Archive for August 21st, 2009

Report Reveals CIA Conducted Mock Executions

Report Reveals CIA Conducted Mock Executions:

A long-awaited report on post-9/11 interrogation tactics will reveal harrowing new details about treatment of suspected terrorists.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/213188

Report Reveals CIA abuse (Rachel Maddow segment on MSNBC):

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/32515164#32515164

Newsweek: Inspector General Report Reveals CIA Conducted Mock Executions

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/24/newsweek_inspector_general_report_reveals_cia

 

The CIA and Dick Cheney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5bXJPr5MBE&feature=PlayList&p=0C4B5B3F75BFAAF4&index=0&playnext=1

Sweden denies Israel request to condemn IDF organ harvest article

General (Ret) James David is mentioned on the cover of the third edition of former Republican congressman Paul Findley’s ‘They Dare to Speak Out’ book about the power/influence of the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC and similar) on the US political system and media:

Sweden denies Israel request to condemn IDF organ harvest article

Friday, August 21, 2009 9:05 AM
From: General (Ret) James David
 
Could this be the first?  Seldom do we see anyone, especially the foreign minister of another country, stand up to Israel’s demands and threats.  Instead of trying to refute these criminal allegations, it’s much easier for the Israelis to equate criticism of Israel with “anti-Semitism”—something that the Israelis have always used to prevent any investigation of their past crimes.  Fortunately, things are beginning to change.  Wouldn’t it be nice if the U.S. caught on as well?
 
Sweden denies Israel request to condemn IDF organ harvest article – Haaretz – Israel News
 
 
 
 
Last update – 14:44 21/08/2009
Sweden denies Israel request to condemn IDF organ harvest article
By The Associated Press and Haaretz Service
 
 
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1109008.html
 
 
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has rejected Israeli calls for an official condemnation of a recent article by a top Swedish newspaper that alleged that Israel Defense Forces soldiers kill Palestinian civilians in order to harvest their organs.Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman had asked Bildt to print a a state rebuttal to the piece, which was published earlier this week in Sweden’s top newspaper Aftonbladet. Israel’s Ambassador to Sweden Benny Dagan was expected to make a similar request during a meeting Friday with Sweden’s Deputy Foreign Minister.Bildt denied the request, however, writing in a blog post late Thursday that he would not condemn the article as “freedom of expressionis part of the Swedish constitution.”        

Advertisement
 
Freedom of expression and press freedom are very strong in our constitution by tradition. And that strong protection has served our democracy and our country well,” Bildt wrote.
“If I were engaged in editing all strange debate contributions in different media I probably wouldn’t have time to do much else.”
Bildt said he understood why the article stirred strong emotions in Israel, but said basic values in society are best protected by free discussion.
The article has enraged Israeli officials, who called it blatantly racist and said it played on vile anti-Semitic themes.
Bildt, meanwhile, says the condemnation of anti-Semitism is “the only issue on which there has ever been complete unity in the Swedish parliament.”
The article in Sweden’s biggest-selling newspaper was first reported internationally by Haaretz.com on Tuesday, and has sparked fierce widespread debate both in Sweden and abroad. The article claims that as far back as 1992, the IDF was taking organs from Palestinian youths it killed, and also mentions an ongoing U.S. crime investigation involving members of the American Jewish community.
The Foreign Ministry is doubtful that the Swedish government will publish a condemnation, and are therefore considering other measures. One idea is to cancel an upcoming visit by Bildt to Israel, which is planned for ten days from now.
Another idea is to allow Bildt to make his visit to Israel, but to use the visit as a well publicized criticism of the article, and for officials to refuse to speak with him about any subject other than the article.
Foreign ministry officials said if there is no official Swedish condemnation this crisis will not be solved.

Lieberman has informed foreign ministry employees to weigh canceling the government press cards of writers from Aptonbladt in Israel, as well as to refuse to assist the paper in any way whatsoever in covering Israeli news.

It also emerged Thursday that Defense Minister Ehud Barak is considering a slander lawsuit against the writer of the article.

The Swedish government on Thursday distanced itself from a statement by its ambassador to Israel, in which she criticized the article saying that “the condemnation was solely the judgment of the embassy [in Tel Aviv], and designed for an Israeli audience.” The comments came in a statement released Thursday by the Swedish Foreign Ministry.

“The article in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet is as shocking and appalling to us Swedes, as it is to Israeli citizens,” said Ambassador Elisabet Borsiin Bonnier on Wednesday.

“Just as in Israel, freedom of the press prevails in Sweden,” Bonnier said. “However, freedom of the press and freedom of expression are freedoms which carry a certain responsibility.”

Related articles:

Sweden flatly rejects Israeli request for media quiet

 http://www.presstv.com/detail.aspx?id=104128&sectionid=351020605

 
Swedish daily hits back at critics of IDF organ harvest claims

 

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1108604.html    

 

 

Top Sweden newspaper says IDF kills Palestinians for their organs
 
 
 
 Bildt refuses to condemn ‘Aftonbladet’
 
Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt has rejected Israeli calls for official condemnation of a Swedish newspaper article about organ harvesting, saying freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democracy.
 

 

 Official charges that Israel is taking organs from Palestinian bodies again

http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/component/k2/item/682-official-charges-that-israel-is-taking-organs-from-palestinian-bodies-again.html

DEBORCHGRAVE Commentary (on Afghan quagmire): Necessity vs. choice

http://www.washtimes.com/news/2009/aug/24/war-of-necessity-or-choice/ 
 
Monday , August 24 , 2009

War of necessity or choice?

Arnaud de Borchgrave

Afghanistan is not only President Obama’s war , but also what he now calls “a war of necessity.” For the head of the Council on Foreign Relations , Richard N. Haass , who was head of policy planning at the State Department in the run-up to the Iraq war , who voted for Mr. Obama , Afghanistan is a “war of choice , not of necessity , ” that he fears we will learn to regret. This also reflects public opinion: Half the American people are against the Afghan war.

Mr. Haass’ latest book , “War of Choice , War of Necessity , ” makes clear that Iraq was a war of choice , not necessity. It also was a huge distraction from the Afghan war , which got shortchanged as hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into the Iraq conflict.

What is now “necessity” for Mr. Obama in Afghanistan is “choice” — and a bad one at that — for the American people. Little understood is how it became necessity for the president. He tried to make it palatable to his left wing by saying Afghanistan is where al Qaeda — the monsters of Sept. 11 , 2001 — were located. Actually , that’s where they are not located. They are in Pakistan ‘s tribal areas. But had the president come out against war in Afghanistan during last year’s campaign , just as he opposed the war in Iraq since he became a senator in January 2005 , he most probably would have lost the election. Sen. John McCain would have accused him of weak-kneed pacifism and of adopting the proverbial head-in-sand posture of an ostrich that would then look surprised when it got kicked in the most obvious place.

Now that Afghanistan is Mr. Obama’s necessary war , what are his chances of emerging as the wise warrior? If he persuades the American people that we are engaged there for the long haul , as we were in Germany and Japan after World War II , there would be a better-than-even chance of developing a viable state sans Taliban. It would cost hundreds of billions more dollars. But Afghanistan is arguably the world’s most backward national entity , where warlords remain to be convinced that the United States and its friends and allies hold the winning ticket.

As long as Taliban and al Qaeda enjoy privileged sanctuaries in Pakistan ‘s tribal areas , the United States and NATO will be stuck in a no-win posture in Afghanistan . But Pakistan ‘s army chief , Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani , and his troops have been busy pursuing Taliban terrorists in Pakistan proper. And the much-promised Pakistani offensive against the Afghan wing of Taliban in North and South Waziristan , two of the seven tribal agencies , is yet to materialize. The cynics in Pakistan argue that Taliban is bound to wear down the allies in Afghanistan over the long haul. And when Taliban was last in power in Afghanistan (1996-01) , Pakistan enjoyed a secure western front for its defense in depth against Pakistan ‘s principal military concern — India .

Gen. David H. Petraeus , the Middle Eastern theater commander , says he thinks the current major Afghan commitment by the democratic camp should continue five to 10 more years — “whatever it takes.” But half the American people are already opposed to the Afghan war , and off-year elections are 16 months away. NATO allies and friendly nations engaged there — a total of 40 countries — are all eyeing exit expectations by 2011. Few are committed to combat against the Taliban insurgency.

NATO’s outgoing supreme commander , Gen. John Craddock , now retired , says it took him 18 months to get allies to curtail caveats against offensive operations from 80 to 73. But allies say Gen. Craddock failed to point out that the United States also has a monumental caveat: U.S. units are forbidden by law to serve under non-American command. Taliban commanders are skillful at exploiting such caveats.

Afghanistan’s much-anticipated elections do not a democracy make. Taliban’s bombs-vs.-ballots threats predictably kept the turnout low. But donkeys delivering ballot boxes in the foothills of the Hindu Kush were an important first step on the road out of the Middle Ages. Many nations — Spain , South Korea , Singapore — as well as Taiwan have demonstrated that democracy without a prosperous middle class is an exercise in self-delusion. In Afghan-istan so far , the only prosperity is in the cultivation of opium poppies.

Afghanistan’s $3 billion drug traffic also funds Taliban insurgents’ logistics section. In combat , their weapons frequently are more modern than what the Afghan national army takes into combat.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International.

————————————————————————————————————————————-

http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009/08/21/Commentary-Necessity-vs-choice/UPI-55001250870039/

DEBORCHGRAVE Commentary (on Afghan quagmire): Necessity vs. choice

By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE
UPI Editor at Large

Half the American people are now against the war in Afghanistan , which President Obama now describes as a war of necessity. He may have lost the election last November if he had come out against both the Iraq and Afghan wars. His opponent would have described him as a pacifist afraid to stand up to America ’s enemies.

WASHINGTON , Aug. 21 (UPI) — Afghanistan is not only President Obama’s war , but it’s also what he now calls “a war of necessity.” But for Richard Haass , the head of the Council on Foreign Relations who was head of policy planning at the State Department in the run-up to the Iraq War and who voted for Obama , Afghanistan is a “war of choice , not of necessity , ” which he fears we shall learn to regret. This also reflects public opinion: Half of the American people are now against the Afghan war.

Haass’ latest book “War of Choice , War of Necessity” makes clear Iraq was a war of choice , not necessity. It was also a huge distraction from the Afghan war that got short-changed as hundreds of billions of dollars were poured into the Iraqi conflict.

What is now “necessity” in Afghanistan for Obama is “choice” — and a bad one at that — for the American people. But little understood is how it became necessity for the president. He tried to make it palatable to his left wing by saying Afghanistan is where al-Qaida — the monsters of Sept. 11 , 2001 — were located. Actually , that’s where they are not located. They are in Pakistan ‘s tribal areas. But had the president come out against war in Afghanistan during last year’s campaign , as he did against Iraq ever since he became a U.S. senator 2005 , he most probably would have lost the election. Sen. John McCain would have accused him of weak-kneed pacifism and of adopting the proverbial head-in-sand posture of an ostrich who would then look surprised when it got kicked in the most obvious place.

Now that Afghanistan is Obama’s necessary war , what are his chances of emerging as the wise warrior? If he persuades the American people that we are engaged there for the long haul , as we were in Germany and Japan after World War II , there would be a better-than-even chance of developing a viable state sans Taliban. And it would cost hundreds of billions more dollars. But Afghanistan is arguably the world’s most backward national entity where warlords remain to be convinced that the United States and its friends and allies hold the winning ticket.

As long as the Taliban and al-Qaida enjoy privileged sanctuaries in Pakistan ‘s tribal areas , the United States and NATO will be stuck in a no-win posture in Afghanistan . But Pakistan ‘s army chief Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and his troops have been busy pursuing Taliban terrorists in Pakistan proper. And the much-promised Pakistani offensive against the Afghan wing of the Taliban in North and South Waziristan , two of the seven tribal agencies , is yet to materialize. The cynics in Pakistan argue the Taliban is bound to wear down the allies in Afghanistan over the long haul. And when the Taliban was last in power in Afghanistan (1996-2001) , Pakistan enjoyed a secure western front for its defense in depth against Pakistan ‘s principal military concern — India .

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus , the Middle Eastern theater commander , believes that the current major Afghan commitment by the democratic camp should continue five to 10 more years — “whatever it takes.” But half the American people are already opposed to the Afghan war and off-year elections are 16 months away. NATO allies and friendly nations engaged there — a total of 40 countries — are all eyeing exit expectations by 2011. Few of them are committed to combat against the Taliban insurgency.

NATO’s outgoing supreme commander , Gen. John Craddock , now retired , says it took him 18 months to get allies to curtail caveats against offensive operations from 80 to 73. But allies respond Craddock failed to point out the United States also has a monumental caveat: U.S. units are forbidden by law to serve under non-American command. Taliban commanders are skillful at exploiting these caveats.

Afghanistan ‘s much-anticipated elections do not a democracy make. Taliban’s bombs-vs.-ballots threats predictably kept the turnout low. But donkeys delivering ballot boxes in the foothills of the Hindu Kush were an important first step on the road out of the Middle Ages. Many nations — Spain , South Korea , Singapore , Taiwan — have demonstrated that democracy without a prosperous middle class is an exercise in self-delusion. In Afghanistan so far , the only prosperity is in the cultivation of opium poppies. Afghanistan ‘s $3 billion drug trade also funds Taliban insurgents’ logistics section. In combat , their weapons are frequently more modern than what the Afghan national army takes into combat.

————————————————————————————-

 

Public Opinion in U.S. Turns Against Afghan War
 

Pat Buchanan: Afghanistan an Unwinnable war?

http://america-hijacked.com/2009/08/17/pat-buchanan-unwinnable-war-patrick-j-buchanan-msnbc-com/  

 

Soldier’s death brings UK Afghanistan toll to 200:

http://america-hijacked.com/2009/08/16/soldiers-death-brings-uk-afghanistan-toll-to-200/

The US/UK went into Afghanistan because of 9/11 as 9/11 (and the earlier tragic attack on the WTC in 1993) tragically took place because of US support for Israel’s brutal occupation of the Palestinians (look up ‘Israel as a terrorist’s motivation’ in the index of James Bamford’s ‘A Pretext for War’ book and take a look at the following ‘What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers?’ youtube as well): 

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn’t:
 
 
So the reason US/UK troops went into Afghanistan to begin with is because of Israel (as we are in Iraq because of Israel as well – in accordance with the ‘A Clean Break’ agenda):

‘A Clean Break’:


http://neoconzionistthreat.blogspot.com/2008/02/clean-break.html

Wag The Dog, Again (another war for Israel coming right at US!): 

 
 

 

What happened to the antiwar movement? Cindy Sheehan hits ‘hypocrisy’ of Left, Democratic allies:
 
 
Here is a tiny URL for the above one:

Must read article by former CIA field officer Philip Giraldi who was the foreign policy advisor to Ron Paul during his latest presidential run:
Vanishing Liberties