Archive for June 30th, 2010

John Mearsheimer – Sinking Ship

John Mearsheimer – Sinking Ship

The attack on the Gaza relief flotilla jeopardizes Israel itself.

http://amconmag.com/article/2010/aug/01/00010/

Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?

Guess Who Wants to Kill the Internet?

30. Jun, 2010

It would be hard to think of anyone who has done more to undermine American freedoms than Joseph Lieberman.

Since 9/11, the Independent senator from Connecticut has introduced a raft of legislation in the name of the “global war on terror” which has steadily eroded constitutional rights. If the United States looks increasingly like a police state, Senator Lieberman has to take much of the credit for it.

On October 11, 2001, exactly one month after 9/11, Lieberman introduced S. 1534, a bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security. Since then, he has been the main mover behind such draconian legislation as the Protect America Act of 2007, the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010, and the proposed Terrorist Expatriation Act, which would revoke the citizenship of Americans suspected of terrorism. And now the senator from Connecticut wants to kill the Internet.
According to the bill he recently proposed in the Senate, the entire global internet is to be claimed as a “national asset” of the United States. If Congress passes the bill, the US President would be given the power to “kill” the internet in the event of a “national cyber-emergency.” Supporters of the legislation say this is necessary to prevent a “cyber 9/11” – yet another myth from the fearmongers who brought us tales of “Iraqi WMD” and “Iranian nukes.”

Lieberman’s concerns about the internet are not new. The United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which Lieberman chairs, released a report in 2008 titled “Violent Islamist Extremism, The Internet, and the Homegrown Terrorist Threat.” The report claimed that groups like al-Qaeda use the internet to indoctrinate and recruit members, and to communicate with each other.

Immediately after the report was published, Lieberman asked Google, the parent company of You Tube, to “immediately remove content produced by Islamist terrorist organizations.” That might sound like a reasonable request. However, as far as Lieberman is concerned, Hamas, Hezbollah and even the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are terrorist organizations.

It’s hardly surprising that Lieberman’s views on what constitute terrorism parallel those of Tel Aviv. As Mark Vogel, chairman of the largest pro-Israel Political Action Committee (PAC) in the United States, once said: “Joe Lieberman, without exception, no conditions … is the No. 1 pro-Israel advocate and leader in Congress. There is nobody who does more on behalf of Israel than Joe Lieberman.”

Lieberman has been well-rewarded for his patriotism – to another country. In the past six years, he has been the Senate’s top recipient of political contributions from pro-Israel PACs with a staggering $1,226,956.

But what is it that bothers Lieberman so much about the internet? Could it be that it allows ordinary Americans access to facts which reveal exactly what kind of “friend” Israel has been to its overgenerous benefactor? Facts which they have been denied by the pro-Israel mainstream media.

How much faith would American voters have in the likes of Lieberman, who claims that the Jewish state is their greatest ally, if they knew that Israeli agents planted firebombs in American installations in Egypt in 1954 in an attempt to undermine relations between Nasser and the United States; that Israel murdered 34 American servicemen in a deliberate attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967; that Israeli espionage, most notably Jonathan Pollard’s spying, has done tremendous damage to American interests; that five Mossad agents were filming and celebrating as the Twin Towers collapsed on September 11, 2001; that Tel Aviv and its accomplices in Washington were the source of the false pre-war intelligence on Iraq; and about countless other examples of treachery?

In his latest attempt to censor the internet, does Lieberman really want to protect the American people from imaginary cyber-terrorists? Or is he just trying to protect his treasonous cronies from the American people?

Maidhc Ó Cathail is a widely published writer based in Japan. To read more of his writing, go to Maidhc Ó Cathail: Writing and Analysis.

——————————————————————————–

Executive Privilege

http://america-hijacked.com/2010/07/01/executive-privilege/

Kucinich: We Are Losing Our Nation to Lies About the Necessity of War

Kucinich: We Are Losing Our Nation to Lies About the Necessity of War

June 28, 2010, WASHINGTON

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=192659
Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today made the following statement on the floor of the House concerning an expected vote on a $33 billion supplemental war funding bill:

“In a little more than a year the United States flew
$12 billion in cash to Iraq, much of it in $100 bills, shrink wrapped and loaded onto pallets. Vanity Fair reported in 2004 that `at least $9 billion’ of the cash had `gone missing, unaccounted for.’ $9 billion.

“Today, we learned that suitcases of $3 billion in cash have openly moved through the Kabul airport. One U.S.
official quoted by the Wall Street Journal said, `A lot of this looks like our tax dollars being stolen.’ $3 billion.  Consider this as the American people sweat out an extension of unemployment benefits.

“Last week, the BBC reported that “the US military has been giving tens of millions of dollars to Afghan security firms who are funneling the money to warlords.” Add to that a corrupt Afghan government underwritten by the lives of our troops.

“And now reports indicate that Congress is preparing to attach $10 billion in state education funding to a $33 billion spending bill to keep the war going.

“Back home millions of Americans are out of work, losing their homes, losing their savings, their pensions, and their retirement security.  We are losing our nation to lies about the necessity of war.
http://www.youtube.com/djkucinich

NYT Attacks “Border” With False Rant of Pro-Coup Reporter
Tuesday 29 June 2010, Robert Naiman, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

No reasonable person would have bet serious money that news editors at The New York Times would be huge fans of Oliver Stone’s new documentary about South America, “South of the Border.” A key point of the film is that mainstream US press coverage of South America in recent years has generally followed State Department priorities more than objective news standards. The New York Times comes in for specific criticism in the film, which notes that the paper editorially backed the short-lived US-backed coup against the democratically-elected government of Venezuela in 2002. (Key evidence on the US role in the coup can be found here. After the coup collapsed, the Times half-apologized for its pro-coup editorial, as also noted in the film.)

But still, accepting that no one likes to be criticized, there are supposed to be rules for newspapers like the Times. In an editorial, they can express any opinion they want. But news articles are supposed to be accurate, and if a reporter has a direct interest or bias in a situation, the paper should assign another reporter or at least disclose the interest or bias.
But on Friday, The New York Times ran an attack on Oliver Stone’s documentary by Larry Rohter, an attack that claimed the film was full of inaccuracies. Not only was The New York Times attack itself inaccurate in its factual claims, as documented by Stone, Mark Weisbrot and Tariq Ali in their response – do they have fact-checkers at the Times ? – but more importantly, the Times failed to acknowledge the bias of Larry Rohter in running the article. Rohter covered Venezuela for the Times during the period of the April 2002 coup, and during the coup, on April 12, 2002, Rohter wrote a piece for the Times claiming that the coup was not a coup, but a popular uprising. That alone should have disqualified Rohter from writing a piece on the film for publication by the Times. At the very least, the paper should have acknowledged Rohter’s previous advocacy for the coup – and its own.

From much past experience, I know that many will respond cynically to yet another attempt to raise the alarm about bias at the Times. “So The New York Times is a stenographer for the State Department. Tell me something new!” But this glosses over the fact that The New York Times’ biased reporting is an ongoing source of major social harm, because the Times continues, whether we like it or not, to be a leader in US media from whom others take cues. What appears in The New York Times appears to many to be holy writ. We swim in a sea of false information that the Times helps propagate, and frequently many – including many who count themselves cynical – aren’t aware of the false things that they believe that can be ultimately traced to a “report” in the Times.

No doubt, many supporters of US policy in South America and opponents of the region’s progressive governments will now cite Rohter’s piece in the Times as “evidence” that the film is “inaccurate,” in an attempt to discredit the film. “See, even the liberal New York Times says the film is inaccurate,” they may say, which would be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Fortunately, anyone can go to the film’s web site and read for themselves the filmmakers’ refutation of The New York Times attack. If you think The New York Times’ public editor ought to investigate whether the Times acted appropriately in running Rohter’s piece, you can tell that to the public editor (public@nytimes.com).