The Bradley Manning case is such a transparent attempt at intimidation to prevent others from exposing war crimes perpetrated by the US government that it could make even a lethargic baboon scream bloody murder.
How many Americans are aware that their government has claimed the authority to arbitrarily kill their fellow citizens when it chooses, and that it can do so ‘legally’, without any evidence that the citizen in question posed any threat to anyone, let alone the US government or its ‘interests’?
How many Americans are aware that the US government has responded to court cases brought by the ACLU questioning the US government’s authority to engage in targeted assassinations of US citizens by saying that this is a political question and that US courts and judges have no say in the matter (“There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations“)? I’d wager not many. But that’s precisely what the US government has done, according to a leaked unsigned and undated Justice Department white paper, obtained by NBC News. You can read the white paper here. The actual legal justification as defined by Justice Department lawyers in 2010 is being kept secret by the government, but the ‘white paper’ explains that, not only has the government decided that targeted assassinations without due process are legal, but that no evidence of any imminent threat from a target is necessary for the target to be deemed an imminent threat. (Go figure). Read More →
As the US envoy to the “Libyan opposition” during the Libyan “revolution”, former US ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, oversaw the dismemberment of the prosperous and developed Libyan society that existed under Gaddafi. Stevens’ masters in Washington and Langley, Virginia, were the main financiers of the “Libyan opposition”, a gang of paid mercenaries from other African nations. When the Libyan army was eventually defeated by these mercenaries, with the help of 11 months of NATO bombing of all major Libyan cities (and the murder of 40,000 Libyan civilians) Chris Stevens and his friends installed a select few of these mercenaries as the new Libyan government. Despite these facts, the US government, and that foul witch Hilary Clinton, have the effrontery to be surprised and “appalled” that Stevens and a few CIA agents were killed by Libyans angry at the destruction of their once proud nation.
One result of the 11 month NATO bombing of Libya was thousands of former Libyan army soldiers with no job and a serious grudge against the USA. So let’s get real here, which is more likely: that the attack on the US embassy in Libya was the work of Libyans incensed at a badly dubbed, US-made film that mocks Islam, or that it was a well-planned act of revenge by former members of the Libyan army (specifically the ‘Khamis Brigade) against the representative of the country that led an attack that killed 40,000 Libyan civilians and soldiers, and installed a pro-Western government that is entirely unrepresentative of the Libya people.
There was also a bit of a to-do over the following statement issued by the US embassy in Cairo, which was also the scene of protests over the last two days:
“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions,” the statement said, apparently in response to a vitriolic video mocking Islam that was promoted by anti-Muslim Florida pastor Terry Jones. “Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
Apparently, some American senators and congress…eh… people, view the Cairo embassy statement as an apology to the protestors. If it WERE that, I’d applaud it, but what it clearly is, is the words of a group of Americans in the embassy in Cairo who were freaking out and willing to do or say anything to make sure they got to see their families again.
So Obama and Medvedev were caught having what they thought was a private chat at a nuclear summit in South Korea. Obama is overheard telling Medvedev that he needs ‘space’ on the contentious European missile defence shield nonsense, and that, after he is re-selected, he will have more ‘flexibility’, which presumably means he will finally scrap the plans to install missile bases in Poland and other Eastern European countries for the ridiculous purpose of protecting most of Europe from long-range missile strikes from Iran.
Supposedly, blogger and other news sites have jumped all over the ‘exposé’ as evidence of Obama’s ‘weakness, kowtowing to foreign governments or that he plans a much more radical second term’, assuming he is selected to be President again. All of which is rather bewildering, because no one seems to have understood the comments for what they are: clear evidence that US Presidents (and the public faces of most other major nations) will say whatever they need to say, to both the US public and foreign leaders (and anyone else who asks), in order to receive approval from their backers for re-selection. Once elected, they can, and will renege on all such promises and follow the agenda set for them by people who are, not only never caught on tape, but never actually seen.
In response to the February 25th killing of two US soldiers by an unidentified Afghan, who was angered by the most recent “Koran burning” episode by the always sensitive US army, the Commander of US forces in Afghanistan, General John Allen, told US troops:
“There will be moments like this when you’re searching for the meaning of this loss. There will be moments like this, when your emotions are governed by anger and a desire to strike back. Now is not the time for revenge, now is not the time for vengeance, now is the time to look deep inside your souls, remember your mission, remember your discipline, remember who you are.”
Then realised this captures the idea better:
Then decided that the concept is best expressed by this:
Good analysis of the President’s hubris here.