Archive for August 11th, 2011
Bomb kills five U.S. troops in southern Afghanistan
Keep in mind that US support for Israel was the primary motivation for 9/11 and 9/11 was the reason given for invading Afghanistan so the US invaded Afghanistan because of support for Israel:
What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn’t!
See the Los Angeles Times article near the top of the following URL:
Even General David Petraeus (now head of the CIA) conveyed to Congress that US support for Israel against the Palestinians was a threat to US troops in theater:
General Petraeus Leaked Emails about Israel:
Israel and 9/11 (General Petraeus mentioned as well): http://tinyurl.com/israeland911
US support for Israel against Palestinians motive for worst attack on CIA
59% Want Troops Home from Afghanistan
Israel Lobby Dominates Congress, Media Covers it Up
Posted By Alison Weir On August 10, 2011 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized | 25 Comments
You might think that 20 percent of the American Congress going on all-expenses-paid, weeklong junkets to a foreign country — paid for by a lobby for that country — would be newsworthy, especially when the top congressional leaders of both parties are leading the trips.
You would be wrong.
Eighty-one congressional representatives from all over the country, led by Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, are traveling to Israel this month. Most are freshmen congressmen, and the group includes half of all the freshmen Republicans voted into office in 2010.
The weeklong trips are being paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation (AIEF), which was created in 1990 as a supporting organization of AIPAC, America’s major pro-Israel lobbying organization, and they are located in the same building. AIEF, which is only one of numerous organizations pushing pro-Israel policies, has an annual budget of over $24 million, with an even larger endowment.
This is an extraordinary situation. No other lobby on behalf of a foreign country comes anywhere near controlling such wealth or taking so many of America’s elected representatives on a propaganda trip to its favorite country.
Not all those going on these trips are enthusiastic. The wife of one congressman who made a similar trip some years ago said that she and her husband had never been exposed to such pressure in all their lives. She said that at one point on their trip, her husband — a normally extremely tough man — was curled up in a fetal position.
A staff member of one representative participating in this month’s junkets said the representative had no choice. If the congressional rep didn’t go on the trip, the rep would be targeted by AIPAC; large quantities of money, including massive out-of-state money, would be raised for the opponent in the next election; and quite likely the representative would be defeated. The staffer said that the Israel Lobby is far too powerful to ignore and that American voters have no knowledge of what’s going on.
It’s no surprise that voters are unaware that their representatives are being propagandized and pressured by a foreign lobby. Their news media almost never tells them.
The Associated Press, America’s number one news service, has decided not to report on a lobbying group taking 81 representatives to a foreign country in order to influence their votes.
Even though the trips are being reported by news media in Britain, Iran, India, Israel, Lebanon, and elsewhere, AP has decided to give the story a pass. When contacted about this, an AP editor in Washington, D.C., said AP knew about the trips and was “looking into it.”
Taking a similar tack, The New York Times, USA Today, Fox News, CNN, ABC, et al., failed to inform Americans about the trips. The Washington Post, after the story was posted throughout the blogosphere, finally covered it belatedly on Page 13. The CBS website had a story on the situation, but CBS News made no mention of the junkets on-air.
The only AP stories on the subject are scattered local stories about individual representatives. For example, AP’s Chicago bureau reported that Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. is taking part, without reporting that he was one of 81 representatives accepting these all-expenses-paid junkets and that his trip was being paid for by the pro-Israel lobby.
A few other American media outlets reported the story in interestingly diverse ways:
Washington’s Politico covered it twice; The Atlantic‘s website reported on people who were “kvetching” about the one-sided nature of the junkets, pointing out that some of the reps were also going to meet with some Palestinian leaders, without telling how many (no one will say) and for how long (apparently for a few hours of the weeklong trip). Los Angeles’ Jewish Journal was remarkably forthright, reporting that “the congressional reps will be getting the dog and pony show,” and Commentary gloated at the “astonishing” number of representatives going on the trip, noting that “Congress is the backstop that gives Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu the ability to say ‘no’” to the president of the United States.
While Commentary claims that the willingness of congressional representatives to go on all-expenses-paid trips by one of the country’s most powerful lobbies “is a good reflection of American public opinion on the Middle East,” this is actually not accurate.
Surveys find that an extraordinarily strong majority of Americans — typically between two-thirds to three-quarters — do not wish the U.S. to take sides on Israel-Palestine. Such widespread desire for neutrality is particularly noteworthy given that U.S. news sources across the political spectrum are consistently highly Israel-centric in their reporting.
It is quite likely that such voters would be unhappy to learn that a foreign lobby has such power over their elected representatives, leading them to give the favored nation, one of the smallest and wealthiest countries on the planet, over $8 million per day of American tax money when the U.S. is in the middle of a financial crisis.
Perhaps that’s why AP and the others don’t tell them.
Read more by Alison Weir
- Critical Connections: Egypt, the US, and Israel – February 4th, 2011
- Israel’s Flotilla ‘Investigation’ – June 17th, 2010
- As Israel Kills and Maims, Outrage is Directed at Helen Thomas – June 9th, 2010
One-Fifth of U.S. House leaves for Israel amidst economic crisis
81 U.S.Congressmen off to visit Israel?
Where in the World is YOUR U.S. Representative?!
Greatest elected body that money can buy (UPDATED)
Does Your Congressperson Represent You — Or Israel?
Big Brother Has Arrived
Posted By Philip Giraldi On August 10, 2011 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized | 1 Comment
Leading neoconservative Richard Perle has said that one of the many reasons he admires the Israelis is the moral clarity that they exhibit on the issue of terrorism. What exactly that means is not itself clear, but it would appear to be a carte blanche for any and all Israeli punitive responses to groups that question Tel Aviv’s legitimacy. Perle has never criticized Israelis for disproportionality or for committing war crimes. He has only admonished them when, in his opinion, they have not gone far enough.
By that standard, the past 10 years have seen a major victory for Perle and for those who think like he does by delivering moral clarity to the people of the United States. The Global War on Terror has undeniably simplified thinking about serious issues. As President George W. Bush put it, you are either with us or against us, which means that you either support legislation passed by Congress to catch bad guys or you are a terrorist sympathizer and should yourself be put in jail. That is the meaning of the laws criminalizing terrorist support, which stretch and transform the definition to such an extent that expressing a viewpoint favorable to a group that the United States government has defined as terrorist can land someone in court. Even providing medical assistance to someone in an area controlled by a terrorist group or advising a terrorist leader that he should stop killing people can result in criminal charges.
But even Americans who understand the serious consequences of the legislation that diminishes liberties don’t always appreciate the extent to which the change in the legal landscape driven by fear of terrorism has also led to a proliferation of mechanisms in the state security apparatus that are being used to diminish the freedoms of each and every American citizen. If the federal government wants to know more about you, it has all the tools readily available because information is being collected on citizens every day, while computer capacity and speed are now capable of storing and analyzing everything that comes in.
Few Americans are aware of the threat posed by the greatly increased law enforcement use of GPS to carry out searches that once would have been considered illegal without a court order. To cite one recent example, in October 2010 a mechanic servicing a car owned by a student in California discovered what appeared to be a transmitter, possibly connected to a GPS tracking device, attached by two magnets to the vehicle’s wheel well. The student posted a picture of the device on the Internet to try to learn what exactly it was. Soon thereafter he was pulled over by two hostile federal agents wearing bulletproof vests who demanded the return of “government property.” The student, an Arab-American, had no criminal record, was born in the United States, and was not linked to any radical organizations. The GPS was attached to his vehicle without any search warrant and without any allegation that a crime either had been or was about to be committed.
Currently federal, state, or local law enforcement can attach a GPS unit to a vehicle in any “public space,” i.e., a parking lot or the street, without any judicial authority because, in their view, no one should have any expectation of privacy outside of his or her home. As a result, the use of geolocation systems by law enforcement is becoming increasingly common, largely because it is a resource multiplier. Instead of a surveillance team of four to six officers having to follow a suspect around, it is possible to attach a GPS unit to the suspect’s vehicle and monitor his movements through a computer back in the office. And, since it is so easy and cheap to do, the police are doing a lot of it, including in many cases for obvious fishing expeditions where a surveillance would not normally be authorized because of lack of any probable cause.
The government claims that it has no numbers on how many GPS units have been deployed by federal law enforcement, which suggests that the use is widespread and completely unregulated. But the use of such devices has become so common that Sens. Ron Wyden and Mark Udall have raised questions regarding the extent to which such technologies are being used against American citizens when there is no suggestion of any actual wrongdoing. Because the program is both secret and classified, the senators have been unable to reveal what they know explicitly, but they have suggested that there is a massive unacknowledged program operating under the auspices of the PATRIOT Act that enables the government to collect whole categories of cellphone data, which can be used to geolocate, without any oversight.
When there is a legal challenge, the courts generally go along with the police arguments and support the technical monitoring, though defense attorneys have questioned whether prolonged use of a GPS unit might violate the Fourth Amendment’s “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In their view, collecting a large mass of information changes the quality of what is being obtained because it provides a full picture of an individual and what he or she has been doing, and this massive invasion of privacy takes place without any judicial or regulatory oversight. A month of GPS reporting, far from being just another acceptable investigative tool, could easily reveal nearly every movement made by a person outside his or her own home.
Generally speaking, a person’s home and telephone have been regarded as off limits to technical intrusion without a warrant, but recent court rulings suggest that even what you think to be your personal space or property is not necessarily safe. In a related GPS case, a court in California ruled that law enforcement’s attaching a tracking device to a vehicle parked in a driveway outside one’s house does not require a warrant because a driveway, like a parking lot or a city street, is also considered to be a public space that anyone can walk or drive into. In several Michigan cases, the authority to invade privacy through technical means was also expanded. When police asked suspects to hand over their cellphones during routine traffic stops and the owners complied, the officers involved construed that as being consent to have the phone searched and used an extraction device to copy the call histories and text messages.
Phones are increasingly serving as tracking devices. Cellphones send out their messages to transmission towers that in return ping all active phones in their area at regular intervals. As the towers cover an area from several directions, it is easy to triangulate and locate a phone and the phone’s owner. A German parliamentarian became curious about the extent to which his travels were being recorded and discovered that he had been located by the cellphone carrier no less than 35,831 times, and all of the information was recorded and retained.
All of this means that the government now believes that it has the right to know where you are 24/7. Further, it thinks that it can exercise that right without any recourse to the courts and without any probable cause. President Barack Obama, who called for greater transparency and accountability in government when he was running for office, now supports the right of his administration to invade the privacy of every American without any due process at all. It is perhaps not a stretch to speculate how this technological invasion of the United States is blowback from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where biometrics, tracking devices, and other features of population control and electronic warfare have been tested and improved. Certainly the willingness of the American public to accept systematic invasions of privacy is a tribute to the selling of the narrative about the Global War on Terror as a rational response to an existential threat. Perhaps it is time to start offering a different narrative, one without Richard Perle’s moral clarity, that sees a bit of nuance and accepts that constitutional liberties must be preserved even in times of perpetual and global warfare. Especially in such times. Ironically, the only war that the Obama administration is winning at the moment is the one against the American people.