Archive | June 15th, 2011

worthless Egyptian military government

NOVANEWS

To pour salt in the wound of the mock-opening of the Rafah Crossing — the 400-500 passengers per day is, I think, less than the number permitted through after the massacre on the Mavi Marmara –there is now not enough medicine in the hospitals in Gaza for routine surgical procedures. The crisis is “enormous and needs concentrated efforts” to see it resolved, head of communications of the ICRC in Gaza said today. On Monday, the government pharmacy director, Muneer Al-Barsh, said that medical services were close to collapse due to medicine and medical equipment shortages.

The PCHR comments that “the Gaza Strip has not been supplied with medications and medical needs since last February. PCHR warns of the expected catastrophic deterioration to health conditions of the Palestinian population, including patients, especially those who suffer from chronic diseases…primary care centers and hospitals face extreme difficulties as their warehouses have ran out of many types of medications they regularly provide to patients. Such medications include many necessary antibiotics and dozens of necessary medical supplies.” And what is the transitional coup government in Egypt doing? Looking for weapons in the Sinai. Good work Field Marshal Tantawi.

Posted in GazaComments Off on worthless Egyptian military government

POLICE ISSUE WARNING ABOUT RISE IN ASIAN GOLD STREET ROBBERIES

NOVANEWS



WEST Midlands Police have issued a warning to members of the public after an increase in the number of gold thefts being reported in and around the Handsworth area of Birmingham. 

The incidents have predominantly occurred along Soho Road, Grove Lane and Rookery Road, with offenders taking necklaces and earrings from victims at bus stops or as they walk along the street.

Officers are reminding members of the public that due to the high value of gold, it is best to wear any valuable items discreetly.

11 incidents have been reported in the last 28 days alone. This increase has coincided with the initiation of a targeted operation to tackle street robberies in the area.

Under operation ‘Kestrel’, extra patrols have been implemented in affected streets, with uniformed and plain clothed officers patrolling the areas in higher numbers.

Traffic officers have been drafted in to monitor traffic and identify vehicles and drivers of interest. In addition, bus inspections are taking place on a regular basis.

Officers are also using intelligence information to identify offenders and people who may be handling stolen items of jewellery.

The majority of victims are described as being Asian women wearing high quality Asian gold pieces.

Often the incidents occur while the victims are waiting for a bus or walking on the street.

Chief Inspector Mike O’Hara from Birmingham Central Police, said: “We are asking people to think twice about openly wearing valuable irreplaceable jewellery.

“We advise discretion; simply keep your jewellery tucked into clothes. You never know who is around you. It’s a sorry fact of life but what you possess may be attractive to thieves.

“That said, we would like to reassure our local communities we are actively driving down street robbery and we do have a number of tactics in place to ensure this new wave of incidents is eradicated.”

The force is also launching a marketing campaign to help promote crime prevention, particularly to members of the Asian community.

The campaign will involve radio appearances for local officers and advertising in affected streets.

Officers will also be visiting Mosques and Temples to speak with worshippers and visitors, asking them to spread the word amongst family and friends.

For more crime prevention advice please visit the force’s website www.west-midlands.police.uk or contact local officers on 01345 113 5000

Posted in UKComments Off on POLICE ISSUE WARNING ABOUT RISE IN ASIAN GOLD STREET ROBBERIES

Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die Part I

NOVANEWS

 

by Ernst Zundel

On the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the Nuremberg Trials, it is appropriate that I share with my English-speaking readerships a few reflections pertaining to those trials.

I’d like to start with a revealing and thought-provoking quote coming from none other than Nahum Goldman, long-time president of the World Jewish Congress, in a book entitled The Jewish Paradox.

Apart from my encounter with the survivors of the concentration camps after the liberation, I only returned officially to Germany in order to meet Chancellor Adenauer and open negotiations about reparations. These reparations constitute an extraordinary innovation in terms of international law.

Until then, when a country lost a war, it paid damages to the victor, but it was a matter between states, between governments. Now for the first time a nation was to give reparations either to ordinary individuals or to Israel, which did not legally exist at the time of Hitler’s crimes. All the same, I must admit that the idea did not come from me.

During the war the [World Jewish Congress] had created an Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York (its headquarters are now in London). The directors were two great Lithuanian Jewish jurists, Jacob and Nehemiah Robinson. Thanks to them, the Institute worked out two completely revolutionary ideas: the Nuremberg Tribunal and German reparations.” (The Jewish Paradox, Grosset & Dunlap, 1978, p. 122)

In the United States, the new specialty channel, Court TV, is treating the whole of the North American continent to a Special about Nuremberg – a television hatefest lasting about 15 hours in total length. Likewise, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Radio Division, recently aired a sequel using static-distorted, crackling old short-wave newscasts from the proceedings in Nuremberg in 1946.

Nuremberg Trial Site

Once again, newsreel commentators regurgitate ad nauseam all the disgusting, lying testimony of perjurers and con artists, along with the sad “testimony” frequently tortured out of Germany’s military and political leaders.

I can only call these broadcasts “spreading of hate,” a crime in Canada under its hate laws against an identifiable ethnic group, namely the Germans.

The current German vassal state established by the Allies in post-war Germany – a state whose roots and foundations stem out of these disgusting proceedings of Allied vengeance against a vanquished German people – will not defend its own people against this avalanche of hate and lies, so I will try to do it. Be prepared for some food for thought.

It speaks to the tenor of our times that this may be the first time some of my readers may be exposed to a different historical slant on the Nuremberg Trials. We are so habituated to slander and libel that often we don’t even notice it or recognize it as such. We are so used to seeing Germany as the convenient and deserving whipping boy for all its “Nazi crimes”, we hardly ever give a thought to its creation – or its Godfathers.

Nahum Goldman writes in The Jewish Paradox, page 123:

During a meeting of the World Jewish Congress in London, a Russian Jew called Noah Baron, a wonderful man and great idealist (…) talked me into taking an active part by first of all meeting Adenauer. I was very hesitant at heart, because it was no easy matter for me to talk to the Germans again.

And in fact it was eventually my head, and not my heart, which decided me to negotiate. But I laid down a precondition before I would meet the Chancellor to open negotiations: Adenauer had to make a solemn statement to the Bundestag; he must say that although the Germany of those days was certainly not the Germany which had produced Auschwitz (…) it nevertheless inherited the Nazis’ responsibilities, and reparations were its duty; he must add that material reparations could not erase the evil done to the Jews by the Germans.”

Let’s see now how it all began – and evolved – this matter of the “Nuremberg Trials” resulting in such guilt and such enormous sums of reparations squeezed out of a defeated country, Germany, over the last 50 years.

Typhus Ravaged Inmates – No Medical Supplies

When we think of the Nuremberg Trials, we think of Auschwitz, Bergen Belsen, Dachau – places that the Allies “liberated” and where they “found those skeletons” – yielding useful photographic backdrops to justify what was to follow ever since.

Guilt, expertly used, is a terrible weapon, a powerful tool and also a handsome cash cow. There was, in fact, a policy and program locked in place to punish Germany for alleged war time crimes, planned and implemented long before the “crimes” of Nazi Germany were “revealed” to a stunned, shuddering, horrified world via news reels and sensationalized headlines.

There exist millions of words, and tens of thousands of books, written about the Nuremberg proceedings in response to these alleged crimes – publications in all kinds of languages, all borrowing its footnotes from each other and parroting the post-war Allied propaganda.

A lie repeated six million times, however, does not become the truth by mere repetition. This essay will inspect the pre-conditions and the reasons for the lie.

Palace of Justice

The generations who have grown into adulthood since the end of the Second World War have been allowed little chance to look at the Nuremberg Trials critically.

They have not been allowed access, for instance, the information showing what some important people and personalities at the time thought about the whole disgusting process of using ex post facto laws against a virtually defenseless, militarily defeated and still militarily occupied former enemy.

According to Nahum Goldman, former president of the World Jewish Congress, even during the war, plans were being mapped out with great care and cunning – and the foundation for the lie was being laid.

Long before America agreed to feed its young men into a fratricidal war fought not for American national interests but for the interests of an alien people and a State that did not even then exist, there came into being this Institute of Jewish Affairs in New York that cooked up a devilish brew.

Writes Goldman in The Jewish Paradox, pages 122-123, addressing this question:

The Institute’s (…) idea was that Nazi Germany ought to pay after its defeat. That still required belief in the defeat, at the time when it seemed likely that the war in Europe was lost for the Allies, but like Churchill and de Gaulle, I kept my faith. I never doubted for a moment, because I knew that Hitler would never manage to moderate himself and that his excesses would draw the Allies into the conflict.

According to the Institute’s conclusions, the German reparations would first have to be paid to people who had lost their belongings through the Nazis. Further, if, as we hoped, the Jewish state was created, the Germans would pay compensation to enable the survivors to settle there. The first time this idea was expressed was during the war, in the course of a conference in Baltimore.

As we all know and are never allowed to forget, in due time Hitler lost the war. Now it was time to conduct Stalinist type show trials against the defeated German leadership. Was this merely about “punishment”? Think again!

Continues Goldman:

The importance of the tribunal which sat at Nuremberg has not been reckoned at its true worth. According to international law, it was in fact impossible to punish soldiers who had been obeying orders. It was Jacob Robinson who had this extravagant, sensational idea. When he began to canvass it among the jurists of the American Supreme Court, they took him for a fool. “What did these Nazi officers do that was so unprecedented?” they asked.

“You can imagine Hitler standing trial, or maybe even Goering, but these are simple soldiers who carried out their orders and behaved as loyal soldiers.” We therefore had the utmost trouble in persuading the Allies; the British were fairly opposed, the French barely interested, and although they took part later they did not play any great part. The success came from Robinson managing to convince the Supreme Court judge, Robert Jackson. (The Jewish Paradox, p. 122)

What followed next? Total communications control and news manipulation through censorship!

Nahum Goldman at Mid Age

The Allied powers, by virtue of having established a military government – one might as well call it a military dictatorship, in many ways more restrictive than Adolf Hitler’s state had been – had a tight grip on all channels of communications.

This fact cannot be overstated. From control and supervision of the mail service to the telegraph and telephone systems to radio stations to book, newspaper and magazine publishing houses, the Allies were fully in charge through a clever “licensing system.”

Anyone who did not toe the Allied propaganda line lost his license or had his license suspended as punishment. Journalists lost their accreditations.

Newspapers lost their already very scarce paper or printer’s ink allocations or reduced-rate postal shipping privileges. Additionally, Germany was divided into military occupation zones, which were like mini-states, issuing their own passports, food and fuel coupons as well as clothing and stationary ration cards.

If you wanted to travel in occupied Germany from one zone to another in the immediate postwar years, you had to explain to the local military authorities in a written request why you wanted to travel to another zone, whom you wanted to see, and where you intended to stay. You had to request ration coupons for the period of your absence.

There were other bureaucratic, for the Nuremberg defense team extremely inconvenient restrictions as well – some by design, some by default. Many trains didn’t run on schedule or not at all for lack of coal. Most buildings were unheated. The populace starved. The country was largely without men. There were ruins wherever you looked, misery everywhere – more misery than there had ever been during the bitterly fought war!

Judges and Prosecutors Confer or Conspire

I find in my conversations and interviews and even during my court cases that judges, prosecutors and even defense lawyers have not the foggiest idea what life was really like for the defense teams in Nuremberg in 1946-1949.

Today’s generation, brainwashed by the high-tech razzle-dazzle of the O.J. Simpson media-feeding frenzy and image glut-out, has not a clue under what circumstances the German defense lawyers worked. Not a clue!

Furthermore, I suspect that the cynical generation of money-grubbing, self-promoting attorneys, prosecutors and judges of today don’t give a damn about what was the horrible truth and the reality then. Nonetheless, some of these things must be recorded for history’s sake.

Imagine if you told the occupation powers you wanted to go to Nuremberg to testify in defense of Rudolf Hess, Joachim von Ribbentrop, Kaltenbrunner, Göring, Streicher or military leaders like Keitel, Jodl, Dönitz, Raeder or others! If the military man to whom you applied for permission was a Jew in the uniform of Russia, France, America or England, imagine the response! Would he not think the German applicant was still a “Nazi lover” intent on additional “mischief”?

German Cities – Complete Devastation

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why many people would shy away from getting politically involved as defense witnesses or experts after having just survived a brutal war, horrendous bombing raids and the raping and plundering hordes of the self-appointed “liberators.”

Who would choose voluntarily to expose himself to arrest, beatings, torture etc. – considering the circumstances? It is remarkable that there were defense witnesses at all who came forward and tried to help those hapless prisoners in Nuremberg.

There are instances of the defense lawyers having located and convinced crucial defense witnesses to testify who were being held as prisoners in Allied prison camps, only to find them – convenient for the prosecution! – getting “lost” in transfers, “lost” long enough until the proceedings had passed the point where their testimony could have been of use to the defense.

These defense lawyers themselves worked against almost insurmountable odds. They sat in cold, wet, bombed-out basements of half-ruined houses with boarded-up windows, working in overcoats, writing with stiffened fingers, wearing hats, scarves and gloves to guard themselves against the cold and creeping dampness.

They were trying to write some text and formulate some argument so that a client, who was daily vilified in the press and on radio, in the news reels and on Armed Forces radio as a despicable monster and a criminal with no human traits, might get a semblance of a defense in those nightmarish, Kafkaesque proceedings called the Nuremberg Trials.

A New Way of Filing Exculpatory Evidence ?

Those were truly desperate times for the Germans. The defense was hampered by lack of staff, space, typewriters and ribbons and even carbon paper as well as photocopying facilities and paper supplies. Remember that, in 1945, a photocopy meant exactly what it said.

A photograph had to be taken using special line-film. A negative had to be developed and dried. This negative had to be projected by means of an enlarger onto light-sensitive photographic paper in a darkroom.

It had then to be developed using chemicals not easily available and electric drum dryers using up precious electricity to dry the prints. Electricity was rationed severely to approximately two hours every day, with only so many kilowatt allowed per person.

Try to put yourself in the German defense teams’ place, when two dozen lawyers, defending a great number of different clients, were handed a 30, 50, 100 or 200 page document by the prosecution – often this was the only set of a document for all the lawyers – and you had a limited time until court day to study, analyze, weigh the charges, look for potentially exonerating witnesses, in a bombed-out country where tens of millions were homeless, freezing, and starving.

The old, still existing phone books and city directories were virtually useless, because telephone service was not yet restored in many places and private people hardly ever got a phone approved by the occupation authorities unless you were “essential” – let’s say, like a medical doctor.

Who Would Risk Being Defense Counsel ?

Now let’s look at the defendants’ rights to get the lawyer of their choice – a sacred right in most civilized countries. What do you think that meant in those hysterical, lawless days in post-war Germany? Which lawyer could afford to side with a “Nazi monster”?

Many years later, my own lawyer was sometimes accused during my own trials in peaceful, democratic Canada for “being too closely associated” with me, the accused, by media commentators, other lawyers and even, occasionally, a judge who showed the intolerance rampant against a vilified accused by those in contemporary society who have the fate of accused people in their hands.

Imagine what courage it must have taken for those Nuremberg defense lawyers – who also were fathers of children, husbands to wives – all glad to have survived the war, all of them trying to build new careers out of the rubble of defeated, devastated Germany in 1946. It took much more than guts. It took real dedication to a principle and a love of justice few in today’s society could claim to have or hold.

Who Would Defend Doomed Men?

Let’s say you were a lawyer of such heroic traits. The Allies, more often than not, could declare you a “Nazi” as well, putting you in the class of “criminals,” since the Nazi party was declared a “criminal organization” by the conquerors. Most of the mental elite of Germany had been members of the National Socialist Party, and almost all had gone to war and, chances were, had been severely wounded or even killed.

Those who survived, were really persona non grata. They came back from a devastating war and found themselves not only criminalized but deprived of their civic and human rights by cruel conquerors who all the while kept on prattling incessantly in their propaganda about the wonderful Allied New Order.

Chief Justice Harlan Stone – a Jackson Critic

If, against tremendous odds, you finally found yourself screened, interrogated, and accredited as a lawyer at the Nuremberg Trials – what did you face, in fact? Let’s take a cold, hard look at this so-called International Military Tribunal. How righteous and noble that sounds! A label like that can hide many a sore. That Nuremberg sore is still running.

Here is what Nuremberg was:

It was not an “international military tribunal” at all. It was not even international in composition. The victors, instead, sat in judgment over the vanquished.

Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who was then the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Jackson’s [the Chief American Prosecutor at Nuremberg] boss in that role, had this to say while speaking to a reporter for Fortune Magazine, as quoted in Harlan Fiske Stone: Pillar of the Law, Alpheus Thomas Mason, The Viking Press, p. 715:

“For your information, but not for publication as coming from me, I would like to advise you that the Supreme Court had nothing to do, either directly or indirectly, with the Nuremberg Trials, or the governmental action which authorized them. I was not advised of Justice Jackson’s participation until his appointment by the Executive was announced in the newspapers.

“So far as the Nuremberg trial is an attempt to justify the application of the power of the victor to the vanquished because the vanquished made aggressive war,” (Stone) explained, “I dislike extremely to see it dressed up with a false facade of legality. The best that can be said for it is that it is a political act of the victorious States, which may be morally right, as was the sequestration of Napoleon about 1815.

But the allies in that day did not feel it necessary to justify it by an appeal to nonexistent legal principles. As a practical matter, it seems to me that the difficulties and uncertainties of saying who is the aggressor under the conditions which produce modern war should make us hesitate to lay down for the future a principle which would always require that question to be answered by the victor.

“All wars are in fact aggressive. The real source of authority is the powers of the victors over the vanquished.

“It would not disturb me greatly (…) if that power were openly and frankly used to punish the German leaders for being a bad lot, but it disturbs me some to have it dressed up in the habiliments of the Common Law and the constitutional safeguards to those charged with crime. It looks as though we were committing ourselves to the proposition that the outcome of every war must be that the leaders of the vanquished must be executed by the victors.”

Did Justice Jackson Shame the U.S. Supreme Court by Judicial Lynchings ?

That was the reality. Judge Jackson, handling the prosecution of Nuremberg’s most important trials, was a man with presidential ambitions who needed a high profile carved out of a self-serving stage. The Nuremberg Trials were to be the launching pad for his presidential race.

Posted in EducationComments Off on Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die Part I

Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die – Part II

NOVANEWS

By Ernst Zundel

The Nuremberg Court was not selected from, or composed of, judges of the neutral Swiss, or the neutral Swedes, or some more distant African, Asian or Latin American countries. American civilian judges to a large extent made up the core of the Allied judges – not military career officers, who might have had some understanding and compassion for what the military leaders and the civilian government under extreme war-time conditions lived through.

They could have undoubtedly had a greater appreciation of why some of the wartime measures were undertaken by Germany in the desperate days of the war. The “liberal country club”-experienced set of small town American judges could not.

Furthermore, the Allied victors blatantly carried on their war against the Germans by other means long after the shooting had stopped – not by bombs and bullets but this time by falsely “diagnosing” psychologists or, worse, by giving torturers a free hand: cynical and brutal investigators who could, and frequently did, mistreat, beat, whip, starve, suffocate, and mutilate their prisoners into giving confessions and statements which were as cruelly extracted as were the confessions from witches during the disgusting witchcraft trials of the Dark Ages.

The injustice of the Nuremberg Trials was testified to not only by Harlan Fiske Stone, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, but also by Iowa Supreme Court Justice Charles F. Wennerstrum, a man of the Midwest, who sat on one of the tribunals trying lesser alleged Nazi war criminals after the war.

Wennerstrum pointed out in a celebrated and controversial interview given to a reporter of the Chicago Daily Tribune that frequently the interrogators and some of the prosecutors were Jews who had fled Nazi Germany and came back in Allied uniforms to torment and seek revenge on the National Socialists who had wanted to expel the Jews from European living space because they considered them harmful to the war effort and to Western European civilization.

Here is how the article described the rabble that came to post-war Germany to settle private scores, as seen through Justice Wennerstrum’s eyes, after he quit in disgust:

“If I had known seven months ago what I know today,” [Wennerstrum] told friends as he packed to leave for America, “I would never have come here. The initial war crimes trial here was judged and prosecuted by Americans, Russians, British and French with much of the time, effort and expenses devoted to whitewashing the Allies and placing the sole blame for World War II upon Germany.

“What I have said of the nationalist character of the tribunals,” the judge continued, “applies to the prosecution. The high ideals announced as the motives for creating these tribunals has not been evident.

“The prosecution has failed to maintain objectivity aloof from vindictiveness, aloof from personal ambitions for convictions. It has failed to strive to lay down precedents which might help the world to avoid future wars.

“The entire atmosphere here is unwholesome. Linguists were needed. The Americans are notably poor linguists. Lawyers, clerks, interpreters and researchers were employed who became Americans only in recent years, whose backgrounds were embedded in Europe’s hatreds and prejudices. . . (Chicago Daily Tribune, 23 February 1948)

In other words, the Allies supplied the interrogators, most of them Jews – as some of the victims, who had had a lifetime of experience in dealing with Jews and thus recognized them, have stated. Those of us who are German and can speak German can easily discern the ethnicity of some of the accusers by their mere accents and patterns of speech, even in radio broadcasts and news reels.

Most of the “evidence” in the trials was “documentary,” selected by the Allies from the large tonnage of captured records. The document selection was made by the prosecution. The defense had access only to those documents which the prosecution considered material to the case and were made available to the defense. The Allies could choose to release, hide, or destroy any documents which did not fit their post-war strategy or plans at Nuremberg.

Furthermore, the Allies admitted elsewhere that their Propaganda Ministries and Intelligence Services had previously forged Nazi stamps, Nazi passes, Nazi passports, orders, ID cards etc. which fooled the Nazis many times because they were so perfect and over which the Allied propagandists gloat to this day. It does not take a great leap of the imagination to surmise what these same Allied Government agencies, their personnel and forgers of documents could do now with all the captured genuine German document-producing facilities, the captured type writers, rubber stamps and tons of letter heads of all sizes and description and of any National Socialist organization you care to mention.

Even setting aside questionable “documentary” evidence, let’s look at some of the accused’s “testimony” – how it was extracted, and what it really means.

Like vile exclamation marks, at the heart of the Nuremberg Tribunal stand certain words: “Genocide” “Gas chamber” “Six million.” These words, and the embedded moral judgment, were derived largely from the admissions and affidavit of one man, Rudolf Hoess, [not to be confused with Rudolf Hess!] the one-time war-time Kommandant at Auschwitz.

Rudolf Hoess was the Allies’ most important witness. His affidavit and his testimony were quoted extensively both by the prosecution and in the judgment of the IMT at Nuremberg, as well as by the press. It was his testimony which laid the foundation and validated the claim of the “extermination of millions of people by gas at Auschwitz.” Hoess’s “confession” is heavily relied upon by historians like Raul Hilberg and others as a primary documentary source to this day.

It is true that Hoess witnessed at Nuremberg to horrendous “atrocities,” and he also confirmed the “truth” under oath of an affidavit which he agreed to sign for the prosecution. In it, he confessed to having given orders for the gassing of millions of victims.

This affidavit was in English, a language he did not speak or understand, according to family members.

We now know from the book Legions of Death that Rudolf Hoess was beaten almost to death by Jewish members of the British Field Police Force upon capture and badly mistreated thereafter, until he gave this very devastating “testimony” and “affidavit” used by the Allies propagandists ever since.

You be the judge. Here is an excerpt from this book by Rupert Butler, published by Hamlyn Paperbacks, page 235:

At 5 PM on 11 March 1946, Frau Hoess opened her front door to six intelligence specialists in British uniform, most of them tall and menacing and all of them practiced in the more sophisticated techniques of sustained and merciless investigation.

No physical violence was used on the family: it was scarcely necessary. Wife and children were separated and guarded. Clarke’s tone was deliberately low-key and conversational.

He began mildly: “I understand your husband came to see you as recently as last night.”

Frau Hoess merely replied: “I haven’t seen him since he absconded months ago.”

Clarke tried once more, saying gently but with a tone of reproach: “You know that isn’t true.” Then all at once his manner changed and he was shouting: “If you don’t tell us, we’ll turn you over to the Russians and they’ll put you before a firing squad. Your son will go to Siberia.”

It proved more than enough. Eventually, a broken Frau Hoess betrayed the whereabouts of the former Auschwitz Kommandant, the man who now called himself Franz Lang. Suitable intimidation of the son and daughter produced precisely identical information.

Here is how the capture played out. Clarke, one of the participants, recalls it vividly:

[Hoess] was lying on top of a three-tier bunker wearing a new pair of silk pyjamas. We discovered later that he had lost the cyanide pill most of them carried. Not that he would have had much chance to use it because we had rammed a torch [flashlight] into his mouth.

Hoess screamed in terror at the mere sight of the British uniforms.

Clarke yelled: “What is your name?”

With each answer of “Franz Lang”, Clarke’s hand crashed into the face of the prisoner. The fourth time that happened, Hoess broke and admitted who he was. (…)

The prisoner was torn from the top bunk, the pyjama ripped from his body. He was then dragged naked to one of the slaughter tables, where it seemed to Clarke the blows and screams were endless.

Eventually, the Medical Officer urged the Captain: “Call them off, unless you want to take back a corpse.”

A blanket was thrown over Hoess and he was dragged to Clarke’s car, where the sergeant poured a substantial slug of whiskey down his throat. Then Hoess tried to sleep.

Clarke thrust his service stick under the man’s eyelids and ordered in German: “Keep your pig eyes open, you swine” (…)

The party arrived back at Heide around three in the morning. The snow was swirling still, but the blanket was torn from Hoess and he was made to walk completely nude through the prison yard to his cell. It took three days to get a coherent statement out of him.

This statement, tortured and terrorized out of the man, was the one we are all familiar with – the “proof” for the so-called “gassing of the Jews.”

Historians today are finally admitting that Hoess was a totally unreliable witness – and is it any wonder? He spoke of a concentration camp “Wolzek” which does not even exist. He swore that 2,500,000 people were gassed and burned at Auschwitz and a further half million died of disease, for a total dead of three million.

The Toronto Sun of July 18, 1990 claimed 1.5 million. The Washington Post, on the same date, also mentioned 1.5 million. Quoted from an article by Krzyszlov Leski, we have the following:

Poland has cut its estimate of the number of people killed by the Nazis in the Auschwitz death camp from 4 million to just over 1 million.

The vast majority of the dead are now accepted to have been Jews, despite claims by the former Polish communist government that as many Poles perished in Hitler’s largest concentration camp (…)

The new study could rekindle the controversy over the scale of Hitler’s final solution.

Shevach Weiss, a death camp survivor and Labor Party member of the Israeli Parliament, expressed disbelief at the revised estimates, saying: “It sounds shocking and strange.” (…)

Shmuel Krakowsky, head of research at Israel’s Yad Vashem memorial for Jewish victims of the Holocaust, said the new Polish figures were correct.

“The 4 million figure was let slip by Capt. Rudolf Hoess, the death camp’s Nazi commander. Some have bought it, but it was exaggerated.” (. . .)

The Polish authorities said accurate estimates of the number killed could only be made by studying German documents seized by the Soviet Union. But Moscow has refused to return the archives.”

A most convenient excuse!

In 1989, I organized a write-in campaign to persuade the then-Soviet Leader Gorbachev to release the Auschwitz Death Registers captured in 1945 when the Red Army took over the Auschwitz complex. A few months afterwards this actually happened. Gorbachev released these all-important documents to the Red Cross, which showed in minute detail the cause and time of death, their birth, address etc.

The following was found:

74,000 names of people who had died were listed, of which only approximately 30,000 were Jews, along with an almost equal number of Poles and members of other nationalities.

The incredibly shrinking Holocaust!

The “millions” that we have heard about for half a century and that we still hear and read about today all started with the “testimony” beaten out of Hoess on that horrible night in defeated Germany.

Historian Christopher Browning finally had to admit in a recent Vanity Fair article that Hoess was an unreliable witness. Browning stated that

“… Hoess was always a very weak and confused witness. The revisionists use him all the time for this reason, in order to try and discredit the memory of Auschwitz as a whole.” (Holocaust Revisionism Source Book, 1994, p. 1)

Hoess’s testimony was used as the skeleton on which the entire Holocaust myth about mass gassings was constructed. Revisionists have concentrated on Hoess precisely because he is probably the most important source for Holocaust historians’ conclusions and exaggerations about the Holocaust. Raul Hilberg, who wrote the “Bible” of the Holocaust, The Destruction of the European Jews, (Holmes & Meier, Revised Edition, 1985) relies on Hoess’s testimony heavily – and Hoess was the primary witness relied upon by the Nuremberg Tribunal in their judgment regarding the “extermination of the Jews,” even though he told the court of having been savagely tortured.

What’s more, Hoess’s treatment by the Allies and the total unreliability of his “evidence” are not unusual. We don’t know how many of the accused at the Nuremberg trials were badly mistreated, since references in the trial transcripts to their mistreatment was expunged from the record. An example is Julius Streicher’s testimony. Streicher was reported in the London Times as having testified that he was tortured, whipped, spat on, and forced to drink from a latrine. (Streicher Opens His Case, The Times, April 27, 1946). His testimony was later expunged from the record of the trial with the active participation of the prosecution, the president of the Tribunal, and even his own defense lawyer.

Other traces of the brutal treatment of the Nuremberg prisoners, however, have survived. One of these witnesses was Gauleiter Sauckel’s reference to threats to his family, which did remain in the transcript. During his testimony in May of 1946, Sauckel testified that he signed a document, even though he did not know what was in that document, after his family of 10 children was threatened with deportation to Russia.

And finally, it must not be forgotten that this is the only judicial proceeding conducted in the name of civilized nations where there was no appeal mechanism to a parallel or higher authority for a review of the proceedings – or any verdicts arrived at by this so-called International Military Tribunal. Their judgments over the leadership of Europe’s most populous state, against whom they had just fought a murderous, near genocidal war, were final and deadly.

Keep all that in mind as you read, watch and listen to all the emotional hype in the mass media on television and radio of these days. And for what? The Jewish leader Nahum Goldman spells it out for you in his astounding book, The Jewish Paradox, Pages 123-125, admitting to the mother of all frauds. In his own words, at the conclusion of the agreement Goldman obtained from Dr. Adenauer, the German vassal state’s first Allied-appointed chancellor:

“… the Germans will have paid out a total of 80 billion (…) Without the German reparations that started coming through during its first ten years as a state, Israel would not have half of its present infrastructure. All the trains in Israel are German, the ships are German, and the same goes for electrical installations and a great deal of Israel’s industry – and that is setting aside the individual pensions paid to survivors. Israel today receives hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency each year. In some years the sums of money received by Israel from Germany has been as much as double or treble the contribution made by collections from international Jewry. Nowadays, there is no longer any opposition to the principle.”

Not anywhere you look!

After the Nuremberg Trials and Proceedings are stripped of the hyperbole and smoke screens which surround them, it can be put quite bluntly:

The Allies fought a war on foreign shores – in part to establish the State of Israel. The Allies lent a willing hand to political ambitions that grew out of the Zionist camp. By means of the Nuremberg Trials, the Allies helped the establishment and financing of Israel.

So as to secure Israel, the Allies and their personnel became accusers, researchers, interrogators, prosecutors, judges and executioners – all in one! The Allies supplied the “experts” who sifted through the German documents, which were all totally in Allied control, highlighting incriminating documents, discarding exonerating evidence. These investigators were told only to “find” incriminating documents against the accused, as I was told by the American scholar Charles Weber, Ph.D., who had been one of these Allied researchers, and who testified at my own trials. These researchers were told to ignore the documents that might have spared the lives of the accused German leaders. When all was said and done, there was not even an appeal.

U.S. Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, speaking of the American Chief Prosecutor, Jackson, finally had this to say, as mentioned in the Viking Press hard cover, cited before, p. 746:

“Jackson is away conducting his high grade lynching party in Nuremberg,” [Stone] remarked. “I don’t mind what he does to the Nazis, but I hate to see the pretense that he is running a court and proceeding according to common law.

“This is a little too sanctimonious a fraud to meet my old-fashioned ideas.”

Some sanctimonious fraud, indeed! That’s how America and the “free world” have showed their gratitude to the defenders of Europe and Western Civilization: by hanging brave and honest men who tried so valiantly for so long to stop the decadence and the hypocrisy of what we now call, shuddering, the coming “New World Order.”

I bow my head in reverence to those who were judicially murdered at Nuremberg. They were the world’s martyrs, not villains. Not one of them would have been condemned to death in a fair trial – not one! They sacrificed an entire nation, and in the end themselves, to save Western civilization. They were defeated by thugs in robes and gangsters in uniform – and by the conspiracies hatched by shysters from the ghettos of Eastern Europe.

1996  Copyright – Ernst Zundel (Toronto. Written in 1996 and archived by Ingrid Rimland Zundel

Posted in EducationComments Off on Nuremberg: The Crime That Will Not Die – Part II

Will Free Gaza Flotilla Be Safe from IsraHell’s Murderous Threats?

NOVANEWS

It was a simple question

“What is the British Government planning to do, please, to safeguard British subjects (and indeed the other humanitarians) sailing with the flotilla on its peaceful mission to Gaza?”


by Stuart Littlewood


On 27 March I wrote to my Member of Parliament asking: “What is the British Government planning to do, please, to safeguard British subjects (and indeed the other humanitarians) sailing with the flotilla on its peaceful mission to Gaza?”

The Government had been only too happy, I said, to dispatch warships Cumberland and York to help civilians of all nationalities caught up in the Libyan trouble and deliver aid to the Benghazi medical centre.

I attached a press release http://savegaza.eu/eng/index.php?id=547 from one of the flotilla organizers, the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza (ECESG). It called on all governments representing participating citizens to take concrete steps to protect their safety.

After a long wait I have finally received a response from Alistair Burt, Foreign Office minister for Middle East affairs.

British Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East and North Africa Alistair Burt

He avoids the question altogether. “We are clear in our advice against all travel to Gaza and in particular participation in flotillas of this nature, given the events of May last year. We also believe that the delivery of aid is far more effective when co-ordinated with the major international organizations on the ground, such as the UN’s Office for Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.” That’s all he has to say on the subject.

Burt used to be an officer (not a mere member but an officer) of the Conservative Friends of Israel. In a speech to the Board of Jewish Deputies in London last year, he told his audience he had worked from the age of fifteen for an MP who was a president of the Board and founder of the Conservative Friends of Israel, and how this “had a lasting effect upon me, and on my interests in Parliament”.

He said: “Israel is an important strategic partner and friend for the UK and we share a number of important shared objectives across a broad range of policy areas… And as an honest broker, the UK Government does not believe that economic sanctions or embargoes on Israel [are] the way to engage or to influence it.”

The director of the Conservative Friends of Israel called Burt’s Foreign Office appointment excellent news.

Israel’s naval blockade is illegal and so was Israel’s interception of the Mavi Marmara in international waters last May. The United Nations fact-finding mission set up by the Human Rights Council to investigate violations of international law and humanitarian and human rights law resulting from the Israeli attacks a year ago on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance to Gaza, explains why. In that assault nine people were killed and many others injured. [http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/15session/A.HRC.15.21_en.PDF.]

The Mission’s team, chaired by Karl T. Hudson-Phillips, QC, a retired Judge of the International Criminal Court, reported they were “satisfied that the blockade was inflicting disproportionate damage upon the civilian population in the Gaza Strip and that as such the interception could not be justified and therefore has to be considered illegal…

Karl Hudson-Phillips, center, Chairman of the independent international Fact-Finding Mission, with two Fact-finding mission members British Desmond de Silva, left, and Malaysian Shanthi Dairiam, right, answers journalists questions during a press conference

“The Mission considers that one of the principal motives behind the imposition of the blockade was a desire to punish the people of the Gaza Strip for having elected Hamas. The combination of this motive and the effect of the restrictions on the Gaza Strip leave no doubt that Israel’s actions and policies amount to collective punishment as defined by international law… No case can be made for the legality of the interception and the Mission therefore finds that the interception was illegal.”

And that wasn’t all. The naval blockade was implemented in support of the overall closure regime. “As such it was part of a single disproportionate measure of armed conflict and as such cannot itself be found proportionate. Furthermore, the closure regime is considered by the Mission to constitute collective punishment of the people living in the Gaza Strip and thus to be illegal and contrary to Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

The action of the Israel Defense Force in intercepting the Mavi Marmara on the high seas was “clearly unlawful” and could not be justified even under Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations [the right of self-defense].

Will the world allow Israeli thugs to maul this latest flotilla? Yes or no?

Perhaps Mr Burt should also re-acquaint himself with Security Council resolution 1860 (2009), which emphasizes “the need to ensure sustained and regular flow of goods and people through the Gaza crossings” and calls for “the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment”.

Recent reports tell of the desperate shortage of hospital drugs in Gaza. The lack of 180 essential medical items and 200 disposables brings public health to crisis point. This terrible situation has been going on since I was there in 2007 and was handed an emergency list of medicines and spares for critical equipment like dialysis machines.

Even the World Health Organization, I hear, can’t get necessary medical supplies delivered.

Meanwhile Israeli prime minister Netanyahu has warned that his military will use force against anyone disobeying his navy’s orders and heading for Gaza’s shore. They threaten to also use snipers.

The flotilla will be going about its commendable, lawful business and British nationals will be on board. Burt and his colleagues are duty-bound, legally and morally, to protect them from the criminal assault they have been threatened with.

But Burt, by word and deed, is clearly an “Israel-firster” and influenced by that delinquent foreign power. How can his employment in a Foreign Office role (or indeed any British Government role) be consistent with the principles that underpin standards in public life?

An email to ECESG asking if they had received assurances from any of the governments they approached has gone unanswered. A telephone number on the UK website was answered by a voice that was almost unintelligible and I was referred to someone in Stockholm. That person said he could only speak about the situation with the Swedish government, which had sent a note to the Israelis saying Sweden expected the flotilla not to be attacked. That, it seems, was as far as they were prepared to go to protect the civilians.

I also emailed Britain2Gaza asking for a quick reply. No luck. It is little wonder that the flotilla project never gets the space it deserves in main-stream media.

So what is the situation please? Is it the attitude of most western governments that the humanitarian flotilla can “sink or swim”? If so, why aren’t the organizers being more communicative and mobilizing public outrage?

Or have those governments found the courage to embrace the flotilla’s noble cause?

Posted in GazaComments Off on Will Free Gaza Flotilla Be Safe from IsraHell’s Murderous Threats?

Hugo Chavez’s Right Turn

NOVANEWS

 

Chavez Turns Right Towards State Realism Leaving International Solidarity Behind

by Prof. James Petras

The recent ‘turn’ in Venezuela politics, from expressing sympathy and even support for revolutionary struggles and movements in Latin America to its present collaboration with pro-imperial rightwing regimes, has numerous historical precedents.  Prof. Petras examines the contexts and circumstances of these collaborations.

Introduction

The radical “Bolivarian Socialist” government of Hugo Chavez has arrested a number of Colombian guerrilla leaders and a radical journalist with Swedish citizenship and handed them over to the right-wing regime of President Juan Manuel Santos, earning the Colombian government’s praise and gratitude.  The close on-going collaboration between a leftist President with a regime with a notorious history of human rights violations, torture and disappearance of political prisoners has led to widespread protests among civil liberty advocates, leftists and populists throughout Latin America and Europe, while pleasing the Euro-American imperial establishment.

On April 26, 2011, Venezuelan immigration officials, relying exclusively on information from the Colombian secret police (DAS), arrested a naturalized Swedish citizen and journalist (Joaquin Perez Becerra) of Colombian descent, who had just arrived in the country.  Based on Colombian secret police allegations that the Swedish citizen was a ‘FARC leader’, Perez was extradited to Colombia within 48 hours. Despite the fact that it was in violation of international diplomatic protocols and the Venezuelan constitution, this action had the personal backing of President Chavez.

A month later, the Venezuelan armed forces joined their Colombian counterparts and captured a leader of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), Guillermo Torres (with the nom de Guerra Julian Conrado) who is awaiting extradition to Colombia in a Venezuelan prison without access to an attorney.    On March 17, Venezuelan Military Intelligence (DIM) detained two alleged guerrillas from the National Liberation Army (ELN), Carlos Tirado and Carlos Perez, and turned them over to the Colombian secret police.

The new public face of Chavez as a partner of the repressive Colombian regime is not so new after all.  On December 13, 2004, Rodrigo Granda, an international spokesperson for the FARC, and a naturalized Venezuelan citizen, whose family resided in Caracas, was snatched by plain-clothes Venezuelan intelligence agents in downtown Caracas where he had been participating in an international conference and secretly taken to Colombia with the ‘approval’ of the Venezuelan Ambassador in Bogota.  Following several weeks of international protest, including from many conference participants, President Chavez issued a statement describing the ‘kidnapping’ as a violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and threatened to break relations with Colombia.

In more recent times, Venezuela has stepped up the extradition of revolutionary political opponents of Colombia’s narco-regime:  In the first five months of 2009, Venezuela extradited 15 alleged members of the ELN and in November 2010, a FARC militant and two suspected members of the ELN were handed over to the Colombian police.  In January 2011 Nilson Teran Ferreira, a suspected ELN leader, was delivered to the Colombian military.  The collaboration between Latin America’s most notorious authoritarian rightwing regime and the supposedly most radical ‘socialist’ government raises important issues about the meaning of political identities and how they relate to domestic and international politics and more specifically what principles and interests guide state policies.

Revolutionary Solidarity and State Interests

The recent ‘turn’ in Venezuela politics, from expressing sympathy and even support for revolutionary struggles and movements in Latin America to its present collaboration with pro-imperial rightwing regimes, has numerous historical precedents.  It may help to examine the contexts and circumstances of these collaborations:

The Bolshevik revolutionary government in Russia initially gave whole hearted support to revolutionary uprisings in Germany, Hungary, Finland and elsewhere.  With the defeats of these revolts and the consolidation of the capitalist regimes, Russian state and economic interests took prime of place among the Bolshevik leaders.  Trade and investment agreements, peace treaties and diplomatic recognition between Communist Russia and the Western capitalist states defined the new politics of “co-existence”.

With the rise of fascism, the Soviet Union under Stalin further subordinated communist policy in order to secure state-to-state alliances, first with the Western Allies and, failing that, with Nazi Germany.  The Hitler-Stalin pact was conceived by the Soviets as a way to prevent a German invasion and to secure its borders from a sworn rightwing enemy.  As part of Stalin’s expression of good faith, he handed over to Hitler a number of leading exiled German communist leaders, who had sought asylum in Russia.  Not surprisingly they were tortured and executed.  This practice stopped only after Hitler invaded Russia and Stalin encouraged the now decimated ranks of German communists to re-join the ‘anti-Nazi’ underground resistance.

In the early 1970’s, as Mao’s China reconciled with Nixon’s United States and broke with the Soviet Union, Chinese foreign policy shifted toward supporting US-backed counter-revolutionaries, including Holden Roberts in Angola and Pinochet in Chile. China denounced any leftist government and movement, which, however faintly, had ties with the USSR, and embraced their enemies, no matter how subservient they were to Euro-American imperial interests.

In Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China, short-term ‘state interests’ trumped revolutionary solidarity.  What were these ‘state interests’?

In the case of the USSR, Stalin gambled that a ‘peace pact’ with Hitler’s Germany would protect them from an imperialist Nazi invasion and partially end the encirclement of Russia.  Stalin no longer trusted in the strength of international working class solidarity to prevent war, especially in light of a series of revolutionary defeats and the generalized retreat of the Left over the previous decades (Germany, Span, Hungary and Finland) .The advance of fascism and the extreme right, unremitting Western hostility toward the USSR and the Western European policy of appeasing Hitler, convinced Stalin to seek his own peace pact with Germany.

In order to demonstrate their ‘sincerity’ toward its new ‘peace partner’, the USSR downplayed their criticism of the Nazis, urging Communist parties around the world to focus on attacking the West rather than Hitler’s Germany, and gave into Hitler’s demand to extradite German Communist “terrorists” who had found asylum in the Soviet Union.

Stalin’s pursuit of short term ‘state interests’ via pacts with the “far right” ended in a strategic catastrophe:  Nazi Germany was free to first conquer Western Europe and then turned its guns on Russia, invading an unprepared USSR and occupying half the country. In the meantime the international anti-fascist solidarity movements had been weakened and temporarily disoriented by the zigzags of Stalin’s policies.

In the mid-1970’s, the Peoples Republic of China’s ‘reconciliation’ with the US, led to a turn in international policy:  ‘US imperialism’ became an ally against the greater evil ‘Soviet social imperialism’.  As a result China, under Chairman Mao Tse Tung, urged its international supporters to denounce progressive regimes receiving Soviet aid (Cuba, Vietnam, Angola, etc.) and it withdrew its support for revolutionary armed resistance against pro-US client states in Southeast Asia.  China’s ‘pact’ with Washington was to secure immediate ‘state interests’: Diplomatic recognition and the end of the trade embargo.  Mao’s short-term commercial and diplomatic gains were secured by sacrificing the more fundamental strategic goals of furthering socialist values at home and revolution abroad.

As a result, China lost its credibility among Third World revolutionaries and anti-imperialists, in exchange for gaining the good graces of the White House and greater access to the capitalist world market.  Short-term “pragmatism’ led to long-term transformation: The Peoples Republic of China became a dynamic emerging capitalist power, with some of the greatest social inequalities in Asia and perhaps the world.

Venezuela:  State Interests versus International Solidarity

The rise of radical politics in Venezuela, which is the cause and consequence of the election of President Chavez(1999), coincided with the rise of revolutionary social movements throughout Latin America from the late 1990’s to the middle of the first decade of the 21st century (1995-2005).  Neo-liberal regimes were toppled in Ecuador, Bolivia and Argentina; mass social movements challenging neo-liberal orthodoxy took hold everywhere; the Colombian guerrilla movements were advancing toward the major cities; and center-left politicians were elected to power in Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Ecuador and Uruguay.

The US economic crises undermined the credibility of Washington’s ‘free trade’ agenda.  The increasing Asian demand for raw materials stimulated an economy boom in Latin America, which funded social programs and nationalizations.

In the case of Venezuela, a failed US-backed military coup and ‘bosses’ boycott’ in 2002-2003, forced the Chavez government to rely on the masses and turn to the Left.  Chavez proceeded to “re-nationalize” petroleum and related industries and articulate a “Bolivarian Socialist” ideology.

Chavez’ radicalization found a favorable climate in Latin America and the bountiful revenues from the rising price of oil financed his social programs.  Chavez maintained a plural position of embracing governing center-left governments, backing radical social movements and supporting the Colombian guerrillas’ proposals for a negotiated settlement.  Chavez called for the recognition of Colombia’s guerrillas as legitimate ‘belligerents” not “terrorists’.

Venezuela’s foreign policy was geared toward isolating its main threat emanating from Washington by promoting exclusively Latin American/Caribbean organizations, strengthening regional trade and investment links and securing regional allies in opposition to US intervention, military pacts, bases and US-backed military coups.

In response to US financing of Venezuelan opposition groups (electoral and extra parliamentary), Chavez has provided moral and political support to anti-imperialist groups throughout Latin America.  After Israel and American Zionists began attacking Venezuela, Chavez extended his support to the Palestinians and broadened ties with Iran and other Arab anti-imperialist movements and regimes.  Above all, Chavez strengthened his political and economic ties with Cuba, consulting with the Cuban leadership, to form a radical axis of opposition to imperialism. Washington’s effort to strangle the Cuban revolution by an economic embargo was effectively undermined by Chavez’ large-scale, long-term economic agreements with Havana.

Up until the later part of this decade, Venezuela’s foreign policy – its ‘state interests’ – coincided with the interests of the left regimes and social movements throughout Latin America.  Chavez clashed diplomatically with Washington’s client states in the hemisphere, especially Colombia, headed by narco-death squad President Alvaro Uribe (2002-2010).  However recent years have witnessed several external and internal changes and a gradual shift toward the center.

The revolutionary upsurge in Latin America began to ebb:  The mass upheavals led to the rise of center-left regimes, which, in turn, demobilized the radical movements and adopted strategies relying on agro-mineral export strategies, all the while pursuing autonomous foreign policies independent of US-control.  The Colombian guerrilla movements were in retreat and on the defensive – their capacity to buffer Venezuela from a hostile Colombian client regime waned.

Chavez adapted to these ‘new realities’, becoming an uncritical supporter of the ‘social liberal’ regimes of Lula in Brazil, Morales in Bolivia, Correa in Ecuador, Vazquez in Uruguay and Bachelet in Chile.  Chavez increasingly chose immediate diplomatic support from the existing regimes over any long-term support, which might have resulted from a revival of the mass movements. Trade ties with Brazil and Argentina and diplomatic support from its fellow Latin American states against an increasingly aggressive US became central to Venezuela’s foreign policy: The basis of Venezuelan policy was no longer the internal politics of the center-left and centrist regimes but their degree of support for an independent foreign policy.

Repeated US interventions failed to generate a successful coup or to secure any electoral victories, against Chavez.  As a result Washington increasingly turned to using external threats against Chavez via its Colombian client state, the recipient of $5 billion in military aid.  Colombia’s military build-up, its border crossings and infiltration of death squads into Venezuela, forced Chavez into a large-scale purchase of Russian arms andtoward the formation of a regional alliance (ALBA).

The US-backed military coup in Honduras precipitated a major rethink in Venezuela’s policy.  The coup had ousted a democratically elected centrist liberal, President Zelaya in Honduras, a member of ALBA and set up a repressive regime subservient to the White House.

However, the coup had the effect of isolating the US throughout Latin America –not a single government supported the new regime in Tegucigalpa.  Even the neo-liberal regimes of Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Panama voted to expel Honduras from the Organization of American States.  On the one hand, Venezuela viewed this ‘unity’ of the right and center-left as an opportunity toward mending fences with the conservative regimes; and on the other, it understood that the Obama Administration was ready to use the ‘military option’ to regain its dominance.

The fear of a US military intervention was greatly heightened by the Obama-Uribe agreement establishing seven US strategic military bases near its border with Venezuela.  Chavez wavered in his response to this immediate threat: At one point he almost broke trade and diplomatic relations with Colombia, only to immediately reconcile with Uribe, although the latter had demonstrated no desire to sign on to a pact of co-existence.

Meanwhile, the 2010 Congressional elections In Venezuela led to a major increase in electoral support for the US-backed right (approximately 50%) and their greater representation in Congress (40%).  While the Right increased their support inside Venezuela, the Left in Colombia, both the guerrillas and the electoral opposition lost ground.  Chavez could not count on any immediate counter-weight to a military provocation.

Chavez faced several options: The first was to return to the earlier policy of international solidarity with radical movements; the second was to continue working with the center-left regimes while maintaining strong criticism and firm opposition to the US backed neo-liberal regimes; and the third option was to turn toward the Right, more specifically to seek rapprochement with the newly elected President of Colombia, Santos and sign a broad political, military and economic agreement where Venezuela agreed to collaborate in eliminating Colombia’s leftist adversaries in exchange for promises of ‘non-aggression’ (Colombia limiting its cross-border narco and military incursions).

Venezuela and Chavez decided that the FARC was a liability and that support from the radical Colombian mass social movements was not as important as closer diplomatic relations with President Santos.  Chavez has calculated that complying with Santos political demands would provide greater security to the Venezuelan state than relying on the support of the international solidarity movements and his own radical domestic allies among the trade unions and intellectuals.

In line with this Right turn, the Chavez regime fulfilled Santos’ requests – arresting FARC/ELN guerrillas, as well as a prominent leftist journalist, and extraditing them to a state which has had the worst human rights record in the Americas for over two decades, in terms of torture and extra-judicial assassinations.

This Right turn acquires an even more ominous character when one considers that Colombia holds over 7600 political prisoners, over 7000 of whom are trade unionists, peasants, Indians, students, in other words non-combatants.  In acquiescing to Santos requests, Venezuela did not even follow the established protocols of most democratic governments:  It did not demand any guaranties against torture and respect for due process.  Moreover, when critics have pointed out that these summary extraditions violated Venezuela’s own constitutional procedures, Chavez launched a vicious campaign slandering his critics as agents of imperialism engaged in a plot to destabilize his regime.

Chavez’s newfound ally on the Right, President Santos has not reciprocated:  Colombia still maintains close military ties with Venezuela’s prime enemy in Washington.  Indeed, Santos vigorously sticks to the White House agenda:  He successfully pressured Chavez to recognize the illegitimate regime of Lobos in Honduras- the product of a US-backed coup in exchange for the return of ousted ex-President Zelaya. Chavez did what no other center-left Latin American President has dared to do: He promised to support the reinstatement of theillegitimate Honduran regime into the OAS.  On the basis of the Chavez-Santos agreement, Latin American opposition to Lobos collapsed and Washington’s strategic goal was realized:  A puppet regime was legitimized.

Chavez agreement with Santos to recognize the murderous Lobos regime betrayed the heroic struggle of the Honduran mass movement.  Not one of the Honduran officials responsible for over a hundred murders and disappearances of peasant leaders, journalists, human rights and pro-democracy activists are subject to any judicial investigation.  Chavez has given his blessings to impunity and the continuation of an entire repressive apparatus, backed by the Honduran oligarchy and the US Pentagon.

In other words, to demonstrate his willingness to uphold his ‘friendship and peace pact’ with Santos, Chavez was willing to sacrifice the struggle of one of the most promising and courageous pro-democracy movements in the Americas.

And what does Chavez seek in his accommodation with the Right?

Security?  Chavez has received only verbal ‘promises’, and some expressions of gratitude from Santos.  But the enormous pro-US military command and US mission remain in place.  In other words, there will be no dismantling of the Colombian para-military-military forces massed along the Venezuelan border and the US military base agreements, which threaten Venezuelan national security, will not change.

According to Venezuelan diplomats, Chavez’ tactic is to ‘win over’ Santos from US tutelage.  By befriending Santos, Chavez hopes that Bogota will not join in any joint military operation with the US or cooperate in future propaganda-destabilization campaigns.  In the brief time since the Santos-Chavez pact was made, an emboldened Washington announced an embargo on the Venezuelan state oil company with the support of the Venezuelan congressional opposition. Santos, for his part, has not complied with the embargo, but then not a single country in the world has followed Washington’s lead.  Clearly, President Santos is not likely to endanger the annual $10 billion dollar trade between Colombia and Venezuela in order to humor the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s diplomatic caprices.

Conclusion

In contrast to Chavez policy of handing over leftist and guerrilla exiles to a rightist authoritarian regime, President Allende of Chile (1970-73) joined a delegation that welcomed armed fighters fleeing persecution in Bolivia and Argentina and offered them asylum. For many years, especially in the 1980’s, Mexico, under center-right regimes, openly recognized the rights of asylum for guerrilla and leftist refugees from Central America – El Salvador and Guatemala.  Revolutionary Cuba, for decades, offered asylum and medical treatment to leftist and guerrilla refugees from Latin American dictatorships and rejected demands for their extradition.

Even as late as 2006, when the Cuban government was pursuing friendly relations with Colombia and when its then Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque expressed his deep reservations regarding the FARC in conversations with the author, Cuba refused to extradite guerrillas to their home countries where they would be tortured and abused.  One day before he left office in 2011, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva denied Italy’s request to extradite Cesare Battisti, a former Italian guerrilla.  As one Brazilian judge said –and Chavez should have listened:  ”At stake here is national sovereignty.  It is as simple as that”.

No one would criticize Chavez efforts to lessen border tensions by developing better diplomatic relations with Colombia and to expand trade and investment flows between the two countries.  What is unacceptable is to describe the murderous Colombian regime as a “friend” of the Venezuela people and a partner in peace and democracy, while thousands of pro-democracy political prisoners rot in TB-infested Colombian prisons for years on trumped-up charges. Under Santos, civilian activists continue to be murdered almost every day.  The most recent killing was yesterday (June 9,2011):  Ana Fabricia Cordoba, a leader of community-based displaced peasants, was murdered by the Colombian armed forces.

Chavez’ embrace of the Santos narco-presidency goes beyond the requirements for maintaining proper diplomatic and trade relations. His collaboration with the Colombian intelligence, military and secret police agencies in hunting down and deporting Leftists (without due process!) smacks of complicity in dictatorial repression and serves to alienate the most consequential supporters of the Bolivarian transformation in Venezuela.

Chavez’ role in legitimizing of the Honduran coup-regime, without any consideration for the popular movements’ demands for justice, is a clear capitulation to the Santos – Obama agenda.  This line of action places Venezuela’s ‘state’ interests over the rights of the popular mass movements in Honduras.  Chavez’ collaboration with Santos on policing leftists and undermining popular struggles in Honduras raises serious questions about Venezuela’s claims of revolutionary solidarity.  It certainly sows deep distrust about Chavez future relations with popular movements who might be engaged in struggle with one of Chavez’s center-right diplomatic and economic partners.

What is particularly troubling is that most democratic and even center-left regimes do not sacrifice the mass social movements on the altar of “security” when they normalize relations with an adversary.  Certainly the Right, especially the US, protects its former clients, allies, exiled right-wing oligarch and even admitted terrorists from extradition requests issued by Venezuela, Cuba and Argentina.  Mass murders and bombers of civilian airplanes manage to live comfortably in Florida.

Why Venezuela submits to the Right-wing demands of the Colombians, while complaining about the US protecting terrorists guilty of crimes in Venezuela, can only be explained by Chavez ideological shift to the Right, making Venezuela more vulnerable to pressure for greater concessions in the future.

Chavez is no longer interested in the support from the radical left:  His definition of state policy revolves around securing the ‘stability’ of Bolivarian socialism in one country, even if it means sacrificing Colombian militants to a police state and pro-democracy movements in Honduras to an illegitimate US-imposed regime.

History provides mixed lessons.  Stalin’s deals with Hitler were a strategic disaster for the Soviet people:  Once the Fascists got what they wanted they turned around and invaded Russia.  Chavez has so far not received any ‘reciprocal’ confidence-building concession from Santos military machine. Even in terms of narrowly defined ‘state interests’, he has sacrificed loyal allies for empty promises.  The US imperial state is Santos primary ally and military provider.  China sacrificed international solidarity for a pact with the US, a policy that led to unregulated capitalist exploitation and deep social injustices.

When and if the next confrontation between the US and Venezuela occurs, will Chavez, at least, be able to count on the “neutrality” of Colombia?  If past and present relations are any indication, Colombia will side with its client-master, mega-benefactor and ideological mentor.

When a new rupture occurs, can Chavez count on the support of the militants, who have been jailed, the mass popular movements he pushed aside and the international movements and intellectuals he has slandered?  As the US moves toward new confrontations with Venezuela and intensifies its economic sanctions, domestic and international solidarity will be vital for Venezuela’s defense.  Who will stand up for the Bolivarian revolution, the Santos and Lobos of this “realist world”? or the solidarity movements in the streets of Caracas and the Americas?

Posted in Venezuela1 Comment

Secret cables Show IsraHelli’s Battle Plan Over Palestinian UN Bid

NOVANEWS

 

 

Yaakov Hadas Director of the Middle East Department of the Foreign Ministry

Foreign Ministry documents outline instructions to envoys to thwart international recognition of Palestinian state.

by Barak Ravid


Israel has started mobilizing its embassies for the battle against UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September, ordering its diplomats to convey that this would delegitimize Israel and foil any chance for future peace talks.

Envoys are being asked to lobby the highest possible officials in their countries of service, muster support from local Jewish communities, ply the media with articles arguing against recognition and even ask for a call or quick visit from a top Israeli official if they think it would help.

Foreign Ministry Director General Rafael Barak and the heads of various ministry departments sent out classified cables outlining the battle plan to the embassies over the past week, after earlier ordering all the country’s diplomats to cancel any vacations planned for September. The contents of the cables reached Haaretz and are reported here in full.

“The goal we have set is to have the maximum number of countries oppose the process of having the UN recognize a Palestinian state,” Barak wrote to Israel’s ambassadors in his cable, which was sent June 2. “The Palestinian effort must be referred to as a process that erodes the legitimacy of the State of Israel…

“The primary argument is that by pursuing this process in the UN, the Palestinians are trying to achieve their aims in a manner other than negotiations with Israel, and this violates the principle that the only route to resolving the conflict is through bilateral negotiations.”

Each envoy was ordered to prepared a focused plan for the country in which he or she serves and present it to the Foreign Ministry by today, June 10.

“The goal is to get the country in which you serve to vote against recognizing a Palestinian state,” Barak wrote. “Your plan must include approaching the most senior politicians, mobilizing the relevant force multipliers [such as local Jewish communities, nongovernmental organizations], using the media, influencing local public opinion, and public diplomacy aimed at all the relevant communities.”

Barak also informed the emissaries that the ministry had established a “September Forum” headed by the director of its Middle East Department, Yaakov Hadas.

“This team is analyzing possible Palestinian moves and the options open to Israel to foil the process, and is putting together a diplomatic, public diplomacy and media plan,” Barak wrote. “You are to report on your activities to the September Forum once a week.”

“The mission that has been assigned to us is not an easy one,” the cable concluded. “But I’m sure that by joining forces, we will do the best we can to achieve the goal we’ve set for ourselves.”

Naor Gilon

A Foreign Ministry source said the directive issued to ambassadors by both Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and the ministry director general is not to give up on any country in advance, and to work to obtain a hearing with the highest possible officials in each country.

This past Sunday, June 5, the head of the ministry’s Western Europe department, Naor Gilon, sent a follow-up cable to embassies in all European Union countries. A similar cable was sent by the head of the Eurasia Department, Pinhas Avivi, to representatives in the EU countries of eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.

In his cable, Gilon asked the ambassadors to prepare plans “that will lead the country in which you serve to oppose or abstain during a UN vote.” It divided the EU countries into three groups:

  • * Countries that have already voiced objections to unilateral Palestinian action. A Foreign Ministry source put Germany and Italy in this category.

  • * Countries whose stance is unclear, particularly members of the former Eastern Bloc that had recognized a Palestinian state back in 1988. These include the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria. In two weeks, Lieberman and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are planning to make separate trips to these countries in an effort to persuade them to vote against a Palestinian state.

  • * Countries that tend to automatically side with the Palestinians and are expected to support a Palestinian state, among them Sweden, Ireland, Belgium and Portugal.

Gilon wrote that the Foreign Ministry believes the 27 EU members “will have difficulty reaching a consensus decision on recognizing a Palestinian state, as happened with regard to [recognizing] Kosovo. Even so, it’s clear that the EU bureaucracy in Brussels will try to enter into a dialogue with the Palestinians in an effort to moderate the [UN] resolution so that EU members could support it.

“Everyone knows where the country he serves in stands,” Gilon wrote. “Our goal is to create momentum against recognition of a Palestinian state in September by creating a significant bloc of EU states that voice their opposition as early as possible to unilateral Palestinian action.” Another goal is to try to persuade those countries which have already said they will vote in favor of the Palestinian move to refrain from publicly stating their position.

Gilon tasked the ambassadors with trying to spur as many politicians and opinion-makers as possible to either make public declarations or issue statements opposing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state. He also instructed them to generate negative media reports and op-eds objecting to the Palestinian moves.

The ambassadors were asked to inform the September Forum of any requests they receive from their respective countries’ leaders to speak by phone with President Shimon Peres, Netanyahu or Lieberman, and to indicate whether a diplomatic visit by senior Israeli officials before September might be helpful in persuading top officials in the countries where they serve.

But one senior Foreign Ministry official said that regardless of what efforts are made, only a few countries will vote against recognizing a Palestinian state in a General Assembly vote, including the United States, Canada and a few European countries. The ministry’s assessment is that most Asian, African and South American countries will vote in favor.

Source: Haaretz

Barak Ravid is the diplomatic correspondent for Haaretz newspaper. He joined Haaretz in April 2007, covering the Prime Minister’s Office, the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Defense, dealing with issues such as U.S.-Israeli relations, EU-Israeli relations and the peace process.

Before joining Haaretz, Barak Ravid worked for two years for Maariv daily newspaper, spending a year covering the Palestinian Authority and a year as a diplomatic correspondent.

Ravid has a BA in the history of the Middle East from the University of Tel Aviv. He served for six years as an officer in the Israel Defense Forces, and concluded his service with the rank of captain. He and his wife live in Tel Aviv.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Secret cables Show IsraHelli’s Battle Plan Over Palestinian UN Bid

Remote Control Killing Like Sport

NOVANEWS

by Stephen Lendman

Defense contractor giants like Boeing, Lockeed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and others, as well as smaller rivals compete for growing demand for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). They include remote control operated killer drones, also called unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs).

It’s America’s newest sport. From distant command centers, far from target sights, sounds, and smells, operators dismissively ignore human carnage showing up as computer screen blips little different from video game images. The difference, of course, is people die, mostly noncombatants. More on that below.

On March 10, 2010, Der Spiegel writer Marc Pitzke headlined, “How Drone Pilots Wage War,” saying:

They “sit in air-conditioned rooms far away from (America’s wars). They guide their weapons with joysticks and monitors. The remote warriors work with a high degree of precision – at a fraction of the cost of a fighter jet,” but just as deadly.

Operators use computer keyboards and five monitors. One says “I’ve got eight missiles and two bombs on two Predators. Weapons ready.”

The main monitor shows a target’s aerial view “from a considerable height….Three, two, one. Impact,” after pushing a red button. “Excellent job,” the man says after a destructive explosion. The entire mission lasted two minutes “against a faceless enemy” attacked by remote control half a world away.

“The whole thing looks like a computer game,” virtual war “that doesn’t require combatants to get their hands dirty” or perhaps souls compromised for mindlessly slaughtering civilians lawlessly – what America’s media never explain or why Washington wages war.

Each drone system includes four aircraft, a ground station, a satellite link, and launch site maintenance crew, keeping UAVs ready to use round-the-clock on a moment’s notice. Like America’s wars, moreover, drone technology is a growth business, Insitu’s Steven Sliwa saying the industry is well positioned like the aeronautical one during WW II – up-up-and-away for big profits.

America’s Drone Command Centers

Two currently operate, the CIA’s at its Langley, VA headquarters, the Pentagon’s at Nevada’s Creech Air Force Base, about 35 miles from Las Vegas.

Look-alikes, they’re sterile, insular, secure computer rooms manned by “combat commuters.” By day, they wage war, then drive home for dinner, relaxation, and family time, dismissive of killing for a living like mafia hit men, except they do it daily on a global scale against nameless, faceless targets.

Working in pairs, a pilot sits at one end of a computer station, a sensor operator at the other, controlling visual surveillance, able to zoom in for closer views, capturing images from drone cameras and satellites.

The Pentagon’s team maintains constant radio contact with its Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC) Qatar headquarters and US Kandahar, Afghanistan base where UAVs take off and land.

ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi calls Predator drones “targeted international killings by the state.” On February 8, 2010, she and Law Professor Philip Alston’s London Guardian article headlined, “A killer above the law?” saying:

Sanitized killing on the cheap leaves disturbing issues unanswered, including a program shrouded in secrecy, no accountability, and dubious “no reports” of civilian casualties despite “credible (ones) that hundreds of innocents have died.”

International law, in fact, demands accountability. “When complete secrecy prevails, it is negated. Secrecy also provides incentives to push the margins in problematic ways….Equally discomforting is the ‘PlayStation mentality’ that surrounds drone killings. Young military (recruits, CIA operatives, and private civilian contractor) personnel raised on a diet of video games now kill real people remotely using joysticks.”

Lawless abuses always follow secrecy without accountability, killer drones a perfect example. On July 12, 2009, Greg Grant’s Infowars.com article headlined, “Drones Hardly Even Kill Bad Guys,” saying:

Counterinsurgency advisor David Kilcullen “told lawmakers last week that drone strikes” successfully hit militants 2% of the time. All others are noncombatant civilians. These casualties then “become an extension of war by other means. Tactics that physically defeat elements of the enemy and lose the population lose the war,” besides issues of legality.

In his book “Wired for War,” Peter Singer called drone technology disturbingly “seductive” because it makes combat look “costless.”

Britain’s former Iraq air chief marshal said it was “virtueless war,” requiring no heroics or getting one’s hands dirty.

According to Law Professor Mary Dudziak, “Drones are a technological step that further isolates the American people from military action, undermining political checks on….endless war,” as well as its fallout, including the human cost, and America’s illegal targeted assassination program.

Ramping Up Drone Warfare

In FY 2012, the Air Force plans to double its advanced killer drone fleet, including the RQ-4 Global Hawk class, MQ-9 Reaper, and MQ-1 Predator.

General Atomics MQ-9 Reapers are especially valued, the first hunter-killer UAV designed for long endurance, high surveillance targeting, used by the Air Force, Navy, US Customs and Border Protection, UK Royal Air Force, and Italian Air Force. The CIA prefers smaller, lightweight, less obtrusive drones for killing.

The Pentagon just released its 30-year aircraft procurement plans, projected to be more robotic than ever, budgeted for about $25 billion annually, including doubling its robot fleet by 2021, saying:

“The number of platforms in this category – RQ-4 Global Hawk-class, MQ-9 Reaper, and MQ-1 Predator-class unnammed aircraft systems – will grow from approximately 340 in (FY) 2012 to approximately 650 in FY 2021.”

The Army’s got a Gray Eagle Reaper-like drone. The Marines want a similar one as part of their Group 4 Unmanned Air System program. The Navy’s so-called Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Strike and Surveillance initiative aims to put jet-powered killer drones on carrier decks no later than 2018. Around the same time, the Air Force may start buying jet-powered ones to complement its prop-driven Reaper.

By decade’s end, it hopes to have enough medium and large drones to maintain at least 65 round-the-clock “orbits” compared to now. Combined with other service branches, 100 or more permanently positioned killer drones may launch precision-guided bombs and missiles on targets virtually anywhere.

Moreover, improved sensors like the Air Force’s Gorgon Stare and new foliage-penetrating radars will let new generations of drones do what multiple ones are needed for now.

Given the profit potential, US defense contractors are scrambling for part of a bigger pie, developing new killer drone models, including Boeing’s X-45C, Northrop Grumman’s X-47B and General Atomic’s Avenger. Others will follow to satisfy the Pentagon’s insatiable appetite for remote killing and destruction on a global scale.

If America’s military had a motto, it would be war is good, the more the better. How else can generals get stars?

Remote Control High Altitude Killing

In March 2010, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit:

“demanding that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas. In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and the other basis information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.”

At issue is using them against civilians, including US citizens abroad after Obama authorized targeting any suspected of terrorist involvement, with or without proof.

The ACLU sued the Defense, State, and Justice Departments after each provided no requested information “nor have they given any reason for withholding documents. The CIA answered the ACLU’s request by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any relevant documents.” CIA wasn’t sued because the ACLU appealed its non-response to the Agency Release Panel.

UAVs were first used in Vietnam, mainly as reconnaissance platforms. In the 1980s, radar killer drones called Harpy air defense suppression systems were employed. In the Gulf War, unmanned combat air system (UCAS) and X-45 air vehicles were used.

Others were deployed in Bosnia in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999. America’s new weapon of choice is now commonplace in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and domestically, including for law enforcement – in fact, virtually anywhere for targeted attacks and/or surveillance globally.

At issue is their legality, given their use outside traditional battlefields for extrajudicial assassinations, a practice US and international laws prohibit. Yet reports confirm Obama’s ramped up use with long-term grander schemes – why the ACLU and other human rights groups express concern.

A December 2009 Social Science Research Network Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper titled, “Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004 – 2009″ said the following:

“First drones launch missiles or drop bombs, the kind of weapons that may only be used lawfully in an armed conflict. Until the spring of 2009, there was no armed conflict (in Pakistan). International law does not recognize the right to kill without warning outside an actual armed conflict. Killing without warning is only tolerated during the hostilities of an armed conflict, and, then, only lawful combatants may lawfully carry” them out.

CIA members “are not lawful combatants and their participation in killing persons – even in an armed conflict – is a crime.” US military forces may be “lawful combatants in Pakistan” only if its government officially requested them. It did not.

Further, beyond targeted individuals, collateral killing is commonplace. “Drones have rarely, if ever, killed just the intended target. By October 2009, the ratio has been up to” 50 civilians for each militant. As a result, drone use violates “the war-fighting principles of distinction, necessity, proportionality and humanity.”

Nonetheless, violations continue daily in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and now Libya, having escalated dramatically in recent years. Along with bombers and helicopter gunships, their use in Afghanistan (and North Waziristan, Pakistan) is so pervasive that anyone in the open or near targeted sites risks death – civilians, including vulnerable women and children for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

On March 13, 2010, Der Spiegel headlined, “Drones Are Lynchpin of Obama’s War on Terror,” calling them his weapon of choice. “But the political, military and moral consequences are incalculable.”

One report said in the past two years the Air Force Research Laboratory embarked on a program to “build the ultimate assassination robot (described as) a tiny, armed drone for the US special forces to employ in terminating ‘high-value targets’ ” that most often are noncombatants.

On April 4, 2010, New York Times writers Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah headlined, “Drones Batter Qaeda and Allies Within (North Waziristan) Pakistan,” referring to a “stepped-up campaign….over the past three months (casting) a pall of fear over an area (by) fly(ing) overhead sometimes four at a time, emitting a beelike hum virtually 24 hours a day, observing and tracking targets, then unleashing missiles on their quarry….”

The ferocity of strikes, in fact, got one Pakistani to say, “It seems they really want to kill everyone….,” civilians, of course, most vulnerable. Almost daily, noncombatant casualties are reported, sparking public anger and protests, including over America’s regional presence.

In late April, Obama authorized a major Libyan war escalation, ordering the use of killer drones. At an April 21 press conference, Defense Secretary Gates and Joint Chiefs Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright announced the deployment of Predator UAVs, saying:

“What they will bring that is unique to the conflict is their ability to get down lower, therefore to be able to get better visibility on….targets now that they have started to dig themselves into defensive positions.”

Also announced was that surveillance drones have flown throughout the conflict. Now Hellfire missile firing ones are being used, supplementing daily terror bombings and low-flying Apache helicopter gunship killing machines hitting anything on the ground that moves.

A recent CBS News poll shows 60% of Americans against the Libyan war, only 30% saying military involvement in North Africa is justified. It represents a sharp drop from March when 70% supported intervention.

World outrage is also growing, including from the Pan Afrikanist Steering Committee of Namibia against The United Nations Resolution 1973 (PSCNAUNR), calling NATO’s Libya war “a desecration of the Afrikan homeland by a set of Europeans.”

Saying it’s an “appalling atrocity,” Western supported “mercenaries” are being used “to kill, maim, destroy local infrastructures, and attack Afrikans….living in fear of their lives within Libya.”

NATO, “under the guise of the UN, deliberately started its bombardment under a hidden agenda for Regime Change” in violation of international law. “It is now crystal clear that the motive behind Resolution 1973 was of a sinister nature, (effectively) representing a Declaration of War” against a nonbelligerent state.

June 12 on the Progressive Radio News Hour, Cynthia McKinney reported from Tripoli, saying hospitals, schools, residential houses, and other non-military sites have been bombed, causing numerous civilian casualties. NATO and America’s media duplicitously deny it.

However, other independent sources confirm strikes on commercial airports, seaports, power generating facilities, and other sites unrelated to military necessity, terrorizing, killing, and injuring Libyan civilians by intensified attacks.

A Final Comment

As president, Obama intensified US belligerence in multiple theaters, defying international and constitutional law. He may, in fact, have a new target in mind, what a June 10 White House press release suggests, saying:

“The United States strongly condemns the Syrian government’s outrageous use of violence…particularly in the northwestern region. There must be an immediate end to the brutality and violence. We regret the loss of life and extend our condolences to all those who have suffered.”

The double standard gross hypocrisy requires no comment, especially in light of the Washington, Israel, Saudi, and Lebanon’s March 14 Alliance project to destabilize Assad’s government, including by inciting and supporting armed militants for regime change.

So far, Russia and China have blocked a proposed Security Council resolution condemning Syrian violence, fearing passage perhaps means more war. It’s America’s favored strategy against regimes it doesn’t control.

Notably, three rogues senators (John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham) openly support regime change, saying in a joint statement:

“By following the path of (Gaddafi) and deploying military forces to crush peaceful demonstrations, al-Assad and those loyal to him have lost the legitimacy to remain in power in Syria. We urge President Obama to state unequivocally (that it’s) time for (him) to go,” stopping short of calling for war they may join with others in demanding it.

Despite waging multiple imperial wars, Obama, in fact, may oblige them, heading America perilously closer to all out general war, especially to distract growing millions from their economic misery at home

Posted in USAComments Off on Remote Control Killing Like Sport

Rescind Obama’s “Transparency Award” Now

NOVANEWS
by David Swanson

 

On March 28, 2011, President Obama was given a “transparency award” from five “open government” organizations: OMB Watch, the National Security Archive, the Project on Government Oversight, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and OpenTheGovernment.org.  Ironically — and quite likely in response to growing public criticism regarding the Obama Administration’s lack of transparency — heads of the five organizations gave their award to Obama in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House.  If the ceremony had been open to the press, it is likely that reporters would have questioned the organizations’ proffered justification for the award, in contrast to the current reality:

  • President Obama has not decreased but has dramatically increased governmental secrecy!  According to a new report to the president by the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO) — the federal agency that provides oversight of the government’s security classification system — the cost of classification for 2010 has reached over $10.17 billion.  That’s a 15 percent jump from the previous year, and the first time ever that secrecy costs have surpassed $10 billion. Last month, ISOO reported that the number of original classification decisions generated by the Obama administration in 2010 was 224,734 — a 22.6 percent jump from the previous year.  See “The Price of Secrecy, Obama Edition”.

  • There were 544,360 requests for information last year under the Freedom of Information Act to the 35 biggest federal agencies — 41,000 requests more than the year before. Yet the bureaucracy responded to 12,400 fewer requests than the prior year, according to an analysis by the Associated Press.

  • Obama has invoked baseless and unconstitutional executive secrecy to quash legal inquiries into secret illegalities more often than any predecessor.  The list of this President’s invocations of the “state secrets privilege” has already resulted in shutting down lawsuits involving the National Security Agency’s illegal wiretapping — Jewel vs. NSA &Shubert vs. Obama; extraordinary rendition & assassination — Anwar al-Aulaqi; and illegal torture — Binyam Mohamed.

  • Ignoring his campaign promise to protect government whistleblowers, Obama’s presidency has amassed theworst record in US history for persecuting, prosecuting, and jailing government whistleblowers and truth-tellers. President Obama’s behavior has been in stark contrast to his campaign promises which included live streaming meetings online and rewarding whistleblowers. Obama’s Department of Justice is twisting the 1917 Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks — more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined.

  • The Obama DOJ’s prosecution of former NSA official Thomas Drake who, up till June 9, faced 35 years in prison for having blown the whistle on the NSA’s costly and unlawful warrantless monitoring of American citizens typifies the abusive practices made possible through expansive secrecy agreements and threats of prosecution.

  • President Obama has set a powerful and chilling example for potential whistleblowers through the abuse and torture of Bradley Manning, whose guilt he has also publicly stated prior to any trial by his, Obama’s, military subordinates.

  • Obama is the only president who has reenacted Fahrenheit 451 by actually having his agency collect and burn a book due to a never-justified classification excuse: Lt. Col Tony Shaffer’s Operation Dark Heart.

  • Under President Obama, the FBI has launched a series of raids and issued grand jury subpoenas targeting nearly two dozen antiwar activists.  Over two thousand six hundred arrests of protesters in the US have been made while Obama has been president, further encroaching on the exercise of First Amendment rights.

  • President Obama has initiated a secret assassination program, has publicly announced that he has given himself the power to include Americans on the list of people to be assassinated, and has attempted to assassinate at least one, Anwar al-Aulaqi.

  • President Obama has maintained the power to secretly kidnap, imprison, rendition, or torture, and he has formalized the power to lawlessly imprison in an executive order.  This also means the power to secretly imprison.  There are some 1,700 prisoners outside the rule of law in Bagram alone.

  • The Obama Administration is also busy going after reporters to discover their sources and convening grand juriesin order to target journalists and news publishers.

  • President Obama promised to reveal White House visitors’ logs.  He didn’t.  In response to outrage over his refusal to reveal the names of health insurance CEOs he had met with and cut deals with on the health insurance reform bill, he announced that he would release the names going forward, but not those in the past.  And going forward he wouldwithhold names he chose to withhold.  White House staff then began regularly meeting lobbyists just off White House grounds in order to avoid the visitors’ logs.

  • President Obama has sent representatives to aggressively pressure Spain, England, and Germany to shut down investigations that could have exposed the crimes of the Bush era, just as he has instructed the US DOJ to avoid such matters.  This includes his refusal to allow prosecutions of the CIA for torture, following a public letter from 8 previous heads of the CIA informing him that he had better not enforce those laws.

The “transparency award” in question was described as “aspirational,” similar to the rationale for awarding Obama the Nobel Peace Prize early in his presidency when he had done nothing yet to further the cause of peace.  Participants admitted they used the private meeting in March to try and lobby Obama to do more to earn their award.  If the President doesn’t change course as a result of the lobbying and “award,” there are some who would shrug and say, “no harm, no foul.”  The giving of an unmerited award, however, whether for transparency or peace, is not entirely benign!  No one knows better how destructive secrecy is for maintaining systems of justice, ethics and democracy than these self-proclaimed “open government” watchdogs.  Especially when such a false accolade emanates, as in this case, from those who are supposed to serve as counters to secrecy and to retaliation against government whistleblowers, such appearance of approval will tend to cover up and mask the reality of the Executive’s increasingly undemocratic and illegal use of secrecy.

Therefore the undersigned call on these organizations: OMB Watch, the National Security Archive, the Project on Government Oversight, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and OpenTheGovernment.org, to publicly take back their “transparency award,” as difficult as that may be, from Barack Obama.  The watchdog organizations should, of course, continue to promote aspirations for open, democratic government, reduced secrecy and adherence to the rule of law, in more genuine, legitimate ways than giving unmerited awards to the Executive.  Such false awards only stand to backfire and hurt the cause of open government.

Drafted by FBI Whistleblowers Sibel Edmonds & Coleen Rowley

Whistleblowers:

  • Raymond L. McGovern- Former Analyst, CIA

  • Colonel Ann Wright- US Army Reserve (Ret.) & Former US diplomat

  • Daniel Ellsberg- Former Official, Department of Defense & Department of State

  • Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski- US Air Force (Ret.), Veteran Policy Analyst, DOD

  • Lt. Colonel Tony Shaffer- Senior Intelligence Officer (Operations), DIA

  • Jesselyn Radack- Former Attorney, Department of Justice

  • John M. Cole- Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, FBI

  • David “Mark” Conrad- Agent in Charge (Ret.), Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs

  • P. Jeffrey Black, Air Marshal- (Ret.) Federal Air Marshal Service, Department of Homeland Security

  • Bogdan Dzakovic- Former Red Team Leader, FAA

  • Russ Tice- Former Senior Intelligence Analyst, NSA

  • Sandalio Gonzalez- Special Agent in Charge (Ret.), DEA

  • John Vincent- Veteran Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI

  • Bill Bergman- Financial Market Analyst, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago

  • Steve Jenkins- Intelligence Analyst, NGIC, US Army

  • Linda Lewis- Policy Analyst (Ret.), U.S. Department of Agriculture

  • David MacMichael PhD- Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA

  • William H. Russell- Computer Specialist, R & E Division, NSA

  • William Savich- Special Agent, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, Department of State

  • Julia Davis- Customs & Boarder Protection Officer, Department of Homeland Security

  • Tom Maertens- Counter-Terrorism Official (Ret.), Department of State

  • Joseph Carson- PE, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Department of Energy

  • Gabe Bruno- Manager (Ret.), Flight Standards Services, FAA

  • Dr. Jeffrey Fudin- Founder, VA Whistleblowers Coalition

Organizations:

  • National Security Whistleblowers Coalition

  • National Whistleblowers Center

  • Green Party of the U.S.

  • Citizens for Legitimate Government

  • Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

  • Campaign for Peace and Democracy

  • September 11th Advocates

  • Code Pink

  • Consumers for Peace

  • Fellowship of Reconciliation

  • Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space

  • WarIsACrime.org

  • OSC Watch

  • Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence

  • Socialist Party of Central Virginia

  • Environmentalists Against War

  • High Road for Human Rights

  • Broken Covenant Campaign

  • Bring Our Troops Home Coalition

  • Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains

  • United for Peace and Justice

  • Americans Who Tell the Truth

  • Veterans for Peace Chapter 27

  • Committee to Stop FBI Repression

This petition can be signed at takeawardback.org

Posted in USAComments Off on Rescind Obama’s “Transparency Award” Now

Palestinian Dies Of Wounds Suffered During Zio-Nazi Assault On Gaza

NOVANEWS


Palestinian medical sources reported that a Palestinian man died on Saturday of wounds suffered during the Zio-Nazi war on the Gaza Strip between December 28 and January 2009. Six members of his family, including two of his children, were killed when the army bombarded their home.

The sources said that Mohammad Shaban Islayyim, in his forties, was injured in January 2009 when the Zio-Nazi forces bombarded a home where the Minister of Interior, Sa’id Siyam, was located in Gaza city.

Siyam, one of the brothers of his wife, and six neighbors, including a child, were killed in the attack.

Islayyim was critical injured and received medical treatment in Gaza and Egypt but remained in a serious condition until he died on Saturday.

During the Zio-Nazi war  on Gaza, the army bombarded civilian structures such as homes and warehouses, medical facilities, mosques, and infrastructure in addition to security and police bases and resistance training centers, killing 1419 Palestinians during the 23-day war and wounding thousands of residents, hundreds seriously.

Most of the casualties were civilians, infants, children, women and elderly in addition to members of the civil defense and medics.

 

Posted in GazaComments Off on Palestinian Dies Of Wounds Suffered During Zio-Nazi Assault On Gaza

Shoah’s pages

www.shoah.org.uk

KEEP SHOAH UP AND RUNNING