Sunday, September 01, 2013

The deep thoughts of Barack Obama

boa


Barack meets with a worker and muses to himself, "I wonder what he's like in bed?"






Barack turns back on international law

turn their backs


Saturday, US President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden turned their back on international law.  In his remarks, Barack declared, "I'm comfortable going forward without the approval of a United Nations Security Council that, so far, has been completely paralyzed and unwilling to hold Assad accountable."



As Phyllis Bennis explained on this week's CounterSpin (FAIR -- link is audio):


Phyllis Bennis:  Only if the [United Nations] Security Council votes to endorse the use of force is the use of force legal.  No other agency, institution, organization has that right.  So the Kosovo precedent that you refer to and that unfortunately this is being talked about in the press.  It's being asserted that if the Security Council doesn't agree, there are other options.  Yeah, there are other options.  The problem is they're all illegal.  The Kosovo model was illegal.  What the US did in 1999, when it wanted to bomb, to start an air war against Serbia over Kosovo, realized it would not get support of the Security Council because Russia had said it would veto.  So instead of saying, 'Well okay we don't have support of the Security Council, I guess we can't do it,' they said, 'Okay, we won't go to the Security Council, we'll simply go to the NATO High Command and ask their permission.'  Well, what a surprise, the NATO High Command said 'sure.'  It's like the hammer and the nail.  If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  If you're NATO everything looks like it requires military intervention.  The problem is, under international law, the UN charter is the fundamental component under international law that determines issues of war and peace.  And the charter doesn't say that the Security Council or NATO or the President of the United States can all decide over the use of force.  The only agency that can legally approve the use of force is the Security Council of the United Nations.  Period.  Full stop.



The only agency that can legally approve the use of force is the Security Council of the United Nations.

Period.


Full stop.





UK says no attack on Syria (SW)

This is from Great Britain's Socialist Worker's "Cameron's Defeat Is Proof Of Protest Power:"



Up to a thousand people blocked Whitehall, in London, this week in a protest against plans to bomb Syria
Up to a thousand people blocked Whitehall, in London, this week in a protest against plans to bomb Syria (Pic: Guy Smallman)




David Cameron was humiliated last night, Thursday, when he suffered a historic Commons defeat on plans to bomb Syria.




He asked MPs to back military action but in an unprecedented blow, they voted by 285 to 272 against air strikes.



The vote reflects the overwhelming anti-war feeling among people in Britain – and the fear that missile strikes against Syria would be the start of yet another failed attempt by the West to control the Middle East.



Cameron, who had made a passionate plea for support for his proposals to launch attacks on Damascus after a chemical weapons attack last week, was forced to issue an embarrassing climbdown.



The shaken leader admitted it was clear that parliament “does not want to see British military action”. He added, “I get that. The government will act accordingly.”
Opposition MPs responded by shouting, “Resign”.



The last time a prime minister was defeated over an issue of war and peace was in 1782. As the scale of the historic defeat became clear Conservative MPs turned on each other. Education secretary Michael Gove barked, “You’re a disgrace, you’re a disgrace” at government rebels.



The result was also a blow to Nick Clegg who had ditched his party’s soft anti-war stance to side with the Conservatives.



“This marks a sea change in British politics. The government no longer has a blank cheque to go to war,” Labour MP and chair of the Stop the War Coalition, Jeremy Corbyn, told Socialist Worker.



The Coalition organised the two million-strong march against the Iraq war in 2003 – and hundreds of smaller protests and meetings all over Britain since.



At the time, commentators said such demonstrations were futile, despite their size, becauseTony Blair’s government continued with its war plans.



Now, even the right wing press acknowledge the popular feeling that opponents of the Iraq war were right all along – and that most people are against an attack on Syria.



The vote against bombing, rather than showing that parliament is “in tune with the people”, is proof that mass protest works.



“This victory isn’t just a result of the last few days, but the last ten years. It’s a vindication of all those who have marched to stop war,” says Corbyn.



The ruling class is riven by splits over how to drive forward its plans for more austerity and war. And, with Cameron’s clique shaken to the core, there is a great opportunity for everyone who is sick of the Tories to step up action against them.



Those fighting for decent pay, services and pensions can stand taller. Those battling against benefit cuts can shout louder. And, everyone who has resisted racism, imperialism and war can be sure that fighting back gets results.



Plans by the West to bomb Syria are in trouble, but the threat remains. There is a grave danger that the US will launch missiles against Damascus regardless of whether or not it has global support .



That’s why protests against them, planned for this weekend, are as vital as ever.



Let’s give the warmongers a taste of the anger that will hit them if they try to plough on with their bombing raid plans.



National demonstration: No attack on Syria


Saturday 31 August, assemble 12 noon, Temple Place (nearest tube Temple), London WC2R for march to Trafalgar Square via Parliament.


Called by Stop the War and CND
Visit stopwar.org.uk for details



In the Bush tradition, Obama lies to push war on Syria (WW)

Repost from Workers World:



In the Bush tradition, Obama lies to push war on Syria

By on August 31, 2013



Aug. 31 — Barack Obama’s speech today, delivered from the White House Rose Garden, was aimed at winning the acquiescence of the war-weary and austerity-clobbered people in the United States for an illegal, aggressive and highly dangerous assault on the sovereign nation of Syria.



Obama may not be George W. Bush, but he occupies the U.S. presidency. And that puts him in the position of serving not the people who actually voted for him, but the powerful capitalist corporations and banks that dominate the two-party system. Especially when it comes to foreign policy, the president has always acted as the CEO of world imperialism.


He also must be the main public relations voice for whatever war of aggression the bankers, billionaires and generals have planned.


The vote in the British Parliament against participating in such an assault showed Obama the danger to his political leadership if he pursues this wild military offensive without at least the semblance of public backing.


That vote left the U.S. without its most reliable ally: the British regime that represents the bankers, investors and property owners of The City, London’s Wall Street. At this point, the only other imperialist power backing the assault is France — the former colonial ruler over Syria.


Getting Congress to go along



Obama has thrown at least part of the responsibility for this unpopular move onto the U.S. Congress, which, according to the Constitution, is the only body with the power to declare war. While still maintaining he has the “right” to unilaterally order a military strike, he is calling the bluff of his critics in Congress by putting off the fateful hour until they come back in session and can vote to support military action.



Obama may not be Bush, but like Bush he is depending on a Big Lie as the pretext for the war, charging that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against the “rebels.” Flash back to when Bush invaded Iraq, after accusing the Iraqi government of harboring “weapons of mass destruction.” After U.S. missiles had brought mass destruction to large sections of Baghdad and its infrastructure, no WMDs were found.



In his talk, Obama invented numbers for the people and children killed in Syria supposedly from poison gas, but he gave no hard evidence regarding what weapons were used or, especially, who was responsible for using them.



The “poison gas” pretext for intervention has been part of Pentagon planning for more than a year. Obama drew a “red line in the sand” in the summer of 2012, announcing in advance that the U.S. would directly enter the war if Syria used gas.


Why would the Syrian government, which has been winning battle after battle against an armed opposition without poison gas, use it on civilians, knowing that would bring an attack from the Pentagon? And why would they do it right when a U.N. inspection team had been invited into the country to investigate the use of poison gas? The Russian government points out that such a scenario is absurd.



Obama is not Bush, but in the same way that Bush did in 2003 before invading Iraq, Obama intends to use the days before Congress reconvenes to drum up war propaganda.


Meanwhile, five destroyers, each capable of launching dozens of cruise missiles, are in the eastern Mediterranean, ready to bring death and destruction to the Syrian people in the name of protecting them. Such an attack opens the prospect of an extensive and expensive regional war, leading to a possible confrontation with Iran and even Russia.


The imperialist politicians are preparing to spend billions on this, while U.S. cities go bankrupt and the people here grow more impoverished.



Those in the United States opposing the war must use this time to counter Obama’s arguments, to continue to build demonstrations and protests, to turn the “day after” bombing actions to demonstrations on the “days before” Congress meets. Every public or political event, from the New York City primaries to the AFL-CIO convention in Los Angeles, should be turned into an anti-war forum.
Obama is not Bush, but the war being planned against Syria is just as criminal. Stop the attack on Syria!




Articles copyright 1995-2013 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.



US sells deadly helicopters to Indonesia (ETAN)

This is from ETAN:




Groups Condemn Sale of Deadly Attack Helicopters to IndonesiaContact: Contact: John M. Miller, +1-917-690-4391, john@etan.org
Ed McWilliams, +1-575-648-2078, edmcw@msn.com



August 26, 2013 - The East Timor and Indonesia Action Network (ETAN) and the West Papua Advocacy Team (WPAT) today condemned the U.S. government's decision to approve the sale of deadly Apache attack helicopters to Indonesia. The sale demonstrates that U.S. concern for greater respect for human rights and justice in Indonesia are nothing more than hollow rhetoric.




The new Apache attack helicopters will greatly augment the capacity of the TNI to pursue "sweeping" operations, extending TNI capacity to stage operations after dark and in ever more remote areas.




The sale, announced during the visit of Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to Jakarta, ignores the appalling record of human rights violations by the Indonesian military (TNI), which will operate this deadly weapons system. 



The helicopters are offensive weapons often used in counter-insurgency campaigns.



The TNI continues to conduct military campaigns in West Papua. The military's "sweeps" and other military operations purportedly target the few remaining, lightly-armed pro-independence guerrillas. In reality, the operations are aimed at repressing and intimidating Papuans. The sweep operations, involve assaults on remote villages in West Papua, destroying civilian homes, churches and public buildings and forcing civilians from their homes. These attacks drive civilians into surrounding mountains and jungles where many have died due to a lack of food, shelter or medical assistance.



The new Apache attack helicopters will greatly augment the capacity of the TNI to pursue "sweeping" operations, extending TNI capacity to stage operations after dark and in ever more remote areas.




The statement by Indonesia's Minister of Defense that the sale does not include any conditions on the use of these weapons is especially concerning. The TNI use of these weapons platforms will be largely unconstrained. TNI personnel are not accountable to the civilian judicial system nor is the TNI as an institution subordinated to civilian government policy or operational control. For decades, the TNI has drawn funding from a vast network of legal and illegal businesses enabling it to evade even civilian government budgetary controls. Legislation to restrain the TNI has been weak or only partially implemented.



Background


On Monday August 26, Secretary of Defense Hagel announced that the U.S. had closed a deal for Indonesia to buy eight AH-64E Apache attack helicopters for a half a billion dollars. The U.S. did not attach conditions restricting their use.



The sale represents the latest step in the Pentagon's increased engagement with the TNI. In 1999, restrictions on U.S. engagement with the Indonesia military were tightened as the TNI and its militia allies were destroying East Timor (now Timor-Leste) following the UN-conducted referendum on independence. Through the 2000s, restrictions on engagement with the Indonesian military were gradually lifted, even though it remained unaccountable for its past crimes in Timor-Leste and throughout the archipelago  and rights violations continue in West Papua and elsewhere. 

Last year, ETAN and WPAT coordinated a letter signed by more than 90 organizations urging the U.S. not to sell the deadly attack helicopters to Indonesia. The groups warned that the helicopters will escalate conflicts in Indonesia, especially in the rebellious region of West Papua: "Providing these helicopters would pose a direct threat to Papuan civilians." 

ETAN, formed in 1991 and advocates for democracy, justice and human rights for Timor-Leste and Indonesia. Since its founding, ETAN has worked to condition U.S. military assistance to Indonesia on respect for human rights and genuine reform. See ETAN's web site:http://www.etan.org WPAT publishes the monthly West Papua Report.
To be removed from this list click here



etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan



John M. Miller, National Coordinator
East Timor & Indonesia Action Network (ETAN)
Mobile phone: +1-917-690-4391
Email: etan@etan.org Skype: john.m.miller
Twitter: @etan009  Website: www.etan.org

2012 Recipient of the Order of Timor (Ordem Timor)

Senate VA Committee wants answers

From the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee:




WASHINGTON, Aug. 30 – Leaders of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and the Special Committee on Aging said today that they are “deeply troubled” by the Department of Veterans Affairs’ lax oversight of private advisers to veterans applying for pensions and other benefits.
The senators cited a new report by the Government Accountability Office that faulted the VA for loosely enforcing its own vague rules on accrediting private financial planners, attorneys, insurance agents and others. The nonpartisan congressional agency that audits federal programs also criticized the VA for leaving itself vulnerable to abuses and for keeping veterans in the dark about their rights.
The GAO report was cited in a letter to Secretary Eric Shinseki from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.), the chairman and ranking member of the veterans’ committee. Sens. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a veterans’ committee member and former chairman, and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), the Senate Special Committee on Aging chairman, also signed the letter.
“We are deeply troubled by the findings indicating weaknesses in the accreditation program, which may prevent VA from ensuring that veterans are served by knowledgeable, qualified, and trustworthy representatives,” the senators wrote. 
The senators said the accreditation procedures should be strengthened to protect veterans from unscrupulous advisers among the 20,000 approved by the department. They also echoed a GAO recommendation and urged the department to do a better job letting veterans know how to report abuses. Problems with the accreditation program are compounded by a lack of staff and inadequate technology, the senators added. 
The latest GAO report builds on an investigation last year that found weak oversight and unclear rules made the VA ripe for abuse. That report found that some firms overcharge veterans for services or sell financial products that end up limiting veteran’s access to the benefits that they deserve.
To read the GAO report, click here.
To read the senators’ letter to the VA secretary, click here.



Daniel Akaka was Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee before Senator Murray and he and Richard Burr had a professional and respectful relationship.  Murray and Burr continued and deepened that.  It continues now with Sanders and Burr.  No, Burr didn't agree with the three on everything or them with him on everything but they found a way to be adults and to stay focused on the issues.  It's a shame that this is not carried through on every Congressional Committee.  The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee has been able to focus on a large number of issues and actually move mountains on a few because of the lack of egos in leadership.  Akaka, Murray, Sanders and Burr especially deserve applause.  And, again, it is so very nice to see one aspect of Congress (or, for that matter, the federal government) which functions and works.

Highlights



 This piece is written by Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Mike of Mikey Likes It!, Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz, Ruth of Ruth's Report, Marcia of SICKOFITRADLZ, Stan of Oh Boy It Never Ends, Ann of Ann's Mega Dub, Isaiah of The World Today Just Nuts and Wally of The Daily Jot. Unless otherwise noted, we picked all highlights.



"Can we get this elderly menace out of the Senate?" -- most requested highlight of the week.

"Isaiah's The World Today Just Nuts "Wag The Kennel..." -- an instant classic from Isaiah.

"Snap Bean-Corn Salad in the Kitchen" -- Trina offers an easy recipe.


"The useless who won't speak out," "got nothing on prairie dogs" and "i'm not singing jane fonda's praises"and "A few kind words for Matt Damon" -- Betty and Rebecca note cowards while Ruth offers some kind words for one of the brave.

"Ms. magazine praises known homophobe and pro-lifer," "Ms. magazine embraces anti-choice women," "Syria and other things" and "Can Ms. magazine please stop attacking women?" -- Trina, Ann, Betty and Kat note Ms.' disappointing new direction.

"John Kerry as the new Colin Powell" -- Ruth says it all.

"Top 10 movie themes," "Winona Ryder," "Top 10 Bond themes," "6 Souls," "The Invasion," and "The worst movie I ever paid to see?" -- Stan and Kat go to the movies.

"THIS JUST IN! HE'S STILL A LITTLE WUSS!" and "Barack 'N Boots"  -- The embarrassing Barack.

"Iraq's Got Tyrants" -- Isaiah dips into the archives.

"Insane CIA budget" -- Mike calls out priorities.

"Who can he blame this time?" and "THIS JUST IN! THEY'RE CALLING HILLARY AGAIN!" -- Cedric and Wally call out the skirt hider.

"Big Brother (as in Orwell) Awards" -- Mike floats an idea.


"Bitch Barack calls for an illegal assault." and "Barack the Bastard is Babbling" -- Ann and Marcia cover Barack's Saturday speech.

"Suck on it, Susan Collins" -- Ava notes NSA 'expert' Susan Collins is a joke.

"government as the bad boyfriend" -- Rebecca provides the analogy.


"Barack the spier, Barack the liar,"  "Even I'm surprised," "Their true nature," "got nothing on prairie dogs," "The crooked American media," "Put the crook before the Hague," "We used to call this s**t out," "Facts don't matter for Syrian action" and "Why the rush now?" -- selected by reader Zach in an e-mail to this site.  Zach said, "It was a powerful day."  




Sunday, August 25, 2013

Truest statement of the week


The anti-democratic character of the trial itself served as an obstacle to the waging of a principled legal defense. At the same, Manning’s lead defense attorney, David Coombs, worked entirely within the framework set out by the military and the Obama administration and refused to mount a political defense of the young whistleblower.



-- Eric London, "US prosecutors: Manning 'does not deserve the mercy of a court of law'" (WSWS).





Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
 
Poll1 { display:none; }