Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe End of International Law?
A parallel new Bush doctrine is emerging, in the last days of the soon-to-be-ancien regime, and it needs to be strangled in its crib. Like the original Bush doctrine -- the one that Sarah Palin couldn't name, which called for preventive military action against emerging threats -- this one also casts international law aside by insisting that the United States has an inherent right to cross international borders in "hot pursuit" of anyone it doesn't like.
![[Syrians mourn their killed relatives in the village of Sukkiraya, on the Syria-Iraq border. US forces in Iraq staged a "successful" raid into Syria against foreign fighters, an American official said Monday, as a furious Damascus accused Washington of "terrorist aggression." (AFP/Ramzi Haidar)]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/internationallaw1028.jpg "internationallaw1028.jpg")
They're already applying it to Pakistan, and this week Syria was the target. Is Iran next?
Let's take Pakistan first. Though a nominal ally, Pakistan has been the subject of at least nineteen aerial attacks by CIA-controlled drone aircraft, killing scores of Pakistanis and some Afghans in tribal areas controlled by pro-Taliban forces. The New York Times listed, and mapped, all nineteen such attacks in a recent piece describing Predator attacks across the Afghan border, all since August. The Times notes that inside the government, the U.S.Special Operations command and other advocates are pushing for a more aggressive use of such units, including efforts to kidnap and interrogate suspected Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders. Though President Bush signed an order in July allowing U.S. commando teams to move into Pakistan itself, with or without Islamabad's permission, such raids have occurred only once, on September 3.
The U.S. raid into Syria on October 26 similarly trampled on Syria's sovereignty without so much as a fare-thee-well. Though the Pentagon initially denied that the raid involved helicopters and on-the-ground commando presence, that's exactly what happened. The attack reportedly killed Badran Turki Hishan al-Mazidih, an Iraqi facilitator who smuggled foreign fighters into Iraq through Syria. The Washington Post was ecstatic, writing in an editorial:
"If Sunday's raid, which targeted a senior al-Qaeda operative, serves only to put Mr. Assad on notice that the United States, too, is no longer prepared to respect the sovereignty of a criminal regime, it will have been worthwhile."
Is it really that easy? To say: We declare your regime criminal, and so we will attack you anytime we care to? In its news report of the attack into Syria, the Post suggests, in a report by Ann Scott Tyson and Ellen Knickmeyer, that the attack is raising cross-border hot pursuit to the level of a doctrine:
"The military's argument is that 'you can only claim sovereignty if you enforce it,' said Anthony Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you are dealing with states that do not maintain their sovereignty and become a de facto sanctuary, the only way you have to deal with them is this kind of operation,' he said."
The Times broadens the possible targets from Pakistan and Syria to Iran, writing (in a page one story by Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker):
"Administration officials declined to say whether the emerging application of self-defense could lead to strikes against camps inside Iran that have been used to train Shiite 'special groups' that have fought with the American military and Iraqi security forces."
That, of course, has been a live option, especially since the start of the surge in January, 2007, when President Bush promised to strike at Iranian supply lines in Iraq and other U.S. officials, including Vice President Cheney, pressed hard to attack sites within Iran, regardless of the consequences.
On October 24, I went to hear Mike Vickers, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, speaking at the Washington Institiute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli thinktank in Washington. He spoke with pride about the vast and growing presence of these commando forces within the U.S. military, noting that their budget has doubled under the Bush administration and that, by the end of the decade, their will more than 60,000 U.S. forces in this shadowy effort. Here are some excerpts of Vickers' remarks:
"If you look at the operational core of our Special Operations Forces, and focus on the ground operators, there are some 15,000 or so of those -- give or take how you count them -- these range from our Army Special Forces or our Green Berets, our Rangers, our Seals, some classified units we have, and we recently added a Marine Corps Special Operations Command to this arsenal as well. In addition to adding the Marine component, each of these elements since 2006 and out to about 2012 or 2013 has been increasing their capacity as well as their capabilities, but their capacity by a third. This is the largest growth in Special Operations Force history. By the time we're done with that, there will be some things, some gaps we need to fix undoubtedly, but we will have the elements in place for what we believe is the Special Operations component of the global war on terrorism."Special Operations Forces, I think through this decade and into the next one, have been and will remain a decisive strategic instrument. ...
"There's been a very significant -- about a 40 or 50 percent increase in operational tempo and of course more intense in terms of the action since the 9/11 attacks. On any given day that we wake up, our Special Operations Forces are in some sixty countries around the world. But more than 80 percent or so of those right now are concentrated in the greater Middle East or the United States Central Command area of responsibility -- the bulk of those of course in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Notice what he said: operating in 60 countries.
Of course, the very invasion of Iraq was illegal in 2003, and it flouted international law. So some may say, these cross-border raids are small potatoes. But they're not. This is a big deal. If it becomes a standard part of U.S. military doctrine that any country can be declared "criminal" and thus lose its sovereignty, then there is no such thing as international law anymore.
When Defense Secretary Robert Gates was asked about this, here's what he said, as quoted in the Post article cited earlier:
"'We will do what is necessary to protect our troops,' Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said in Senate testimony last month, when asked about the cross-border operations. Under questioning, Gates said that he was not an expert in international law but that he assumed the State Department had consulted such laws before the U.S. military was granted authority to make such strikes."
Not an expert in international law? He'll leave it to the State Department? And this is the guy that Barack Obama's advisers say ought to stay on at the Pentagon under an Obama administration?
93 Comments so far
Show AllAs I have written many times, just go look at the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) site. http://www.newamericancentury.org/ Read their Statement of "Principles." http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm Look at the names below the document. Look at the date! These are the same people who have run the United States, carrying out their design for an all powerful American Empire since Bush was appointed.
In eleven years, they have not swerved from their purpose, nor will they unless stopped by We the People. They want total hegemony over the earth, total military control of the planet, control of resources, control of governments. They want unlimited wealth and power and they have come far too close.
Hitler and Stalin would be proud of these creatures, they have been good students.
If anyone who is educated in America will simply step back from the "revisionist"
history taught almost from the begining of the USA--they will find that the USA has been a major violator of international law, all along. Especially in the last half of the 20th century, and the first decade of the 21st century they have carried their insanity to such proportions that the world has never seen before, and hopes that they never see again.
If "we the people" ever had any control over this, then "them the people" have willingly participated in one manner or another and have made the one most dangerous mistake any people or any living organism for that manner, an make: they, the USA, have refused to learn from the mistakes of history, as well as their own----and they plunge deeper into an abyss that has no way out except abject failure.
Whether they, the USA, have enough time left to change is questionable, but the world will not long tolerate the USA, and what will remain will be a living nightmare, for those that survive the inevitable.
That they have lasted as long as they have is a tribute to the worlds neglect.
Now however, they, the USA, have shown the world beyond any doubts that they are a dangerous rogue nation----unworthy of even the slightest regard or respect.
Survivors like my people have crawled out of the ruble that the USA created of our former nations. But were and are small, and had been tested by many before the USA came along, and even though we are no where near what we were before, we did survive.
I do not think that the USA will be able to say the same, far too many now fear them. Human kind does not long tolerate that which they fear and the law of self preservation will demand that the world will turn, most likely en mass, against the USA.
Most likely sooner than later.
It isn't just 'democracy' that the US is 'bringing' to other places around the world. The 'wild, wild, west' is being introduced too.
Robert Dreyfuss concludes, "And this is the guy that Barack Obama's advisers say ought to stay on at the Pentagon under an Obama administration?".
NO KIDDING, and for some insightful articles I posted links. When we learn of his foreign policy "advisers" and they're going to become his FP team for his administration, as Obama has clearly stated, then it's no surprise that they want to retain these "services" of U.S. Sec. of Def. Gates.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2008/10/28-5#comment-1066525
That's my latest post on this topic of Obama's FP team and the post includes a link to an earlier post of a day or two ago for most of the links I'm referring to; just that this latest post also provides some related content. For people who want to skip reading most of the latest post, just skip to the links in it; of course. It's the linked articles that I really want to draw readers' attention to, anyway.
In some ways, this dates back to Bill Clinton and his having Cohen as his Sec of Defense.
The Democrats seem to have permanently ceded control of the military to the Republicans. Same for the Federal Reserve.
For both places, Dem presidents seem to want to keep Republican appointees on the job, and then nominate Republicans for these posts if they have to suggest a new person.
In other words, the economy and the military stay under Republican control even if we elect Democrats.
This means, if you want change, vote Nader or McKinney and vote Green Party for the House and Senate.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Have any of you noticed that Mike Vickers et al. do not care who they kill with their Predators and bombs?
The victims have always included unarmed civilians and the target has always been: a militant, a member of Al Qaeda, an insurgent, or a terrorist? However the latest attack was meant to target a "Militant Iraqi" You know a man who was trying to fight against an "Invasion and Occupying Force". Who has a right to defend themselves? The Iraqi People!!!!! Who did the United States bribe and pay to build a militia? The Sunni Insurgency!!! You remember, the people who fought against the "Invading U.S. Forces" and killed thousands of Americans....
I, initially, contributed to the Obama Campaign because I thought that there was "Hope For A Change".....Once I saw, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brookings Institute, was one of his foreign policy advisors, I decided to stop my open support. ZB was the man who created the "Islamic Militant Force" with a singular "Jihad Mission" in 1979 and stated recently, "Which would you rather have as an enemy the Soviet Union or the Taliban?" That support from the United States and Saudi Arabia did not end until after the Taliban were installed in power in Afghanistan.
The Taliban did not become our "Enemy" until they contracted with Bridas Oil Company of Argentina to build the Oil Pipeline instead of Unocal.
What Mike Vickers has done has turned "Murder" into a U.S. National Security Policy and is developing the "Enemy" the "Terrorist" to be around for decades. A "Terrorist" is someone who commits a criminal act of violence against innocent victims with a motive of: Anger, Hate, or REVENGE. The Terrorist does not expect to live after he or she commits the act.
What Mike Vickers and the other DOD Officials have done has been nothing less than create a policy of Murder.
When DOD covered up the My Lai Massacre in Viet Nam, they were saying that "U.S. Soldiers have the "Right to Murder Unarmed Civilians." Prior to the Invasion of Iraq, they IMMUNIZED their soldiers from Murder. "The Iraq Veterans Against The War" have stated that they were ordered to kill anything that moved and that arms were dropped by civilian bodies. And, to me, the National Media is a Co-Conspirator in covering up the Mass Murders of Innocent Civilians.
When has the US ever paid attention to international law?
Except, of course, when they accused a nation of breaking it so they had an excuse to invade it.
Soveriegnty and democracy and respect for the rule of law USED TO BE something America said it stood for, but with the Leadership's apraxia and double speak (duck/rabbit of wittgenstein) their actions dont need to mean the same thing so long as they are saying they support motherhood and apple pie as they order airstikes and the rest.
We all got so used to it that all that happened was talk, so they learned they could not only get away with it, but that you actually wanted them to do it to keep the shelves at walmart full and keep the gas tanks sloshing.
they are now not even trying to hide their actions because we openly approve of their horrors. but if they give our money to the rich we might just fuss a bit. the old frog in a slow rise to a boil analogy.
I'm sorry, but America has NEVER respected sovereignty, democracy, nor the rule of law!
If you think I'm exagerating, ask any Native American, African American, Asian American, woman, or indigenous [insert name of almost any country in the world here].
We were just better at disguising and rationalizing our supposed god-given right to manifest destiny and American exceptionalism.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
There is a time and place for everything.
Trade is good. But there comes a time when the climate is not right and one has to shut the doors and light the candles and learn to do without the storm brewing outside. This is in effect kicking out US corporations from your countries. And once the storm blows itself out, then you can open the doors again, enjoy the sunshine...
and start trading again.
There’s nothing heroic or honorable about the special ops. They’re a bunch of cowardly, trained killers who attack furtively and hightailed it in a jiffy before they can face someone who can shoot back. Add to that the fact that Syria is a small country with scant defensive resources, and you can get a picture of how brave special ops are.
To call Bush’s transgressions “doctrine” is to debase the word doctrine. These savages should be sent to jungle where they really belong, and should quit using the word law and order or freedom and democracy, as they make themselves the laughing stock of the good people of the world.
Here is a hint.
The world's nations need to tell US companies to shut down and go home.
Tighten your belts and learn to do without their infleunce or their money.
The corporations are the Achilles heel of the US.
I hope the world of nations is listening???
They need to understand the old saying here in America... when they came for me no one would speak out.
And when they come for you, there will be nobody left.
Bullies always need someone to bully. After Iraq, there is Afganistan. After Afganistan, there will be Syria. And after Syria, there will be Iran. And after Iran, they will be looking for someone else. And so it goes, one piece at a time.'
Unless you all stand up together in force.
You really do not have a choice. It is being forced upon world nations.
Ironically, the US is the example. In WWII we were a much more moral nation. And we tried to stay out of the war. But it just got worse and worse until Pearl Harbor and we had no choice in the matter.
If we had only engaged much earlier, it would argue that it would not have been such a terrible. If the world would have stood as one.
Russia has it right. Each nation retaining and respecting mutual soverignity but acting as one when a rogue country like Hilter, or now my own country, is infected with this cancerous disease to rule and dominate all others.
God forbid where this will lead, but you know, satan works in this world and mostly in those nation that have willingly cast aside their belief systems.
The once great United States of America.
One request, please, Syria, and the rest of the world. Wait until after the elections. Otherwise, if a greater war is started, Bush et al will use it as an excuse to take a third term (aka, become a dictator that we can then never rid ourselves of).
snydly
Hope you're not in a digestive cycle...What if the Rs have tweaked enough voter roles and machines to pull it off...suppose John is overcome by statistical old age, who would Palin choose as V/P? Jeb.
Keericed!,....J........let us hope on bended knee it NEVER comes to this!
There's this constant bull from the Democrats about the election being stolen. This completely ignores the real power in America.
Look at the campaign financing. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, there was big corporate financing behind Bush. In 2008, this money moved to Obama. He's gotten $600 million in contributions in this cycle. I've seen numbers that say less than 20% is in donations of $200 or less. So don't believe the Obama lies that this is all $20 from grandmas and college kids.
This money represents the real power in this country. Understand that. The real power in this country WANTS Obama in the White House.
If the Republicans tried to steal this election, that real power would step on them real fast. Probably would tell them that they'll come back to the Republicans when the Republican 'brand' is repaired a bit from the current damage. But for now its the Democrats turn to be the corporate servants in power. The Republicans would be told to sit down and shut up if they want this money and power again in the future.
If anything, the voting machines would be tweaked to make Obama win, not the other way around. And its much more likely they'll be tweaked to downplay the support that Barr, Nader and McKinney will get.
Ain't no chance this election gets stolen. If you think that, then you don't understand what's going on.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Eeuwwwwww . . . horrible thought!
If these cross border sneak attacks are legal for the U S to engage in then what the h__l wrong did the 911 tower destroyers do ?
If the crazy white house fanatics keep this up any merican in any part of the world will be fair game, maybe even a bounty on them.
Paul Siemering
yo Bob- nice try but you must realize that some of us get annoyed when we find people like you suddenly waking up and asking questions like this. bush has always made it clear there is no international law, at least none that would apply to him- i mean this was even before he invaded Iraq. just to prepare you for more shocks- there is no longer a bill of rights, habeas corpus, rights of the accused, and the once revered u.s. constitution is a "goddamned piece of paper".
Why do you say "Bush"?
The Dems have supported everything he's done. They all lined up in support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They'll signalled their support for a new war in Iran. They've done nothing to try to reign in the 'war on terror' in 60 nations. The Democratic leaders get secret breifings on these sorts of ops and never object nor oppose. The funding for this has gone through a Democrat Congress for the last two years. Obama was one of the people leading the charge calling for exactly these sorts of attacks into Pakistan.
When people keep saying this is Bush's fault, they are just deluding people. The key thing to understand is that this has always been a joint Republican and Democrat endeavor.
This creates the mistaken belief that voting Democrat will solve the problem. Note how electing a Dem Congress has done nothing to improve this. Electing Obama won't either.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
Shit...this is nothing new. The CIA has been doing cross-border attacks for DECADES on poor defenseless countrys. This is only trying to move its status from "Covert" to "SOP". These are sick SICK people who belong in long-term barred therapy.
Bush has used the same tactics as the leader in Germany did of the 30's, or should I say, his father, Chaney, and Rice. Bush Jr. is just a puppet. They are pushing for world 3, by invading other countries useing the Bush Doctrine. I wonder what catastrophe they will create and blame another to have it happen? ---or how much hate will they stir up to create a culture war if Obama wins.
"If it becomes a standard part of U.S. military doctrine that any country can be declared "criminal" and thus lose its sovereignty, then there is no such thing as international law anymore."
The complete burial of international law is "on the table" for 2009, courtesy of the new sensation, O'Bama, his militarist VP, and their electoral supporters. Not only do they intend to maintain a lawless wild west atmosphere across this planet but they plan to expand arms proliferation, for further enrichment of US war profiteers. Vote third party to help put a halt to this fascist juggernaut.
Sioux Rose
RT DRURY When the main thing you've got is strong-arms, it's easier to strong-arm to get what you want & need. How different is the lawlessness being applied to presumed international treaties/behavior and the lawlessness being seen in the ridiculous bailout to those whose policies fiscally trespassed against us? More and more the US is resembling organized crime in ALL of its ostensible behaviors, as directed from the "high office."
Yeah, because third parties ALWAYS win!
.
"If Sunday's raid, which targeted a senior al-Qaeda operative, serves only to put Mr. Assad on notice that the United States, too, is no longer prepared to respect the sovereignty of a criminal regime, it will have been worthwhile."
Now we see that the Likud writes not only candidate O'Bama's speeches, but Washington Post editorials as well.
The end of international law began when we let corporations write the law.
AKA Fascism
Amen...
&YYY&
The war criminals in Washington are worlds most terror driven thugs.
To demonstrate their waning power they resort to blowing up village mugs.
For the presidential campaign of John McCain, to build up public hysteria,
Sacrificial victims are painted evil and black by the Vampire States military media,
Fatal missiles rarely miss targets chosen from satellite imagery,
From the sky you can see the village homes, but the villagers lives you cannot see.
There is no compensation for being political plugs, only loss from death and needless injury.
So that more will rise in anger to fight the Vampire States terror spree.
There is no international law for these blatant war power crimes.
The Karma of unpunished crime over generations will grow many times.
Until it explodes to visit those who are linked in guilt,
As severe and unexpected, as sudden death from the sky is felt.
One of the reasons why the flouting of international law (which would be a scandal in almost every other first world nation) is so relatively uncared about in the USA is because small a proportion of the population (less than 20% of Americans hold a passport) has travelled outside of the country in their lifetime. In the rest of the first world, that number is roughly 65%.
This is also dangerous for any American passport holder who will need to travel abroad for any reason, as the rest of the world is quite likely to take its' revenge for the Bush crime family reign for many years to come.
As one of the 20%, I've never seen any sign of the last point you made. Everyone I've met in my travels has been gracious and friendly. They all seem to be able to differentiate between the actions of the US gov and what an individual citizen might belief.
However, an Obama win might do some harm to this. When Obama continues exactly the same policies (and remember, he has supported launching strikes just like this into Pakistan), then its possible that the rest of the world might give up on us.
After all, they'd have proof that the 50% plus who elected Bush like these policies.
And they'd have proof that the 50% plus who elect Obama like these policies.
That kinda destroys the myth that its just Bush as a rogue President doing this.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
You essentially missed the main thrust of my point, which was auger of things to come. Also, how much of your travel was outside of tourist areas? How much of it was before the Bush crime family reign?
Very true - people are almost always gracious and friendly to US citizens who are abroad. That speaks to their generosity and civility. Most are at the same time hiding their dislike or disgust. I've been outside the US for the last six years. Strangers ask where I'm from. They smile when I say from the US. But my answer is often followed by a smile, an 'America very good' statement and, stop.
People who are my friends for years talk of their hatred for Americans (I was a 'Human Shield' working against the US invasion of Iraq.) Out of politeness, strangers (local people) very rarely dump on US citizens. Foreigners who are not local (in other words fellow foreigners who are not US citizens) will readily dump on a US citizen after a few drinks. Money and success (comfort, security) is respected, but come on - its all out in the open: US military all over the world, invasions of various countries, re-electing Bush in 2004. Nothing bad coming out of the US surprises foreigners anymore. A lot of US citizens voted for Bush - twice. This is an insane joke - look at how many US citizens are quite happy to openly say that they will vote for McCain/Palin. When you meet such people you can only be polite, smile - and walk away. I'm so grateful that I'm not getting my nose broken weekly.
Really? You mean to say that 65% of Afghanis, Chinese, Russians, Georgians, Somalis, Palestinians, Israelis, Pakistanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Turks, Turkmen, have traveled outside their country, and for "outside their country" to be significant, we must mean more than close neighbors.
Where do you get these numbers? Europeans, maybe, but hardly enough to boost the international average very much.
Of the nationalities you listed, only two, Israeli and Turkish are anywhere near first world.
It seems he said "first world" countries, like European ones. I'm not sure how many of the countries you name are considered "first world". Maybe some are "second world", but I don't recall anyone ever using that phrase.
I missed his mention of "First World." My bad.
And by the way, the terms first, second, and third world have an interesting, Cold War origin.
From dictionary.com:
First World
–noun
the major industrialized non-Communist nations, including those in Western Europe, the United States, Canada, and Japan.
Second World
–noun (sometimes lowercase)
1. the world's industrialized nations other than the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
2. the Communist and socialist nations of the world.
Third World
–noun (sometimes lowercase)
1. the underdeveloped nations of the world, esp. those with widespread poverty.
2. the group of developing nations, esp. of Asia and Africa, that do not align themselves with the policies of either the U.S. or the former Soviet Union.
3. the minority groups within a nation or predominant culture.
Fourth World
–noun
the world's most poverty-stricken nations, esp. in Africa and Asia, marked by very low GNP per capita and great dependence upon foreign economic aid.
JN, you forgot about Somalia, too, eh?
Jan: "A Somali lawmaker says the second day of US airstrikes in the southern part of his country has left 31 civilians dead..."
March: "Two missiles hit a house in southern Somalia on Monday, in an attack the United States said was directed at a... The US bombed the same area a year ago..."
May: "A US military spokesman told the BBC that it had attacked what he called a known al-Qaeda target in Somalia..."
June: "U.S. bombs Somalia, resistance continues Tuesday..."
And didn't Bush semi-invade Haiti in 2004 and overthrow the elected government? And hasn't he tried to overthrow Chavez in Venezuela twice?
John Bolton: "There's no such thing as the United Nations." And, hence, international law, at least from the neo-f**king-crazies currently in charge...
Which one of the children that George and Laura Bush executed was supposed to be the smuggler? Or was it the mother, farmer or fisherman or ...
Gates said that he was not an expert in international law - but he is on the board of directors of many, many Merchants of Death.
Oh such depressing news...
But on a happier note, there is no statute of limitations on prosecuting war crimes!
;)
there is no statute of limitations on prosecuting war crimes!
Who is going to 'bell' that cat? The ChristoCorporates?
Imagine the reaction of the US citizenry if, say, Iran flew some drones over Texas and took out, say, some Sunni warlord in hiding, killing a few dozen Texans as collateral damage.
It would be considered an act of war.
Should we expect those sovereign nations to feel any differently?
They don't respond militarily because we're too powerful.
Should we be surprised if such states "sponsor" terrorism within our borders?
How else do we expect them to retaliate?
Next time, if we wonder why they hate us, just count the dead near the Syrian and Pakistani borders. Count the dead children in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gaza and the West Bank.
Because "they" are counting.
CD would blame all this run away from international law on Bush! However....?
Don't we all remember quite some numbers of Democrats involved in supporting this, too? Has anybody heard Obama denounce the Syria raid, for just one tiny example?
The war against the supporters of the attackers of 9-11 (authorized by Public Law 107-40) morphed into the Global War on Terror and now morphs into the War on Everybody (WOE).
Add to that a lamest-duck President and corporate Congress and there is nobody to stand up to the military, which takes over foreign policy whenever the civilian government is too weak or complicit to stop it.
The military isn't happy about either Iraq or Afghanistan. The generals were against the war.
That was the civilian leadership at the Pentagon. Rumsfield and company.
Why are we doing this?!
Because the Bush regime are hell-bent on bringing overt fascism to America before their term is out.
Mission Accomplished!
Why we should wait any longer to see how the Democrats will act in office is beyond me?
From the WSWS:
"Democratic Party leaders are already issuing excuses as to why a lopsided Obama victory should NOT be interpreted as a mandate for a significant change of policy, and why NO such change will be forthcoming....What will an Obama victory mean? It will not be long before the campaign platitudes about “hope” and “change” and the “fierce urgency of now” will be exposed for what they are. The American people will confront an administration committed to relentlessly pursuing the interests of American imperialism at home and abroad. It will become apparent that the chief difference between Obama and Bush is not the right-wing character of their policies, but the skill with which these policies are carried out."
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/pers-o28.shtml
You never can tell what a president will do when he gets into office, often it's a 180 reversal of what he ran on. LBJ ran as peace candidate while he was escalating in Vietnam, Reagan ran (for 20 years!) against federal deficits and then rung up the highest deficit in history...and so on.
So let's wait till Obama gets in and shows his true colors before we start bitchin.
I like his style, classy, like FDR...for those of us who remember Roosevelt. He has the right moves: chooses good people, inspires loyalty. Remarkably, he still has the whole campaign staff he started with and he runs meetings like a master teacher.
In the meanwhile, we have to concentrate all efforts on kicking out the Republican scoundrels.
Sam Abrams
mas.smarba@gmail.com
"I like his style, classy, like FDR...for those of us who remember Roosevelt. He has the right moves: chooses good people, inspires loyalty."
Oh man has he done a snow job on you with that emotional pabulum. His campaign knew that the sheep would lick up that hope and change bunk.
Do you know who his advisors are by chance?
Does this look like CHANGE to you?
Obama is right, he has not shifted positions. He's always been a right leaning shill. In the past weeks Obama has:
campaigned in support one of the worst Bush-enabling Blue Dogs over a progressive challenger
reversed himself and announced his support of FISA
repudiated Wesley Clark and said Clark had "dishonored John McCain's service"
condemned MoveOn.org for its newspaper ad criticizing Gen. Petraeus
defended his own patriotism by impugning the patriotism of others, including the "the so-called counter-culture of the Sixties" for "attacking the symbols, and in extreme cases, the very idea, of America itself" and "blaming America for all that was wrong with the world"
announced is support for continuing Bush’s faith based initiatives program, including allowing religious charities discriminate based on religious belief
hired the pro-Walmart economist Jason Furman as his economic policy director
named Jim Messina, who served as pro-corporate Max Baucus’s chief of staff, as his campaign chief of staff
formed a Working Group on National Security that consists Warren Christopher, Sam Nunn, David Boren, Madeleine Albright and other old world pols
made statements in support of NAFTA, which he now says he won't revisit
released a campaign ad which hits on right-wing themes like "cutting taxes" and "moving people from welfare to work"
announced that women with mental health problems should not have access to abortion.
All this came on top of Obama’s earlier
praising Reagan and Bush
arguing that religious politicians can't be expected to leave their beliefs at the door
stating that Bush hasn't quite met the standard of "grave, intentional breaches to presidential authority”
refusing to support Barbara Boxer’s resolution asking that voting irregularities in Ohio in 2004 at least be looked in to; Obama said Bush won Ohio” fair & square”
praising gay men who do them the kindness of not "proselytizing
supporting an immigration plan sponsored by John McCain, which does not include benefits or amnesty for undocumented immigrants
bragging that he can attract Republican voters
And in his little time in the Senate he
promoted nuclear energy as "green," earning plaudits from the nuclear power industry as it works to resume building nuclear power plants across the country
voted to continue to fund the Iraq war
opposed John Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal from Iraq
refused to join 13 senators who voted against confirming Condi Rice as SOS
voted to reauthorize the USAPATRIOT ACT.
voted against a bankruptcy bill amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.
opposed a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872.
did not support the single-payer health care bill sponsored by Kucinich & Conyers
worked to pass a class-action "reform" bill that would effectively shut down state courts as a venue to hear most class-action lawsuits, including those based on discrimination, consumer fraud, and wage-and-hour violations. This bill was heavily pushed by financial firms, which make up his second-biggest single bloc of donors.
If this is the record of a leftist, then what does the record of a rightist look like?
(THIS IS ONLY A PARTIAL LIST)
Obama is not a leftist and if he was and wanted to be elected, He wouldn't confess it because no real leftist can win because these terms are Demonized in the publics mind... Obama will not Talk like a leftist or do what you say.... the American people are cautious are not radical and if you want to win elections all your 3rd party folks... why call the people "Sheeple" which shows you are not ready to lead anything and which is why most people don't agree with your demands... you hold a grudge against the people.... Nader must put up with that kinda stuff because he needs your few votes.
But as far as this left and right thing goes, Obama is left of McCain and most Republicans and I will vote for Dems in other offices too because they are more to the Left than the Republicans....
It is the relative balance that we need and that is what I believe and hope for a realistic hope. a Nader or any 3rd party vote will not help insure that the turn to the right is corrected...It doesn't take a leftist to steer a better course especially because a Leftist cannot win and call himself a leftist... It is a bad word programed into our minds for hundreds of years. Words are how we are controlled..... If You want it all now, you ain't gonna get it!!!
Now is the time for the best possible realistic choice at this crucial time. Now is everywhere.
When Obama is captain of our ship, the struggle will go on as it should.
Thanks for the (partial) list. The only people I find more difficult to understand than the Sarah Palin enthusiasts warning about Obama being a Muslim and a terrorist (see, e.g., last night's "The Daily Show": "He'll enter the Whoite House wearing a turban and then we're all going to be shot.") are the Obama supporters who think he represents change; who claim that Obama's nominees to the Supreme Court will be redically different than McCain's; who keep insisting that AFTER he gets what he's asking for, he's going to be receptive to pressures from the left.
(Vomit. Flush. Wipe.)
Anyone who says they can and will work with the right wing extremists controlling the (R) party as well as the tepid, milquetoast doormats controlling the (D) party is someone firmly entrenched in the corporate boardrooms whose stance plants one foot firmly in each party's ideology.
"no gods, no masters" --m. sanger
I was just wondering...since Obama is in reality a pro-war neocon Repug (he has talked about attacking Iran, Pakistan and MORE troops in Afghanistan, just for starters). He's been a Bush-accomplice in the short time he's been in the senate (see his pro-Bush voting record and what he has said outside of "feel good" emotional speeches)...
If Obama were the Republican's nominee (which he could easily be), how many of you Obama people would STILL be voting for and supporting him? I suspect that the fact that he would no longer have a D behind his name would cause most/all of you to abandon him and support and vote for somebody else because that D and R party-line shit is very programmed in most people.
Just asking.
Reminds me of what people used to say about Bill Clinton, that he was the best Republican president this country has ever had.
"we have to concentrate all efforts on kicking out the Republican scoundrels."
We ain't kicking out anybody. You're kicking out Republicans sitting on your ass at your PC screen and typing?
I-don't-think-so.
It's all up to the Republican owned and controlled vote-flipping, easily-hackable, riggable electronic voting machines and central tabulator which most people (and apparently you) choose to live in Denial about.
You seem to live under the illusion that we have fair, honest and legitimate elections. We don't. 2000 and 2004 were both stolen. Why would you think 2008 would be any different?
You can only steal a close election. It's not just about who runs the voting machines.
You can't make it too obvious or you give the game away.
That's not true at all.
How would you KNOW it's "close?" Because they TELL you it's "close?" You don't think they can lie? They can make it LOOK close regardless of the actual results. 51% to 49%. Heard those numbers before? It IS about who runs the voting machines and the central tabulator. Didn't you see the DemocracyNow! interview with Mark Crispin Miller (he's on after the newscast at the link below):
Early Voting Sees Reports of Voter Intimidation, Machine Malfunctions
Early voting has begun, and problems are already emerging at the polls. In West Virginia, voters using touchscreen machines have claimed their votes were switched from Democrat to Republican. In North Carolina, a group of McCain supporters heckled a group of mostly black supporters of Barack Obama. In Ohio, Republicans are being accused of trying to scare newly registered voters by filing lawsuits that question their eligibility. We speak to NYU professor Mark Crispin Miller, author of Loser Take All: Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/22/votes
An election can be stolen regardless of the number of people who vote OR how they vote. It's how they make it LOOK to the public.
We are told the results but we have absolutely no way of knowing the truth. Most people simply believe what we're told, whether it's the truth or not.
Sioux Rose
SAM: These are excellent points, and all very true.
I think you guys are missing the point here.
This election will NOT be stolen, not because it couldn't be, but because Obama is the chosen candidate of the corporate elite in this election cycle.
Bush was their choice for the last eight years, and was perfect for them...why? They needed a "rogue" on whom the American people could pin America's seemingly idiotic foreign policy, thereby ignoring the fact that the policy of US dominance and control of the Middle East is agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans, and debatable only in terms of strategy for success.
This time around, the elite need a face that represents "change we can believe in" so that we can ignore the fact that the policy of US dominance and control of the Middle East is agreed upon by both Democrats and Republicans, and rationalize Obama's militarism by believing that he will fight smarter, or more humanely (that would be laughable if it wasn't so horrific), or with more diplomacy.
I don't buy it.
Why buy Obama when McCain has been bought and paid for since 2000?
Yes, but he doesn't satisfy all of the qualities that the corporate elite need in their next president.
The elite are masters at manipulation, and they can tell that the American public, and the world community can't take much more of Bush/McCain right now. For the last eight years, the fact that the government is not out to serve the American people has been smeared brazenly in our faces. Now, in order to keep us on board with their agenda, the elites must provide us with someone who we can believe will restore us to our former, middle-class-supporting, prosperous, civil rights protecting, freedom loving, tolerant, responsive to the people etc etc country...everything Obama seems to promise.
But all it takes is a quick look at Obama's Senate votes, advisors, and main corporate campaign donors to realize that the corporate elite's agenda for empire, middle east domination, class warfare against the middle and lower classes, free trade, spying on americans, nuclear power, etc etc etc is served PERFECTLY WELL by Obama.
That's how they play the game. The corporate elite own BOTH sides of aisle. Then, it's the function of the Democrats to appear just populist enough to make most left-leaning americans believe that someone in the government is representing them, without letting the debate stray into the realm of true populism. It's the function of the republicans to keep the debate from going too far in the other direction. Notice that libertarians, who basically believe that the government doesn't have the right to dictate our lives to us, are marginalized in the same way by republicans as are so-called "radicals" on the left.
But Obama has already shown he's ready and willing to bow to his corporate masters. Once he's shown that, it doesn't really matter what he says he WANTS for the American people, does it?, because he's already shown us what he DOES.
You make my point for me.
"They" make it close through voter suppression, as in Florida in 2000 when they pulled a bunch of African-Americans from the voter rolls, and Ohio 2004, where they gave the Democratic districts fewer machines than the Repub districts.
My point is, the machines alone can't steal it. In Ohio, much was made of the fact that the exit polls and election results didn't match up EVEN THOUGH THEY ALWAYS DID BEFORE.
That's the thing. If on Tuesday morning, your guy is 55/45 in the polls and ends the day 45/55, you know something is up. Everyone knows something up. But if your guy starts out 51/49 and loses 49.5/50.5, well, it's hard to say what happened.
That's why the Rove strategy was always threefold: scare up the base for high turnout, suppress the opposition's voters, and tweak the machines just enough to make up the difference.
The machines are not enough. And beside, you're assuming that only one side gets to tweak the machines.
I think Obama has shown his "true colors" by his Bush-accomplice voting RECORD as a senator. You honestly think he's going to do a 180 and contradict his OWN Bush-accomplice RECORD in the senate? If he does, he will look like a damn hypocrite.
The Syria raid murdered four children even as the US government pretends to move against child prostitution in the US.
US government pimps US child prostitutes to justify its own worldwide terrorism against children at http://www.notmytribe.com/2008/us-government-pimps-us-child-prostitutes-to-justify-its-own-worldwide-t...
I guess according to this logic:" the United States is no longer prepared to respect the sovereignty of a criminal regime " other countries have the right to not respect the sovereignty of the United States as we are the #1 CRIMINAL REGIME IN THE WORLD!
Absolutely.
You (and many others) really need to look up "regime" in the dictionary.
Fortunately, we already know what "criminal" means.
From Wikipedia:
"In politics, a regime is the form of government: the set of rules, cultural or social norms, etc. that regulate the operation of government and its interactions with society. For instance, the United States has one of the oldest regimes still active in the world, dating to the ratification of its Constitution in 1789."
Thank you.
So do you contend that our three-branch constitutional system with checks and balances and representational legislature is itself criminal?
Or would you say that the current (just for example) administration is criminal?
Which is it? The baby? The bathwater? Both?
I think one should distinguish between our form of government and the administrators of that government. We should not confuse the "government" with those who would abuse their positions in that government for their own gain, be it ideological or financial. (Though, really, how often is the financial part missing?)
In Saddam's Iraq, and many other places, there has been no distinction. The rules change when the new monarch/warlord/dictator takes over. There's no constitution per se, no foundation against which one could make a claim.
Say what you want, but if this country elects a black man with an African name and an Arabic middle name, a man from an impoverished background who nonetheless and by his own determination graduated at the top of his class from one of the country's, even the world's, most distinguished universities, beating out a white war hero with a reasonable record as a moderate politician...
Well, my cynical, jaded friends, there just might be something positive to say about this country after all.
There may be something about this American Experiment still worth saving.
And I have a hunch that an Obama victory will give those who hate us most... pause.
Welcomw to WW III
it stared four years ago (in case you did not notice)
In 2004? Or do you mean 2003, when we invaded Iraq, maybe 2001 when we went into Afghanistan?
Or maybe 1953 when we overthrew the democratically elected and pro-American Mossedeq in Iran and instituted the dictatorship of the Shah?
Or maybe 1948 when the UN created the State of Israel, the land without a people for a people without a land (never mind the half million Palestinean Arabs living there)?
It doesn't matter. The jihadists date the current struggle back to 1924, when the Allied victors of WWI chopped up the Ottoman Empire and Ataturk pulled the cord on the Caliphate.
The fascinating thing is that the Republicans especially posture as wanting a strict interpretation of the US Constitution.
Nearly the entire US government seems to have have skipped over Article 6, section 2 of the US Constitution which states that all international treaties ratified by the Congress and signed by the President are "the supreme law of the Land."
That means that the UN Charter is "the supreme law of the Land." Meaning there must be Security Council approval of all uses of force.
When the Democrats began bombing Vietnam, back in the day, was it in “self defense” or did they get a UN mandate? In other words for my historically challenged American friends, and Nation writers, are you really that shocked that Bush is following in the great American expansionist drive to the ends of the Earth?
What may be new is the unabashed openness of today’s American empire. As secretive as the current US government is, they have been open about at least what they think about “homo-americanus” and its place of superiority vis-à-vis us mere humans.
Our military is way out of control. We need to abide by international and domestic law on human rights and war.
"why isn't anyone asking him THOSE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS??" I might add that George Bush is still in office - so shouldn't he and Cheney be the target of some of accusations? The reason these questions are not being raised in the campaign is that the public is neither informed nor inclined to push these questions at this time. They are on the whole still held captive by the idea that the way to be safe is to slash and burn human beings all over the world.
Obama will only do so much, and as yet we do not have a crystal clear idea of what that will be. We cannot passively ask and whine for Obama to do the right thing FOR us. We are not babies and Obama will not be our mama. We must organize our outrage to FORCE them to stop doing this and to mete out punishment for wild and totally unauthorized attacks by our military on civilians all over the world.
DO SOMETHING! Write a letter or email to a representative. Make a call. Stand naked on the street corner with a sign. Talk with three neighbors. Talk with a soldier.
Joe
You can't get two US citizens to agree on the color of a protest sign, much less gather enough numbers in protest to make a difference. American citizens lack the passion and hunger of South Americans to ever get from in front of the TV and out to the street. Do you not think the TPTB know this? Chris Rice has tried to get a general strike going for months....he now has something like 150 members. ?????????????
I haven't the slightest idea any longer as to what it will take. AND, they are now calming the sheeple down with Obama on his white horse. It's a cycle and we get sucked in time and time again.
Actually, the major parties view is the exact opposite- they know that they must win rapidly and decisively or else popular support will erode. And they also know that they have to whip up the population into a frightened frenzy, or they won't be able to intervene in the 1st place.
I share your frustration that things aren't moving fast enough, but they are in fact moving.
Here's a Chomsky interview on the growing power of anti-war movements here (remember they did not exist when we invaded South VietNam in March, 1962).
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11063
Since they're prepared already for any Us citizens not affected by the years of dumbing down who might try to stop what's happening, it's going to have to be the rest of the world, those countries already in their sights, and the ones who know it's just a matter of time for them, who'll have to act.
Soon, the only thing George Wanker Bush will be in "hot pursuit" of is a steady supply of cocaine and audiences dumb, wealthy and crooked enough to listen to the sickeningly inane speeches he'll make on the rubber chicken circuit. "Ah wanna talk ta ya'll tuhnite 'bout how fantastic German asparagus is."
If he makes that "German asparagus" speech in Germany, it just be might from behind bars...
You're assuming he's leaving in January. I'll believe he's leaving when he does.
Hear! Hear! Sam - I think Georgie is tired of playing president, but I can't envision a scenario which has Cheney leaving all his power behind...
Actually, more likely he will be bragging (although lieing through his teeth as usual) 'bout how fantastic Angela Merkel is. Hell, he has already given her a backrub...on international television for the whole world to see.
Actually, I don't really care what he does, as long as he stays the hell out of Texas (unless he is in a Texas prison) for one, and two, gets his steady supply of cocaine from crooked prison guards after getting punked by Bubba.
its the same doctrine as the first: we will do what we want when we want with no regard for international law.
nothing has changed. no new versions. the same doctrine.
Agreed.
We who have no voice have asked repeatedly; and he has answered: by choosing advisors who support this garbage! Obama supporters: what is your tipping point? Which lives are valuable? What laws are important enough that you won't simply vote for the lesser evil or the one with a "D" after his name?
Truth is, I should have asked WHY THE QUESTIONS ARE NOT BEING ANSWERED.
Will the upcoming "savior", Obama, repudiate many of Bush's lawless, immoral and genocidal programs?...Don't bet the farm on it!! AND, why isn't anyone asking him THOSE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS??
Because the same people in collusion with Bush are the people that Obama is also afiliated with, as is the main stream media. It was early 20th century when the elites started intentionally buying media outlets for purpose of the control of public opinion through what information is release, and how that which is release is treated.
Obama will do nothing for the citizens of the US. Obama works for loss of US sovereignty, and a one world feudal government.
Aloha, salud, lechiem,
- Tobias
http://www.youtube.com/user/tobiasaurusrex