and maintain a strong and ready self-defense capability. This proposed sale is consistent with those objectives," the statement read.

The agency's announcement came amid growing concern that the Pentagon was not willing to sell Israel advanced military platforms such as bunker-buster missiles in an effort to dissuade Jerusalem from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.

Bunker-buster missiles would be a fundamental component of an air strike against Iran, since many of the nuclear facilities, such as the Natanz uranium enrichment complex, have been built in underground, heavily fortified bunkers.

During the Second Lebanon War, Israel reportedly received an emergency shipment of bunker-buster missiles from the US to use against underground Hizbullah facilities.

Yiftah Shapir, from the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said the GBU-39 is one of the most advanced in the world and would improve Israel's standoff fire capabilities.

"The bomb is extremely accurate," he said. "All you have to do is punch in the coordinates, fire and forget."

He said they could be used to attack Iranian underground facilities like Natanz but that they could only penetrate a few meters.

"Hundreds of these would have to be used in an attack on Natanz for it to be successful," Shapir said.

2008-09-10T05:21:00.000-07:00

WHY IS AUSTRALIA STARTING AN ARMS RACE AGAINST ITS NEIGHBOURS IN ASIA AND IN THE PACIFIC-INDIAN REGION AT THE BEHEST OF USA RULERS ?
by Benjamin Merhav

The current federal Labor government in this country continues the sordid tradition of all previous Australian governments, namely, complete subservience to USA rulers. As I have mentioned in a previous post
( http://2ndbigbusinescrimes.blogspot.com/2008/05/complicity-of-australia-in-usa-war.html ) the local comprador ruling class has always served its imperial masters : Britain up to the 2nd WW, and the USA ever since then. It continues its complicity in the imperialist war crimes under the pretext of "national defence"now too, with the Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, publicly declaring an arms race against its neighbours in South Asia, and in the Pacific and Indian Oceans regions.

The following news item was downloaded from the official website of the Australian government broadcasting corporation, the ABC .

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/10/2361291.htm

Rudd's comments fuelling 'arms race', analyst says

Kevin Rudd has signalled a major expansion of the Australian Defence Force (Australian Defence Force).

A defence analyst has warned that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's tough new stance on defence could fuel an arms race with Asia.

A league table out last week put Australia 13th in the world for defence spending and a speech by Mr Rudd has started a debate over the wisdom of spending even more.

In a speech on Monday night, Mr Rudd said Australia must prepare for an emerging "arms race" across the Asia Pacific region.

Mr Rudd says there has been an "explosion" of defence spending in the Asia Pacific region off the back of major economic growth in countries such as China and India.

He signalled a major expansion of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) in response to the arms build-up in the region and a white paper on Australia's new defence strategy is being prepared.

But defence analyst Sam Bateman, who is a retired Commodore with the Australian Navy, said Mr Rudd's comments could be seen as inflammatory.

"I thought it was rather hawkish when the Prime Minister talks about the need for Australia needing to respond to what he calls an Asian arms race; I mean that's pretty strong language," Commodore Bateman said.

"I think we've got to be very cautious about using language like 'arms race', because as far as many of the Asian countries are concerned, what they're going through is a process of military modernisation, simply catching up with the weaponry the Western countries already have.

"There's a real risk that when we then talk about responding to an arms race then that in fact is just going to precipitate a further response within Asia."

Commodore Bateman is expecting Asian nations to sit up and take notice of the Prime Minister's plans and he fears it could have dire consequences.

"I believe it's certainly dangerous. I mean, for example, we have an air power lobby which talks in strong terms about Australia's need to have an air strike capability that can reach Jakarta," he said.

"Look at that from an Indonesian perspective; they have to do something about having the capabilities to deal with that strike capability. And so again you get that response and counter response.

"And how would we feel in Australia if Indonesians were talking about needing an air strike capability that could reach Canberra?"

Earlier, Opposition defence spokesman Nick Minchin said he doubted Australia would be seen as a threat in the eyes of its Asian neighbours.

"I think that's highly unlikely. I mean people know that Australia has a bipartisan on peace and stability in the region," he said.

He is sceptical about Mr Rudd's pledge to remedy the skills shortage sweeping the defence forces, particularly the Navy.

"It's certainly a thing that preoccupied our government, and rightly has got to be a major priority for this new Government, and it's a real test for this Government, if it can meet this challenge," he said.

2008-08-18T15:50:00.000-07:00

More Proof of the Monstrous Mass Killing DU Weapons Used by the USA in Iraq, And of the Horrific Consequences
by Benjamin Merhav

The following email was sent to me today by Romi Elnagar.

Follow-Up: Video on Iraq Deformities‏
From:	Romi Elnagar (bluesapphire48@yahoo.com)
Sent:	Tuesday, 19 August 2008 7:26:33 AM
Reply-to:	bluesapphire48@yahoo.com
To:	Romi Elnagar (bluesapphire48@yahoo.com)

Yesterday, I posted a video about birth defects in Iraq to this list.

At that time, I was uncertain about the cause of the birth defects. In the video, they attribute the birth defects to white phosphorus, however the injuries looked to me like the were the result of DU (depleted uranium).

Today, I received confirmation of my suspicions from someone who is more knowledgeable about DU. Karen Parker, who is an international expert on humanitarian law and has testified before the United Nations on it, agrees that the birth defects are "classic DU."

Her website, Humanitarian Law, is at http://www.humanlaw.org/Karen%20Parker2.html

Her response is in the Yahoo! group DU-Watch, at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/

The video, in case you missed my original post, is at

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNO0in4m_M

There are more collections of photos of DU victims at the following sites.

Hajja Romi

APFN

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/du2.htm

Dr. Jehan Hassan

Photos of Babies Deformed at Birth as a Result of Depleted Uranium

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Baby2003.htm

Larry Johnson. Seattle Post-Intelligencer Foreign Desk Editor.

Iraqi Cancer, Birth Defects Blamed on U.S. Depleted Uranium

http://seattlepo.nwsource.com/national/95178_du12.shtml

Dr. Mohammed Daud Miraki

Death Made In America: Impacts of Depleted Uranium Contamination on Afghanistan's Children. www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=DAU20060509&articleId=2412

Your Tax Dollars in Action.

http://www.rense.com/general74/afgg.htm

Takashi Morizumi

http://www.chimerafilms.co.uk/children3.html

SOS Kinderen Irak (Netherlands)

http://www.irak.be/ned/

Viewzone

http:www.viewzone.com/du/du.html

Douglas Westerman

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=23019

2008-08-18T00:05:00.000-07:00

SOME MORE EVIDENCE OF THE USA RULERS' WAR CRIMES IN IRAQ
by Benjamin Merhav

The following email with the video of some of the most horrific USA war crimes in Iraq was emailed to me today by Hajja Romi Elnagar.

Video on Iraq Deformities (CAUTION: Very disturbing photos)‏
From:	Romi Elnagar (bluesapphire48@yahoo.com)
Sent:	Monday, 18 August 2008 3:56:58 PM
Reply-to:	bluesapphire48@yahoo.com
To:	Romi Elnagar (bluesapphire48@yahoo.com)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diNO0in4m_M

In this video, the birth defects shown are attributed to the use of white phosphorus by the US in its brutal assault on Fallujah in 2004, but to me they look similar to deformities caused by the use of depleted uranium.

The Pentagon does everything in its power to minimize the extent of its use of DU, so I naturally suspect that DU is the real culprit here. I am not an expert, but I think that this is more evidence of genocide and war crimes by the US.

Hajja Romi

2008-08-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

Petition to Free Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. PLEASE SIGN!!!!!‏
From:	Romi Elnagar (bluesapphire48@yahoo.com)
Sent:	Saturday, 16 August 2008 11:42:43 AM
Reply-to:	bluesapphire48@yahoo.com
To:	Romi Elnagar (bluesapphire48@yahoo.com)

Please sign this petition to free Dr. Aafia Siddiqui.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/liberate-the-prisoner-650---the-grey-ghost-lady-of-bagram-jail

Prisoner 650 is a Pakistani Muslim woman held by the American military for many years without any trial in the notorious Bagram Prison in Afghanistan. Her screams have reached the ears of many ex inmates and others who have visited the prison. They all claim that the screams still haunts them. They have labeled her the Grey Ghost Lady of Bagram jail under the supervision of US military and Intelligence.

Recently Ms Yvonne Ridley held a press conference to appraise her situation for the world.

Let us sign the petition and realize for the Americans that the people of this world are still alive and active to respond to the cries and screams of their helpless sister. Let us bring the culprit to justice and liberate PRISONER 650 now !

Please ask your friends to sign this petition too !

2008-08-10T16:08:00.000-07:00

Open Questions on a Closed Case - Was FBI Complicit in Ivins' Death?

ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION
Promoting Openness, Full Disclosure, and Accountability
http://www.ahrp.org/ and http://ahrp.blogspot.com/

FYI

While some press reports are having a hay day with hearsay and innuendo about Dr. Bruce Ivins' personal shortcomings e..g., the Associated Press,"Microbiologist Claims Lone Anthrax Suspect Bruce Ivins Stalked Her forDecades" http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,400941,00.htmlindependent scientists question the validity of the science behind FBI's"closed case."

Below, a New York Times OpEd piece, "Open Questions on a Closed Case," by microbiologist, Gerry Andrews (University of Wyoming), finds serious flaws with FBI's claimed scientific evidence:

1. The FBI claims to have used four different genetic techniques to match the anthrax-laced letters to a unique DNA footprint of a single anthrax spore preparation in one flask in Dr. Ivins' custody. But the FBI presents no details about the scientific methods used to make that determination."That's a problem, because without such detail it is hard to tell if theyspecifically ruled out a similar match between the anthrax in the lettersand anthrax preparations with the same DNA footprint kept at a number ofother labs around the country."

"The basic methods of genetic analysis are well known. Why not provide enough detail about their procedure to enable other scientists to tell whether they could actually single out Dr. Ivins's spore preparation as the culprit?"

2. Another underlying problem with the FBI's claimed single anthrax match:"After the anthrax attack, Dr. Ivins himself worked directly with the evidence. The F.B.I. asked Dr. Ivins to help them with the forensics in the case by analyzing the contents of suspicious letters. And he did so for years, until the authorities began to suspect that the anthrax spores used in the mailings might have originated from his lab."

"Dr. Ivins was asked to analyze the anthrax envelope that was sent to[former Senator] Daschle's office on Oct. 9, 2001. They found it to be a startlingly refined weapons-grade anthrax spore preparation, the likes of which had never been seen before by personnel at Fort Detrick."So, Dr. Andrews suggests, "It is extremely improbable that this type of preparation could ever have been produced at Fort Detrick, certainly not of the grade and quality found in that envelope."

3. A matter of contamination that undermines the government's "scientific"case:Did FBI investigators disregard the (likely) possibility that manipulation of the contents of the anthrax letters in Dr. Ivins' laboratory--at FBI'srequest-- might have contaminated the work environment enough to potentiallyjeopardize the integrity of subsequent samples taken from the lab?Did the FBI fail to consider that such contamination might explain why the anthrax powder used in the attacks was later found to have the same DNA footprint as other anthrax preparations in Dr. Ivins's lab?DR. Andrews suggests that all of this "at the very least" calls Dr. Ivins's guilt into doubt.

AHRP board member, Dr. Meryl Nass, a practicing physician and acknowledged anthrax expert, was struck by a statement made by US Attorney Jeffrey Taylor in his news conference on Wednesday, August 6. In his presentation of the evidence, Mr. Taylor stated that while Ivins had been under 24/7 surveillance, he discarded some materials on DNA coding (evidence point 4).http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93415845

Dr. Nass raises the disturbing possibility that the FBI was actually complicit in Dr. Ivins' death. http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/If Dr. Ivins was under 24/7 surveillance, why, she asks, did the FBI fail to intervene to save his life when he overdosed on Tylenol? Dr. Nass notes that "a Tylenol overdose is entirely treatable--curable--during many hours after consumption. The patient receives N-acetyl cysteine or glutathione, which allows the body to detoxifythe Tylenol. If you make it to hospital within 16--24 hours you will live."http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/518631_5

SO...why was the FBI twiddling its thumbs during and after Ivins ingested his Tylenol #3 (acetaminophen with codeine)?Attorney Taylor began his remarks saying, "We regret that we will not have the opportunity to present the evidence to a jury to determine whether the evidence establishes Dr. Ivins' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."The possibility that FBI investigators were complicit in Dr. Ivins'suicide--so as to avoid having to present fully the evidence against him in a court of law--seems not at all far-fetched in light of FBI's notoriousrecord in this case of mercilessly persecuting scores innocent people.

A front page report in today's NYT catalogs a number of such innocent victims,noting that "For some of the innocent, F.B.I. scrutiny led to lost jobs,canceled visas, broken marriages and frayed friendships."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/washington/10anthrax.html?ref=todayspaper

One scientist who came under suspicion suddenly become an alcoholic,drinking himself to death:"When Perry Mikesell, a microbiologist in Ohio, came under suspicion as the anthrax attacker, he began drinking heavily, family members say, and soon died. After a doctor in New York drew the interest of the F.B.I., his marriage fell apart and his practice suffered, his lawyer says. And aftertwo Pakistani brothers in Pennsylvania were briefly under scrutiny, they eventually had to leave the country to find work."

Underscoring the sheer arrogance and disregard for both scientific validation and legal due process, FBI director, Robert Mueller III, told reporters on Friday, in his first public comments since the presentation ofthe evidence against Dr. Ivins, that he was "proud of the inquiry." "I do not apologize for any aspect of the investigation. It is erroneous to say there were mistakes."http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/washington/10anthrax.html?ref=todayspaper

Contact:
Vera Hassner Sharav
veracare@ahrp.org

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10andrews.html?ref=opinion

THE NEW YORK TIMES
August 10, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

Open Questions on a Closed Case
By GERRY ANDREWS

Laramie,Wyo. ON Wednesday, the United States Justice Department revealed its evidencet hat Dr. Bruce E. Ivins, on his own, committed the worst act of bioterrorism in the country's history. This 18-year veteran scientist of the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at FortDetrick in Frederick, Md., is accused of killing five people and sickening 17 others in the fall of 2001. Dr. Ivins died on July 29 of an apparent suicide without a chance to give his side of the story.

After reading the affidavits and listening to the Justice Department briefing, I was both disheartened and perplexed by the lack of physical evidence supporting a conviction.

Dr. Ivins was a friend and colleague of mine for nearly 16 years. We worked together at Fort Detrick. He was a senior scientist, and I was, first, a bench scientist and, from 1999 to 2003, the chief of the bacteriology division.The Justice Department has presented different types of evidence to support its argument that Dr. Ivins was the person who mailed anthrax to Tom Brokaw,Tom Daschle and others in September and October of 2001.

Much of this evidence is outside the realm of science: Dr. Ivins's alleged fixation with a sorority; strange comments in excerpts from his e-mail messages; aconnection to a Greendale school that might or might not explain thefictitious return address on anthrax mailings. I will not address these points beyond noting that they are highly circumstantial.As a scientist, however, I feel compelled to comment on what should have been the Federal Bureau of Investigation's strongest link between Dr. Ivins and the terrible crime - deadly anthrax spores.

In the summary of its findings, the F.B.I. states that investigators used four different genetic techniques to match the anthrax-laced attack letters to a unique DNA footprint of a single anthrax spore preparation in one flask that had been in Dr. Ivins's custody.Sounds reasonable. Yet the investigators present no details on the scientific methods they used to make this match or how they employed them.That's a problem, because without such detail it is hard to tell if they specifically ruled out a similar match between the anthrax in the letters and anthrax preparations with the same DNA footprint kept at a number of other labs around the country.

The basic methods of genetic analysis are well known. Why not provide enough detail about their procedure to enableother scientists to tell whether they could actually single out Dr. Ivins'sspore preparation as the culprit?The investigators fail to address another underlying problem with their anthrax match: that Dr. Ivins was an investigator in the case before he was a suspect. After the anthrax attack, Dr. Ivins himself worked directly with the evidence. The F.B.I. asked Dr. Ivins to help them with the forensics in the case by analyzing the contents of suspicious letters. And he did so for years, until the authorities began to suspect that the anthrax spores used in the mailings might have originated from his lab.

Dr. Ivins, for instance, was asked to analyze the anthrax envelope that was sent to Mr. Daschle's office on Oct. 9, 2001. When his team analyzed the powder, they found it to be a startlingly refined weapons-grade anthraxspore preparation, the likes of which had never been seen before by personnel at Fort Detrick.It is extremely improbable that this type of preparation could ever have been produced at Fort Detrick, certainly not of the grade and quality foundin that envelope.

But even leaving that aside, there are important questions left unanswered.First, isn't it possible that the manipulation of the contents of the anthrax letters in Dr. Ivins's laboratory might have contaminated the work environment enough to potentially jeopardize the integrity of subsequent samples taken from the lab? Might that perhaps explain why the anthrax powder used in the attacks was later found to have the same DNA footprint as the other anthrax preparations in Dr. Ivins's lab? At the very least,wouldn't this call his guilt into doubt?

It was as if a gun used in a murder was unintentionally returned to the scene of the crime several days after the murder. What are the legal implications of such a possibility? Wouldn't a court be especially cautious in considering evidence involving a weapon in such circumstances?This case is apparently closed with Dr. Ivins's death. But until the F.B.I.discloses its scientific testing methods and data, many questions will remain unanswered.

Gerry Andrews is an assistant professor of microbiology at the University of Wyoming.

2008-07-25T20:06:00.000-07:00

MORE ON USA IMPERIALISM AS THE INEVITABLE PRODUCT OF PLUTOCRACY
by Benjamin Merhav

The article below was emailed to me today by Romi Elnagar. I had some hesitation as to which blog of mine to upload it on because essentially it concerns the problem of plutocracy against democracy. However, the article below, although opposed to USA imperialism, does not consider the crimes of the current administration as the inevitable product of the plutocracy regime which is the USA regime currently, therefore I have uploaded it on this blog. Furthermore, the quoted article on the previous post states as follows :

"How can a government that maintains more than 800 military facilities in more than 140 different foreign countries be anything other than an imperial power? The hundreds of thousands of troops who operate those bases and conduct operations from them, not to mention the approximately 125,000 sailors and Marines aboard the U.S. warships that cruise the oceans, are not going door to door selling Girl Scout cookies. United States of America is the name; intimidation is the game."

In other words, the present criminal administration, although could well be considered the worse USA administration ever, and even illegal from the point of view of the USA constitution and the principles of the rule of law,is just the inevitable product of plutocracy, the rule of big business, which has been dominating the USA since its creation. Foreign bases, territorial expansion,intimidation of other countries to control markets and industrial resources, has always been the hallmark of USA plutocracy. No present presidential candidate can change that, even if they wanted to, and they don't. The overall political system must change from plutocracy to a direct and participatory democracy to bring about genuine change, and eliminate the horrendous crimes of the rulers and their stooges-politicians.

Fascism, which is the terrorist dictatorship of big business, along with imperialism and racism is also a product of plutocracy, and the USA seems to be moving gradually to a full scale fascist dictatorship, with nothing to block the monstrous danger from happening in the near future, if plutocracy is allowed to continue its rule.

Here is the article :

Nine Reasons to Investigate War Crimes Now

By Jeremy Brecher and Brendan Smith, The Nation
Posted on July 19, 2008, Printed on July 25, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/92104/

Retired General Antonio Taguba, the officer who led the Army's investigation into Abu Ghraib, recently wrote in the preface to the new report, Broken laws, Broken Lives:

"There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account."

Should those who ordered war crimes be held to account? With the conclusion of the Bush regime approaching, many people are dubious, even those horrified by Administration actions. They fear a long, divisive ordeal that could tear the country apart. They note that such division could make it far harder for the country to address the many other crises it is facing. They see the upcoming elections as a better way to set the country on a new path.

Many Democrats in particular are proposing to let bygones be bygones and move on to confront the problems of the future, rather than dwelling on the past. The Democratic leadership sees rising gas prices, foreclosures, and health care costs, as well as widespread dissatisfaction with the direction of the country, as playing in their favor. Why risk it all by playing the war crimes blame game? Perhaps some Democratic leaders are also concerned that their own role in enabling or even encouraging war crimes might be exposed.

Meanwhile, the evidence confirming not only a deliberate policy of torture, but of conspiring in an illegal war of aggression and conducting a criminal occupation, continues to pile ever higher. Bush's own press secretary Scott McClellan has revealed in his book, What Happened, how deliberately the public was misled to foment the attack on Iraq. Philippe Sands' new book, Torture Team, has shown how the top legal and political leadership fought for a policy of torture -- circumventing and misleading top military officials to do so. Jane Mayer's The Dark Side, reveals that a secret report by the Red Cross -- given to the CIA and shared with President Bush and Condoleezza Rice -- found that U.S. interrogation methods are "categorically" torture and that the "abuse constituted war crimes, placing the highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."

Despite the reluctance to open what many see as a can of worms, there are fresh moves on many fronts to hold top U.S. officials accountable for war crimes.

Courts: U.S. courts have issued a barrage of decisions against the Administration's claim that they can do anything and still be within the law. The Supreme Court ruled June 12 that the Administration cannot deny habeas corpus rights to Guantánamo detainees. The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on June 30 overturned the Pentagon's enemy combatant designation of a Chinese Muslim held in Guantánamo for the last six years. A Maine jury in April acquitted the Bangor Six of criminal trespass charges stemming from protesters' claim that the "Constitution was being violated by the Bush Administration's involvement in Iraq."

Congressional investigation: Rep. John Conyers has recently brought top policy-makers, including former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo, Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff David Addington, and this week former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith and former Attorney General John Ashcroft before a House Judiciary subcommittee and grilled them on their role crafting the Administration's torture policy.

Senate hearings in June revealed that treatment of Guantánamo captives was modeled on techniques allegedly used by Communist China to force false confessions from U.S. soldiers.

Impeachment: Despite Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi's instruction to keep impeachment "off the table," Rep. Dennis Kucinich for the first time brought an impeachment resolution to the House floor that incorporated a devastating, thirty-five article indictment spelling out Bush Administration war crimes and crimes against the Constitution. Now Rep. Conyers has announced that the Judiciary Committee will hold hearings on the charges July 25. Even after the Bush Administration leaves office, the judges it appointed who appear complicit in war crimes -- notably torture policy architect Judge Jay S. Bybee -- could still be impeached.

Truth commission: In response to General Taguba's accusations, New York Times Op-Ed columnist Nicholas D. Kristof has just called for the establishment of a truth commission -- like that of post-Apartheid South Africa -- with subpoena power to investigate the abuses in the aftermath of 9/11 and "lead a process of soul searching and national cleansing."

International: In May, Vanity Fair magazine published an article by British human rights attorney Philippe Sands, in which he described the reasons Administration lawyers face a real risk of criminal investigations if they stray beyond U.S. borders. The British parliament is about to launch an investigation of Washington's lying to the British government about its use of its facilities for "extraordinary rendition." Constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley recently said, "I think it might in fact be time for the United States to be held internationally to a tribunal. I never thought in my lifetime I would say that." Colin Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson publicly advised Feith, Addington, And Albert Gonzales "never to travel outside the U.S., except perhaps to Saudi Arabia and Israel."

Prosecution: According to a recent Mellman Group survey commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union, Americans of all political stripes overwhelmingly support the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate both the destruction of the CIA's interrogation tapes and the possible use of torture by the agency. Every segment of the electorate -- including majorities of Democrats (82 percent), independents (62 percent), and Republicans (51 percent) -- want to hold this administration accountable for its role in the destruction of the torture tapes.

Vincent Bugliosi, the former Los Angeles County Prosecutor who has won twenty-one convictions in murder trials, including Charles Manson's, has just published The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, which argues that there is overwhelming evidence President Bush took the nation to war in Iraq under false pretenses and must be prosecuted for the consequent deaths of over 4,000 U.S. soldiers.

Dean Lawrence Velvel of the Massachusetts School of Law at Andover is planning a September conference to map out war crimes prosecutions against President Bush and other administration officials. Velvel says that "plans will be laid and necessary organizational structures set up, to pursue the guilty as long as necessary and, if need be, to the ends of the Earth." Reps. John Conyers, Jerrold Nadler, and Bill Delahunt have called on Attorney General Michael Mukasey to appoint a special counsel to investigate the rendition of Canadian citizen Maher Arar to Syria.

Citizen action: Voters in Brattleboro and Marlboro, Vermont this spring approved a measure that instructs police to arrest President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney for "crimes against our Constitution," should they venture into those precincts.

All these developments suggest approaches that might be used to hold Bush Administration war criminals accountable. Establishing accountability for U.S. war crimes in the Iraq war era is the sine qua non for initiating a new era on different principles. Here are nine reasons why we must not let bygones be bygones:

1. World peace cannot be achieved without human rights and accountability.

According to Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief American prosecutor at the Nuremberg Tribunals, "The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law." Moving in that direction will be impossible unless such responsibility applies to the statesmen of the world's most powerful countries, and above all the world's sole superpower. U.S. support for the war crimes charges like those just brought by the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court against Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir will represent little more than hypocrisy if U.S. Presidents are not held to the same standard.

2. The rule of law is central to our democracy.

Most Americans believe that even the highest officials are bound by law. If we send mentally-disabled juveniles to prison as adults, but let government officials who authorize torture and launch illegal wars go scot-free, we destroy the very basis of the rule of law.

3. We must not allow precedents to be set that promote war crimes.

Executive action unchallenged by Congress changes the way our law is interpreted. According to Robert Borosage, writing for Huffington Post, "If Bush's extreme assertions of power are not challenged by the Congress, they end up not simply creating new law, they could end up rewriting the Constitution itself."

4. We must restore the principles of democracy to our government.

The claim that the President, as commander-in-chief, can exercise the unlimited powers of a king or dictator strikes at the very heart of our democracy. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson put it, we, as citizens, would "submit ourselves to rules only if under rules." Countries like Chile can attest that the restoration of democracy and the rule of law requires more than voting a new party into office -- it requires a rejection of impunity for the criminal acts of government officials.

5. We must forestall an imperialist resurgence.

When they are out of office, the advocates of imperial expansion and global domination have proven brilliant at lying in wait to undermine and destroy their opponents.

They did it to destroy the presidencies of Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. They'll do it again to an Obama Administration unless their machinations are exposed and discredited first.

6. We must have national consensus on the real reasons for the Bush Administration's failures.

Republicans are preparing to dominate future decades of American politics by blaming the failure of the Iraq war on those who "sent a signal" that the U.S. would not "stay the course" whatever the cost. Establishing the real reasons for the failure of the U.S. in Iraq -- the criminal and anti-democratic character of the war -- is the necessary condition for defeating that effort.

7. We must restore America's damaged reputation abroad.

The world has watched as the United States -- the self-proclaimed steward of democracy -- has systematically broken the letter and spirit of its Constitution, violated international treaties, and ignored basic moral tenets of humanity. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora recently pointed out to the Senate Armed Services Committee, our nation's "policy of cruelty" has violated our "overarching foreign policy interests and our national security." To establish international legitimacy, we must demonstrate that we are capable of holding our leaders to account.

8. We must lay the basis for major change in U.S. foreign policy.

Real security in the era of global warming and nuclear proliferation must be based on international cooperation. But genuine cooperation requires that the U.S. entirely repudiate the course of the past eight years. The American people must understand why international cooperation rather than pursuit of global domination is necessary to their own security. And other countries must be convinced that we really mean it.

9. We must deter future U.S. war crimes.

The specter of more war crimes haunts our future. Rumors continue to circulate about an American or American-backed Israeli attack on Iran. A recently introduced House resolution promoted by AIPAC "demands" that the President initiate what is effectively a blockade against Iran -- an act seen by some as tantamount to a declaration of war. Nothing could provide a greater deterrent to such future war crimes than establishing accountability for those of the past.

Holding war criminals accountable will require placing the long-term well-being of our country and the world ahead of short-term political advantage. As Rep. Wexler put it, "We owe it to the American people and history to pursue the wrongdoing of this Administration whether or not it helps us politically or in the next election. Our actions will properly define the Bush Administration in the eyes of history and that is the true test."

2008-07-23T22:58:00.001-07:00

FROM THE HORSE'S MOUTH : THE USA IMPERIALISM MASTER PLAN AND GLOBAL HEGEMONY (ON BEHALF OF USA TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATIONS and their zionist spearhead)
by Benjamin Merhav

The article below was downloaded from lewrockwell.com by Romi Elnagar and emailed to me today. Both the website and the author are loyal bourgeois Americans. Certainly they are no revolutionaries, but they are realists and they see that USA rulers, prodded by the zionist apartheid of Israel, are taking America, and perhaps the entire world, to a catastrophic conclusion, hence this article as a warning.

Here is the article :

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs84.html

CENTCOM's Master Plan and U.S. Global Hegemony

by Robert Higgs

DIGG THIS

Many people deny that the U.S. government presides over a global empire. If you speak of U.S. imperialism, they will fancy that you must be a decrepit Marxist-Leninist who has recently awakened after spending decades in a coma. Yet the facts cannot be denied, however much people's ideology may predispose them to distort or obfuscate those facts.

How can a government that maintains more than 800 military facilities in more than 140 different foreign countries be anything other than an imperial power? The hundreds of thousands of troops who operate those bases and conduct operations from them, not to mention the approximately 125,000 sailors and Marines aboard the U.S. warships that cruise the oceans, are not going door to door selling Girl Scout cookies. United States of America is the name; intimidation is the game.

Of course, the kingpins who control this massive machinery of coercion never describe it in such terms. In their lexis, American motives and actions are invariably noble. Listening to these bigwigs describe what the U.S. forces abroad are doing, you would never suspect that they seek anything but "regional stability," "security," "deterrence of potential regional aggressors," and "economic development and cooperation among nations." Inasmuch as hardly anybody favors instability, insecurity, international aggression, economic retrogression, and mutual strife among nations, the U.S. objectives, and hence the actions taken in their furtherance, would appear to be indisputably laudable.

Yet, from time to time, a U.S. leader lets slip an expression so revealing that it warrants a thousand times greater weight than the vague, mealy-mouthed banalities they routinely dispense. I came across such a statement recently. In seeking funds in 2007 for construction of a $62 million ammunition storage facility at Bagram Air Base, Admiral William J. Fallon, then the commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), referred to Bagram as "the centerpiece for the CENTCOM Master Plan for future access to and operations in Central Asia."

Pause to savor this phrase for a moment; let it roll around in your mind: CENTCOM Master Plan for future access to and operations in Central Asia. What an intriguing expression! What dramatic images of future U.S. military actions it evokes! But can those actions be anything other than the very sort that empires undertake? Ask yourself: why does the U.S. military anticipate conducting operations in Central Asia, a region that lies thousands of miles from the United States and comprises countries that lack either the capacity or the intention to seriously harm Americans who mind their own business in their own national territory? Indeed, what is the U.S. military doing in Central Asia in the first place? Have you ever heard of "the Great Game"?

When the Army sought the funds for the new ammunition storage facility at Bagram again this year, its request echoed Admiral Fallon's sentiments by stating: "As a forward operating site, Bagram must be able to provide for a long term, steady state presence which is able to surge to meet theater contingency requirements." The statement's reference to "a long term, steady state presence" would seem to be especially revealing because it takes for granted that U.S. forces will not be leaving this part of the world any time soon. Giving even more weight to this interpretation, Congress approved not only the $62 million for the ammunition storage facility, but also $41 billion for a 30-megawatt electrical power plant at Bagram, a plant large enough to serve more than 20,000 American homes.

Along the same lines, Lt. Colonel John Sotham, commander of the 455 Expeditionary Force Support Squadron, which is now stationed at Bagram Air Base, recently described a number of improvements his squadron is making at the base, looking toward giving it "a more permanent footprint." He added: "It's pretty clear that the U.S. Air Force will be at Camp Cunningham [a living area at Bagram] and involved in the fight against terrorism for a very long time." He relished the opportunity to "help drive Bagram from expeditionary to enduring!"

The United States government divides the world into six military regions called Unified Combatant Commands. (A separate Africa Command has been created only recently. Once it is fully operational, it will include all of the African countries except Egypt. A few other northeastern African countries were previously included in the Central Command's area of responsibility.) The Central Command, abbreviated as CENTCOM, stretches from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen in the West to Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Tajikistan, and Pakistan in the East. The easternmost reaches of this combatant area butt up against India, China, and Russia.

Looking carefully at the map, one discovers that Israel is not included in the CENTCOM area, but in the European Command area. In a sense, however, we may describe the twenty-one countries in CENTCOM's newly defined "area of responsibility" as a sort of logical complement of Israel: the people of every one of these countries devoutly wish (and here I have chosen my adverb carefully) that Israel had never come into existence and that it will go out of existence as soon as possible. Thus, CENTCOM's area, inhabited predominantly by Muslims, comprises a predominant subset of Israel's avowed enemies.

It comes as no surprise, then, that of all the unified commands, CENTCOM is the one in which, in today's world, the U.S. empire's rubber meets the road most abrasively. The command's area of responsibility includes a great part of the world's known petroleum and natural gas deposits, a preponderance of Israel's enemies, and the places in which the George W. Bush administration has chosen to focus its so-called Global War on Terror. Of course, the region also includes Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. forces have been fighting for years, and, sandwiched between these two battlefields, Iran, where Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons ardently desire to extend the fighting at the earliest opportunity.

The high imperial authorities are not embarrassed by the U.S. empire; on the contrary, they are immensely proud of it. They simply do not describe their activities as the maintenance and exploitation of an empire. If you care to read an extended example, I invite you to peruse Admiral Fallon's testimony of May 3, 2007, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, regarding CENTCOM'S "posture." This carefully prepared statement, written in impeccable military bureaucratese, illustrates well how imperial commanders wish to represent their forces' actions and, equally important, how members of Congress wish to have those actions represented to them. Of course, it's all a solemn farce, a polished and meaningless charade staged purely for public-relations purposes―a ceremonial hors d'oeuvres served in public before the diners consume the entrée, which consists of a massive amount of the taxpayers' money ladled out to the armed forces and their civilian contractors.

"Our top priority," Fallon declares, "is achieving stability and security in Iraq." Everyone knows, of course, that Iraq was more stable and secure before the U.S. invasion, which suggests that perhaps the quickest way to reestablish those conditions is for the U.S. forces to leave the country. Certainly many Iraqis resolutely oppose a permanent U.S. presence there, and some of them will continue their violent resistance to U.S. forces as long as the Americans remain. Intelligent adults also know that when Fallon or any other U.S. official speaks of achieving stability and security, he has in mind the achievement of those blessed conditions only on terms acceptable to the U.S. government, and most likely in accordance with its prescription. That the U.S. forces will ever pull out of Iraq and leave the Iraqis to do as they please is virtually impossible to conceive at this point. Indeed, a mere pullout is nearly inconceivable, despite the great amount of talk that goes on about it on both sides. On the Iraqi side, this talk is sincere; on the U.S. side, it is all for show.

Fallon testified that in Afghanistan, "the foundation of security and governance is in place." He must have known how ludicrous that statement was. Outside of Kabul, the U.S. forces, their allies, and the puppet regime control hardly anything, and U.S. and allied forces that move about the country are at constant risk of attack. The Taliban has not been vanquished, and in fact it has been rebuilding its ranks and its operational capabilities recently. The likelihood that outside forces will ever impose their designs on Afghanistan's backward but fiercely resilient tribesmen verges on nil. Even Fallon has the temerity to observe that "parts of the country have never known centralized governance." Great powers have sought to conquer Afghanistan and bend it to their imperial will for centuries, never with more than short-lived success. Eventually the imperialists leave, and the Afghans remain.

In an earlier day, Rudyard Kipling advised "The Young British Soldier" who served in Britain's imperial army:

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

It's probably still good advice. Alternatively, you can get yourself killed by your own comrades and instantly become a Great American Hero, thanks to the Great American Military Bullshit Information Team (GAMBIT).

Continuing his parade of politicking platitudes, Fallon declares that "Iran's most destabilizing activity has been the pursuit of nuclear weapons technology in defiance of the international community." Of course, if the Iranians have undertaken any such pursuit at all, which remains in doubt, it has been not in defiance of the mythical "international community," but in defiance of the United States and Israel, as everybody who reads the newspapers knows. It is nothing short of astonishing that U.S. officials speak in almost hysterical tones of the threat posed by nonexistent Iranian nuclear weapons, yet never breathe a word about the hundreds of such weapons already in the Israeli arsenal, not to mention the thousands that remain at the disposal of U.S. forces. Of course, members of Congress, who live in mortal fear of the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC), want to be seen listening to this phony-baloney message, so military politicians such as Admiral Fallon dare not disappoint them.

Fallon arranged the bulk of his testimony around a description of how CENTCOM's "initiatives are organized into five focus areas: setting conditions for stability in Iraq; expanding governance and security in Afghanistan; degrading violent extremist networks and operations; strengthening relationships and influencing states to contribute to regional stability; and posturing the force to build and sustain joint and combined war fighting capabilities and readiness." Notice that except possibly for the third item listed ("degrading violent extremist networks and operations"), none of this has more than a very remote connection with defending the people of the United States against foreign enemies.

Instead, it has everything to do with maintenance of the U.S. empire in the Middle East and Central Asia. The U.S. government maintains a lavishly financed Department of Defense, ostensibly to protect Americans in their own country from foreign attackers. In reality, however, this department acts as an overfed foreign legion, operating around the world as an offensive or potentially offensive force to bully other countries into submission to the U.S. government's wishes.

To read Fallon's testimony is to take a refresher course in U.S. nation building. He speaks about "infrastructure development," "provision of basic services to Iraq's citizens," and improving "local government performance and capacity." In Afghanistan, he perceives that the "priorities are roads and electricity, followed by agricultural development, microcredit, job skills, and education." The occupation force, he testified, "is actively pursuing initiatives in these areas, from building schools and providing them with supplies to encouraging and stimulating the growth of small businesses." Should we laugh or cry?

Someone needs to remind the admiral and his audience that the military is trained and equipped to dispense death and destruction. Military leaders know nothing about nation building, and their efforts along these lines result only in gigantic waste of time, money, and lives. (Of course, we must never forget, especially when discussing the U.S. empire, that one man's waste is another man's fabulously enriching government contract.)

To make matters even worse, "CENTCOM supports US government and United Kingdom lead nation counter-narcotics activities." No U.S. war is complete, it seems, without dragging the disastrous drug war along with it.

The imperial authorities constantly emphasize their efforts to promote our security by suppressing "violent extremism" abroad. Repeat after me: extremism always bad; moderation always good. If Barry Goldwater were alive today and still telling us that "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice," he might well be placed on the Air Force's target list for the Predator drone. While decrying the violent extremists in the Middle East, Admiral Fallon notes: "Unfortunately, their tactics and radical ideology remain almost unchallenged by voices of moderation." It takes a heap of chutzpah to impose sanctions on a country, killing hundreds of thousands of children and others with weakened immune systems, then invade the country, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children by bombing, shooting, shelling, beating, stabbing, suffocating, and immolating them, then create such chaos and violence among the populace that millions are forced to abandon their residence and rendered homeless, then announce your regret that so few speak in favor of moderation. Next thing you know, the Devil will express regret that so few denizens of Hell speak in favor of fraternal kindness and Christian charity.

Fallon aims at "de-legitimizing the underlying social and political movements that support" the extremist groups. He fails to recognize that such delegitimization is utterly impossible as long as the U.S. forces continue to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan and to brutalize their people. The admiral proposes "building capacity in governance and security that helps at-risk societies address problems that foster internal and local grievances." The overwhelming grievance in the Middle East, however, is the presence of U.S. forces and Washington's support for local dictators and their legions of thugs. Fallon, however, looks to "empowering credible experts to expose the flaws and internal contradictions of the enemy's ideology; provide viable, competing alternative worldviews; and contest the intellectual 'safe harbors' where extremist ideas incubate." U.S. military leaders seem to have made a little progress since the days when they lived by the motto, "If you've got 'em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow." Yet the idea that in the midst of everything the U.S. forces are doing in the Middle East they can employ "credible experts" to transform the dominant ideology is sheer lunacy. Al-Qaida requires no wily recruiting agents in Afghanistan and Iraq; its supporters need only invite people to look out their windows.

Fallon speaks glowingly of the various Middle Eastern dictatorships with whom the U.S. government maintains cordial relationships. (It's amazing how many "friends" you can win with a combination of generous bribes and credible threats.) The United States' "close, reliable partner nations" include such paragons of social and political modernity as "Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, and Pakistan." Moreover, "Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are important partners in maintaining stability in the Gulf." An honest observer feels compelled to recognize, however, that every one of the filthy-rich sheiks in these desert despotisms would gladly cut Fallon's throat if they weren't raking in such fabulous amounts of money from the current arrangements.

The admiral does recognize a few problems. "Our present inventory of language and intelligence specialists (especially human intelligence) and counterintelligence agents does not support current requirements." Translation: because we don't speak or understand Arabic, Pashto, Persian, or any other local language in this part of the world, we haven't a clue as to what's going on in the politics and social life of these countries, and therefore we are constantly at the mercy of English-speaking collaborators who will take the risk of feeding us lies and fabricated "intelligence" long enough to get rich and then flee the country before their infuriated countrymen kill them.

Notwithstanding the many troubles that plague the imperial crusaders in CENTCOM's area of responsibility, Fallon bravely concludes, "we fight tirelessly against those who would do us harm." He fails to mention, however, that the people of southwest Asia would harbor no grievances whatsoever against Americans if the U.S. government had only possessed the intelligence and the decency to stay out of their affairs.

July 22, 2008

2008-07-17T15:35:00.000-07:00

WHEN WILL TOP WAR CRIMINALS OF THE ZIONIST APARTHEID REGIME OF ISRAEL BE PUT ON TRIAL FOR WAR CRIMES ?
by Benjamin Merhav

The following article by Paul Craig Roberts, with the introduction by John Whitbeck, was emailed to me today by Romi Elnagar (bluesapphire48@yahoo.com).

Introduction
by John Whitbeck

In the COUNTERPUNCH article transmitted below, Paul Craig Roberts deals with the fundamental question posed by the war crimes charges formally launched against Omar al-Bashir rather more directly than Rami Khouri was able to in his article in the INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE.

One very peculiar aspect of this affair has not, so far as I am aware, attracted the attention which it deserves. While the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court applied to the court for an arrest warrant against the President of Sudan this Monday, his intention to do so was publicly announced several days earlier ... by, of all sources, the United States Government. Since the ICC is supposed to be an independent international tribunal, one would think that it would be deemed scandalous that ANY government should have prior knowledge of the chief prosecutor's intentions. Yet the United States is not even a signatory of the Treaty of Rome or a member state of the ICC and, since the court's inception, has done everything in its power to sabotage and denigrate the court.

If the United States has succeeded in suborning the chief prosecutor and putting him in the American pocket (which would NOT be surprising -- indeed, which, since the commission of war crimes has become "as American as apple pie", would almost certainly be a preeminent American "national security" objective), why would it wish, by publicly leaking its inside information, to make the world aware of this achievement? One would think that it would wish to keep such an achievement top secret.

I hope that one or more of the journalists among my distinguished recipients will dare to look into this intriguing issue.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts07162008.html

July 16, 2008

Little Crimes Get Punished, Big Ones Don't

War Crimes Paradox

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

National Public Radio has been spending much news time on Darfur in Western Sudan where a great deal of human suffering and death are occurring. The military conflict has been brought on in part by climate change, according to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon. Drought is forcing nomads in search of water into areas occupied by other claimants. No doubt the conflict is tribal and racial as well. The entire catastrophe is overseen by a government with few resources other than bullets.

Now an International Criminal Court prosecutor wants to bring charges against Sudan’s president, Omar al-Bashir, for crimes against humanity and war crimes.

I have no sympathy for people who make others suffer.

Nevertheless, I wonder at the International Criminal Court’s pick from the assortment of war criminals? Why al-Bashir?

Is it because Sudan is a powerless state, and the International Criminal Court hasn’t the courage to name George W. Bush and Tony Blair as war criminals?

Bush and Blair’s crimes against humanity in Iraq and Afghanistan dwarf, at least in the number of deaths and displaced persons, the terrible situation in Darfur. The highest estimate of Darfur casualties is 400,000, one-third the number of Iraqis who have died as a result of Bush’s invasion. Moreover, the conflict in the Sudan is an internal one, whereas Bush illegally invaded two foreign countries, war crimes under the Nuremberg Standard. Bush’s war crimes were enabled by the political leaders of the UK, Spain, Canada, and Australia. The leaders of every member of the “coalition of the willing to commit war crimes” are candidates for the dock.

But of course the Great Moral West does not commit war crimes.

War crimes are charges fobbed off on people demonized by the Western media, such as the Serbian Milosovic and the Sudanese al-Bashir.

Every week the Israeli government evicts Palestinians from their homes, steals their land, and kills Palestinian women and children. These crimes against humanity have been going on for decades. Except for a few Israeli human rights organizations, no one complains about it. Palestinians are defined as “terrorists,” and “terrorists” can be treated inhumanely without complaint.

Iraqis and Afghans suffer the same fate. Iraqis who resist US occupation of their country are “terrorists.” Taliban is a demonized name. Every Afghan killed--even those attending wedding parties--is claimed to be Taliban by the US military.

Iraqis and Afghans can be murdered at will by American and NATO troops without anyone raising human rights issues.

The International Criminal Court is a bureaucracy. It has a budget, and it needs to do something to justify its budget. Lacking teeth and courage, it goes after the petty war criminals and leaves the big ones alone.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m for holding all governments accountable for their criminal actions. It is the hypocrisy to which I object. The West gives itself and Israel a pass while damning everyone else. Even human rights groups fall into the trap. Rights activists don’t see the buffoonery in their complaint that President Bush, who has violated more human rights than any person alive, is letting China off the hook for human rights abuses by attending the Olympics hosted by China.

President Bush claims that the enormous destruction and death he has brought to Iraq and Afghanistan are necessary in order for Americans to be safe. If we are accepting excuses this feeble, Milosovic passed muster with his excuse that as the head of state he was obliged to try to preserve the state’s territorial integrity. Is al-Bashir supposed to accept secession in the Sudan, something that Lincoln would not accept from the Confederacy? How long would al-Bashir last if he partitioned Sudan?

Last October the Atlanta Journal-Constitution had a photo on its front page above the fold of an elderly man with mikes shoved in his face. Paul Henss, 85 years old, is being deported from the US, where he has lived for 53 years, because Eli Rosenbaum, director of the US State Department’s Nazi-hunting bureaucracy, declared him a war criminal for training guard dogs used at German concentration camps. Henss was 22 years old when World War II ended.

A kid who trained guard dogs is being deported as a war criminal, but the head of state who launched two wars of naked aggression, resulting in the deaths of more than 1.2 million people, and who has the entire world on edge awaiting his third war of aggression, this time against Iran, is received respectfully by foreign governments. Corporations and trade associations will pay him $100,000 per speech when he leaves office. He will make millions of dollars more from memoirs written by a ghostwriter.

Does no one see the paradox of deporting Henss while leaving the war criminal in the White House?

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com

2008-07-12T14:05:00.000-07:00

IS THE ICC A TOOL OF ZIONISM AND USA IMPERIALISM ?
by Benjamin Merhav

The following article is by an American jurist, and it is published by JURIST, the online magazine of the University of Pittsburgh Law School. It was emailed today to me by Miriam Adams, an American anti-zionist of Jewish background.

Although a very important article, it fails to mention the war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated daily by the zionist apartheid regime of Israel against the Arab people of Palestine in occupied Palestine. The top zionist war criminals responsible for those international crimes are still allowed to continue their horrendous crimes, and they are now actually encouraged to drag the entire humanity into a 3rd World War by attacking Iran with the full support of the USA rulers.

Moreover, the criminal zionist rulers of the zionist apartheid regime of Israel are bragging that theirs is the strongest military in the Middle East, and that they can and will attack Iran if it does not succumb to their diktat.

Here is the article :

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hotline/2008/07/international-criminal-court-icc-joins.php

Friday, July 11, 2008

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC) JOINS THE CRUSADE
by Ali Khan, LL.M. J.S.D

Ali Khan* [Washburn University School of Law]: "The International Criminal Court (ICC) joins the crusade to defame Islam, demonize internal conflicts in Muslim nations, and prosecute Muslim leaders for crimes against humanity, rape, genocide, and other international crimes. The Prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, holds evidence "on crimes committed in the whole of Darfur over the last five years." Ocampo will be seeking the arrest of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir for war crimes committed in Darfur.

The ICC is a good idea. We need a world court to hold international criminals accountable. No leader should be able to get away with heinous international crimes. The weakening of personal sovereign immunity is also a welcome legal development in that no leader, army general, senator, representative, or even judge is immune from criminal liability if he or she commits crimes or provides material assistance in the commission of crimes.

In practice, however, the ICC is a Western instrumentality that ignores the grave crimes of Western leaders and generals. The ICC has so far shown no interest in prosecuting President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and State Secretary Colin Powell for the crimes they planned, organized, incited, and committed with the help of lethal weapons in Afghanistan and Iraq. These leaders have destroyed Iraq, a Muslim country, and killed its leader, Saddam Hussein, without a fair trial. The NATO genocide in Afghanistan continues as world leaders sit in high galleries to watch the ghoulish killings of the “Taliban and terrorists.”

Ocampo is an incompetent, unethical, and perhaps a racist prosecutor who does not deserve to lead the Prosecutorial office of the ICC. He has already botched up the prosecution of a Congolese warlord, Thomas Lubanga, by wrongly withholding evidence that could have helped the defense.

The prosecution of President Omar for the Darfur conflict comes after years of distortions and misreporting in the Western media. The Western media singles out Muslim leaders and Muslim nations for explaining the ills of the world. Syria is listed as a terrorist state, Pakistan is blamed for trouble in Afghanistan, the Iranian President has been turned into an imminent murderer, and President Omar is soon to be prosecuted as a war criminal. Militias that resist Western occupation in their own countries are labeled as terrorists and jihadis.

While hardened criminals sit out in shameless liberty, the politically-inspired prosecution of President Omar is, at its best, selective enforcement of international criminal law; and, at its worst, it is one more crusade against the Muslim world."

Opinions expressed in JURIST's Hotline are the sole responsibility of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, or the University of Pittsburgh.

*L. Ali Khan initially trained as a civil engineer. He later switched to law, obtaining a law degree from Punjab University, Lahore. In 1976, Khan immigrated to the United States and studied law at New York University School of Law where he received his LL.M. and J.S.D. Khan is a member of the New York Bar.

Khan has authored three academic books published in the prestigious series Developments in International Law. Over the years, he has written numerous law review articles on the U.S. Constitution, comparative constitutional law, legal education, human rights, international disputes, and terrorism. His academic writings are used as part of course materials in universities across the world.