US nuclear, greenhouse & poverty threats | Palash | Indiainteracts.in
|
Apocalypse Now" is a huge painting created somewhat in the serious-cum-satirical spirit of Tom Lehrer's famous anti-nuclear weapons song "We will all go together when we go" that concludes: "And we will all go together when we go. (The last words are sung with an increasingly deep basso profundo). Ultimately all these obscenities derived from racist Mainstream European rejection of the outstanding message of the American Declaration of Independence that "All Men are created equal and have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Notwithstanding African and Asian de-colonization, the successful pressure for America to stop the Vietnam War, the dismemberment of the Soviet Empire and the fall of South African Apartheid, the Racist Zionists (RZs) and the Racist Bush-ites (RBs) have now convinced the West that current racist conquest, disempowerment, dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Indigenous People is perfectly right and proper. Political America: In Search of a Common Conscience The world is acutely threatened – some places, much more than others, notably a swathe of countries from Somalia to Pakistan suffering US or US surrogate violence and occupation (Somalia, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq) or, in the cases of Iran and Pakistan, acutely threatened with horrendous devastation by the world's #1 terrorist state and world's #1 rogue state, Bush America. According to Dr John Holdren President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, the world's biggest general scientific organization) the three acute threats to the world are (1) nuclear weapons (2) global warming and (3) poverty. Bush America makes a huge, world-beating contribution to ALL of these acute threats: the US has the biggest share (12,000 nuclear weapons) of the world's total of 27,000 nuclear weapons, is violating treaties such as the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), supports its own and Israeli nuclear weapons in the Middle East and is opposed to the "non-nuclear Middle East" proposal supported by Iran and the Arab states; Political America: In Search of a Common Conscience As much as I've always enjoyed Ogden Nash, the poet, I must confess that many of his writings have impacted me as if coming from the wisdom of a philosopher rather than the wit of an accomplished light verse mechanic. And, among his many vignettes, there is one that seems to have stayed inscribed on my head, as if sentry in eternal vigilance. "There is only one way to achieve happiness on this terrestrial ball," says Nash, "and that is to have either a clear conscience or none at all." As hard as I search for another type of accommodation where happiness can reside, conscience needs to be part of it, either by its presence or by its absence; conscience and the state of well-being appear irremediably intertwined. Of course, such conclusion in my part stems from defining conscience as the awareness of a moral-ethical aspect to one's conduct together with a forceful desire to prefer right over wrong. And therein lies the problem; we all claim ownership of a conscience… but what we are obviously lacking is a common conscience. How else can you explain a nation of over 300 million people, one would guess happy for the most part – if consumption is at the very least a low level indicator of that happiness– allowing their leaders to commit high crimes against humanity day after day of their lives? Directly, via orders carried out by the military in Iraq, Afghanistan and lesser known locations; or indirectly, via outright threats to groups and nations, or via bully resolutions most often inflicted as sanctions; economic punishment, as a rule, on undeserving peoples or nations, such as Cuba, or Iran, just because we judge the political behavior of their leaders out of step with ours. "As hard as I search for another type of accommodation where happiness can reside, conscience needs to be part of it, either by its presence or by its absence; conscience and the state of well-being appear irremediably intertwined. Of course, such conclusion in my part stems from defining conscience as the awareness of a moral-ethical aspect to one's conduct together with a forceful desire to prefer right over wrong." Two happenings this past week give us a telltale of what political America is all about, at least with reference to its foreign relations component. On Wednesday, our Lecturer-In-Chief decided that it was high time – after four years – that he tell those loyal Cuban-Americans that populate Florida plus a splattering elsewhere, and who for the most part are die-hard Republicans, that Castro and his revolution remain anathema to this US. Then, on Saturday, the dove in America's conscience had been scheduled to spread its wings for peace, at least in some major population centers. Sadly, what a telltale on both counts! Hollow in moral authority, here is George W. Bush lecturing the world about a sovereign nation just a hundred miles away, in a preface to a wake for Fidel, submitting to the people in Cuba, as well as the rest of the world, the need for a regime change; and, in a shameful act, urging peacekeepers of the nation – police and military – to turn their backs to those in charge. Something reminiscent of America's ever presence in other nations' internal affairs, not out of idealistic friendship for people of those nations, but solely to serve the interests of powerful groups in this United States – wasn't that what we told Chile's police and military to help bring down Allende and install Pinochet? If America wishes for other nations' governments to evolve and perhaps resemble our own – which is beginning to look more and more like a joke or even a death wish – why is it that our government's efforts always seem to be directed in a counterproductive way? Why must America resort to military threat, or economic sanctions that kill and impoverish people, but do absolutely nothing to enlist minimal change or even low level accommodation? Our decades-long sanctions against Cuba, not Castro, have made us only enemies of 11 million Cubans, even if one-quarter million hard-core anti-castristas exiles command some attention because of their votes in Florida. The latter, something that might soon change, as Cuban-American voters, chiefly Republicans, have become a minority (45%) among Hispanic voters in Florida, where they represented 80 percent just a decade ago. And non-Cuban Hispanic voters tend to vote with equal fervor… but for Democratic candidates. "Hollow in moral authority, here is George W. Bush lecturing the world about a sovereign nation just a hundred miles away, in a preface to a wake for Fidel, submitting to the people in Cuba, as well as the rest of the world, the need for a regime change; and, in a shameful act, urging peacekeepers of the nation – police and military – to turn their backs to those in charge." US-instigated UN sanctions in the 90's against Iraq, not Saddam Hussein, only did succeed in the hush-hush infanticide of at least one-half million Iraqi children, doing absolutely nothing else. And the sanctions imposed against the Palestinians post-Hamas victory in the 2006 elections… by the US, Israel and the me-too Europeans only brought pain and suffering, while also being instrumental in a fratricidal conflict and territorial fragmentation; and a resumption of a exclusionary peace process that is invalid and destined to fail. Now it's sanctions against Iran, America's enemy-du-jour! Of course, the peace marches on Saturday did not amount to much. They never do. It's the same decent people with conscience, few others bothered to join. Just because in these last four years Bush's popularity ratings have plummeted from 80 to 30 percent, that doesn't mean that 50 percent of the people have developed a common conscience towards peace and goodwill; only that they don't care for the Current Occupant of the White House, as Garrison Keillor would say. Decency doesn't seem to be contagious. Have you ever asked yourself how many of your "happy" neighbors have a clear conscience… and how many just don't have a conscience at all? I bet Ogden Nash knew about the conscience-status of his neighbors. Michael Mukasey: Another Loyal Bushie Marjorie Cohn, MWC News Magazine senior editor, is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists. Her new book, Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law is published by PoliPointPress. Visit her web site at: http://www.marjoriecohn.com/ The Michael Mukasey Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing has demonstrated that Mukasey cannot be relied upon to function independently as U.S. Attorney General. Nevertheless, Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee seem so thrilled that Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales that they're willing to vote for him even though he's another loyal Bushie. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, backed down on his promise to hold up the confirmation hearing until the administration turned over material his committee had requested regarding several investigations. Leahy said of Mukasey after the hearing, "He's at least answered the questions, which is better than his predecessor. He's going to be different than Gonzales on all the issues, I think. He will certainly be better than Gonzales on morale." But saying that Mukasey compares favorably to Alberto Gonzales is faint praise for the nominee. The former Attorney General resigned during a firestorm of criticism about his U.S. Attorney purges, and his repeated claims of memory loss when he testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mukasey doesn't seem to have a memory problem; he relied on a different excuse for dodging the Senators' hard questions: he hasn't been "read in on" the details of Bush policies, such as interrogation techniques, or the "Terrorist Surveillance Program." Mukasey claims he doesn’t know what water boarding is, so he can’t say if it constitutes torture. Say what? Mukasey’s claimed ignorance of water boarding is about as credible as his predecessor’s convenient claims of amnesia. Rear Adm. John Hutson (USN Ret.) testified at the confirmation hearing, "Other than, perhaps the rack and thumbscrews, water boarding is the most iconic example of torture in history. It was devised, I believe, in the Spanish inquisition. It has been repudiated for centuries." Mukasey made the incredible assertions that "we do not torture" and "I don't think people are mistreated" at Guantánamo. The main problem he sees with Guantánamo is that "nobody owns it," that is, there is jurisdictional overlap between the Justice and Defense Departments. Mukasey callously told Sen. Dick Durbin before the hearings that Guantánamo was used as a "fright wig," and after all, detainees receive "three hots and a cot, health care better than many Americans, and taxpayer-funded Korans." The rest of us haven't been "read in on" the classified details either. But we know that torture and inhuman treatment is Bush policy in spite of the fact it's illegal. The 2005 Department of Justice memos recently leaked to the New York Times say the government is engaging in water boarding, head slapping and exposing people to frigid temperatures, the International Committee of the Red Cross said the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody is tantamount to torture, and the U.N. Human Rights Commission concluded that force feeding Guantánamo prisoners amounts to torture. We also know that Bush spied on Americans without warrants in spite of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because he and Gonzales admitted it. And we know what water boarding is. Some of Mukasey’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee should have raised red flags in the minds of Democratic Senators. Mukasey refused to reject the notion that the President can constitutionally violate FISA. He misread the Supreme Court's recent decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which clearly rejected Bush's claim that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions doesn't protect al-Qaeda prisoners. Common Article 3 prohibits torture and cruel or inhuman treatment of all prisoners. In fact, the Hamdan Court referred to possible liability under the U.S. War Crimes Act for those who violate Common Article 3. And when asked about contempt charges against witnesses who refuse to respond to congressional subpoenas, Mukasey said he would refuse to follow the statute that requires a U.S. attorney to refer contempt citations to a grand jury. Nonetheless, Mukasey appears to be a shoo-in, with the Senate proceedings resembling a charade. One month before Mukasey was tapped by Bush for AG, the former federal judge penned an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal complaining about too much due process in terrorism prosecutions and advocating special courts where the Constitution wouldn't get in the way of catching the bad guys. Mukasey's excessive zeal for Bush's war on terror was evident right after 9/11. In an October 2, 2001 hearing in his court, then-Judge Mukasey dismissed attorney Randall Hamud's claim that his client, 21-year-old Jordanian Osama Awadallah, had been physically beaten while in custody and had the marks to prove it. Mukasey retorted, "As far as the claim he was beaten, I will tell you he looks fine to me." The judge then refused to direct that Awadallah be examined by a doctor, and ordered that he be held indefinitely. The marks were under Awadallah's clothing. He was one of the more than 1,000 men of Arab descent rounded up after 9/11, and later exonerated. Many suffered similar abuse while in U.S. custody. Ronald Kuby was a defense attorney in the 1995 Omar Abdel Rahman case, over which Mukasey presided. Mukasey "was violating the rights of Arabs before it was popular," Kuby said. "It was very much like trying a case with two prosecutors, one of whom was wearing a black robe." After librarians complained about the USA Patriot Act's provision that required them to tell the government what books we read, Mukasey mocked them in a Wall Street Journal op-ed. He described civil liberties concerns as "recreational hysteria." Although former Judge Mukasey ruled Jose Padilla had the right to consult with counsel, he held that the President has the power to detain U.S. citizens caught on U.S. soil without charging them with a crime. When Sen. Dianne Feinstein questioned him, Mukasey incorrectly cited Hamdi v. Rumsfeld to support his position. Hamdi, unlike Padilla, was captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, and the high court held that even Hamdi was entitled to some basic due process. In response to Feinstein's question about whether Congress has the right to set boundaries on military action under Article I of the Constitution, Mukasey demurred, arguing his "learning curve" was "steep." Mukasey ducked the question of whether he would advise the President to allow unlawful enemy combatants habeas corpus rights at Guantánamo Bay. "I would not advise the President to grant rights beyond those that they already have," he told Sen. Lindsey Graham. In spite of the Military Commissions Act, which purports to deny these people statutory habeas rights, the Supreme Court will likely decide this term that they still have the constitutional right to habeas corpus. At the committee hearing on Wednesday, Mukasey was introduced by his dear friend and law school buddy Joe Lieberman. No one is fanning the flames of war against Iran more than Lieberman. Bush/Cheney likely see Mukasey as a reliable ally who will help "legitimize" their impending illegal attack on Iran. When Bush nominated Mukasey for attorney general, he declared Mukasey would "ensure that our law enforcement and intelligence officers have the tools they need to protect the United States and our citizens." Mukasey, who refused to call water boarding torture, will likely support that "tool" in the war on terror. Mukasey told senators in advance of his hearing that he supports enhanced interrogation techniques, according to Newsweek's Michael Isikoff. Michael Mukasey cannot be counted on to independently investigate the crimes of the White House. Elizabeth Holtzman, a former congresswoman who served on the House Judiciary Committee during the Nixon impeachment, advocated in a recent op-ed in the Progressive that the Senate should confirm Muksey only if he pledges to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration. That's what the Democratically-controlled Congress did in 1973 after Nixon nominated Elliot Richardson for attorney general. Richardson agreed, he was confirmed, and then appointed Archibald Cox as special prosecutor. Cox's investigations and summary dismissal resulted in the issuance of articles of impeachment against Nixon in the House Judiciary Committee followed by Nixon's resignation. It would be wonderful to have a Congress that once again stood up to the President when he breaks the law. The Encirclement of a Rogue State Has Begun Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in the USA. She was arrested, tried, and convicted for her participation in a peaceful protest of the war. The conviction was appealed and overturned in the State Supreme Court. The government then announced plans to retry the case. Finally, after years of legal proceedings, all charges were dropped. She can be reached at: dissent@sover.net The Encirclement has begun. Encirclement is the policy of singling out a nation that has become a major international problem. The US has been a Rogue State for years. William Blum author/historian and former member of the US State Department titled one of his books, Rogue State. Experts have predicted that the US bombing of Iraq back in 1991 would eventually lead to the encirclement of the US. Encirclement is comparable to shunning - the shunning of a nation. Chalmers Johnson reports that the US has 700+ bases in 130 foreign countries. Most of these bases were granted "permission" by the leaders of the sovereign nations to locate within their borders. Dirty deals were worked out with the foreign leaders, usually at the expense of the native population. When backroom diplomacy fails, bullying and bribery usually succeed. The case of Diego Garcia is different. It is even more damning. The US, with the collusion of Great Britain, emptied the island of the people who had lived there for generations. The US has never paid fair compensation to the Chaggosian people who have been locked in a legal battle for justice for years. The expulsion of the native population by the US was an obvious case of genocide. The people who were living on Diego Garcia were forcibly expelled by the US military. When they refused to leave, US personnel killed the pets of the native population. The message was clear - either leave or you will be the next in the gun sights. (see here) The message has been heard around the world - what the US wants, the US gets. It has just been a matter of time before the victims of US expansionism would begin to fight back. The most recent hero to stand against the US is Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa. "NAPLES (Reuters) - Ecuador's leftist President Rafael Correa said Washington must let him open a military base in Miami if the United States wants to keep using an air base on Ecuador's Pacific coast. Correa has refused to renew Washington's lease on the Manta air base, set to expire in 2009. U.S. officials say it is vital for counter-narcotics surveillance operations on Pacific drug-running routes. "We'll renew the base on one condition: that they let us put a base in Miami -- an Ecuadorean base," Correa said in an interview during a trip to Italy. "If there's no problem having foreign soldiers on a country's soil, surely they'll let us have an Ecuadorean base in the United States." The political will of the citizens of the US has been paralyzed by propaganda and a false sense of patriotism. If the rest of the world wants to be saved from US expansionism, outside intervention will be required. How many others will step up and close ranks with President Rafael Correa? Meltdown at the US State Department You almost have to feel sorry for Condoleezza Rice these days. Seems that the Secretary of State is under attack on all fronts. Dissension in the ranks - possible insubordination - resignations - forced assignments. About the forced assignments in Iraq, Jack Croddy, senior Department official, commented, "...It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment...I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?" What's a Secretary of State to do - a gigantic, new, luxurious Embassy and department employees who don't want to serve there. Too bad the Embassy can't be turned into a gigantic planter. Because of its size, maybe it should be turned into a rain forest. Better yet, turn it over to the Iraqi people as partial payment on the reparations that are owed to them for the destruction caused by the US war of aggression and bombing which has continued since 1991. Lack of morale in the department is nothing compared to the more important issue that plagues the State Department - dead bodies - seventeen dead Iraqi civilians that we know about, and an unknown number of other victims. If that was not bad enough, someone in the State Department granted limited immunity to the accused murderers. There has been so much bad Press that there hasn't been time to ask, what did Rice know and when did she know it. The granting of Immunity has undermined the prosecution of the accused murderers. Maybe the Secretary did not know about this. It doesn't really matter if, when, or what Rice knew. If she didn't know, she is incompetent. If she did know, a Charge of Obstruction of Justice might be appropriate. "...It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment...I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?" Jack Croddy, senior Department official The important point is that at least 17 Iraqi civilians have been murdered. This is just one of many such incidents. The accused should have their day in court, but now their prosecution in the US has been compromised. An elaborate scheme to prevent any prosecution in the Iraqi legal system was planned a long time ago. Coalition Provisional Authority Article 17 was imposed by the US during the Paul Bremer era. It appears that war crimes, reckless killing of civilians, and other barbaric acts were foreseen and pre-meditated; otherwise, why impose Article 17 on Iraq. Article 1, Section 2 of Article 17 granted immunity from the Iraqi legal process to US personnel who kill Iraqi civilians. Currently Iraq is in the process of overthrowing Article 17. Good luck with that one. Where has Congress been during all of this. On October 24, 2007 Rice was questioned during a Congressional Committee hearing. A few members of Congress seemed to be aware and asked relevant questions. Others seemed to be too political and partisan to be effective. Congress could call for the resignation of Rice. Under the circumstances, that would be an appropriate action. It won't happen. The State Department will limp along, leaving a path of destruction in its wake. Seventeen dead bodies here - 500,000 dead children there. It's all in a day’s work at the US State Department. Rosemarie Jackowski is an advocacy journalist living in the USA. She was arrested, tried, and convicted for her participation in a peaceful protest of the war. The conviction was appealed and overturned in the State Supreme Court. The government then announced plans to retry the case. Finally, after years of legal proceedings, all charges were dropped. She can be reached at: dissent@sover.net |
