BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

A High Stakes US Gamble with Russia

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

By Stephen Lendman - RINF | Prior to entering WW II, US strategists had a clear aim in mind at its conclusion - to hold unchallengeable power in a new post-war global system: military, economic and political in a “Grand Area” encompassing the West and Far East. Essentially most parts outside the communist bloc and exploiting it under disarming rhetoric like being “selfless advocates of freedom for colonial peoples (and an) enemy of imperialism.” Championing “world peace (also) through multinational control.”

Today, the facade is gone, and no pretense remains about much “grander” plans - over an “Area” comprising planet earth with “full spectrum dominance” over all land, surface and sub-surface sea, air, space, electromagnetic spectrum and information systems with enough overwhelming power to fight and win global wars against any potential challengers with all weapons in our arsenal, including nuclear and others of mass destruction.

One nation above others is an obstacle - Russia. It’s powerful and can’t be intimidated like most others. It’s also dominant where Washington wants control - the Eurasian vastness with its huge oil, gas and other resources. For years, American sought dominance over it. Saw an opening when the Soviet Union dissolved. And one way or other seeks to get it. Russia has other plans, so therein lies the root of the current conflict using Georgia as a US proxy to instigate it.

Beating up on Russia is now fair game. Moscow, for its part, won’t back off, so clear lines are drawn for protracted confrontation in a very high risk gamble for both sides. Russia prefers diplomacy to conflict and seeks alliances with the West and its neighbors. America wants conquest, and look at the stakes. An area from roughly Germany in the West to the Pacific rim. Encompassing Russia, China, the Middle East, and Asian sub-continent. Including about three-fourths of the world’s population and an equal amount of its energy resources. Most of its physical wealth overall and its GDP. No small prize, and America intends to secure it. Russia stands in the way. It controls its own part and influences much of the rest. Welcome to the new Cold War and new Great Game.

It’s only round one, but its roots go back to earlier US efforts to ally with former Soviet Republics. Encircle Russia with military bases and station offensive missiles and advanced tracking radar on its borders. Then Georgia attacked South Ossetia on August 7. Washington orchestrated the aggression. Russia counterattacked after artillery fire killed 15 or more of its peacekeepers, and partially destroyed their headquarters. The entire Tskhinvali capital as well, a civilian target of no military consequence. Border villages were burnt to the ground. Atrocities committed. Malicious attacks against non-combatants. Western media portrayed the aggressor as victim. The same game it always plays - so far with faint letup, save for the heavy Democrat and Republican conventions coverage getting top billing.

The Caucacus (hot) conflict has now ebbed. Russia controls things on the ground. In full compliance with the Sarkozy-brokered peace, according to Foreign Minister Lavrov. All six points of its original version. They include:

– renouncing the use of force;

– halting all military action;

– providing free access for humanitarian aid;

– the return of Georgian forces to their bases;

– Russian forces to their pre-conflict positions; and

– engaging in international discussions on South Ossetian and Abkhazian future status to ensure their security.

Afterwards, Georgian president Saakashvili reneged by unilaterally amending the original agreement. It bears no relation to what Moscow signed. A deliberately confrontational act. Surely directed from Washington. Sharp western criticism followed and ignited the old Cold War blame the Russians game that both surprised and angered the Kremlin.

Its leadership isn’t about to roll over. On August 26, it backed South Ossetian and Abkazian independence and their protection from further Georgian aggression. The populations of both provinces overwhelmingly approve. On August 27, Georgia, in response, withdrew all but two lower level officials from Moscow. On August 29, its parliament supported a resolution to sever diplomatic relations and cancel agreements allowing Russian peacekeepers to remain in both provinces. Russian State Duma Foreign Affairs Committee Head, Konstantin Kosachev, called the action “regrettable” but said its impact on Russia won’t be negative. Until August 29, Russia retained its full Tbilisi staff and said maintaining ties are vital.

According to The New York Times on August 29, that’s now changed after Georgia made it official - breaking diplomatic ties with Russia and Moscow responding in kind. Both countries will retain their consular offices but further political relations will be handled by intermediaries. The move doesn’t prevent both countries’ officials from meeting in neutral territory.

On August 30, RIA Novesti reported two other developments as well. According to Georgia’s reintegration minister, Temur Yakobashvili, that Tbilisi “was formally pulling out of a (May 14) 1994 UN-approved (Abkhazia and Georgia) agreement….on a ceasefire and separation of forces.” It followed Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states. Earlier on August 12, Georgian president Saakashvili announced that his country was withdrawing from the Russian-dominated Commonwealth of Independent States, a loose alliance of former Soviet republics.

RIA Novesti’s other report was a slap in the face to Georgia. That the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has evidence about “numerous wrong decisions” Georgian leaders made leading up to the Caucasus crisis - according to the German magazine Der Spiegel. It cited “detailed (Georgian) planning to move into South Ossetia” and backed Russian claims that “the Georgian offensive was already in full swing by the time Russian troops and armored vehicles entered the Roksky Tunnel (bordering Russia and South Ossetia) to protect its peacekeepers and the civilian population.” OSCE’s report went further as well citing “suspected war crimes committed by Georgians, who ordered attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.”

On August 29, Russia Today reported that South Ossetia’s acting parliament chairman, Tarzan Kokoity, announced a deal to host Russian military bases as early as September 2. In addition, two others may be reactivated on their former Abkhazian sites. However, on the same date, the online service also said that Russian Foreign Ministry officials denied such a deal. Only that Russia is “currently working on a cooperation (arrangement) with Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but it’s too early to assess where this may lead.” An agreement is expected to be signed on September 2.

Diplomatic jousting continues as EU leaders weigh further responses and their relations with Russia going forward. For its part, Russia is in no mood to stand idle and is surely mindful of Barak Obama’s convention speech threat to “curb Russian aggression.”

Heated Rhetoric Instead of Hot Conflict

A war of words replaced hot conflict on the ground. Unfair condemnation and heated rhetoric. Western nations on board with Washington. Some like the UK more than others. The corporate media trumpeting approval. Spewing venom and agitprop. Their specialty and what they’re good at. Keeping their audiences uninformed. Their accustomed role. No longer even pretending to report legitimately.

For his part, President Medvedev stood firm and said: “We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a new Cold War, but we don’t want one, and in this situation everything depends on the positions of our partners.”

In New York Times and UK Financial Times August 26 op-eds, he explained his decision to sign Decrees to recognize South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence and “call(ed) on other states to follow (his) example.” Seeing early warning signs, he tried to dissuade Georgia from using force. He called Georgian president Saakashvili a “madman” for “tak(ing) such a gamble.” He explained that Russia had no other option than to respond. To save lives “not in a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory.”

Russia struck bases from which attacks were “launched and then left. We restored the peace but could not calm the fears and aspirations of the South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples.” To aid them and the requests of their presidents, “I signed a decree” to recognize their independence.” He also referred to Russia’s “historic friendship and sympathy” for Georgians and said he hopes “one day (they will) have leaders they deserve, who care about their country and who develop mutually respectful relations with all the peoples in the Caucasus. Russia is ready to support the achievement of such a goal.”

On August 31, Itar Tass reported that Medvedev “spell(ed) out five principles of Russian foreign policy in a televised interview:

– the supremacy of international legal fundamentals that define relations between civilized nations;

– the importance of a multi-polar world - not one in which one nation decides for all others;

– confrontation with no other country, and Russia will work toward “friendly relations with Europe, the United States and other countries of the world;”

– an “absolute priority” of protecting life and dignity of Russian citizens “no matter where they live….aggression will be deterred; and

– like other countries, “Russia has areas of privileged interests….countries to which we are linked with friendly ties,” and not only with neighboring states.

Medvedev added that diplomatic relations going forward would depend not just on Russia but also “on our friends, partners and the international community at large. They have a choice.”

On August 28, Prime Minister Putin had his say. Was outspoken in a CNN interview, and accused the Bush administration of failing to keep Georgia from attacking South Ossetia. This, he said, damaged bilateral relations. He suggested a possible darker motive as well: “….that someone in the United States created this conflict on purpose to stir up the situation and create an advantage for one of the (presidential) candidates. They needed a small victorious war” - a clear reference to John McCain although he didn’t say.

He also said “not only (did the administration fail) to restrain the Georgian leadership from this criminal action, but the American side in fact trained and equipped the Georgian army….We (also) have serious reasons to believe that directly in the combat zone citizens of the United States were present. If the facts are confirmed….that means only one thing - that they could be there on the direct instruction of their leadership….following a direct order from their leader, and not on their own initiative.” Col. General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Russia’s deputy chief of general staff, said Russian forces had a US passport for Michael Lee White of Texas in a ruined building near Tskhinvali and showed what was found.

Putin stressed that Russia would respond to the killing of its citizens and peacekeepers and wouldn’t let possible G-8 membership expulsion or threatened EU actions deter it.

With this going on, heavily armed US and other NATO warships entered the Black Sea on the pretext of delivering humanitarian aid. Nogovitsyn called it a task for merchant ships. Suggested it further heightens tensions and said: “I don’t think such a buildup will foster the stabilization of the atmosphere in the region.” Other Russian military officials called the intrusion provocative and accused Washington of shipping new arms supplies.

On August 27, Reuters reported US General and NATO commander John Craddock’s comments on a recent Tbilisi visit. He said Washington will likely provide military aid, and an anonymous US official confirmed that a US - Georgia dialogue is ongoing about replenishing the country’s losses. Possibly also sending sophisticated weapons like Stinger antiaircraft missiles and portable antitank ones called Javelins. Training as well.

On August 27, the Jerusalem-based DEBKAfile reported that Captain Igor Dygalo, Russian Navy’s deputy commander, said the Moskva missile cruiser would carry out a Black Sea naval exercise in response - a clear sign that Moscow intends to assert control and may interfere with 10 more encroaching Western vessels. According to Nogovitsyn: two American, four Turkish, and the others German, Polish and Spanish.

He also said NATO exhausted its Black Sea complement under international agreements and warned against sending more. DEBKAfile sources say 16 to 18 are planned, including the USS Mount Whitney, “one of the most advanced warships in the world.” If true, this will heighten tensions further.

On August 29, DEBKAfile cited a Moscow media quote from former Russian Black Sea Fleet commander, Admiral Eduard Baltin, saying: “Despite the apparent strength of the NATO naval group in the Black Sea….a single salvo from the Moskva missile cruiser and two or three missile boats would be enough to annihilate the entire group. Within 20 minutes, the waters would be clear.” He added that Russia “will not strike first….”

At the same time, Russian president Medvedev warned Moldova not to repeat Georgia’s mistake by using force against Transdniestria. Russian peacekeepers have been on the ground there since 1990 after separatists broke away and established an independent republic. Under international law, it’s more justifiable than Kosovo, but thus far with no outside recognition. Moldova is strategically located on the Black Sea’s Western shore - close to the Crimean Peninsula and Russia’s large Sevastopol, Ukraine naval headquarters.

On August 27, Ukraine upped the stakes and demanded Russia renegotiate its lease - good until 2017. A higher rental payment was asked, and (according to Russia Today) a new law was passed demanding 72 hours notice each time Russia’s fleet leaves the base. It covers air traffic as well and asks for personnel involved, time of departure, and destination. Russia says the law violates its 1997 Moscow - Kiev agreement, so it’s unclear if Ukraine will back down. Russia is in no mood to with Georgia on its mind and watching Washington behind the scenes orchestrating mischief.

Earlier on August 24, Russia’s Navy chief, Admiral Vladimir Vysotsky, said its Black Sea Fleet now commands its Mediterranean ships as well. It came as the US carrier Iwo Jima (six-vessel) Expeditionary Strike Group heads for the region to link up with other US vessels, and Russia announced it will search all cargo transiting Georgia’s Poti port that it controls. Thus far, Washington avoided confrontation by redirecting its warships to Georgian-controlled Batumi. An event duly noted in Moscow that responded by anchoring three missile boats and the Moskva missile cruiser at the Black Sea Sukhumi port.

The cat and mouse game continues, and it’s not eased if South Ossetian reports are true. They claim Georgia is deploying military forces on its border, and (late last week) overnight firing on villages was heard. Georgia says Russia wants to annex its territory. Moscow asserts its right to protect South Ossetian and Abkhazian residents from made-in-Washington aggression - many of whom hold Russian passports. Tensions continue to escalate causing some analysts to say war is inevitable, and under a US neocon administration might involve a “proactive” nuclear strike.

An August 28 DEBKAfile report suggested that Russia takes this threat seriously. It headlined: “Russia successfully tests ICBM designed to beat anti-missile systems,” according to Alexander Vovk, spokesman for Russia’s strategic nuclear forces. He referred to the Topol RS-12M to be used against ground-based missiles and capable of “beating” any US “missile shield.” The test followed Russia warning NATO against sending additional ships to the Black Sea that will only heighten tensions.

On August 28, RIA Novosti reported an escalation, a sign still more will follow - South Ossetian Interior Minister Mikhail Mindzayev stating that an unmanned Georgian reconnaissance plane was shot down over the capital, Tskhinvali at 20.10 GMT. He also said “several illegal armed groups were operating near the capital under orders from Georgian authorities to conduct subversive activities and terrorist acts.” South Ossetian security forces formed “counter-terrorist units” to respond. On August 27, Col. General Nogovitsyn said a Georgian reconnaissance drone overflew South Ossetia at 11.15 GMT - spying in violation of existing agreements. A frequent practice prior to Georgia’s August 7 aggression so it happening again is worrisome.

In an August 28 Russian newspaper, Vremya Novostei, interview, Russia’s NATO ambassador, Dmitry Rogozin, warned that any Organization Caucasus attack would “mean a declaration of war on Russia.” On August 27, The New York Times called him “a finger-wagging nationalist who hung a poster of Stalin in his new ambassadorial office….”

Rogozin named two world-changing dates of concern: “September 11, 2001 and August 8, 2008….basically identical in terms of significance” and that today heightens Russia’s fears about being surrounded by NATO. He calls the current crisis much more than “an ethnic spat between Georgia and South Ossetia.” Russians understand that Washington targets them, and a recent poll showed 74% of them believe “Georgia was a pawn of the United States.” Only 5% blamed Russia.

This at a time other reports hint at NATO divisions despite its outward appearance of toughness. The US, UK and most Eastern European states support harsh measures. In contrast, France, Germany, Portugal, Turkey and Italy are reluctant to break off Russian ties with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner telling The New York Times that “Russia is a great nation. Look how we have been treating it. We need firmness, not threats” that won’t work “because everyone knows we are not going to war.”

In another report, however, RIA Novesti indicated that “EU leaders (are) considering sanctions against Russia” after earlier averring they weren’t on the agenda. Russia heard nothing about them, and so far details aren’t forthcoming. Maybe no sanctions either and just verbal threats. Kouchner later confirmed that EU leaders will weigh them at an emergency September 1 summit. Convening in Brussels, they’ll discuss Western relations with Russia, Georgia, and providing aid to the former Soviet republic.

Precisely what Russia fears because it will come in the form of more arms and munitions. On September 1, RIA Novesti reported that “Russia wants (an) arms embargo on Georgia and quoted Foreign Minister Lavrov saying he wants one in place until Georgia has a new leader. One Russia can trust and not the current Washington tool.

In his remarks Lavrov said: “To guarantee the region is protected against new outbreaks of violence, Russia will continue to take measures to make sure the (Saakashvili) regime is unable to commit evil deeds ever again. It would be appropriate to impose an embargo on arms supplies on that regime until different leaders have turned Georgia into a normal country.” He then blamed Washington for its role in the conflict and added that he hoped EU leaders in Brussels would make “the right choice” at their summit.

Possibly so according to the August 30 - 31 Wall Street Journal’s weekend edition. It reported that “the EU isn’t expected to impose sanctions on Russia,” and the previous day suggested that “Russia mocked talk” about them. The Journal stressed how divided EU nations are but admitted they have “few tools to deter Moscow.” It quoted Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb saying: “My preference is to go carefully on concrete actions but to be sufficiently tough on the language. Whether or not we like it, Russia and Europe are mutually interdependent.” And it’s likely other foreign ministers and EU leaders share that view.

Yet on August 27, BBC reported that UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband (in a Kiev, Ukraine speech) called on the EU and NATO to initiate “hard-headed engagement (and the) widest possible coalition” against Russia over Georgia along with other inflammatory comments. On August 31, UK prime minister Gordon Brown threatened a “root and branch” review of relations with Russia and accused Moscow of “aggression.”

So did Barak Obama, the official Democrat nominee, and also lashed out at Medvedev’s decree. He “condemn(ed) Russia’s decision and call(ed) upon all countries of the world not to accord (it) any legitimacy….” Said America should “further isolate Russia.” Provide Georgia $1 billion in aid. Admit it to NATO. Deny Russia WTO membership. Disband the NATO - Russia Council, and even end Russia’s Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) membership.

In contrast, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) member states of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed Russia’s action. Its role in restoring peace, and expressed “support for (Russia’s) active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region.” However, they stopped short of endorsing South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence in their closing statement that “express(ed) their deep concern over the recent tensions surrounding the South Ossetia question and call(ed) for the sides to peacefully resolve existing problems through dialogue.”

That got the corporate media to distort their closing statement and like Reuters say “Medvedev failed to win crucial support from his Asian allies (for) Moscow’s confrontation with the West over war in Georgia.” The New York Times as well claimed that “China and four other (Asian) countries meeting with Russia for the annual (SCO) summit declined to back Russia’s military action in a joint communique.”

The Wall Street Journal echoed the same theme and then ranted about “strains” and “unease” in Russian - Chinese relations. Even hinted that Russia might be “isolated” because of its Georgian “aggression.” A word it only attributes to Russia in very hostile daily op-eds. More Journal commentary below, but first an alternative Russian view.

The Post-Communist PRAVDA On-Line

Established in January 1999, it’s editor is longtime Western journalist, Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey, who says “at this moment in time, I’m proud, very proud, to be writing for a Russian newspaper.” On August 29, 2008, his opinion piece titled “Abkhazia, Georgia, Kosovo, South Ossetia and something called international law” presented a different view from the dominant US media’s daily anti-Russian agitprop.

Straightaway aiming at George Bush and Secretary Rice he stated: They “follow the norm that laws are made to be disregarded, disrespected, ignored, manipulated or simply broken, which is patently obvious through the sheer hypocrisy of Washington’s position on the territorial integrity of Georgia.” From a “legal perspective,” Georgia was a signatory to Soviet Russia’s Constitution and bound by its provisions. One of them was “the voluntary dissolution of the Union and clause which states that minority groups (South Ossetia and Abkhazia) in other Republics (Georgia) had the statutory and constitutional right” to a (free and fair) referendum for independence.

Post-1991, Georgia broke the law by not holding them, “so just this fact makes a valid case for these two republics to decide for themselves” to be or not be part of Georgia. In addition, Moscow spent 17 years negotiating peace that aimed to satisfy Tbilisi and both breakaway provinces. Georgia’s response: “manipulation, insults, insolence” and the recent slaughter of Tskhinvali civilians. By its actions, “Georgia….blew out the candles lighting any path towards its territorial integrity.”

The right of South Ossestians and Abkhazians to independence is also fully justified under the UN Charter and customary international laws and norms - in contrast to Kosovo, an “integral part” of Serbia. “The question of Kosovo follows all the norms of international law regarding inviolability of frontiers whereas Abkhazia and South Ossetia do not. They have the legal right to independence. Kosovo never has, does not, and never will.”

But not according to George Bush’s idea “to draw lines on maps and screw up entire nations….in a civilised world, laws are made to be followed.” Modern states have no right to “base their diplomacy on illegality, boorishness, cajoling and bullying without one iota of legal fabric in their arguments….future generations (should) read these lines and judge for themselves who was right and who was wrong at this fundamental moment in the determination of the future of Mankind.”

Bashing Russia - A Different View from The Wall Street Journal on the Warpath

An August 28 Melik Kaylan op-ed is typical - headlined: “How the Georgian Conflict ‘Really’ Started.” His version (from Tbilisi) is that “Anybody who thinks that Moscow didn’t plan this invasion, that we in Georgia caused it gratuitously, is severely mistaken.” He heard it “personally” from president Saakasvili “in a late night (presidential palace) chat.” In contrast, “Russia’s version of events doesn’t jibe with the facts.” On the ground in Gori, he learned “how Russia has deployed a highly deliberate propaganda strategy. (They) made a big show of moving out in force (but) left behind a resonating threat (that) they could return at any moment. (They) flatten(ed) civilian streets in order to sow fear, drive out innocents and create massive refugee outflows.”

He gets his information right from Saakashvili and Georgia’s defense minister, so he knows it’s “accurate.” Direct quotes about Russia “planning an invasion for weeks, even months ahead of time.” Was able to once Putin “consolidate(d) power.” With the Beijing Olympics and US elections as distractions and before Georgia’s winter. A rather amateurish account and not up to the Journal’s agitprop standards.

On August 25, Max Boot did a better job in a piece headlined: “Eastern Europe Can Defend Itself.” He’s way to the right of most others, a senior Council on Foreign Relations fellow, and frequent Journal contributor.

He claims “Eastern Europeans are rightly alarmed about the brazenness and success of the Russian blitzkrieg into Georgia.” Worsened by Russian threats “to rain nuclear annihilation on Ukraine and Poland if they refuse to toe the Kremlin’s line.” Even NATO states “can take scant comfort.” Boot’s solution: “Russia’s neighbors should spend more on defense. We should supply them with more antiaircraft weapons.” No mention of how defense contractors will benefit or the importance of that side of NATO membership.

Boot sees big potential if Eastern European states spend more of their GDP on weapons. Georgia (as a US vassal) is doing it, but not its neighbors. He cites an International Institute of Strategic Studies report that only one regional state spends more than 2% of its GDP on defense - Bulgaria at 2.2%. Nor do they maintain large standing forces, yet they have millions of military aged men to draw on. Russia is the only exception with “more than a million soldiers under arms” and a growing post-Soviet defense budget - 2.5% of GDP or 8% of total spending according to an August 28 RIA Novesti report that says it’s heading much higher.

Eastern European states should react, according to Boot - to “deter Russians from threatening them in the first place….They should double their military spending (and) the US can help.” They should have “large reserves ready for fast call-up and plenty of ‘defensive’ weapons.” Clearly Boot has key things in mind - tightening the screws on Russia. Surrounding it with adversarial states. Giving America a greater edge than is possible without them, and letting US defense contractors cash in on new business.

Senators Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham have that and more in mind in their August 26 Journal op-ed and begin with an inflammatory headline: “Russia’s Aggression Is a Challenge to World Order.” They both visited the region, met with the leaders of Georgia, Ukraine and Poland, and say that “Supporting Georgia is only the ‘first’ step toward safeguarding freedom in Europe.”

They claim America strove for 60 years for “a Europe that is whole, free and at peace.” One of “the greatest achievements of the 20th century.” By their reasoning, “Russia’s ‘invasion’ of Georgia represents the most serious challenge to this political order since Slobodan Milosevic unleashed the demons of ethnic nationalism in the Balkans.”

Never mind their outlandish reversal of truth - about a US-led NATO aggression. Blaming Serbs for their own actions. Dismembering Yugoslavia, and falsely accusing Milosevic (in a Washington Post editorial, for example) of being “personally responsible for the most destructive conflict and most terrible atrocities recorded in Europe since World War II. Without Mr. Milosevic the Yugoslav wars wouldn’t have happened.”

At the time, Graham, a congressman, and Lieberman, a senator, both agreed. Now they claim “disturbing evidence (shows) Russia is already laying the groundwork to apply the same arguments used to justify its intervention in Georgia to other parts of its near abroad - most ominously in the Crimea.” America’s first priority is “to prevent the Kremlin from achieving its strategic objectives in Georgia….Also needed, immediately, is a joint commitment by the US and the European Union to fund large-scale, comprehensive reconstruction….in consultation with the World Bank, IMF, and other international authorities….and for the US Congress to support” it.

Rebuilding Georgia’s security forces is part of it with heavy emphasis on “antiaircraft and antiarmor systems necessary to deter any renewed Russian aggression.” Both senators want a “reinvigorated NATO” meaning an enlarged one and more heavily armed. “Missile defense (and) a new trans-Atlantic energy alliance” to counter Russia’s “willing(ness) to use its oil and gas resources as a weapon….”

US v. Russia by their calculus. Western solidarity must stand firm. Teach the Kremlin a lesson that “forced fealty to Moscow will fail (and it’s only a) question (of) how long until Russia’s leaders rediscover this lesson from their own history.” With a strong undertone that if Moscow won’t come around on its own, a US-led alliance will force it.

Perhaps the (August 27) US Navy-announced five-day US - UK naval exercises in the Gulf hints to Russia as well as Iran. Called “Exercise Goalkeeper” in the Central and Southern Arabian Gulf, it’s “to train across the spectrum of Maritime Security Operations (MSO),” according to the US Fifth Fleet press release. It began on August 24 and was scheduled for completion on August 31.

It focused on “command and control in locating and tracking specific vessels deemed to pose a threat to Coalition nations in the Gulf region. The exercise also allows Coalition teams to board the vessel and practice the procedures for handing them over to Coast Guard ships.”

Counterterrorism and security measures are also mentioned - “to disrupt violent extremists’ use of the maritime environment as a venue for attack or to transport personnel or weapons.” Clearly Iran is the focus. It follows “Operation Brimstone” in the North Atlantic. Can also apply to Russia, and may be repeated at a future time in the Black Sea - “to increase the security and prosperity of the region by working together for a better future,” according to US Naval Forces Central Command. Quite a different way than Iran and Russia see it.

But not Arthur Herman in an August 29 Wall Street Journal op-ed titled: “Russia and the New Axis of Evil.” He claims “Russian tanks (are) now presiding over the dismemberment of….Georgia” and asks can the Bush administration “rise to the challenge Russia has chosen to pose to the Free World?” He refers to “democratic governments” in Iraq and Georgia “sandwiched between Iran and Russia, two of the most authoritarian governments in the world” and for good measure adds “Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez” that Russia is “arming” along with Iran.

He calls Iran “the principal threat to peace in Iraq (and) Mr. Chavez’s links to the terrorist group FARC (threatening) neighboring Colombia.” Iran, Georgia and Colombia “are battlegrounds in a new kind of international conflict that will define our geopolitical future. (It) pits the US and the West against an emerging axis of oil-rich dictatorships….working together to push back against the liberalizing trends of globalization (with) their prime objective (of) toppling or undermining neighboring, pro-Western democracies.”

Russia is number one in his sights and allied with “Tehran’s mullahs clearly aim to control access to every major source of fossil energy from the western end of the Persian Gulf to the Caspian Sea.” Then add Chavez “hop(ing) for an oil and natural gas monopoly over (his) neighbors like pro-Chavez satellites Bolivia and Ecuador.”

Herman puts this kind of material in books and here says “The West has to confront the oil-rich dictatorships, flush with cash, and bent on regional domination.” What can the US and a new president do, he asks? He proposes a “broad strategy of targeted economic sanctions and multilateral diplomacy, backed by US military power….” Most important is “to secure democracy’s vital new flanks (in) Iraq, Georgia and Colombia (to send) a clear signal that liberty, not tyranny, is the wave of the globalizing future.” And for readers who believe that, consider moving to (or even visiting) one of his three favored countries.

Herman is typical of writers getting Wall Street Journal and other hard right op-ed space. He taught history at George Mason University. Also Georgetown and Catholic University and contributes to right wing publications like National Review and Commentary. As well as the Wall Street Journal. He also wrote a revisionist history of Joe McCarthy entitled: “Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator.” In it he claims that given the “communist threat” he got a bum rap even though he vilified innocent people, was a pathological liar, a consummate demagogue, and, according to David Halberstam knew how “to humiliate vulnerable, scared people (and) in the end produced little beyond fear and headlines.”

Precisely what Herman and other hawkish writers now do to Russia, Iran, Venezuela and other independent countries unwilling to roll over for Washington. Even at the risk of a catastrophic global conflict no side can win and that all sides will end up paying for dearly.

Have Your Say: A High Stakes US Gamble with Russia
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

‘US troops are committing war crimes’

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

By Parwiz Shamal | AN AFGHAN human rights organisation has accused the United States army of committing war crimes in Afghanistan.

The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) said on Tuesday that, according to their own investigations, civilians are killed in most operations conducted by US forces.

AIHRC expressed strong concern about the death of innocent Afghans during military operations and urged those responsible for the killings to face trial.

“According to our investigations, 98% of civilian casualties caused by the coalition forces in Afghanistan are intentional,” the head of the AIHRC, Lal Gul, said.

“The actions of the coalition forces, especially the American forces, are not only against the human rights laws, but are considered war crimes. Therefore, these forces have committed war crimes in Afghanistan,” he said.

Foreign forces maintain that they try their best to minimise civilian casualties in their operations.

They also accuse the Taliban of using civilians as human shields by taking shelter in residential homes and areas.

A spokesman for the AIHRC, Nadir Nadiri, said: “Whenever a military force, or one of the two sides in a war, kill innocent people intentionally, it has broken the international human rights law, and according to the human rights law, such people must be tried.”

NATO and the US-led coalition have come under fire from Afghan politicians, ordinary people and the local media for killing innocent civilians in recent weeks.

On Monday, residents accused foreign troops of killing four members of the same family during a midnight raid in Kabul, a claim the international troops strongly deny.

On August 22, a coalition raid on a village in the western province of Herat killed as many as 90 civilians, 60 of them children, a United Nations investigation into the ground and air operation revealed.

Karzai, who has also chided western generals for their failure to minimise civilian casualties, says the death of innocent Afghans only plays into the hands of the Taliban, who use the killings to turn people against the government.

More than 500 civilians have been killed during operations led by foreign and Afghan forces against militants this year, according to the Afghan government and some aid groups.

The UN says the civilian death-toll has increased “sharply” this year on last.

Have Your Say: ‘US troops are committing war crimes’
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Counterattacking Army recruiting

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

By Mitch Weiss | Sally Ferrell bounded from the truck and grabbed a posterboard sign that read: “War is not the Answer.”

Over the years, she’s organized dozens of peace vigils like this one being set up in a parking lot. Find common ground, she has always preached, and any conflict can be resolved.

But she’s now engaged in a conflict of her own — a dispute over military recruiting in high schools that has polarized rural Wilkes County.

For three years, Ferrell, 63, has asked permission to distribute pamphlets and other materials that warn students to think twice before joining the military. But the school superintendent has stopped her, calling her activities unpatriotic. The American Civil Liberties Union, calling it a First Amendment issue, has threatened to sue.

“The students need to know there are alternatives to the military,” said Ferrell, a Quaker. “But they’re not getting the other side.”

Recruiters have turned to high schools to help fill the ranks of the all-volunteer military. And they need them more than ever. After five years of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and longer deployments, the military has been hard-pressed to meet recruitment demands. They say U.S. casualties — more than 4,600 soldiers killed and 64,000 wounded in both wars — have dampened recruiting.

In recent years, thousands of people like Ferrell have joined dozens of counter recruiting groups. They say recruiters have given young people misleading information about military service and often target high schools in poor and rural areas where options for graduating students are limited; the activists want students to know they have prospects besides the military.

Most schools have allowed counter recruiters inside. Wilkes County’s opposition could trigger a legal battle.

“Are we going to pursue litigation? I think it’s pretty clear that the school board isn’t giving us any choice to do anything else,” said Katherine Parker, legal director of the ACLU’s North Carolina chapter.

Recruiters say the controversy has made it more difficult for them to do their job.

Before Ferrell’s campaign, they had unfettered access to schools and students. Now, they can only visit twice a semester. And when they do, they have to stand at a table outside the cafeterias.

Have Your Say: Counterattacking Army recruiting
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Civil rights activists prompt call for Police shootings probe

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

Civil rights activists have called for an investigation of police shootings in a Los Angeles-area city where four people have been killed since May.

The latest was Sunday when a 56-year-old homeless man was killed by Inglewood officers who said he appeared to be armed and refused orders to raise his hands, the Los Angeles Times reported. The gun tucked into Eddie Felix Franco’s waistband proved to be a toy.

Earl Ofari Hutchinson, president of the Los Angeles Urban Roundtable, spoke Monday at the place where Franco was killed.

“This is a small city,” Hutchinson said. “It has a small police department, and when you have this number of shootings in such a short period of time, that just leaves so many questions.”

In May, a 19-year-old man was killed and two other young men wounded by police officers who mistakenly thought they had weapons. In July, police fatally shot a 23-year-old alleged gang member and, in a separate incident, killed a 38-year-old man who allegedly pointed a gun at officers responding to a call about a domestic dispute.

The shootings are being investigated by the Office of Independent Review, a county agency, but Hutchinson and others want a federal investigation.

Have Your Say: Civil rights activists prompt call for Police shootings probe
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Information on use of Shannon ‘rendition’ sought

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

THE GOVERNMENT has been asked for information relating to the use of Shannon in the “extraordinary rendition” of a Guantánamo Bay detainee who could face the death penalty.

The request was sent to the Taoiseach on Friday last by lawyers representing Binyam Mohamed, a UK resident arrested in Pakistan in 2002 and held in Guantánamo Bay.

He has been charged there before the US Military Commission with terrorist offences which carry the death penalty.The request is made under the Freedom of Information Act.

This follows a previous request for information about two flights alleged to have been involved in Mr Mohamed’s rendition which were made to Mr Cowen at the beginning of August.

His private secretary responded “on an interim basis” on August 13th, stating the Government’s opposition to the “appalling practice of so-called extraordinary rendition”.

The letter also stated that the Government had received categoric assurances that no rendition had taken place through Ireland, and that no evidence had been produced that any individual had been subject to extraordinary rendition through Ireland.

The Government assured Mr Mohamed’s lawyer, Clive Stafford Smith, that his request was being urgently examined by relevant Government departments, but added that the information he sought may not be available to Irish authorities.

In response, Mr Stafford Smith, a US-trained lawyer with a background in representing prisoners on Death Row who works for human rights group Reprieve, said he was not arguing that any prisoners were rendered through Irish territory, but that CIA aircraft and crew criminally implicated in rendition to torture stopped on Irish territory en route to and from their illegal missions.

“Even if prisoners were not transported directly through Irish territory,” he said, “the movements and activities of these agents must be investigated, as should how Irish authorities came to be complicit in these activities.”

Accordingly, he is seeking information on two flights, already identified by the Council of Europe as having been involved in rendition, that stopped in Shannon on July 22nd, 2002, which he said had illegally rendered Mr Mohamed to torture in Morocco, and a flight that stopped in Shannon on September 17th, 2004, en route to rendering Mr Mohammed from Rabat in Morocco to Kabul, Afghanistan.

The information sought includes flight records, the names and passport details of all those on board, the name of the hotel where they stayed and records of the hotel, including telephone records, and records surrounding the flight, including documents filed by US representatives and private corporations involved in the planning of the trips.

The case against Mr Mohammed is based on confessions he made which he claims were made under torture after his “rendition” to third countries. The torture included beatings, sleep deprivation, starvation and the cutting of his genitals with a razor.

His lawyers seek information on what happened to him between his arrest in Pakistan in April 2002 and his arrival in Guantánamo Bay in May 2004, in order to substantiate his claims of torture.

Already, they have scored a success in the High Court in London, which last week gave the British foreign secretary, David Miliband, until Friday next to agree to hand over information possessed by the UK government about the case.

UK intelligence agents were involved in the questioning of Mr Mohamed while he was detained in Pakistan.

However, the UK government conceded to the High Court it did not know, and still did not know, his whereabouts between April 2002 and May 2004, during which he claims he was being tortured.

Have Your Say: Information on use of Shannon ‘rendition’ sought
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Holding murderers accountable

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

By William John Cox | Although Americans have access to the greatest selection of information sources in the world, including books, newspapers, magazines, radio, television, cable, and the Internet, the frequency of the news cycle has increased to the point where we have forgotten that our president and vice president have committed horrendous war crimes, or we may have missed the fact as it flashed by.

Most of us may have been fleetingly aware in 2006 that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were lying to us about their reasons for the Iraq War, which caused the murder and maiming of tens of thousands of our American troops and the waste of billions of our tax dollars. We elected a majority of Democrats to Congress to hold them accountable; however, the Democratic leadership immediately announced that impeachment was off the table and it has been business as usual ever since.

Recently, there has been a flood of new evidence clearly proving beyond any reasonable doubt that our president and vice president, along with others, conspired to engage the United States in an unnecessary and illegal war and repeatedly and deliberately lied to the American people about the true facts of the matter. Most specifically, the president committed felonies when he lied to Congress about his justification for ordering the attack on Iraq which resulted in the murder of all who have died in his fraudulent “War on Terrorism.”

As governor of Texas, Bush executed 152 people, including Karla Faye Tucker, a born-again Christian, whose plea for clemency caused Bush to purse his lips in a false smirk of desperation and to whimper, “Please don’t kill me.” Under the “Felony Murder Rule,” known in Texas as the “Law of the Parties,” if a person commits a felony and someone dies during the course of the felony, all parties to the felony are guilty of murder irrespective of which one actually does the killing.

There is strict liability under the rule, even if the death is accidental or unintended. Almost 20 percent of all murder prosecutions result from the rule, and a significant number of Bush’s 152 executions involved criminals who had engaged in felonies where the actual killing was done by others.

Not only has the president escaped all accountability for the serial murders he committed during his phony “War on Terrorism,” he recently asked Congress to further aid and abet his crimes by acknowledging “again and explicitly that this nation remains engaged in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated organizations, who have already proclaimed themselves at war with us and who are dedicated to the slaughter of Americans.”

We now know to a high degree of certainty who the slaughterers are. The only remaining question is whether the murderers will escape justice.

The crime

Title 18, Section 2 of the U.S. Code says, “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” Section 1111 defines murder as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought” and specifically holds that murders perpetrated by any kind of “willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing” are murders “in the first degree. Any other murder is murder in the second degree.”

If Bush willfully and deliberately misled Congress into authorizing him to engage in an unlawful war in which American troops and Iraqis were killed, he is guilty of murder. Not only would such killings be premeditated, but they would also be the legal result of his lies to Congress.

Title 18, Section 1001 prohibits anyone from “knowingly and willfully” making “any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” in “any matter within the jurisdiction of the . . . legislative . . . branch of the Government.” Felony prosecution under the statute was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1955, and a violation of the statute is a crime.

Bush lied to Congress on a number of occasions. Most specifically during his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush told the following lies to Congress:

► “The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.”► “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

► “Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction.”

► “With nuclear arms or a full arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, Saddam Hussein could resume his ambitions of conquest in the Middle East and create deadly havoc in that region.”

► “And this Congress and the America people must recognize another threat. Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications, and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda.”

► “We seek peace. We strive for peace.”

Ignoring the reports of UN inspectors that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush ordered its invasion on March 20, 2003 because: “the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised” and Iraq “has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.” When Bush deceptively ordered American troops to invade Iraq, he and his co-conspirators not only became war criminals under international law, they became murderers of all those who died as a result of their felonious conduct.

It can now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush was deliberately lying about his justification for war against Iraq, and as of today 4,151 American soldiers and perhaps as many as a million Iraqis have become his victims.

The evidence

Bush’s conspiracy of deception held for several years, but on May 1, 2005, the Times of London published the first of the so-called “Downing Street Documents.” The documents informed us that Bush, irrespective of the lies he was telling at the time, was already committed to going to war with Iraq as early as 2002.

Calling the evidence of weapons of mass destruction “thin,” the British memos documented that “Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Richard Dearlove, the former head of Britain’s secret intelligence service later said that the Bush administration buried British information about the lack of WMDs.

We also learned that both the CIA and the State Department attempted to keep Bush from referring in his 2003 State of the Union Address to Saddam’s attempted purchase of “yellowcake” uranium from Niger. Indeed, the unsubstantiated allegations were later found to be a complete hoax based on a crude forgery disseminated by Sismi, the Italian intelligence service.

It has been revealed that Michael Ledeen, a representative of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld’s Office of Special Plans, had been in Rome at the same time gathering intelligence to support military intervention in Iraq and that the Sismi’s director later met with Stephen Hadley, Bush’s deputy national security advisor, after the CIA rejected his initial overtures.

Additional evidence has been provided by Pultizer Prize-winning journalist Ron Suskind in his new book, The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism. Suskind reveals that Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the head of Saddam’s intelligence service, was secretly reporting the true status of Iraq’s WMDs to the British.

Habbush informed the British (and the Bush administration) in January 2003 that there were no WMDs in Iraq. When CIA Director George Tenet told Bush about Habbush’s information, Bush replied, “Well, why don’t you tell him to give us something we can use to make our case?”

Rather than using Habbush to provide Saddam with effective disinformation, to arrange Saddam’s removal, or to even make operational use of the valuable intelligence, the U.S. terminated further communication with Habbush, paid him $5 million to keep quiet and resettled him in Amman, Jordan. Officially, Habbush is still wanted by the U.S. and there is a $1 million reward offered for his capture.

Further evidence that Bush had official knowledge that there were no WMDs in Iraq was provided by Naji Sabri, Iraq’s foreign minister, in autumn 2002. He passed information through a French government official that Iraq’s “WMD program” was actually a ruse to ward off Iran and other foreign enemies.

Sabri was paid at least $200,000 by the CIA and French intelligence to provide documents about Saddam’s WMDs; however, Bush rejected Sabri’s intelligence as worthless when CIA director George Tenet tried to tell him about it on September 18, 2003. According to a senior CIA officer, “Bush didn’t give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up.”

Sabri received safe passage to Cairo during the first days of the Iraq invasion and is presently enjoying a comfortable retirement teaching journalism in Qatar.

Instead of informing the military, Secretary of State Powell, or Congress about Sabri’s high-quality intelligence, the CIA rewrote the report of his debriefing into an opposite falsehood stating that Saddam was “aggressively and covertly developing” nuclear weapons and that he already had chemical and biological weapons. The restructured report was then passed on to British intelligence to share with Prime Minister Blair.

During the same period, Saad Tawfik, an electrical engineer in Iraq, was identified by the CIA as a “key figure in Saddam Hussein’s clandestine nuclear weapons program.” His sister lived in Cleveland and was recruited by the CIA to meet with her brother in Iraq and to obtain details about the program. Tawfik told her the program was completely abandoned in 1991 and there were no centrifuges or nuclear weapon facilities. The CIA obtained similar results from 30 other former Iraqi WMD experts who also told relatives the same thing.

Evidence of Bush’s consciousness of guilt can be found in Ron Suskind’s report of the White House’s subsequent attempt to create a fraudulent justification following the invasion of Iraq and the failure to find any WMDs. The White House ordered the CIA to forge a backdated letter purportedly sent from Habbush to Saddam.

The resulting handwritten forgery dated July 1, 2001 talked about Saddam buying yellowcake uranium from Niger with the help of al Qaida. Fortuitously, the phony letter also mentioned that 9-11 ringleader Mohammad Atta was in Iraq at the time being trained by al Qaida terrorist Abu Nidal for an upcoming righteous mission.

Since the CIA is prohibited by law from engaging in covert activities intended to influence the U.S. political process, public opinion, policies, or the media, the forged letter was leaked through an aide to Ayad Allawi (a member of the Interim Governing Council and British intelligence informant) in Baghdad to an English journalist.

Con Coughlin, who has previously served as a conduit for British intelligence, wrote a front-page story in London’s Sunday Telegraph on December 14, 2003 headlined, “Terrorist behind September 11 strike ‘was trained by Saddam.’” As intended, the story was picked up and recycled by the U.S. media, including William Safire and Tom Brocaw, who treated the letter as genuine.

Suskind quotes two former CIA officers, Robert Richer and John Maguire, as witnesses to the forgery. Although both officers now deny any role in fabricating the false letter, Suskind states his interviews with them were tape recorded. On one recording, Richer is heard telling Suskind how Tenet assigned him to deal with the fabricated letter: “What I remember is George saying, ‘We got this from’ – basically, from what George said was ‘downtown.’” After Suskind says, “Which is the White House?” Richer says, “Yes. . . . I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.”

When asked about the forgery, Tenet said, “There was no such order from the White House to me nor, to the best of my knowledge, was anyone from the CIA ever involved in such effort.” Suskind calls such statements “part of George’s memory issue.”

On December 14, 2004, Bush engaged in yet another coverup. He rewarded Tenet with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. Bush said that Tenet’s “tireless efforts have brought justice to America’s enemies and greater security to the American people.”

Accountability

Impeachment. On May 10, 2006, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Democrat Nancy Pelosi stated she was not interested in pursuing impeachment of President Bush; however, she has subsequently said that “If somebody had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.”

On December 8, 2006, then-Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney introduced articles of impeachment against President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; however, her bill expired with the 109th Congress. McKinney is presently the Green Party’s nominee for president.

On November 6, 2007, Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to impeach Vice President Cheney.

On June 10, 2008, joined by Congressman Robert Wexler as cosponsor, Kucinich introduced a resolution of impeachment against President Bush listing 35 articles. The matter was referred to the Judiciary Committee by the House of Representatives; however, Speaker Pelosi refused to allow any hearings on the resolution.

On July 15, 2008, Congressman Kucinich introduced a new resolution of impeachment of President Bush limited to a single count stating that “President Bush, in violation of his oath of office, deceived Congress with fabricated threats of Iraq weapons of mass destruction to fraudulently obtain support for the authorization of use of force against Iraq and to commit troops to combat in Iraq.” The matter was again referred to the Judiciary Committee.

A hearing was held on July 25, 2008; however it was limited to “Executive Power and Its Constitutional Limitations.” Although Kucinich and others were allowed to testify, the question of impeachment was “not on the table.”

President Bush’s approval rating is around 28 percent; however, Congress’ rating, perhaps because of its inability or refusal to impose any accountability on President Bush and his co-conspirators, is just 18 percent and falling.

Impeachment is the only Constitutional way to stop a corrupt or insane president from defying the Constitution and becoming a dictator. A new president will be inaugurated on January 20, 2009, just 142 days from now. It is unlikely that Congress can or will act in that time; however, that refusal to act will surely go down in history as one of the greatest failures of our democracy.

Criminal Prosecution. It is generally assumed that a sitting president is immune from criminal prosecution while in office; however, following President Clinton’s impeachment acquittal by the Senate, the special prosecutor impaneled a grand jury to hear the same evidence and to seek an indictment once he left office. Clinton avoided indictment by entered into a plea bargain one day before he left office requiring him to publicly admit his false testimony, to surrender his law license and to pay a fine of $25,000.

Inasmuch as Attorney General Michael Mukasey serves at the pleasure of President Bush, it is highly unlikely that the current Justice Department will seek an indictment of Bush for the crimes he has committed while in office. However, given the fact that there is no statute of limitations for murder, a future Attorney General appointed by a different president may be more inclined to investigate and indict Bush and his co-conspirators for their criminal behavior.

One does not need to be a trial lawyer to review the preceding paragraphs and to identify the actual witnesses who could be called to testify, either before Congress or in a criminal trial. It is quite easy to say something like “to the best of my knowledge” to a journalist; it is much more difficult to equivocate under oath during vigorous questioning in criminal proceedings or to hide behind the Fifth Amendment.

Pardons. A president’s power to pardon is essentially absolute and is without legal review; its only constraint is the threat of impeachment. With impeachment “off the table” and with the holidays and the end of the president’s term approaching, the likelihood of mass pardons increases. There is a family precedent. With less than a month remaining in his term in 1992, President Bush’s father pardoned Caspar Weinberger, his former Secretary of Defense, and five others for the crimes they committed during the Iran-Contra fiasco.

The political pardons by Bush Sr. cancelled one conviction, three pending guilty pleas and two pending trials. Weinberger’s trial, which included charges of lying to Congress, was scheduled to commence within days of the pardon. The trial would have produced “evidence of a conspiracy among the highest ranking Reagan administration officials to lie to Congress and the American public.” By issuing the pardons, Bush Sr., who had refused to turn over his own “highly relevant contemporaneous notes,” avoided being called as a witness to testify under an oath about how he had come to be “out of the loop.”

The Constitution prohibits a president from interfering with the impeachment process; however, it is unclear if Bush can pardon his own crimes to avoid criminal prosecution. One scenario being circulated is for Bush to issue pardons to everyone conceivably subject to criminal prosecution arising out of their service in his administration, including Vice President Cheney, and for Bush to then resign from office. President Cheney could then pardon “former President” Bush for any and all crimes he committed while in office.

International Law. In one of his last official acts, President Clinton signed the “Rome” treaty establishing the International Criminal Court in the Netherlands to prosecute individuals accused of mass murders, war crimes, and other gross human rights violations. The treaty became effective on July 1, 2002; however, one of President Bush’s first acts was to “unsign” the treaty on behalf of the United States.

Even though George Bush rejected the jurisdiction of the International Court, the court has not rejected jurisdiction over him. Accordingly, while the United States can refuse to arrest and extradite a former president charged with war crimes, the treaty has been signed by 139 other sovereign nations and ratified by at least 107, all of which are legally committed to prosecuting war criminals whenever their own country refuses to or cannot do so.

Thus, while Bush may presently enjoy cutting brush in Crawford, Texas, his ability to vacation overseas might be severely curtailed in the future during his retirement years. Moreover, depending upon who the president is at the time charges are brought against Bush by the International Court, the United States could hand over Bush to the court for prosecution.

Summation

From childhood, George Bush displayed a disturbing lack of empathy. “Slapped around” by his mother as a boy, Bush enjoyed blowing up live frogs by putting firecrackers in their mouths and shooting at his brother with a BB gun. As he grew older, Bush presided over and defended the branding of pledges to his fraternity at Yale using red-hot wires and cigarettes; he became addicted to alcohol; he was arrested for drunk driving and he abused illegal drugs.

During the Vietnam War, Bush avoided military combat and was absent without leave from his stateside reserve assignment for more than a year. Using his father’s influence to gain political office, he smirked, giggled, and displayed other inappropriate behavior in response to the most serious of subjects.

Untreated, Bush’s sociopathy evolved as he achieved command of the most powerful military on earth and used its weapons to commit mass murder. Whenever a roadside IED explodes in Iraq and another American soldier dies, every time another wedding party is mistakenly bombed and children die, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney commit murder. Are we not willing accomplices if we continue to allow these crimes to continue?

Those whom we empower by our vote to either serve us in Congress or to lead our nation as president have a duty to use the power we give them to ensure accountability for its abuse. They have a duty to focus and to maintain attention on the most egregious and deadly violations of our laws and to not allow murder to go unpunished. They have a duty to do whatever it takes to make such crimes the headline of every newspaper and the lead of every radio, television and cable news program during every news cycle until such time as the murderers who occupy our nation’s highest offices are held fully accountable.

¤ ¤ ¤ ¤ ¤

William John Cox is a retired supervising prosecutor for the State Bar of California. Acting as a public interest, pro bono, attorney, he filed a class action lawsuit in 1979 on behalf of every citizen of the United States petitioning the Supreme Court to order the other two branches of the federal government to conduct a National Policy Referendum; he investigated and successfully sued a group of radical right-wing organizations in 1981 that denied the Holocaust; and he arranged in 1991 for the publication of the suppressed Dead Sea Scrolls. His 2004 book, You’re Not Stupid! Get the Truth: A Brief on the Bush Presidency is reviewed at yourenotstupid.com, and his political writings are collected at thevoters.org. He can be contacted at u2cox@msn.com.

Have Your Say: Holding murderers accountable
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

New Labour banging war drums - again

Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008

Socialist Worker | The new Labour government is leading the West’s war of words against Russia in its dispute with Georgia.

Foreign secretary David Miliband went to the Ukraine last month to drum up an “anti-Russian coalition” and enthuse about extending Nato eastwards.

But Western powers are too overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan to intervene militarily against an opponent such as Russia.

They fear future Russian intervention into Ukraine or Azerbaijan, but also need Russian cooperation in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

They are also reliant on the energy resources that Russia provides.

The root of the dispute between Russia and the West is not about complex national questions, but about who controls the Caucasus region.

Underpinning that rivalry are US attempts to expand Nato to bring more countries under its military and political influence. The Caspian Sea, which Russia borders, is rich in oil and gas. It is a glittering prize for the big powers.

The demonstration on 20 September at Labour’s annual conference in Manchester will bring together opposition to David Miliband’s and Gordon Brown’s policies. The threat of war is spreading and the world is now more dangerous than at any time since the beginning of the “war on terror”.

The anti-war movement needs to grow to defeat that challenge.

Have Your Say: New Labour banging war drums - again
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 am and is filed under Contributions & Guests, Top Story . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: