Former Lib Dem minister Sarah Teather has said she will rebel against the coalition and vote against plans to cut benefit payments.

On Tuesday MPs will vote on the government’s proposal to restrict the rise in benefit payments to a below inflation 1% – a real terms cut.

Nick Clegg has argued that the Lib Dem presence in government prevented even harsher cuts to welfare payments. However this was not good enough for Teather.

“We have a huge problem with in-work child poverty and we’re only going to make this significantly worse,” she said on Monday.

Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme, Teather added: “I feel deeply anxious about the policy and I will be voting against the Bill tomorrow very reluctantly and with a very heavy heart.”

The Brent Central MP, who faces a tough fight to hold on to her seat against Labour at the next election, lost her job as children and families minister in the September reshuffle.

Teather’s announcement that she intends to rebel against the coalition came just one hour before Clegg and David Cameron were due to host a joint press conference designed to show coalition unity or purpose.

She also attacked the “setting up” of a “strivers verses scroungers” narrative that drove “envy and division”.

“Families who are earning the least amount of money really struggle to be able to pay for their basics,” she said.

Catherine McKinnell: The Child Benefit Changes Are Chaotic, Unfair and Perverse

Bahraini Shiite Muslims wave their national flags and shout slogans during an anti-government protest in the Manama coastal suburb of Karbabad on December 28, 2012 (AFP Photo / Mohammed Al-Shaikh)

A top Bahraini court has overturned an appeal by 13 anti-regime activists on their sentences for protesting in 2011. The ruling could lead to further unrest by majority Sunni Muslim groups pushing for democracy in the Shiite-ruled kingdom.

Eight of the activists received life sentences for “plotting to overthrow the state” by participating in 2011’s anti-government protests. The other sentences ranged from five to 15 years in prison.

“This verdict is final, there are no more appeals possible, it is the last stage of litigation,” lawyer Mohammed al-Jishi told Reuters by telephone from a court in the nation’s capital Manama.

Human rights groups are calling for the activists’ release, claiming that no evidence was presented to show the leaders participated in any violence during the demonstrations in February and March 2011.

The ruling is likely to provoke heavy criticism from international human rights groups

The 13 whose appeals were overturned were originally part of a group of 20 activists taken into custody in 2011, eight of whom received life sentences.

All of the suspects were initially convicted by a military tribunal of conspiring against Bahrain’s Shiite royal family and “setting up terror groups to topple the regime.” They then lost an appeal in civilian court a year later last September, following which only thirteen resolved to appeal again.

Unrest in the island kingdom began in February 2011 at the outset of the Arab Spring, when pro-democracy movements began to hold protests in Manama. The demonstrators also demanded an end to the discrimination of Bahrain’s Sunni majority by the ruling Shiite monarchy.

Activists occupied a central monument in the Bahraini capital for a month. Bahraini rulers then called a state of emergency, and brought in soldiers from surrounding Gulf kingdoms as part of a brutal police crackdown on public dissent.

Bahrain, which is home to the US’ fifth naval fleet, has seen a recent outbreak of protest before New Year’s. Protesters called for the ouster of Prime Minister Khalifa, who has headed Bahrain’s government for more than 40 years. Government security forces dispersed the activists with teargas.

Violent crackdowns on protesters have become a regular occurrence in Bahrain, during which teargas, stun grenades, rubber bullets and even live ammunition are fired on demonstrators, Amnesty International reported.

Despite widespread humanitarian condemnation of the unrest rocking the nation, many nations have been hesitant to comment on the situation. The US has appealed to the nation’s rulers to negotiate with the opposition, but has stopped short of openly criticizing the regime.

Asma Darwish of the European-Bahraini Organization for Human Rights told RT that the “excessive use of violence” employed by the government showed “no actual intention of the authorities to enhance the situation or to have a real political reform on the ground in Bahrain.”

Eighty people have been killed and thousands have been arrested since unrest began in Bahrain. A 2011 investigation by the Bahrain Commission of Inquiry also revealed that many Bahraini activists and politicians were subjected to torture while in police custody.

Syrian authorities said so in 2011. Other reports acknowledged it then and now.

Syria is Washington’s war. It was planned years ago. America wants pro-Western puppet leadership replacing Assad.

All independent governments are targeted for regime change. Imperial rogue states operate that way.

Strategy used is longstanding. On January 4, Michel Chossudovsky discussed it. Current US proxy wars employ earlier tactics. Western-recruited death squads are used.

Using them “go(es) back to the Vietnam war.”

“Terror brigades (commit) targeted assassinations (and) countless atrocities.”

Since Syria’s conflict erupted in March 2011, Washington, key NATO allies, Israel, and other regional allies recruited, armed, trained, and directed death squads.

They’re still doing it. They’re imported from abroad. More on that below.

Washington prioritizes the “Salvador Option.” Rules of engagement proliferated massacres, torture, and gruesome atrocities in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

In Vietnam, Operation Phoenix (OP) did the same things earlier. It became a template for future counterterrorism operations.

From 1968 — 1973, CIA operatives, Special Forces, and Military Assistance Command Vietnam-Special Operations Group (MACV-SOG) conducted covert missions.

Their mandate was to crush National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) resistance. Strategy was to terrorize people into submission.

Operations were no holds barred. Indiscriminate mass murder and atrocities were committed. US military personnel and South Vietnamese government officials considered security risks were targeted.

High-value elements mattered most. Countless others were affected. Around 80,000 died before operations ended.

Later reports said OP failed. John Pilger called America’s Southeast Asian war “the grand illusion of the American cause.” What couldn’t succeed finally ended.

Many remember Washington’s humiliating April 30, 1975 Saigon embassy rooftop exit. Perhaps Middle East/North African/Central Asian ones await.

America considers state-sponsored terrorism success stories.

Johnson and Nixon prioritized them. So did Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton and Obama. Rogue states operate no holds barred. Inviolable international and domestic laws are spurned.

Unchallenged global dominance alone matters. Unlimited body count totals and mass destruction further it. Wars of aggression are called liberating ones. Humanitarian intervention duplicity justifies them.

Patriotism means going along with criminal lawlessness. Truth is turned on its head. Media scoundrels suppress it. Rogue politicians betray their constituents.

It’s institutionalized. Empires never say they’re sorry. Policy is made through the barrel of a gun. It’s not pretty. It proliferates state terror globally. Most people haven’t a clue.

They’re hooked on bread and circuses. They’re mindless about what affects them most. Their dismissiveness compromises their own security. Their futures are jeopardized. Their children may not have one worth living. People are on their own to fight back.

Prioritized wealth, power, privilege and dominance undermine what’s too important to lose. Permanent imperial wars alone divert trillions of vitally needed dollars. They’re not available for essential domestic needs.

Popular ones go begging. Bailing out bankers and rewarding other corporate favorites matter more. So do imperial conquests. Permanent war is policy.

Direct and proxy ones are waged. Brutal assassins are used. They’re recruited abroad. A UN report said 29 countries supply them. The worst of cutthroat killers are hired guns. They’re enlisted to advance America’s imperium.

They’re waging war on Assad. It’s mischaracterized as civil. There’s nothing civil about Washington’s war on Syria. The same dirty game repeats. Independent states are targeted for regime change. All options are used.

They include full-scale war, mass killing, and gruesome atrocities. Nations are transformed into charnel houses. It’s done on the pretext of liberating them.

American-style freedom is slavery. Mainstream discourse doesn’t explain. It repeats long ago discredited notions. Responsibility to protect (R2P) duplicity justifies what demands condemnation.

Media scoundrels suppress imperial lawlessness. Western-inflicted violence and bloodshed go unnoticed. Victims are blamed for aggressor crimes. The same dirty game repeats.

Post-9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq were ravaged and destroyed. So was Libya last year. Now it’s Syria’s turn. Perhaps Iran comes next.

Most Syrians deplore violence. They oppose internal and external elements committing it. They support protective security forces. They represent a vital last line of defense.

Conflict continues without end. On January 1, Press TV headlined “Al-Qaeda, Israel’s Trojan horse in Middle East: Iranian MP,” saying:

Iranian Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee member Mohammad-Hassan Asafari said:

“The Zionist regime has become the largest training base for active terrorists in the Middle East region and the footprint of this sinister regime can be easily traced in recent terrorist operations.”

Al Qaeda and like-minded terrorists wage war on Syria. They’re closely allied with Washington. They’re recruited throughout the region and beyond.

Israel provides training and intelligence support. A separate Press TV report headlined “US, Israel major players in Syria crisis: Iran cmdr,” saying:

“Chairman of Iran’s Armed Forces Joint Chiefs of Staff Major General Hassan Firouzabadi says the United States and Israel are major players in the Syrian crisis.”

“The number of terrorists in Syria, compared with the people and the popular army of this country, is not high and they are weak.”

“However, they have been provided with advanced weapons and shoot people from hiding places, and this is not a coherent and systematic move.”

The London Independent discussed the issue. It’s report was largely one-sided. It headlined “Foreign fighters fuel the sectarian flames in Syria.”

It called the conflict “sectarian.” Doing so implies civil war. It covered up a foreign invasion. It cited a duplicitous Human Rights Council International Commission of Inquiry for Syria report.

It claimed Syrian forces “resorted to aerial bombardments, including shelling of hospitals.” It called such attacks “disproportionate.” It blamed Assad for Western aggression.

The Media turn truth on its head. Managed news substitutes for the real thing. Readers and viewers aren’t told what they most need to know.

Offensive Patriot missiles arrived in Turkey. They’re positioned near Syria’s border. NATO maintains control.

On January 4, an AFRICOM statement said America began transporting 400 troops to Turkey. Additional equipment will arrive by sea.

US forces will be based at Gaziantep. It’s 50km north of Syria’s border. Missile batteries will be fully operational later in January. They’re for offense, not defense.

Plans may involve establishing a backdoor no-fly zone. Doing so would circumvent Security Council authority.

Washington-led NATO heads closer to full-scale intervention. The new year promises more bloodshed.

On January 6, Press TV headlined “Russian warships gathering off Syria waters to deter West: Report.”

The Sunday Times was cited. It said Russia sent sent five landing ships. On board are military vehicles, hundreds of marines, and combat vessels.

“Russia should be prepared for any developments as it believes the situation in Syria might reach its peak before Easter,” it said. An unnamed diplomatic source was quoted.

He added that Russia intends to deter “the West from deploying ground forces.” Moscow says its ships are to “improve the management, maintenance, and testing of the interaction of naval forces.”

Another Russian warship carrying marines heads for Tartus. Moscow maintains its only Mediterranean base in the Syrian port city.

On December 29, two other warships, the Azov and Nikolai Filchenkov, were deployed. They’ll arrive in Syrian waters shortly.

“In mid-December, Russia’s Defense Ministry announced that a fleet of Russian warships had been sent from the Baltic port of Baltiysk to the Mediterranean Sea near the Syrian waters.”

“Syria, Russia and Iran say” deploying offensive Patriot missiles near Syria’s border “could spark an eventual military action by NATO.”

On January 2, Iran’s Fars News Agency (FNA) headlined “Foreign Military Intervention in Syria: Red Line for Russia,” saying:

Mehdi Sanayee is a senior Iranian legislator. He’s a National Security and Foreign Policy Commission member. He’s also a Russian expert.

He told FNA:

“Causing developments through military intervention and remaining empty-handed in the developments in Syria are Moscow’s red lines.”

Deploying Russian forces represents a “new step” in the Syrian conflict.

“Russia tries to prove on the international scene that it is committed to its strategy, which is opposition to and confrontation against foreign military intervention and unilateral moves in Syria to show that it has not surrendered on them,” he said.

He referred to Vladimir Putin’s earlier comments. They suggested Moscow’s new position. It remains to be seen what follows.

Patrick Seale is a longtime Middle East analyst. On January 1, he offered grim new year tidings. “The coming year” won’t be “happy” for “the tormented Middle East,” he said.

“(T)he balance sheet of the past two years remains profoundly negative.” Nowhere throughout the region have “convincing sign(s) of peace and reconciliation” emerged.

Some countries suffered more than others. He called the “Palestine cause….all but lost. The two-state solution is virtually extinct.” He stopped short of saying it’s been that way for years.

He stressed the importance of preserving a “unitary Syrian state.” Doing so is essential to “containing Israel.” Resolving the conflict militarily can’t succeed.

The only solution is mutually agreed on ceasefire, halting weapons and funding sent insurgents, “isolat(ing) murderous extremists,” and resolving the conflict politically.

At issue isn’t whether Assad stays or goes. Syria is vitally important. It’s essential to protect its “unique historical heritage, its state institutions, its ancient minorities, and its vital role in the defense of Arab independence.”

On January 6, Assad delivered a major address. It’s his first in months. He called for “comprehensive national dialogue in the near future” with opposition elements and other political parties.

“Syria wants peace and reconciliation,” he stressed. At the same time, “(a)rmed groups must halt terrorist acts.” Outside forces direct them.

They’re “terrorists” and “criminals.” They want Syria’s government ousted. He vowed to defeat them. He called for “full national mobilization.”

“We meet today and suffering is overwhelming Syrian land. There is no place for joy while security and stability are absent on the streets of our country. The nation is for all and we all must protect it.”

“These are the enemies of the people, the enemies of God,” he said. “Eventually they resorted to terrorism to terrorize the people.”

“They call it a revolution, but it has nothing to do with revolution. A revolution needs thinkers. These are a bunch of criminals.”

“The first stage of a political solution would require that regional powers stop funding and arming (opposition forces), an end to terrorist operations, and controlling the borders.”

“We will not have dialogue with a puppet made by the West,” he stressed.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported what he said in detail.

He prefers responsible conflict resolution. He urged it all along. Mutually agreed on ceasefire is essential. Washington and key NATO partners spurn it.

For months, Assad made good faith efforts. A year ago, Syria’s constitution was rewritten. It was put to a popular referendum.

Despite opposition boycotts, threats, anti-Assad media campaigns, and turnout hampered in violence-torn areas, 89.4% of eligible voters approved it. Another 9% opposed, and 1.2% of ballots were invalid.

It includes 157 articles. Key reforms were instituted. They include political pluralism established for the first time. Presidential term limits and press freedom were mandated.

Last May, first time ever legislative elections were held. Doing so was a milestone political event. Independent candidates participated.

Despite ongoing insurgent violence, turnout was high. Voting went smoothly. Independent monitors supervised the process. They included intellectuals, legislators and judicial authorities from other countries.

Ba’ath party members won a 60% majority. Previously they held just over 50% control. With support from independent MPs, they comprise 90% of Syria’s parliament. Opposition party members were also elected.

Assad said nothing about stepping down. He, Russia, China, Iran, and other sources say Syrians alone should choose their government.

Outside interference is rejected. International law is clear and unequivocal. The UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified.

Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes. Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zone acts of war.

In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorized by the Security Council in accordance with UN Charter provisions.

Three General Assembly resolutions also prohibit non-consensual belligerent intervention. They include:

– the 1965 Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention in the Domestic Affairs of States and the Protection of Their Independence and Sovereignty;

– the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations; and

– the 1974 Definition of Aggression.

Under no circumstances may one or more nations intervene against another without lawful Security Council authorization. Doing so constitutes illegal aggression.

Article 8 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention of Rights and Duties says “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”

Under Article 10, differences between states “should be settled by recognized pacific methods.”

Article 11 calls sovereign state territory “inviolable….”

Washington and key NATO partners spurn international law repeatedly. In 1999, without Security Council authorization, nonbelligerent Yugoslavia was lawlessly attacked and ravaged. Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya followed.

Now Syria. America prioritizes attacking one nation at a time or in multiples. Unless stopped, doing so may end up destroying humanity in the process.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/foreign-terrorists-wage-war-on-syria/

Anastasia Davydova, who won the gold medal in the synchronized swimming’s team events during the 2012 Summer Olympics, at London’s Bosco Club (RIA Novosti / Ekaterina Chesnokova)

After ending her record-breaking career this summer, five-time Olympics champion Anastasia Davydova has to turned to coaching, aiming to further raise Russia’s profile in the sport of synchronized swimming.

­Davydova won’t have to hide her trademark butterfly tattoos now that she is retired from competitive sports. Just a month shy of turning 30, the Olympic champion is now a full-time coach.

Her triumph in the London 2012 Olympic Summer Games still evokes sweet memories, she said.

“London Games was very emotional for me,” Davydova told RT. “Claiming gold number five is not something that happens to you every day. Going into the Games, I knew I’d be proud of myself for coming back and winning again. And so it turned out.”

Davydova had been retired for a year before her wins in the British capital made her the most-decorated synchronized swimmer of the games.

She now aims for further Olympic glory as a coach, even beyond the 2016 Rio Games. Bringing up the next generation of champions takes more than just skill — the swimmer-turned-coach spends up to 13 hours a day poolside

“Patience is the main thing, and I’m doing my best to always stay calm,” she explained. “Because when you’ve perfected your own sport, you just don’t understand how others can find it difficult. Other than that, I’m experienced enough to train others and I can explain to my charges what needs to be explained in great detail.”

Davydova could have earned more if the 13-time world champion had accepted one of many offers to work abroad. Her former duet partner Anastasia Ermakova has already moved to Italy to coach.

But Davydova rates results over money, praising Russia’s system for training future athletes.

“For us, sport comes before school,” she said. “Of course, kids are still being educated but they either hire tutors or take exams without actually attending. Training takes up most of their time from about the age of nine. So they are fully prepared to compete for the national team if and when they are called up. This approach is unique.”

Russia has been a dominant presence in the sport since the 2000 Sydney Games. Even with a host of Russian greats now retired, the country’s national team still boasts stars such as Natalia Ischenko and Svetlana Romashina.

The Russian duet, consisting of Svetlana Romashina, foreground, and Anastasia Davydova, background, has won the gold in synchronized swimming technical routines at the 2009 World Aquatics Championships (RIA Novosti / Alexander Vilf)

Lord Strathclyde, the Conservative leader of the House of Lords, has stepped down with immediate effect, to revive a career in business.

He was appointed to the Lords by Margaret Thatcher in 1988, serving as leader of the Tories in the upper house for the past 15 years.

Lord Strathclyde, 52, was never fully behind Nick Clegg’s Lords reform plans and friends say that with that battle behind him now would be a good time to go.

In his resignation letter he wrote: “When I was invited to join the Government by Margaret Thatcher in 1988, I never believed it was a career for life.

“I didn’t expect it to consume me for as long as it has or that I would one day lead the Lords and sit in a Cabinet.

“I always promised myself that when I leave I would do so when I could make a smooth handover to a strong successor. Whatever my feelings on the matter, reform of the Lords is effectively over and now is a good time to mange that handover.”

David Cameron responded by expressing his sorrow at his departure but said: “After a quarter of a century on the front bench I entirely understand your desire to pursue other interests.

“You have been an outstanding Leader of the Lords.”

Although serving a relatively distinguished political career, his personal life was hit by scandal in 2011 when the Mirror exposed his alleged affair with a “penniless single mother”.

Lord Hill of Oareford will replace Lord Strathclyde. Lord Hill served as political secretary to John Major when he was PM and became a life peer in 2010.

He famously tried to quit after the cabinet reshuffle last year, but Cameron was apparently so distracted he failed to hear.

All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network. Click here for more

Problems with this site? Please let us know

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to what is going to become a series of reports on environmental and climate change issues with Patrick Bond, who now joins us from South Africa.

Patrick is the director of the Centre for Civil Society and a professor at the university of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa. He’s written many books. One of his latest is The Politics of Climate Justice and Durban’s Climate Gamble.Thanks for joining us, Patrick.PATRICK BOND, GLOBAL ECON. PROJECT DIRECTOR, INST. FOR POLICY STUDIES: Great to be with you again, Paul.JAY: So, looking forward to 2013, what do you think are going to be the big issues in terms of environmental and climate change questions?BOND: A lot of ground was broken in 2012 at the Rio Earth Summit–that was Rio+20–in June. And the phrases that your listeners, your audience would have heard are “green economy”, “payment for ecosystem services”, “natural capital”. And these were theorized, well, for many years.And the idea is that if you value the environment, you should put a price tag on it so that its destruction is not just a [free] activity–so say the proponents. But critics say this is equivalent to neoliberalizing nature or privatizing the air in the case of climate and carbon trading. And what became even trickier was in Doha the idea called loss and damage, which is another way of saying that the North owes the South a climate debt for the huge destructive force. I mean, Barack Obama just asked for some $60 billion from Congress to clean up after Sandy. And so this is the sort of huge scale of loss and damage, and even more so in the Third World, the main victims of climate change here in Africa, maybe 200 million deaths anticipated this century.And the big question we’ll all be asking in the coming months: can you put a price on it? And if you do so, in order for the North to pay up, does that mean that you endorse markets for the environment? And that’s a tricky situation for many environmentalists not wanting to go too far towards neoliberal nature, but on the other hand, demanding a climate and an ecological debt be paid.JAY: Well, you’ve got to–I guess if you need something paid, you’ve got to put a price on it. But that is a separate question, then, isn’t it, from whether it’s going to be a privatized solution or not. They’re two separate issues, aren’t they?BOND: That’s right. And one of the finest theorists, Larry Lohmann at Corner House group, explained it to me in Rio very simply, and I think we all should learn from Larry Lohmann. He said the difference between a fine on a big corporation, for example, Texaco–Texaco, now Chevron, polluted about $8 billion worth in the Ecuadoran Amazon, and a court found them guilty. Of course, they’re refusing to pay. They’re a big U.S. corporation. And the idea is they should be fined and then banned from doing that again. And that is an acceptable strategy for progressive environmentalists.The problem is if you allow that activity to be mandated through a fee, a fee for an ecosystem service. And it’s in that very nuanced distinction between putting a price on something because you value it and making someone who destroys it pay for the damage on the one hand, which I think is reasonable–on the other hand, the danger would be if you try to create markets. And this is what’s really running rampant. Here in southern Africa, natural capital will soon be actually calculated as a way to correct gross domestic product, something that’s way overdue, because GDP, what economists like to do to measure growth, ignores environmental destruction, not to mention women’s unpaid labor or community activism or crime or family breakdown. All of these important things are not measured. And the attempt to correct it, natural capital, if it’s used properly, would give us a whole new dimension on whether we should be extracting at the rate, for example, here in our platinum mines we do which led to the Marikana Massacre in August. And that’s the sort of question that I think environmentalists and community activists and labor movements, women’s groups, will be asking more and more. Is it really worth it? And should we not be calculating into a cost-benefit analysis the destructive capacity of capital when it meets nature, and then trying to prevent that process from becoming something like a carbon market or offsets for biodiversity? And a green economy strategy of the World Bank of many big agencies leans towards markets. And this is going to be the struggle of 2013, I predict.JAY: Well, the argument I guess you would hear from Wall Street or others that support what I’m about to say, which is that without the financialization of these issues, you can’t attract the kind of capital that’s required to either have mitigation programs or various things to reduce carbon emission, and that you need to harness the power of international finance, and the only way to do that is make it attractive for them–.BOND: Well, [indeed, that] for 15 years was the underlying assumption behind emissions trading. And to tell you how well that works, simply go to Chicago, where in 2010 they had to close the market. That was the one that former vice president Al Gore was involved in. And the European Union’s emissions trading scheme, which is the largest–over $100 billion a year worth of trading–it’s really crashing and hasn’t done well since here in Durban about a year ago we had the COP17, the climate summit. And as it was said by Bank of America, that summit, like the Doha, gave a little bit of confidence for traders that their system would still be in place. They said it was like a Viagra shot–but that doesn’t last very long, as many men know.I think the point is the carbon markets have demonstratively shown they cannot finance renewable energy. You really need about a $50 per ton price on carbon dioxide, and these markets are running at around $7 or $8, and so they just are unable to deliver the goods. And therefore there are NGOs out there who are calling for the European Union’s emissions trading scheme to be shut down, and instead, a replacement system, a regulatory system, a cap system that would then ban, eventually, the fossil fuels that threaten to destroy our planet.And I think that’s the way to go. Since markets have failed, we really have to turn to a regulatory approach. And the problem is, of course, there are still a lot of people, even in environmental groups, who still believe that the bankers can solve a problem this big, even after all the evidence of the last five years of destruction by bankers. I don’t understand them, but they still believe that.JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us, Patrick. And we’re going to dig more into these issues with–I think we’re going to do this every week or every other week with Patrick. So thanks again, Patrick. BOND: Great to be with you, Paul. Thanks.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

David Cameron and Nick Clegg will announce on Monday that the coalition government is “steadfast and united”.

Really?

The Huffington Post UK had a little dig through the video archives and managed to splice together a slideshow for you that seems to suggest anything but.

From rivals to friends to rivals again.

All in less than two years. Oh well, surely the next two years must be better, right?

AFP Photo / Kirill Kudryavtsev

Legislation establishing two special zones for popular political events in Moscow came into effect on January 7. Those hoping to organize demonstrations will no longer have to request authorization, only inform the park’s management.

­The two areas Moscow authorities designated for rallies and political debates are situated in two city parks: Gorky Park in the city center, and Sokolniki in the southeast. Each can host up to 2,000 people.

Starting January 7, anyone seeking to arrange a rally must inform the park’s management no earlier than 15 and no later than three days before the event.

Russian media and activists have dubbed the areas Moscow’s ‘Hyde Parks,’ referring to the London park where anyone can freely express himself in the ‘Speakers’ Corner.’

The amendments to the legislation regulating public gatherings were prompted by mass rallies in Moscow and in other cities throughout Russia last year. Thousands of people demonstrated to demand fair elections following accusations that Russia’s December 2011 parliamentary elections were fraudulent.

The specified areas will not be able to host massive rallies, which will still require a special permit from Moscow authorities, but aim to satisfy public demands for space for small gatherings.

Last year, the Moscow mayoral office received over 200 applications for different kinds of rallies with less than 1,000 participants.

Many members of the Russian opposition have expressed skepticism about the plan, complaining that the areas are too far from the city center and too small to host large rallies.

The amended legislation also stipulated that single-person pickets pursuing one common goal must now be authorized by authorities. Previously, a single-person picket could be held without a permit as long as there were no other protesters within 50 meters.

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore.

We’re continuing our series of interviews on Canadian foreign policy based on the book The Ugly Canadian. Now joining us is the author of that book, Yves Engler. As I said, he’s a Canadian commentator and author, and his book is–the full title–The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s Foreign Policy. He now joins us from Ottawa. Thanks for joining us again, Yves.YVES ENGLER, AUTHOR AND POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Thanks for having me.JAY: So kick us off. Again, as we’ve been going through these interviews, I’ve been–keep saying it should be The Uglier Canadian, because it’s not that Harper’s setting a whole new course for Canada, but it does seem to be positioned in a more, what, militant way. Is that also true in terms of Canadian-Iranian relations?ENGLER: For sure, for sure. The Harper government has–that’s one where I think is–there is some–they’ve gone out of their way to be at the forefront in condemning Iran in shutting–they shut down–about two months ago, they shut down the Canadian embassy in Tehran and shut down the Iranian embassy in Canada and expelled Iranian diplomats, and that was a pretty aggressive move that is often seen as the step before a full-scale declaration of war.JAY: And why would they have done this? I mean, in a sense you would think with Canada having an embassy there, there’s some pragmatically useful role to having an outpost there. The Americans get to use it covertly. There’s some practicality to it. And closing it is sort of a symbolism for whom? Like, who cares that Canada closes their embassy?ENGLER: Yeah, well, that. And there is longstanding allegations of Canadians spying in Iran for Washington. And, of course, going back to 1979, obviously, the American diplomats that are, you know, taken into the Canadian embassy there and taken out of the country, which the movie Argo, Ben Affleck’s recent movie, is in large part about. So there is–that was clearly use of the embassy.I think the main reason for the timing of the shutting down of the embassy, one is that I think the Harper government wants to fully support Netanyahu’s belligerence vis-à-vis Iraq. And so this shutting down the embassy was a sort of a small contribution to that, sort of creating the dynamic for an attack against Iran, or at least to, you know, heighten sanctions and sort of controlling Iran.But I think the specific timing was motivated partly because two weeks before–ten days, two weeks before shutting down the embassy, Iran had the Nonaligned Movement, a very successful Nonaligned Movement meeting there, where I think it was 110 different countries represented, 60 heads of state. The head of–Ban Ki-moon from the UN was on visit even after both John Baird (Canadian foreign minister), Hillary Clinton from the Obama administration, and Netanyahu had all publicly criticized Ban Ki-moon for going and asked him not to go. So I think this was a reaction, this was a sort of an attempt to–after the successful Iranian meeting where they were able to break out of some of this isolation that the U.S. and Israel and Canada and some of Europe are trying to isolate, this was somewhat of a success. So the response that Canada did to that was to try to, you know, attack Iran diplomatically by shutting down the embassy.JAY: Which, as you say, supports Netanyahu’s narrative and may even be something they asked for.ENGLER: Exactly. That’s certainly possible [incompr.] And also there was some speculation even at the extreme end that this was to support Netanyahu when he was kind of in battle with Barack Obama, and there are some, you know, disagreements there where, you know, obviously, Netanyahu did the whole red-line thing at the UN, and this was sort of Canada’s kind of contribution to that. I’m not sure that that’s–necessarily was a conscious attempt to sort of somewhat undermine Obama’s decision. I don’t quite go that far, but certainly clearly wanting to support Netanyahu.And it fits within a longstanding–a lot of other different elements to Canada’s policy. There’s Canadian naval vessels patrolling off the coast of Iran, running provocative maneuvers alongside U.S. armada. There’s Canadian troops in Afghanistan, occupying country bordering Iran. There’s Joint Task Force 2, the Canadian special commandos in Afghanistan. Everything they do is secretive, so I have no proof of this, but I wouldn’t exclude the possibility that the JTF 2 were involved in crossborder incursions into Iran. So I think the Conservative government has really been [incompr.] I consider it a low-level war that Canada’s waging against Iran. The economic sanctions–the point of those sanctions is basically to have the Iranian economy [incompr.] You know. And what that means at a human level is people who are having difficulty getting milk and eggs having that much more difficulty getting those foodstuffs. And so the Conservative government has been participating in what should really be understood as a low-level war against Iran, and it’s having a consequence on, you know, millions of Iranians’ lives. Hopefully, it won’t escalate into a full-scale war, but that’s still a clear possibility.JAY: And we pointed out on The Real News many times that this sanctions war, economic sanctions, to quote Biden, killer sanctions still are taking place at a time when there’s no credible evidence from the IAEA that there actually is a nuclear weapons program in Iran, and American intelligence agencies, as far as we know, continue to say there’s been no decision to create a bomb in Iran, yet, quote-unquote, killer sanctions are on anyway, and, as you say, Canada’s fully part of it.Let me ask one other question. Canadian foreign policy traditionally is very connected to making money. It’s usually somehow to do with some trade advantage for Canada. It seems they’d be the overriding concern for most Canadian foreign policy. Is there some straight economic advantage in terms of this closer relationship with Israel which seems to be partly driving Canadian Iran policy?ENGLER: Yeah. Well, a couple of things just on that. One thing I’ll say about the–one of the reasons for closing down the embassy, why it was made easier to close down the embassy in Tehran, is the fact that the Harper government has had a policy of trying to dissuade economic relations with Iran. And so one of the main objectives of the Canadian embassy anywhere in the world is basically to advance the interests of Canadian corporations in that country. And because they’ve had–this campaign to try to dissuade economic relations with the radicals goes back before the actual formal sanctions, there’s so little Canadian business going on in Iran. So shutting down the embassy becomes that much easier, because you don’t have a pushback from, you know, sort of business interests that are active in that country. So that’s sort of one of the elements to sort of explaining the shutting down of the embassy in Iran.The other–in terms of the Israel element, I don’t know that–I don’t think it’s motivated by business interests. There are deepening ties between Canadian companies and Israeli companies, and that’s been going on for quite a while. There was a free trade agreement that a previous government in 1997 signed with Israel, and since that time there’s been a real growth of trade and investment between the two countries. And I think where there’s clear deepening of ties is at the corporate, if you like, the military-industrial complex level, where Canadian military companies are increasingly tied in with Israeli companies. And a lot of that’s facilitated by public money and different programs–the Canada-Israel Industrial Relations Accord, I think it’s called, where there’s $7 million of public money a year devoted to that. And so you have, you know, a Canadian company involved in drone-making with the Israeli company.JAY: Yeah, I was about to say I think a lot of people don’t know just how big an arms manufacturer Canada is. I mean, last time I looked, I think Canada was in the top ten. It’s the ninth or tenth biggest arms manufacturer in the world.ENGLER: Yeah, different groups have–I think it’s as high as six; between six and twelve is kind of–depending on the formula used to quantify such things. So there is significant–you know, Canada’s a huge aerospace country. I think it’s the third or fourth biggest aerospace industry in the world. And those aerospace–a company like CAE, Montreal-based company, they do–I think they’re considered sort of one of the best of the flight simulation. And so a big chunk of what they do is training, you know, military pilots. So there is a significant Canadian arms industry that goes right down into, you know, producing bullets, even, you know, at the–most of it’s more at the components level, tied into American military companies, but there are, you know, still Canadian companies that produce even, you know, sort of more traditional kind of weapons like bullets. And so they’re a big lobby. And Israel is a very successful high-tech military economy, and so from the standpoint of the Canadian military companies, developing ties with their Israeli counterparts is, you know, quite lucrative, and it’s sort of cutting-edge kind of stuff. And I think that’s definitely an important part of understanding the deepening of ties between Canada and Israel.JAY: Alright. Thanks very much for joining us. And we’re going to continue this series on Canadian foreign policy. If you’d like to see more programming like this, we need your support. We’re in our year-end fundraising campaign. Every dollar you donate gets matched until we reach $100,000 in this campaign. There’s a Donate button somewhere over here. If you don’t click on that, we can’t do this.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

The following timeline of the December 14 mass killing of 20 children and 8 adults in Newtown Connecticut attempts to demonstrate how the event was presented to the public by corporate news media. The chronological assemblage of coverage is not comprehensive of all reports published on the incident but rather seeks to verify how the storyline was to a substantial degree constructed by federal and to a lesser degree state law enforcement authorities and major media around the theory (prior to a complete and exhaustive police investigation) that 20-year-old Adam Lanza was the sole agent in the massacre.

From the outset, this scenario became an established reality through the news media’s pronounced repetition of the “lone gunman” narrative and meme. This proposed scenario significantly obscured the fact that police encountered and apprehended two additional shooting suspects on the school’s grounds within minutes of the crime. These suspects remain unaccounted for by authorities but the roles they may have played arguably correlate with the shifting information presented by authorities and major news media on injuries and weapons vis-à-vis the mass carnage meted out in the school. While the detainment of additional suspects was pointed to by alternative news media, in the days following the tragedy, the lone gunman narrative has become firmly established in the public psyche via an overwhelming chorus of corporate media reports and interpretations.

Note: Times of occurrences referenced are Eastern Standard Time and in some instances signify time of publication rather than the specific incident cited. Time of publication does not always correlate with exact time of incident. “n.t.” denotes “no time” of publication referenced.

2012

At the start of the 2012-13 academic year Sandy Hook Elementary School Principal Dawn Hochsprung announces in a public letter to families the Newtown School District’s new security system installed “in all elementary schools.” Under the newly-announced security regimen, “exterior doors will be locked during the day. Every visitor will be required to ring the doorbell at the front entrance and the office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Visitors will still be required to report directly to the office and sign in. If our office staff does not recognize you, you will be required to show identification with a picture id. Please understand that with nearly 700 students and over 1,000 parents representing 500 SHS families, most parents will be asked to show identification. Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m.” “Principal Outlined New Security Procedures at Sandy Hook Elementary,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012, 8:25PM EST.

9:47AM
Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung Tweets photo of emergency drill held at Sandy Hook fire station with Sandy Hook Elementary faculty and students participating. Esther Zuckerman, “The Sandy Hook Principal’s Twitter Feed is Haunting,” The Atlantic Wire, December 14, 2012.

n.t.
Following Obama’s reelection Senator Diane Feinstein is believed to be meeting with relevant federal agencies to lay groundwork for reenacting assault weapons ban. “Senator Diane Feinstein Moves to Ban All Assault Rifles, High Capacity Magazines, and Pistol Grips,” Market Daily News, November 7, 2012.

10:14AM
Hartford Courant publishes online Google map of Sandy Hook Elementary School. “Map of Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012.

10:47AM
Connecticut State Police report assisting Newtown police in a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. “The Hartford Courant [<-hyperlink is to a different story] reports there are multiple injures [sic] and unconfirmed reports that one of the shooters is dead while the other is still at large. The school superintendent’s office says the district has locked down schools to ensure the safety of students and staff. Crimeside Staff, “Connecticut School Shooting: Police Investigating Reports of a Shooting at Elementary School,” CBS News, December 14, 2012.

10:47AM
[Famous photo taken by Newtown Bee editor is distributed via CBS and other national media.]

Connecticut School Shooting: Police Investigating Reports of a Shooting at Elementary School,” CBS News, December 14, 2012, 1047AM EST.

11:30AM
A Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Corps dispatcher says a Sandy Hook Elementary School teacher was taken to hospital after being shot in the foot. “There are reports of multiple injuries,” CBS notes. The Newton Bee reports a student with apparently serious wounds was carried out of the facility by a police officer. The school superintendent’s office says all schools in the district remain in lockdown. Crimesider Staff, “Connecticut School Shooting Update: One Gunman Dead, One Teacher Injured at Elementary School,” CBS News, December 14, 2012.

11:34AM
Police say the shooter is dead and two weapons were recovered from him. “The source says one weapon recovered is a Glock and the other is a Sig Sauer.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

12:29PM
Hartford Courant mysteriously publishes online Googlemap of neighborhood of Lanza residence, which is 36 Yogananda St. “Map of 46 Yogananda St. Sandy Hook, CT,” Hartford Courant, December 14, 2012.

12:27PM
Anonymous witness and parent of student says that while attending a meeting with faculty regarding her child she heard “at least 100 rounds” being fired when the shooting began about 9:30 to 9:35AM. “There was a ‘pop pop pop’ in the hall outside the room. Three people went out of the room into the hall where the sounds had come from. ‘Only one person came back.’” The same witness says “she then called 911. She said she never saw the shooter but she later was escorted outside the room past two bodies lying in blood.” “Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

1:57PM
An anonymous federal law enforcement source informs news media the death toll is closer to 30 than 20, with most of those killed being children. The source, who says he is in contact with authorities on the scene, says the suspected gunman had a connection to the school but would not elaborate. Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:09PM
CNN is “told that 18 to 20 of the dead are children.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:11PM
An anonymous law enforcement official tells CNN that the suspect’s name is Ryan Lanza and he is in his 20s. Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:39PM
Anonymous federal law enforcement authorities say “the shooting happened quickly and happened in a concentrated area.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

2:52PM
Father of Sandy Hook Elementary School third grade student Stephen Delgiudice describes to CBS News what his daughter heard over the loudspeaker from the principal’s office. This prompted the teacher to lock the classroom door. “We have a pretty good program in Newtown,” Delgiudice says. “where basically a code red reverse 911 type of a call, and a, came through. [It said] there’s a shooting at the school and naturally I obeyed the speed limit and drove immediately to the school. And ah, y’know it was just mass-mass chaos. I finally got to my daughter–a friend of mine led me to my daughter. I wanted to see her face and hold her, which I did, and once I did that there was a sense of relief, but, uhm, it was just chaos.” Crimesider Staff, “Connecticut School Shooting: Father Says Student Heard Commotion Over Loudspeaker,” CBS News, December 14, 2012.

3:16PM
President Obama addresses nation. “As a country, we have been through this too many times. Whether it’s an elementary school in Newtown, or a shopping mall in Oregon, or a temple in Wisconsin, or a movie theater in Aurora, or a street corner in Chicago — these neighborhoods are our neighborhoods, and these children are our children. And we’re going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

3:51PM
A federal law enforcement official informs CNN that “shooter arrived and headed directly toward and to his mother’s classroom. That and the other information now emerging — another family member killed, police interviews — lead them to believe his mother was the primary target. But they note he also came armed with clear intention of mass killing.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

3:45PM
There were a total of 27 people dead at the school, Lt. Paul Vance of the Connecticut State Police tells assembled reporters. “Eighteen students were pronounced dead at the scene, and two others died at the hospital.” In addition, six adults were pronounced dead at the scene. Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

3:54PM
CNN now reports “three guns found at the scene … the third weapon found on the scene was a .223 Bushmaster. The other weapons, previously reported, are a Glock, and a Sig-Sauer. No word on the models of Glock or Sig-Sauer.” Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

6:34PM
Witnesses attest to seeing bloodied children, hearing as many as 100 shots, and “loud booms.” “It was horrendous,” parent Brenda Lebinski said, who rushed to the school where her daughter is a third grade student. “Everyone was in hysterics — parents, students. There were kids coming out of the school bloodied. I don’t know if they were shot, but they were bloodied.” Lebinski said another parent in the school “during the shooting told her a ‘masked man’ entered the principal’s office and may have shot the principal. Lebinski, who is friends with the mother who was at the school, said the principal was “’severely injured.’” Lebinski’s daughter’s teacher “immediately locked the door to the classroom and put all the kids in the corner of the room.” Nearby resident Melissa Murphy listened to events unfold on a police scanner. “’I kept hearing them call for the mass casualty kit and scream, “Send everybody! Send everybody!” Murphy said. ‘It doesn’t seem like it can be really happening. I feel like I’m in shock.’” A girl interviewed by an NBC Connecticut affiliate said she heard seven loud “booms” while in gym class. “A police officer came in and told us to run outside and so we did,” the unidentified girl said on camera. Dan Burns and Chris Kaufman, “Connecticut Gun Rampage: 28 Dead, Including 20 Children,” Reuters, December 14, 2012.

6:34PM
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg calls for greater gun control measures. “We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership — not from the White House and not from Congress,” Bloomberg said. “That must end today.” Dan Burns and Chris Kaufman, “Connecticut Gun Rampage: 28 Dead, Including 20 Children,” Reuters, December 14, 2012.

6:44PM
US officials representing three different lettered agencies separately identify the suspected shooter as Adam Lanza, in contrast to what investigators said earlier in the day. No explanation is given regarding what prompted confusion among investigators. Lanza’s older brother, Ryan, was taken into custody for general questioning in Hoboken, New Jersey but was not labeled a suspect. “Children and Adults Gunned Down in School Massacre,” CNN, December 14, 2012.

7:13PM
Fox News presents “newly released police dispatch audio” of exchange between 911 dispatcher and Newtown Police and Connecticut State Police encountering two shooting suspects on school grounds. “I have reports that the teacher saw two shadows running past the building, past the gym which would be rear [inaudible].” “Yeah, we got him. He’s coming at me, down [inaudible].” “911 Call Dispatch Audio Reveals Police Response to Sandy Hook School Shooting,” Fox News, December 14, 2012, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16AfZXH33eQ

[Night]
Police recover long gun from automobile in Sandy Hook parking lot. “Police Find Long Gun in Trunk of Car in Sandy Hook Parking Lot, Newtown Connecticut,” NBC News, December 14, 2012.

n.t.
CBS correspondent notes how police have a second shooting suspect in custody who they are interrogating. “Well, they have an individual in custody, who they’re talking to. I am told they’re looking into the person as possibly a second shooter. Now that changes the dynamics here a little bit which goes from–if in fact this turns out to be confirmed–it goes from a lone gunman scenario where somebody has this argument with society and wants to take revenge with the most defenseless people in society to a team of individuals who’ve gotten together and conspired to do something like this.” “School Shooting: Possible Second Gunman in Custody,” CBS News Online, December 14, 2012.

n.t.
The Associated Press interviews an unidentified Sandy Hook Elementary student who describes seeing a shooting suspect prone on the ground in the school’s parking lot. Unidentified student: “And then the police like were knocking on the door, and they’re like, ‘We’re evacuating people! We’re evacuating people!’ So we ran out. There’s police about at every door. They’re leading us, ‘Down this way. Down this way. Quick! Quick! Come on!’ Then we ran down to the firehouse. There’s a man pinned down to the ground with handcuffs on. And we thought that was the victim [sic]. We really didn’t get a good glance at him because there was a car blocking it. Plus we were running really quick.” “Raw: Student Describes Scene at School Shooting,” Associated Press, December 14, 2012.

7:05AM
State Police Lt. J. Paul Advance on ABC’s Good Morning America with George Stephanopoulos.

Vance: This is something that’s going to take a significant amount of time. From the onset we’ve had teams looking into the background of [Adam Lanza], peeling back the layers of the onion, so to speak. We have many, many questions that we need to ask–that we need to explore.
Stephanopoulos: Three guns found on site?
Vance: We haven’t discussed that as of yet, but, uh, in excess of three guns.
Stephanopoulos: More than three guns. And we know also that the guns match those of his mother may have had. Have you been able to put that together yet?”
Vance: We’re–we’re–I don’t have that information specifically—
Stephanopoulos: Do you know if they were obtained legally?
Vance: Again, that’s something we would also have to explore during the investigation.

ABC News, “Tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School,” Good Morning America, December 15, 2012.

8:40AM
Sandy Hook resident Gene Rosen comes forth with story that he encountered six first grade children from Sandy Hook Elementary in his front lawn while feeding his cats. “I thought they were practicing for a play or Cub Scouts, and I went and approached them and it became clear that they were so distressed,” Rosen told CBS News. “And I took them into my house, and they were crying and talking, and I got them into my house, and they were crying and talking [sic], and I got them some stuffed animals.” “Neighbor Found Terrified Children on Front Lawn after School Massacre,” CBS New York, December 15, 2012.

3:45PM
MSNBC: “Connecticut Chief Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver provides an update to the media after he and his team examined the victims’ bodies at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown following Friday’s shootings.” In this exchange Carver and State Police drastically change the story on what weapons were used in the shooting, contending that the Bushmaster 223 was the sole weapon Lanza wielded. Carver exhibits an amazing degree of deferral to law enforcement and overall lack of knowledge about the postmortem operation he has just presided over. For example, a reporter asks, “Were [the students] sitting at their desks or were they running away when this happened?” Carver responds, “I’ll let the guys who–the scene guys talk–address that issue. I, uh, obviously I was at the scene. Obviously I’m very experienced in that. But there are people who are, uh, the number one professionals in that. I’ll let them–let that [voice trails off].” Shortly thereafter another reporter asks, “How many boys and how many girls [were killed]?” Carver shakes his head slowly, “I don’t know.” “Medical Examiner: Rifle Primary Weapon Used in Shootings,” MSNBC, December 15, 2012.

4:32PM
List of Sandy Hook Elementary victims is released. “Police Release Names of Newtown School Shooting Victims,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012,.

8:55PM
Federal authorities confirm there is no record of Adam Lanza using local Newtown shooting range. Michael Isikoff and Hannah Rappleye, “Mom of Suspected Shooter-First to Die–Was Avid Gun Enthusiast, Friend Says,” NBC News, December 15, 2012.

8:55PM
Federal officials claim Lanza took three weapons to Sandy Hook Elementary, a Glock and Sig Sauer, and a Bushmaster .223-caliber semiautomatic assault-style rifle. Authorities remain unclear on whether all guns were used in the attack. Michael Isikoff and Hannah Rappleye, “Mom of Suspected Shooter-First to Die–Was Avid Gun Enthusiast, Friend Says,” NBC News, December 15, 2012.

9:15PM
“An official with knowledge of the investigation” informs the Associated Press that three weapons were found inside Sandy Hook Elementary on or near Adam Lanza’s body–a Bushmaster .223-caliber rifle, a Glock 10mm pistol, and a Sig Sauer 9mm pistol. “Three other guns have also been recovered, but it was not clear where they were found, the official told AP. They were a Henry repeating rifle, an Enfield rifle and a shotgun.” Matt Appuzo and Pete Yost, “Connecticut Shooter Adam Lanza’s Guns Were Registered to Mother Nancy Lanza: Official,” Associated Press/Huffington Post, December 15, 2012.

11:31PM
Adam Lanza’s aunt Marsha Lanza describes Nancy Lanza as “meticulous” and “self-reliant,” pointing out that she kept three guns in the home “for self-defense.” “She would never leave the guns out,” Marsha Lanza asserts. Josh Kovner and Edmund H. Mahoney, “Adam Lanza: A ‘Quiet, Odd’ Loner Living on the Fringes,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

11:31PM
Law enforcement officials state the murder weapon was one of three guns owned by Nancy Lanza:  a semiautomatic rifle or two semiautomatic pistols. Josh Kovner and Edmund H. Mahoney, “Adam Lanza: A ‘Quiet, Odd’ Loner Living on the Fringes,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

11:31PM
Investigators believe Adam Lanza’s behavior was consistent with Asperger’s syndrome, a disorder within “the autism spectrum … marked by difficulty with social interaction. Many with Asperger’s are otherwise high-functioning people. There is no pre-disposition toward violence, experts said.” Josh Kovner and Edmund H. Mahoney, “Adam Lanza: A ‘Quiet, Odd’ Loner Living on the Fringes,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

11:44PM
Law enforcement authorities provide press with detailed information on event which becomes bedrock “official” storyline that Adam Lanza murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School. After shooting his mother twice in the head while she lie in bed Lanza proceeded to Sandy Hook Elementary where he “fired a half-dozen thunderous rounds from a semiautomatic rifle to open a hole big enough to step through in one of the school’s glass doors.” He entered the school and shot Principal Hochsprung and school psychologist Mary Scherlach who after hearing the “sounds of gunfire and shattering glass, bolted into a corridor from a conference room across the hall from the classrooms … The first classroom Lanza reached was teacher Kaitlin Roig’s. Alarmed by the gunfire, Roig hid her students in a bathroom and closed her classroom door. Lanza passed by Roig’s classroom in lieu of substitute teacher Lauren Rousseau’s, shooting all 14 children who investigators believe were huddled and clutching one another in fear, in addition to Rousseau and a special education teacher who happened to be in the room. Lanza next arrived at teacher Victoria Soto’s classroom, who is believed to have hidden her 6- and 7-year old students in a closet. When Lanza demanded to know where the children were, Soto tried to divert him to the other end of the school by saying that her students were in the auditorium. As six of Soto’s students attempted to flee Lanza shot them, Soto and another teacher in the room. Searching for survivors police found the remaining seven of Soto’s students still hiding in the closet. They told the police what had happened. The two teacher’s aides who were killed were Mary Anne Murphy and Rachel Davino. It was unclear which aide was in which room when they were killed. The first officer arriving at the school found Lanza’s body near the door of Soto’s classroom. The intense violence lasted about 10 minutes. Lanza fired at least three, 30-round magazines with deadly accuracy. Two of the people he shot survived. All of the victims were shot multiple times. ‘I did seven (autopsies) myself with three to 11 wounds apiece,’ Chief State Medical Examiner Dr. H. Wayne Carver III said Saturday. ‘Only two were shot at close range. I believe everybody was hit (by bullets) more than once.’” Edward H. Mahoney and Dave Altimari, “A Methodical Massacre, Horror and Heroics,” Hartford Courant, December 15, 2012.

6:44AM
“We too are asking why. We have cooperated fully with law enforcement and will continue to do so. Like so many of you, we are saddened, but struggling to make sense of what has transpired.”–Adam Lanza’s father Peter Lanza said in a statement. Jonathan Dienst, “Conn. Shooting Suspect Adam Lanza’s Father: ‘We Too Are Asking Why,’” NBC News, December 16, 2012.

10:30AM
On CBS’s Face the Nation Bob Orr remarked that at least two computers at the Lanza residence were “smashed to smithereens.” CBS correspondent and former FBI agent John Miller noted “that subpoenas have been issued for all of the shooter’s email accounts and his mother’s accounts, including all of the ‘sent’ mail and ‘received’ mail over a long period of time. Miller said that Lanza’s mother, Nancy, had battled with the school system and eventually took her son out of the schools and home-schooled him.” Christopher Keating, “Newtown Update: CBS Says Two Computers ‘Smashed to Smithereens’ In Lanza Home in Newtown; Subpoenas for All Emails of Mother and Shooter,” Capitol Watch, Courantblogs, December 16, 2012, n.t. [Such programs are typically taped the preceding Friday afternoon.-JT]

12:12PM
Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance states Adam Lanza possessed “an extraordinary amount of weaponry … In addition to an assault-style rifle and at least two handguns, he also had a shotgun in reserve in the car he drove to the school.” Lance claims that when Lanza’s body was found he “still had ‘hundreds of rounds’ of ammunition in multiple magazines, after having already fired hundreds of rounds inside the school.” M. Alex Johnson, “Very Heavily Armed Gunman Shot Mother Multiple Times Before Killing 26 at Connecticut School, Police Say,” NBC News, December 16, 2012.

12:12PM
Details emerge on Adam Lanza enrolling at Western Connecticut State University in 2008 at age 16. Lanza successfully completed six courses “including website production, data modeling, Philosophy 101 and ethical theory – and compiled a solid 3.26 grade-point average.” University officials claim Lanza presented no disciplinary concerns.  M. Alex Johnson, “Very Heavily Armed Gunman Shot Mother Multiple Times Before Killing 26 at Connecticut School, Police Say,” NBC News, December 16, 2012.

[Afternoon]
President Obama travels to Newtown to address grieving community and repeatedly allude to gun control legislation in an 18 minute speech. “We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change. Since I’ve been president, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by mass shootings, [the] fourth time we’ve hugged survivors, the fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims … Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?” Daniela Altimari, “We Must Change, President Tells Nation,” Hartford Courant, December 16, 2012, 11:16PM EST.

4:52PM
Alex Israel was in the same class at Newtown High School with Adam Lanza, who lived a few houses down from her. “You could definitely tell he was a genius,” Israel says. “He was really quiet, he kept to himself.” Lanza’s former bus driver regarded Lanza as “’a nice kid, very polite’ like his brother.” Another former classmate remarked that Lanza “was just a kid” – not a troublemaker, not antisocial, not suggesting in any way that he could erupt like this.” Michael Martinez and David Ariosto, “Adam Lanza’s Family: Mom Liked Parlor Games, Guns; Dad, a Tax Exec, Remarried,” CNN.com, December 16, 2012.

8:06PM
Connecticut State Police Lieutenant J. Paul Vance tells the Huffington Post that Adam Lanza specifically used the Bushmaster .223 rifle to carry out all of the Sandy Hook murders. “Adam Lanza used a semiautomatic Bushmaster .223 rifle during his rampage through Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday,” the Huffington Post reports, “firing dozens of high-velocity rounds as he killed 20 children and six adults … Lanza, 20, carried ‘many high-capacity clips’ for the lightweight military-style rifle, Lt. Paul Vance, a spokesman for the Connecticut State Police, told The Huffington Post in an email. Two handguns and a shotgun were also recovered at the scene. John Rudolf and Janet Ross, “School Shooter Adam Lanza Used Military-Style Bushmaster Rifle,” Huffington Post, December 16, 2012.

8:06PM
Senator Dianne Feinstein announces that she intends to introduce legislation reauthorizing a federal assault weapons ban originally passed in the early 1990s during the Clinton administration that was allowed to lapse in 2004. John Rudolf and Janet Ross, “School Shooter Adam Lanza Used Military-Style Bushmaster Rifle,” Huffington Post, December 16, 2012.

Health science and investigative writer Mike Adams observes that much like the Tucson Arizona, Aurora Colorado, and Wisconsin Sikh temple shootings, mass media are scrubbing their coverage and doctoring the storyline to obscure the fact that there were additional suspects and probable shooters at the crime scene. Mike Adams, “Newtown School Shooting Already Being Changed by the Media to Eliminate Eyewitness Reports of a Second Shooter,” Natural News, December 16, 2012, n.t.

12:51PM
Divorce records reveal the parents of Adam Lanza had joint custody of their son and that Lanza’s father paid yearly alimony totaling $240,000 in 2010, $265,000 in 2011 and $289,800 in 2012. Nancy and Peter Lanza’s divorce cited irreconcilable and was made final in September 2009. The divorce decree designated Adam Lanza’s primary residence with his mother in the Yogananda Street address which Peter Lanza quitclaimed to Nancy. Peter was designated as solely responsible for the cost of college for Adam and brother Ryan and for buying Adam a car. Nancy Lanza seldom discussed domestic affairs with friends. She was otherwise regarded as very open and generous. Allaine Griffith, “After Divorce, Lanzas Had Joint Custody of Adam,” Hartford Courant, December 17, 2012.

12:51PM
A spokeswoman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is uncertain whether Nancy Lanza brought her son to the range or whether he ever fired a weapon there. Allaine Griffith, “After Divorce, Lanzas Had Joint Custody of Adam,” Hartford Courant, December 17, 2012.

1:09PM
Sandy Hook Elementary nurse Sally Cox tells ABC of her encounter with gunman on the morning of December 14 as she crouched underneath her desk. “I could see him from the knees down, 20 feet away, his boots were facing my desk,” Cox said in an interview on Good Morning America. “It was seconds… and then he turned and walked out and I heard the door close.” The 60-year-old staff member then heard “loud popping noises” outside the infirmary. Cox was joined by a school secretary and together they dialed 911 before hiding in a supply closet. Lauren Effron, “Sandy Hook School Nurse Hid From Shooter, ‘His Boots Were Facing My Desk,’” ABC News, December 17, 2012.

1:15PM
Funerals for massacre victims begin in Newtown, with first being for 6 year old Sandy Hook first-grader Jack Pinto. “There are many ways to measure what was lost Friday morning at Sandy Hook,” the Washington Post observes, “a school shooting that has spurred a national debate about public safety and a speech by the president. But no accounting of the damage was as searing as the one that began Monday, when parents stepped behind lecterns and spoke about the children they would miss.” Eli Saslow and Steve Vogel, “Funerals for Newtown Massacre Victims Begin,” Washington Post, December 17, 2012.

1:26PM
Two witnesses in Sandy Hook school shooting are unidentified adults. “There are two adults that were injured in the facility–in the school–and suffered gunshot wounds and are recovering,” Connecticut State Police Lieutenant J. Paul Vance stated. “Our investigators will in fact speak with them when it’s medically appropriate, and certainly they will shed a great deal of light on the facts and circumstances of this tragic investigation that we’re undertaking.” [Vance’s emphasis] “Key Witnesses in Connecticut School Shooting are Survivors,” Hartford Courant, December 17, 2012.

6:39PM
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveils “Demand a Plan” campaign, sponsored by the Mayors Against Illegal Guns bipartisan coalition that requests Congress and President Obama move immediately on gun control measures. Bloomberg calls Washington’s inability to act a “stain on our nation’s commitment to protect our children.” Carlo Delaverson, “NYC Mayor Launches Campaign Against Gun Violence,” NBC News, December 17, 2012.

6:00PM
Infowars reporter Rob Dew utilizes overlooked excerpts from CBS and Associated Press coverage of the massacre to explain how there were additional shooter suspects apprehended by law enforcement on the morning of December 14 that have been left unaccounted for and since dropped from public view. Rob Dew, “Sandy Hook 2^nd Shooter Coverup,” Infowars Nightly News, December 18, 2012.

1:07PM
Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carver II says he will work with a University of Connecticut geneticist to determine what prompted Adam Lanza to act. “I’m exploring with the department of genetics what might be possible, if anything is possible [sic],” Carver says. “Is there any identifiable disease associated with this behavior?” David Owens, “Obama Calls for New Proposals for Gun Control in Wake of Newtown Massacre,” Hartford Courant, December 19, 2012.

11:16PM
Hundreds attend wake of Sandy Hook Principal Dawn Hochsprung, including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, US Senator Richard Blumenthal and US Senator-elect Chris Murphy. Matthew Kauffman, “Communities Say Farewell to Four More Victims of Newtown Shootings,” Hartford Courant, December 19, 2012.

1:42PM
US Attorney General Eric Holder makes unannounced visit to Newtown to meet with Sandy Hook first responders following a meeting in Washington with Vice President Joe Biden, presumably to discuss forthcoming gun control legislation. “Holder to Meet with First Responders in Newtown,” Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press/Hartford Courant, December 20, 2012.

n.t.
Further analysis by alternative news media points to additional Sandy Hook shooting suspects overlooked by corporate media. Niall Bradley, “Sandy Hook Massacre: Official Story Spins Out of Control,” Veterans Today, December 20, 2012; James F. Tracy, “The Newtown School Tragedy: More Than One Gunman?” Global Research, December 20, 2012.

7:20PM
Witness to shooting Becky Virgalla interviewed by Connecticut news media. [Video of interview at Hartford Courant website has since been taken down.] “Witness to the Sandy Hook Massacre,” Hartford Courant, December 26, 2012.

Attorney Irv Pinsky asks State of Connecticut Claims Commissioner J. Paul Vance Jr. for permission to file $100 million dollar lawsuit on behalf of unnamed 6-year-old Sandy Hook student for negligence and trauma suffered after hearing screaming, cursing, and gunfire over school’s intercom system. As a result, the “child has sustained emotional and psychological trauma and injury, the nature and extent of which are yet to be determined,” the proposed claim asserts. Pinsky’s claim also alleges “that the state Board of Education, Department of Education and Education Commissioner had failed to take appropriate steps to protect children from ‘foreseeable harm.’” Mary Ellen Godin, “Claim Seeks $100 Million for Child Survivor of Connecticut School Shooting,” Reuters, December 28, 2012.

Adam Lanza’s body reportedly turned over by Connecticut Medical Examiner to father Peter Lanza “sometime last week.” “Father Claims Adam Lanza’s Body,” Hartford Courant, December 31, 2012, 3:38PM.

3:12PM
Connecticut Attorney General says $100 million claim against state on behalf of 6 year old Sandy Hook student is “misguided,” and maintains that “a public policy response by the U.S. Congress and the Connecticut state legislature would be ‘more appropriate’ than legal action.” Edith Honan, “Connecticut Attorney General Says Newtown Legal Claim Misguided,” Reuters/Hartford Courant, December 31, 2012.

2013

11:49AM
State Attorney General George Jepsen says lawsuit brought against state lacks a “valid basis.” According to a report Jepsen said “the claims commissioner’s office was not the appropriate venue for a discussion about the shooting.” Amanda Falcone, Request to Sue State for Newtown Shooting Has No Basis, Attorney General Says,” Hartford Courant, January 1, 2013.

2:29PM
New Haven attorney Irving Pinsky withdraws claim on behalf of traumatized Sandy Hook student after receiving new evidence. “If the state were liable in this instance, where would the state’s liability ever end?” State Attorney General George Jepsen said. Brian Dowling and Hilda Munoz, “Attorney Withdrawing Request to Sue State in Sandy Hook Shootings,” Hartford Courant, January 1, 2013.

9:10PM
Jean Henry, a processing technician for the Connecticut Office of the Chief Medical Examiner is placed on a paid leave pending an investigation of an incident on December 16 where she permitted her husband, an unauthorized employee, to view the body of alleged mass killer Adam Lanza. Jon Lender and Dave Altimari, “State Worker Placed on Leave After Showing Husband Adam Lanza’s Body,” Hartford Courant, January 2, 2013.

[Morning]
Sandy Hook students return to classes 7 miles south of Newtown at Chalk Hill School in Monroe Connecticut. The school was closed about two years ago and recently cleaned and painted to accommodate students. Amanda Falcone, “Sandy Hook Students Back in Class,” Hartford Courant, 5:18PM EST, January 3, 2013.

6:18PM
Connecticut State Attorney’s Office and State Police refuse to give timeline for Sandy Hook shooting investigation. “It cannot be stated too often how invaluable and necessary the work of the United States Attorney’s Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Marshals Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and other federal agencies was and is to this investigation,” State Attorney General Stephen J. Sedensky III said. Christine Dempsey, “No Timeline for Newtown Shooting Probe,” Hartford Courant, January 3, 2013.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg meets privately in his office with former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was almost fatally shot at a constituent meeting in Tucson in January 2011. The sit-down was not listed on Bloomberg’s public schedule and a Bloomberg aide refused to state what was discussed. Holly Bailey, “Bloomberg Meets with Gabrielle Giffords on Gun Control,” Yahoo News, January 3, 2013, n.t.

3:40AM
Former Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords visits Newtown families who lost loved ones in the Sandy Hook shooting. John Christoffersen, “Wounded ex-Rep Giffords Meets with Conn. Families,” Associated Press/Yahoo News, January 5.

To be continued.

Since the kindling of the conflict inside Syria in 2011, it was recognized, by friend and foe alike, that the events in that country were tied to a game plan that ultimately targets Iran, Syria’s number one ally. [1] De-linking Syria from Iran and unhinging the Resistance Bloc that Damascus and Tehran have formed has been one of the objectives of the foreign-supported anti-government militias inside Syria. Such a schism between Damascus and Tehran would change the Middle East’s strategic balance in favour of the US and Israel.

If this cannot be accomplished, however, then crippling Syria to effectively prevent it from providing Iran any form of diplomatic, political, economic, and military support in the face of common threats has been a primary objective. Preventing any continued cooperation between the two republics has been a strategic goal. This includes preventing the Iran-Iraq-Syria energy terminal from being built and ending the military pact between the two partners.

All Options are Aimed at Neutralizing Syria

Regime change in Damascus is not the only or main way for the US and its allies to prevent Syria from standing with Iran. Destabilizing Syria and neutralizing it as a failed and divided state is the key. Sectarian fighting is not a haphazard outcome of the instability in Syria, but an assisted project that the US and its allies have steadily fomented with a clear intent to balkanize the Syrian Arab Republic. Regionally, Israel above all other states has a major stake in securing this outcome. The Israelis actually have several publicly available documents, including the Yinon Plan, which outline that the destruction of Syria into a series of smaller sectarian states is one of their strategic objectives. So do American military planners.

Like Iraq next door, Syria does not need to be formally divided. For all intents and purposes, the country can be divided like Lebanon was alongside various fiefdoms and stretches of territory controlled by different groups during the Lebanese Civil War. The goal is to disqualify Syria as an external player.

Since 2006 and the Israeli defeat in Lebanon in that year there was renewed focus on the strategic alliance between Iran and Syria. Both countries have been very resilient in the face of US designs in their region. Together both have been key players for influencing events in the Middle East, from the Eastern Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf. Their strategic alliance has undoubtedly played an important role in shaping the geo-political landscape in the Middle East. Although critics of Damascus say it has done very little in regard to substantial action against the Israelis, the Syrians have been the partners within this alliance that have carried the greatest weight in regards to facing Israel; it has been through Syria that Hezbollah and the Palestinians have been provided havens, logistics, and their initial strategic depth against Israel.

From the beginning the foreign-supported external opposition leaders made their foreign policy clear, which can strongly be argued was a reflection of the interests they served. The anti-government forces and their leaders even declared that they will realign Syria against Iran; in doing so they used sectarian language about returning to their “natural orbit with the Sunni Arabs.” This is a move that is clearly in favour of the US and Israel alike. Breaking the axis between Damascus and Tehran has also been a major goal of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Arab petro-sheikhdoms since the 1980s as part of a design to isolate Iran during the Iraq-Iran War. [2] Moreover, the sectarian language being used is part of a construct; it is not a reflection of reality, but a reflection of Orientalist conjecture and desires that falsely stipulate that Muslims who perceive themselves as being Shia or Sunni are inherently at odds with one another as enemies.

Among the prostrating Syrian opposition leaders who would execute the strategic goals of the US has been Burhan Ghalioun, the former president of the Istanbul-based and foreign-sponsored Syrian National Council, who told the Wall Street Journal in 2011 that Damascus would end its strategic alliance with Iran and end its support for Hezbollah and the Palestinians as soon as anti-government forces took over Syria. [3] These foreign-sponsored opposition figures have also served to validate, in one way or another, the broader narratives that claim Sunnis and Shiites hate one another. In synchronization the mainstream media in the countries working for regime change in Damascus, such as the US and France, have consistently advertized that the regime in Syria is an Alawite regime that is allied to Iran, because the Alawites are an offshoot of Shiism. This too is untrue, because Syria and Iran do not share a common ideology; both countries are aligned, because of a common threat and shared political and strategic objectives. Nor is Syria run by an Alawite regime; the government’s composure reflects Syrian society’s ethnic and religious diversity.

Israel’s Stake in Syria

Syria is all about Iran for Israel. As if Tel Aviv has nothing to do whatsoever with the events inside Syria, Israeli commentators and analysts are now publicly insisting that Israel needs to deal with Iran by intervening inside Syria. Israel’s involvement in Syria, alongside the US and NATO, crystallized in 2012. It was clear that Israel was working in a conglomerate comprised of the US, Britain, France, Turkey, NATO, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Jordan, Lebanon’s minority March 14 Alliance, and the NATO-supported usurpers that have taken over and wrecked the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.  

Although it should be read with caution, it is worth noting the release of the hacked correspondence of Strategic Forecast Incorporated’s Reva Bhalla to her boss, George Friedman, about a December 2011 meeting in the Pentagon between herself (representing Stratfor), US, French, and British officials about Syria. [4] The Stratfor correspondence claimed that the US and its allies had sent in their military special forces to destabilize Syria in 2011 and that there actually were not many Syrian anti-government forces on the ground or, as Bhalla writes, “there isn’t much of a Free Syrian Army to train.” [5] The Daily Star, which is owned by Lebanon’s Hariri family which has been involved in the regime change operations against Syria, soon after reported that thirteen undercover French officers were caught by the Syrians conducting operations inside Homs. [6] Instead of a categorical no to the information about the captured French officers, the French Foreign Ministry’s response to the public was that it could not confirm anything, which can be analyzed as an omission of guilt. [7]

Days earlier, Hezbollah’s Al-Manar station revealed that Israeli-made weapons and supplies, ranging from grenades and night binoculars to communication devices, were captured alongside Qatari agents inside the insurgent stronghold of Baba Amr in Homs towards the end of April and start of March. [8] An unnamed US official would later confirm in July 2012 that the Mossad was working alongside the CIA in Syria. [9] Just a month earlier, in June, the Israeli government began publicly demanding that a military intervention be launched into Syria, presumably by the US and the conglomerate of governments working with Israel to destabilize Syria. [10]

The Israeli media has even begun to casually report that Israeli citizens, albeit one has been identified as an Israeli Arab (meaning a Palestinian with Israeli citizenship), have entered Syria to fight against the Syrian Army. [11] Normally any Israelis, specifically those that are non-Jewish Arabs, which enter Lebanon or/and Syria are condemned or prosecuted by Israeli authorities and Israeli news reports focus on this aspect of the story. Yet, it has not been so in this case. It should also be mentioned that the Palestinian opponents of Israel living inside Syria are also being targeted, just as the Palestinians living in Iraq were targeted after the US and UK invaded in 2003.

Syria and the Objective of Making Iran Stand Alone

The journalist Rafael D. Frankel wrote a revealing article for the Washington Quarterly that illustrates what US policymakers and their partners think about in Syria. In his article Frankel argued that because of the so-called Arab Spring that an attack on Iran by the US and Israel would no longer trigger a coordinated regional response from Iran and its allies. [12] Frankel argued that because of the events inside Syria an opportunity has been created for the US and Israel to attack Iran without igniting a regional war that would involve Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas. [13]

Frankel’s line of thinking was not lost on circles in either NATO or Israel. In reality his line of thinking springs forth from the views and plans of these very circles. As a psychological enforcement of their ideas, his text actually found its way to NATO Headquarters in Brussels in 2012 for reading material. While the latter, Israel, released its own intelligence report about the subject.

According to the Israeli newspaper Maariv, the intelligence report by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has concluded that Syria and Hezbollah will no longer be able to open a second front against Israel should it go to war with Iran. [14] During the Israeli report’s release, one senior Israeli official was quoted as saying “Iran’s ability to harm Israel in response to an attack on our part declined dramatically.”[15]

Many news wires, papers, and writers with hostile positions towards both Syria and Iran, such as The Daily Telegraph, immediately replicated the Israeli report’s findings about Iran and its regional allies. Two of the first people to reproduce the findings of the Israel report, Robert Tait (writing from the Gaza Strip) and Damien McElroy (who was expelled from Libya in 2011 by that country’s authorities during the war with NATO), summarize how significant the findings of the report are by effectively outlining how Iran’s key allies in the Levant have all been neutralized. [16]

The Israeli report has triumphantly declared that Syria has turned within and is too busy to join ranks with its strategic ally Iran against Tel Aviv in a future war. [17] The ramifications of the Syrian crisis have also placed Iran’s Lebanese allies, particularly Hezbollah, in an unsteady position where their supply lines are under threat and they have been politically damaged through their support of Damascus. If anyone in Lebanon should side with Iran in a future war the Israelis have said that they will invade through massive military operations on the ground. [18]

The new Egyptian government’s role in aiding US objectives under President Morsi also becomes clear with what the Israeli report says about his supportive role: “The foreign ministry report also predicted that Egypt would stop Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement, from helping Iran by launching rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip.” [19] This adds credence to the view that Morsi was allowed by the US and Israel to broker a peace between the Gaza Strip and Tel Aviv, which would prevent the Palestinians there from standing with Iran during a war. In other words the Egyptian truce was setup to bind the hands of Hamas. The recent announcements about moves by Morsi’s government to engage Hezbollah politically can also be scrutinized as an extension of the same strategy applied in Gaza, but in this case for unbinding Iran from its Lebanese allies. [20]

There is also clamouring for steps to be taken to de-link Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, from its Christian allies in Lebanon. The German Marshall Fund showcased a text essentially saying that the Lebanese Christians that are allies to Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran need to be presented with an alternative political narrative to replace the one where they believe that Iran will ultimately run the Middle East as a great power. [21] This too is tied to further eroding Iran’s alliance system.

Mission Accomplished?

The conflict in Syria is not merely an Israeli affair. The slow bleeding of Syria has other interested parties that want to smash the country and its society into pieces. The US is foremost among these interested parties, followed by the Arab dictators of the petro-sheikhdoms. NATO has also always been covertly involved.

NATO’s involvement in Syria is part of the US strategy of using the military alliance to dominate the Middle East. This is why it was decided to establish a component of the missile shield in Turkey. This is also the reason that Patriot missiles are being deployed to the Turkish border with Syria. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI) and NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue are components of these plans too. Additionally, Turkey has ended its veto against the further integration of Israel into NATO. [22]

NATO has been reorienting itself towards asymmetrical warfare and greater emphasis is now being put on intelligence operations. NATO strategists have increasingly been studying the Kurds, Iraq, Hezbollah, Syria, Iran, and the Palestinians. In the scenario of an all-out war, NATO has been preparing itself for overt military roles in both Syria and Iran.

Iraq is being destabilized further too. While Iran’s allies in Damascus have been weighed down, its allies in Baghdad have not. After Syria, the same conglomerate of countries working against Damascus will turn their attention to Iraq. They have already started working to galvanize Iraq further on the basis of its sectarian and political fault lines. Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are playing prominent roles in this objective. What is becoming manifest is that the differences between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims that Washington has cultivated since the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are now been augmented by Kurdish sectarianism.

It appears that many in the Israeli political establishment now believe that they have succeeded in breaking the Resistance Bloc. Whether they are correct or incorrect is a matter of debate. Syria still stands; the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (which was by far the most active Palestinian group fighting Israel from Gaza in 2012) and other Palestinians will side with Iran even if Hamas will have its hands tied by Egypt; there are still Tehran’s allies in Iraq; and Syria is not the only supply line for Iran to arm its ally Hezbollah. What is also very clear is that the siege against Syria is a front in the covert multi-dimensional war against Iran. This alone should make people reconsider the statements of US officials and their allies about having concerns for the Syrian people merely on the basis of humanitarianism and democracy.

NOTES

[1] Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, “Obama’s Secret Letter to Tehran: Is the War against Iran On Hold? ‘The Road to Tehran Goes through Damascus,’” Global Research, January 20, 2012.

[2] Jubin M. Goodarzi, Syria and Iran: Diplomatic Alliance and Power Politics in the Middle East (London, UK: I.B. Tauris, 2009), pp.217-228.

[3] Nour Malas and Jay Solomon, “Syria Would Cut Iran Military Tie, Opposition Head Says,” Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2011.

[4] WikiLeaks, “Re: INSIGHT — military intervention in Syria, post withdrawal status of forces,” October 19, 2012: <http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/209688_re-insight-military-intervention-in-syria-post-withdrawal.html>.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Lauren Williams, “13 French officers being held in Syria,” The Daily Star, March 5, 2012.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Israa Al-Fass, “Mossad, Blackwater, CIA Led Operations in Homs,” trans. Sara Taha Moughnieh, Al-Manar, March 3, 2012.

[9] David Ignatius, “Looking for a Syrian endgame,” The Washington Post, July 18, 2012.

[10] Dan Williams, “Israel accuses Syria of genocide, urges intervention,” Andrew Heavens ed., Reuters, June 10, 2012.

[11] Hassan Shaalan, “Israeli fighting Assad ‘can’t go home,’” Yedioth Ahronoth, January 3, 2013.

[12] Rafael D. Frankel, “Keeping Hamas and Hezbollah Out of a War with Iran,” Washington Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 4 (Fall 2012): pp.53-65.

[13] Ibid.

[14] “Weakened Syria unlikely to join Iran in war against Israel: report,” The Daily Star, January 4, 2013.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Damien McElroy and Robert Tait, “Syria ‘would not join Iran in war against Israel,’” The Daily Telegraph, January 3, 2013.

[17] “Weakened Syria,” The Daily Star, op. cit.

[18] “Syria and Hezbollah won’t join the fight if Israel strikes Iran, top-level report predicts,” Times of Israel, January 3, 2013.

[19] McElroy and Tait, “Syria would not,” op. cit.

[20] Lauren Williams, “New Egypt warms up to Hezbollah: ambassador,” The Daily Star, December 29, 2011.

[21] Hassan Mneimneh, “Lebanon ― The Christians of Hezbollah: A Foray into a Disconnected Political Narrative,” The German Marshall Fund of the United States, November 16, 2012.

[22] Hilary Leila Krieger, “Israel to join NATO activities amidst Turkey tension,” Jerusalem Post, December 23, 2012; Jonathon Burch and Gulsen Solaker, “Turkey lifts objection to NATO cooperation with Israel,” Mark Heinrich ed., Reuters, December 24, 2012; “Turkey: Israel’s participation in NATO not related to Patriots,” Today’s Zaman, December 28, 2012.

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to The Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to this week’s edition of The Ratner Report with Michael Ratner, who now joins us from New York City.

Michael is the president emeritus of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York. He’s chair of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights in Berlin. And he’s a board member of The Real News.Thanks for joining us again, Michael.MICHAEL RATNER, PRESIDENT EMERITUS, CENTER FOR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: It’s always good to be with you. And happy new year to you and all your viewers.JAY: Thank you. And what are you following now?RATNER: You know, it’s–unfortunately, it’s more of the same, which is the war-on-terror excesses, first of the Bush administration, and now the Obama administration. We’re going into, really, the middle of the 11th year of what I consider to be a lawless way of carrying out the so-called war on terror. The model that has been used is essentially presidential fiat, congressional fiat, no due process, no trials, indefinite detention. And just this week the president signed–and it’s into law–the National Defense Authorization Act, which comes up every year. It’s a 620-page bill. It funds all our military adventures all over the world. But for my purposes, on the so-called war on terror what it does is continue what I call the Bush—Obama policies.The first of those policies is indefinite detention, that you can pick up people anywhere in the world–and what’s interesting: including American citizens–and hold them indefinitely without trial, and even hold them offshore. We expected this last Congress to try and put in legislation that would at least prohibit the holding of U.S. citizens. They didn’t, so it’s still authorized by the law. And, of course, that’s the lawsuit that Chris Hedges and Daniel Ellsberg had gone to court to try and declare that section of the old law, now of the new law, unconstitutional. So you have an NDAA that first allows indefinite detention of anyone in the world, including U.S. citizens. Secondly, it really destroys any chance of closing Guantanamo.JAY: Before you get into that, Michael, wasn’t there some amendment that came out of the Senate that ensures or at least is supposed to ensure habeas rights for U.S. citizens?RATNER: Well, they have a habeas right, but they can still be held indefinitely in detention.JAY: So explain what that means, a habeas right.RATNER: Okay. Everyone can now, because of the cases we won at the Center over the last ten years, has a right to go to court and say to the court, which will say to the jailor, the United States, are you holding me legally. The problem with it is is legally is now defined by the NDAA as holding someone in indefinite detention for their, quote, associational interests, or association with al-Qaeda or related forces. And so all that the government has to come into court and prove is that somehow this person has some relationship to al-Qaeda or whatever related forces means, which could be almost anything. And that’s the way it’s been used. So the U.S. picks up people, whether it’s in Afghanistan or Pakistan, or Yemen,–JAY: Or Pittsburgh.RATNER: –Pittsburgh, or Somalia, or anywhere, or England, or anywhere, and says, well, that person’s associated with al-Qaeda or associated forces. And then you have a right, yes, to go to court and challenge that.But the court has been completely unwilling to hear those challenges. The lowest court has heard them, and in some cases even said, well, the government’s not holding with a good reason; it goes to the court of appeals, and they have never actually let anyone out of Guantanamo or any other type of this indefinite detention. My problem, of course, is not that they give habeas rights. Sure, that’s good. But the problem is they use a indefinite detention model and not a law enforcement model. My view is no one should be held in indefinite detention. Every human being who’s picked up anywhere in the world should be charged with a crime if they’re going to be kept, and tried for the crime. Instead, you have these masses of people being held without being charged. And if we look at Guantanamo, it’s the perfect example. And that gets to the second part of the NDAA legislation. There’s 166 people left in Guantanamo. Eighty-six of those people have been cleared for release. That means they shouldn’t be there at all. The rest of them–whatever, 80 or so–have not been charged, with exceptions of a few, such as the so-called, you know, people who were allegedly involved in the conspiracy of the World Trade Center, which is a half a dozen people or so. So most of those people have never been charged. And, in fact, more than half have been cleared for release. So what does the NDAA do to those people? It says two things, which it said consistently year after year, that the president can’t transfer anybody to the United States, even those cleared for release. So that means: how do you get those people out of Guantanamo? And secondly, it puts very heavy restrictions on transferring any of those people to foreign countries. They have to notify the Senate, they have to approve it in certain ways. And, in fact, because of those restrictions, no one’s been transferred to a foreign country, or to the United States, obviously, in the last two years.Now, so that’s what you have. You have heavy restrictions. So that means you’re going to have trouble closing Guantanamo altogether. Now, Obama made all kinds of noises last year, and he made all kinds of noises this year, that he was going to veto the NDAA because of what he considers these restrictions on his presidential power to, one, transfer people out of Guantanamo to the United States, or transfer them to foreign countries. But last year he didn’t veto it, and this year he didn’t veto it. So what he does is he does a bunch of saber-rattling. But what he did was do a signing statement. Now, signing statements, I want to explain, have no legal efficacy. In the United States, you either have to approve legislation as the president or veto it. Obama, by approving it, basically says this is the law. He then signs something that says, well, I don’t like this law, I don’t think it’s constitutional, I don’t think this, I don’t think that, but that it has no legal efficacy. The law is the law, and he’s not about to necessarily disobey the law–he didn’t last year, and he didn’t this year.Now, what’s interesting about Obama’s signing statements is two things. One, he criticized them when Bush used them, saying, Bush shouldn’t be doing these signing statements; he should either veto the law or approve the law, but not say, I approve it, but–you can’t do that. And secondly, last year when he made a signing statement on the NDAA, he said, I will challenge this law as unconstitutional in these respects, etc., etc. This time, because it’s past the election, he didn’t even say that. And so we now have an NDAA that ostensibly allows the indefinite detention of American citizens, makes it impossible to close Guantanamo, and a president who is unwilling to challenge Congress about the law.JAY: And what’s the status of that lawsuit that Chris Hedges and his colleagues launched?RATNER: Well, Judge Forrest, who is a very good judge in the District of Columbia, actually ruled in favor of Hedges and Ellsberg that the law was unconstitutional because Ellsberg, Hedges, and others who challenge the law could actually be held in indefinite detention for the words that they spoke or what they wrote. And the government refused to say initially that they couldn’t be held like that. And so Judge Forrest, who is the judge, said, well, I’m ruling it’s unconstitutional. The government then, in the most aggressive way they could, Obama appealed that to the circuit court. The circuit court stayed the decision, which means they said, we’re not going to hold this unconstitutional; we’re going to stay it until we hear the entire argument again. So right now the NDAA is still good law, because the circuit court went against the district court, the lower court, and basically said, we’re going to allow the law to continue. So it’s still being heavily, heavily litigated. Now, it seems to me that two things are apparent to me. One is, of course, I don’t think it’s good to hold anyone in indefinite detention, citizens or not. Of course, Hedges attacked the most pernicious aspect and the most constitutionally protected aspect, which is holding an American citizen. And secondly, we’re still left with Guantanamo. Now, it brings me to–so we have an NDAA out there. Now, it brings me to a second issue that I want to get to in this short piece, which is Obama’s drone policy. Again, it comes up in the context of the murder of, killing of American citizens Anwar al-Aulaqi, his son, Rahman al-Aulaqi, and another American citizen, all in Yemen. The Center for Constitutional Rights challenged those killings initially. We lost. They were killed by drones after our lawsuit.We now have another challenge, challenging them in terms of trying to get damages for them. But an extraordinary decision was written this week by a judge about targeted assassinations by Obama and his administration. It was a case in which the ACLU and The New York Times went to court to try and get the legal basis under which Obama said he could designate people for death, American citizens and otherwise. And the judge said that they weren’t entitled, in the end, to the document that was written by the Department of Justice laying out the legal reasoning about why you could kill American citizens or others utterly outside a war zone, whether in Yemen or in Somalia or in the United Kingdom or here in the United States. The judge said–because it was classified, while the judge didn’t like giving the decision she did, she’d said, I can’t do anything about it, my hands are tied, I’m in a catch-22. And what she said about it was extraordinary. She said, look it, when we had torture in the United States, it was critical to get out the memos regarding the legal reasoning about why the U.S. could torture people, so that it could be fully, fully debated. Here my hands are tied. And what we should have is, like torture, we should get out the legal memos about why the president should be able to assassinate people outside a war zone so we can have a serious debate about it.JAY: Well, does the president have to show these memos to anybody?RATNER: Not really, no.JAY: There’s no congressional oversight? Not given the history of whatever oversight there’s been would mean that much, but is there? I mean, I don’t understand. The–then I don’t understand. The president could create any memo he wants and–?RATNER: Well, the Justice Department creates the memo, they give it to the president. He could technically withhold it from Congress. I don’t know whether Congress has asked him for it or whether he has withheld it, or whether Congress is entitled to find out much about the policy, because while the Congress is entitled to find out about, particularly, CIA covert operations, whether this falls within that is hard to say. And secondly, this isn’t only done by the CIA, but targeted assassination is done by Joint Special Operation Command, or JSOC, the military. Congress has no ability to really–or no law that requires the president to report to Congress on the murders or assassinations by JSOC. So you have this policy of the president on his own deciding who can be murdered or assassinated, even if they’re American citizens. And what was incredible about the judges’ decision, the judge said or implied that the president could actually be criminally prosecuted for killing of a U.S. citizen overseas and said the president is not exempt from the law that prohibits people or citizens in the United States or people anywhere in the world from killing U.S. citizens overseas. So she made an implication that it may be that the president could actually be prosecuted for these targeted assassinations around the world. So while she denied, ultimately, the memo, it’s just this opinion, which is some 75 pages long, just drips with anger and really, I think, what you would have to say is deep unease at the president saying on his own, without providing the American people with a legal basis, for assassinating American citizens anywhere in the world.Taken together, what you have here, you have the NDAA law which allows the indefinite detention of American citizens, you have the al-Aluaqi decisions, and this recent one which allows the targeted assassination of American citizens, both detention and killing, at the behest of one man. And what the judge says: this is supposed to be–supposed to be a democracy, a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law and not on the rule of men. And I guess she’s questioning whether that’s what we have any longer.JAY: Thanks for joining us, Michael.RATNER: Thanks for having me, Paul.JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.

End

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

Context: As yet there are no context links for this item.

Transcript

Palestinians have long invested in education, as in investment in the future.

Out of Gaza’s 1.7 million population, about 400,000 students receive education at governmental, UN-run and private schools. Some 220,000 children in grades one through nine are currently taught in 245 UNRWA schools in the tiny Costal Strip.With more than 52% of Gaza’s population are children below the age of 18, this means more schools are needed in order to accommodate the growing number of students each year. Currently the majority of students suffer from overcrowding, with 90% of schools work on double shifts.Gaza’s classrooms are now severely overcrowded, and often accommodate up to 45 or more pupils in a class, with three children seated at a desk designed for two.where one school building serves two completely different sets of teachers and students, due to lack of classroomsThe ministry of education in Gaza say that there is a need to build at least 200 more new schools to overcome the increasing number of students in the tiny strip where the ongoing 6-year long Israeli siege has hampered the construction of new schools due to lack of construction materials. Israel has banned the delivery of construction materials to Gaza since it tightened its siege in June 2007, citing security concerns, except for certain projects run by international NGO’sAccess to education is a basic right, but some students do not enjoy this right. Since the siege came into effect in 2007, an estimated 70,000 people have lost their jobs adding to the soar unemployment rate, a big number of students dropped out from schools in order to support their familiesUN officials say that, through UNRWA’s education system it is spreading the message of universal respect for human rights, peaceful coexistence and tolerance in an atmosphere that since the blockade has become increasingly desperate and radicalized, children draw and paint and take part in art exhibitionsMeanwhile, experts say that a large number of children are suffering from severe psychological, social and behavioral disorders as a result of constant exposure to the traumas produced by the war, occupation and blockade.Living conditions of children and youth in Gaza under years of Israeli siege and military attacks have been deeply affected by the extremely difficult situation in the impoverished costal territory, a high number of them suffer from physiological problems especially after the recent Israeli 8-day war.With the help of some childrens’ associations and trauma centers, children are given the chance to reveal their hopes and fears, they take part in activities that help traumatized children overcome their emotional traumaThese children are capable of expressing themselves regardless of the pain, the hardships they have been enduring, in particular, the repeated shocks of the Israeli bombardment on Gaza a few weeks ago. However these children are still painting in vivid colors, they are showing smiles as well as tears and they are showing hope.These children and their parents are resilient in the face of aggression, but only just. There is not enough professional psychological support to help them and they wait in dread every day for the next bombardment. Every time they hear the roaring of F16s or buzzing drones they have flashbacks to the traumas of war.Yousef Al-HelouThe Real NewsGaza

Comments

Our automatic spam filter blocks comments with multiple links and multiple users using the same IP address. Please make thoughtful comments with minimal links using only one user name. If you think your comment has been mistakenly removed please email us at contact@therealnews.com

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

All original content on this site is copyright of The Real News Network. Click here for more

Problems with this site? Please let us know

January 4, 2013  |  

Most Americans think of childbearing as a deeply personal or even sacred decision. So do most reproductive rights advocates. That is why we don’t think anybody’s boss or any institution should have a say in it. But for almost three decades, those of us who hold this view have failed to create a resonant conversation about why, sometimes, it is morally or spiritually imperative that a woman can stop a pregnancy that is underway.

My friend Patricia offers a single reason for her passionate defense of reproductive care that includes abortion: Every baby should have its toes kissed. If life is precious and helping our children to flourish is one of the most precious obligations we take on in life, then being able to stop an ill-conceived gestation is a sacred gift. Deciding whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy is a process that is laden with enduring values: responsibility, stewardship, love, honesty, compassion, freedom, balance, discernment. But how often do we hear words like these coming from pro-choice advocates?

Can we reclaim the moral and spiritual high ground? Yes. But to do so will require a challenge to the status quo on two fronts. Rather than ignoring the right’s  claims, we must confront their arguments. We must also express our pro-choice position in clear, resonant moral and spiritual terms. In other words, in combination, we must show why ours is the more moral, more spiritual position.

This isn’t as hard as it sounds. Most “pro-life” positions aren’t really pro-life; they are no-choice. They are designed to protecttraditional gender roles and patriarchal institutions and, specifically, institutional religion. The Catholic Bishops and Southern Baptist Convention–both leaders in the charge against reproductive rights– represent traditions in which male “headship” and control of female fertility have long been tools of competition for money and power. They use moral language to advance goals that have little to do with the wellbeing of women or children or the sacred web of life that sustains us all.

The arguments they make to attain these ends are powerful emotionally but not rationally. They appeal to antiquated and brittle conceptions of God. They appeal to the crumbling illusion of biblical and ecclesiastical perfection–and the crumbling authority of authority itself. They corrupt the civil rights tradition and turn religious freedom on its head. They play games with our protective instinct and cheapen what it means to be a person. They lie.

That adds up to a lot of vulnerability in what should be the stronghold of the priesthood: their claim to speak for what is good and right. 

If we want Americans to understand and distance from the moral emptiness of the “pro-life” movement, we will have to challenge the patriarchs in on their home turf, in their position as moral guides.

Here, for openers, are a few ways we might change the conversation:

1.       Talk about the whole moral continuum. A moral continuum ranges from actions that are forbidden, to those that are allowed, to those that are obligatory. When it comes to abortion, we talk only about one half of this continuum–Is it forbidden or is it allowed?–when, in actuality, a women faced with an ill-conceived pregnancy often experiences herself at the other end of the continuum, wrestling with a set of competing duties or obligations. What is my responsibility to my other children? To society? To my partner? To myself? (To cite a personal example, my husband and I chose an abortion under circumstances where it would have felt like a violation of our core values to do otherwise.) The current conversation doesn’t reflect the real quandaries women face, one in which moral imperatives can and do compete with other moral imperatives. Nor does it reflect the wide range of spiritual values and god concepts that enter into the decision making process.

January 4, 2013  |  

Most Americans think of childbearing as a deeply personal or even sacred decision. So do most reproductive rights advocates. That is why we don’t think anybody’s boss or any institution should have a say in it. But for almost three decades, those of us who hold this view have failed to create a resonant conversation about why, sometimes, it is morally or spiritually imperative that a woman can stop a pregnancy that is underway.

My friend Patricia offers a single reason for her passionate defense of reproductive care that includes abortion: Every baby should have its toes kissed. If life is precious and helping our children to flourish is one of the most precious obligations we take on in life, then being able to stop an ill-conceived gestation is a sacred gift. Deciding whether to keep or terminate a pregnancy is a process that is laden with enduring values: responsibility, stewardship, love, honesty, compassion, freedom, balance, discernment. But how often do we hear words like these coming from pro-choice advocates?

Can we reclaim the moral and spiritual high ground? Yes. But to do so will require a challenge to the status quo on two fronts. Rather than ignoring the right’s  claims, we must confront their arguments. We must also express our pro-choice position in clear, resonant moral and spiritual terms. In other words, in combination, we must show why ours is the more moral, more spiritual position.

This isn’t as hard as it sounds. Most “pro-life” positions aren’t really pro-life; they are no-choice. They are designed to protecttraditional gender roles and patriarchal institutions and, specifically, institutional religion. The Catholic Bishops and Southern Baptist Convention–both leaders in the charge against reproductive rights– represent traditions in which male “headship” and control of female fertility have long been tools of competition for money and power. They use moral language to advance goals that have little to do with the wellbeing of women or children or the sacred web of life that sustains us all.

The arguments they make to attain these ends are powerful emotionally but not rationally. They appeal to antiquated and brittle conceptions of God. They appeal to the crumbling illusion of biblical and ecclesiastical perfection–and the crumbling authority of authority itself. They corrupt the civil rights tradition and turn religious freedom on its head. They play games with our protective instinct and cheapen what it means to be a person. They lie.

That adds up to a lot of vulnerability in what should be the stronghold of the priesthood: their claim to speak for what is good and right. 

If we want Americans to understand and distance from the moral emptiness of the “pro-life” movement, we will have to challenge the patriarchs in on their home turf, in their position as moral guides.

Here, for openers, are a few ways we might change the conversation:

1.       Talk about the whole moral continuum. A moral continuum ranges from actions that are forbidden, to those that are allowed, to those that are obligatory. When it comes to abortion, we talk only about one half of this continuum–Is it forbidden or is it allowed?–when, in actuality, a women faced with an ill-conceived pregnancy often experiences herself at the other end of the continuum, wrestling with a set of competing duties or obligations. What is my responsibility to my other children? To society? To my partner? To myself? (To cite a personal example, my husband and I chose an abortion under circumstances where it would have felt like a violation of our core values to do otherwise.) The current conversation doesn’t reflect the real quandaries women face, one in which moral imperatives can and do compete with other moral imperatives. Nor does it reflect the wide range of spiritual values and god concepts that enter into the decision making process.

January 3, 2013  |  

The war on drugs is America’s longest war. It has been 40-plus years since Nixon launched our modern “war on drugs” and yet drugs are as plentiful as ever. While the idea that we can have a “drug-free society” is laughable, the disastrous consequences of our drug war are dead serious. While it might not be obvious, the war on drugs touches and destroys so many of the issues we care about and the values we hold. Below are 10 collateral consequences of the drug war and reasons we need to find an exit strategy from this unwinnable war.

1. Racial Injustice

The war on drugs is built on racial injustice. Despite roughly equal rates of drug use and sales, African-American men are arrested at 13 times the rate of white men on drug charges in the U.S. — with rates of up to 57 times in some states. African Americans and Latinos together make up 29 percent of the total U.S. population, but more than 75 percent of drug law violators in state and federal prisons.

2. Denied Access to Education, Housing and Benefits

Passed by Congress in 1998, the Higher Education Act delays or denies federal financial aid to anyone ever convicted of a felony or misdemeanor drug offense, including marijuana possession. A drug offense will also get you and your entire family kicked out of public housing. Thirty-two states ban anyone convicted of a drug felony from collecting food stamps.

3. Wasted Taxpayer Dollars

U.S. federal, state, and local governments now spend $50 billion per year trying to make America “drug free.” State prison budgets top spending on public colleges and universities. The prison industrial complex is ever more powerful. Nevertheless, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and other illicit drugs are cheaper, purer and easier to get than ever before.

4. Unsafe Neighborhoods

Most “drug-related” violence stems not from drug use, but from drug prohibition. That was true in Chicago under alcohol kingpin Al Capone and it is true now. The mass killings in Mexico and in many U.S. cities are not from marijuana or other drug use, but because the plants are worth more than gold and people are willing to kill each other over the profits to be made.  

5. Shredded Constitutional Rights

Armed with paramilitary gear, police break into homes unannounced, terrorizing innocent and guilty alike. Prosecutors seize private property without due process. Citizens convicted of felony offenses lose their right to vote, in some states for life. More and more Americans are subject to urine tests without cause. And the list goes on.

6. Bloodbath in Latin America

U.S. drug policies in Latin America have failed to reduce the supply of illicit drugs. Instead our policies have led to a bloodbath with more than 60,000 people killed in prohibition violence since 2006 in Mexico alone. Our policy and strategies have empowered organized criminals, corrupted governments, stimulated violence, assaulted the environment and created tens of thousands of refugees.

7. Compromising Teenagers’ Safety

The defenders of the failed war on drugs say that we can’t discuss alternatives to prohibition because it would “send the wrong message to the kids.” Ironically, the drug war is a complete failure when it comes to keeping young people from using drugs. Despite decades of DARE programs with the simplistic “Just Say No” message, 50 percent of teenagers will try marijuana before they graduate and 75 percent will drink alcohol. Young people also feel the brunt of marijuana enforcement and make up the majority of arrests. Arresting young people will often cause more damage than drug use itself. Teenagers need honest drug education to help them make responsible decisions. Safety should be the number-one priority.

December 31, 2012  |  

Today’s economic warfare is not the kind waged a century ago between labor and its industrial employers. Finance has moved to capture the economy at large, industry and mining, public infrastructure (via privatization) and now even the educational system. (At over $1 trillion, U.S. student loan debt came to exceed credit-card debt in 2012.) The weapon in this financial warfare is no larger military force. The tactic is to load economies (governments, companies and families) with debt, siphon off their income as debt service and then foreclose when debtors lack the means to pay. Indebting government gives creditors a lever to pry away land, public infrastructure and other property in the public domain. Indebting companies enables creditors to seize employee pension savings. And indebting labor means that it no longer is necessary to hire strikebreakers to attack union organizers and strikers.

Workers have become so deeply indebted on their home mortgages, credit cards and other bank debt that they fear to strike or even to complain about working conditions. Losing work means missing payments on their monthly bills, enabling banks to jack up interest rates to levels that used to be deemed usurious. So debt peonage and unemployment loom on top of the wage slavery that was the main focus of class warfare a century ago. And to cap matters, credit-card bank lobbyists have rewritten the bankruptcy laws to curtail debtor rights, and the referees appointed to adjudicate disputes brought by debtors and consumers are subject to veto from the banks and businesses that are mainly responsible for inflicting injury.

The aim of financial warfare is not merely to acquire land, natural resources and key infrastructure rents as in military warfare; it is to centralize creditor control over society. In contrast to the promise of democratic reform nurturing a middle class a century ago, we are witnessing a regression to a world of special privilege in which one must inherit wealth in order to avoid debt and job dependency.

The emerging financial oligarchy seeks to shift taxes off banks and their major customers (real estate, natural resources and monopolies) onto labor. Given the need to win voter acquiescence, this aim is best achieved by rolling back everyone’s taxes. The easiest way to do this is to shrink government spending, headed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Yet these are the programs that enjoy the strongest voter support. This fact has inspired what may be called the Big Lie of our epoch: the pretense that governments can only create money to pay the financial sector, and that the beneficiaries of social programs should be entirely responsible for paying for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not the wealthy. This Big Lie is used to reverse the concept of progressive taxation, turning the tax system into a ploy of the financial sector to levy tribute on the economy at large.

Financial lobbyists quickly discovered that the easiest ploy to shift the cost of social programs onto labor is to conceal new taxes as user fees, using the proceeds to cut taxes for the elite 1%. This fiscal sleight-of-hand was the aim of the 1983 Greenspan Commission. It confused people into thinking that government budgets are like family budgets, concealing the fact that governments can finance their spending by creating their own money. They do not have to borrow, or even to tax (at least, not tax mainly the 99%).

The Greenspan tax shift played on the fact that most people see the need to save for their own retirement. The carefully crafted and well-subsidized deception at work is that Social Security requires a similar pre-funding — by raising wage withholding. The trick is to convince wage earners it is fair to tax them more to pay for government social spending, yet not also to ask the banking sector to pay similar a user fee to pre-save for the next time it itself will need bailouts to cover its losses. Also asymmetrical is the fact that nobody suggests that the government set up a fund to pay for future wars, so that future adventures such as Iraq or Afghanistan will not “run a deficit” to burden the budget. So the first deception is to treat only Social Security and medical care as user fees. The second is to aggravate matters by insisting that such fees be paid long in advance, by pre-saving.