Is There Anybody Out There?
By Govert Schilling
ScienceNOW Daily News
10 January 2007
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON--It's a question almost as old as humanity: How unique is Earth? Astronomers don't know the answer yet, but they suspect there may be many Earth-like planets out there. The first detection of a habitable planet circling another star is probably just a matter of time, they say. And that neighborhood might be very different from our own solar system, according to astronomers here at the 209th meeting of the American Astronomical Society (AAS). "It's an exciting time," says Wesley Traub, chief scientist of NASA's Navigator Program that aims to find and characterize worlds where life could thrive. "This is no longer the stuff of supermarket tabloids."
Planet hunting has become a big industry in astronomy. At the AAS meeting, a number of sessions, poster presentations, and press conferences were devoted to exoplanetary systems. Yesterday, for example, graduate student Ellyn Baines of Georgia State University in Atlanta presented the first direct measurement of an exoplanet's diameter: a giant 185,000 kilometers across, making it 30 percent larger than Jupiter.
However, most planetary systems found to date around sun-like stars aren't much like our own. Their gas giants have migrated into extremely small orbits, ending up as so-called "hot Jupiters" (ScienceNOW, 8 September 2006), while most other planets move in egg-shaped paths, unfit for life because of the huge temperature swings.
That's why astronomers have broadened their search to include red dwarf stars--the most common stars in the Milky Way. A recently launched European satellite named COROT (Science, 15 December 2006) may be the first one to find red dwarf satellites, which--in order to have liquid water on their surface--would need to orbit close to their relatively cool mother stars.
Studies led by astronomer Edward Guinan of Villanova University in Pennsylvania show that red dwarfs are indeed suitable as hosts for habitable planets. But according to Guinan, who presented the theoretical results on Sunday, such close-in planets always keep one side to their star due to tidal effects and would therefore need relatively thick atmospheres to distribute heat evenly across the globe. Moreover, he says, they would need a strong magnetic field to protect living organisms from the energetic ultraviolet radiation and x-rays known to be produced by red dwarf stars.
Even in the weird systems of sun-like stars with hot Jupiters, Earth analogs may be common, says theoretical astrophysicist Avi Mandell of Pennsylvania State University in State College. Mandell and his colleagues ran computer simulations of the formation of Earth-like planets under the influence of migrating giants. They found that a migrator leaves enough dust in its wake for the subsequent formation of a rocky ball like Earth. Moreover, says Mandell, after giant planets migrate inward, there is no longer a gravitational barrier blocking ice-rich comets from the outer regions of the disk. Such comets could collide with habitable zone-planets, supplying them with water.
Still, detecting the signatures of life on any of these worlds will not be possible until the early 2020s, when NASA's proposed Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF) is scheduled to launch. "If TPF would see oxygen and nitrous oxide in a planet's atmosphere, that would be a very strong indication of life," says Traub. Meanwhile, although Earth may not be unique, the lay-out of our solar system, with its neat circular orbits and its outlying giant planets, has not been seen anywhere else so far.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Media Misleading Americans By Using ‘Surge’ To Describe Bush Policy »
Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when “surge” was first adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was specifically defined as a “temporary,” “short-term” increase in U.S. forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces lasting at least 18 months.
The media, in other words, has continued to use the term “surge” even though its definition has fundamentally changed.
The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a “short-term troop increase,” the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval).
Every time the media repeats the word “surge,” they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush’s policy.
Research compiled by ThinkProgress shows that when “surge” was first adopted by the mainstream media in November 2006, the term was specifically defined as a “temporary,” “short-term” increase in U.S. forces. In fact, we now know that the Bush administration and the most prominent advocates of escalation all reject a short-term increase in U.S. forces. Rather, they advocate a long-term increase of forces lasting at least 18 months.
The media, in other words, has continued to use the term “surge” even though its definition has fundamentally changed.
The choice of words is not an academic point. A CBS poll released Monday found that only 18 percent of Americans support an escalation of forces in Iraq. However, when asked whether they support a “short-term troop increase,” the number jumps to 45 percent approval (48 percent disapproval).
Every time the media repeats the word “surge,” they are helping to mislead the American people about the long-term escalation being proposed. Reporters and news organizations have a responsibility to stop using the term to describe President Bush’s policy.
Arianna Huffington: “It’s One Thing To Believe You’re Napoleon. It’s Quite Another Thing To Send More Young People To Die In Your Waterloo”…
Number Of Gitmo Hunger Strikers Has “More Than Doubled In Recent Weeks"...
2006 Was Hottest Year Ever Recorded In US...
From usra.edu
Bush Lifts Ban On Alaska Oil-Drilling...
A Democratic Response to Escalation
by mcjoan
Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 02:51:03 PM PST
Here's Senator Kennedy speaking before the National Press Club on his legislation (Rep. Markey will introduce companion legislation in the House) to prevent escalation.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
A Surge of Constitutionalism
 | Gary Hart | |
01.09.2007
A Surge of Constitutionalism
The endless Iraq war is decreasingly about Iraq and increasingly about the U.S. Constitution.
President Bush's decision to escalate the war, and to further Americanize it, is based on his flawed and dangerous theory of the "unitary presidency," a theory under which, once war is declared, the president as commander in chief can ignore constitutional checks and balances, disregard the bill of rights, suspend accountability, and concentrate dictatorial power in his own hands.
History has already judged the invasion and occupation of Iraq as an American disaster of epic proportions. But an even more important judgment remains to be made. What damage has been done to the U.S. Constitution and our form of government in the name of the "war on terrorism" as cover for a secret neo-conservative agenda in the Middle East?In rendering this judgment in years to come, constitutional scholars will take into account Congress's appalling suspension of habeas corpus, its approval of torture and rendition, and its abdication of its constitutional oversight responsibilities. These congressional failures, however, will not be seen as cover or justification for an executive branch run totally amok.
George W. Bush will be held accountable in the court of history for manipulation of intelligence to serve his neo-conservative political agenda, his erosion of national security by the unnecessary exhaustion of our standing and reserve forces, his pathetic failure to respond to natural disasters, his unhinging of the national budget in the service of accumulated wealth, and his almost demented insistence that the U.S. military could put the lid back on a 1300 year old Islamic struggle that he himself had ignorantly removed.
In his adopted role as Captain Ahab, Mr. Bush will extend the tours of four combat brigades and add another to the Iraqi meat-grinder, all in the name of pacifying the capital city where, even today, F-18 aircraft are bombing neighborhoods to rout out insurgents. Thirty-five years ago in Vietnam this was called "pacification." "Secure and hold" will fail equally for a simple reason: patience. It requires no MBA from Harvard to know that occupations, unless they intend themselves to be permanent, will be defeated by insurgents waiting for the occupiers to leave. Those meant to "hold" after we "secure" are all part of a sectarian blood feud that was there long before we came and that will be there long after we leave.
All this will have to be tidied up on the watch of the unfortunate next president who must assume, on top of many other duties left unfinished, the job of restoring the health, integrity, and capability of the armed forces of the United States now so eroded by a war they should never have been called upon to wage.
Likewise, the price for this folly will live long after Mr. Bush departs the premises. Were he sincere in the faith he professes, he would require those who have benefited the most from his tax cuts, those now increasing the size of their gilded yachts, to adopt one of the families of the more than 25,000 American military casualties. Each Bush billionaire can surely afford to care for the widow and orphans of one of the fallen or to provide long-term physical and mental care for one of the wounded in body and mind as a result of his folly.
Surely now even the most cynical neo-conservative is prepared to declare victory. We destroyed all those weapons of mass destruction that Richard Cheney knew existed. Iraq is no longer an imminent threat to U.S. national security, not that it ever was. We have rid ourselves of the tyrant S. Hussein (though it was never quite clear why he, among several dozen tyrants, deserved our special attention), and we have give the Iraqi people freedom, which they are now using to kill each other.
What we, the world's most dominant military power in history, cannot do is impose peace on a nation with scores to settle.
Needed now is not a surge of military forces. Needed now is a surge of citizen commitment to restore the Constitution of the United States of America.
Dr Kevorkian is Alive and Well and Living in the White House.
Dr Kevorkian is Alive and Well and Living in the White House. Escalation of Troops in Iraq is Not a Political Act; It is Murder.
Submitted by BuzzFlash on Tue, 01/09/2007 - 7:59am. EditorialsA BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
How many years and lies ago was it that Bush stood on the deck of an aircraft carrier – as part of a perfectly choreographed Rovian media "money shot" moment – and declared that major combat operations in Iraq were over and that the "mission" had been accomplished?
How many years ago, how many deaths ago, how many catastrophic injuries ago, how many billions of dollars ago was that?
How many lies and shifting story lines and excuses for bungling, corruption, ineptitude, war profiteering and psychiatric problems ago was that?
How many years ago was it that Bush – doing his John Wayne macho imitation – declared that he was going to get Osama "dead or alive"?
The corporate media is still by and large giving this madness a free ride. Their major corporate cultural goal of ensuring no political repercussions to their bottom line ensures that they won’t rock the boat by denouncing the insanity and criminality of escalating a lost war. They too are accessories to murders.
Because real American GIs will die as a result of Bush’s soon-to-come escalation of the war decision. These will be men and women with real names and families, from America’s towns and cities who will be killed as a result of this political decision, which is really a criminal act – because it is a death sentence given to Americans in the military to achieve the personal, political, and corporate profiteering goals of Bush, Cheney and Rove.
Recently we watched "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" to review it as a premium for BuzzFlash. We were stunned by how similarly Nixon escalated the Vietnam War under the pretext of ending it. He too promised that the South Vietnamese forces were being successfully trained to take over the duties of the American GIs as a pretext for increasing the number of American troops who were sent to die in that God forsaken, mistaken conflict. Nixon too secretly extended the war into neighboring nations – in defiance of Congress – and thus unleashed the murderous regime of Pol Pot. All this was done in the name of not letting "a victory by the enemy" inflict a mortal blow to American national security.
Not long ago, Bush traveled to Vietnam for some photo ops. He inexplicably declared that the evolution of Vietnam into a quasi-capitalist nation was a lesson that justified the Iraq War. The mainstream media, of course, did not question the perplexing and mystifying analogy to the Iraq War.
Because, of course, Vietnam became a major cheap labor market for multi-national corporations only years after Gerald Ford withdrew U.S. forces from that nation. The Vietnam analogy can only lead to one conclusion, and not the misleading one that Bush made. What it means is that we should get the Hell out of Iraq now if we want a resolution to the conflict.
Who knows, maybe in 10 years Nike and Coca-Cola can start exploiting workers in Iraq if we withdraw our troops?
But common sense, accountability, and competence were long ago abandoned by the corporate media as standards by which to judge the sociopathic Bush – and his Machiavellian ventriloquists: Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rove.
The real Jack Kevorkian is still in jail, but his spirit haunts America in the actions of George W. Bush.
These are men who love death too much, who get some erotic thrill out of sending people off to die.
Kevorkian was sent to jail.
Why is Bush treated in any other way?
Kennedy's Plan to End the War
 | Bob Cesca | |
01.09.2007
Kennedy Offers A Slam Dunk To End The War
Senator Kennedy announced legislation today mandating that unless the president's Iraq plans are approved by Congress, lawmakers can cut off spending for the war and halt any new troop deployments to Iraq. Of course this is perfect from the sense that it gives congressional Democrats a safety buffer for de-funding the entire occupation and, in the short term, gives Congress further ammunition for stopping the president's unpopular escalation idea -- oops.
Sorry. I meant, the president's unpopular "surge." Surgulation. Ah, crap on that. It's an escalation for shits and giggles... and oil. Moving on.Freezing the president's supplemental Iraq spending is an obvious administration trap set for the Democrats. But how else, under the Constitution, can Congress accomplish the goal of fulfilling its midterm mandate? Making further troop deployments impossible and illegal seems to be the only way, followed by, in turn, a total forced withdrawal due to spending cuts.
Enter Senator Kennedy's bill which accomplishes both, while placing the onus of funding the occupation on the sweat-stained shoulders of the president -- legally binding him to supply a real plan for ending our presence in Iraq. If the plan isn't good enough, then the law says no more brigades and no more money. In other words, if the commander-in-chief can't manage to squeeze a viable plan from his tiny noggin (he can't) and instead offers up the same vague crap on a stick (he will), then he's screwed himself, and the Democrats can force him to end the war without directly freezing expenditures.
Most excellent. But there appears to be at least two catches.
One catch is obvious: whipping up enough the votes required to override the president's absolutely definite veto of the Kennedy law. This is the Bush White House after all. The Big Executive. The Big Dick. I don't need to remind you that the White House, however unpopular, is run by a regime who at every turn has sucked dry both its constitutional and wholly-fabricated-out-of-thin-fucking-air executive powers. And it doesn't help that Congress (minus Kennedy and others) approved the president's Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq bill back in 2002.
Which leads me to another of Senator Kennedy's points in his introduction of his legislation today. The president's congressional authorization has essentially expired. In fact, if you read the bill, it's been expired for some time now. Here's the meat:
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
The "continuing threat" by the Saddam Hussein government, even though it never existed, is gone. And along the same lines, the enforcement of the various UN resolutions have been rendered inoperative since there was nothing to disarm and, now, there's nothing to inspect. So Congress is well within its rights to stop this shit by passing a new law, this time ending the war.
But, again, they leave the burden of defining a feasible strategy in the hands of the president. After all, and to repeat, the president is the commander-in-chief of the military and war plans are his responsibility -- not the responsibility of Congress. Congress can only provide oversight, declare war, finance war and, also according to Article 1, Section 8, they can stop piracy. This last part will come in handy when Congress gets into investigating how the Bush administration is coaxing the Iraqi government to allow Shell, Exxon-Mobile and BP to grab up Iraq's oil and keep 75-percent of the profits. More on that below.
I mentioned two catches, and here's the other one. Let's say Senator Kennedy's law passes. And let's say Senators McCain and Lieberman manage to convince the president that it's a better idea to deploy a larger number of soldiers for a longer period of time. And let's say McCain and Lieberman rally enough votes to approve that plan. Then we could be in there for a really, really long time, and at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of dollars. The president would easily go this direction over withdrawal because at this point, it's all about securing access to the Iraqi oil for western profiteers, isn't it? And what about that?
Right around the time when new brigades will be hitting the ground (should the president get his way) this March, the new and underreported Iraqi "hydrocarbon law" will likely be passed. According to The Independent, the law, written in conjunction with the Bush administration and brokered by a firm in McLean, Virginia, allows Western oil companies specifically including Shell, Exxon-Mobile and BP to hork Iraqi oil and pocket 75-percent of the profits. That's 75-percent of the profits from the source of 95-percent of the Iraqi economy. The Independent:
"[The law] would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972."
You remember Shell, Exxon-Mobile and BP: three of the principles in Vice President Cheney's energy task force. And now, with security a major issue, they could be granted by the president an American military "surge" to protect their trafficking lanes and dampen any resistance from the Iraqi people who surely won't dig the idea of their only commodity ripped out from under their feet.
All told, there can't be any deals outside the bounds of actual legislation because the Bush administration has shown an aptitude for playing with a loaded deck when it comes to rhetoric and assurances. (For example, how much of that money he promised New Orleans has actually arrived?) Without a legally binding stoppage, the war will continue on and on and the cost in lives and taxpayer money will continue ad infinitum. Additionally, Senator Biden's note that the Constitution doesn't allow Congress to deploy or withdraw soldiers is quite true. But Senator Kennedy's proposal might be the solution.
The president is less popular now than ever, and public support for his surgulation is only 36-percent according to Gallup. 54-percent of us want an end to this fiasco within the year. The Democrats want to do it in a way that's bold and swift. And Wednesday night, selling the surge to the American people is entirely up to the president's wickedly awesome public speaking skills. Slam dunk, Senator Kennedy.
Monday, January 08, 2007
AP
Murtha: We Have The Power Of The Purse...
Officials say Bush chose new intel chief to 'darken' Iran report;Ex-Reagan, Bush 41 intel official calls president's pick 'disaster'
NY TIMES TUE: DEMOCRATS SEEK TO MAKE 9/11 PANELCHANGES INTO LAW; WHITE HOUSE, SENATORS OBJECT
US hits 'Qaeda targets' in Somalia; 'Bodies on ground'...
Video: 'Coalition of Willing' allies at odds; Blair: 'No UK surge'
SENATE LEADER SAYS HE MAY DENY IRAQ FUNDS; 'HAVE TO START BRINGING OUR FOLKS HOME'
DEM DIVIDE? PELOSI SAYS WON'T CUT FUNDS
Is this what we are fighting for?
Paper: 'Blood and oil; How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches'
01/07/2007 @ 3:38 amFiled by Ron Brynaert
The front page of Britain's The Independent on Sunday features a photo of a US soldier guarding a burning oilfield in Southern Iraq which was taken on March 23, 2003, three days after the invasion of Iraq officially began. "The spoils of war" reads a large headline banner in grey type, with three letters highlighted in black boldface – taken from the word "spoils" – to spell out "oil."
Four articles based on a draft of an Iraqi law – crafted with help from the US government – which was leaked to the paper, detail "How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches."
"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days," Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb report in the cover story.
According to the paper, the law "would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972."
"Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs," the article continues. "After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals."
'Blood and oil'
A second article begins with the question, "So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all?"
"Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad," the article continues.
Further along, the article claims that the early draft had been "circulated to oil companies in July," but that it's "understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft."
The "revelation" of the 30-year contracts "will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future," the paper surmises.
And, in fact, an Iraqi survey conducted last April, which was sponsored by the National Science Foundation, revealed that 76 percent believed that a primary reason the US invaded was "to control Iraqi oil." A "nationally representative samples of the population" – 2,701 adult Iraqis – was surveyed in the "collaborative project between the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and Eastern Michigan University."
"That was followed by 'to build military bases' (41 percent) and 'to help Israel' (32 percent)," David E. Kaplan wrote for U.S. News & World Report. "Fewer than 2 percent chose 'to bring democracy to Iraq' as their first choice."
'What they said'
The lengthy second article also contains comments by US and UK officials, made before and after the invasion, declaring that the war wasn't about oil and promising that Iraq's oil revenues belonged to its people and would only be used for reconstruction purposes.
The paper notes how former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a press briefing held in South Africa on July 10, 2003, responded to a reporter who had asked him to reply to critics who believed Bush "went into Iraq for oil" and that the administration was "trying to secure the west coast of Africa, Liberia, for that same situation, oil."
Powell responded: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for U.S. purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary. We put in place a management system to make sure that Iraqi oil is brought out of the ground and put onto the market in order to generate revenue for the Iraqi people. And we have put in place an auditing system and people who can oversee what we are doing. And the United States government is spending a great deal of money to support our forces over there. It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."
A statement Prime Minister Tony Blair made to Parliament two days before the invasion is also highlighted: "Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people."
The article adds that "Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil," and that as late as June 14, 2006, President Bush, after returning from Baghdad said that he had "reminded the government that that oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and the government has the responsibility to be good stewards of that valuable asset and valuable resource."
Thirsting oil giants
A third article in the paper's business section reports how the law "will radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," will "allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972," and "would also be a shot in the arm for the global petroleum industry."
"For more than three decades, foreign oil companies wanting into Iraq have been like children pressed against the sweet shop window – desperately seeking to feast on the goodies but having no way of getting through the door," Danny Fortson writes. "That could soon change."
While Exxon, BP and Shell won't "jump into the country until the security situation stabilises," Fortson reports that the industry is "jockeying to stake their claims now for exploitation later."
"It's a mad rush to get something there," Global Policy Forum executive director James Paul tells the paper. "The companies are saying, 'Before any troops are withdrawn, we have to have these contracts.'"
According to Fortson, the foreign oil companies are "desperate to get a foot in the door" for three reasons: First is that "they are struggling to keep production increasing in line with demand," which has "been driven in large part by the growth of the Chinese economy." Second is lower production due to "the tide of oil nationalism in places such as Venezuela, where the stranglehold applied by President Hugo Chavez on the industry...has shifted more pressure on to the rest of the industry. Finally, "the cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface."
'The oil rush'
The leading article in The Independent on Sunday uses a quote by former Illinois Republican lawmaker Everett Dirksen – who was born in 1896 and served for thirty-three years as a Congressman and the Senate Minority Leader until his death in 1969 – to explain "the oil rush" by the West: "The oil can is mightier than the sword."
"Nowhere does this seem more true than in contemporary Iraq where, despite widespread despair about the war's costs in terms of blood and treasure, US corporations look set to be some of the conflict's few winners," the article states.
Further excerpts from the leading article:
#
Of course, the Iraqi oil industry, starved through years of sanctions and now under constant insurgent attack, badly needs Western investment. Only a small proportion of Iraq's known oil fields have been developed, and production still languishes below pre-invasion levels. The neo-conservative dream – indulged in by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney prior to the conflict – that the invasion and reconstruction would be self-financed through a twist of the oil taps, dissipated long ago.
In a country where unemployment has hit 70 per cent, a policy that will quicken the pace of economic reconstruction should be universally welcomed. At face value, the measure is not being imposed by the fiat of a US general: it will be voted on in the Iraqi parliament and, if passed, enacted by a democratically elected government. And objections that foreign companies will steal Iraq's birthright seem faintly anachronistic in the global economy: specialist engineering is an international industry these days, and Iraq's command economy, isolated from the rest of the world, urgently requires liberalisation.
But it doesn't demand the fevered imaginings of a conspiracy theorist to think that this law, struck while the beleaguered Iraqi government is facing opposition from all quarters, protects the interests of oil wealth (which is so well represented in the White House) more than it does the Iraqi people. Production sharing agreements don't apply in most other major Middle Eastern oil producers because they are widely thought to grant greater control to companies than governments. With economies so heavily dependent on oil, it's hard to see how countries can truly be self-governing if they sign away influence over their almost exclusive source of wealth.
Legitimate questions must be asked. How did this decision come to be made? How much pressure was President Nouri al-Maliki placed under to bend to the American corporate interests? Conservative US thinktanks such as the Heritage Foundation have been plotting the wholesale privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry for years. Since 2003, the supposed reconstruction of Iraq by US companies has left a bitter taste with most Iraqis who see a symbiotic relationship between the US military and big business that would make a British district commissioner in imperial Africa blush.
#
Links to all four articles:
Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
Iraq poised to end drought for thirsting oil giants
Leading article: The oil rush
01/07/2007 @ 3:38 amFiled by Ron Brynaert
The front page of Britain's The Independent on Sunday features a photo of a US soldier guarding a burning oilfield in Southern Iraq which was taken on March 23, 2003, three days after the invasion of Iraq officially began. "The spoils of war" reads a large headline banner in grey type, with three letters highlighted in black boldface – taken from the word "spoils" – to spell out "oil."
Four articles based on a draft of an Iraqi law – crafted with help from the US government – which was leaked to the paper, detail "How the West will make a killing on Iraqi oil riches."
"Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days," Danny Fortson, Andrew Murray-Watson and Tim Webb report in the cover story.
According to the paper, the law "would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972."
"Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs," the article continues. "After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals."
'Blood and oil'
A second article begins with the question, "So was this what the Iraq war was fought for, after all?"
"Now, unnoticed by most amid the furore over civil war in Iraq and the hanging of Saddam Hussein, the new oil law has quietly been going through several drafts, and is now on the point of being presented to the cabinet and then the parliament in Baghdad," the article continues.
Further along, the article claims that the early draft had been "circulated to oil companies in July," but that it's "understood there have been no significant changes made in the final draft."
The "revelation" of the 30-year contracts "will raise Iraqi fears that oil companies will be able to exploit its weak state by securing favourable terms that cannot be changed in future," the paper surmises.
And, in fact, an Iraqi survey conducted last April, which was sponsored by the National Science Foundation, revealed that 76 percent believed that a primary reason the US invaded was "to control Iraqi oil." A "nationally representative samples of the population" – 2,701 adult Iraqis – was surveyed in the "collaborative project between the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research and Eastern Michigan University."
"That was followed by 'to build military bases' (41 percent) and 'to help Israel' (32 percent)," David E. Kaplan wrote for U.S. News & World Report. "Fewer than 2 percent chose 'to bring democracy to Iraq' as their first choice."
'What they said'
The lengthy second article also contains comments by US and UK officials, made before and after the invasion, declaring that the war wasn't about oil and promising that Iraq's oil revenues belonged to its people and would only be used for reconstruction purposes.
The paper notes how former Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a press briefing held in South Africa on July 10, 2003, responded to a reporter who had asked him to reply to critics who believed Bush "went into Iraq for oil" and that the administration was "trying to secure the west coast of Africa, Liberia, for that same situation, oil."
Powell responded: "We have not taken one drop of Iraqi oil for U.S. purposes, or for coalition purposes. Quite the contrary. We put in place a management system to make sure that Iraqi oil is brought out of the ground and put onto the market in order to generate revenue for the Iraqi people. And we have put in place an auditing system and people who can oversee what we are doing. And the United States government is spending a great deal of money to support our forces over there. It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."
A statement Prime Minister Tony Blair made to Parliament two days before the invasion is also highlighted: "Oil revenues, which people falsely claim that we want to seize, should be put in a trust fund for the Iraqi people."
The article adds that "Vice-President Dick Cheney noted in 1999, when he was still running Halliburton, an oil services company, the Middle East is the key to preventing the world running out of oil," and that as late as June 14, 2006, President Bush, after returning from Baghdad said that he had "reminded the government that that oil belongs to the Iraqi people, and the government has the responsibility to be good stewards of that valuable asset and valuable resource."
Thirsting oil giants
A third article in the paper's business section reports how the law "will radically redraw the Iraqi oil industry and throw open the doors to the third-largest oil reserves in the world," will "allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil companies in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972," and "would also be a shot in the arm for the global petroleum industry."
"For more than three decades, foreign oil companies wanting into Iraq have been like children pressed against the sweet shop window – desperately seeking to feast on the goodies but having no way of getting through the door," Danny Fortson writes. "That could soon change."
While Exxon, BP and Shell won't "jump into the country until the security situation stabilises," Fortson reports that the industry is "jockeying to stake their claims now for exploitation later."
"It's a mad rush to get something there," Global Policy Forum executive director James Paul tells the paper. "The companies are saying, 'Before any troops are withdrawn, we have to have these contracts.'"
According to Fortson, the foreign oil companies are "desperate to get a foot in the door" for three reasons: First is that "they are struggling to keep production increasing in line with demand," which has "been driven in large part by the growth of the Chinese economy." Second is lower production due to "the tide of oil nationalism in places such as Venezuela, where the stranglehold applied by President Hugo Chavez on the industry...has shifted more pressure on to the rest of the industry. Finally, "the cost-per-barrel of extracting oil in Iraq is among the lowest in the world because the reserves are relatively close to the surface."
'The oil rush'
The leading article in The Independent on Sunday uses a quote by former Illinois Republican lawmaker Everett Dirksen – who was born in 1896 and served for thirty-three years as a Congressman and the Senate Minority Leader until his death in 1969 – to explain "the oil rush" by the West: "The oil can is mightier than the sword."
"Nowhere does this seem more true than in contemporary Iraq where, despite widespread despair about the war's costs in terms of blood and treasure, US corporations look set to be some of the conflict's few winners," the article states.
Further excerpts from the leading article:
#
Of course, the Iraqi oil industry, starved through years of sanctions and now under constant insurgent attack, badly needs Western investment. Only a small proportion of Iraq's known oil fields have been developed, and production still languishes below pre-invasion levels. The neo-conservative dream – indulged in by Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney prior to the conflict – that the invasion and reconstruction would be self-financed through a twist of the oil taps, dissipated long ago.
In a country where unemployment has hit 70 per cent, a policy that will quicken the pace of economic reconstruction should be universally welcomed. At face value, the measure is not being imposed by the fiat of a US general: it will be voted on in the Iraqi parliament and, if passed, enacted by a democratically elected government. And objections that foreign companies will steal Iraq's birthright seem faintly anachronistic in the global economy: specialist engineering is an international industry these days, and Iraq's command economy, isolated from the rest of the world, urgently requires liberalisation.
But it doesn't demand the fevered imaginings of a conspiracy theorist to think that this law, struck while the beleaguered Iraqi government is facing opposition from all quarters, protects the interests of oil wealth (which is so well represented in the White House) more than it does the Iraqi people. Production sharing agreements don't apply in most other major Middle Eastern oil producers because they are widely thought to grant greater control to companies than governments. With economies so heavily dependent on oil, it's hard to see how countries can truly be self-governing if they sign away influence over their almost exclusive source of wealth.
Legitimate questions must be asked. How did this decision come to be made? How much pressure was President Nouri al-Maliki placed under to bend to the American corporate interests? Conservative US thinktanks such as the Heritage Foundation have been plotting the wholesale privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry for years. Since 2003, the supposed reconstruction of Iraq by US companies has left a bitter taste with most Iraqis who see a symbiotic relationship between the US military and big business that would make a British district commissioner in imperial Africa blush.
#
Links to all four articles:
Future of Iraq: The spoils of war
Blood and oil: How the West will profit from Iraq's most precious commodity
Iraq poised to end drought for thirsting oil giants
Leading article: The oil rush
Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement
Senator asks Bush to explain signing statement that gives President authority to open mail without warrant RAW STORYPublished: Monday January 8, 2007
The following letter, acquired by RAW STORY, was delivered to President Bush Monday, in response to an article published in the NY Daily News which revealed that Bush had written into a "signing statement" that the President could open Americans' mail.
January 8, 2007
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am deeply concerned about the signing statement that you issued on December 20, 2006, regarding H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It raises serious questions about whether the government is reading Americans’ first class mail without obtaining a search warrant or other court order as required by statute.
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act recodified in a different location an existing provision of federal law, without change, that states as follows:
No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.[1]
In your signing statement, you stated that the executive branch would construe this provision “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006 on the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program, Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether the executive branch was relying in other contexts on the theory that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force gave it the authority to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other statutes. Specifically, Senator Leahy asked: “Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens?” The Attorney General attempted to avoid answering the question, but ultimately stated: “Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here. We are only focused on communications, international communications, where one party to the communication is al Qaeda. That is what this program is all about.”
You have already confirmed that you have authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of communications without obtaining the court orders required by FISA. Your December 20, 2006, signing statement now suggests that you believe you have the authority to violate the law with regard to opening regular mail. The American people and Congress are entitled to know whether you have acted on that theory. Please answer the following question: has your administration authorized any government agency to read Americans’ first-class mail without obtaining a search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service regulations?
I look forward to your expeditious reply.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11
The following letter, acquired by RAW STORY, was delivered to President Bush Monday, in response to an article published in the NY Daily News which revealed that Bush had written into a "signing statement" that the President could open Americans' mail.
January 8, 2007
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
I am deeply concerned about the signing statement that you issued on December 20, 2006, regarding H.R. 6407, the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It raises serious questions about whether the government is reading Americans’ first class mail without obtaining a search warrant or other court order as required by statute.
The Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act recodified in a different location an existing provision of federal law, without change, that states as follows:
No letter of such a class of domestic origin shall be opened except under authority of a search warrant authorized by law, or by an officer or employee of the Postal Service for the sole purpose of determining an address at which the letter can be delivered, or pursuant to the authorization of the addressee.[1]
In your signing statement, you stated that the executive branch would construe this provision “in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.”
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006 on the National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping program, Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Alberto Gonzales whether the executive branch was relying in other contexts on the theory that the Authorization for the Use of Military Force gave it the authority to violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and other statutes. Specifically, Senator Leahy asked: “Did it authorize the opening of first-class mail of U.S. citizens?” The Attorney General attempted to avoid answering the question, but ultimately stated: “Senator, I think that, again, that is not what is going on here. We are only focused on communications, international communications, where one party to the communication is al Qaeda. That is what this program is all about.”
You have already confirmed that you have authorized the NSA to conduct surveillance of communications without obtaining the court orders required by FISA. Your December 20, 2006, signing statement now suggests that you believe you have the authority to violate the law with regard to opening regular mail. The American people and Congress are entitled to know whether you have acted on that theory. Please answer the following question: has your administration authorized any government agency to read Americans’ first-class mail without obtaining a search warrant, complying with the applicable court order requirements of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or satisfying Postal Service regulations?
I look forward to your expeditious reply.
Sincerely,
Russell D. Feingold
United States Senator
1: A separate regulation, promulgated in 1996, states that the Postal Service can open a piece of mail when there is a credible threat that it contains a bomb or other explosive device. 39 C.F.R. § 233.11
Two More Years of Bush? I Don't Think So -- Ms. Smith Goes To WashingtonSubmitted by BuzzFlash on Fri, 01/05/2007 - 4:31pm. Shirley Smith
MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON
BuzzFlash,
We may have a Congress who is still too timid and do not want to get too tough, "BUT," I don't feel that the majority of American citizens are going to put up with Bush for two more years. Congress, the Democrats, would have to really go out of their way to be more nasty than the GOP has been for the last 15 years. They don't have to worry about how badly they are treating these criminals.
» read more
MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON
BuzzFlash,
We may have a Congress who is still too timid and do not want to get too tough, "BUT," I don't feel that the majority of American citizens are going to put up with Bush for two more years. Congress, the Democrats, would have to really go out of their way to be more nasty than the GOP has been for the last 15 years. They don't have to worry about how badly they are treating these criminals.
» read more
Sunday, January 07, 2007
LETTERS OF THE LAW FOR DUBYA
| LETTERS OF THE LAW FOR DUBYA By CINDY ADAMS January 7, 2007 -- I KNOW why the president wants to read our mail. So the government can sniff out terrorism? No. That's the cover story. It's actually so the Bushes can have something to do when they're out of office. I mean, what's Dubya to do when he's unemployed? Watch Laura fold bananas into the Jell-O? Teach Barney to salute? Make Condoleezza hum "Hail to the Chief"? Take English lessons? This poor man is going to spend the rest of his days in Crawford, Texas. Where they make a girl take her sweater off to learn to count to 2. What's he going to do with himself? Pal with who? Rumsfeld? Cheney will invite him to go shooting, and then what? He'll pore over fashion magazines with Harriet Miers? Play "Where's Osama" with Waldo? Or "Pin the Tail on Al Gore"? Come 2008, instead of opening his mouth, he'll open mail. So what if it isn't addressed to him! Not likely he'll have crates of it when he's out anyway. Greetings from the Dixie Chicks he ain't going to get. The National Guard won't be writing to ask to honor him. Pen pals with Sharpton, Streisand, Garofalo, Jack Abramoff? I don't think so. On a quiet night surrounded by nothing but cow flop and binoculars to make sure fellow Texan Dan Rather isn't around, he'll possibly want to read shy, withdrawn, introverted Donald's deep and heretofore unmentioned thoughts about Rosie. Or what Colin Powell reallyreally thinks. Or his brother Jeb's semihonest opinion about anything. Maybe the then-former president will simply nestle into his own library shelves of Charles Dickens, William Shakespeare, Beatrix Potter and read Michael Moore in the original crayon. Or Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, Judith Miller, Frank Rich, Bob Woodward, James Baker, Charlie Rangel. Maybe the Secret Service will let him just open the leftover mail that came to the White House - marked "Occupant." Could it be - although it seems a little excessive to schlep the whole country into this - that this mail-opening shtick has been just a father's way of getting to steam open the private thinking of his daughters? The thought has come that all those immigrants who came here to escape communism are suddenly feeling at home. Russia is opening up, and we're closing up. Our differences used to be we all talked, but nobody cared - and they all cared, but nobody talked. The times they are a-changin'. America's next generation is going to need loose-leaf history books. In the old U.S.S.R., when once you mentioned anything, you got interviewed by the KGB. In the new U.S.A., when you now mention anything, you'll be interviewed by the postmaster. Letter writers will have a new game - hide and stay hidden. In days of old, Pravda's letters to the editor included the writer's name, address and next of kin. Hey, that's happening here. Phones are tapped, mail is opened, e-mails follow us, cameras watch us, swipe-cards report us, the Patriot Act lists everything but your nasal spray. Soon we'll be able to go anywhere Washington pleases. Reminds me of when someone once asked if anyone objected to the Soviet premier's ways, and the premier answered, "Absolutely. Enough to fill three labor camps." Of course, there are those who support the edict of opening our mail. So, maybe it's just that privacy is out of fashion. Paris and Britney flash their varying parts to paparazzi. Janet Jackson and Tara Reid flash their other parts. Brad's butt has been immortalized. Stanley Tucci's front showed on Broadway. Everybody's doing it in closeups. OK, OK, so if the man in the Oval Office really wants to read what people write, here's some of what I've gotten. A fellow named Orley Hood, who's seen me "on one of those channels for mindless people who think Princess Diana and Britney Spears are important people," then called me "one of those over-hairsprayed, overdressed, overweening women who thinks because she has Demi Moore's phone number she's important." (Note to the CIA or FBI or President Bush if he's reading this: I do not have Demi's phone number.) He also says he saw my "apartment in Architectural Digest a year or so ago. It looked like a Hollywood movie set of a brothel." Another from Tennessee complained of my following sentence, "They're saying that it's her who . . ." adding, "You need better grammar. That should be stated, 'They're saying that it's she who . . .' And we will ignore your other boo-boos." And then there are anonymous ones that begin, "Dear Stupid . . ." I'd be glad to forward those on to whichever agency is officially designated for my mail. Listen, anything that will help in the fight against terrorism. Especially if it's directed toward me personally. |
EVEN PENTAGON 'CONCERNED' OF ESCALATION
Rich: 'Surge is a sham' - Clark: 'Bush's surge will backfire'
UK'S INDEPENDENT: BLOOD AND OIL; THE SPOILS OF WARRevealed: How the West will make killing on Iraqi oil riches
Paper: Israel plans Iran nuke strike
Tel Aviv mum on report - Top Dem: Won't rule out force
Iran: 'Anyone who attacks will regret it very quickly'
NYT: US officers mad Rice 'gave green light' to handover Saddam
Rich: 'Surge is a sham' - Clark: 'Bush's surge will backfire'
UK'S INDEPENDENT: BLOOD AND OIL; THE SPOILS OF WARRevealed: How the West will make killing on Iraqi oil riches
Paper: Israel plans Iran nuke strike
Tel Aviv mum on report - Top Dem: Won't rule out force
Iran: 'Anyone who attacks will regret it very quickly'
NYT: US officers mad Rice 'gave green light' to handover Saddam
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Let's face it: this is nuts
Let's face it: this is nuts.
by Kagro X
Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:46:18 PM PST
OK, you've all seen the story by now. George W. Bush thinks he's got the right to peek through your mail without a warrant.
Now, nobody who reads this blog can possibly be a stranger to signing statements at this point. We've been reading about them for a long time. We've even debated a bit about what they really mean, legally and practically. That is, legally speaking, they may not turn out to offer the Bush "administration" any protection if and when they do the things they are purporting to reserve the right to do. But practically speaking, they give every indication that they may in fact be doing those things, and doing them unchallenged. Which tends to take a bit of the shine off of the more optimistic legal view.
But as we've sailed past the 800 mark in terms of how many of these signing statements Bush has issued, and may well be on our way to 1,000 and beyond, they're beginning to take on an additional meaning, beyond the legal and practical. They're taking on a symbolic meaning, although it might actually be true that they were meant to have this meaning all along. And that symbolic meaning is that they demonstrate that Bush is reserving for himself the right to do anything. He just keeps planting stakes further and further out, noting well that nobody's really willing to set boundaries. Don't challenge me, he says, because I'll make you prove you can make it stick. That's how I measure power. If you can't physically restrain me from doing these things, you can't stop me.
It violates the law? Who cares? Have a signing statement. The government's being sued? Who cares? We'll appeal forever. Lose the appeals? Who cares? We'll just change the terminology or continue in secret. Investigated by Congress for it? Who cares? We'll just flood them with irrelevant documents. Subpoenaed to testify? Who cares? We just won't show. Cited for Contempt? Who cares? We'll appeal forever (if we even permit the U.S. Attorney to prosecute in the first place).
It's not just the sheer number of these signing statements anymore, but now, as this latest example illustrates so well, it's also the sheer audacity of them that gives them their potency. A declaration like this one, on top of similar declarations (that received similarly poor receptions) on warrantless surveillance of telephonic communications, is clearly a declaration that this president is frontally challenging basic privacy assumptions held by nearly everyone in America. It is a declaration of his belief, however poorly founded, that he is "Commander in Chief" of everyone and everything, so long as he can claim that in the end, it was all for our own good.
It is also, I think, a declaration that Bush makes with one eye on our "table," noting what's not on it, and knowing full well what it is that Congressional Democrats don't want to put there. That's something I think we can say with some confidence at this point, without even having to get into the wisdom of either side's strategy. He knows what Democrats are reluctant to do, and why. By the same token, Democrats know (to some extent, anyway) what crazy things he'll be willing to try as a result. Things that, frankly, it's hard to believe won't "wrongfoot" him with the great majority of the American people, to borrow a phrase. And sure enough, he's doing them. Though I'm not sure anyone fully anticipated a move this far out of step with American values. But maybe we should have.
When you're dealing with an "administration" that believes: 1) that the Constitution affords the president vast "inherent powers" that are unstated in the document, but extend to every facet of governance, and; 2) that the current state of the law and legal precedent that says otherwise is simply wrongly decided, you're gonna have problems. And a lot of those problems are not dissimilar to the kind you'd have trying to dissuade a certifiably delusional mental patient of his affliction. Except in this game, the suits are more expensive.
Have you ever seen The Madness of King George?
There's a great scene in which Dr. Willis, who eventually "cures" George III of his illness, muses aloud:
Do you know, Mr. Greville, the state of monarchy and the state of lunacy share a frontier? Some of my lunatics fancy themselves kings. He... is the king. Where shall his fancy take refuge?
How do you tell the difference between a "resolute" president, and one who's just lost his mind? Everyone who can say no to him has said no to him, in the strongest ways that normal people recognize as being within bounds -- at least in the game of government. And the president's response?
All I need is the support of my wife and my dog.
Who says something like that? Well, someone who lives in enough of a bubble that they can shut out the "noes." And who lives there?
Dr. Willis knows:
Well, who's to say what's normal in a king? Hmm? Deferred to, agreed with, acquiesced in. Who can flourish on such a daily diet of compliance? To be curbed... stood up to... in a word, thwarted, exercises the character, elasticates the spirit, makes it more pliant. It's the want of such exercise that makes rulers rigid.
Sounds familiar.
Friday, January 05, 2007
For the U.S., It's Really More Than 50,000 Dead and Wounded for Bush's Personal Sociopathic Obsession 1/4
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof." 1/6
Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said yesterday that he believes top officials in the Bush administration have privately concluded they have lost Iraq and are simply trying to postpone disaster so the next president will "be the guy landing helicopters inside the Green Zone, taking people off the roof." 1/6
Thursday, January 04, 2007
Conscientious Rejector?
First Lieutenant Ehren Watada still refuses Iraq deployment orders, calling the war illegal. A six-year prison term could result. Preliminary hearings are set for Thursday.
By the Hot Zone Team, Tue Jan 2, 6:38 PM ET
First Lt. Ehren Watada, a 28-year-old Hawaii native, is the first commissioned officer in the U.S. to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq. He announced last June his decision not to deploy on the grounds the war is illegal.
Lt. Watada was based at Fort Lewis , Washington , with the Army's 3rd (Stryker) Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division. He has remained on base, thus avoiding charges of desertion.
He does, however, face one count of "missing troop movement" and four counts of "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman." If convicted, he faces up to six years in prison.
Watada's court martial is on February 5. A pre-trial hearing is set for January 4, with an added scope of controversy: the Army has ordered two freelance journalists, Sarah Olson and Dahr Jamail, to testify against Lt. Watada at the hearing. Both journalists are fighting the subpoenas. '
Kevin Sites recently spoke with Lt. Watada about the reasoning behind his decision, the controversy the decision has caused and how he is dealing with the repercussions.
Lt. Watada spoke on the phone from his family's home in Hawaii . A transcript of the interview follows.
KEVIN SITES: Now, you joined the Army right after the US was invading Iraq and now you're refusing to go. Some critics might look at this as somewhat disingenuous. You've taken an oath, received training but now you won't fight. Can you explain your rationale behind this?
EHREN WATADA: Sure. I think that in March of 2003 when I joined up, I, like many Americans, believed the administration when they said the threat from Iraq was imminent — that there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout Iraq; that there were stockpiles of it; and because of Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 terrorist acts, the threat was imminent and we needed to invade that country immediately in order to neutralize that threat.
Since then I think I, as many, many Americans are realizing, that those justifications were intentionally falsified in order to fit a policy established long before 9/11 of just toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and setting up an American presence in Iraq.
SITES: Tell me how those views evolved. How did you come to that conclusion?
WATADA: I think the facts are out there, they're not difficult to find, they just take a little bit of willingness and interest on behalf of anyone who is willing to seek out the truth and find the facts. All of it is in the mainstream media. But it is quickly buried and it is quickly hidden by other events that come and go. And all it takes is a little bit of logical reasoning. The Iraq Survey Group came out and said there were no weapons of mass destruction after 1991 and during 2003. The 9/11 Commission came out and said there were no ties with Iraq to 9/11 or al-Qaeda. The president himself came out and said that nobody in his administration ever suggested that there was a link.
And yet those ties to al-Qaeda and the weapons of mass destruction were strongly suggested. They said there was no doubt there were weapons of mass destruction all throughout 2002, 2003 and even 2004. So, they came out and they say this, and yet they say it was bad intelligence, not manipulated intelligence, that was the problem. And then you have veteran members of the CIA that come out and say, "No. It was manipulated intelligence. We told them there was no WMD. We told them there were no ties to al-Qaeda. And they said that that's not what they wanted to hear."
SITES: Do you think that you could have determined some of this information prior to joining the military — if a lot of it, as you say, was out there? There were questions going into the war whether WMD existed or not, and you seemingly accepted the administration's explanation for that. Why did you do that at that point?
WATADA: Certainly yeah, there was other information out there that I could have sought out. But I put my trust in our leaders in government.
SITES: Was there a turning point for you when you actually decided that this was definitely an illegal war?
WATADA: Certainly. I think that when we take an oath we, as soldiers and officers, swear to protect the constitution — with our lives as necessary — and those constitutional values and laws that make us free and make us a democracy. And when we have one branch of government that intentionally deceives another branch of government in order to authorize war, and intentionally deceives the people in order to gain that public support, that is a grave breach of our constitutional values, our laws, our checks and balances, and separation of power.
SITES: But Lieutenant, was there one specific incident that happened in Iraq or that the administration had said or done at a certain period that [made you say] "I have to examine this more closely"?
WATADA: No, I think that certainly as the war went on, and it was not going well, doubts came up in my mind, but at that point I still was willing to go. At one point I even volunteered to go to Iraq with any unit that was short of junior officers.
SITES: At what point was that?
WATADA: This was in September of 2005. But as soon as I found out, and as I began to read and research more and more that the administration had intentionally deceived the public and Congress over the reasons for going to Iraq , that's when I told myself "there's something wrong here."
"I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop."— Lt. Ehren Watada
SITES: Was there any kind of personal conviction as well, I mean in terms of exposure to returning soldiers or Marines — the kinds of wounds they suffered, the kinds of stories that they were bringing back with them — did that have any kind of influence or create any factors for you in coming to this decision?
WATADA: Sure, I felt, well, in a general sense I felt that when we put our trust in the government, when we put our lives in their hands, that is a huge responsibility. And we also say that "when we put our lives in your hands, we ask that you not abuse that trust; that you not take us to war over flimsy or false reasons; that you take us to war when it is absolutely necessary." Because we have so much to lose, you know — the soldiers, our lives, our limbs, our minds and our families — that the government and the people owe that to us.
SITES: Was there a fear that played into that? Did you see returning soldiers with lost limbs? Was there a concern for you that you might lose your life going to Iraq ?
WATADA: No, that had nothing to do with the issue. The issue here is that we have thousands of soldiers returning. And what is their sacrifice for? For terrorism or establishing democracy or whatever the other reasons are. And I saw the pain and agony etched upon the faces of all these families of lost soldiers. And I told myself that this needs to stop. We cannot have people in power that are irresponsible and corrupt and that keep on going that way because they're not held accountable to the people.
SITES: You know on that note, Lieutenant, let me read you something from a speech that you gave in August to the Veterans for Peace. You had said at one point, "Many have said this about the World Trade Towers : never again. I agree, never again will we allow those who threaten our way of life to reign free. Be they terrorists or elected officials. The time to fight back is now, the time to stand up and be counted is today." Who were you speaking about when you said that?
WATADA: I was speaking about everybody. The American people. That we all have that duty, that obligation, that responsibility to do something when we see our government perpetrating a crime upon the world, or even upon us. And I think that the American people have lost that, that sense of duty. There is no self-interest in this war for the vast majority of the American people. And because of that the American soldiers have suffered.
There really is a detachment from this war, and many of the American people, because there is no draft, or for whatever reason, because taxes haven't been raised, they don't have anything personally to lose or gain with this war, and so they take little interest.
SITES: Do you think President Bush and his advisers are guilty of criminal conduct in the prosecution of this war?
WATADA: That's not something for me to determine. I think it's for the newly-elected congress to determine during the investigations that they should hold over this war, and pre-war intelligence.
SITES: But in some ways you have determined that. You're saying this is an illegal war, and an illegal act usually takes prosecution by someone with criminal intent. Is that correct?
WATADA: Right, and they have taken me to court with that, but they have refused — or it will be very unlikely that the prosecution in the military court will allow me to bring in evidence and witnesses to testify on my behalf that the war is illegal. So therefore it becomes the responsibility of Congress, since the military is refusing to do that. It becomes the responsibility of Congress to hold our elected leaders accountable.
SITES: Now this is the same Congress though that in a lot of ways voted for this war initially. Do you think that they're going to turn around and in some ways say that they were wrong? And hold hearings to determine exactly that, that they made a mistake as well? It seems like a long shot.
WATADA: Right, well I think some in Congress are willing to do that, and some aren't. And that's the struggle, and that's the fight that's going to occur over the next year.
SITES: Let me ask you why you decided to go to the press with this. In this particular case you're the first officer — there may have been other officers that have refused these orders, but you're the first one to really do this publicly. Why did you do that?
WATADA: Because I wanted to explain to the American people why I was taking the stand I was taking — that it wasn't for selfish reasons, it wasn't for cowardly reasons.
You know, I think the most important reason here is to raise awareness among the American people that hey — there's a war going on, and American soldiers are dying every day. Hundreds of Iraqis are dying every day. You need to take interest, and ask yourself where you stand, and what you're willing to do, to end this war, if you do believe that it's wrong — that it's illegal, and immoral. And I think I have accomplished that. Many, many people come up to me and say, "because of you, I have taken an active interest in what's going on over in Iraq ."
And also, you know, [I want to] give a little hope and inspiration back to a lot of people. For a long time I was really without hope, thinking that there was nothing I could do about something that I saw, that was so wrong, and so tragic. And I think a lot of people who have been trying to end this war felt the same way — that there was just nothing that they could do. And I think by taking my stand publicly, and stating my beliefs and standing on those beliefs, a lot of people have taken encouragement from that.
SITES: You've said that you had a responsibility to your own conscience in this particular situation. Did you also have a responsibility to your unit as well? I just want to read you a quote from Veterans of Foreign Wars communications director Jerry Newbury. He said "[Lt. Watada] has an obligation to fulfill, and it's not up to the individual officer to decide when he's going to deploy or not deploy. Some other officer will have to go in his place. He needs to think about that." Can you react to that quote?
WATADA: You know, what I'm doing is for the soldiers. I'm trying to end something that is criminal, something that should not have been started in the first place and something that is making America less safe — and that is the Iraq war. By just going there and being willing to participate, and doing my job, or whatever I'm told to do — which actually exacerbates the situation and makes it worse — I would not be serving the best interest of this country, nor the soldiers that I'm serving with. What I'm trying to do is end something, as I said, that's illegal, and immoral, so that all the soldiers can come home and this tragedy can come to an end.
It seems like people and critics make this distinction between an order to deploy and any other order, as if the order to deploy is just something that's beyond any other order. Orders have to be determined on whether they're legal or not. And if the order to deploy to a war that is unlawful, if that is given, then that order itself is unlawful.
SITES: How did your peers and your fellow officers react to your decision?
WATADA: I know that there have been some people within the military who won't agree with my stance, and there have been a lot of members of the Army of all ranks who have agreed with what I've done. And I see it almost every other day, where someone in uniform, or a dependent, approaches me in person, or through correspondence, and thanks me for what I have done, and either supports or respects my stand.
SITES: You've remained on base, and that's been a situation that can't be too comfortable for you. Can you fill us in on what that's been like there?
WATADA: I think that for the most part, people that I interact with closely — I have been moved, I'm no longer in the 3rd Striker Brigade, I'm over in 1st Corps — treat me professionally, politely, but keep their distance. I don't think anybody wants to get involved with the position that I've taken, either way. People approach me in private and give me their support.
SITES: Tell me about the repercussions you face in this court martial.
WATADA: Well I think with the charges that have been applied to me and referred over to a general court martial, I'm facing six years maximum confinement, dishonorable discharge from the army, and loss of all pay and allowances.
STES: Are you ready to deal with all those consequences with this decision?
WATADA: Sure, and I think that's the decision that I made almost a year ago, in January, when I submitted my original letter of resignation. I knew that possibly some of the things that I stated in that letter, including my own beliefs, that there were repercussions from that. Yet I felt it was a sacrifice, and it was a necessary sacrifice, to make. And I feel the same today.
I think that there are many supporters out there who feel that I should not be made an example of, that I'm speaking out for what a lot of Americans are increasingly becoming aware of: that the war is illegal and immoral and it must be stopped. And that the military should not make an example or punish me severely for that.
SITES: Do you think that you made a mistake in joining the military? Your mother and father support you in this decision, and your father during the Vietnam War refused to go to Vietnam as well, but instead joined the Peace Corps. He went to his draft board and said, "let me join the Peace Corps and serve in Peru ," which is what he did. Do you think in hindsight that that might have been a better decision for you as well?
WATADA: You know I think that John Murtha came out a few months ago in an interview and he was asked if, with all his experience, in Korea , and Vietnam , volunteering for those wars -- he was asked if he would join the military today. And he said absolutely not. And I think that with the knowledge that I have now, I agree. I would not join the military because I would be forced into a position where I would be ordered to do something that is wrong. It is illegal and immoral. And I would be put into a situation as a soldier to be abused and misused by those in power.
STIES: In your speech in front of the Veterans for Peace you said "the oath we take as soldiers swears allegiance not to one man but to a document of principles and laws designed to protect the people." Can you expand upon that a little bit — what did you mean when you said that?
WATADA: The constitution was established, and our laws are established, to protect human rights, to protect equal rights and constitutional civil liberties. And I think we have people in power who say that those laws, or those principles, do not apply to them — that they are above the law and can do whatever it takes to manipulate or create laws that enable them to do whatever they please. And that is a danger in our country, and I think the war in Iraq is just one symptom of this agenda. And I think as soldiers, as American people, we need to recognize this, and we need to put a stop to it before it's too late.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
The World's Reserve Currency
Ron Paul
Lew Rockwell.com
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
The financial press reported last week that the euro, the new currency created only five years ago and used by most European nations, has supplanted the U.S. dollar as the most widely used form of cash internationally. There are now more Euros in circulation worldwide than dollars.
This alone is not necessarily troubling, as the dollar remains the world’s most important reserve currency. About 65% of foreign central bank exchange reserves are still held in dollars, versus only about 25% in euros. And the European Central Bank faces the same inflationary pressures that our own Federal Reserve Bank Governors face, including a growing entitlement burden that threatens economic ruin as both societies age. European politicians want to spend money just as badly as American politicians, and undoubtedly will clamor to inflate – and thus devalue – the euro to fund their creaky social welfare systems.
Still, the rise of the Euro internationally is another sign that the U.S. dollar is not what it used to be. There is increasing pressure on nations to buy and sell oil in euros, and anecdotal evidence suggests that drug dealers and money launderers now prefer euros to dollars. Historically, the underground cash economy has always sought the most stable and valuable paper currency to conduct business.
More importantly, our greatest benefactors for the last twenty years – Asian central banks – have lost their appetite for holding U.S. dollars. China, Japan, and Asia in general have been happy to hold U.S. debt instruments in recent decades, but they will not prop up our spending habits forever. Foreign central banks understand that American leaders do not have the discipline to maintain a stable currency. When the rest of the world finally abandons the dollar as the global reserve currency, both Congress and American consumers will find borrowing money a more expensive proposition.
Remember, America can maintain a large trade deficit only if foreign banks continue to hold large numbers of dollars as their reserve currency. Our entire consumption economy is based on the willingness of foreigners to hold U.S. debt. We face a reordering of the entire world economy if the federal government cannot print, borrow, and spend money at a rate that satisfies its endless appetite for deficit spending.
At some point Americans must realize that Congress, and the Federal Reserve system that permits the creation of new money by fiat, are the real culprits in the erosion of your personal savings and buying power. Congress relentlessly spends more than the Treasury collects in taxes each year, which means the U.S. government must either borrow or print money to operate – both of which cause the value of the dollar to drop. When we borrow a billion dollars every day simply to run the government, and when the Federal Reserve increases the money supply by trillions of dollars in just 15 years, we hardly can expect our dollars to increase in value.
2006: The Year America Died
2006: The Year America Died
Our Commentary on the year past and the year ahead
Steve Watson & Alex Jones
Infowars.net
Tuesday, January 2, 2007
2006 was the year that the United States died. Over the course of a year, just a few seconds in the span of a country, it's civilization and their way of life, we have witnessed the premature death of America. The underpinnings, the basic canons and the tenets of the United States, as well as it's physical borders, are gone.
But they can be brought back.
The problem is denial. You cannot put something right until you identify it as a wrong. The New World Order has won a major victory, but because the country is made up of living tissue, each and every one of us out there, every man woman and child, it can rise from the dead. We can revive the country by passing electricity through its heart.
Until recently Europe was deep in the EU but as the final steps were being implemented, the people pulled back and voted down EU expansion in every country. The same has happened in South America. So we do see whole regions, countries and areas rising from the dead in this sense.
The good name of America has been used for global corporate empire and the country has been turned from the most loved around the world into the most hated and despised.
2006 was the year that implementation of the American Union began. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, the merger is on track or ahead of schedule.
The open plan to merge the US with Mexico and Canada and create a Pan American Union has long been a Globalist brainchild but its very real and prescient implementation on behalf of the Council on Foreign Relations has finally been reported on by mainstream news outlets.
The framework on which the American Union is being pegged is the NAFTA Super Highway, a four football-fields-wide leviathan that stretches from southern Mexico through the US up to Montreal Canada. Coupled with Bush's blanket amnesty program, which the Democrats in congress are set to approve this week as their first order of business, the Pan American Union is the final jigsaw piece for the total dismantling of America as we know it.
-
Social Security, roads, military, intelligence gathering, regulations, federal agencies - all within the US, Canada and Mexico are being merged into one system at the cost of national sovereignty and the common law. What we were is being replaced with the new - no liberty, no due process, no freedom, no families, forced drugging, no jobs of any significance, no control of your own destiny - in short, total control of our lives.
They are not just in name merging the agencies and the laws and the regulations, they are physically getting rid of the borders by buying off and lobbying the politicians at the state level, who then hand the roads over to international bodies and their subsidiary companies.
The armed forces has also seen an influx of foreign troops, an average of 20% of ground troops in Iraq are now non citizens, this is set to rise to 50% over the next year with foreign recruitment stations facilitating the supply.
Think about this, non-US citizens wearing the uniform of American soldiers. These troops would be more likely to fire on US citizens and follow orders. Every empire, when it represses its own people, brings in foreign troops to do the job. Urban warfare drills we have covered over the years show that the military is being prepared for this.
2007 will be the year of the American Union's fruition. Will the people stand up to it and protest its programs? will they realise how dire the situation is or will they capitulate and accept it?
Simultaneously in 2007 they are announcing from Texas to Indiana, from Oregon to New York, that foreign companies are being given, at fire sale prices, the infrastructure of America. The ports and the roads are to be used as taxing mechanisms to fund the North American Union. Toll roads are to be placed upon existing roads in Security Prosperity Partnership agreements that bypasses Congress, agreements between the bureaucracies of the US and Mexican governments, to raise capital to build the Super highway that will go South of Texas and into Mexico.
SPP documents reveal that out of 85 interstate highways, 83 of them are slated to go under this agreement and toll roads are going down on them already. The money from this operation with further fund the dismantling of US sovereignty by seizing the infrastructure at it's very heart in a bloodless coup.
The US is now being used as the primary tool of globalist corporate fascism and the world is wrongly blaming the people of America for all the ills that they perceive the US to be responsible for.
In 2007 Americans need to send a message to the rest of the world that they are being used as puppets and are committed to fighting back against the hijacking of their country. Parasites have attacked the central nervous system of America, they have taken control of the central government and expanded it's power, seized full control of the nation and turned it into an engine of warfare to dominate other nations. And once they take over those other nations, they will turn them into engines of warfare to project and expand the power.
In order to revive America, its people need to expose the hijackers, the new world order crime syndicate, and their programs and operations. Then people on the left and right can wake up from this false paradigm and see that both parties are controlled by the same private interest groups.
Americans also need to send a message to the rest of the world and punish those who have enabled its downfall, such as a President who has been played by private interest power mongers who have no allegiance to the Constitution. The people need to show that they do not stand for the crimes for which America has been used to commit.
Such action by the informed and educated people of America will represent a bolt of electricity passing through the heart of the country and reviving it. Without this the end game will be completed and America will remain forever cold and dead.
To listen to Alex Jones' info-bomb on this issue click here.
| | ||||
| | Japan Court Refuses To Amend Transsexual's Birth Record | |||
| | ||||
|
Monday, January 01, 2007
peoples investigation into 9/11
peoples investigation into 9/11
The list of suspects has since proven to be inaccurate, the official story has numerous holes and glaring inconsistencies, and the FBI itself has admitted, after 8 months of investigation, that it does not have one single piece of hard evidence linking the people they said did it to the planning of the attacks. The blunt fact is, there is no proof at all that the FBI's alleged suspects, or even Arabs in general actually did carry out the attacks. From the first day, one set of suspects and a theory has been pursued with no success. An honest person would admit that they had made a major mistake by deciding who did it first, and then looking for the evidence to prove the decision correct, rather than openly collecting all the evidence, and looking where it led, no matter where that was. This of course is assuming that the Bush Administration and the Intelligence community are honestly trying to find out what happened. Given the history of Bush and his Iran/Contra cronies and the track record of the CIA it is not only highly possible that they knew and let the attacks happen, but also that they might have initiated the attacks. There is plenty of evidence of coverup, and no possibility should be ruled out. With Congress also having a poor record of investigation into governmental crime, it is up to people in this country to lead the way. With the US and other nations using the 911 attacks as an excuse to dominate and kill across the globe, it is the responsibility of the people to set the record straight. Keeping an open mind to examine all information, wherever it may lead, and courageously pursuing basic investigative questions such as who had motive, who had means, and who benefitted are the means to uncover the truth. A few unanswered questions
License to Snoop
US 'licence to snoop' on British air travellers
By David Millward, Transport Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:35am GMT 01/01/2007
| Britons flying to America could have their credit card and email accounts inspected by the United States authorities following a deal struck by Brussels and Washington. By using a credit card to book a flight, passengers face having other transactions on the card inspected by the American authorities. Providing an email address to an airline could also lead to scrutiny of other messages sent or received on that account. The extent of the demands were disclosed in "undertakings" given by the US Department of Homeland Security to the European Union and published by the Department for Transport after a Freedom of Information request. About four million Britons travel to America each year and the released document shows that the US has demanded access to far more data than previously realised. advertisement Not only will such material be available when combating terrorism but the Americans have asserted the right to the same information when dealing with other serious crimes. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group Liberty, expressed horror at the extent of the information made available. "It is a complete handover of the rights of people travelling to the United States," she said. As the Americans tightened security after the September 11 attacks, they demanded that airlines provide comprehensive information about passengers before allowing them to land. But this triggered a dispute that came to a head last year in a Catch 22 situation. On one hand they were told they must provide the information, on the other they were threatened with heavy fines by EU governments for breaching European data protection legislation. In October, Brussels agreed to sweep away the "bureaucratic hurdles" preventing airlines handing over this material after European carriers were threatened with exclusion from the US. The newly-released document sets out the rules underpinning that deal. As a result the Americans are entitled to 34 separate pieces of Passenger Name Record (PNR) data — all of which must be provided by airlines from their computers. Much of it is routine but some elements will prove more contentious, such as a passenger's email address, whether they have a previous history of not turning up for flights and any religious dietary requirements. While insisting that "additional information" would only be sought from lawful channels, the US made clear that it would use PNR data as a trigger for further inquiries. Anyone seeking such material would normally have to apply for a court order or subpoena, although this would depend on what information was wanted. Doubts were raised last night about the effectiveness of the safeguards. "There is no guarantee that a bank or internet provider would tell an individual that material about them was being subpoenaed," an American lawyer said. "Then there are problems, such as where the case would take place and whether an individual has time to hire a lawyer, even if they wanted to challenge it." Initially, such material could be inspected for seven days but a reduced number of US officials could view it for three and a half years. Should any record be inspected during this period, the file could remain open for eight years. Material compiled by the border authorities can be shared with domestic agencies. It can also be on a "case by case" basis with foreign governments. Washington promised to "encourage" US airlines to make similar information available to EU governments — rather than compel them to do so. "It is pretty horrendous, particularly when you couple it with our one-sided extradition arrangements with the US," said Miss Chakrabarti. "It is making the act of buying a ticket a gateway to a host of personal email and financial information. While there are safeguards, it appears you would have to go to a US court to assert your rights." Chris Grayling, the shadow transport secretary, said: "Our government and the EU have handed over very substantial powers to gain access to private information belonging to British citizens." A Department for Transport spokesman said: "Every airline is obliged to conform with these rules if they wish to continue flying As part of the terms of carriage, it is made clear to passengers what these requirements are. The US government has given undertakings on how this data will be used and who will see it." |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
