John Geraghty
One of the most contentious cases in the US courts at the moment is that of the so-called ‘Cuban five’, who have been arrested on a host of charges, including conspiracy to commit murder. This case has been going on since 1998, though it has garnered little or no media attention. The five were in the USA in order to infiltrate a terrorist organisation known as ’brothers to the rescue’ . This aims of this organisation were to disrupt tourism to Cuba, and thus weakening Fidel Castro’s government, by committing acts of terrorism at popular tourist spots and aboard airliners. The Cuban ambassador to Ireland Noél Trujillo makes the point that the Cuban Government were never in a position to share their information with the US government due to the hostile relations between the two countries and the embargo of Cuba by the US, “They do not consider us as an equal counterpart”.
Examples of the attacks perpetrated against Cuba by these anti-Castro groups in Miami, some hangovers from the Batista regime, are long standing. Attacks upon Cuban harbours and hotels were and are a frequent occurrence. Attacks such as these gave the Cuban Government the justification for operating within the United States in order to expose terrorist groups such as ‘brothers to the rescue’.
Eventually the Cuban Government passed information concerning these groups to the authorities in the US. Instead of attempting to apprehend the group planning the bombing of airliners and committing acts of sabotage, the US seized upon this release of information as an opportunity to find out who the Cuban operatives within the group were and then arrest them.
The trial of the five was conducted in
Miami, a very hostile environment to any Castro supporter, as demonstrated by recent street celebrations at the news of his health difficulties. It is in contravention of US law for a trial to be held in a hostile environment, though a petition filed by the defence was rejected. “It was a very embarrassing situation for the US” says ambassador Trujillo. Four of the five are condemned to life sentences and the other to fifteen years. Appeals by the five have been denied due to the fact that 2,000 US government files relating to the case have been classified as a matter of national security. It is believed by the ambassador and other officials and humanitarian organisations that these files are being withheld because they would exonerate the five.
All five are kept in solitary confinement. One of the five was kept in ‘the hole’, a solitary cell where sleep is deprived, food is rationed and no light is allowed in, for seven months, which is in contravention of US law. The wives of the five are not allowed to visit them due to the fact that the US government views them as security risks.
Speculation has been made whether the Central Intelligence Agency either trained or were in some way involved in the terrorist organisation operating out of Miami. Ambassador Trujillo shares in this suspicion. There is a long history of CIA involvement with the anti-Castro exiles in Florida. Many were trained by the CIA in the run up to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba. Following this failed attempt, the CIA continued to train Cuban exiles under an operation titles ‘Operation Mongoose’, which instructed participants to commit acts of terrorism on Cuban soil. It is very telling that several of the Watergate burglars were anti-Castro exiles trained by the CIA. Two such exiles trained by the CIA were Luis Posada Carilles and Orlando Bosch. The two were responsible for the bombing of a Cuban airliner in the 1970’s. Luis Posada Carilles was released from prison on an unrelated charge by presidential pardon from George H.W. Bush. Bush is a former director of the CIA and is known to have been heavily involved with such exile groups. Such was his involvement, a photo exists of Bush with a good friend, Felix Rodriguez, the man credited with the murder of Che Guevara. Posada is now applying for sanctuary in the US.
Orlando Bosch currently resides in the US. Both are wanted by the Cuban and Venezuelan Governments for acts of terrorism. The current attacks on Cuba come from those trained alongside Carilles and Bosch and also from a new breed of trainees.
Ambassador Trujillo remarks that the response from Irish politicians has been very positive, with 52 signatures of a petition by members of the Dáil from all political spectrums. Progress is being made in the case, though not from a public relations or media point of view. Despite its gravity, the story has received little news media attention. It has been buried by the major broadcasters because of the embarrassment it could cause to the US government.
Further information can be found at
www.freethefive.org and
Www.freethemiami5youth.org , an Irish organisation.
Friday, February 23, 2007
Interview with Cynthia McKinney
John Geraghty talks to one of the most outspoken US Politicians of 2006.
For some, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was a divisive and unruly character in American politics. Speaking her mind to Donald Rumsfeld about military spending, requesting a full appraisal of the security apparatus post 9/11 and also making it known that the black-white economic divide is still a troubling issue for a lot of Americans. For speaking her mind and really representing her people she was stabbed in the back by her own party and offered up to
Republican money men as a sacrificial lamb. Cynthia
McKinney, like many before her, represented the constituents of Georgia’s fourth congressional district, though unlike those that went before her and those that followed her, she did not represent the corporate interests of her state and tried her utmost to defend her constituents from increasing unemployment and heightening social ills. It was her refusal to tow the party line and her presence as an independent voice that united Democrats and Republicans in their ousting of her from Congress. Some might have laid down and thought this giant military industrial intelligence congressional complex too large a foe to fight, but Ms.McKinney fought back. In November of last year, Cynthia McKinney as her parting shot, drafted and introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of President George Bush, vice president Richard Cheney and secretary of state Condolezza Rice on a number of charges including lying to the public about intelligence leading the nation into a war in Iraq, complicity and sanctioning of torture around the world and a plethora of related ineptitude on the administrations part.
McKinney’s call for the impeachment of George Bush proved to the 51% of people that favoured the action, that she was the only member of Congress willing to enact the wish of the people and do what she was put there to do. An impeachment movement had been growing in the run up to Novembers Congressional elections, headed by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan). Since the ascendance of Democrats to a position of dominance in both houses of Congress, an attitude of cooperation with the Bush administration has gripped the
Democrat leaders, most notably speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi (D-California). It is likely that Conyers was asked to stay within ranks and declare, as Nancy Pelosi did, that impeachment was “off the table”. Had Cynthia McKinney still been in Congress, the calls for impeachment would have been louder and her popularity among the left would have grown
immensely. Though she no longer walks the halls of power, she still engages in what she feels is the ultimate form of
patriotism, dissent. In this way she still fulfils her oath of allegiance to her country and to the people that she still represents. I spoke to Ms.McKinney about her articles of impeachment, where she sees her country going and the current political dogfights in both parties.
What differentiates McKinney’s impeachment bill from those proposed by other peace activists is the fact that she lists Bush, Cheney and Rice as all being complicit. The joke in Washington is that if Cheney dies then Bush might actually become president, that is the fear of simply impeaching George Bush on his own, that the country will then be in the hands of Cheney, a man that was not elected on his own to that position. “Not only must justice be done to those who are still in Government, but to those who have left Government service and who are responsible for deceiving the American people and putting our country at war based on that deceit”. It is rare for a politician to speak in such frank terms, comments Are usually filtered through public relations firms and legal analysts before anything of such magnitude is said. McKinney is very aware of the culpability of Democratic representatives in the invasion of Iraq and the consequences of this action. McKinney is widely known not to have been a firm supporter of her party, due in part to many peoples perception that only one real party exists in the US, “the war party” as peace activist Cindy Sheehan once remarked to this author. Indeed McKinney is a rare breed, there are few elected officials in Ireland that have spoken with the vehemence that she has in recent years, berating her own party when needs be. “If
democrats fail to impeach Bush and punish him for his war crimes, in addition to stopping further war crimes, they are culpable too”, accusing ones own party of being party to war crimes is indeed unheard of. She went on to remark “Many of them voted for the war,
which I and of itself is inexcusable. Further inaction is shameful while the US retains the largest prison population in the world. The message the democrats send is ‘punish the little guys, but leave the biggest criminals alone so they can get away with more’”. Among the democrats that Ms.McKinney speaks of is Hillary Clinton, a current white house candidate. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and has done little or nothing to halt the infringement of the Government upon the civil liberties of US citizens. McKinney is not a big fan of Barrack Obama, who has unveiled a plan to remove troops by March 2008 should he get elected. Obama is quoted in September 24th’s edition of the Chicago sun as remarking that “surgical air strikes” against Iran and Pakistan may be necessary. These remarks would indicate that Obama is no more a dive than the others that were in the Senate at the time of the vote on the war in Iraq. Ms.McKinney declared that she doesn’t “think the American people should vote for anyone who supports war and more war”. The results of the November elections clearly portrayed the support among the democrat mainstream for a discontinued US presence in Iraq. Several Democratic candidates ran on purely anti war platforms, most notable of whom was Ned Lamont, who beat Al Gore’s former running mate, Joe Liberman in the democratic primary, only to lose due to a Republican crossover vote for Lieberman (a similar occurrence to the ousting of Cynthia McKinney).
It has never been in the interest of the financial backers of the US government to see a strong voice like Cynthia McKinney asking tough questions. One of McKinneys greatest triumphs was her grilling of then secretary of defence Donald Rumsfled over the Government’s policy of awarding contracts to Dyncorp, who have engaged in human trafficking, the missing $3 billion from the US military budget and the Government’s lacklustre handling of security post 9/11. The video of this exchange can be found on youtube also features in a documentary ‘American Blackout’ which chronicles McKinney’s recent career against the backdrop of the disenfranchisement of black and Hispanic voters in the 2000 and 2004 elections. A few lines ago I mentioned corporate backers of the US government, let me recount an unrelated fact which may startle a lot of you. Are you aware that the owner of seemingly liberal clothing store urban outfitters is a mojor contributor to the Republican party and that he has given $13,000 in donations to homophobic Senator Rick Santorum? Corporations may portray one image to engage a market, but practise a very different ethic.
So what does Ms. McKinney propose America do to immediately rectify its tarnished image and unequal society? “1. End the war; 2. Take care of the American people; 3.Focus on jobs and Education; 4.Get the Fiscal house in order 5; Cut energy usage, change energy habits and inputs”. There is nothing radical in these words, though she is deemed a controversial politician in the US. Seemingly it is controversial to ask ones own Government not to spend $350 billion (the cost of the Iraq war so far) on the military and to spend it on things that will bring tangible benefits to its own citizens.
When the impeachment of Bill Clinton was proposed in congress for marital infidelity the media gave it priority status on the news. Last November Cynthia McKinney asked that George Bush be impeached for war crimes, yet there was no mention of it on the BBC website, nothing on CNN international and not a peep from supposedly liberal newspaper like the New York Times. Why did we not hear of this brave act of defiance? The answer simply put, is that the same corporations that control the media are also the corporations receiving contracts from the Government. Who owns CNN? General Electric. Who owns Fox, The times, myspace, the sun, sky, the news of the world, harper Collins? Rupert Murdoch, who pays little or no tax.
It is McKinney’s understaning of the real power structure in Washington D.C. that sets her apart from her political counterparts. She may no longer represent Georgia, but she represents me.
The Advocate will be hosting a screening of the documentary
‘American Blackout’ on Wednesday the 28th of February. See www.maynoothadvocate for further details.
The advocate will reschedule the screening of this film due to the late publication of the paper. If you can not make the screening you can watch it full on the net.
Here it is,
For some, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was a divisive and unruly character in American politics. Speaking her mind to Donald Rumsfeld about military spending, requesting a full appraisal of the security apparatus post 9/11 and also making it known that the black-white economic divide is still a troubling issue for a lot of Americans. For speaking her mind and really representing her people she was stabbed in the back by her own party and offered up to
Republican money men as a sacrificial lamb. Cynthia
McKinney, like many before her, represented the constituents of Georgia’s fourth congressional district, though unlike those that went before her and those that followed her, she did not represent the corporate interests of her state and tried her utmost to defend her constituents from increasing unemployment and heightening social ills. It was her refusal to tow the party line and her presence as an independent voice that united Democrats and Republicans in their ousting of her from Congress. Some might have laid down and thought this giant military industrial intelligence congressional complex too large a foe to fight, but Ms.McKinney fought back. In November of last year, Cynthia McKinney as her parting shot, drafted and introduced legislation calling for the impeachment of President George Bush, vice president Richard Cheney and secretary of state Condolezza Rice on a number of charges including lying to the public about intelligence leading the nation into a war in Iraq, complicity and sanctioning of torture around the world and a plethora of related ineptitude on the administrations part.
McKinney’s call for the impeachment of George Bush proved to the 51% of people that favoured the action, that she was the only member of Congress willing to enact the wish of the people and do what she was put there to do. An impeachment movement had been growing in the run up to Novembers Congressional elections, headed by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan). Since the ascendance of Democrats to a position of dominance in both houses of Congress, an attitude of cooperation with the Bush administration has gripped the
Democrat leaders, most notably speaker of the house Nancy Pelosi (D-California). It is likely that Conyers was asked to stay within ranks and declare, as Nancy Pelosi did, that impeachment was “off the table”. Had Cynthia McKinney still been in Congress, the calls for impeachment would have been louder and her popularity among the left would have grown
immensely. Though she no longer walks the halls of power, she still engages in what she feels is the ultimate form of
patriotism, dissent. In this way she still fulfils her oath of allegiance to her country and to the people that she still represents. I spoke to Ms.McKinney about her articles of impeachment, where she sees her country going and the current political dogfights in both parties.
What differentiates McKinney’s impeachment bill from those proposed by other peace activists is the fact that she lists Bush, Cheney and Rice as all being complicit. The joke in Washington is that if Cheney dies then Bush might actually become president, that is the fear of simply impeaching George Bush on his own, that the country will then be in the hands of Cheney, a man that was not elected on his own to that position. “Not only must justice be done to those who are still in Government, but to those who have left Government service and who are responsible for deceiving the American people and putting our country at war based on that deceit”. It is rare for a politician to speak in such frank terms, comments Are usually filtered through public relations firms and legal analysts before anything of such magnitude is said. McKinney is very aware of the culpability of Democratic representatives in the invasion of Iraq and the consequences of this action. McKinney is widely known not to have been a firm supporter of her party, due in part to many peoples perception that only one real party exists in the US, “the war party” as peace activist Cindy Sheehan once remarked to this author. Indeed McKinney is a rare breed, there are few elected officials in Ireland that have spoken with the vehemence that she has in recent years, berating her own party when needs be. “If
democrats fail to impeach Bush and punish him for his war crimes, in addition to stopping further war crimes, they are culpable too”, accusing ones own party of being party to war crimes is indeed unheard of. She went on to remark “Many of them voted for the war,
which I and of itself is inexcusable. Further inaction is shameful while the US retains the largest prison population in the world. The message the democrats send is ‘punish the little guys, but leave the biggest criminals alone so they can get away with more’”. Among the democrats that Ms.McKinney speaks of is Hillary Clinton, a current white house candidate. Clinton voted for the war in Iraq and has done little or nothing to halt the infringement of the Government upon the civil liberties of US citizens. McKinney is not a big fan of Barrack Obama, who has unveiled a plan to remove troops by March 2008 should he get elected. Obama is quoted in September 24th’s edition of the Chicago sun as remarking that “surgical air strikes” against Iran and Pakistan may be necessary. These remarks would indicate that Obama is no more a dive than the others that were in the Senate at the time of the vote on the war in Iraq. Ms.McKinney declared that she doesn’t “think the American people should vote for anyone who supports war and more war”. The results of the November elections clearly portrayed the support among the democrat mainstream for a discontinued US presence in Iraq. Several Democratic candidates ran on purely anti war platforms, most notable of whom was Ned Lamont, who beat Al Gore’s former running mate, Joe Liberman in the democratic primary, only to lose due to a Republican crossover vote for Lieberman (a similar occurrence to the ousting of Cynthia McKinney).
It has never been in the interest of the financial backers of the US government to see a strong voice like Cynthia McKinney asking tough questions. One of McKinneys greatest triumphs was her grilling of then secretary of defence Donald Rumsfled over the Government’s policy of awarding contracts to Dyncorp, who have engaged in human trafficking, the missing $3 billion from the US military budget and the Government’s lacklustre handling of security post 9/11. The video of this exchange can be found on youtube also features in a documentary ‘American Blackout’ which chronicles McKinney’s recent career against the backdrop of the disenfranchisement of black and Hispanic voters in the 2000 and 2004 elections. A few lines ago I mentioned corporate backers of the US government, let me recount an unrelated fact which may startle a lot of you. Are you aware that the owner of seemingly liberal clothing store urban outfitters is a mojor contributor to the Republican party and that he has given $13,000 in donations to homophobic Senator Rick Santorum? Corporations may portray one image to engage a market, but practise a very different ethic.
So what does Ms. McKinney propose America do to immediately rectify its tarnished image and unequal society? “1. End the war; 2. Take care of the American people; 3.Focus on jobs and Education; 4.Get the Fiscal house in order 5; Cut energy usage, change energy habits and inputs”. There is nothing radical in these words, though she is deemed a controversial politician in the US. Seemingly it is controversial to ask ones own Government not to spend $350 billion (the cost of the Iraq war so far) on the military and to spend it on things that will bring tangible benefits to its own citizens.
When the impeachment of Bill Clinton was proposed in congress for marital infidelity the media gave it priority status on the news. Last November Cynthia McKinney asked that George Bush be impeached for war crimes, yet there was no mention of it on the BBC website, nothing on CNN international and not a peep from supposedly liberal newspaper like the New York Times. Why did we not hear of this brave act of defiance? The answer simply put, is that the same corporations that control the media are also the corporations receiving contracts from the Government. Who owns CNN? General Electric. Who owns Fox, The times, myspace, the sun, sky, the news of the world, harper Collins? Rupert Murdoch, who pays little or no tax.
It is McKinney’s understaning of the real power structure in Washington D.C. that sets her apart from her political counterparts. She may no longer represent Georgia, but she represents me.
The Advocate will be hosting a screening of the documentary
‘American Blackout’ on Wednesday the 28th of February. See www.maynoothadvocate for further details.
The advocate will reschedule the screening of this film due to the late publication of the paper. If you can not make the screening you can watch it full on the net.
Here it is,
Are the democrats really playing it safe on 9/11
Mike Zmolek
What was the first order of business for the Democrats upon assuming control of Congress in January? Withdrawing the troops from Iraq? Finding a way to provide health care to 40 million uninsured Americans? Impeaching George W. Bush? Think again. The first bill to be introduced, HR 1, titled: "Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007," passed the House by a vote of 299 to 128 on January 9th, 2007. The bill is now in committee in the Senate. Rather than running the risk of appearing "soft on terror", dissenting Republicans defended their votes against the bill by claiming that most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations had already been implemented by the previous Republican-led Congress.
Assuming the recommendations of the 9/11Commission themselves are sound, choosing this as the first piece of legislation is a pretty safe strategy. The Democrats have two things going for them: Republicans will be wary of balking at the price tag and the public will be generally supportive because they have been convinced that not enough has been done to keep us safe from terrorism.But that's the troubling part. By aggressively moving forward with adopting these unchallenged recommendations, the Democrats will be lending legitimacy to a body thatwas deeply flawed from its inception to its conclusions
Initially, the Bush Administration stonewalled on any investigation. Eventually, pressure from the families of the victims of 9/11 forced the Administration to cough up $3 million for an investigation (compared with the $100 million the Republican Congress appropriated for Kenneth Starr to investigate Bill Clinton). $3 million later became $30 million. That's about $1,000 per victim. Let's have that again: $30 million to investigate the mass murder of 3,000 American citizens; $100 million to investigate Bill Clinton’s peccadillos.The tale of the 9/11 Commission is one of unending woe: an Administration that refused to cooperate by handing over documents or allowing its top officials to testify under oath, numerous resignations and recusals, dozens of the families' questions left unanswered, and a final product that is non-verifiable because nearly every footnote leads the reader to a classified document unavailable for public scrutiny. By the fourth out of a dozen hearings, the Commission had shifted focus to shaping its recommendations, long before any conclusions could be drawn from the investigation. Most of all, the 9/11 Commission steered clear of any serious criticism of the Bush Administration's pre-9/11 foreign policy or the post 9/11 "War on Terror."In 2005, on the first anniversary of the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia held a briefing that brought together critics of the Report, including family members and scholars, to address the failures of the Commission, reiterate the outstanding questions and critique its recommendations.
The only other Member of Congress to attend was Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Illinois, the current Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Nine hours of expert testimony left little doubt that the 9/11 Commission Report's conclusions were a rubber stamp of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, or that its recommendations would ultimately do little to address the history and root causes, or the methods needed to defuse and defeat terrorism.HR 1 is front-loaded with measures designed to improve airport security, crack down on terrorist travel and beef up support for first responders. HR 1 is not a bill, it's bill-zilla. Its complexity outstrips even the enormous and ultimately doomed HR 4197 of the 109th Congress--the CBC's omnibus package for Katrina survivors, a bill which got bogged down in over a dozen committees as hundreds of thousands of survivors in diaspora waited in vain for Congress to pass meaningful legislation to help them return home. HR 1 sets out to reshape information sharing within Homeland Security and simultaneously crack down on black market smuggling in nuclear materials. Only at the last, when we come to Title XIV, do we read anything about diplomacy. And what kind of diplomatic initiatives are proposed? Pipe more television into the Middle East to improve our image. Offer better educational opportunities to students from Muslim countries. A series of bland and paternalistic statements like: "...enhance counter-terrorism cooperation with the Government of Saudi Arabia, if the political leaders of such government are committed to making a serious, sustained effort to combatterrorism." No wonder Republicans are saying "Been there, done that." Safer airports? Sure.Go after terrorist financing? You bet.Track down black market nuclear materials? By all means.But even if the Democrats' effort to simply ram through all of these recommendations in one fell swoop actually advances such lofty goals and does not turn counterproductive, there is little in HR 1 that questions or challenges the overall framework of the Bush Doctrine. That is to be expected, for the 9/11 Commission failed to take an honest look at how U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has stoked the fires of terrorism. Instead, the thrust of its policy recommendations is to call for spending endless billions on improving homeland security measures.
Decades from now, will Americans be the beneficiaries of a wiser foreign policy in the Middle East that acknowledges rather than denies the legitimacy of the grievances of Arab and Muslim populations? Will we engage in meaningful diplomacy, making appropriate concessions and building new and perhaps unlikely alliances? Will we deal with the causes of terrorism, or just the symptoms? Or will we keep the options of illegal invasion, occupation and the threat of “small” tactical nuclear weapons “on the table,” whilst spending trillions annually in the frail hope of preventing future 9/11s?
Mike Zmolek is a former Legislative Assistant for Representative CynthiaMcKinney of Georgia, and former National Outreach Coordinator for the NationalNetwork to End the War Against Iraq.
What was the first order of business for the Democrats upon assuming control of Congress in January? Withdrawing the troops from Iraq? Finding a way to provide health care to 40 million uninsured Americans? Impeaching George W. Bush? Think again. The first bill to be introduced, HR 1, titled: "Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007," passed the House by a vote of 299 to 128 on January 9th, 2007. The bill is now in committee in the Senate. Rather than running the risk of appearing "soft on terror", dissenting Republicans defended their votes against the bill by claiming that most of the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations had already been implemented by the previous Republican-led Congress.
Assuming the recommendations of the 9/11Commission themselves are sound, choosing this as the first piece of legislation is a pretty safe strategy. The Democrats have two things going for them: Republicans will be wary of balking at the price tag and the public will be generally supportive because they have been convinced that not enough has been done to keep us safe from terrorism.But that's the troubling part. By aggressively moving forward with adopting these unchallenged recommendations, the Democrats will be lending legitimacy to a body thatwas deeply flawed from its inception to its conclusions
Initially, the Bush Administration stonewalled on any investigation. Eventually, pressure from the families of the victims of 9/11 forced the Administration to cough up $3 million for an investigation (compared with the $100 million the Republican Congress appropriated for Kenneth Starr to investigate Bill Clinton). $3 million later became $30 million. That's about $1,000 per victim. Let's have that again: $30 million to investigate the mass murder of 3,000 American citizens; $100 million to investigate Bill Clinton’s peccadillos.The tale of the 9/11 Commission is one of unending woe: an Administration that refused to cooperate by handing over documents or allowing its top officials to testify under oath, numerous resignations and recusals, dozens of the families' questions left unanswered, and a final product that is non-verifiable because nearly every footnote leads the reader to a classified document unavailable for public scrutiny. By the fourth out of a dozen hearings, the Commission had shifted focus to shaping its recommendations, long before any conclusions could be drawn from the investigation. Most of all, the 9/11 Commission steered clear of any serious criticism of the Bush Administration's pre-9/11 foreign policy or the post 9/11 "War on Terror."In 2005, on the first anniversary of the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia held a briefing that brought together critics of the Report, including family members and scholars, to address the failures of the Commission, reiterate the outstanding questions and critique its recommendations.
The only other Member of Congress to attend was Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick of Illinois, the current Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC). Nine hours of expert testimony left little doubt that the 9/11 Commission Report's conclusions were a rubber stamp of the Bush Administration's foreign policy, or that its recommendations would ultimately do little to address the history and root causes, or the methods needed to defuse and defeat terrorism.HR 1 is front-loaded with measures designed to improve airport security, crack down on terrorist travel and beef up support for first responders. HR 1 is not a bill, it's bill-zilla. Its complexity outstrips even the enormous and ultimately doomed HR 4197 of the 109th Congress--the CBC's omnibus package for Katrina survivors, a bill which got bogged down in over a dozen committees as hundreds of thousands of survivors in diaspora waited in vain for Congress to pass meaningful legislation to help them return home. HR 1 sets out to reshape information sharing within Homeland Security and simultaneously crack down on black market smuggling in nuclear materials. Only at the last, when we come to Title XIV, do we read anything about diplomacy. And what kind of diplomatic initiatives are proposed? Pipe more television into the Middle East to improve our image. Offer better educational opportunities to students from Muslim countries. A series of bland and paternalistic statements like: "...enhance counter-terrorism cooperation with the Government of Saudi Arabia, if the political leaders of such government are committed to making a serious, sustained effort to combatterrorism." No wonder Republicans are saying "Been there, done that." Safer airports? Sure.Go after terrorist financing? You bet.Track down black market nuclear materials? By all means.But even if the Democrats' effort to simply ram through all of these recommendations in one fell swoop actually advances such lofty goals and does not turn counterproductive, there is little in HR 1 that questions or challenges the overall framework of the Bush Doctrine. That is to be expected, for the 9/11 Commission failed to take an honest look at how U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has stoked the fires of terrorism. Instead, the thrust of its policy recommendations is to call for spending endless billions on improving homeland security measures.
Decades from now, will Americans be the beneficiaries of a wiser foreign policy in the Middle East that acknowledges rather than denies the legitimacy of the grievances of Arab and Muslim populations? Will we engage in meaningful diplomacy, making appropriate concessions and building new and perhaps unlikely alliances? Will we deal with the causes of terrorism, or just the symptoms? Or will we keep the options of illegal invasion, occupation and the threat of “small” tactical nuclear weapons “on the table,” whilst spending trillions annually in the frail hope of preventing future 9/11s?
Mike Zmolek is a former Legislative Assistant for Representative CynthiaMcKinney of Georgia, and former National Outreach Coordinator for the NationalNetwork to End the War Against Iraq.
It's the real thing...
Dan Finn
The paramilitaries came to the village at dawn. In the first house they entered, they chopped a woman’s head off in front of her family, then split it open with a machete. Moving quickly to the next house, they placed a grenade in another woman’s mouth with the pin removed. Then they chopped her three children into pieces and set them on fire. By the time their grisly mission was over, the paramilitaries had killed twelve people in a similar fashion.
This massacre was described by one of the survivors to a delegation of Irish student and trade union activists, of which I was part, that visited Colombia in June. Even at the height of the Troubles in Ireland, if such a hideous atrocity had taken place, it would have made front-page news, attracting international condemnation. But in Colombia, such massacres are almost routine.
The guilty parties in this case were not the FARC, whose activities have attracted much attention recently. The extreme-right paramilitaries of the AUC, the most violent terrorist group in the western hemisphere, have carried out hundreds of similar killings in recent years There are two striking features of the AUC’s campaign. One is the sheer cruelty and blood-lust of its cadres. It’s not considered sufficient to murder people with a gun-shot to the head: the paramilitaries often butcher their victims with chain-saws and machetes.
But most shocking of all is the ease with which they operate. The Colombian army has made no attempt to protect its people from this vicious terror campaign. On the contrary, its officers have been working hand in hand with the AUC for years. According to Human Rights Watch, there is “detailed, abundant and compelling evidence of continuing close ties between the Colombian Army and paramilitary groups responsible for gross human rights violations.”[1]
The paramilitaries are active all over Colombia. They represent the most ruthless edge of a campaign by the state to crush all social organisations that resist the imposition of neoliberal economic policies. Anyone who speaks out against this terror campaign is considered a “military target”. There is, of course, an armed insurgency in Colombia, led by the FARC and ELN guerrillas. But it is simply not credible to excuse state and paramilitary violence as a response to this insurgency. Labels like “subversive” or “guerrilla” are applied indiscriminately to anyone who challenges the status quo.
Amnesty International has noted that “government, security force and other state officials are frequently and increasingly treating human rights defenders and social activists as subversives, labelling them as such in public statements and targeting them during intelligence and counter-insurgency operations.”[2] As our delegation travelled around the country, we gathered a shocking picture of this war against civil society.
Ciudad Bolivar is a sprawling urban settlement on the hills outside Bogota, home to a million and a half people. But the hills also contain rich natural resources that are mined in quarries bordering directly onto neighbourhoods of the slum. The companies involved want to expand into these neighbourhoods. In order to secure this expansion, paramilitaries have moved into Ciudad Bolivar and sought to impose their will.
300 members of the AUC moved into the area recently. They immediately began a campaign of terror and intimidation, targeting young people. Posters and leaflets were distributed, bearing the message “good children are in bed by nine o’clock - we take care of the bad children”. In the first half of 2005, at least 150 young people were killed by the paramilitaries.
Any form of non-conformist behaviour that Irish teenagers would take for granted can be enough to single out a victim: being drunk in public, having long hair or wearing an earring. Anyone in the streets after dark is considered a fair target. The paramilitaries call this “social cleansing”. There is no prospect of intervention by the state to tackle the paramilitary terror: AUC members have often been seen going in and out of army bases.
The paramilitary campaign in Barrancabermeja, an oil town in the north of the country, has been particularly savage. In their first year in the city (2000), 539 people were murdered - 25 times the murder rate in New York City. 87% of these murders were attributed to the AUC The paramilitaries now control most neighbourhoods.
The most active social organisation in Barrancabermeja is the OFP, a grass-roots women’s organisation. The OFP provides social services for poor communities, running soup kitchens for children, or helping displaced people build homes for themselves. They also campaign against political violence, urging young people not to join the paramilitaries. This work has enraged the AUC.
Over the course of an afternoon, we were taken to cultural centres run by the OFP all over the city, where children are taught how to dance or play musical instruments. Our guide was a cheerful young woman in her early twenties. She explained that our brief presence in the centres would be seen by the paramilitaries who control the neighbourhoods, and might deter them from launching attacks on OFP workers. In one area, a dance instructor had recently been shot by the AUC.
To understand the reality of life in Colombia today, it’s vital to understand that mundane community work of this sort is considered “subversive”. You’re almost as likely to be killed for teaching kids a few dance moves, as for taking up arms against the state. Our guide had encountered the AUC herself recently. They forced her into a car at gun-point, then poured boiling water onto the soles of her feet for two hours as they drove around town, warning that she would be killed the next time they came for her.
The oil-rich province of Arauca, which borders Venezuela, is one of the areas worst hit by the civil war between guerrillas and the state. “Plan Colombia”, the US-led programme of support for the Colombian army, has channelled vast sums in military aid to the province. Having been suspended in 1994 because of human rights concerns, US military aid to Colombia was resumed in 2000 after intense lobbying by the oil industry, particularly Occidental Petroleum, which owns a 50% share in Arauca’s oil deposits. Under Plan Colombia, $99m has been spent on protecting the oil pipeline in the province; a special brigade of the Colombian army has been set up for this purpose (overall, $3bn has been granted in US military aid since 2000, making Colombia the third-largest recipient).
The military presence in Arauca is oppressive. There are soldiers in every town and village. Several times we saw army units based in or near schools and playgrounds, so the children could be used as human shields - a blatant violation of international humanitarian law. The mayor of Saravena, the province’s capital, told us that both of the main actors in Arauca were responsible for violating human rights: the guerrillas and the army. There have been mass arrests of people with no connection to the guerrillas, including the mayor himself.
The most notorious of these operations occurred in November 2002, when over 2,000 people, including most of the town’s human rights activists and trade union leaders, were rounded up by the army and taken to the town stadium. Fewer than 30 of those arrested were subsequently investigated for suspected guerrilla links. Amnesty International has expressed concern that social activists “are increasingly facing a co-ordinated military-paramilitary strategy aimed at tarnishing and undermining them and their organisations through arbitrary detentions and criminal proceedings and thereby paving the way to the risk of violent paramilitary attack.”[3]
When challenged by foreign governments, the Colombian president Alvaro Uribe claims to be doing everything he can to stop paramilitary terror. But the record of his government makes a mockery of this claim. It has allowed the AUC to operate in every part of the country, and its rhetoric helps facilitate the murder of social activists. Uribe himself has described human rights NGOs as “political manoeuverers ultimately in the service of terrorism”. He has now introduced an amnesty for the paramilitaries, the so-called “Justice and Peace Law”; the New York Times argued that it should be re-titled the “Impunity for Mass Murderers, Terrorists and Major C ocaine Traffickers Law”.
If the international community is serious about combating terror, one of its most urgent priorities should be to ostracise the Uribe government until its complicity with the AUC is brought to an end. The Colombian people, who have already suffered such terrible violence in recent years, deserve nothing less.
COKE AND COLOMBIA
The call for a boycott of Coke products was launched by the Colombian trade union SINALTRAINAL in July 2003. They alleged that management in Coke bottling plants had been working with AUC paramilitaries to wipe out the union; eight union members had been killed (some while inside the factory), while many others had been threatened. Coke denied the allegations and insisted that its plant managers had played no part in the AUC’s terror campaign against SINALTRAINAL.
Our delegation met with Coke workers in Barrancabermeja and Bucaramanga. The workers in the Barrancabermeja plant told us that paramilitaries were often seen entering and leaving the plant, and had friendly relations with the managers. Often they would be given free Coke products to distribute in neighbourhoods they controlled. Coca-Cola has claimed that it is unable to stop paramilitaries from entering its plants. However, when members of our delegation began taking photos outside the plant, police arrived within two minutes, having been called by management, and demanded to know what we were doing. The plant workers told us that they have been given strict instructions not to call the police if AUC members enter the plant.
In Bucaramanga, we met two SINALTRAINAL members who had been the victim of a frame-up by plant managers. In the early nineties, over half the workforce in the city were on full-time contracts, with relatively good salaries and benefits. The company was determined to reduce its wage bill, so permanent staff were offered a lump sum if they would sign away their contract.
Some accepted, but many refused, including the two union members we met. In 1996, plant managers told the police that the two workers were guerrillas and had planted a bomb in the factory. They were held for six months and tortured while in custody. Their families were impoverished and forced to rely on charity. The state prosecutor eventually ordered their release, having established that there had never been any bomb planted anywhere near the plant.
The intimidation achieved the desired results: most permanent workers left the company, fearing the same thing might happen to them if they remained active in the union. Now, the majority of staff in Bucaramanaga are on temporary contracts. The distribution workers begin their shift at 6 a.m and work until 10 p.m, for a wage of $3 a day. They have to make their own social security payments, pay for their own uniforms and petrol, and even rent the crates from the company. If they don’t meet a monthly quota for sales, they are sacked, so they often have to make up the difference from their own wages.
This pattern has been repeated at a national level, where almost 95% of the workforce are now on temporary contracts. Workers on these contracts are unable to join unions or take any action to defend themselves, because they can be sacked on the spot. The wage-bill has been reduced, at a terrible price for the workforce. Breaking SINALTRAINAL was a vital part of this business strategy. Coke has claimed that there is no anti-union policy in the company’s Colombian plants. But our delegation was shown documents obtained by SINALTRAINAL that outlined the company’s business plan for Colombia; eliminating SINALTRAINAL was identified as a priority.
Naturally, the plan did not explain exactly how this was to be achieved. But in practice, managers have worked closely with the AUC to target the union. The most chilling example of this co-operation came from the plant in Carepa. Isidro Segundo Gil, a union leader who worked in the plant, was shot dead at the plant by paramilitaries. The next day, they returned to the plant and told the workers that they would be killed if they did not leave the union. The manager had prepared resignation forms in advance, and handed them out afterwards. Having eliminated the union, he was then able to replace full-time staff earning $380 a month with part-timers on $130 a month.
SINALTRAINAL finally called for a boycott of Coke products two years ago, having repeatedly urged Coke’s US board of directors to intervene in Colombia and end the anti-union campaign. Their call was supported by the CUT (Colombia’s equivalent of ICTU) and other social organisations. Since Trinity, UCD and NCAD voted to support the boycott during the 2003-04 academic year, many trade unions and student unions, in Ireland and further afield, have also given it their support. A victory for the Coke workers would also help the broader struggle for human rights in Colombia. If you want to help the people of Colombia, you can start by boycotting Coke.
[1] “The Ties That Bind: Colombia and Military-Paramilitary Links”, Human Rights Watch Report, February 2000, p.1
[2] “A Laboratory of War: Repression and Violence in Arauca”, Amnesty International Report, 2004, p.3
[3] ibid., p.2
The paramilitaries came to the village at dawn. In the first house they entered, they chopped a woman’s head off in front of her family, then split it open with a machete. Moving quickly to the next house, they placed a grenade in another woman’s mouth with the pin removed. Then they chopped her three children into pieces and set them on fire. By the time their grisly mission was over, the paramilitaries had killed twelve people in a similar fashion.
This massacre was described by one of the survivors to a delegation of Irish student and trade union activists, of which I was part, that visited Colombia in June. Even at the height of the Troubles in Ireland, if such a hideous atrocity had taken place, it would have made front-page news, attracting international condemnation. But in Colombia, such massacres are almost routine.
The guilty parties in this case were not the FARC, whose activities have attracted much attention recently. The extreme-right paramilitaries of the AUC, the most violent terrorist group in the western hemisphere, have carried out hundreds of similar killings in recent years There are two striking features of the AUC’s campaign. One is the sheer cruelty and blood-lust of its cadres. It’s not considered sufficient to murder people with a gun-shot to the head: the paramilitaries often butcher their victims with chain-saws and machetes.
But most shocking of all is the ease with which they operate. The Colombian army has made no attempt to protect its people from this vicious terror campaign. On the contrary, its officers have been working hand in hand with the AUC for years. According to Human Rights Watch, there is “detailed, abundant and compelling evidence of continuing close ties between the Colombian Army and paramilitary groups responsible for gross human rights violations.”[1]
The paramilitaries are active all over Colombia. They represent the most ruthless edge of a campaign by the state to crush all social organisations that resist the imposition of neoliberal economic policies. Anyone who speaks out against this terror campaign is considered a “military target”. There is, of course, an armed insurgency in Colombia, led by the FARC and ELN guerrillas. But it is simply not credible to excuse state and paramilitary violence as a response to this insurgency. Labels like “subversive” or “guerrilla” are applied indiscriminately to anyone who challenges the status quo.
Amnesty International has noted that “government, security force and other state officials are frequently and increasingly treating human rights defenders and social activists as subversives, labelling them as such in public statements and targeting them during intelligence and counter-insurgency operations.”[2] As our delegation travelled around the country, we gathered a shocking picture of this war against civil society.
Ciudad Bolivar is a sprawling urban settlement on the hills outside Bogota, home to a million and a half people. But the hills also contain rich natural resources that are mined in quarries bordering directly onto neighbourhoods of the slum. The companies involved want to expand into these neighbourhoods. In order to secure this expansion, paramilitaries have moved into Ciudad Bolivar and sought to impose their will.
300 members of the AUC moved into the area recently. They immediately began a campaign of terror and intimidation, targeting young people. Posters and leaflets were distributed, bearing the message “good children are in bed by nine o’clock - we take care of the bad children”. In the first half of 2005, at least 150 young people were killed by the paramilitaries.
Any form of non-conformist behaviour that Irish teenagers would take for granted can be enough to single out a victim: being drunk in public, having long hair or wearing an earring. Anyone in the streets after dark is considered a fair target. The paramilitaries call this “social cleansing”. There is no prospect of intervention by the state to tackle the paramilitary terror: AUC members have often been seen going in and out of army bases.
The paramilitary campaign in Barrancabermeja, an oil town in the north of the country, has been particularly savage. In their first year in the city (2000), 539 people were murdered - 25 times the murder rate in New York City. 87% of these murders were attributed to the AUC The paramilitaries now control most neighbourhoods.
The most active social organisation in Barrancabermeja is the OFP, a grass-roots women’s organisation. The OFP provides social services for poor communities, running soup kitchens for children, or helping displaced people build homes for themselves. They also campaign against political violence, urging young people not to join the paramilitaries. This work has enraged the AUC.
Over the course of an afternoon, we were taken to cultural centres run by the OFP all over the city, where children are taught how to dance or play musical instruments. Our guide was a cheerful young woman in her early twenties. She explained that our brief presence in the centres would be seen by the paramilitaries who control the neighbourhoods, and might deter them from launching attacks on OFP workers. In one area, a dance instructor had recently been shot by the AUC.
To understand the reality of life in Colombia today, it’s vital to understand that mundane community work of this sort is considered “subversive”. You’re almost as likely to be killed for teaching kids a few dance moves, as for taking up arms against the state. Our guide had encountered the AUC herself recently. They forced her into a car at gun-point, then poured boiling water onto the soles of her feet for two hours as they drove around town, warning that she would be killed the next time they came for her.
The oil-rich province of Arauca, which borders Venezuela, is one of the areas worst hit by the civil war between guerrillas and the state. “Plan Colombia”, the US-led programme of support for the Colombian army, has channelled vast sums in military aid to the province. Having been suspended in 1994 because of human rights concerns, US military aid to Colombia was resumed in 2000 after intense lobbying by the oil industry, particularly Occidental Petroleum, which owns a 50% share in Arauca’s oil deposits. Under Plan Colombia, $99m has been spent on protecting the oil pipeline in the province; a special brigade of the Colombian army has been set up for this purpose (overall, $3bn has been granted in US military aid since 2000, making Colombia the third-largest recipient).
The military presence in Arauca is oppressive. There are soldiers in every town and village. Several times we saw army units based in or near schools and playgrounds, so the children could be used as human shields - a blatant violation of international humanitarian law. The mayor of Saravena, the province’s capital, told us that both of the main actors in Arauca were responsible for violating human rights: the guerrillas and the army. There have been mass arrests of people with no connection to the guerrillas, including the mayor himself.
The most notorious of these operations occurred in November 2002, when over 2,000 people, including most of the town’s human rights activists and trade union leaders, were rounded up by the army and taken to the town stadium. Fewer than 30 of those arrested were subsequently investigated for suspected guerrilla links. Amnesty International has expressed concern that social activists “are increasingly facing a co-ordinated military-paramilitary strategy aimed at tarnishing and undermining them and their organisations through arbitrary detentions and criminal proceedings and thereby paving the way to the risk of violent paramilitary attack.”[3]
When challenged by foreign governments, the Colombian president Alvaro Uribe claims to be doing everything he can to stop paramilitary terror. But the record of his government makes a mockery of this claim. It has allowed the AUC to operate in every part of the country, and its rhetoric helps facilitate the murder of social activists. Uribe himself has described human rights NGOs as “political manoeuverers ultimately in the service of terrorism”. He has now introduced an amnesty for the paramilitaries, the so-called “Justice and Peace Law”; the New York Times argued that it should be re-titled the “Impunity for Mass Murderers, Terrorists and Major C ocaine Traffickers Law”.
If the international community is serious about combating terror, one of its most urgent priorities should be to ostracise the Uribe government until its complicity with the AUC is brought to an end. The Colombian people, who have already suffered such terrible violence in recent years, deserve nothing less.
COKE AND COLOMBIA
The call for a boycott of Coke products was launched by the Colombian trade union SINALTRAINAL in July 2003. They alleged that management in Coke bottling plants had been working with AUC paramilitaries to wipe out the union; eight union members had been killed (some while inside the factory), while many others had been threatened. Coke denied the allegations and insisted that its plant managers had played no part in the AUC’s terror campaign against SINALTRAINAL.
Our delegation met with Coke workers in Barrancabermeja and Bucaramanga. The workers in the Barrancabermeja plant told us that paramilitaries were often seen entering and leaving the plant, and had friendly relations with the managers. Often they would be given free Coke products to distribute in neighbourhoods they controlled. Coca-Cola has claimed that it is unable to stop paramilitaries from entering its plants. However, when members of our delegation began taking photos outside the plant, police arrived within two minutes, having been called by management, and demanded to know what we were doing. The plant workers told us that they have been given strict instructions not to call the police if AUC members enter the plant.
In Bucaramanga, we met two SINALTRAINAL members who had been the victim of a frame-up by plant managers. In the early nineties, over half the workforce in the city were on full-time contracts, with relatively good salaries and benefits. The company was determined to reduce its wage bill, so permanent staff were offered a lump sum if they would sign away their contract.
Some accepted, but many refused, including the two union members we met. In 1996, plant managers told the police that the two workers were guerrillas and had planted a bomb in the factory. They were held for six months and tortured while in custody. Their families were impoverished and forced to rely on charity. The state prosecutor eventually ordered their release, having established that there had never been any bomb planted anywhere near the plant.
The intimidation achieved the desired results: most permanent workers left the company, fearing the same thing might happen to them if they remained active in the union. Now, the majority of staff in Bucaramanaga are on temporary contracts. The distribution workers begin their shift at 6 a.m and work until 10 p.m, for a wage of $3 a day. They have to make their own social security payments, pay for their own uniforms and petrol, and even rent the crates from the company. If they don’t meet a monthly quota for sales, they are sacked, so they often have to make up the difference from their own wages.
This pattern has been repeated at a national level, where almost 95% of the workforce are now on temporary contracts. Workers on these contracts are unable to join unions or take any action to defend themselves, because they can be sacked on the spot. The wage-bill has been reduced, at a terrible price for the workforce. Breaking SINALTRAINAL was a vital part of this business strategy. Coke has claimed that there is no anti-union policy in the company’s Colombian plants. But our delegation was shown documents obtained by SINALTRAINAL that outlined the company’s business plan for Colombia; eliminating SINALTRAINAL was identified as a priority.
Naturally, the plan did not explain exactly how this was to be achieved. But in practice, managers have worked closely with the AUC to target the union. The most chilling example of this co-operation came from the plant in Carepa. Isidro Segundo Gil, a union leader who worked in the plant, was shot dead at the plant by paramilitaries. The next day, they returned to the plant and told the workers that they would be killed if they did not leave the union. The manager had prepared resignation forms in advance, and handed them out afterwards. Having eliminated the union, he was then able to replace full-time staff earning $380 a month with part-timers on $130 a month.
SINALTRAINAL finally called for a boycott of Coke products two years ago, having repeatedly urged Coke’s US board of directors to intervene in Colombia and end the anti-union campaign. Their call was supported by the CUT (Colombia’s equivalent of ICTU) and other social organisations. Since Trinity, UCD and NCAD voted to support the boycott during the 2003-04 academic year, many trade unions and student unions, in Ireland and further afield, have also given it their support. A victory for the Coke workers would also help the broader struggle for human rights in Colombia. If you want to help the people of Colombia, you can start by boycotting Coke.
[1] “The Ties That Bind: Colombia and Military-Paramilitary Links”, Human Rights Watch Report, February 2000, p.1
[2] “A Laboratory of War: Repression and Violence in Arauca”, Amnesty International Report, 2004, p.3
[3] ibid., p.2
Brief international news
John Geraghty
Sen. Obama Suggests He Would Expand Pentagon Budget
In political news, Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has suggested he would increase the Pentagon's budget if elected president. Obama made the comment during a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He said that because the Iraq war has depleted our military "there's probably going to be a bump under an Obama presidency in initial spending just to get back to where we were." –democracynow.org
Not reported following the death of Watergate burglar and CIA agent, E.Howard Hunt was the revelation that in his latest book, ‘American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond’ Hunt accuses Lyndon Johnson and CIA agent William Harvey of planning the assassination of President John F Kennedy. Hunt lost a libel suit in 1995 regarding his presence at the scene of Kennedys assassination.
A US Navy strike group led by the assault ship USS Bataan steamed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday on its way to join the buildup of American forces in the Middle East.
The Bataan, which entered Egyptian waters Monday, spent the night at the Mediterranean harbor of Port Said and was expected to leave the Egyptian part of the Red Sea later Tuesday, a Suez Canal official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the press.
The seven-vessel Bataan group includes 2,200 US Marines and sailors, helicopters and Harrier fighter jets, the Navy said in Bahrain.
The US Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, will be overseeing around 50 warships in the Mideast after the arrival of the Bataan and an American aircraft carrier group in February, said US Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown. This move has been seen as a possible build up of force in the gulf in preparation for an attack on Iran. Journalist and author Seymour Hersh speculated last Summer that an attack on Iran was in the planning and was likely to e carried out early in 2007. Mr. Hersh is regularly given stories by military insiders and frequently recounts meetings with agents of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.
Peace group Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) are currently going to court as a result of the revelation that BAE, Britains largest arms dealer had placed an insider in the organisation. BAE are said to be closely linked with Prime Minister Tony Blair, Blair having shut down an inquiry that alleged that BAE had bribed Saudi officials in return for lucrative contracts in 2006. Mr.Blair is said to have made a personal trip to Riyadh and also sent John Reid and Des Browne to clinch the order.
The European parliament has approved a report on CIA detention flights passing through or stopping in European nations. The report lists states that have been party to the illegal renditions of captives, who may undergo some form of torture after their journey. A majority of 382-256 passed the resolution. The use of Shannon airport has proved to be a public relations failure for the current government as it contravenes Irish law, which states that Irish airspace may not be used by the military of any other nation who are either on their way to combat or are engaged in training operations. Last summer, Ireland was mentioned in another report published by the council of Europe, a human rights organisation, as having cooperated in illegal renditions.
Sen. Obama Suggests He Would Expand Pentagon Budget
In political news, Democratic Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama has suggested he would increase the Pentagon's budget if elected president. Obama made the comment during a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He said that because the Iraq war has depleted our military "there's probably going to be a bump under an Obama presidency in initial spending just to get back to where we were." –democracynow.org
Not reported following the death of Watergate burglar and CIA agent, E.Howard Hunt was the revelation that in his latest book, ‘American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond’ Hunt accuses Lyndon Johnson and CIA agent William Harvey of planning the assassination of President John F Kennedy. Hunt lost a libel suit in 1995 regarding his presence at the scene of Kennedys assassination.
A US Navy strike group led by the assault ship USS Bataan steamed through the Suez Canal on Tuesday on its way to join the buildup of American forces in the Middle East.
The Bataan, which entered Egyptian waters Monday, spent the night at the Mediterranean harbor of Port Said and was expected to leave the Egyptian part of the Red Sea later Tuesday, a Suez Canal official said, speaking on condition of anonymity as he was not authorized to speak to the press.
The seven-vessel Bataan group includes 2,200 US Marines and sailors, helicopters and Harrier fighter jets, the Navy said in Bahrain.
The US Fifth Fleet, which is based in Bahrain, will be overseeing around 50 warships in the Mideast after the arrival of the Bataan and an American aircraft carrier group in February, said US Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown. This move has been seen as a possible build up of force in the gulf in preparation for an attack on Iran. Journalist and author Seymour Hersh speculated last Summer that an attack on Iran was in the planning and was likely to e carried out early in 2007. Mr. Hersh is regularly given stories by military insiders and frequently recounts meetings with agents of Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency.
Peace group Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) are currently going to court as a result of the revelation that BAE, Britains largest arms dealer had placed an insider in the organisation. BAE are said to be closely linked with Prime Minister Tony Blair, Blair having shut down an inquiry that alleged that BAE had bribed Saudi officials in return for lucrative contracts in 2006. Mr.Blair is said to have made a personal trip to Riyadh and also sent John Reid and Des Browne to clinch the order.
The European parliament has approved a report on CIA detention flights passing through or stopping in European nations. The report lists states that have been party to the illegal renditions of captives, who may undergo some form of torture after their journey. A majority of 382-256 passed the resolution. The use of Shannon airport has proved to be a public relations failure for the current government as it contravenes Irish law, which states that Irish airspace may not be used by the military of any other nation who are either on their way to combat or are engaged in training operations. Last summer, Ireland was mentioned in another report published by the council of Europe, a human rights organisation, as having cooperated in illegal renditions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)