The command of the Syrian government troops announced a 72-hour truce across entire Syria. The report by the Syrian state-run news agency SANA says that “the truce will last from 1:00 am, July 6th until midnight, July 8th.” The ceasefire coincides with the start of the Eid al-Fitr festival, marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The Free Syrian Army (FSA) said it agreed to the ceasefire while while Jaysh al Islam spokesman Islam Alloush said that “anything has changed” on the ground. Clashes continued across the country with all sides blaming each other for violations of the truce.

The Syrian army repelled a major attack of the joint force of Al-Nusra, the Free Syrian Army and Turkoman units. The militants attacked from their positions near Tal Baydha region, but were not able to breach the Syrian army’s defense lines. Some 20 militants were killed in the clashes. There are reports that the Chief of General Staff for the Syrian Arab Army, Lt. General ‘Ali ‘Abdullah Ayyoub visited northern Latakia on July 5 in order to observe preparations for the expected advance of pro-government forces in the area. The strategic town of Kinsibba, controlled by jihadists, will likely become the main target of the pro-government forces’ operations.

The government forces launched fresh military operations near the ancient city of Palmyra, engaging ISIS militants near the Talilah Crossroad. All attempts of ISIS to advance on Palmyra have been repelled.

Pro-Kurdish sources report that the ISIS terrorist group has lost up to 100 fighters in a failed counter-attack in the area of Ar Rus, south of Manbij, the strategic city in Syria’s Aleppo province. Now, ISIS militants are reportedly withdrawing in the direction of Jubb al Katashil.

Now, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces – Kurdish YPG units and some Arab militias – are redeploying forces for a fresh advance on the strategic city of Manbij. According to reports, it will be a major operation with a full-scale air support from the US-led coalition. Some sources say that the Kurds will advance on the city from four directions.

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Sir John Chilcot, a member of the British establishment and also a member of the Butler Inquiry, the responsibility of which was to determine if the so-called “intelligence” used as the excuse for the US/UK invasion of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was “fixed” to justify the invasion, has, after seven years of delay, finally issued the Chilcot commission report.

Remember, there was a leaked memo from the head of British intelligence that the intelligence justifying the Iraqi Invasion was “fixed” or orchestrated to produce the justification for the invasion, a war crime under the Nuremberg standard established by the United States. Chilcot’s job was to make this fact go away or assume less importance and to protect the Butler Inquiry’s orchestrated verdict that, despite the word of the head of British intelligence, the intelligence was not fixed.

In other words, Sir John’s assigned task under the guise of an “impartial inquiry” was to absolve former UK PM and war criminal Tony Blair not of all responsibility but of all responsibility deserving of prosecution.

Sir John’s report is akin to FBI director Comey’s report on Hillary: They did it but they didn’t do it enough to be prosecuted.

In the context of democratic politics, if such existed in England, Tony Blair would be in the crosshairs of the ruling UK party, the Tories or Conservatives. Yet, as both parties represent the same private interest groups, the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, who has announced his resignation effective next October, rushed to the opposition party’s defense and gave in Parliament what former British Ambassador Craig Murray calls a “dishonest, apologia for the invasion that bore no relationship to the Chilcot report.”

The UK media, for the most part, also came out in defense of Tony Blair, the war criminal and liar, providing, according to Amb. Murray, “unlimited airtime to Blair and his defender Alastair Campbell” and “almost no airtime to those who campaigned against the war.”

Here is the judgement of a British Ambassador, Craig Murray: “Blair is still a creature of absolute self-serving slime.”

You could make the same judgment on almost every member of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes. And Hillary’s regime would be even worse. My prediction is that life on earth would not survive Hillary’s first term.

Elect Hillary and die.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Is the Dallas police shooting a false flag affair in behalf of gun control? Is it the result of a war veteran suffering from post traumatic stress disorder? Is the shooting the beginning of retribution for thousands of wanton police murders of US citizens in the 21st century? Or is there some other explanation?

We will never know. The perpetrator is dead. The authorities will tell us whatever suits the purposes of authority.

We could say that the police have brought this on themselves by their undisciplined and violent behavior toward the public. On the other hand, we can hold the police chiefs, the police unions, the mayors and city councils, the governors, prosecutors, and the Justice (sic) Department responsible for failure to hold accountable those cops who murder and commit gratuitous violence against the public.

When police execute someone, the excuse is always something like this: “He reached under his shirt to his waistband. I thought he had a gun. I didn’t want to leave my children fatherless and my wife a widow.” The murdered victim’s wife and children, if any, are of no consequence.

Conservatives, especially those taught to be fearful of crime, have scant objection to police murders. Their view is always: “The police wouldn’t have shot him without cause.” The same bias in favor of the police is why conservative jurors always convict.

The liberals tend to interpret the shootings as racism, so they want to combat racism.

The real problem is that public authorities do not protect the public from gratuitous violence. Therefore, hatred and disrespect for the police are growing. Routine murders by police–several each day, almost all of which go unpunished–are generating the kind of anger that causes people to snap and to reply to violence with violence.

If the criminal justice system applied also to the police, the police would think twice before they wantonly murder.

Being a police officer is not supposed to be risk free. A police officer should be concerned about the public, not merely his own family. We cannot accept gratuitous police violence on the grounds that the officer’s behavior is dictated by his concerns for his own family. If an officer cannot accept the risks of being a police officer, he should find a different occupation.

Police violence is out of control because mayors, prosecutors, and governors are failing the public by refusing to put a halt to it. According to conservatives, punishment deters crime, but they do not apply this to the police.

Police violence is also out of control because of the revolution in police training which teaches police to protect themselves and to subdue the suspect regardless of cost. A number of former police officers have written to me that the reason they gave up the occupation is that today police are being trained to be killers like soldiers.

If a former police officer or someone knowledgeable about this training would describe it and its history, where it originated and why, I will post it on the website.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The banners and placards outside London’s Queen Elizabeth 11 Conference Centre – where the findings of the seven year awaited Chilcot Inquiry in to the Blair government’s illegal and catastrophic invasion of Iraq were to be revealed – reflected an anger undiminished since maybe two million people marched against the war in the city on 15th February 2003. Thirty six million are estimated to have demonstrated across the world.

On “Chilcot Wednesday”, 6^th July, as Sir John Chilcot’s findings were awaited the fury still directed towards Tony Blair for the commitments he had made, unknown to Parliament, to George W. Bush and for the lies in documents giving the excuse for war under his watch, were palpable.

Two figures with Blair masks and bloody hands walked through the crowd, followed by two “Judges” in full formal regalia and wigs, past signs held high: “Blair, now is the time to pay for your crimes”, “Justice for Iraq, The Hague for Blair”, “Tony Blair ‘Peace Envoy’ – What an oxy-Moron” and referring to Blair’s fantasy that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction which could hit the West in “forty five minutes” there was: “Forty five minutes from Truth and Justice?”

Nicholas Wood, author of the meticulous book: “War Crime or Just War? The Case Against Blair”, had designed a thirty foot long banner with “Blair Must Face War Crimes Trial”, which was unveiled to the media outside Blair’s house at London’s 29 Connaught Square at 7 a.m., to greet Blair as he left for the Inquiry. (1)

He was also faced by relentless Iraq war protester and renowned actor Michael Culver, wearing a T-shirt reading: “2,000,000 Dead, 4,000,000 Fled, Genocide, Theft, Torture, Starvation.”

For a man holding integral responsibility for the ongoing deaths of probably now well over two million souls, so terrified that he has round the clock protection of 20 police officers – paid for by the taxpayer – it must have been a very bad start to his day of judgement.

Having ambushed Tony Blair, the banner was then then carried the mile-plus walk to the Conference Centre to further wide press exposure.

It was Green MP Caroline Lucas who gave the crowd the first hint of what might be to come. She had read an advance copy of the Summary of the Report since early morning. It was, she said: “Worse than your worst fears … diplomatic routes had not been exhausted, intelligence was flawed” and those responsible “must be held to account”, she demanded.

For a 2.6 million word document, ITV probably had the most succinct summary (2) of a tome which will be poured over for months and years:

*Tony Blair’s reputation lies in tatters in the wake of the report into the Iraq War

*Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry said the six-year conflict was unnecessary and disastrous

*The ex-prime minister was accused of exaggerating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein

*A memo also revealed that Blair promised George W Bush: ‘I will be with you, whatever’

*An emotional Blair defended the war, saying he would make same decision again

*Families of some of the 179 military personnel killed in described Blair as a “terrorist”

The memo referred to, above, of July 2002 (3) is extraordinary. The first sentence: “I will be with you whatever”, reads as if the beginning of a love letter. But then some will remember: “We pray together … we use the same toothpaste.”

He then advises the US President on the importance of planning, pointing out that the planned carnage: “ … is not Kosovo. It is not Afghanistan. It is not even the Gulf War.” How casually massacres in three countries are simply dismissed – including the US’1991 butchery and carnage on the Basra Road, the burying alive of Iraqi conscripts under US bulldozers, erased by Blair.

“Getting rid of Saddam is the right thing to do”, Blair assured Bush. The towering illegality of such an action not even a consideration. Astonishingly Blair admits that Saddam Hussein: “ … is a potential threat” – not an actual one and: “He could be contained.” However: “His departure would free up the region.”

“Free up” for what exactly? Ram raids for oil, further expansion and theft of Palestinian lands by an occupying force now Saddam Hussein would no longer be remitting compensation to Palestinian families? Further expansions as in Syria to impose a client government and move in to the oil and gas fields – with an eye also on Iran, geographically next door?

Cynical? Ponder that Blair became Middle East “Peace Envoy” shortly after slinking out of Downing Street in 2007, spent most of his time when in the region in Israel, did not offer even a bleat of criticism of Israel’s bombardments of Gaza – a besieged enclave with no army, navy, air force – in 2008-9, or the Commando attack on the peace and aid ship Mavi Marmara, in international waters, murdering ten in 2010 and further onslaughts on Gaza in 2012 and 2014.

However in 2009, Blair was awarded Israel’s Dan David Prize, with a million $ cash bung, as: “one of the most outstanding statesmen of our era”.

That now anyway seems a world away. After Chilcot, the families of soldiers killed in Iraq have vowed to sue Tony Blair for “every penny” (Independent, 8^th July 2016.)

As Simon Jenkins has written (Guardian, 8th July 2016) “Blair emerges as other Iraq historians have already portrayed him, as a pathetic and self-regarding figure in awe of the transatlantic power. The most culpable participants in the story were his Cabinet colleagues (who) failed to do what they knew to be right and stop him.”

Blair renders his account for Iraq every day. He cuts a lonely and wretched figure. Seemingly scared of the outside world, he is imprisoned by armed guards day and night. He travels the world, living out of suitcases and hotel rooms, attended by a dwindling band of courtiers, sustained by shady friends and ‘consultancies.’

Jenkins might have eloquently written Blair’s political epitaph. There will be many more to follow.

Notes

1. http://metro.co.uk/2016/07/06/this-is-what-greeted-tony-blair-as-he-set-off-for-chilcot-inquiry-5988506/

2. http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-07-07/hammond-removing-members-of-iraqi-government-was-mistake/

3. https://mobile.twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/750649203324489728/photo/1

It has long been known that currency markets are massively rigged. And see this, this, and this.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, U.K. Financial Services Authority and Singapore’s central bank and financial regulator found “smoking gun” evidence of a massive conspiracy by the big banks to rig the prices of financial derivatives based on the  Singapore  Interbank Offered Rate and Singapore Swap Offer Rate … which in turn warped international currency markets.

In a separate incident, a number of giant banks pleaded guilty to manipulating currency markets, and agreed to pay a $7.5 billion dollar fine. New York’s state financial regulator called it “a brazen ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ scheme to rip off their clients.”

The formal admissions by the banks include a trader saying, “We trying to manipulate it a bit more in ny now . . . a coupld buddies of mine and I.” And a vice president of a big bank said:

• “If you aint cheating, you aint trying.”

Indeed, not only do the banks share confidential information with each other … they also shared it with a giant oil company.

Banks Rig Treasury Market

Bloomberg reported last September:

The same analytical technique that uncovered cheating in currency markets and the Libor rates benchmark [details below] — resulting in about $20 billion of fines — suggests the dealers who control the U.S. Treasury market rigged bond auctions for years, according to a lawsuit.

***

The plaintiffs built their case against the 22 primary dealers who serve as the backbone of Treasury trading — including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Morgan Stanley — using data from Rosa Abrantes-Metz, an adjunct associate professor at New York University who has provided expert testimony in rigging cases.

Her conclusion: More than two-thirds of a certain type of Treasury auction appear to have been rigged. She found issues with other auctions, too.

***

Treasury traders at some banks learn of customer demand hours before auctions, and were communicating with their counterparts at other firms via chat rooms as recently as last year, Bloomberg News reported earlier this year.

***

Among the lawyers representing the investors is Daniel Brockett, a Quinn Emmanuel attorney who recently won a $1.87 billion settlement against Wall Street’s largest banks in a case alleging they conspired to limit competition in the market for credit-default swaps.

***

Another group of investors, including Boston’s public employee retirement system, has filed a similar suit against Wall Street primary dealers. Experts interviewed by Labaton Sucharow LLP, the law firm that filed that suit, analyzed auctions and the market for when-issued securities, which are essentially agreements to buy or sell Treasury bonds, notes or bills once they’re issued.

They claim that banks colluded to push prices artificially low at auctions, and to drive prices for when-issued securities to artificially high levels, until December 2012, when news broke of investigations into how Libor was set.

These scenarios all turn on a very simple conflict of interest,” attorney Michael Stocker said in a telephone interview. “You had banks who were auction participants who also had the power to move the prices that those markets depended on.

High-frequency trading has also long been used to manipulate the treasury market.

Derivatives Are Manipulated

Runaway derivatives – especially credit default swaps (CDS) – were one of the main causes of the 2008 financial crisis. Congress never fixed the problem, and actually made it worse.

The big banks have long manipulated derivatives … a $1,200 Trillion Dollar market.

Indeed, many trillions of dollars of derivatives are being manipulated in the exact same same way that interest rates are fixed (see below) … through gamed self-reporting.

Reuters noted in 2014:

A Manhattan federal judge said on Thursday that investors may pursue a lawsuit accusing 12 major banks of violating antitrust law by fixing prices and restraining competition in the roughly $21 trillion market for credit default swaps.

***

“The complaint provides a chronology of behavior that would probably not result from chance, coincidence, independent responses to common stimuli, or mere interdependence,” [Judge] Cote said.

The defendants include Bank of America Corp, Barclays Plc, BNP Paribas SA, Citigroup Inc , Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank AG , Goldman Sachs Group Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc , JPMorgan Chase & Co, Morgan Stanley, Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS AG.

Other defendants are the International Swaps and Derivatives Association and Markit Ltd, which provides credit derivative pricing services.

***

U.S. and European regulators have probed potential anticompetitive activity in CDS. In July 2013, the European Commission accused many of the defendants of colluding to block new CDS exchanges from entering the market.

***

“The financial crisis hardly explains the alleged secret meetings and coordinated actions,” the judge wrote. “Nor does it explain why ISDA and Markit simultaneously reversed course.”

In other words, the big banks are continuing to fix prices for CDS in secret meetings … and have torpedoed the more open and transparent CDS exchanges that Congress mandated.

The managing director at Graham Fisher & Co. (Joshua Rosner) said that the big banks are frontrunning CDS trades … and manipulating decisions on whether a the party “insured” by CDS has defaulted on its obligations, thus triggering an “event” requiring payment on the CDS.

By way of analogy, whether or not an insurance company pays to rebuild a house which has burned to the ground may turn on whether it finds the fire was arson or accidental.

This is a big deal … while hundreds of thousands of dollars might be at stake in the home fire example, many tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars ride on whether or not a country like Greece is determined to have suffered a CDS-triggering event.

Rosner notes:

The potential use of CDS to artificially manipulate corporate solvency, the imbalances in the amounts of CDS outstanding relative to referenced debt and ongoing allegations that ISDA’s Determinations Committee is deeply conflicted and “operates as a quasi-Star Chamber or cartel”, are finally being scrutinized.

As one source recently suggested, “It would be a surprise if determinations of default, made by a committee of interested parties, don’t lead to findings of manipulation similar to those found in LIBOR and FOREX”.

***

The fact that Pimco’s Chief Investment Officer criticized the determination that Greece had not triggered its CDS, even though Pimco was part of the unanimous vote making that determination, is profoundly troubling to say the least.

***

The fact that the [ISDA’s Determinations Committees] has no obligation to “research, investigate, supplement or verify the accuracy of information on which a determination is based” and members “may have an inherent conflict of interest in the outcome of any determinations” only adds credence to suggestions that the “CDS market is being manipulated and gerrymandered by the all-powerful investment banks”.

Interest Rates Are Manipulated

Bloomberg reported in 2014:

Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc was ordered to pay $50 million by a federal judge in Connecticut over claims that it rigged the London interbank offered rate.

RBS Securities Japan Ltd. in April pleaded guilty to wire frauda s part of a settlement of more than $600 million with U.S and U.K. regulators over Libor manipulation, according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea in New Haventoday sentenced the Tokyo-based unit of RBS, Britain’s biggest publicly owned lender, to pay the agreed-upon fine, according to a Justice Department statement.

Global investigations into banks’ attempts to manipulate the benchmarks for profit have led to fines and settlements for lenders including RBS, Barclays Plc, UBS AG and Rabobank Groep.

RBS was among six companies fined a record 1.7 billion euros ($2.3 billion) by the European Union last month for rigging interest rates linked to Libor. The combined fines for manipulating yen Libor and Euribor, the benchmark money-market rate for the euro, are the largest-ever EU cartel penalties.

Global fines for rate-rigging have reached $6 billion since June 2012 as authorities around the world probe whether traders worked together to fix Libor, meant to reflect the interest rate at which banks lend to each other, to benefit their own trading positions.

To put the Libor interest rate scandal in perspective:

• The big banks have conspired for years to rig interest rates … upon which $800 trillion in assets are pegged

• This was the largest insider trading scandal ever … and the largest financial scam in world history

• Local governments got ripped off bigtime by the Libor manipulation

• Even though RBS and a handful of other banks have been fined for interest rate manipulation, Libor is still being manipulated. No wonder … the fines are pocket change – the cost of doing business – for the big banks

Energy Prices Manipulated

Energy markets are manipulated as well …

The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says that JP Morgan has massively manipulated energy markets in California and the Midwest, obtaining tens of millions of dollars in overpayments from grid operators between September 2010 and June 2011.

And Pulitzer prize-winning reporter David Cay Johnston noted in 2014 that Wall Street is trying to launch Enron 2.0.

And the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations found that Enron itself (which massively manipulated energy markets) was enabled by the fraud of big banks such as Citigroup and Chase.

(And as noted above, oil prices are manipulated.)

Gold and Silver Are Manipulated

Deutsche Bank admitted this year that it participated with other big banks in manipulating gold and silver prices.

In 2014, Switzerland’s financial regulator (FINMA) found “serious misconduct” and a “clear attempt to manipulate precious metals benchmarks” by UBS employees in precious metals trading, particularly with silver. Reuters reported:

Swiss regulator FINMA said on Wednesday that it found a “clear attempt” to manipulate precious metals benchmarks during its investigation into precious metals and foreign exchange trading at UBS …

And the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority found that Barclays manipulated the price of gold for a decade, sending “bursts” of sell orders to manipulate the market.

Gold and silver prices have been “fixed” in daily conference calls by the powers-that-be for a long time.

Bloomberg reported in 2013:

It is the participating banks themselves that administer the gold and silver benchmarks.

So are prices being manipulated? Let’s take a look at the evidence. In his book “The Gold Cartel,” commodity analyst Dimitri Speck combines minute-by-minute data from most of 1993 through 2012 to show how gold prices move on an average day (see attached charts). He finds that the spot price of gold tends to drop sharply around the London evening fixing (10 a.m. New York time). A similar, if less pronounced, drop in price occurs around the London morning fixing. The same daily declines can be seen in silver prices from 1998 through 2012.

For both commodities there were, on average, no comparable price changes at any other time of the day. These patterns are consistent with manipulation in both markets.

The Oil Market Is Manipulated

The big banks aided Unaoil in bribing governments worldwide to manipulate oil prices. The Age notes:

Bankers in New York and London have facilitated Unaoil’s money laundering ….

The European Commission says oil prices have been manipulated for many years.

And many commentators note that big banks play a big role in the mediation.

Other Commodities Are Manipulated

The big banks and government agencies have been conspiring to manipulate commodities prices for decades.

The big banks are taking over important aspects of the physical economy – including uranium mining, petroleum products, aluminum, ownership and operation of airports, toll roads, ports, and electricity – to manipulate market prices.

And they are using these physical assets to massively manipulate commodities prices … scalping consumers of many billions of dollars each year. (More from Matt Taibbi, FDL and Elizabeth Warren.)

The Mortgage Market Is Manipulated

Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo admitted this year that they fraudulently manipulated the mortgage and mortgage backed securities markets.

Indeed, the entire housing bubble which crashed in 2007 was caused by manipulation.

The big banks committed massive and pervasive fraud both when they initiated mortgage loans and when they foreclosed on them (and see this).

And they pledged the same mortgage multiple times to different buyers. See this, this, this, this and this. This would be like selling your car, and collecting money from 10 different buyers for the same car.

Everything Can Be Manipulated through High-Frequency Trading

Traders with high-tech computers can manipulate stocks, bonds, options, currencies and commodities. And see this.

Manipulating Numerous Markets In Myriad Ways

The big banks and other giants manipulate numerous markets in myriad ways, for example:

• Engaging in mafia-style big-rigging fraud against local governments. See this, this and this

• Shaving money off of virtually every pension transaction they handled over the course of decades, stealing collectively billions of dollars from pensions worldwide. Details here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here

• Charging “storage fees” to store gold bullion … without even buying or storing any gold . And raiding allocated gold accounts

• Cheating homeowners by gaming laws meant to protect people from unfair foreclosure

• Pushing investments which they knew were terrible, and then betting against the same investments to make money for themselves. See this, this, this, this and this

• Engaging in unlawful “frontrunning” to manipulate markets. See this, this, this, this, this and this

• Engaging in unlawful “Wash Trades” to manipulate asset prices. See this, this and this

• Otherwise manipulating markets. And see this

• Participating in various Ponzi schemes

• Charging veterans unlawful mortgage fees

• Cooking their books (and see this)

• Bribing and bullying ratings agencies to inflate ratings on their risky investments

And the big banks engaged in pervasive criminal behavior as well, by engaging in shenanigans such as:

• Laundering money for terrorists (the HSBC employee who blew the whistle on the banks’ money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels says that the giant bank is still laundering money, saying: “The public needs to know that money is still being funneled through HSBC to directly buy guns and bullets to kill our soldiers …. Banks financing … terrorists affects every single American.” He also said: “It is disgusting that our banks are STILL financing terror on 9/11 2013“. And see this. This has been going on for decades. For example, Bank of America funneled massive amounts of money to BCCI – itself connected with the CIA – and, according to the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Terrorism, Narcotics and International Operations, BCCI in turn funneled huge sums of money to Bin Laden and other terrorists)

• The massive “Panama Papers” investigation revealed that big banks help many clients set up shell companies to hide their money offshore. The Wall Street Journal notes, “Biggest Banks Are Top Users of Offshore Services”

• Financing illegal arms deals, and funding the manufacture of cluster bombs (and see this and this) and other arms which are banned in most of the world

• Handling money for rogue military operations

• Laundering money for drug cartels. See this, this, this, this and this (indeed, drug dealers kept the banking system afloat during the depths of the 2008 financial crisis). A whistleblower said: “America is losing the drug war because our banks are [still] financing the cartels“, and “Banks financing drug cartels … affects every single American“. And see this. This is actually a decades-old practice)
  

• Funding the Nazis (while we’re referring to funding the original Nazis many decades ago, the U.S. is now backing the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and banks are undoubtedly involved in some of the support)

• Launching a coup against the President of the United States (an old – but vital – story)

The Big Picture

The experts say that big banks will keep manipulating markets unless and until their executives are thrown in jail for fraud.

Why? Because the system is rigged to allow the big banks to commit continuous and massive fraud, and then to pay small fines as the “cost of doing business”. As Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz noted years ago:

“The system is set so that even if you’re caught, the penalty is just a small number relative to what you walk home with.

The fine is just a cost of doing business. It’s like a parking fine. Sometimes you make a decision to park knowing that you might get a fine because going around the corner to the parking lot takes you too much time.

Indeed, Reuters points out:

Switzerland’s regulator FINMA ordered UBS, the country’s biggest bank, to pay 134 million francs ($139 million) after it found serious misconduct in both foreign exchange and precious metals trading. It also capped bonuses for dealers in both units at twice their basic salary for two years.

Capping bonuses at twice base salary? That’s not a punishment … it’s an incentive.

Experts say that we have to prosecute fraud or else the economy won’t ever really stabilize.

But the government is doing the exact opposite. Indeed, the Justice Department has announced it will go easy on big banks, and always settles prosecutions for pennies on the dollar (a form of stealth bailout. It is also arguably one of the main causes of the double dip in housing.)

Indeed, the government doesn’t even force the banks to admit any criminal guilt as part of their settlements. In fact:

“The banks have been allowed to investigate themselves,” one source familiar with the investigation told Reuters. “The investigated decide what they want to investigate, what they admit to, and how much they will pay.

Wall Street has manipulated virtually every other market as well – both in the financial sector and the real economy – and broken virtually every law on the books.

And they will keep on doing so until the Department of Justice grows a pair.

The criminality and blatant manipulation will grow and spread and metastasize – taking over and killing off more and more of the economy – until Wall Street executives are finally thrown in jail.

It’s that simple …

Isn’t it rather odd that America’s largest single public expenditure scheduled for the coming decades has received no attention in the 2015-2016 presidential debates?

The expenditure is for a thirty-year program to “modernize” the U.S. nuclear arsenal and production facilities. Although President Obama began his administration with a dramatic public commitment to build a nuclear weapons-free world, that commitment has long ago dwindled and died. It has been replaced by an administration plan to build a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities to last the nation well into the second half of the twenty-first century. This plan, which has received almost no attention by the mass media, includes redesigned nuclear warheads, as well as new nuclear bombers, submarines, land-based missiles, weapons labs, and production plants. The estimated cost? $1,000,000,000,000.00—or, for those readers unfamiliar with such lofty figures, $1 trillion.

Critics charge that the expenditure of this staggering sum will either bankrupt the country or, at the least, require massive cutbacks in funding for other federal government programs.

“We’re . . . wondering how the heck we’re going to pay for it,” admitted Brian McKeon, an undersecretary of defense. And we’re “probably thanking our stars we won’t be here to have to have to answer the question,” he added with a chuckle.

This nuclear “modernization” plan violates the terms of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires the nuclear powers to engage in nuclear disarmament. The plan is also moving forward despite the fact that the U.S. government already possesses roughly 7,000 nuclear weapons that can easily destroy the world. Although climate change might end up accomplishing much the same thing, a nuclear war does have the advantage of terminating life on earth more rapidly.

This trillion dollar nuclear weapons buildup has yet to inspire any questions about it by the moderators during the numerous presidential debates. Even so, in the course of the campaign, the presidential candidates have begun to reveal their attitudes toward it.

On the Republican side, the candidates—despite their professed distaste for federal expenditures and “big government”—have been enthusiastic supporters of this great leap forward in the nuclear arms race. Donald Trump, the frontrunner, contended in his presidential announcement speech that “our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work,” insisting that it is out of date. Although he didn’t mention the $1 trillion price tag for “modernization,” the program is clearly something he favors, especially given his campaign’s focus on building a U.S. military machine “so big, powerful, and strong that no one will mess with us.”

His Republican rivals have adopted a similar approach. Marco Rubio, asked while campaigning in Iowa about whether he supported the trillion dollar investment in new nuclear weapons, replied that “we have to have them. No country in the world faces the threats America faces.” When a peace activist questioned Ted Cruz on the campaign trail about whether he agreed with Ronald Reagan on the need to eliminate nuclear weapons, the Texas senator replied: “I think we’re a long way from that and, in the meantime, we need to be prepared to defend ourselves. The best way to avoid war is to be strong enough that no one wants to mess with the United States.” Apparently, Republican candidates are particularly worried about being “messed with.”

On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton has been more ambiguous about her stance toward a dramatic expansion of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Asked by a peace activist about the trillion dollar nuclear plan, she replied that she would “look into that,” adding: “It doesn’t make sense to me.” Even so, like other issues that the former secretary of state has promised to “look into,” this one remains unresolved. Moreover, the “National Security” section of her campaign website promises that she will maintain the “strongest military the world has ever known”—not a propitious sign for critics of nuclear weapons.

Only Bernie Sanders has adopted a position of outright rejection. In May 2015, shortly after declaring his candidacy, Sanders was asked at a public meeting about the trillion dollar nuclear weapons program. He replied: “What all of this is about is our national priorities. Who are we as a people? Does Congress listen to the military-industrial complex” that “has never seen a war that they didn’t like? Or do we listen to the people of this country who are hurting?” In fact, Sanders is one of only three U.S. Senators who support the SANE Act, legislation that would significantly reduce U.S. government spending on nuclear weapons. In addition, on the campaign trail, Sanders has not only called for cuts in spending on nuclear weapons, but has affirmed his support for their total abolition.

Nevertheless, given the failure of the presidential debate moderators to raise the issue of nuclear weapons “modernization,” the American people have been left largely uninformed about the candidates’ opinions on this subject. So, if Americans would like more light shed on their future president’s response to this enormously expensive surge in the nuclear arms race, it looks like they are the ones who are going to have to ask the candidates the trillion dollar question.

Dr. Lawrence Wittner (http://www.lawrenceswittner.com) is Professor of History emeritus at SUNY/Albany. His latest book is a satirical novel about university corporatization and rebellion, What’s Going On at UAardvark?

From Ukraine to Syria; Libya to Iraq: the West has repeatedly shown itself to be an imperial entity which brings nothing but chaos, devastation and destabilization to its victims. Contrary to spreading ‘freedom and democracy’ through its geopolitical endeavours, the West’s rap sheet in the 21st century is unrivalled in its immorality and malevolence.

Considering this reality, it is frankly absurd that the Western mainstream media and NATO chiefs have been peddling the narrative that Russia is the belligerent power in the world today. Unless you have been living under a rock in the 21st century, you will have witnessed NATO and the Western establishment leaping from one horror show to the next. Starting with the 2001 war in Afghanistan, the West set the 21st century on the dangerous path of perpetual war, with the remaining 84 years looking as war-torn as the initial 16 if warmongering sociopaths are allowed to be at the helm of the Western world.

Terrorist and Neo-Nazi Tools

During a meeting at the end of June, the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, condemned the belligerent policies of NATO and the wider West. Putin stated that Russia is “noticing persistent efforts by certain partners to maintain a monopoly on geopolitical dominance,” adding that the West often uses “terrorists, fundamentalists, far-right nationalists and even neo-fascists” as proxies in their imperial games.

It was clear from the very beginning that the 2013-14 Western colour revolution in Ukraine was spearheaded by various neo-Nazi forces, with many individuals with neo-Nazi ties taking up positions of power within the Ukrainian government following the coup. Andriy Parubiy for instance, one of the founders of the far right Social-National Party of Ukraine (whose flag incorporated a variation of the Wolfsangel  symbol used by the Nazis, and which later became the Svoboda party), was appointed as the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine just days after the government was overthrown in Kiev. Parubiy has been Chairman of the Ukrainian parliament since April of this year, yet there has been no outcry by the presstitutes in the West.

In Syria, the West has been supporting an array of terrorist forces, laughably trying to claim the rebels were predominately comprised of ‘moderate’ forces who were only seeking democracy. We know that the rebels were predominately made up of extremist forces, with US military intelligence reporting in 2012 that: “The Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood and AQI [(al-Qaeda in Iraq)], are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria.” Despite this reality, the Obama administration still took the “willful decision” to support the terrorists trying to oust Bashar al-Assad, further demonstrating the nefarious nature of US foreign policy.

McCain: The Pre-eminent War Hawk

Out of all the war hawks who currently reside in Washington, one man stands head and shoulders above the rest. From supporting neo-Nazis in Ukraine; to supporting terrorists in Syria: Senator John McCain has been heavily involved in two of the most destructive wars in recent years. McCain was a major cheerleader of the colour revolution in Ukraine, repeatedly meeting one of the other founders and present leader of the Svoboda party, Oleh Tyahnybok, amongst other figures.

McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the terrorist forces in Syria, and has repeatedly called for US ground troops to be deployed to Syria. At the end of 2014, Syria’s U.N. ambassador, Bashar Ja’afari, accused McCain ofillegally entering Syria in 2013 to meet the Syrian rebels. McCain was also photographed meeting with what appears to be the so-called caliph of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, around the time of his illegal visit to Syria.

Despite all the rhetoric spewed from Western politicians about their commitment to freedom, democracy, peace and the rule of law, the West has supported an array of nefarious actors across the globe that threaten freedom, democracy, peace and the rule of law. Historians of the future will not be kind to Western imperialism in the first two decades of the 21st century; with the empirical evidence demonstrating that Western aggression is the most serious threat to global stability, not Russian aggression.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

A nation is its institutions. If those institutions are overrun and no longer exist, so too does the nation itself cease to exist. Institutions range from the offices of government, to education, to agricultural and economic development, to the management of natural resources, national infrastructure including energy and transportation, and security. These are the things we think about when we think about the concept of a modern nation-state.

Contrary to popular belief, the invasion and occupation of any particular nation is not a mere exercise of military might. It also, by necessity, involves the destruction or overrunning and eventual replacement of all the above mentioned institutions.

The most extreme modern-day example of this was the US invasion of Iraq, where Iraqi institutions from top to bottom were either entirely destroyed and replaced, or taken over by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). The CPA was literally headed by an American, Paul Bremer, who, far from being a military man, was instead drawn from the US State Department and a background of chairing corporate-financier boards of directors.

The CPA assumed responsibility for all aspects of life in Iraq, from the privatization of Iraq’s economy, to “reconstruction,” to reorganizing the nation socially, politically, and economically.

The average onlooker will remember US President George Bush’s “shock and awe,” and may remember several of the more notorious battles of the invasion and subsequent occupation. What they rarely recall is the all encompassing dominion the US assumed over the nation through the CPA which was merely underpinned by US military forces. Yet despite the relatively dull nature of the CPA’s work versus security operations carried out by American forces, the CPA is what essentially “occupied” and ultimately conquered Iraq.

USAID and Co. – Low Intensity Invasion and Occupation 

Iraq and Afghanistan are extreme examples of the US exercising global hegemony, which included spectacular, full-scale military invasions, lengthy occupations, and nationwide “nation-building” carried out by various organizations utilized by the US to project power abroad.

One of these organizations is USAID. It should be, but rarely is, troubling to the world’s nations that USAID played an integral part in the invasion, occupation, and conquest of  Iraq and Afghanistan, while it also maintains an extensive presence everywhere else US interests have directed their attention.

USAID and a virtual army of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and front-companies it supports worldwide, are engaged in activities in other nations ranging from education, energy, natural resources, economic development, transportation, and security – or in other words everything foreign nations should already be attending to themselves.

USAID does not seek to genuinely partner with foreign governments, but instead, create networks that operate independently of and parallel to existing, indigenous institutions and networks. USAID and its expanding network of facilitators extends into any given nation, slowly assuming responsibility over all areas a sovereign government should be managing, leaving existing governments irrelevant, empty shells. When parallel networks gain critical mass, they can then be used as a means of removing existing governments from power, and installing a client regime in its place – one that answers to the special interests that sponsored and directed USAID’s activities to begin with.

USAID actively seeks to co-opt local talent – both individually and small groups of talented individuals. They generally target start-ups and independent NGOs which is why USAID and other US government-funded NGOs are increasingly engaged in co-working spaces – even sponsoring the creation and management of new spaces across the developing world to create a convenient poaching ground for local talent.

A Global Game of Go 

USAID does not exist to “aid” anyone. It functions solely to overrun a targeted nation by building their networks over existing indigenous ones, turning a nation’s people against itself, and making preexisting networks irrelevant.

They are essentially filling up the sociopolitical, geostrategic, technological, and information space with their own influence, displacing all else.

Unlike the Western game of chess, where players seek to eliminate their opponent’s pieces from the board in a game of strategic attrition, USAID and other organizations like it and the strategy they are pursuing is more comparable to the Eastern game of go. In go, players seek to place as many pieces as possible onto the board, assuming control over the most territory.

In this context, any nation could represent a board, with its own pieces scattered across it in areas like energy, education, healthcare, and security. USAID seeks to place its own pieces on this board, generally under the guise of charity or foreign aid. It continues placing its pieces on the board, backed with inexhaustible resources and the benefit of its true intentions often being poorly understood by the governments and the people of the nations it is operating in.

The US through USAID is essentially playing a game of go against an unskilled player who doesn’t even know the game has begun. USAID is then able to quickly and easily overwhelm the board with its “pieces” – NGOs it funds, organizations and talent it has co-opted, and entirely parallel institutions running various aspects of a targeted nation right under the nose of that nation’s government.

In coordination with other US State Department-funded political fronts and NGOs, the business of then eliminating indigenous institutions and overthrowing established governments in favor of proxy institutions run by Western interests and client regimes bent to the will of the US, can begin in earnest.

Targeted nations often realize too late that the “space” on the board has been dominated by these foreign interests with whatever remains of indigenous institutions and networks so badly neglected and atrophied, they stand little chance of putting up any resistance.

Counterinsurgency Manuals are USAID’s “Rule Book”

USAID’s version of “go” has its own rule book of sorts, found easily online as free downloads from any number of US government websites in the form of counterinsurgency manuals. In these manuals, it is described how gaining control over any given population requires controlling the basic essentials that population depends on – everything from energy production to education, to garbage collection and job creation.

By controlling these aspects in any given population, one then controls that population itself. It is the key to not only defeating an “insurgency,” it is also the key to running a successful insurgency oneself. USAID projecting its influence into any given nation is in fact a sort of insurgency – a literal attempt to take control of a government – however incremental and patient the nature of that insurgency might be.

Areas included in US counterinsurgency manuals as essential to control include (but are not limited to):

• police and fire services,
• water,
• electricity
• education and training,
• transportation,
• medical,
• sanitation,
• banking,
• agriculture,
• labor relations,
• manufacturing and,
• construction

When inquiring into how many of these are regularly included in USAID programs, the answer is virtually all of them.

Beating USAID’s Game 

For any given nation, USAID should be listed as a foreign agency and its activities heavily restricted. Every penny they administer, if allowed to operate at all, should go straight into government programs. USAID programs should be made subordinate to government institutions, carried out by government institutions, and its role in such programs credited subordinately to government institutions. USAID should be strictly forbidden to operate independent networks, programs, workshops, contests, and meetings anywhere beyond America’s borders.

But more importantly, nations must understand the “go” board their territory and populations represent. They must create and place their own superior pieces upon this board in such numbers and of such quality that there is no room for USAID’s pieces to begin with. By doing so, a nation is not just countering USAID and the conspiracy it represents, it is defeating it at the most fundamental level this “game” is being played.

A nation creating strong institutions and networks within their own borders to manage and move forward those areas essential to the progress of modern civilization precludes the need for “foreign aid” in the first place. It is not just a matter of pride that a nation need not rely on “foreign aid,” but a matter of its survival, as “aid” is not given freely, and as in the case of USAID, serves as a vector for hegemony’s projection into the very heart of one’s nation.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

Unaccountable killer cops turning Black communities into battlegrounds made overnight Thursday’s incident inevitable.

It was just a matter of time – nor likely the last instance of justifiable public outrage exploding. People and communities take so much before reacting.

Until killer cops are held accountable for false arrests, extreme brutality, other forms of abuse and murdering Black youths, Dallas may prove a shot across the bow for what’s to come – a declaration of war against longstanding injustice.

This week’s headline-making police executions of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile in Baton Rouge and Falcon Heights, MN respectively reflect daily incidents across America – cops brutalizing Blacks unaccountably, over 1,000 cop killings in 2015, disproportionately affecting unarmed Blacks.

According to Dallas police chief David Brown, snipers opened fire on police around 8:45PM Thursday – five officers killed, 10 wounded, some seriously, Brown saying suspects intended planting explosives at downtown Dallas locations.

Shootings occurred during a nonviolent Black Lives Matter protest over Baton Rouge and Minnesota Blacks murdered by police in cold blood. A so-called person of interest is in custody along with a suspect (allegedly armed with a rifle) and others.

More gunfire was reported near El Centro College. According to the Dallas Morning News, one cop killed was a Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) officer.

A civilian was wounded. A woman near the shooting is in custody. A person of interest turned himself in. Shootings reportedly were from elevated positions with rifles.

Police aren’t certain if all suspects are in custody. One reportedly died from a “self-inflicted gunshot wound,” according to Fox News. More likely, cops killed him.

A suspicious package was found, secured by bomb squad police. Downtown Dallas is described as a “major crime scene.”

In Warsaw, Poland attending an anti-Russia NATO summit, Obama’s pretense of concern for racial disparities and America’s criminal injustice system rang hollow.

Saying “we can do better than this” belies his phony war on terrorism, imperial madness, unbridled militarism, neoliberal harshness, destruction of fundamental freedoms, indifference to human suffering, Big Brother watching everyone, and favoring privileged interests over all others.

Cops in America serve and protect the powerful at the expense of most others, especially people of color.

The nation’s gulag prison system, the world’s largest by far, attests to its barbarity – mostly filled with poor, disadvantaged Blacks and Latinos. Many are falsely convicted or locked in cages for illicit drug possession offenses too minor to matter.

Criminal injustice defines America, reinvented Jim Crow, enforced by killer cops – America more a police state than democracy.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” 

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network

“NATO headquarters in Brussels and the Turkish high command [2011] are meanwhile drawing up plans for their first military step in Syria, which is to arm the rebels with weapons for combating the tanks and helicopters…  

Also discussed in Brussels and Ankara, … is a campaign to enlist thousands of Muslim volunteers in Middle East countries and the Muslim world to fight alongside the Syrian rebels. The Turkish army would house these volunteers, train them and secure their passage into Syria.” (Israel’s Intel DEBKAfile, NATO to give rebels anti-tank weapons, August 14, 2011)

Clinton Revealed “Intelligence Methods” and Sources

FBI director Comey said today that Hillary Clinton running emails containing government information on an unsecured, private server was not as bad as former CIA director Petraeus sharing classified documents with his lover.

But the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history, William Binney – the NSA executive who created the agency’s mass surveillance program for digital information, who served as the senior technical director within the agency, who managed six thousand NSA employees, the 36-year NSA veteran widely regarded as a “legend” within the agency and the NSA’s best-ever analyst and code-breaker, who mapped out the Soviet command-and-control structure before anyone else knew how, and so predicted Soviet invasions before they happened (“in the 1970s, he decrypted the Soviet Union’s command system, which provided the US and its allies with real-time surveillance of all Soviet troop movements and Russian atomic weapons”) – explains why Comey’s statement is nonsense.

By way of background, recall that – when the American press reported that U.S. intelligence services tracked Bin Laden through his satellite phone – he stopping using that type of phone … so we could no longer easily track him.

This is exactly what government officials mean whenever they say that someone – say Edward Snowden, Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, or Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning – is threatening national security by “revealing confidential information-gathering methods or sources.”

Also by way of background, Binney pointed us to an article from March written by former NSA analyst, counterintelligence officer and War College professor John Schindler:

Just-released State Department documents obtained by Judicial Watch under the Freedom of Information Act [here] detail a bureaucratic showdown between Ms. Clinton and NSA at the outset of her tenure at Foggy Bottom.

***

One senior NSA official, now retired, recalled the kerfuffle with Team Clinton in early 2009 about Blackberrys. “It was the usual Clinton prima donna stuff,” he explained, “the whole ‘rules are for other people’ act that I remembered from the ’90s.” Why Ms. Clinton would not simply check her personal email on an office computer, like every other government employee less senior than the president, seems a germane question, given what a major scandal email-gate turned out to be. “What did she not want put on a government system, where security people might see it?” the former NSA official asked, adding, “I wonder now, and I sure wish I’d asked about it back in 2009.”

He’s not the only NSA affiliate with pointed questions about what Hillary Clinton and her staff at Foggy Bottom were really up to—and why they went to such trouble to circumvent federal laws about the use of IT systems and the handling of classified information.

***

As I explained in this column in January, one of the most controversial of Ms. Clinton’s emails released by the State Department under judicial order was one sent on June 8, 2011, to the Secretary of State by Sidney Blumenthal, Ms. Clinton’s unsavory friend and confidant who was running a private intelligence service for Ms. Clinton. This email contains an amazingly detailed assessment of events in Sudan, specifically a coup being plotted by top generals in that war-torn country. Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from a top-ranking source with direct access to Sudan’s top military and intelligence officials, and recounted a high-level meeting that had taken place only 24 hours before.

To anybody familiar with intelligence reporting, this unmistakably signals intelligence, termed SIGINT in the trade. In other words, Mr. Blumenthal, a private citizen who had enjoyed no access to U.S. intelligence for over a decade when he sent that email, somehow got hold of SIGINT about the Sudanese leadership and managed to send it, via open, unclassified email, to his friend Ms. Clinton only one day later.

NSA officials were appalled by the State Department’s release of this email, since it bore all the hallmarks of Agency reporting. Back in early January when I reported this, I was confident that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from highly classified NSA sources, based on my years of reading and writing such reports myself, and one veteran agency official told me it was NSA information with “at least 90 percent confidence.”

Now, over two months later, I can confirm that the contents of Sid Blumenthal’s June 8, 2011, email to Hillary Clinton, sent to her personal, unclassified account, were indeedbased on highly sensitive NSA information. The agency investigated this compromise and determined that Mr. Blumenthal’s highly detailed account of Sudanese goings-on, including the retelling of high-level conversations in that country, was indeed derived from NSA intelligence.

Specifically, this information was illegally lifted from four different NSA reports, all of them classified “Top Secret / Special Intelligence.” Worse, at least one of those reports was issued under the GAMMA compartment, which is an NSA handling caveat that is applied to extraordinarily sensitive information (for instance, decrypted conversations between top foreign leadership, as this was). GAMMA is properly viewed as a SIGINT Special Access Program, or SAP, several of which from the CIA Ms. Clinton compromised in another series of her “unclassified” emails.

Currently serving NSA officials have told me they have no doubt that Mr. Blumenthal’s information came from their reports. “It’s word-for-word, verbatim copying,” one of them explained. “In one case, an entire paragraph was lifted from an NSA report” that was classified Top Secret / Special Intelligence.

How Mr. Blumenthal got his hands on this information is the key question, and there’s no firm answer yet. The fact that he was able to take four separate highly classified NSA reports—none of which he was supposed to have any access to—and pass the details of them to Hillary Clinton via email only hours after NSA released them in Top Secret / Special Intelligence channels indicates something highly unusual, as well as illegal, was going on.

Binney explained to Washington’s Blog the serious nature of Clinton’s breach of GAMMA classified information:

The compromise of this kind of cryptology success has a number of impacts on the ability of NSA to produce accurate intelligence on foreign targets of highest interest.

(1) This lets the leaders of a foreign country know that their communications have been compromised and thatwe read what they are saying, planning and intending to do.

(2) It compromises the fact that a particular type of encryption is readable. Not just the leadership; but, also all the others in that country and around the world that are using that encryption.

(3) It lets our potential adversaries know our technology capabilities in attacking encryption.

(4) If other countries (like Russia or China or any others) know the encryption system involved, then they too will look at it for any weakness or flaws that would allow reading the system.

(5) It alerts adversaries to look into that system for structural errors in encryption design also look for human error in using the system or a combination of both that would make the system vulnerable.

(6) This presents the country using that system the opportunity to feed false information into the intelligence produced by NSA which means the free world.

(7) For NSA, this means that they have to find other ways to validate any intelligence they get from this encryption to insure the validity of the information they get.

The target country may stop using that encryption for leadership (as was the case with GAMMA GUPY) but may continue to use it at other levels of communication; but, over time, they have been alerted to this weakness and will move as fast as they can to replace it with other encryption.

GAMMA GUPY was the U.S. spy program which installed an antenna on the roof of the United States Embassy in Moscow to eavesdrop on top officials of the Soviet Union in Moscow as they chatted with each other on their car telephones.  When nationally-syndicated journalist Jack Anderson reported on GAMMA GUPY in 1971, it alerted the Soviet leadership … so they immediately stopped talking in a way that could be overheard.

Binney continued:

This [Clinton’s email hijinks] is real serious, on the order of what Jack Anderson compromises in 1971 dealing with the “Gamma Gupy” source.

This is the most sensitive intelligence, and [Clinton] and her staff took it out of classified reports and put excerpts in open source on her server.

***

All in all, this is a rather devastating compromise of technical capability and a commensurate loss of high value intelligence.

I know this kind of technical explanation is rather difficult for the public to understand and comprehend, but it is rather devastating to people responsible for intelligence production.

In my view, this is much worse than what Julian Assange or Chelsea Manning or any of the other whistleblowers have done.

Some are in prison for as many as 35 years. Others have just been ruined and kept from getting anything but menial jobs.  But, those in high positions get a pass for much worse offenses.

Indeed.

Vladimir Putin has finally taken the kid gloves off.

The Russian president was meeting with foreign journalists at the conclusion of the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 17th, when he left no one in any doubt that the world is headed down a course which could lead to nuclear war.

Putin railed against the journalists for their “tall tales” in blindly repeating lies and misinformation provided to them by the United States on its anti-ballistic missile systems being constructed in Eastern Europe. He pointed out that since the Iran nuclear deal, the claim the system is to protect against Iranian missiles has been exposed as a lie.

The journalists were informed that within a few years, Russia predicted the US would be able to extend the range of the system to 1000 km. At that point, Russia’s nuclear potential, and thus the nuclear balance between the US and Russia, would be placed in jeopardy.

Putin completely lost patience with the journalists, berating them for lazily helping to accelerate a nuclear confrontation by repeating US propaganda. He virtually pleaded with the western media, for the sake of the world, to change their line:

We know year by year what’s going to happen, and they know that we know. It’s only you that they tell tall tales to, and you buy it, and spread it to the citizens of your countries. You people in turn do not feel a sense of the impending danger – this is what worries me. How do you not understand that the world is being pulled in an irreversible direction? While they pretend that nothing is going on. I don’t know how to get through to you anymore.

Does anyone in the reeking garbage heap that is mainstream western media have a conscience? Do they even have enough intellect to get what Putin is saying – that they are helping to push the planet towards World War III?

The long delayed Iraq Inquiry Committee Chilcot report took seven years to complete, filled 12 volumes, yet excluded what’s most important – declaring the 2003 Iraq war illegal, flagrantly violating international law, destroying the cradle of civilization, raping it for control and profit, and demanding accountability for those responsible.

Its 2.6 million words pronounced no judgment on Blair’s partnership with GW Bush’s naked aggression against a nonbelligerent country, based entirely on misinformation and Big Lies.

US, Britain and co-conspiratorial “coalition” partners attacked and occupied Iraq based on falsified claims about nonexistent WMDs, no evidence of chemical or biological ones, mushroom-shaped cloud hysteria, manipulated intelligence, a fabricated Al Qaeda connection, and other phony threats.

Intelligence was willfully cooked to fit policy. Britain’s so-called Dodgy Dossier generated fear to enlist public support for war, justifying the unjustifiable.

Bush, Blair & Co. are war criminals, responsible for millions of deaths, vast destruction, along with endless violence and chaos, US-created and supported ISIS now acting as imperial foot soldiers.

Blair acted internally on his own, willfully lied, mislead parliament, his senior ministers and Britain’s public – inventing a nonexistent threat “with a certainty that was not justified,” said Chilcot.

War on Iraq was entirely based on lies. Genocidal crimes followed. Yet neither Bush or Blair faces accountability – at home or by the International Criminal Court (ICC) – established by the Rome Treaty to prosecute individuals for crimes of war, against humanity and genocide.

Chilcot said Britain “invade(d) Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was (a first) not a last resort.”

Saddam Hussein posed no regional threat, said Chilcot. Britain with America and coalition partners acted extrajudicially. His report stopped short of demanding what’s most important – long-denied accountability.

Bush, Blair & Co. belong in the dock, prosecuted for Nuremberg-level high crimes – ones Chief Justice Robert Jackson called “the supreme international crime against peace.”

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Amid raging corruption, social pathologies and outright political thuggery, a new gang of vassal regimes has taken-over Latin America. The new rulers are strictly recruited as the protégé’s of US financial and banking institutions. Hence the financial press refers to them as the “new managers” – of Wall Street.

The US financial media has once again provided a political cover for the vilest crimes committed by the ‘new managers’ as they launch their offensive against labor and in favor of the foreign and domestic financiers.

To understand the dynamics of the empire’s new vassal managers we will proceed by identifying (1) the illicit power grab (2) the neo-liberal policies they have pursued (3) the impact of their program on the class structure (4) their economic performance and future socio-political perspectives.

Vassals as Managers of Empire

Latin America’s current vassalage elite is of longer and shorter duration.

The regimes of longer duration with a historical legacy of submission, corruption and criminality include Mexico and Colombia where oligarchs , government officials and death squads cohabitate in close association with the US military, business and banking elites.

Over the past decades 100,000 citizens were murdered in Mexico and over 4 million peasants were dispossessed in Colombia. In both regimes over ten million acres of farmland and mining terrain were transferred to US and EU multinationals.

Hundreds of billions of illicit narco earnings were laundered by the Colombian and Mexican oligarchy to their US accounts via private banks.

The current political managers, Peña in Mexico and Santos in Colombia are rapidly de-nationalizing strategic oil and energy sectors, while savaging dynamic social movements – hundreds of students and teachers in Mexico and thousands of peasants and human rights activists in Colombia have been murdered.

The new wave of imperial vassals has seized power throughout most of Latin America with the direct and indirect intervention of the US. In 2009, Honduras President Manuel Zelaya was ousted by a military coup backed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Zelaya’s program of agrarian reform, regional integration (with Venezuela) and constitutional elections was abolished. Zelaya was replaced by a US vassal, Roberto Micheletti who proceeded to murder several hundred landless rural workers and indigenous activists.

Washington moved to organize a constitutional cover by promoting a highly malleable landowner, Porfirio Lobo Sosa to the presidency.

The State Department next ousted Paraguyan President Francisco Lugo who governed between 2008-2012. Lugo promoted a moderate agrarian reform and a centrist regional integration agenda.

With the backing of Secretary of State Clinton, the Paraguayan oligarchy in Congress seized power , fabricated an impeachment decree and ousted President Lugo .He was briefly replaced by Vice President Federico Franco (2012-2013).

In 2013, Washington backed , the capital, Asuncion’s, notorious crime boss for President, one Horacio Castes – convicted for currency fraud in 1989, drug running in 1990, and most recently (2010) money laundering.

The Honduras and Paraguayan coups established (in miniature) the precedent for a new wave of ‘big country’ political vassals. The State Department moved toward the acceleration of banking takeovers in Brazil, Argentina and Peru.

In rapid succession, between December 2015 and April 2016 vassal managers seized power in Argentina and Brazil. In Argentina millionaire Mauricio Macri ruled by decree, by-passing constitutional legality. Macri fired scores of thousands of public service workers, closed social agencies and appointed judges and prosecutors without Congressional vote. He arbitrarily arrested social movement leaders – violating democratic procedures.

Macri’s Economic and Finance Ministers gained millions of dollars by ‘buying into’ multinational oil companies just prior to handing over private options on public enterprises.

The all-encompassing swindles and fraud carried out by the ‘new managers’ were covered up by the US media,who praised Macri’s professional team.

Moreover, Macri’s economic performance was a disaster. Exorbitant user fees on utilities and transport for consumers and business enterprises, increased three to ten-fold, forcing bankruptcy rates to soar and households to suffer light and gas closures.

Wall Street vulture funds received seven billion dollar payment from Macri’s managers ,for defaulted loans purchased for pennies over a dollar ,twenty-fold greater then the original lenders.

Data based on standard economic indicators,highlights the worst economic performance in a decade and a half.

Price inflation exceeds 40%; public debt increased by twenty percent in six months. Living standards and employment sharply declined. Growth and investment data was negative. Mismanagement, official corruption and arbitrary governance, did not induce confidence among local small and medium size businesses.

The respectable media, led by the New York Times, theFinancial Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post falsified every aspect of Macri’s regime. Failed economic policies implemented by bankers turned cabinet ministers were dubbed long-term successes; crude ideologically driven policies promoting foreign investor profiteering were re-invented as business incentives.

Political thugs dismantled and replaced civil service agencies were labelled ‘a new management team’ by the vulgar propaganda scribes of the financial press.

In Brazil, a phony political power grab by Congressional opportunists ousted elected President Dilma Rousseff .She was replaced by a Washinton approved serial swindler and notorious bribe taker, Michel Temer.

The new economic managers were predictably controlled by Wall Street, World Bank and IMF bankers. They rushed measures to slash wages, pensions and other social expenditures , to lower business taxes and privatize the most lucrative public enterprises in transport, infrastructure, landholdings , oil and scores of other activities.

Even as the prostitute press lauded Brazil’s new managers’, prosecutors and judges arrested three newly appointed cabinet ministers for fraud and money laundering.  ‘President’ Temer is next in line for prosecution for his role in the mega Petrobras oil contracts scandal for bribes and payola.

The economic agenda by the new managers are not designed to attract new productive investments. Most inflows are short-term speculative ventures. Markets, especially, in commodities, show no upward growth, much to the chagrin of the free market technocrats. Industry and commerce are depressed as a result of the decline in consumer credit, employment and public spending induced by ‘the managers’ austerity policies.

Even as the US and Europe embrace free market austerity, it evokes a continent wide revolt. Nevertheless Latin America’s wave of vassal regimes, remain deeply embedded in decimating the welfare state and pillaging public treasuries led by a narrow elite of bankers and serial swindlers.

Conclusion

As Washington and the prostitute press hail their ‘new managers’ in Latin America, the celebration is abruptly given way to mass rage over corruption and demands for a shift to the political left.

In Brazil, “President” Temer rushes to implement big business measures, as his time in office is limited to weeks not months. His time out of jail is nearing a deadline. His cabinet of ‘technocrats’ prepare their luggage to follow.

Maurico Macri may survive a wave of strikes and protests and finish the year in office. But the plunging economy and pillage of the treasury is leading business to bankruptcy, the middle class to empty bank accounts and the dispossessed to spontaneous mass upheavals.

Washington’s new managers in Latin America cannot cope with an unruly citizenry and a failing free market economy.

Coups have been tried and work for grabbing power but do not establish effective rulership. Political shift to the right are gyrating out of Washington’s orbit and find no new counter-balance in the break-up of the European Union.

Vassal capitalist takeovers in Latin America generated publicist anesthesia and Wall Street euphoria; only to be rudely shocked to reality by economic pathologies.

Washington and Wall Street and their Latin America managers sought a false reality of unrestrained profits and pillaged wealth. The reality principle now forces them to recognize that their failures are inducing rage today and uprisings tomorrow.

All NATO leaders will meet together at a crucial July 8th-9thSummit meeting in Warsaw, to agree regarding what to do to Russia, about which U.S. General Philip Breedlove, then the Supreme Commander of NATO, said earlier this year “Russia has chosen to be an adversary and poses a long-term existential threat to the United States and to our European allies and partners.” The main purpose of this meeting will be to achieve unity on the Russian problem. It will be difficult to do. The 28 member nations are not, and have not been, unified on the matter. The U.S. is seeking a more aggressive stand.

Did you know that in 2004, the U.S. itself had already crossed the nuclear red line against Russia, by nuclear missiles right on Russia’s border, even worse than, in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet dictatorship had threatened to cross America’s nuclear red line, by the Soviets’ plan at that time to place nuclear missiles there 90 miles from the U.S. border? And did you know that, finally, in 2016, Russia is being surrounded so hostilely by the U.S., that their President Vladimir Putin is now issuing vague threats that Russia will strike before the U.S.? (The second side to launch its missiles will likely receive the lesser amount of damage in the resulting nuclear exchange — who strikes first will largely determine the ‘winner’ of any WW III.)

Instead of the U.S. government’s and press’s “Duck and cover!” and build-your-bombshelters campaigns in 1962, the people who are terrified this time around are actually the Russians; but, would you know about this widespread fear in Russia, from the ‘reporting’ in the U.S. ’news’ media? It’s not being reported. And it won’t be the topic at NATO, because NATO is the alliance against Russia, not against America.

The international aristocracy, which own more than half of the world’s wealth, own especially the newsmedia, and so the facts that they’re the most inclined to hide from their public (besides how untrustworthy they are), are the facts that are the most important to hide by the international corporations (including corporations such as Lockheed Martin), which also are owned by them, and which advertise the most in the newsmedia. Thus, foreign affairs is the topic that receives the most-distorted, the most propagandistic, ‘news’ coverage of all, in fake ‘democracies’ such as today’s U.S.

America’s hyper-aggressive foreign policy is not actually designed to protect the American public (such as the ‘Defense’ Department and its millions of military contractors say), but to further enrich America’s billionaires, by conquering the world’s most-resource-rich nation, Russia(starting by ousting foreign leaders who are friendly toward Russia, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddaffi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar al-Assad), as a consequence of which ‘domino-war’ against Russia, the only international poll that was ever done on the question of “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?” produced the remarkable and little-publicized finding, that overwhelmingly the nation which is considered worldwide to be the most dangerous of all, is the United States.

This was an open-ended question, and the 67,806 global respondents who answered it, named many different countries as being the “greatest threat,” but the clear #1 there was the U.S., named by 24%; #2 was Pakistan, named by 8%; #3 was China, named by 6% — and the nation that U.S. President Barack Obama identifies as being the world’s most dangerous country, Russia, was #12 on that list, with only 2% of global respondents naming it. Is this because the foreign press are underplaying how aggressive Russia is? Or is it instead because the U.S. press are overplaying how peaceful the U.S. is, and arealso overplaying how aggressive Russia is?

Back in early 1990, when the last President of the Soviet Union and the first President of the post-Soviet independent nation of Russia, Mikhail Gorbachev, was negotiating, with the representatives of U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, the terms for the USSR and its military alliance of the Warsaw Pact to come to an end (the supposed end of the Cold War, which ended only on Russia’s side, but actually continued on and has now become a hot war against Russia on the U.S. side), Gorbachev was assured that NATO would not move “one inch to the east”, and so Gorbachev thought that the U.S. was satisfied that communism and the Warsaw Pact would be terminating, and that the U.S. would therefore henceforth cease its “Cold War” against the now-rump, remaining, post-Soviet nation, Russia, and there would really be peace between the two countries, at last. That’s why Gorbachev agreed to do it — to end the Cold War. But as soon as he committed himself, Bush told his people not to follow through on the promise that they all had just made on Bush’s behalf. Bringing his agents together privately at Camp David on 24-25 February 1990, Bush told his people, “To hell with that! We prevailed, they didn’t.” They followed through on that instruction from him, even though it made liars of them all.

And, Bush’s successor Bill Clinton followed through likewise on that double-cross of Gorbachev, by ending Clinton’s own Presidency with admitting Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland, into NATO, in 1999 (at around the same time as he was ending FDR’s AFDC protections of poor children, and FDR’s Glass-Steagall protections of the public taxpayers so they wouldn’t be charged to reimburse Wall Street gambling-losses in the event of an economic crash (such as did occur in 2008) — Clinton became the anti-FDR ‘Democratic’ President). But that NATO act of Clinton didn’t cross Russia’s nuclear red line, it only caused then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s military to draft a policy saying that if the Baltic republics — Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, right on Russia’s border and under ten minutes missile-striking time away from Moscow — were ever to become admitted into NATO, Russia should launch its missiles (not wait for the U.S. to do so first, from so nearby, which would eliminate Russia’s missiles faster than Russia’s missiles could even be launched at all).

On 29 March 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush crossed the Russian military’s nuclear red line, by admitting into NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Bush the son was at that time crossing Russia’s red line — and then some.

Here is an account (translated from the Russian) that a highly respected Russian journalist, Aleksandr Lyasko, provided, regarding what Russian President Yeltsin’s military, in the Fall of 1995 (after Clinton started the process of admitting his three nations into NATO), had advised Yeltsin to be established as Russia’s nuclear red line that must not be crossed by NATO (the U.S.):

The military department’s next sensational idea involves dramatic action in connection with NATO’s expansion. As regards Poland and the other countries of Eastern Europe, Russia is currently unable to stop this process by force. However, the plan [“I learned from reliable sources that some time ago the General Staff completed its formulation of a version of Russia’s new defense doctrine”] presupposes that if NATO agrees to admit the Baltic Republics [right on Russia’s border: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania], Russian Federation armed forces will immediately be moved into Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Any attempt by NATO to stop this will be viewed by Russia as the prelude to a nuclear world catastrophe. …

According to the high-ranking General Staff officer, the preliminary outlines of the defense doctrine formulated by General Grachev’s department have been cautiously approved by the minister himself and his first deputy and constitute the military’s response to the lack of any consistent policy by the Foreign Ministry and presidential structures on questions of military security. According to some of Grachev’s statements following his talks with Yeltsin in Sochi, the army is ready to begin erecting a nuclear shield over the besieged fortress, which is how it sees Russia. … The authors of the draft by no means lack allies in the Duma and within the Kremlin Walls.

That report had the additional imprimatur of its having been cited as an authority on Russian policy, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, a key (and passionately anti-Russian) foreign-policy advisor to U.S. Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama. (Brzezinski’s family, when he was a boy, were Polish nobility who became dispossessed by the Russians, and he hated Russians ever after.)

However, Vladimir Putin was now the Russian President who needed to make the final decision as to whether to launch World War III. He decided not to. That’s why we’re all here today, even reading this. But NATO says that Russia is the problem.

U.S. President Barack Obama came into office in 2009 with no clear indication that he was intending to intensify Russia’s isolation, by removing from office even more of the few remaining Russia-friendly leaders of nations. Just like Clinton had waited till his second term before making clear his actual conservatism, Obama had gone so far as to mock his 2012 re-election opponent Mitt Romney for having said, during the 2012 campaign, about “Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe. They – they fight every cause for the world’s worst actors. … Russia is the – the geopolitical foe.”

Romney said this after having heard from Wolf Blitzer on CNN, that Obama had just then privately told Putin’s agent Dmitry Medvedev, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.” Obama told Putin (via Medvedev) this in the context of Putin’s objections against the continued expansions of NATO, and against the threat, by several recent U.S. Presidents, to position in those NATO nations a U.S. missile system that would be able to neutralize or eliminate Russia’s ability to strike back against a blitz nuclear attack from the U.S.: it’s called the anti ballistic missile or ballistic missile defense (ABM or BMD) system. Obama was privately telling Putin: Don’t worry, we’re not trying to conquer Russia.

Obama fooled everyone (not only his voters). Actually, at that very moment, Obama was already well into his plan to remove from power the Russia-allied leader of Syria, Bashar al-Assad, and was very soon to organize, starting by no later than 1 March 2013 in the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych — whose country has the longest border with Russia of any European country (and which country has been called by Brzezinski the most important steppingstone to defeating Russia).

And then, when Obama carried out his Ukrainian coup in February 2014 (almost a year after his starting to organize the coup in the U.S. Embassy there), Putin responded to that by allowing the people of Crimea — who had voted nearly 80% for the man Obama had just overthrown — to re-enter as being part of Russia, of which Crimea had been a part until the Soviet dictator in 1954 transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine.

For Putin’s doing this, Obama slapped economic sanctions against Russia, and then sicced the NATO dogs against Russia, by quadrupling U.S. weapons and soldiers on Russia’s borders, in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania, and by starting the installation of the “Aegis Ashore” ABM/BMD system, which Putin had warned Obama not to install.

Now, after the coup in Ukraine, the approval-rating of the post-coup President is even lower than the approval-rating of the pre-coup one was (and even lower than that if the separatist regions, Crimea and Donbass — both of which had voted heavily for the President whom Obama overthrew — had been included in the polling: those regions would have given Obama’s Ukrainian government a near-0% approval-rating).

The global poll that had asked people “Which country do you think is the greatest threat to peace in the world today?” and that found 24% of people worldwide were saying the U.S. was, had been taken only months before the coup in Ukraine; and, in Ukraine, 33% said “U.S.” and only 5% said “Russia.” The massive bloodshed there after Obama’s coupcan only be confirming Ukrainians’ opinion. But America’s ‘news’ media blame it on Russia.

And that’s the Russian problem, which NATO will be meeting to resolve.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

With the media in a frenzy in the wake of the Brexit vote, one aspect of the results that has been utterly overlooked is the impact, or lack thereof, of the campaigning by US President Barack Obama for Britain to remain in the EU.  And while the results of the referendum will have far-reaching ramifications in Britain – the immigrant community has already seen a nearly 60% increase in racist attacks and abuse reported – perhaps one of the most significant in terms of international politics is the realization of just how ineffectual the US president is in swaying public opinion on the other side of the Atlantic.

But the larger implication is that the US as a political force is not the public relations superpower it once was.  Moreover, the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has demonstrated time and again that phrases such as “cooperation” and “European partnership” are merely hollow expressions of propaganda, rather than genuine descriptions of mutually respectful relations.  Indeed, what is clear is that the US establishment, regardless of which wing of the single corporate party is in power, is less interested in relationship-building than it is in dictatorship-building; accept US diktats…or else.

US Threatens Others – What Else Is New?

When Obama visited Britain in April he delivered a quite harshly worded warning to the British people: remain in the EU or suffer the consequences.  Specifically, Obama threatened that if Britain were to leave the EU it would find itself on the wrong end of trade deals, thereby negatively impacting the British economy.  Obama grandiosely proclaimed:

I think it’s fair to say that maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done…The UK is going to be in the back of the queue.

The overt threat of the US punishing the UK for voting the wrong way is par for the course when it comes to what could loosely be described as “diplomacy” by the US political establishment. Indeed, threats seem to be one of the few means by w

hich Washington is able to get its allies in Europe to fall in line with US policy.

This fact is perhaps best illustrated by the sanctions imposed by the European Union against Russia in the wake of the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s support for the rebels of Donetsk and Lugansk.  It is no secret that the sanctions were imposed, and subsequently extended, against Russia thanks in large part to arm-twisting by the Obama administration which sought to use the sanctions as an economic and psychological weapon against Russia in hopes of punishing Russian President Putin and his circle of advisers, and of course the Russian people more generally.

As White House spokesperson Josh Earnest explained to reporters in 2015:

My understanding is that the plan is for the President, when he goes to Europe, is to have a discussion with fellow European leaders about the need to extend the sanctions regime that’s currently in place… there are a number of steps involved in that process, and this will be part of the conversation — frankly, a wide-ranging discussion that the President will have with his G7 counterparts…the longer that the sanctions are in place, the more of an economic bite they take out of the Russian economy and the more pressure is applied to President Putin and the more President Putin and the country that he leads becomes isolated.

The obvious implication of Earnest’s wordy statement is that Obama was going to Europe to convince, coax, and cajole key European leaders of the need to sabotage their own economic cooperation with Russia as a means of punishing the country or, to put in more realist terms, to please Washington by displeasing Moscow.

And, despite talking points from the US and Europe to the contrary, the EU sanctions on Russia have indeed hurt the European economy and clearly go against its own interests.  According to an independent 2015 studycarried out by the Austrian Institute of Economic Research (WIFO), and commissioned by newspapers in the Leading European Newspaper Alliance – with involvement from Tribune de Genève (Switzerland), Le Figaro (France), El Pais (Spain), and Die Welt (Germany) – the sanctions against Russia would cost Europe up to €100 billion in economic development and jeopardize up to 2.5 million jobs.

In fact, the sanctions have been so divisive in Europe that earlier this year EU foreign ministers were in sharp disagreement over the need for extending the sanctions further.  As has been the case since the sanctions were first imposed, the states closest in relations with the US were the most hawkish on the need for continued sanctions, while other influential countries were more inclined to drop the sanctions and move forward.

Of particular note has been the position of Germany which has at once supported sanctions and the reasoning behind them, and simultaneously inked contracts with Russia for the construction of a new Nord Stream pipeline to bring Russian energy to Germany’s all important industrial sector.  Naturally, a number of European leaders have mused openly about why their economies should suffer while Europe’s economic engine in Germany manages to continue humming along, reaping the benefits of economic cooperation with Russia. The answer is not hard to figure: Washington demands it.

But as the realization of Obama’s inability to impact the Brexit vote sets in, many might be left wondering why they’re still listening to the US at all.  It must be said that millions of Britons were of course in favor of remaining in the EU, though it is an open question whether the remonstrations from the US President had any impact on their decision.

Ultimately, the Brexit vote was more about British politics, nativism, the political co-location of the far right and far left, discontent among the working class, and a number of other factors.  But for those of us who yearn to see a more equitable distribution of power globally, we cannot help but notice that despite all the threats from the White House, Wall Street, and the media organs of institutional power, Britain is leaving the EU.  Maybe it’s time Washington took seriously the notion that its allies are equal partners, not junior ones.

On July 6, longtime Clinton crime family ally Attorney General Loretta Lynch unsurprisingly made it official.

Following FBI director James Comey’s failure to acknowledge Hillary’s email criminality serious enough to send ordinary people to prison, she issued a statement, saying:

“I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation.”

Hillary is home free – except in the court of public opinion and to what extent Trump and other Republicans intend making her criminality and untrustworthiness major campaign issues. Much exists to exploit.

For now, she and husband Bill remain unaccountable for high crimes against peace, supporting predatory capitalism and neoliberal harshness harming millions, as well as racketeering through their Clinton Foundation – using it as a money-laundering, influence-peddling, self-enrichment racket, besides serious Hillary email security breaches.

It doesn’t matter as long as she and husband Bill remain untouchable, things rigged to protect them, the way it is for all current and former top US officials.

If ordinary people committed any of their offenses, indictment, prosecution and imprisonment would follow.

High crimes by top government and favored business officials go unpunished – one system for America’s privileged, another for everyone else, making a mockery of justice.

The prospect of a second Clinton co-presidency should scare everyone. Maybe they’ll be emboldened to destroy planet earth for their own self-aggrandizement and enrichment.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Before the signing of the Iran nuclear deal last year, BBC’s defense correspondent, Mark Urban, published a report [1] that Pakistan’s military has made a clandestine deal with Saudi Arabia that in the event of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, Pakistan would provide ready-made nuclear warheads along with delivery systems to Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, it should be remembered that Pakistan’s military and Saudi Arabia have very deep and institutionalized links: thousands of Pakistani retired and serving army officers work on deputations in the Gulf states; furthermore, during the ‘80s Saudi Arabia lacked an efficient intelligence set-up, and Pakistan’s ISI virtually played the role of Saudi Arabia’s foreign intelligence service

Additionally, in the recent years Pakistan’s defense production industry, with Chinese assistance, has emerged as one of the most sophisticated military-industrial complex in the region. Not only does it provides state-of-the-art conventional weapons to the oil-rich Gulf States, but according to a May 2014 AFP report [2], Pakistan-made weapons were also used in large quantities in the Sri Lankan Northern Offensive of 2008-09 against the Tamil Tigers.

Notwithstanding, from the massacres in Bangladesh in 1971 to the training and arming of jihadists during the Soviet-Afghan war throughout the ‘80s and ‘90s, and then launching ill-conceived military operations in Pakistan’s tribal areas under American pressure, which led to the displacement of millions of Pashtun tribesmen, the single biggest issue in Pakistan has been the interference of army in politics. Unless we are able to establish civilian supremacy in Pakistan, it would become a rogue state which will pose a threat to the regional peace and its own citizenry.

Regarding the Kashmir dispute, there can be no two views that the right of self-determination of Kashmiris must be respected; and I am also of the opinion that Pakistan should lend its moral, political and diplomatic support to the Kashmiri cause; but at the same time I am strongly against the militarization of any dispute, not just Kashmir.

The insurgency in Kashmir erupted in the fateful year of 1984 of the Orwellian fame; when the Indian armed forces surreptitiously occupied the whole of Siachen glacier, including the undemarcated Pakistani portion. Now we must keep the context in mind: those were the heydays of the Cold War and the Pakistan military’s proxies, the Afghan so-called “Mujahideen” (freedom fighters) were winning battle after battle against the Red Army, and the morale of the Pakistan army’s top brass was touching the sky.

Moreover, Pakistan’s national security establishment also wanted to inflict damage to the Indian armed forces to exact revenge for their humiliation in the Bangladesh War of 1971, when India took 90,000 Pakistani soldiers as prisoners of war. All they had to do was to divert a fraction of their Afghan jihadist proxies towards Kashmir to light the fires of insurgency in Kashmir.

Here we must keep in mind, however, that an insurgency cannot succeed anywhere, unless the insurgents get some level of support from the local population. For example: if a hostile force tries to foment insurgency in Punjab, they wouldn’t succeed; because Punjabis don’t have any grievances against Pakistan. On the other hand, if an adversary tries to incite insurgency in the marginalized province of Balochistan and tribal areas, they will succeed because the local Baloch and Pashtun population has grievances against the heavy-handedness of Pakistan’s military.

Therefore, to put the blame squarely on the Pakistani side for the Kashmir conflict would be unfair. Firstly, India treacherously incorporated the princely State of Jammu and Kashmir into the Dominion of India in 1947, knowing fully well that Kashmir had an overwhelming Muslim majority and in accordance with the “Partition Principle” it should have become a part of Pakistan.

Even now, if someone tries to instigate an insurgency in the Pakistani part of Kashmir, I believe, that they wouldn’t succeed; because Kashmiri Muslims identify with Pakistan. The Indian-occupied Kashmir has seen many waves for independence since 1947, but not a single voice has been raised for independence in the Pakistani part of Kashmir in our 68 years long history.

Secondly, India re-ignited the conflict by occupying the strategically-placed Siachen glacier in 1984. Pakistan’s stance on Kashmir has been quite flexible and it has floated numerous proposals to resolve the conflict. But India is now the new regional henchman of the US and also the strategic partner of the latter against China; that’s why, India’s stance, not just on Kashmir but on all issues, has been quite rigid and haughty nowadays; because it is negotiating from a position of strength. However, diplomacy aside, the real victims of this intransigence and hubris on both sides have been the Kashmiri people and a lot of innocent blood has been spilled for no good reason.

Coming back to the topic, for the half of its 68 years long history Pakistan was directly ruled by the army and for the remaining half the security establishment kept dictating Pakistan’s foreign and security policy from behind the scenes. The outcome of the first martial law (1958-71) was that Bengalis were marginalized and alienated to an extent that it led to the dismemberment of Pakistan; during the second decade-long martial law (1977-88) our so-called “saviors” trained and armed their own nemesis, the Afghan and Kashmiri jihadists; and during the third martial law (1999-2008) they made a volte-face under American pressure and declared a war against their erstwhile proxy jihadists that lit the fires of insurgency in the tribal areas of Pakistan.

Although, many liberal political commentators in Pakistan nowadays hold an Islamist general, Zia-ul-Haq, responsible for the jihadist militancy in our tribal areas; however, it would be erroneous to assume that nurturing militancy in Pakistan was the doing of an individual scapegoat named Zia; all the army chiefs after Zia’s assassination, including Aslam Beg, Asif Nawaz, Waheed Kakar, Jahangir Karamat and right up to General Musharraf, upheld the same military doctrine of using jihadist proxies to destabilize the hostile neighboring countries, like Afghanistan, India and Iran, throughout the ‘90s. A strategic rethink in the Pakistan Army’s top brass took place only after 9/11, when Richard Armitage threatened General Musharraf in so many words: “We will send you back to the Stone Age.”

Thus, the deliberate promotion of Islamic radicalism and militancy in the region was not the doing of an individual general; rather, it was the well-thought-out military doctrine of a rogue institution. The military mindset, training and institutional logic dictates a militarist and offensive approach to the foreign and domestic affairs. Therefore, as a matter of principle the khakis must be kept miles away from the top decision-making organs of the state.

Regardless, the annual budgetary allocation for defense roughly amounts to a quarter of the federal budget, but Pakistan army also operates its own business empire: from myriads of industries like Fauji Fertilizers and Askari bank and cement to the most lucrative real estate business carried out by the Defense Housing Authority (DHA). All the major cities of Pakistan are dotted with numerous sprawling military cantonments and DHA’s housing colonies for the officers of the Pakistan armed forces.

The profits earned from this business empire are not included in the aforementioned budgetary allocation. Apart from that, Pakistan army has also been getting $1.2 billion every year from the American Coalition Support Fund for the last decade or so, for its partnership with the US in the latter’s dubious “war on terror” policy. If we add up all that, our East India Company really is an unaffordable white elephant. And I don’t mean East India Company in a metaphorical sense; they literally are Pakistan’s indigenous colonizers.

The army officers have their own separate barricaded housing colonies and cantonments where the natives aren’t allowed to enter. They operate their own network of schools, colleges and universities for the children of the army officers. They also run their own hospitals like the Combined Military Hospitals in all the major cities of Pakistan. The British colonizers in India also established separate housing colonies and cantonments, missionary schools and hospitals. In more than one ways Pakistan army is like the British East India Company.

Finally, the rule of law, more than anything, implies the supremacy of the law: that is, all the institutions must work within the ambit of the constitution. The first casualty of the martial law, however, is constitution itself, because it abrogates the supreme law of the land. All other laws derive their authority from the constitution, and when the constitution itself has been abrogated then only one law prevails: the law of the jungle. If the armed forces of a country are entitled to abrogate “a piece of paper,” known as the constitution under the barrel of a gun, then by the same logic thieves and robbers are also entitled to question the legitimacy of civil and criminal codes, which derive their authority from the constitution.

It’s high time that all the political forces and civil society of Pakistan present a united front against the foreign and as well as the domestic enemies. Pakistan armed forces are the friends of Pakistan within their constitutionally-ordained limits, but outside of those limits they are the worst enemies of Pakistan. Determining the domestic and foreign policy of Pakistan is the sole prerogative of Pakistan’s elected representatives; and anyone who thinks that they can redefine the national interest to suit their personal ambition, or institutional interests, is a traitor who shall be judged harshly by the history.

Sources and links:

[1] Saudi nuclear weapons ‘on order’ from Pakistan: BBC’s defense correspondent, Mark Urban.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24823846

[2] Pakistan-made arms were used against Tamils in Sri Lanka:
http://newsweekpakistan.com/the-war-that-wasnt-live/

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and MENA regions, neocolonialism and Petroimperialism.

The key question about the result of the June 26 Spanish general election is also the most difficult to answer: why did 1.09 million people – who in the December 20 elections voted for the anti-austerity party Podemos, the United Left (IU) and the three broader progressive tickets Together We Can (Catalonia), Podemos-Commitment (Valencian Country) and In Tide (Galicia) – not vote for the combined Podemos-IU ticket (United We Can) and these broader tickets at this poll?

The election recorded a greater vote for the ruling right-wing People’s Party (PP). The social-democratic Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE) also held off the seemingly unstoppable charge of United We Can and its allies toward supplanting it as the leading force of the left.

Nonetheless, the resulting alignment in parliament, although now more favourable to the PP, is still deadlocked. Just as after the December 20 poll – after which the failure to form a government led to the June 26 replay – no majority is readily available.

A PSOE-United We Can or PSOE-Citizens government (Citizens being a newer “hipster” right-wing party) is more unlikely than ever. However, a PP-led government cannot be formed without either the PSOE or Citizens breaking election campaign commitments not to support it. PSOE said it would not support a PP government on any condition, while Citizens said it would refuse to support a government led by PP’s acting-prime minister Mariano Rajoy.

Five Plus One = Five

In December, the total vote for Podemos plus IU and the broader tickets was just under 6.14 million: on June 26 the same forces could only muster 5.05 million votes. Their percentage score fell from 24.36% to 21.1%. The seats won by these forces remained unchanged at 71. But the combining of the December Podemos and IU vote into a single result should have harvested an extra 17 seats (under the Spanish system of uneven-sized multi-member electorates). In effect, United We Can lost 17 seats.

The disappearance of these million-plus left votes was also the most important factor in determining the overall result of June 26. It meant, firstly, that the overall left-right balance of the all-Spanish parties shifted to the right. The PP’s 7.868 million votes (33.03%) plus the 3.107 million votes (13.05%) for Citizens gave them 10.975 million in total (46.08%) and 169 seats in the 350-seat Spanish parliament.

By contrast, the total broad left vote (PSOE, United We Can, and its allied coalitions) was 10.432 million (43.78% and 156 seats).

Secondly, it meant that the PP-PSOE traditional two-party duopoly, wounded but not destroyed in December 20, recovered a little. The vote for the old parties rose from 50.71% to 55.69%. For new parties (United We Can plus the broader convergences plus Citizens) fell from 38.3% to 34.15%.

Thirdly, it meant that United We Can and its allies fell well short of overtaking the PSOE, both in votes and seats. If the missing million-plus had supported United We Can, the biased Spanish electoral system would still have given the IU-Podemos ticket 88 seats for its 6.14 million votes as against the PSOE’s final result of 85 seats for 5.403 million votes. As it was, the PSOE, despite its own loss of five seats, ended up with 14 more seats than United We Can and its allies.

The vote for nationalist parties (left, centre and right) fell slightly, from 7.03% to 6.94% (down 113,000 votes). This reflects that most socially conservative voters in Catalonia prefer the PP over the Catalan right-nationalist Democratic Convergence of Catalonia (CDC).

In total, the seats held by Basque, Catalan and Canary Island nationalist parties fell from 26 to 25. The right-nationalist Basque Nationalist Party (PNV), ruling in the Spanish Basque Country, lost a seat to United We Can.

The all-party right-left balance (including nationalist forces) is now 52% to 48%. If CDC – in open warfare with the all-Spanish right over Catalonia’s right to decide – is excluded, the right-left balance is 50.9% to 49.1%. If the PNV is also excluded the result is 50.2% to 49.8%.

However, this balance has moved against the right in Catalonia. Left forces supporting a Catalan right to decide – Together We Can plus the Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) – now account for 42.68% of the vote, up from 40.7% on December 20.

This totally unexpected result went against all opinion and exit poll forecasts. Their average over the final fortnight of polling predicted 25.4% for United We Can (4.3% more than its actual result), while the PP vote was supposed to stay stuck on 28.7% (4.3% less than its actual result). Only the forecasts for the PSOE and Citizens were roughly accurate (within a percentage point).

The ‘Useful Vote’

The election campaign was, in essence, a referendum on whether Spain wanted a United We Can-led government of the left. The PP, PSOE and Citizens were in furious competition as to who could put the “No” case most vehemently.

The PP, presenting itself as the only reliable bastion against chaos and extremism, easily won that contest. Its vote rose from 28.72% to 33.03% as it took seats from both Citizens (down eight) and the PSOE (down five). It picked up seats in its long-standing heartland regions Castilla-La Mancha and Castilla y Leon. But its vote also rose in three regions where corruption had been rampant under its administrations – the Valencian Country, the Madrid region and Galicia.

In each of these regions, where progressive “councils for change” have been in power in their capitols since May last year, the PP regained two seats. It also picked up seats from the PSOE in the PSOE heartlands Andalusia and Extremadura, as well as in the Canary Islands and Catalonia.

After December 20, the PP was the lead party in 39 of Spain’s 52 electoral districts: now it is the lead party in 42, having overtaken the PSOE as the lead party in Andalusia and Extremadura.

Clearly, hundreds of thousands of voters who had flirted with Citizens and the PSOE on December 20 felt that the serious work of turning back the “red menace” was best entrusted to the experienced PP professionals directly, descended from Franco’s fascist dictatorship.

The biggest victim of the fearful tide of return to the PP was Citizens – seven of the eight seats it lost were taken from it in PP strongholds. This outcome gives an insight into the mentality of the PP support base. The party is mired in endemic corruption and permanent scandals. Its lead candidate in Catalonia (acting attorney-general Jorge Fernandez Diaz) was revealed days before the election to have conspired with the Catalan anti-fraud commissioner to get dirt on Catalan pro-independence political leaders.

The result? If “reds” and “secessionists” have to be stopped, we will reward the PP with a higher vote, irrespective of other factors. In Catalonia, the PP vote went up from 11.12% to 13.36% – 44,300 voters added their support to the party of what is now being called “Fernandezgate.”

PSOE: Win with Setbacks

The PP’s other victim was the PSOE. The Spanish social democracy tried its best to perform as more anti-Podemos than the PP, especially in Andalusia and Extremadura. But voters frightened by the thought of a United We Can-led government unsurprisingly rejected the PSOE’s low alcohol anti-communism in favour of the PP’s stronger original brew.

The PSOE’s election message was that it would never accept being a junior partner in a United We Can-led government, yet was totally evasive as to what it would accept. This ambiguity was successful to the extent that it contributed to demoralizing potential United We Can voters and robbing United We Can of momentum.

However, the gain came at a cost. The PSOE lost six seats and gained one, a net loss of five representing 120,000 fewer votes. Five of its lost seats went to the PP and one to United We Can (in Sevilla), while its one gain came from United We Can (in Madrid).

As a result, the gap between the PSOE and the PP widened from 33 seats to 42. It is no longer lead party in any of Spain’s 17 autonomous communities (states). The PSOE’s lead over the forces to its left has also closed, from 19 seats to 14.

However, notwithstanding these setbacks, the PSOE won its key battle on June 26. It prevented United We Can from overtaking and putting it in a subordinate position on the left – and potentially on a path to irrelevance like that of its Greek sister-party PASOK. Its war for left hegemony with United We Can now continues – most probably in opposition to a PP-led government.

Left Setbacks

So why did 1.09 million voters decide that this time, United We Can was not for them? The size of the failure of its campaign can be seen from these figures:

• In 10 of the 52 electoral districts, the vote for United We Can was less than the vote for Podemos alone on December 20. This trend was most marked in the Canary Islands, but also appeared in PP strongholds like Murcia and parts of Castilla y León.
  In addition, the inclusion of the Valencian affiliate of IU in the Podemos-Commitment coalition and of More For Mallorca in United We Can on the Balearic Islands failed to bring any rise in the vote in those regions.
• In only four provinces did the United We Can vote exceed the combined December 20 vote of Podemos and IU – examples of the positive gain from unity that had been hoped for across the entire Spanish state. They were the Basque provinces of Alaba, Biskaia and Gipuskoa and in the autonomous community of Navarra.
  The rise of Podemos in these Spanish Basque regions looks like a special phenomenon: finally the hundreds of thousands who identify as Basque and are socially progressive but are not necessarily pro-independence, have a party they can vote for as an alternative to the right nationalism of the PNV, the pro-independence left EH Bildu and the Spanish-centralist PP and PSOE.
• United We Can and the broader coalitions were the leading party in only five of the 52 electoral districts – two in Catalonia and three in the Spanish Basque Country. They came second in seven, third in 33, and fourth, behind Citizens, in seven.
• The regional results of United We Can and the allied convergences fell well below poll predictions, even where the actual result was acceptable. For example, Together We Can was regularly predicted to win 15 seats in Catalonia, but only managed to repeat its existing score of 12, losing 81,000 votes in the process. United We Can was down to win as many as 14 seats in Andalusia, but only managed to increase its tally by one, from 10 to 11.

Discussion Raging

So what went wrong? That discussion is already raging inside Podemos, IU, and the left as a whole. It is generating such heat that on June 28, Pablo Iglesias, Podemos general secretary and United We Can lead candidate, called for restraint from various leading figures who had already gone public with their views on the disaster.

They included Monica Oltra, deputy-premier of the Valencian Country and leader of Commitment, (who blamed the alliance with IU for alienating middle-of-the-road voters), Podemos founder Juan Carlos Monedero (who blamed the United We Can election campaign run by Podemos number two Inigo Errejon), and Open Left leader Gaspar Llamazares (who had always opposed the union with Podemos from within IU).

IU leader Alberto Garzon joined Iglesias in the call to avoid “a war of organizations and knifings,” insisting that “if we had run separately, the result would have been much worse.” Garzon also claimed that IU voters as a whole remained loyal to the joint list on June 26, with the implication that most desertions had come from the Podemos side.

The fact of the matter is that only a very thorough and detailed investigation of the many possible reasons for the vote fall can get discussion beyond what is now no more than an exchange of pet – or directly interested – theories. On the Politikon web site on June 28, Jorge Galindo, researcher at the University of Geneva, tried to outline some plausible hypotheses and the sort of evidence needed to prove or disprove them.

Galindo’s provisional explanations (not mutually exclusive) for the failure of United We Can to overtake the PSOE included:

• Brexit? “For the moment, it does not appear to be a basic factor,” especially as Europe was not a central issue in the campaign and there was no reflection of a Brexit concern in the last days of polling;
• The alienation of the middle-of-the-road voter? A possible explanation, especially as it is at the centre of the debate within Podemos over “transversality” – its appeal across different social groups.

However, it is important to remember that the vote for the broader coalitions (which include both Podemos and IU regional affiliates) fell by only 165,600, while that of United We Can compared to the joint Podemos-IU vote in December fell by 924,200. The regions in which the vote rose (Basque Country, Navarra) or fell least (Catalonia, Valencia, Galicia), are those where the national question is important.

It would seem that there was no trouble attracting the middle-of-the-road voter in these regions as opposed to those where Spanish-patriotic sentiment is stronger. Does that mean United We Can should have soft-pedalled its support for national self-determination in the Castilian heartlands?

• Low loyalty level of IU voters? It is postulated that some traditional IU voters felt resentment at what they are supposed to have felt as the “absorption” of IU by Podemos. There may be something in this, as it seems to have been reflected enough in PSOE internal polling for its leader Pedro Sanchez to devote a slab of one speech in praise of the Communist Party of Spain (PCE) – a key part of IU.

Anecdotal polling station evidence also suggests a lower turnout in some traditional IU districts, like working-class Madrid suburbs (where United We Can lost two seats compared to the Podemos-IU in December). But the numbers involved are not large enough for it to be the major contributing factor.

• Punishment for internal Podemos conflict and failure of negotiations over government? The final result on June 26 was closer to the joint rating of Podemos and IU in March. At the time, Podemos was suffering internal divisions leading its national organizational secretary to be sacked and was being portrayed in the establishment media as perversely blocking the formation of a Citizens-PSOE government.
  In this scenario, the momentum given by the creation of United We Can would have saved Podemos and IU from an even worse result;
• Failure of the election campaign to mobilize membership? While the United We Can rallies were by far the biggest and most enthusiastic of all contending parties, the question being asked is whether the style of the campaign – largely unaggressive and feel-good – was what was needed in the face of the relentless hostility of the PP and PSOE.
  Did it lead to a lack of enthusiasm among Podemos and IU members (especially the young) and feed into tendencies to abstention created by the long months of frustrating and inconsequential haggle over government?
• Failure to build a new base of support beyond the addition of existing Podemos and IU voters? In one sense this is blindingly obvious – United We Can could not even hold onto existing Podemos and IU support.
  In another, it points to the core problem in an election atmosphere of outright warfare: the campaign’s failure to project a convincing alternative to the economic, social and institutional programs of the PP and PSOE – even though the shared 50 point United We Can platform certainly contained the elements of that program.

Conclusion

The sensation of relentless advance and success associated with Podemos has been punctured, even while the forces involved in United We Can and the broader coalitions maintain their important presence in the Spanish parliament. The entire left to the left of the PSOE – after having known only rising electoral success since the May 2014 elections for the European parliament – now faces a demanding challenge of diagnosis and correction. A reflection of that pressure is the increasingly heard call for Podemos to bring forward its next congress (“citizens’ assembly”) to October.

What happened on June 26 was that United We Can lost the “referendum” on whether enough people in the Spanish state wanted it to lead a left government – not enough trusted that it could or that such a government would not be problematic. The decline in popularity of Iglesias feels like a sort of rough indicator of this distrust.

On June 28, Garzon produced a sober balance sheet of the election in a letter to IU members in which he reaffirmed his support for the coalition with Podemos and connected analysis of the election results with the general tasks of the left:

“The new abstention, those who didn’t bother to vote on this occasion but did do so in December, practically coincides with the voters lost by the coalition.

“It is not clear whether this electorate was already lost before the formation of UP – owing to the frustration about the negotiations over forming government – or whether it deserted after. But it certainly seems clear that we have not succeeded in convincing all our voters of the historic moment our country is passing through…”

Noting that the crisis in Europe had not generated right populism in Spain, and that “we have in great part succeeded in explaining the crisis in terms of the ideological framework of the left,” Garzon added:

“Without doubt any electoral convergence is insufficient and powerless without these two other elements: the ability to create a world view different to that of the oligarchy’s and a people’s movement that plays the role of protagonist…

“Hegemony isn’t a concept referring to the ability to sell a product on the electoral market, but more correctly the ability to spread an alternative social and cultural conception of the world, and for that reason anchored in the daily life of the popular classes.”

An indispensable part of consolidating that hegemony will be creating the conviction that an alternative left government is possible and prepared: such will be the basic challenge of United We Can’s next election campaign.

As more detailed evidence comes to light as to what really happened between December and June, another important lesson will surely be increasingly drawn: that if the electoral coalitions that have attracted the votes of millions are to advance against the increasingly rabid neoliberal right, they will need to work hard at transforming themselves into organizations capable of organizing, educating and mobilizing the people who have placed such great hope in them. •

Dick Nichols is based in Barcelona as European correspondent for Green Left Weekly, where this article first appeared.

Crimes Against Peace: The Chilcot Inquiry, Tony Blair and Iraq

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 07 2016

Britain is in political turmoil, but even prior to that, there was that old problem of why Her Majesty’s government went to war in a disastrous conflict that had no immediate, security related grounds. The reasons for invading Iraq were more ideological than scientific, more evangelical than rational.

From Winston Churchill to Tony Blair: How British Leaders Destroyed Iraq for over a Century

By Garikai Chengu, July 07 2016

After seven years, the Chilcot report has delivered a damning verdict on Tony Blair’s role in the war on Iraq, but British Prime Ministers playing a destructive role in Iraq is a centuries old practice. Britain has used its military might and commercial prowess to subjugate Iraq and control its oil resources for over one hundred years.

Chilcot Report Postmortems: No Nuremberg-Style War Crimes Followup?

By Stephen Lendman, July 07 2016

According to Chilcot, “no imminent threat” justified war on Iraq, his conclusions saying: “(T)he UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

The Truth About Chilcot. The Inquiry, Who’s Who?

By Craig Murray, July 07 2016

The death toll from the horrific recent Iraq bombings has risen over 250. If Blair had not been absolutely determined to attack Iraq on the basis of a knowing lie about WMD, they would be alive now, along with millions of other dead. ISIS would never have taken control of territory in Iraq and Syria.

Invasion of Iraq, The Secret Downing Street Memo: “Intelligence and Facts were being Fixed”

By Global Research News, July 07 2016

Chilcot and Tony Blair. What we have known for 11 years. First published by GR, May 2005  This secret UK government memo (which can be considered as the minutes of a meeting with Prime Minister Tony Blair on July 23, 2002) was leaked and first published by the London Times on May 1, 2005. It was posted on Global Research on May 8, 2005.

Yesterday night a premium congress hall in Kiev, Ukrainian House – Centre of National Idea, hosted a massive “installation”, dedicated to 75th anniversary of proclamation of the “Act of Restoration of the Ukrainian State”. The event,designed by the Organization of the Ukrainian Nationalists, was attended by a number of politicians, autocephalous “Ukrainian church” clerics, media, Maidan activists and “war veterans”. The “installation” was titled “The will of Ukrainian people – against Hitler and Stalin” in full accord with the “politically correct” new European reading of the modern history. It was broadcast live in the Internet, but the video is currectly restricted for watching.

A brainwashed TV-viewer would of course be impressed or even moved to tears by revelations of an old Nazi collaborator about “sufferings of the Ukrainian people under despotic Stalin’s boot” and the overall performance. But those who are still in their right mind, would easily recall some contadicting historical facts.

The Act of Restoration of the Ukrainian State was adopted in Lvov (Lviv) on June 30, 1941, days after the city was occupied by the Nazi troops rapidly advancing into the Soviet territory in accordance with the Barbarossa operational plan.  It was announced by Yaroslav Stetsko, then a leader of the Ukrainian nationalists (OUN) on the payroll of Abwehr, and soon published by Nazi propaganda leaflets in occupied Ukraine:

 The edition of “Independent Ukraine” newspaper with the text of the Act, dated July 10, 1941

The full text of the Act is as follows:

1. By the will of the Ukrainian people, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists under the direction of Stepan BANDERA proclaims the formation of the Ukrainian State for which have laid down their heads whole generations of the finest sons of Ukraine.

The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which under the direction of its founder and leader Yevhen KONOVALETS has undertaken in the past ten years a bloody battle with the Moscovite-Bolshevik enslavers in an energetic battle for freedom, calls all the Ukrainian people not to put down its weapons until all Ukrainian lands are united in a Sovereign Ukrainian Government.

The Sovereign Ukrainian Government will guarantee Ukrainian people order, multilateral development of all its energies and all its needs.

2. In the western lands of Ukraine a Ukrainian Government is formed, which is subordinate to the Ukrainian National Government that will be formed in the capital of Ukraine – KIEV.

3. The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its Fuhrer Adolf HITLER which is establishing a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.

The Ukrainian People’s Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will continue to fight with the ALLIED GERMAN ARMY against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign and united State and a new order in the whole world.

Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA.

GLORY TO UKRAINE!

“Long live Adolf Hitler!” – a banner welcoming visitors to a Ukrainian village during occupation.

The marriage of convenience between German Nazis and Ukrainian nationalists was contracted in September 1939, when the leader of the OUN Andriy Melnik visited Berlin and was promised the position of the chief of a new Ukrainian state in the South-East Poland. According to the archive ofAdmiral Canaris, head of German military intelligence service, immediately after invasion in Poland Hitler tasked him to organize a Ukrainian uprising in Poland via his agents in the OUN. Hitler’s idea was to create a string of loyal quasi-states along the Soviet border, namely: “Ukraine” on the territory of Galicia and Volhynia, Polish protectorate and Lithuania. The Soviet archives evidence that Joseph Stalin was promptly informed about these plans and immediately sanctioned his Polish campaign to reinstall dominance over historical Russian lands, annexed by Poland after the WWI.

Late 1939 – early 1941 is the period of intensive training of the OUN underground in the Abwehr camps Zacopane, Krynitsy, Komanchi on the territory of occupied Poland and their subversive actions against the USSR. In February 1941 a head of OUN military wing Richard Yaryi was ordered by Abwehr to train 700 more nationalist fighters. At the same time Stepan Bandera discussed in Berlin with Canaris and von Brauchitsch the issue of establishing an allied to Wehrmacht Ukrainian army. The pioneer battalions, created soon thereafter, were named Roland and Nachtigall. These battalions entered Soviet territory with the first German armies and organized the bloodbaths in Lvov, Ternopol and Ivano-Frankovsk (then Stanislavov) regions.

Nazi propaganda presented the pogroms in Lvov in June 1941, committed by the OUN fighters, as the “acts of revenge to Jewish Bolsheviks”.

On July 7, 1941 the incumbent “head of Ukrainian government” Yaroslav Stetsko wrote to the Foreign Affairs Ministry in Berlin:

As the deputy of Stepan Bandera, leader of the OUN, and acting head of the government, I stand for close cooperation and solid alliance with the Great German State which will guarantee our emancipation from slavery. We understand, appreciate it and well aware that this alliance is decisive for the future path of history and deepening bilateral ties between Germany and Ukrainian people.

Stetsko did not knew that Berlin was never serious about providing a statehood to their Ukrainian stooges. Nazis used OUN nationalists an a cheap cannon-fodder and for propaganda purposes. Once the war against the Soviet Union was started, they neutralized OUN leaders (Bandera was arrested in Berlin on July 5) and disavowed all documents stipulating an “independent Ukrainian state”. The Ukrainian population was only allowed to freely admire German placards on the walls:

Nazi propaganda placard “For the will of people!” on a Kiev’s street, 1941.

The intellectual inability of the European mythboosters to even invent a new motto (please scroll up to refresh the title of yesterday’s installation in Kiev) and dull semi-empty hall of the “Center of National Idea” suggest that the derisive attempts of the nationalists to fabricate a parallel historical reality in Ukraine are destined to fail again.

Justice isn’t blind. It works one way for privileged figures like Clinton, entirely another way for ordinary people.

Media reaction was mixed – despite clear criminality demanding indictment, prosecution and stopping her nomination as Democrat party standard bearer.

US law requires documents and other information pertaining to national security and defense not be removed from their “proper place of custody.”

Nor may they be tampered with, altered, destroyed, concealed, stolen or improperly transmitted.

Pro-Clinton New York Times editors reacted as expected to Comey’s announcement, saying his refusal to recommend criminal charges is “undoubtedly correct.”

Hard facts prove otherwise. Comey passing off her criminality as simply extreme carelessness undermines justice, obstructing it, making him complicit in her law-breaking – things rigged to assure her party nomination and likely November election, a known criminal to succeed Obama.

Washington Post editors agreed with their Times counterparts, calling Comey’s conclusion “sound,” absolving Clinton of crimes too serious to ignore, passing them off as poor judgment.

Los Angeles Times editors concurred, dismissively “hop(ing) that this episode has taught her a lesson about the importance of accountability” – rule of law principles be damned.

Wall Street Journal editors were less forgiving, saying “(o)ne standard exists for a Democratic (sic) candidate for President and another for the hoi polloi.”

(W)hat a depressing moment this is the American rule of law. No wonder so many voters think Washington is rigged for the powerful.

The Chicago Tribune highlighted “(t)he FBI’s damning non-indictment,” saying “(h)ere’s the campaign bumper sticker you won’t see: ‘Clinton in ’16 – Because No Charges Were Recommended.”

Hillary violated State Department rules and US statute laws – serious criminal offenses. “Would Americans trust her as their president,” asked Tribune editors?

Will they choose a known criminal – a neocon hawkish one with her finger on the nuclear trigger, perhaps eager to squeeze it?

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Tony Blair has taken responsibility for the Iraq War but refused to accept that Britain’s toppling of Saddam Hussein could have anything to do with spreading instability in the region.

In a nearly two hour-long news conference, the former prime minister said he still believes he acted in “good faith” and that the decision was the“hardest, most momentous, most agonizing” one he ever took.

The Chilcot report, however, suggests the legal base for the move was “far from satisfactory” and attributes the PM’s decisions to stubbornness.

In his response to the publication of the inquiry into the Iraq War, Blair argued he had to be a “decision maker” as the country’s leader and that in his judgment the world is today “a better place without Saddam Hussein.”

He went as far as to regret that current MPs did not support intervention in Syria in 2013, saying the decision “really dealt a blow” to Britain’s relationship with the US.

But while Tony Blair argued the war was “the right thing to do,” Sir John’s report shows the call for intervention was based on “Mr. Blair’s determination to stand alongside the US.”

And while Blair insists Chilcot proves there was “no secret commitment to war” made during his meeting with George W. Bush in April 2002 in Crawford Texas, the report does show evidence of his continued support for the US president’s own resolutions.

In a 2002 private memo between the two leaders declassified on Wednesday along the Chilcot report, Blair wrote to the US president: “I will be with you, whatever.”

The UN weapons inspectors were at that point still working in Iraq, having failed to find weapons of mass destruction.

Commenting on words exchanged between Blair and Bush at Camp David, US later that year, the Chilcot report adds: “Although at that stage no decision had been taken on which military package might be offered to the US for planning purposes, Mr. Blair also told President Bush that, if it came to war, the UK would take a significant military role.

According to the document, it was also Blair’s idea to link the Afghanistan and Iraq military interventions as part of a wider campaign to prevent terrorism, “although there was no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”

Families of soldiers killed in the Iraq War are planning to pursue legal action against the former prime minister.

US State Department spokesman John Kirby declined to comment when asked about Chilcot report by the Sputnik news agency.

“The Chilcot Committee was an independent body appointed by the Government of the UK. Questions about the inquiry or those who participated should be directed to the Committee,” Kirby said.

The death toll from the horrific recent Iraq bombings has risen over 250. If Blair had not been absolutely determined to attack Iraq on the basis of a knowing lie about WMD, they would be alive now, along with millions of other dead. ISIS would never have taken control of territory in Iraq and Syria. Al Qaeda would never have grown from an organisation of a few hundred to one of tens of thousands. We would not have a completely destabilised Middle East and a massive refugee crisis.

Sir John Chilcot

Member of the Butler Inquiry which whitewashed the fabrication of evidence of Iraqi WMD. The fact is that, beyond doubt, the FCO and SIS knew there were no Iraqi WMD. In the early 1990’s I had headed the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, tasked with monitoring and preventing Iraqi attempts at weapons procurement. In 2002 I was on a course for newly appointed Ambassadors alongside Bill Patey, who was Head of the FCO Department dealing with Iraq. Bill is a fellow Dundee University graduate and is one of the witnesses before the Iraq Inquiry this morning. I suggested to him that the stories we were spreading about Iraqi WMD could not be true. He laughed and said “Of course not Craig, it’s bollocks”. I had too many other conversations to mention over the next few months, with FCO colleagues who knew the WMD scare to be false.

Yet Chilcot was party to a Butler Inquiry conclusion that the Iraqi WMD scare was an “Honest mistake”. That a man involved on a notorious whitewash is assuring us that this will not be one, is bullshit.

Sir Roderick Lyne

A good friend and former jogging partner of Alastair Campbell.

Last time I actually spoke to him we were both Ambassadors and on a British frigate moored on the Neva in St Petersburg. Colleagues may have many words to describe Rod Lyne, some of them complimentary, but “open-minded” is not one of them.

If the Committee were to feel that the Iraq War was a war crime, then Rod Lyne would be accusing himself. As Ambassador to Moscow he was active in trying to mitigate Russian opposition to the War. He personally outlined to the Russian foreign minister the lies on Iraqi WMD. There was never the slightest private indication that Lyne had any misgivings about the war.

From Uzbekistan we always copied Moscow in on our reporting telegrams, for obvious reasons. Lyne responded to my telegrams protesting at the CIA’s use of intelligence from the Uzbek torture chambers, by requesting not to be sent such telegrams.

Sir Lawrence Freedman

Lawrence Freedman is the most appalling choice of all. The patron saint of “Justified” wars of aggression, and exponent of “Wars of Choice” and “Humanitarian Intervention”. He is 100% parti pris.

Here is part of his evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution on 18 January 2006:

The basic idea here is that our armed forces prepared for what we might call wars of necessity, that the country was under an existential threat so if you did not respond to that threat then in some very basic way our vital interests, our way of life, would be threatened, and when you are looking at certain such situations, these are great national occasions. The difficulty we are now facing with wars of choice is that these are discretionary and the government is weighing a number of factors against each other. I mentioned Sierra Leone but Rwanda passed us by, which many people would think was an occasion when it would have been worth getting involved. There was Sudan and a lot of things have been said about Darfur but not much has happened…

…Iraq was a very unusual situation where it was not an ongoing conflict. If we had waited things would not have been that much different in two or three months’ time and so, instead of responding either to aggression by somebody else, as with the Falklands, or to developing humanitarian distress, as in the Balkans, we decided that security considerations for the future demanded immediate action.”

Sir Martin Gilbert (died in course of the Inquiry)

Very right wing historian whose biography of Churchill focussed on Gilbert’s relish for war and was otherwise dull. (Roy Jenkins’ Churchill biography is infinitely better). Gilbert was not only rabidly pro-Iraq War, he actually saw Blair as Churchill.

Although it can easily be argued that George W Bush and Tony Blair face a far lesser challenge than Roosevelt and Churchill did – that the war on terror is not a third world war – they may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill. Their societies are too divided today to deliver a calm judgment, and many of their achievements may be in the future: when Iraq has a stable democracy, with al-Qaeda neutralised, and when Israel and the Palestinian Authority are independent democracies, living side by side in constructive economic cooperation.

Baroness Prashar

A governor of the FCO institution the Ditchley Foundation – of which the Director is Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the UK Ambassador to the UN who presented the lies about Iraqi WMD and was intimately involved in the lead in to war. So very much another cosy foreign policy insider.

So, in short, the committee – all hand-picked by Gordon Brown – could not have been better picked to ensure a whitewash.

Over 50% of the British population were against the Iraq War, including for example many scores of distinguished ex-Ambassadors, many military men and many academics. Yet Brown chose nobody on the Inquiry who had been against the Iraq War, while three out of five were active and open supporters of the war.

Do not expect to see this truth reflected in any of the mainstream media coverage.

The Chilcot report that enquired into Britain’s decision to join US coalition that attacked Iraq which was released today finds that Britain decided to join the 2003 invasion of Iraq based on “flawed intelligence”. John Chilcot, the chair of the Iraq Inquiry said that the invasion went “badly wrong”.

The 2.6 million-word Iraq Inquiry – which took seven years to prepare – was published in full on Wednesday. It can be accessed online.

Chilcot said:

“The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted.” Chilcot said that, despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. Investigators also found the planning and preparations for Iraq after Hussein was overthrown were wholly inadequate, said Chilcot, who had not been asked to rule on the legality of the invasion. “The people of Iraq have suffered greatly,” Chilcot said.

Responding to the report, former Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a press conference on Wednesday that he “accept full responsibility without exception and without excuse” for the decision to go to war in Iraq, but insisted that the world “is in a better place without Saddam Hussein”.

He said,

the decision to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power in a coalition of over 40 countries led by the USA, was the hardest, most momentous, most agonising decision I took in 10 years as British prime minister.

For that decision today I accept full responsibility, without exception and without excuse. I recognise the division felt by many in our country over the war and in particular I feel deeply and sincerely – in a way that no words can properly convey – the grief and suffering of those who lost ones they loved in Iraq, whether the members of our armed forces, the armed forces of other nations, or Iraqis.

The intelligence assessments made at the time of going to war turned out to be wrong. The aftermath turned out to be more hostile, protracted and bloody than ever we imagined. The coalition planned for one set of ground facts and encountered another, and a nation whose people we wanted to set free and secure from the evil of Saddam, became instead victim to sectarian terrorism.

For all of this I express more sorrow, regret and apology than you may ever know or can believe..

Joshua Rozenberg writing for The Guardian opined:

Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry has not, in his words, “expressed a view on whether military action [in Iraq] was legal”. That question, he said, could be resolved only by a court. Still less does his report deal with the question of whether Tony Blair or others should face legal action.

These are highlights of the report

Military action

The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before all peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort

Military action might have been necessary later, but in March 2003, it said, there was no imminent threat from the then Iraq leader Saddam Hussein, the strategy of containment could have been adapted and continued for some time and the majority of the Security Council supported continuing UN inspections and monitoring

On 28 July 2002, the then Prime Minister Tony Blair assured US President George W Bush he would be with him “whatever”. But in the letter, he pointed out that a US coalition for military action would need: Progress on the Middle East peace process, UN authority and a shift in public opinion in the UK, Europe, and among Arab leaders

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Judgements about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction – or WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified
Intelligence had “not established beyond doubt” that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons

The Joint Intelligence Committee said Iraq has “continued to produce chemical and biological agents” and there had been “recent production”. It said Iraq had the means to deliver chemical and biological weapons. But it did not say that Iraq had continued to produce weapons

Policy on the Iraq invasion was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been

The legal case

The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were “far from satisfactory”

The invasion began on 20 March 2003 but not until 13 March did then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith advise there was, on balance, a secure legal basis for military action. Apart from No 10’s response to his letter on 14 March, no formal record was made of that decision and the precise grounds on which it was made remain unclear

The UK’s actions undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council: The UN’s Charter puts responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security in the Security Council. The UK government was claiming to act on behalf of the international community “to uphold the authority of the Security Council”. But it knew it did not have a majority supporting its actions

In Cabinet, there was little questioning of Lord Goldsmith about his advice and no substantive discussion of the legal issues recorded

Iraq’s aftermath

Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were “wholly inadequate”

The government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than one million were displaced

FBI Director Comey’s announcement that he doesn’t think Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted for sharing government documents on her private, unsecured email server is very troubling …

The FBI Re-Wrote 6 Criminal Laws to Let Clinton Off the Hook

Former FBI director Chris Swecker said Comey should have brought charges against Clinton:

He seemed to be building a case for that and he laid out what I thought were the elements under the gross negligence aspect of it, so I was very surprised at the end when he said that there was a recommendation of no prosecution and also given the fact-based nature of this and the statement that no reasonable prosecutor would entertain prosecution, I don’t think that’s the standard.

Andrew McCarthy – former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, who led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others, obtaining convictions for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing – notes:

In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence. I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed. It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed. The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged. Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged. It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today. It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States. Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information. I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me. Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Shannen Coffin – who served in senior legal positions in the U.S. Department of Justice – writes:

Comey simply ignored — or rewrote — the plain language of § 793(f), which does not require any showing of criminal intent. There is a reason that Congress did not require a showing of intent in this provision of the Espionage Act: to protect against even inadvertent disclosure or risk of disclosure of protected information where the perpetrator demonstrated gross disregard for the national security. How Comey could conclude that “no reasonable prosecutor” could make this case is inexplicable in light of his own words.

Even where the statutes prohibiting mishandling of classified information require intent, it is not exclusively intent to harm the national security (though that does play into some relevant statutes). Comey noted that his investigation looked at “a second statute, making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.” That statute is 18 U.S.C. §1924(a), which provides that any federal official who “becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, [and] knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both [emphasis added].” Section 1924(a) does not require an intent to profit, to harm the United States, or otherwise to act in a manner disloyal to the United States. It only requires “intent to retain” classified documents at an unauthorized location, something Comey’s own comments suggest was the case here. Again, the case for prosecuting in light of these facts was more than simply fairly debatable it was quite strong.

Indeed, the FBI rewrote 6 criminal laws in announcing that Clinton shouldn’t be prosecuted.

Prosecutors HAVE Indicted For MUCH LESS

Less than a year ago, the FBI prosecuted a naval reservist for  “unauthorized removal & retention of classified materials” … without any showing of malicious intent.

NSA whistleblower Kirk Wiebe told Washington’s Blog today:

I felt that the flame of “equal justice for all” in the US died today when Hillary is freed from prosecution having sent multiple, highly classified emails on a non-classified network, while [CIA whistleblower] Jeffery Sterling sits in jail having been prosecuted for contacting a reporter, and while [NSA whistleblowers] Ed Loomis, Bill Binney, Diane Roark, Tom Drake and I have our clearances suspended or revoked for simply blowing the whistle on non-Constitutional governmental activities, mismanagement, and widespread corruption.

John Kirakou – former CIA counterterrorism operations officer and former senior investigator for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who blew the whistle on illegal torture by CIA officers, and was thrown in jail for it – points out:

In my very first hearing, my judge … said that she would not respect precedent from the Tom Drake case, saying that a defendant in a national security case had to have criminal intent to be prosecuted for espionage. That begged the question of whether a defendant could then “accidentally” commit espionage. “That’s exactly what it means,” the judge said. I didn’t stand a chance.

But in Hillary Clinton’s case, it seems that everything rests on the notion of criminal intent. Did Hillary, then, set up her email server specifically to subvert the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)? Did she set up her email server for the express purpose of passing classified information to people not entitled to receive it? … But that’s not the standard ….

***

I don’t care whether or not she had criminal intent. My own trial judge says that it doesn’t matter. But if Hillary didn’t have criminal intent, and that’s the reason the Justice Department uses to not prosecute her, then Tom Drake and I, at the very least, deserve a pardon. Otherwise, the system really is as corrupt as so many Americans say it is.

Kirakou also points out:

She revealed the names of undercover CIA officers by using her unclassified and unprotected personal email server. That may be a violation both of the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities Act of 1982 (IIPA).

Bill Binney – the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history – tells Washington’s Blog that Clinton and her staff took “the most sensitive intelligence … out of classified [NSA] reports and put excerpts in opensource on her server,”  and notes that the damage to U.S. intelligence is tremendous. And see this.

Clinton’s Security Clearance Should Be Revoked …

Diane Roark – a former top staff member on the House Intelligence Committee – explained to Washington’s Blog why Clinton should be disqualified from serving as president:

Though nothing was found against any of us [high-level whistleblowers on mass surveillance by the NSA] after an investigation of over four years, and [Pulitzer prize-winning] reporter Risen even said publicly several times that he had not known any of us, our clearances were never returned. Obviously one cannot be POTUS without clearances, so Hillary should be disqualified on that ground alone. Though the President is the chief intel consumer, I would think agencies would withhold particularly sensitive items given her clear subordination of security to the goal of keeping her records private so she cannot be criticized and to enhance her political career.

NEVER BEFORE Has the FBI Publicized Its Recommendation

Former FBI Assistant Director Chris Swecker said:

I’ve been involved in the criminal investigation for the FBI of Congressmen, Senators, and officials of every description …. I cannot ever remember any FBI director – or any FBI official – coming out with a referral and the substance of a recommendation. So that it in itself is highly, highly unusual.

Alex Emmons notes:

Matthew Miller, who was a spokesman for the Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder, called Comey’s press conference an “absolutely unprecedented, appalling, and a flagrant violation of Justice Department regulations.” He told The Intercept: “The thing that’s so damaging about this is that the Department of Justice is supposed to reach conclusions and put them in court filings. There’s a certain amount of due process there.”

Legal experts could not recall another time that the FBI had made its recommendation so publicly.

“It’s not unusual for the FBI to take a strong positions on whether charges should be brought in a case,” said University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck. “The unusual part is publicizing it.”

The Rule of Law Is Dead In America

Bill Binney – the highest-level NSA whistleblower in history – told Washington’s Blog:

This shows our non existing justice system.

CIA whistleblower Kirakou notes:

Comey’s decision reflects the utter hypocrisy of the justice system in matters of national security.

***

If you are a whistleblower you can expect the entire weight of the US government to fall on your head. But if you are a well-connected political figure, or a friend of the president, you can violate the country’s espionage laws with impunity and know that you’ll get away with it.

Former top U.S. intelligence officials recently noted:

The contrast between the copious evidence – some of it self-admitted – of Secretary Clinton’s demonstrable infractions, on the one hand, and the very sketchy, circumstantial evidence used to convict and imprison Jeffrey Sterling, on the other, lend weight to the suspicion that there is one law for the rich and powerful in the United States and another for the rest of us.

NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake said a year ago:

I think [Clinton] is vulnerable, but whether she enjoys what I call “elite immunity,” we don’t know …. For much lesser violations people have lost their jobs. But when you get to the higher ranks, it’s like another set of rules.

Glenn Greenwald writes:

What happened here is glaringly obvious. It is the tawdry by-product of a criminal justice mentality in which – as I documented in my 2011 book With Liberty and Justice for Some – those who wield the greatest political and economic power are virtually exempt from the rule of law even when they commit the most egregious crimes, while only those who are powerless and marginalized are harshly punished, often for the most trivial transgressions.

Had someone who was obscure and unimportant and powerless done what Hillary Clinton did – recklessly and secretly install a shoddy home server and worked with Top Secret information on it, then outright lied to the public about it when they were caught – they would have been criminally charged long ago, with little fuss or objection. But Hillary Clinton is the opposite of unimportant. She’s the multi-millionaire former First Lady, Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, supported by virtually the entire political, financial and media establishment to be the next President, arguably the only person standing between Donald Trump and the White House.

Like the Wall Street tycoons whose systemic fraud triggered the 2008 global financial crisis, and like the military and political officials who instituted a worldwide regime of torture, Hillary Clinton is too important to be treated the same as everyone else under the law. “Felony charges appear to be reserved for people of the lowest ranks. Everyone else who does it either doesn’t get charged or gets charged with a misdemeanor,” Virginia defense attorney Edward MacMahon told Politico last year about secrecy prosecutions. Washington defense attorney Abbe Lowell has similarly denounced the “profound double standard” governing how the Obama DOJ prosecutes secrecy cases: “lower-level employees are prosecuted . . . because they are easy targets and lack the resources and political connections to fight back.”

The fact that Clinton is who she is undoubtedly what caused the FBI to accord her the massive benefit of the doubt when assessing her motives, when finding nothing that was – in the words of Comey – “clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice.”

But a system that accords treatment based on who someone is, rather than what they’ve done, is the opposite of one conducted under the rule of law.

Indeed, there are two systems of justice in America … one for the fatcats … and one for everyone else.

After all, the government protects criminal wrongdoing by prosecuting whistleblowers. The Obama administration has sentenced whistleblowers to dozens of times the jail time of all other presidents COMBINED). And the government has framed whistleblowers with false evidence.

And yet the government goes to great lengths to protect the elites against charges of criminal wrongdoing.

As former prosecutor (and Clinton supporter) Chuck Hobbs puts it:

With Comey indicating that over 100 emails analyzed by his agents contained some level of classified information, and with him further indicating that Clinton used her private servers in areas where “hostile actors” could have easily accessed her account, as a former prosecutor, I would think that a prosecution should be forthcoming; such would be the logical conclusion considering the facts that Clinton agreed not to break the law and that she broke the law either knowingly or negligently.

Comey’s comments constitute a form of legal sophistry in that prosecutors did not need to prove that Clinton intended to commit a criminal act. Comey and staunch Clinton apologists keep providing cover by adding that element — intent — that simply is not needed. Indeed, under federal and state laws, negligence roughly means an “indifference” or careless attitude toward the proscribed conduct and with Comey calling the conduct “extremely careless,” an argument can be made that Clinton was grossly negligent in her acts.

But the fact that no prosecution is pending this day is so not because Clinton was right or has been vindicated, but because the Washington elites in both major political parties protect their own. Generally, I am not prone to conspiracy theories, but I do not find it coincidental that last week, former President Bill Clinton just happened to force a meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch — in private — on an airport tarmac in Arizona only days before Lynch’s employee, James Comey, announces his recommendation that no charges should be pursued. Or that on the same day that Comey announces his decision, that his big boss — President Obama — just happens to be campaigning with Clinton in Charlotte, North Carolina.

But even if each of the above were coincidental, we cannot ignore that any other career Foreign Service officer or governmental official with security clearances would have been charged with a criminal offense, fired or both. Most would have faced arrest and indictment by federal agents and prosecutors, not a public press conference where the head of the FBI makes arguments usually proffered by defense counsel that has been retained at great expense by the accused. If for no other reason, this is disconcerting because the only thing that keeps our nation of laws intact is belief that no person is above the law. But since the two major parties’ presumptive candidates — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump — both have skeletons in their closets, ranging from public corruption to marital assault, and with neither ever having had to endure a peregrination through the justice system at any point in their adult lives, it becomes more obvious than ever that the rich and powerful seem to know instinctively that when accused of wrongdoing, absolutely nothing will come of it, no matter how serious the allegations.

On June 27th, I reported Hillary Clinton’s having privately told GMO industry lobbyists, on 25 June 2014, that the federal government should subsidize GMO firms in order to enable them to buy “insurance against risk,” and that without such federal subsidies, “this [insurance] is going to be an increasing challenge” for the industry to afford. I also reported that, in an interview she did immediately afterward with the GMO industry’s lobbying organization’s (the Biotechnology Industry Organization’s, or BIO’s) head, she compared the opponents of GMOs to the opponents of action in response to global warming; she said, in effect, that both environmental groups are ignoramuses who don’t know what scientists are saying about both the ’safety’ of GMOs and the dangers of global warming.

At the time when I wrote this news report (it was still news, even a year after the speech was given), the 15 June 2016 article in FORTUNE magazine, “Can Monsanto Save the Planet?” hadn’t yet come to my attention, but it importantly supplements the news that I had just reported, and so I now supplement the article I previously wrote on this.

The FORTUNE article argued that Monsanto is the world’s champion of environmentalism, by enabling the planet to provide food to an expanding population even as the planet will be getting hotter and hotter. It said that Monsanto, and other GMO firms, are the only hope for a planet that’s burning up. The FORTUNE article also assumed, as did Hillary Clinton’s presentation to GMO lobbyists and to their chief, the equal validity of the 97% of global warming scientists who believe that human-caused global warming is real, and of the GMO-corporate-funded bio-‘scientists’ who allege that GMOs have been proven to be safe long-term for human consumption and for the environment.

As regards the claim that the GMO-corporate funded ‘research’ proving GMOs to be safe is valid, there are many independently funded studies that have found GMOs not to be safe, and also not to be environmentally friendly. Funding of independent research on the question is sparse, but I tracked down the claimed main source of the funding of that meta-study (study of studies), and found it to be the Isvara Foundation, which seems to me likely to be independent of the GMO producers. Here is a summary of what that meta-study found: It found, for example, that, “A review that is claimed by pro-GMO lobbyists to show that 1,700 studies show GM foods are safe, in fact shows nothing of the sort. Instead many of the 1,700 studies cited show evidence of risk. The review also excludes or glosses over important scientific controversies over GMO safety issues. (p. 102),” and, “A review purportedly showing that GM foods are safe on the basis of long-term animal studies in fact shows evidence of risk and uses unscientific double standards to reach a conclusion that is not justified by the data. (p. 161).”

There is no comparison between the actual scientific consensus that global warming is real and man-made, and the phony ‘scientific’ ‘consensus’ that GMOs are safe. (And there’s more on that, and more.) Hillary Clinton, and the lobbyists know this, they can’t be so stupid as not to know, but they are paid to lie about it. The industry pays both them and their politicians (such as Clinton) to do this. (And Clinton wants to go even farther and have taxpayers help to fund the GMO firms, thus to subsidize those firms’ stockholders.)

Is it merely by coincidence that the puff-piece for the GMO industry (in the person of its main corporation, Monsanto) in FORTUNE magazine, and the secret statements that Hillary Clinton made at one of her $225,000+ speeches to (and interviews with) lobbying organizations, are almost carbon copies of each other?

You’ll have to decide that for yourself. But other voters won’t even be able to, because they read the standard ’news’ media, which hide such facts. (For example, the 27 June news report I did was rejected by virtually all newsmedia.) So, please pass along to other voters this news report, which is the third report that I’ve done about the only one of Hillary Clinton’s 91 speeches to lobbying organizations and to international corporations, which managed to have leaked out from behind her embargo against making public any of her corporate-funded speeches, for which she has received in total more than $21 million paid to her own account, not including any additional payments to her political campaign. Voters might think that Ms. Clinton ‘believes’ one way about an issue, when in fact she has actually been bought to impose as the future U.S. President the exact opposite. Her record shows: in public office, she does what her backers want, not what her voters might prefer. Ever since at least 1993, when she did what the HMO industry bought the Clintons to do in drawing up their healthcare plan (which plan the health insurers opposed strongly and successfully defeated), Hillary and Bill have both been on the take, being liberals or even ‘progressives’, who believe that their actual constituency is their paymasters — not their voters. They are similar to Barack Obama in this regard, no different — and no different from George W. Bush, and his father. (As regards Trump, he has no record at all in public office, so we can’t yet really know.)

And that’s why she continues to hide the transcripts and videos of her 91 corporate-paid speeches. But fortunately, the one speech she made to the GMO-producers, slipped away from her total control.

And the article in FORTUNE provides some evidence that the propaganda-campaign for the GMO industry is coordinated by their lobbying organization, the BIO, so that both one of their politicians, and one of their magazines, are singing the same song, even if different lyrics from it.

“The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, more likely, are politically motivated. To be clear, there is absolutely no merit to these claims and, based on our investigation, no evidence that the person who has made these allegations actually exists.” – Alan Garten, corporate attorney for Donald Trump, April 28, 2016

The federal lawsuit, titled Katie Johnson v. Donald J. Trump and Jeffrey E. Epstein, accuses Trump and Epstein of rape and other sexual assaults during the summer of 1994, when plaintiff was 13 years old. Attorney Garten denied the accusations and cast doubt on the existence of the plaintiff.

Attorney Garten’s denial of rape claims against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein dates from April 2016, when the case was filed by a “Katie Johnson,” a possible pseudonym, on April 26 in U.S. District Court in Riverdale, California (home of plaintiff). The case, apparently filed pro se by the plaintiff, acting without a lawyer, sought $100 million in damages from defendants for, among other things, violating her Civil Rights and “by making her their sex slave.” The case appears to have been first reported online by DailyMail.com, which included Garten’s denial as well as a sampling of the lurid details of the allegations. Other early coverage appears to have been limited to other online news sites including RADAR online, Winning Democrats, Sunday Express, AntiMedia.org, and NYDailyNews.com.

Less than a week after the case was filed under federal Civil Rights statutes, a federal judge ruled that it was a mistake and dismissed the case. On May 2, citing the Civil Rights basis of the suit, the judge wrote: “Even construing the … pleading liberally, Plaintiff has not alleged any race-based or class-based animus against her, and consequently, her … allegations fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” The dismissal received even less coverage than the filing. RADAR online reported: “Judge Trashes Bogus Donald Trump Rape Lawsuit,” even though the judge had ruled only on the terms of the filing, not on any of the substance of the case as “bogus” or otherwise. Once dismissed, however, the case was over, at least for the moment. Plaintiff could have re-filed the complaint in correct form in California. Instead she apparently found a lawyer to file for her in New York, the home state of both defendants.

On June 20, seven weeks after the California dismissal, New Jersey attorney Thomas Francis Meagher filed the same case in revised form in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New Yorkon behalf of plaintiff “Jane Doe, proceeding under a pseudonym” and seeking a jury trial. The filing is titled:

“Complaint for rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and defamation”

The complaint outlines central issues in the case succinctly:

“Plaintiff was subject to acts of rape, sexual misconduct, criminal sexual acts, sexual abuse, forcible touching, assault, battery, intentional and reckless infliction of emotional distress, duress, false imprisonment, and threats of death and/or serious bodily injury by the Defendants that took place at several parties during the summer months of 1994. The parties were held by Defendant Epstein at a New York City residence that was being used by Defendant Epstein at 9 E. 71st St. in Manhattan [known as the Wexler Mansion]. During this period, Plaintiff was a minor of age 13….”

According to the complaint: Plaintiff Jane Doe came to New York in the spring of 1994 in hope of starting a modeling career. Professionally unprepared, she had little success and was headed home when she met Tiffany Doe, another pseudonym, who worked for Epstein from 1990 to 2000, recruiting young women to attend his parties and entertain his guests. Tiffany Doe, age 26 in 1994, promised Jane Doe that she would be paid to attend these parties at which she would meet people who could help her start her modeling career. Jane Doe attended at least four of Epstein’s parties at which she interacted with both Trump and Epstein sexually, as described graphically in the complaint and in attached affidavits of the two women. Tiffany Doe, in her affidavit, says she was a witness to the events described by Jane Doe. To compensate for this treatment, Jane Doe seeks unspecified “special damages, compensatory damages, and punitive damages” (previously requested $100 million).

The complaint makes several other requests of the court that have not yet been acted on:

• To proceed anonymously – where Jane Doe’s privacy outweighs any public interest and does not prejudice defendants.
• To waive any statute of limitations – on the basis that Defendants’ threats to harm plaintiff and/or her family effectively deprived plaintiff of the freedom to file her complaint earlier.
• To issue a protective order – to protect plaintiff “from harm and harassment from Defendants and their agents and associates.”
• To find that Defendants have defamed Jane Doe – in particular in attorney Garten’s April 28 statement (quoted above) because it “is libelous on its face, and clearly exposes Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy.”

Defendants have not yet filed a response to the June 20 claim in court. Nor has there apparently been any public response from Attorney Garten, the Trump campaign, Epstein, or others associated with Defendants. While it remains possible that this version of the case may be dismissed like the California filing, the New York version has already survived twice as long, with less pushback from Trump representatives, and with some hints of more serious media attention (as well as satiric exposure on Redacted Tonight June 24).

Trump rape case has strange context, proving nothing, but … 

The first, fundamental question about this case is whether it’s credible, and the metaphorical jury is still out on that. But we’re looking at Trump rape allegations in the aftermath of the Bill Cosby multi-scandal, which serves as a caution for anyone wanting to rush to judgment. And with Trump, there’s already a context in in sharp contrast with what we thought about Cosby before we knew about Cosby.

Trump’s co-defendant, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, is a convicted sex offender who has served jail time, after pleading guilty to reduced charges. Yes, that’s guilt-by-association, but there’s little doubt that their association was lengthy and cordial. According to the Mirror.com:

Trump’s co-accused, Epstein, who was once a close friend of the Duke of York, pleaded guilty to two [Florida] state charges of soliciting a minor for prostitution and soliciting prostitution. He served 13 months after being sentenced in 2008.

Investigators suspected the former New York financier of abusing 34 underage girls but lawyers failed to charge him or any of his “co-conspirators” and instead offered him a secret plea bargain.

Epstein has dubiously defended himself by telling the N.Y. Post in 2011: “I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender.’ It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel…. The crime that was supposedly committed in Florida is not a crime in New York.” The court has ruled that Epstein is a Level 3 offender, the highest level, who is a “high risk” to repeat his offense and “a threat to public safety.” Before his plea bargain, Epstein faced 10 years in prison on charges of statutory rape. He served 13 months. Now the Daily Beast is arguing (June 30) that “billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein” is a political time bomb “who could bring down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.”

Trump has recently downplayed and minimized his relationship with Epstein, who once taught rich teenagers at the posh Dalton School in New York. A New York Magazine profile of Epstein in 2014 presented a different perspective:

Epstein likes to tell people that he’s a loner, a man who’s never touched alcohol or drugs, and one whose nightlife is far from energetic. And yet if you talk to Donald Trump, a different Epstein emerges. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump booms from a speakerphone. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

There’s also at least one other Trump sex case, dating from 1997 and reported on by Law Newz in February 2016. On April 25, 1997, Jill Harth, then in her early thirties, filed for $125 million in damages caused by Trump’s alleged sexual assaults (short of rape). She said that Trump told her he “would be the best lover you ever had.” At the time, her husband and Trump were in a breach-of contract dispute. Trump denied Harth’s claims, but she withdrew her suit after Trump settled his dispute with her husband. The record of the case has been sealed, but the detailed 12-page complaint offers a lurid portrait of Trump behavior. Harth has been ambiguous about the case recently, telling Law Newz in February: “Everything could be looked at in different way…. I have nothing but good things to say about Donald.” At about the same time, Harth told the Guardian that she stands by her allegations against Trump in the 1997 lawsuit.

That’s more or less what Trump’s ex-wife Ivana says now, too, though she accused him of raping her in 1989. A Trump spokesman said at one point, “You cannot rape your spouse,” although it’s illegal in 50 states. Ivana Trump made the allegation in a sworn deposition that was reported in 1993 in “Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump,” by Harry Hurt III, who wrote that Ivana told friends that Donald “raped me.” But Trump had that covered, according to the Mirror:

Before Lost Tycoon was printed, Trump and his lawyers provided a statement from Ivana, published beneath the allegation of rape. It read: “During a deposition given by me in connection with my matrimonial case, I stated that my husband had raped me. I wish to say that on one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness which he normally exhibited toward me, was absent. I referred to this as a “rape,” but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense. Any contrary conclusion would be an incorrect and most unfortunate interpretation of my statement which I do not want to be interpreted in a speculative fashion and I do not want the press or media to misconstrue any of the facts set forth above. All I wish is for this matter to be put to rest.

Will the Trump rape lawsuit gain significant media traction? 

Since the June 20 filing in New York there has been some increase in considered coverage of the accusations against Trump, but the story remains a sideshow with little traction in early July. Snopes.com looked at the case (June 23) broadly but inconclusively and without new insight.

“Yes, Donald Trump was accused of raping a 13 year old, but this lawsuit has little chance of succeeding,” argued Law Newz on June 21, the day after the New York filing. Reporter Rachel Stockman noted that electronic summonses have been sent to co-defendants Trump and Epstein, but she devoted most of her article to speculative arguments that the lawsuit will fail, apparently reflecting the views of Trump’s attorney Alan Garten, who “is threatening to file for sanctions against [Attorney] Meagher if he even proceeds with the lawsuit.” Meagher was unavailable for comment. Calling the allegations “unequivocally false” and “politically motivated,” Garten told Law Newz: “I don’t know of any attorney — in this country worthy of being admitted by any bar — who would sign legal papers — attesting to such outrageous facts.”

The National Review (June 21) also minimizes the prospects for Jane Doe’s case, saying falsely that it is “without any sort of supporting evidence.” National Review omits, or suppresses, the eyewitness affidavit that confirms Jane Doe’s claims and is part of the June 20 filing. Able to exonerate Trump by denying evidence that exists, National Review’s defense is also circumstantially weak:

As a thrice-married admitted adulterer, Trump’s history doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in this area, from bragging about bedding married women to his comments to Howard Stern about watching Paris Hilton’s sex tape to his weird habit of commenting on the sex appeal of his own daughter to embracing convicted rapist Mike Tyson to defending Bill Clinton himself in his sex scandals in the 1990s, just to pick a few examples.

“Why the New Child Rape Case Filed Against Donald Trump Should Not Be Ignored” was the headline on attorney and NBC News analyst Lisa Bloom’s piece at the Huffington Post (June 29). Bloom wrote: “The mainstream media ignored the [June 20] filing. If the Bill Cosby case has taught us anything, it is to not disregard rape cases against famous men. Serious journalists have publicly apologized for turning a blind eye to the Cosby accusers for over a decade….”

Bloom outlined three factors that justify a closer examination of Trump’s behavior. First there is his ongoing disrespect for women including Rosie O’Donnell, Arianna Huffington, Bette Midler, and Megyn Kelly. “Decades of abusive language does not make him a rapist. But it does show us who the man is: a callous, meanspirited misogynist who no sane person would leave alone with her daughter,” Bloom wrote. A second factor that adds credibility to Jane Doe’s claim is the pattern suggested by Trump’s behavior with his ex-wife Ivana and his dealings with Jill Harth (both discussed above). Bloom reinforced Harth’s credibility:

Recently Donald Trump issued a statement that women’s claims of sexual harassment, documented in a lengthy New York Times investigation (May 15) which included Ms. Harth’s lawsuit, were “made up.” Jill Harth responded angrily on Twitter last week: “My part was true. I didn’t talk. As usual you opened your big mouth.” In other words, she is standing by her story.

The third factor adding credibility to the allegations against Trump, Bloom argued, was the internal consistency of Jane Doe’s complaint as well as its correspondence to verifiable facts outside the case. After analyzing Jane Doe’s complaint, her affidavit, and her witness affidavit – “it is exceedingly rare for a sexual assault victim to have a witness” – Bloom concluded:

… based on the record thus far, Jane Doe’s claims appear credible. Mr. Epstein’s own sexual crimes and parties with underage girls are well documented, as is Mr. Trump’s relationship with him two decades ago in New York City…. Powerfully, Jane Doe appears to have an eyewitnessto all aspects of her claim, a witness who appears to have put herself in substantial danger by coming forward, because at a minimum Mr. Epstein knows her true identity.

Bloom is almost alone in saying Jane Doe’s “claims merit sober consideration and investigation.” The Intercept (June 30) explores Trump’s frequent rhetorical use of rape imagery – the Trans-Pacific Partnership is “a rape of our country” – and wonders if he really understands what rape is. While the Intercept refers to Bloom’s article, it does not call for further examination of Trump’s actions, providing an ironic illustration of Bloom’s closing argument: “What do you call a nation that refuses even to look at sexual assault claims against a man seeking to lead the free world? Rape culture.”

Any court trial of Jane Doe’s claims, if there ever is one, will be much further in the future than the next presidential election. President Clinton’s ugly sexual history offers a stark warning to victims as to just how hard it is to get a fair hearing against sexual predators at the pinnacle of American power. Clinton’s abiding popularity is a measure of the extent to which the U.S. is a rape culture. Even if the child rape charges against Trump were proved beyond a reasonable doubt tomorrow, there’s no assurance that would hurt him in the polls.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Britain is in political turmoil, but even prior to that, there was that old problem of why Her Majesty’s government went to war in a disastrous conflict that had no immediate, security related grounds. The reasons for invading Iraq were more ideological than scientific, more evangelical than rational.

One of the greater evangelists in this mission of folly was former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Britain may well have been in search of a role after empire, and here it was by way of redux, a traditional stomping ground in the Middle East.  The hope was also personal. Ego, and the desperate sense of purchasing goodwill in Washington, seemed to preoccupy Blair.

The result of going into Iraq in a fit of moral outrage and strategic bravado was disastrous. Actually, it was more than disastrous. Virtually every murderous spin off in the Middle East has its provenance in the disturbances of the Coalition of the bungling willing in 2003.

That war suggested much about what was wrong with the Anglosphere, with its various satraps and misguided assumptions.  The United States was charging into a bloody engagement hoping its not too questioning followers, the UK and Australia, would join in. They were right, with Blair giving a pre-determined commitment of British forces on July 28, 2002, a good deal prior to the formal Parliamentary vote on whether military intervention against Iraq was warranted.

Sir John Chilcot as Chairman of the Iraq Inquiry was hoping to do much. The inquiry, he hoped, would give us lessons that would “help ensure that, if we face similar situations in future, the government of the day is best equipped to respond to those situations in the most effective manner in the best interests of the country.”[1]

For all of that, the history of this inquiry is characterised by chronic, mind numbing delay.  Britain’s gift to the world was not merely a civil service but one of uncivil disservice when required.  Such pursuits have their own rationale and powers of justification.

While the inquiry’s process has been unsatisfactory, Chilcot’s findings are now the stuff of pure affirmation.[2]  There is noting new in it.  Iraq’s previously sponsored dictator Saddam Hussein posed no immediate threat to Western states in 2003. Peaceful options prior to the use of force, a grave decision in international relations, had not been exhausted.

When the UK Ministry of Defence had committed to the bloody effort, it found itself woefully underprepared. Its inventory was poor, lacking in essential equipment such as armoured patrol vehicles and helicopters.  The use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), the great deliverer of asymmetrical warfare, was not taken seriously.

The rest of the stage for the day was set by Blair’s apologetics.  “The report,” claimed Blair in a statement, “should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies or deceit.” This is standard Blair: muddle the issue, obfuscate the finding.  Regard sorrow and faith as forgivable faults.

Conveniently missed is a vital fact: fanatical, uninformed belief has been the basis of some of history’s most blood sodden decisions. And to say that deception was not part of it is to misread the report, which notes the desire on the part of President George W. Bush and Blair, to invade for reasons of regime change.

Few ever go to wars, legal or otherwise, without faith.  That hardly constitutes grounds for letting planners of the hook.  Crimes against peace, articulated by the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, are arguably the gravest of crimes. Whatever the faulty evidence, the diplomatic option or a continued strategy of containment, none of these mattered with a decision taken well in advance, a common plan of aggression.

Blair did make a feeble attempt to comb through the minute details by way of exoneration.  In an attempt to appease the British public, and his God, he asserts that Chilcot did not find “falsification or improper use of Intelligence (para 876 vol 4).”  He notes the finding that he did not deceive Cabinet (para 953 vol 5) and claims that Chilcot found against a “secret commitment to war whether at Crawford Texas in April 2002 or elsewhere (para 572 onwards vol 1).” There are lies, and then there are lies.

One can sense Blair’s relief that the inquiry did not make a finding on one of the most fundamental points that would make a prosecutor’s brief stick: whether the action to attack Iraq was itself legal.  He makes much hay out of the point of a “finding” by the Attorney-General that there was a lawful basis by March 13, 2003 for possible military action (para 933 vol 5).  On that score, Chilcot could have done much more.

Blair then gives us his reflection about consequences, which sound all too much like a defence before a future criminal tribunal – as well as it might.  He accepts the errors of his administration, treating them like desk job miscalculations, only to then claim that it was perfectly right to remove Saddam.  Forget the “underestimated” consequences, as Chilcot rather blandly calls them.

Furthermore, he continues in his refusal to accept that “the cause of terrorism we see today whether in the Middle East or elsewhere in the world” had anything to do with this adventurous gamble.  Object and belief trumped procedure and execution.  Such reasons are as good any for a formal conviction.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Southeast Asia’s Thailand has been racked by political conflict for now over a decade. During the rise and fall of US-backed political proxy Thaksin Shinawatra, there have been numerous protests and counter-protests, two military coups aimed at dislodging the despot and his deep political and paramilitary networks, and episodes of violence involving heavily armed terrorists deployed by Shinawatra in a bid to cling to power.

During each and every episode of violence, Shinawatra – a convicted criminal and accused mass murderer – and his armed proxies, received various levels of support from his Western backers.

First, they received a virtual media blackout across Western news networks. There is one infamous news broadcast by CNN’s Dan Rivers in which he sets out to find Shinawatra’s armed gunmen, known locally as the “men in black” in an attempt to prove stories of their existence was manufactured by the Thai military as a pretext to crackdown on what he repeatedly referred to as unarmed protesters.

At one point during the broadcast, almost comically, he is forced to take cover as a 40mm grenade strikes nearby, launched by the militants he insinuates didn’t exist.

Similar charades have played out elsewhere around the world – particularly in Syria – where Western news services have played a direct role in concealing the existence, nature, and activities of terrorist groups operating on behalf of Western geopolitical objectives.

Second, the West’s extensive network of alleged “human rights” advocacy groups have been engaged in a politically-motivated, biased campaign to portray Shinawatra and his supporters as victims of human rights abuses, and those attempting restore peace and stability to the country as “human rights violators.”

This became particularly transparent during Thailand’s political crisis when between 2013-2014 hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets to protest and call for the departure of Thaksin Shinawatra’s nepotist appointed sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, from office.

Over the course of 6 months, groups like Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International condemned the protesters for obstructing “democracy.” Worse still, regular violence carried out by Shinawatra’s militants against the protests in an attempt to violently crush dissent was categorically ignored by these same “human rights” advocates.

In total, 20 would die, hundreds more would be maimed during what were almost nightly drive-by shootings, grenade attacks, and assassination attempts resulting in one protest leader’s death. To this day, responsibility has never been assigned to the Shinawatras or their political supporters.

Instead, the military-led government which eventually intervened to end the escalating violence and finally oust the Shinawatras from power, has been condemned continuously for reining in the remnants of Shinawatra’s political and paramilitary organizations.

Most recently, Thailand’s Bangkok Post in an article titled, “Amnesty calls for release of student activists,” would report:

Amnesty International has called on authorities to free a group of 20 activists, mostly students, arrested for political gatherings and distributing “inappropriate reading material” to people last week.

The organisation posted a message on its website, demanding authorities release the protesters.

Amnesty International Senior Research Adviser for Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Champa Patel, wrote on the website: “These crude tactics represent the latest in series of attempts by Thai military authorities to muzzle dissent,” Ms Patel said.

Amnesty fails to mention that these “20 activists” are members of the so-called “New Democracy Movement,” and are in fact directly connected to the ousted regime of Thaksin Shinawatra.

The agitators had gathered to protest an upcoming referendum for a new national charter aimed at further stripping away the unwarranted wealth, power, and influence Shinawatra still wields in the country. Additionally, the agitators are blatantly violating laws put in place regulating both supporters and opponents of the charter, and regulating campaigning for or against the referendum.

Amnesty International, and other organizations that make up the US and Europe’s vast “human rights” racket, have made statements and protested the government of Thailand almost weekly since the coup in 2014. Up to and including the eve of the coup as violence unfolded, these same groups were silent as Shinawatra crushed dissenters.

This exposes groups like Amnesty International as hypocritical, politically motivated fronts designed to defend US-backed agitators, including criminals and terrorists, while undermining the efforts of legitimate political groups, institutions, and organizations attempting to restore the rule of law, peace and stability in any given nation.

Through Amnesty International’s transparently dishonest politically-motivated meddling, it is undermining, not upholding human rights advocacy – defending those who have done the most to trample human rights, and obstructing those who have worked toward confronting and stopping them.

While many may be aware of this abuse of human rights advocacy amid conflicts in Libya or Syria, Thailand proves that the West conducts similar efforts virtually everywhere across the globe.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

With their government under the control of corporations and special interests, the People of the United States may think they have the right to vote, but, unfortunately, they do not. When the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, the authors intentionally omitted this very significant detail. They failed to include the right to vote, and the error has never been corrected.

Most Americans are unaware that they, unlike the citizens of most other democracies, do not have a basic constitutional right to vote. The constitutions of Germany and Japan adopted after World War II include a specific right to vote. Even in nations, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria—where Americans are fighting to impose democratic governments—the people already have a constitutional right to vote. Of 120 constitutional democracies in the world, only 11, including the United States, fail to explicitly guarantee a right to vote in their constitutions.

This critical omission from the Constitution was acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000, when a majority stated in Bush v. Gore: “The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.”

As the result of a series of amendments, people of color, women, and young people over the age of 18 cannot be deprived of the right to vote because of their status; however, nowhere in the Constitution does it say they have a fundamental right to vote in the first place.

Why the Right to Vote Was Omitted From the Constitution. Fearing an “excess of democracy,” a majority of those who gathered at the Constitutional Convention decided to replace the Articles of Confederacy with a central representative government that preserved the power of the economic and social elite and left voting matters up to the states.

James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution and the subsequent Bill of Rights, publically stated the electors of the new government would be “the great body of the people of the United States.” In private, however, he worried that, “In future times, a great majority of the people will not only be without landed, but any other sort of, property. These will either combine under the influence of their common situation; in which case, the rights of property and the public liberty will not be secure in their hands; . . .” John Adams was even more direct. In opposition to allowing electors other than property owners, he said “There will be no end of it. New claims will arise. Women will demand a vote. Lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to, and every man, who has not a farthing, will demand an equal vote. . . .”

The new constitution provided that members of the House of Representatives “shall be chosen every second Year by the People of the several States” and goes on to provide that the “Electors” shall have the same “Qualifications” as that for the “most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” In other words, each state determines who can vote for state and congressional representatives.

Composition of the Senate was even more closely controlled, in that Senators shall be “chosen by the Legislature thereof. . . .” Finally, the Constitution held that “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; . . .”

In electing the president and vice president, the Constitution imposed an even greater barrier between the “People” and the election of their principal representatives. The Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint” presidential Electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. Thus, it is these “Electors” who actually vote in the “Electoral College” for the president and vice president. The result has differed from the popular vote four times in history, the last being in 2000.

Participation by the People in presidential elections—even today—is almost entirely at the discretion of the legislature in each state. States have enacted legislation allowing for primary and general presidential elections, but it is still the Electors who actually elect the president. The state legislatures still have the power to directly appoint presidential Electors without elections, and there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent it.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights may not have included a specific right to vote; however, over the subsequent two centuries, the voting power of the People steadily increased and the United States republic gradually become more democratic.

Expanding the Suffrage. Initially, all states required voters to own property; however, Vermont began to allow all men to vote, and for a time, Tennessee provided universal male voting, including free blacks. Only New Jersey allowed the possibility of female suffrage; however, it was later revoked. Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Delaware, Georgia, and North Carolina soon expanded the franchise to all taxpayers, but in 1800, the New Hampshire and Massachusetts legislatures suspended elections and directly appointed their presidential electors.

With westward expansion, voting was extended to include non-property owners. By the presidential election in 1828, there were 24 states, and they had all adopted free white male suffrage. The new Democratic Party represented the farmers and artisans against the business and financial interests. The Democratic candidate, Andrew Jackson—who believed even the poorest white male should be allowed to vote—ran against President John Quincy Adams. Three times as many white men voted in the election as did four years earlier, and most voted for Jackson.

Following the Civil War—and to ensure the vote of freedmen in the South for the Republican Party—the Fifteenth Amendment was enacted. It held that: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The corresponding Fourteenth Amendment imposed penalties on states whenever “the right to vote at any election” was “denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State. . . .”

The new constitutional guarantees of a freedman’s right to vote, did not, however, improve the fundamental voting rights of all citizens. The states may not have been allowed to overtly discriminate on the basis of race; however, they could impose other restrictions on voting—which had the same effect. Democrats quickly regained political dominance in the southern states and passed “Jim Crow” laws effectively depriving African Americans of their right to vote or to hold office. These laws included discriminatory literacy tests, the imposition of poll taxes, and a “whites only” primary system.

Constitutional amendments calling for the popular election of U.S. senators were introduced, but it was not until 1913 when the Seventeenth Amendment allowed most men, and a few women, to directly vote for their senators.

Commencing in 1848, women activists began to agitate for their right to vote. Following the Civil War and ratification of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, women were able to point to the failure of the Constitution to protect the voting rights of half of the people in the United States.

Women’s suffrage was first introduced in 1878, but the Nineteenth Amendment was not ratified until 1919. Profound in its simplicity, it says: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The Amendment implies that “citizens” have the right to vote. In reality, it only provided women the same voting rights as men, which continued to be denied or abridged by the states.

Beginning around the turn of the century, the states began to legislate in favor of replacing political party caucuses with the popular nomination of candidates in primary elections. By the first world war, the majority of states had direct primaries, and most included all state offices on the primary ballots. More and more states began to include the nomination of congressional representatives, senators, and presidential candidates in primary elections.

With the Twenty-fourth Amendment in 1964, which eliminated poll taxes, and the Twenty-sixth in 1971, which extended the right to vote to citizens over the age of 18, the Constitution took its present form in regards to voting. Its interpretation by the Supreme Court, however, regarding the acts of Congress and state legislatures in voting matters, continues to both define and restrict the right to vote.

Right or Privilege. One would think that in a democratic republic, the right to vote is elemental—paramount—beyond question. It should be; however, the reality is that because voting in the United States is left up to the states, it is more of a privilege than a right. The difference lies in the ease by which voting can be restricted. Absent an explicit constitutional right, the vote can be giveth or taketh away by state legislatures, Congress, and the state and federal courts.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 empowered the federal government to enforce voting rights in all of the states, but particularly in the South—which had experienced a century of racial and social disenfranchisement. In those states with the most overt racial discrimination, the Act required the preapproval of any legislative changes that affected voting. The effect was immediate: African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics, in ever growing numbers, were allowed to register to vote, to participate in elections, and to be elected to public office.

Most of the newly enfranchised minority voters registered with the Democratic Party—which became more liberal. At the same time, white voters began to switch to the Republican Party—which became more conservative. Today, generally, the larger Democratic Party supports increased registration and voting, while the smaller Republican Party seeks to impose restrictions on both.

Approximately one quarter of all qualified voters are not registered, and many state laws and administrative practices are aimed at blocking—rather than encouraging—their enrollment. These include the imposition of arbitrarily short deadlines for the submission of voter registration forms and imposing harsh penalties for administrative errors. Other schemes to suppress voting involve the unnecessary purging of registration rolls to remove qualified people; the deliberate misallocation of election resources resulting in long lines in low-income and college precincts; misleading voters regarding procedures and locations for voting; and “caging,” which involves sending certified letters to voters and striking registrations for those whose letters are returned as undeliverable.

There are millions of otherwise eligible voters in the United States who do not possess photographic identification. If the reason is a lack of money to pay the licensing fee, voter ID laws have the same effect as the Jim Crow poll tax did in the South. The laws disproportionately affect the young, disabled, seniors, minorities, and the poor and disadvantaged of every race. The reality is that voter fraud is very rare, and when it does occur, it would not be prevented by voter ID laws.

The partisan bias of suppression laws is indicated by the fact that more than half of all state photo ID legislation resulted from the efforts of the conservative, corporate-sponsored, American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Sixty-two bills based on ALEC’s model Voter ID Act have been introduced in state legislatures. Of the 22 states in which new voting restrictions have been passed, 18 have Republican-controlled legislatures.

In 2008, a conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court approved an Indiana voter ID law—even though it had a partisan basis—because it was not “excessively burdensome” to most voters. The decision followed an earlier one in 2000 in which the Court affirmed that the Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.”

Another opinion by the Supreme Court immediately prior to the 2014 midterm elections reversed a Federal District Court in Texas, which had ruled the state’s voter ID law unconstitutionally prevented more than 600,000 registered Texans from voting. The lower court found the law was adopted “with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose” and it placed “an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.” The conservative majority of the Supreme Court disagreed—directly cutting off the access of more than a half million Texans to the polls and challenging the votes of millions of other Americans subject to similar laws in other states.

Previously, the Texas voter ID law had been blocked by the Voting Rights Act, which required jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to obtain permission before changing voting procedures. That provision of the Act was earlier struck down by the Supreme Court in 2013, and Texas officials announced they would begin enforcing the state’s new voter ID law.
In her dissent to the 2014 decision, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are African American or Hispanic.” She added that “racial discrimination in elections in Texas is no mere historical artifact.”

De facto Disenfranchisement. The addition of a specific right to vote in the Constitution would help control the legislative and judicial assault on voting because restrictions would receive “strict scrutiny” to ensure they actually address compelling state interests. In effect, a basic constitutional right to vote would create a presumption against restrictions, such as voter ID laws; however, other factors, such as unrestrained campaign financing, gerrymandering, lobbying, conflicts of interest, and corporate personhood also diminish the quality and value of an individual’s vote.

The combination of these destructive political practices has resulted in an even more insidious disenfranchisement of American voters. Since both major political parties have come under the domination of a powerful oligarchy composed of corporations, special interests, and the financial elite, the candidates of both parties fail to offer effective solutions to the critical environmental, economic, personal liberty, and militarization problems that threaten the People of the United States.

The consequence is starkly apparent in the abominable 2016 election which features two of the most unpopular major presidential candidates in history. Declining to vote—or being forced to vote for the least threatening of two dangerous candidates—contributes nothing to successful governance and further erodes what little confidence Americans have remaining in their government.

Secretly handing out campaign contributions and paying outright bribes through lobbyists, the oligarchy effectively manipulates political processes beyond the presidency throughout Congress, the federal bureaucracy, state and local governments, and the courts. The net result is that—irrespective of who is elected—the People’s representatives refuse to take action on any issue that threatens the wealth or power of their true masters. A Rasmussen survey in February 2016 illustrates this abdication of governance. Sixty percent of likely U.S. voters believe that Congress is doing a poor job, and 61 percent believe it is likely that most members of Congress have sold their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution.

The failure of their representatives to offer solutions, or to act on their behalf, is yet another way in which the vote of the People has been devalued. As long as other anti-democratic practices are allowed to continue, the power of the People to control their government through voting will be corrupted, even if the right is enshrined in the Constitution. If, however, voters were also empowered to make their own policy, control the electoral process, and cast effective votes, Madison’s “great body of the people of the United States” could finally become the Electors (and masters) of their own government.

The Right to Cast Effective Votes. Voting in a free society has to be more than a privilege, which can be granted or taken away at the whim of government. By definition, voting is an integral part of a republican form of government, and, if a government is to be free and democratic, voting not only has to be a right, but it has to be effective as well.

Tying together the provisions that follow it, Section One of the U.S. Voters’ Rights Amendment (USVRA) simply provides that all citizens have the right to vote. Moreover, by specifying an effective vote, it incorporates the subsequent sections within its intent and purpose.

The right of all citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to cast effective votes in political elections is inherent under this Constitution and shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.

The USVRA not only guarantees the individual right to vote, but it includes other remedies to ensure that the votes cast by the People are effective in defining what they want their government to do and how they want it done. These include defining equal rights for women; maximizing voter participation and prohibiting the suppression of voting; eliminating corporate personhood; controlling campaign contributions; guaranteeing freedom of the press; public funding of elections; prohibiting gerrymandering; increasing congressional representation; improving civic education and public information; articulating policy issues; deciding policy issues by voting; eliminating the Electoral College; curtailing lobbying; and prohibiting conflicts of interest.

The purpose of the USVRA is not to change the personal political beliefs of anyone. Rather, its mission is to provide individuals of every political persuasion with the power to effectively focus and communicate their thinking, and to persuade others of the validity of their convictions.

Transformation. Not one of the founders of the United States believed the Constitution was perfect, and all believed it could and should be amended as necessary. The failure of the Constitution to guarantee the right to vote and its abdication of voting rights to the states has resulted in the destructive political practices that currently undermine the liberty of the People and the effectiveness of their republic.

The United States government is no longer representative of those who elect it, nor is it the government the American People consented to. If the Republic is to continue, its constitution must be amended to empower the People, whose consent is essential to its legitimacy.

The USVRA is a voters’ bill of rights―in that it remedies the destructive practices that have eroded the tenuous voting rights granted to the People by Congress and allowed by the states. It is, however, far more than a set of constitutional amendments that would curtail these anti-democratic practices. Its ratification―and the movement that forces it to happen―would create a dramatic transformation of the United States government into finally becoming a true representative democracy.

Under the USVRA, the government will be reoriented to the People and their society; it will nurture—rather than endanger the People; and it will provide the means to make the government work for their benefit.

William John Cox is a retired public interest lawyer. He is the author of “Transforming America: A Voters’ Bill of Rights,” from which portions of this article were adapted. He can be contacted through his website, WilliamJohnCox.com.

U.S. intelligence veterans are calling on German Chancellor Merkel to bring a needed dose of realism and restraint to the upcoming NATO conference, which risks escalating the dangerous new Cold War with Russia.

MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: NATO Summit in Warsaw

REFERENCE: Our Memorandum to You, August 30, 2014

We longtime U.S. intelligence officers again wish to convey our concerns and cautions directly to you prior to a critically important NATO summit – the meeting that begins on July 8 in Warsaw. We were gratified to learn that our referenced memorandum reached you and your advisers before the NATO summit in Wales, and that others too learned of our initiative via the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which published a full report on our memorandum on Sept. 4, the day that summit began.

Wales to Warsaw

The Warsaw summit is likely to be at least as important as the last one in Wales and is likely to have even more far-reaching consequences. We find troubling – if not surprising – NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s statement at a pre-summit press event on July 4 that NATO members will agree to “further enhance NATOs military presence in the eastern part of the alliance,” adding that the alliance will see its “biggest reinforcement since the Cold War.”

The likelihood of a military clash in the air or at sea – accidental or intentional – has grown sharply, the more so since, as we explain below, President Obama’s control over top U.S./NATO generals, some of whom like to play cowboy, is tenuous. Accordingly we encourage you, as we did before the last NATO summit, to urge your NATO colleagues to bring a “degree of judicious skepticism” to the table at Warsaw – especially with regard to the perceived threat from Russia.

Many of us have spent decades studying Moscow’s foreign policy. We shake our heads in disbelief when we see Western leaders seemingly oblivious to what it means to the Russians to witness exercises on a scale not seen since Hitler’s armies launched “Unternehmen Barbarossa” 75 years ago, leaving 25 million Soviet citizens dead. In our view, it is irresponsibly foolish to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin will not take countermeasures – at a time and place of his own choosing.

Putin does not have the option of trying to reassure his generals that what they hear and see from NATO is mere rhetoric and posturing. He is already facing increased pressure to react in an unmistakably forceful way. In sum, Russia is bound to react strongly to what it regards as the unwarranted provocation of large military exercises along its western borders, including in Ukraine.

Before things get still worse, seasoned NATO leaders need to demonstrate a clear preference for statesmanship and give-and-take diplomacy over saber-rattling. Otherwise, some kind of military clash with Russia is likely, with the ever-present danger of escalation to a nuclear exchange.

Extremely worrisome is the fact that many second-generation NATO leaders seem blithely unaware – or even dismissive – of that looming possibility. Demagoguery like that coming from former Polish President Lech Walesa, who brags that he would “shoot” at Russian jets that buzz U.S. destroyers assuredly are not at all helpful. Walesa’s tone, however, does reflect the macho attitude prevailing today in Poland and some other NATO newcomers.

We believe Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was correct to point out that military posturing on Russia’s borders will bring less regional security. We applaud his admonition that, “We are well advised not to create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.”

A Need For Candor

Speaking of “pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” we believe the time has come to acknowledge that the marked increase in East-West tensions over the past two years originally stemmed from the Western-sponsored coup d’état in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, and Russia’s reaction in annexing Crimea.

Although we have a cumulative total of hundreds of years of experience in intelligence, we had never before seen planning for a coup d’état exposed weeks in advance – and then carried out anyway. Few seem to remember that in early February 2014, YouTube published a recording of an intercepted conversation between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, during which “Yats” (for Arseniy Yatsenyuk) was identified as Washington’s choice to become the new prime minister of the coup government in Kiev.

This unique set of circumstances prompted widely respected analyst George Friedman, president of the think tank STRATFOR, to label the Putsch in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, “really the most blatant coup in history.”

If one listens only to Western politicians and the corporate media, however, their version of recent history in Eastern Europe begins on Feb. 23, 2014. A particularly blatant example of this came on June 30, when U.S. Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute spoke at a pre-summit press briefing:

“beginning in 2014 and still to this day, we’re moving into a new period in NATO’s long history. Why do I say that? Here’s the evidence I cite. So the first thing that happened in 2014 that marks this change is a newly aggressive, newly assertive Russia under Vladimir Putin. So in late February, early March of 2014, the seizing, the occupying of Crimea followed quickly by the illegal political annexation of Crimea. … Well, any notion of strategic partnership came to an abrupt halt in the first months of 2014.” (Emphasis added)

In view of the coup d’état and post-coup instability in Ukraine, what Ambassador Lute goes on to say about NATO’s professed desire for stability in Ukraine comes across as disingenuous. Far more important, it puts Russia on notice that – in the U.S. view, at least – meddling on the “periphery” between NATO and Russia will continue.

According to Lute, one of the “key themes” at Warsaw will be: “What do we do about the periphery.” Lute explains: “Here we talk about projecting stability. So we don’t have an obligation to defend states beyond NATO’s territory, but we realize it’s in our interest to make them as stable as possible.”

We suggest that it is past time for Western leaders to admit that there is not one scintilla of evidence of any Russian plan to annex Crimea before the coup in Kiev and the coup leaders began talking about Ukraine joining NATO. If senior NATO leaders continue to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between cause and effect, increasing tension is inevitable with potentially disastrous results – all of them unnecessary and avoidable, in our view.

Ukraine: Still Festering 

In our August 2014 memorandum, we suggested that you be “appropriately suspicious of charges made by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.” Actually, the gravity of the situation was considerably worse than we realized at the time.

We now know that U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who was Supreme NATO Commander until two months ago, was pressing hard for confrontation with Russia and the anti-coup separatists in eastern Ukraine. This comes through clearly in Breedlove’s recently disclosed emails, which now confirm what we believed in 2014; namely, that everyone needed to examine closely Breedlove’s exaggerated claims, many of them based on fuzzy photos and other highly dubious “intelligence.”

Lobbying for approval to wage a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, Breedlove was highly critical of President Barack Obama’s policy, which Breedlove disparaged as simply: “Do not get me into a war.” (As though this were some kind of cowardly order!)

The emails show that behind Obama’s back, Breedlove kept trying to “leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the U.S. to react” to Russia. One of Breedlove’s email correspondents wrote back to him: “Given Obama’s instruction to you not to start a war, this may be a tough sell,” but this did not stop Breedlove from trying.

In 2015, as your own intelligence analysts were able to tell you, Breedlove went beyond hyperbole to outright fabrication with claims that “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of the most sophisticated air defense weapons, and battalions of artillery” had been sent to eastern Ukraine.

These were the kinds of faux claims Breedlove used in attempts to enlist help from the senior military and Congress in getting Obama to supply weapons to Ukrainian armed forces.

Lest we seem to be singling out Gen. Breedlove, his predecessor as Supreme NATO Commander, Adm. James Stavridis, was hardly provided good example. A year after the U.S. led some NATO countries in a Blitz of aircraft and missile strikes against Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, Stavridis and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder wrote in Foreign Affairs: “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.”

The operation was just the opposite, of course. The chaos now reigning in Libya, with hundreds of refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, offers abundant proof that your government’s decision to keep Germany at arms-length from that “model intervention” was a wise one.

While it is somewhat awkward for us to offer such candid comments on the character and caliber of the most senior U.S. generals and admirals – including those, like Ambassador Lute, who end up getting appointed to senior political positions at NATO – such a critique is unavoidable. The important reality to which we draw your attention pertains not only to their qualifications, but also to their dismissive attitude toward President Obama.

We observed in our Aug. 30, 2014 memorandum that President Obama “has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration.” That this includes senior military leaders can be seen in Obama’s failure to remove Gen. Breedlove, who – in addition to his intense maneuvering behind Obama’s back – made little effort to hide his open disdain for the cautious approach of his commander in chief toward the possibility of armed confrontation in volatile places like Ukraine.

An Appropriate “Nein!”

One factor encouraging us to write to you again is your proven record of insistence on tenacious diplomacy rather than saber rattling and provocation. We noted, for example, that at a press conference with President Obama in Washington on Feb. 9, 2015, you personally experienced Breedlove-type pressure for sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine – the kind of pressure still being applied to Obama himself. You stuck to your guns, so to speak, when the first designated questioner noted that the U.S. was considering providing lethal weapons to Ukraine and that your view was “very different.”

“I have given you my opinion on the export of arms,” was your unequivocal answer. Nor did you diverge from your insistent preference for diplomacy over arms, as you replied to a final, plaintive question: “Mrs. Merkel, … diplomacy, as you said yourself, has not brought much progress. Can you understand the impatience of the Americans when they say we ought to now deliver weapons?”

We believe your resolute “nein” to providing weapons to Ukraine was a key factor in scuttling that ill-conceived idea last year. And, as you know far better than we, your clearly expressed stance helped bring about a ceasefire that, however imperfect, was infinitely better than the escalation of fighting that would have inevitably resulted from sending weapons to Kiev’s government forces.

You stuck to your position, even though it put you in opposition to nearly all political, military, and media voices in the U.S., which were expressing disdain for diplomacy and preference instead for war.

It is inevitable that there will be more proposals to send weapons to the Kiev government, particularly in view of the continued hostilities in eastern Ukraine. We hope that unbiased scrutiny can be given to which parties are responsible for blocking full implementation of the Minsk accords that you, Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and your French and Russian counterparts have worked hard to offer as a plan for peace in Ukraine.

Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting Kiev on July 7, a day before the Warsaw summit opens. He might be asked to share his impressions on the stormy political events in Ukraine over the past few months.

In our view, things have gone from bad to worse there, with Andriy Parubiy now speaker of the Ukrainian parliament. Parubiy is one of the most conspicuous leaders of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist, and outright neo-Nazi, movements. In 1991 he founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine, together with Oleh Tyahnybok, another February 2014 coup plotter, who now leads the extreme right Svoboda party.

The name of Parubiy’s Social-National Party was chosen to identify it with Hitler’s National Socialist Party. Its official symbol is the somewhat modified Wolf’s Hook (Wolfsangel), used by the SS. Both parties blame Russia for the ills besetting Ukraine.

Parubiy as Parliament Speaker makes a mockery of NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg’s insistence that NATO has resolved to make sure that a law-abiding Kiev is “committed to democracy.”

On Monday, Parubiy stated on TV, “I have not supported the Minsk agreements from the very start,” adding that Moscow’s “plans on Ukraine may be stopped only by force and international sanctions.”

Also on Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Ukraine has not made any new effort to facilitate implementation of the Minsk accords that call for a ceasefire, weapons withdrawal, local elections in eastern Ukraine, and constitutional reform.

Doing the Possible in Poland

Instead of muscle flexing and saber rattling, it would likely be more constructive if NATO leaders held a serious discussion regarding Kiev’s recalcitrance on the Minsk accords. An open discussion would mean avoiding the usual knee-jerk, wholesale identification with Ukraine’s long list of real and imagined grievances against Russia.

U.S. Ambassador Lute might be asked if knows anyone with the kind of influence with Kiev that it would take to break the logjam and move events toward implementation of the peace agreements so painstakingly worked out at Minsk.

Another worthwhile endeavor would be to establish a NATO working group to respond to Russia’s suggestion to devise organizational and technical measures to prevent close encounters or clashes of aircraft over the Baltic Sea.

Lastly, it would be highly constructive if NATO would take responsibility for assessing the fundamental factors behind the hideous outbreak of the terrorist acts that took so many lives over recent days in Istanbul, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Baghdad. In this context, as well as in central Europe, violence begets violence. It should not be beyond the capability of NATO to undertake a fresh, hard look at why terrorism continues to increase, and to attempt to come up with new, more imaginative, less violent ways to address the issues that ultimately fuel the curse of terrorism.

NOTE: As is our custom, we are sending the White House a copy of this memorandum. We would like you to know, however, that we rarely receive any acknowledgement that our memoranda get through to President Obama – or that the he pays them any heed if they do reach his desk. We suspect that the wide generation gap between his relatively young advisers and the longtime collective experience that we in VIPS bring to the table may, in part, account for this. Therefore, if you find our thoughts informative – perhaps even provocative – we suggest that, when you see the President on Friday in Warsaw, you urge the President to obtain and read his copy.

For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

William Binney, former Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Daniel Ellsberg, former State Department and Defense Department Official (VIPS Associate)
Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps. former United States Senator from Alaska
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer, Political Counselor, Embassy Athens, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Torin Nelson, Former HUMINT Officer, U.S. Department of the Army
Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former Maj., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

Compared to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton presents herself as the well-qualified steady hand to manage U.S. foreign policy over the next four years, yet she has associated herself with a series of failed strategies and now faces an FBI judgment that she was “extremely careless” in protecting national security secrets.

A partial list of her dubious and dangerous judgments include voting for the catastrophic Iraq War, pushing for a misguided counterinsurgency “surge” in Afghanistan, embracing an anti-democratic coup in Honduras, undercutting President Obama’s efforts to peacefully constrain Iran’s nuclear program, devising the disastrous Libyan “regime change,” advocating a new invasion of Syria under the guise of creating “safe zones,” likening Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler, and – now according to FBI Director James Comey – failing to protect classified material from possible exposure to foreign adversaries.

Clinton admits that some of her judgments were “mistakes,” such as believing President George W. Bush’s blatant falsehoods about Iraq’s alleged WMDs and using a personal email server to communicate regarding her duties as Secretary of State. But arguably even more troubling is the fact that she doesn’t regard other of her official judgments as mistakes. Instead, she holds to them still or spins them in deceptive ways.

For instance, Clinton has never expressed regret about her support for the ouster of progressive Honduran President Manuel Zelaya in 2009, or her siding with Defense Secretary Robert Gates and General David Petraeus against President Obama in mouse-trapping him into a foolhardy counterinsurgency escalation in Afghanistan, or her sabotaging Obama’s plan in 2010 to use Brazil and Turkey to convince Iran to surrender much of its refined uranium, or her propagandistic justification for bombing Libya in 2011 and leaving behind what amounts to a failed state, or her similar scheming for “regime change” in Syria that helped expand terrorist movements in the Middle East and has now destabilized Europe, or her reckless demonizing of Russia’s Putin and encouragement of a dangerous new Cold War.

In many of those cases, Clinton has not been called on to apologize or admit error because Washington’s neoconservative/liberal interventionist foreign-policy establishment marched in lock-step with the former Secretary of State. It turns out that if you move with the pack, you do enjoy relative safety even if your collective judgment is unsound. Usually, the people picking up the messy and blood-spattered pieces left behind by foolhardy policies are American soldiers and taxpayers whose opinions don’t matter much in the rarefied atmosphere of Officialdom.

The Worst News

Arguably, Comey’s July 5 statement terming Clinton’s use of an unsecured email server as “extremely careless” but not criminal was the worst possible news for the Democratic Party. A recommendation to indict Clinton might have compelled her to step aside and let the party nominate someone more likely to defeat Republican Donald Trump, but the lack of an indictment probably means that Clinton will persevere through the Democratic convention and go into the general election as damaged goods.

That outcome means she will be viewed by many voters as a privileged politician who was let off the hook while more poorly connected Americans would likely have ended up in prison.Assessing Clinton’s sloppy use of a private email server – a process that she justified as a matter of personal convenience so she could keep her beloved Blackberry – Comey said laws may well have been broken and national security secrets may have been jeopardized to foreign governments though he couldn’t say for sure that her server was successfully hacked.

Explaining his reasoning, Comey said, “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no responsible prosecutor would bring such a case.” Despite Comey’s recommendation, the ultimate decision still rests with Justice Department prosecutors.

But the impression that many Americans will get is that there is one set of rules for the “great and powerful” and another set for the rest of us, an extraordinarily damaging message in a political year of obvious voter discontent with the Establishment.

While there will be enormous pressure on responsible Americans not to elect the loose cannon known as Donald Trump, there are serious worries that Hillary Clinton may present her own enormous risks as President.

Will she surround herself with neocons and liberal hawks who will be eager to jam the American people into new and even more dangerous wars, including possibly the most reckless “regime change” of all, in Moscow?

Will she turn U.S. policies in the Middle East over to Israel’s right-wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu as she has implied in her desire to take the relationship to “the next level”? Will she display the same faulty warmongering judgment that she has demonstrated again and again, but without the temporizing influence of President Obama?

These are legitimate questions that Americans have the right to consider as they weigh which of the two highly unpopular standard-bearers to pick between. Even as Clinton has shifted her rhetoric toward a more populist style and given at least lip service to some of Sen. Bernie Sanders’s social issues, she has shown no moderation of her hawkish foreign policies.

That’s either because she’s trying to reel in the Republican neocons in the general election or because she truly believes in an interventionist approach toward the world. Either way, pro-peace Americans have reason to be concerned

The release of the Chilcot Iraq Inquiry, examining the feeble reasons for launching a war against a sovereign state in 2003, did not merely land former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the soup.  It suggested that other leaders should keep him in drowning company.

The most obvious culprit was the person who led it all, US President George W. Bush.  The other was former Australian Prime Minister John Howard. The 12 volumes and 2.6 million words do little to exonerate either.[1]

Evident in the apologetics over the Iraq War lie are notions of pure belief, detached from foundations of reason.  There was no intention to deceive (this, being palpably untrue); there was a genuinely held sense that war was necessary.  The show, in other words, was being run by fanatics.

The evidence (is there such a thing post-Iraq?), certainly after the attacks of September 11, 2001, was the overwhelming desire to rechart the Middle East and affect regime change in Iraq. Blair and Howard complied with the Bush agenda, neither ever keen to go too much into the detail.

The few times that greater inquiry took place, it was grim, as Blair’s own meditation on possible consequences shows.  “Suppose it got militarily tricky… suppose Iraq suffered unexpected civilian casualties… suppose the Arab Street finally erupted.”  The law of unintended consequences indeed.

Howard had little time to dwell on the idea of mendacity, claiming it had nothing to do with the deployment of troops to Iraq.  Rather awkwardly, he resorted to a familiar tactic: blaming the intelligence community for getting it wrong.  Never mind the actual decision maker who needed to see such intelligence in total context.  “There was no lie.  There were errors in intelligence, but there was no lie.”[2]

Ever the Pilate washing his hands, Howard cherry picked from the Chilcot Inquiry to add a bit more soap to his cleansing wash.  One fact stood out for him: the lack of evidence suggesting that intelligence dossiers had been doctored, or sexed-up, as it was then termed.

“The joint intelligence committee, which is the broad equivalent in the United Kingdom of the Office of National assessments in Australia, accepted ownership of the dossier and agreed its content.”

This also shows the inability, or perhaps refusal, of Howard to have made his own decisions on the subject without further verifying what was, even then, a shoddy case.  “I can’t put myself in Tony Blair’s mind. I have no reason to disbelieve what he’d said. I always found him a thoroughly honourable and honest person to deal with.”

Even by the standards of the day, such an assessment on Howard’s part was astonishing, relegating the Australian decision making process to the sovereign realm of Washington and London.  It was sufficient to accept that the dossier was not unduly corrupted by the addition of improper material or that “Number 10 improperly influenced the text.”

For all that, there were Cassandras within Australia, and fellow traveller Britain, worried that too much certainty, spurred on by “belief”, was replacing genuine intelligence.

One such figure was Andrew Wilkie, now a returned independent member of the Australian parliament.  Having been an intelligence officer within the Office of National Assessments and subsequent whistleblower on the dubious intelligence practices he bore witness to, the Tasmanian MP insisted that Australia needed its own variant of Chilcot.

“Until we have an effective inquiry into the invasion of Iraq… then people like John Howard and [former foreign minister] Alexander Downer and others won’t be properly scrutinised and held to account.”[3]

One crucial loss in this entire affair is evident.  Instead of offering wise restraining counsel, holding back that “crazy man Bush,” as Paul McGeough described him, Howard and Blair applied the varnishing reassurance.  “By not restraining the US president, each was an enabler in Washington’s worst ever foreign policy blunder.”[4]

They were more than that. Both became fellow buccaneers and adventurers, the very type of war makers scorned by the US Supreme Court justice Robert Jackson, a key figure in the prosecution at the Nuremberg war crimes trials in 1945.  Never again, urged Jackson, should war be treated in a chivalric or romantic fashion.   Instead, it could be deemed conspiratorially murderous, a slight against civilization itself waged by bandits.

While the Chilcot Inquiry does not purport to generate legal implications (its greatest weakness), it sets the groundwork for potential legal proceedings that might be launched not merely in Britain, but participating countries. Lawyers representing former servicemen who died in the conflict are pouring over the details, wondering whether command responsibility can be discerned.

Wilkie insists on a specific international court, one that would compel the defendants to “try to prove their innocence because all of those people who do accuse them of war crimes I think make a pretty compelling case.”

Doing so in the International Criminal Court would be a difficult thing, given its limitations relative to the Nuremberg International Military Tribunal. But the crime against peace remains a burning issue, recognised as part of international law, and prosecutable locally. None of the leaders are out of the woods of judicial inquiry just yet.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

After seven years, the Chilcot report has delivered a damning verdict on Tony Blair’s role in the war on Iraq, but British Prime Ministers playing a destructive role in Iraq is a centuries old practice.

Britain has used its military might and commercial prowess to subjugate Iraq and control its oil resources for over one hundred years.

Churchill invented Iraq. The end of World War I left Britain and France in command of the Middle East and the allies carved up the region as the defeated Ottoman Empire fell apart. Winston Churchill convened the 1912 Conference in Cairo to determine the boundaries of the British Middle Eastern mandate. After giving Jordan to Prince Abdullah, Churchill, gave Prince Abdullah’s brother Faisal an arbitrary patch of desert that became Iraq.

Historian Michael R. Burch recalls how the huge zigzag in Jordan’s eastern border with Saudi Arabia has been called “Winston’s Hiccup” or “Churchill’s Sneeze” because Churchill carelessly drew the expansive boundary after a generous lunch.

Churchill’s imperial foreign policy has caused a century of instability in Iraq by arbitrarily locking together three warring ethnic groups that have been bleeding heavily ever since. In Iraq, Churchill bundled together the three Ottoman vilayets of Basra that was predominantly Shiite, Baghdad that was Sunni, and Mosul that was mainly Kurd.

Britain set up a colonial regime in Iraq. British oppression in Iraq intensified and an uprising in May 1920 united Sunni and Shia against the British. Winston Churchill, the responsible cabinet minister, took almost a decade to brutally quash the uprising leaving 9,000 Iraqis dead.

Churchill ordered punitive village burning expeditions and air attacks to shock and awe the population. The British air force bombed not only military targets but civilian areas as well. British government policy was to kill and wound women and children so as to intimidate the population into submission.

Churchill also authorized the use of chemical weapons on innocent Iraqis.

In 1919 Churchill remarked, “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes… It will cause great inconvenience and spread a lively terror”.

Churchill, saw Iraq as an experiment in aerial technological colonial control as a cheaper way to patrol the over-extended empire. Almost one hundred years since Churchill sought the use of aerial technology to cling onto influence over a restive Iraq, Blair’s government began flying deadly drones over Baghdad and Helmand Province in Afghanistan.

To Britain’s imperial Prime Ministers, aviation has always promised to be the trump card, the guaranteed way of keeping native peoples and their resources under control. Arthur “Bomber” Harris, who was to lead the aerial bombardment of Germany 20 years after bombing Iraq, boasted that he had taught Iraqis “that within 45 minutes a full-sized village can be practically wiped out and a third of its inhabitants killed or wounded”.

The British Royal Air Force maintained its military control over Iraq until World War II, even after Iraqi independence in 1932. Despite formal independence, British political and economic influence in Iraq barely receded.

Britain’s relationship with Iraq has always revolved around the issue of oil. Churchill viewed Iraq as an important gateway to Britain’s Indian colony and oil as the lifeblood for Britain’s Imperial Navy.

Britain established the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) as the vehicle through which Iraqi oil would be exploited. British Petroleum (BP), or the Anglo-Persian Oil Company as it was known back then, was also heavily involved in plundering Iraqi oil.

British oilmen benefited incalculably from Iraq’s puppet regime until the Iraqi masses rose up against British influence. This led to the Iraq revolution of 1958 and the rise and eventual Presidency of Saddam Hussein.

British and US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Ample new evidence shows that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he was part of a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi leader Abd al-Karim Qassem. During the 1980s, the United States and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, providing Iraq with weapons, funding, intelligence, and even biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

In 2003 the Guardian reported that a chemical plant, which the United States said was a key component in Iraq’s chemical warfare arsenal, was secretly built by Britain in 1985 behind the backs of the Americans. Documents show British ministers knew at the time that the $14 million dollar British taxpayer funded plant, called Falluja 2, was likely to be used for mustard and nerve gas production.

British relations with Saddam Hussein only began to sour when Hussein nationalized the Iraq Petroleum Company in 1972. As a result of Iraq’s oil revenues finally flowing directly into the Iraqi Treasury, the nation experienced a massive windfall when oil prices quadrupled in 1973.

The Iraqi nation grew increasingly wealthy, as oil revenues rose from $500 million in 1972 to over $26 billion in 1980, an increase of almost 50 times in nominal terms.

During the 1990’s, Britain supported severe economic sanctions against Iraq because of Saddam’s increasing resource nationalism. The United Nations estimated that 1.7 million Iraqis died as a result of the sanctions. Five hundred thousand of these victims were children.

The British and American sanctions on Iraq killed more civilians than the entirety of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons used in human history.

Glaring similarities between Britain’s 1917 occupation of Iraq and the modern military debacle in Iraq are too salient to dismiss or to ignore.

They told us that Iraq was a nuclear threat; Iraq was a terrorist state; Iraq was tied to Al Qaeda. It all amounted to nothing. Since the 2003 invasion, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and over a million have been displaced because of this lie.

Prior to 2003, Iraq had zero recorded suicide bombings. Since 2003, over a thousand suicide bombs have killed 12,000 innocent Iraqis.

Tony Blair recently admitted to CNN that the 2003 invasion of Iraq played a part in the rise of the Islamic State militant group, and apologized for some mistakes in planning the war.

It is important to note that Al Qaeda in Iraq did not exist prior to the British-American invasion and that terror organization eventually became ISIS.

Former British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told the House of Commons that Al Qaeda was unquestionably a product of Western intelligence agencies. Mr. Cook explained that Al Qaeda, which literally means an abbreviation of “the database” in Arabic, was originally an American computer database of the thousands of Islamist extremists, who were trained by the CIA and funded by the Saudis, in order to defeat the Russians in Afghanistan.

Blair’s legacy in Iraq is ISIS. Blair has recently called ISIS the “greatest threat” faced by Britain.

Shortly after British general Stanley Maude’s troops captured Baghdad in 1917, he announced, “our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators.”

Almost a century later in 2003 Tony Blair said, “Our forces are friends and liberators of the Iraqi people, not your conquerors. They will not stay a day longer than is necessary”.

History has a habit of repeating itself, albeit with slightly different characters and different nuances. Iraq may well go down in history as Britain’s greatest longstanding foreign policy failure.

Garikai Chengu is a scholar at Harvard University. Contact him on [email protected]

Hillary Clinton is under federal investigation for using her private, insecure email server for classified State business. Anybody else handling classified official material on a private server would have at least lost their job and would likely be indicted. But Clinton is not anybody else. She has strings to pull. She has offers to make. And she is successfully doing such. Let’s follow the trail.

Loretta Lynch held private talks with Bill Clinton aboard a plane in Phoenix while her department investigates Hillary

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, whose agency is investigating Hillary Clinton’s email practices, spent about 30 minutes meeting with President Clinton while both of them were separately passing through Phoenix.Clinton had landed ahead of the nation’s top law enforcement officer, and waited for her arrival, a local affiliate ABC15 reported.

Lynch was in town for an event on community policing.

Clinton learned of her arrival, and decided to wait so they could meet, sources told the station.

‘I did see President Clinton at the Phoenix airport as he was leaving and spoke to myself and my husband on the plane,’ Lynch said at a press conference when asked about the prolonged chat, which took place aboard a jet on the tarmac.

Clinton claimed he was in Phoenix for playing golf. It was some 106 degree Fahrenheit in Phoenix that day. Having been in and around Phoenix in such weather I am sure no one went for any longer walk during that day, or played golf.

After some media outrage Lynch tried to wiggle herself out of the calamity:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said Friday that she will accept the decision of career prosecutors, investigators and FBI Director James Comey on whether to bring criminal charges in the ongoing investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of State.The unusual public announcement during an event in Aspen, Colo., comes as the attorney general faces a storm of criticism related to an awkward encounter with former president Bill Clinton after the two crossed paths earlier this week at Phoenix’s Sky Harbor International Airport.

Then, two days ago, the NYT had a piece on Clinton that mentions in passing a renewed job offer for Loretta Lynch should Clinton become president:

Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015.

One and one is two. Lynch read that message and the director of the FBI, which is responsible to the Attorney General for its operations, received appropriate signals. The result:

F.B.I. Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal Email

The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday said the F.B.I. is recommending no charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a personal email server while secretary of state.The statement by Mr. Comey concluded an investigation that began a year ago when the inspector general for the intelligence agencies told the Justice Department that he had found classified information among a small sampling of emails Mrs. Clinton had sent and received.

Comey also said this, which makes it clear that this is a very “special case” that would not pass the usually used criteria:

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Clinton broke the law, but the FBI finds “no intent” of her doing so. Willfully setting up a private email server for state business is against laws and regulations. Clinton did so for purely egoistic reasons. But that is not “intent” says Comey.  Knowingly sending and receiving Top Secret information through it is not “intent” as the FBI defines it in this case. Other knowledgeable people differ. Destroying her State Department schedules must also have been without Clinton’s “intent”. Sure. As some Clinton once said, “it depends on what the meaning of the word is is.”

The Clinton campaign is currently trying to smear Donald Trump as antisemitic because of some graphic his intern handling his Twitter account sent around. It depicted Clinton as bribable with money in the background and it included a red star. Now a red star is the insignia of the 6th Infantry Division, or just a red star from a clip art library, but the Clinton campaign and its followers alleged that the red star was signaling that Jews are bribing Clinton, which they do, after the yellow star used to mark Jews in the Nazi area. It is a typical smear campaign against Trump or anyone who does not prostate enough at relevant altar. But is that graphic really antisemitic and its misinterpretation Trump’s fault?

Make no mistake about it, the Trump campaign has a serious antisemitism problem. But the question is, how much of it is Trump and how much of it is his supporters, and how much is torched off courtesy of Clinton, Trump’s myriad other political enemies, and a hostile media.Is Trump the active impresario of an anti-Semitic movement?

The evidence seems to indicate otherwise.

Clinton’s arrogant email handling and the string-pulling that saved her from indictment can not be attributed to some Trumpian antisemitism issue. Bringing that up was a diversion.

If the Trump campaign has some serious marketing players they will hammer home from now to November that Clinton’s lax handling of message security is a danger to the nation and that her and her husband’s seemingly crocked manipulations to escape indictment is disqualifying her for any higher job. Additionally a judge ruled today that Clinton’s “private” emails will be open to FOIA requests. Some dirt will be found in them.

I find it quite possible that such a campaign would turn away enough voters from her to let her lose the general election.

According to Chilcot, “no imminent threat” justified war on Iraq, his conclusions saying:

“(T)he UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

“The judgments about the severity of the threat posed by Iraq’s (alleged) weapons of mass destruction – WMD – were presented with a certainty that was not justified.”

“Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate.”

“The government failed to achieve its stated objective.”

No Nuremberg-style judgment followed nor will it, Chilcot merely “conclud(ing) that the circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were far from satisfactory.”

Complicit with George Bush, Blair decided on war, not his government, legal advisors or ministers – based solely on geopolitical considerations, flagrantly violating international law.

He, Bush and their complicit officials waged naked aggression against a nonbelligerent country based on lies, damn lies and Big Lies – a media-supported drumbeat ahead of shock-and-awe devastation, followed by invasion, occupation, current violence and chaos at a cost of millions of civilian lives.

Blair remains defiant and duplicitous, turning truth on its head, saying Chilcot’s report “should lay to rest allegations of bad faith, lies and deceit.”

“Whether people agree or disagree with my decision to take military action against Saddam Hussein, I took it in good faith and in what I believed to be the best interests of the country.”

Short of apologizing for complicity in committing mass slaughter and destruction, he merely said “I will take full responsibility for any mistakes (sic) without exception or excuse.”

Hard facts contradict his claiming Saddam’s “remov(al)” isn’t “the cause of terrorism…in the Middle East or elsewhere…”

“(E)xpress(ing) profound regret at the loss of life (of British soldiers and) grief it has caused the families is standard hegemonic practice:

Wage war based on lies and deception. Then apologize to grieving families, ignoring ones in countries attacked and horrors of current aggression elsewhere.

On July 6, coincidentally with Chilcot’s publication, the White House was silent. State Department press releases covered a surprising 16 separate topics – nothing on Chilcot.

When asked to comment, spokesman admiral John Kirby refused to address its findings, saying “(t)hat’s really for the government of the UK to talk to, and I’m certainly not going to relitigate the decisions that led to the Iraq war here from the podium in July of 2016. I’m just not going to do that.”

“(W)e’re not going to make a judgment one way or the other about this report…We’re not going to go through it.”

“We’re not going to examine it. We’re not going to try to do an analysis of it or make a judgment of the findings one way or the other.”

He tried shifting focus to Syria and Washington claiming to help (sic) prime minister Abadi “do the things he needs to do in Iraq and to defeat (US-supported) Daesh.

War on Iraq, of course, was planned and orchestrated long before Washington launched it in March 2003 along with Britain and other “coalition” partners.

Blair signed on early. In a July 28, 2002 memo to Bush, he said “I will be with you, whatever.” Claiming removing Saddam from power was “the right thing to do” omitted explaining why war was waged in the first place.

It’s part of Anglo-Zionist aims for regional dominance, eliminating independent governments, puppet regimes replacing them, and controlling the region’s immense hydrocarbon resources.

What Chilcot didn’t explain matters more than what was covered in 12 volumes.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.  

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Critics of American foreign policy love to point out instances where our policy reeks of hypocrisy. No current issue in international affairs affords a better illustration of our inconsistent sanctimoniousness than the dispute over competing claims to insular territories (whether to call them “islands” or “rocks” is of great significance, as we shall see) in the South China Sea.

Symptomatic of our hypocrisy on this issue, we protest Chinese “aggressive” actions in the area by sailing the Seventh Fleet through the territorial waters of atolls turned into landing-strips to demonstrate our commitment to protecting freedom of navigation. Yet we refuse to sign the UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international effort to formalize the rules governing freedom of navigation on the high seas. The convention, which has been around since 1982, has been ratified by over 160 UN member states, including China, but not by the U.S. of A.

Opponents of the UNCLOS, like Senators Portman and Ayotte, contend that the convention infringes on US sovereignty, in particular with regard to its provision for international arbitration of disputes (keep that in mind when the Permanent Court of Arbitration rules on a suit brought by the Philippines over China’s claims in the South China Sea). But I believe the main reason for our unwillingness to ratify the UNCLOS lies elsewhere.

The convention makes a distinction between “islands”, which can support human habitation, and “rocks”, which cannot. The territorial waters around either type of sea-bound outcrop can be claimed up to 12-miles out, but a 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) can only be claimed around an island, not a rock.

We have a number of possessions in the Pacific, formally called US Minor Outlying Islands, around which we claim EEZs. Here’s a map showing them:

Most of these possessions were acquired in the late 19th century under the Guano Islands Act of 1856. There was a gold rush, so to speak, for guano deposits at the time as the phosphate-rich bird poop was much sought after as a fertilizer. The act authorized any American captain who stumbled on an uninhabited, unclaimed island covered in guano to claim it in the name of the United States. Under the act dozens of islands came into America’s possession, most of which we gave up once an island had been stripped clean, literally. Currently, none of our outlying islands have permanent residents.

As can be seen, the EEZs around these outlying “islands” cover a sizeable area. In fact, the projection used causes the EEZs in the South Pacific to look smaller than they actually are compared to zones in more northern latitudes. Just one of the equatorial EEZs, that around the Howland and Baker Islands, is larger than the EEZ off the California coast.

Under UNCLOS, many of these “islands” would be deemed mere rocks, not entitled to EEZs. The same is probably true of some of the “islands” in the Aleutian Islands chain. Hence, ratification of the Convention on the Law of the Sea would result in a significant diminution of our Exclusive Economic Zones, something our world-beaters are not likely to agree to readily.

Despite the rocky grounds for many of our own claims, we pooh-pooh Chinese claims based on similar grounds. I recently heard a former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Kathleen Hicks, belittle China’s claim to the Scarborough Shoal because it is almost underwater at high tide (see this videoat the 2:55:26 minute mark); yet we claim not only the territorial waters but also an EEZ around a reef in the Hawaiian Islands chain, Maro Reef, which is entirely submerged, even at LOW tide.

As mentioned previously, the Philippines has taken China to court over its claims in the South China Sea. The court in question, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, is often referred to in the press as a “UN tribunal” to give it greater cachet, but, in fact, it is not part of the UN, being a body created in 1899 when imperialism ruled the waves. No wonder China refuses to participate in the proceedings (a Palestinian in an Israeli court stands a better chance) and will no doubt ignore an adverse ruling. If so, you can count on our media howling about China flaunting the rule of law, how outraged the “the international community” (read “NATO”) is, and the like.

Perhaps some courageous, soon-to-be-unemployed journalist will be brave enough to point out that when Nicaragua took us before the International Court of Justice – an actual UN body – over our mining of their harbors and other offenses, we refused to participate in the proceedings, claiming the court did not have jurisdiction. When the court ruled against us, we blocked enforcement of the ruling through our veto in the Security Council. Embarrassingly, in light of current posturing, one of the charges levelled against us was interrupting peaceful maritime commerce – this by the self-proclaimed protector of freedom of navigation in the western Pacific.

To the uninformed (read “Kathleen Hicks”), it will seem obvious to whom sovereignty over the Scarborough Shoal belongs. Just look at how close they are to the Philippines and how far from China.

Ms. Hicks has probably never heard of Navassa Island, another Guano Islands Act possession of ours (see the map of US EEZs above). It lies far from our shores but just off the coast of Haiti, which also claims it. We’ve shown no willingness to give up the former El Dorado of avian defecation simply based on geography.

Similarly, when bemoaning how far China’s nine-dash-line delineating its claims in the South China Sea (shown as a solid red line above) extends from the Chinese mainland, we should consider what a line encompassing our own far-flung possessions would look like. Our line, like China’s, would reflect past naval exploits, not proximity to ours or someone else’s coast, and our line would extend much farther from our mainland than China’s does from theirs.

Adopting a conveniently faulty memory, we call for peaceful resolution of the disputes and require all disputants (read “China”) to refrain from aggressive actions, like populating disputed territories, but in 1935 we secretly started placing settlers on Howland, Baker, and Jarvis Islands, former Guano Islands Act possessions long forgotten and by then of lapsed and uncertain ownership. After a year of surreptitious colonizing, President Roosevelt revealed the sneaky scheme and proclaimed the islands American territory. That sort of behavior would not be condoned under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, another reason our wily buccaneers will not sign it.

Ken Meyercord is the author of The Ethic of Zero Growth. He is a retiree who lives in the Washington, DC area where he heads up The Iconoclast’s Book Club. He can be reached at: [email protected].

As the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) reports, a money-laundering alarm was triggered at AmBank in Malaysia, a bank part-owned by one of Australia’s “big four” banks, ANZ. What had triggered the alarm? Money had poured into the personal account of one of the bank’s customers, a certain Mr. X, in truly staggering amounts.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were paid into the account of Mr. X by a Saudi prince described as “mysterious”, and two British Virgin Island companies characterized as “shadowy”.

Overall, more than $1.05 billion landed in Mr. X’s private account in a little over two years. This was bound to raise eyebrows, considering Mr. X’s official salary only amounts to approx. $100,000 per year. Not a bad salary to be sure, but even if he were to save half of it every year, it would take him 210,000 years to save up $1.05 billion, not just two.

Then the head of a government-owned Malaysian company put millions of ringgit into Mr. X’s credit card accounts, which had been a tad overdrawn (by slightly over $ 1m.), due to Mr. X’s wife splurging a bit on jewelry in 2014.

Apparently Mr. X was not shy about spending some of his new-found wealth either. Apart from his wife’s predilection for expensive jewelry and other luxury items, he himself occasionally displayed a yen for fancy cars and reportedly also favored swanky accommodation. Friends and partners of Mr. X also enjoyed a windfall.

Thy “mysterious Saudi Prince” who wired sums ranging from $25 million to $50 million in one fell swoop into  Mr. X’s account was one “Prince Faisal bin Turki bin Bandar Al-Saud”. These deposits were accompanied by letters penned by yet another Saudi prince, “HRH Prince Saud Abdulaziz Al-Saud”, pledging quite generous “gifts” to Mr. X. One promise of $375 m. was accompanied by the following reassuring words:

“This is merely a token gesture on my part but it is my way of contributing to the development of Islam to the world. You shall have absolute discretion to determine how the Gift shall be utilized. This letter is issued as a gesture of good faith and for clarification, I do not expect to receive any personal benefit whether directly or indirectly as a result of the Gift. The Gift should not in any event be construed as an act of corruption since this is against the practice of Islam and I personally do not encourage such practices in any manner whatsoever.”

The title “HRH” (“his royal highness”) implies that the man is either a son or a grandson of King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, the first king of modern Saudi Arabia. Given that Ibn Saud had 22 wives, 45 sons and approximately 1,000 grandchildren, all of whom are “Al-Sauds”, with a great many “Abdulazizes” among them, this could really be anyone. It was nice of him though to provide Mr. X with this get-out-of-jail card (“there’s absolutely no corruption involved, honestly!”).

Obviously, with such convincing assurances accompanying the big deposits, there was little reason to suspect Mr. X of any wrongdoing. Malaysia’s central bank governor assured ABC though that there is still an “ongoing investigation”, even after the (new) prosecutor-general shut down a corruption probe of Mr. X in January (his predecessor planned to lay criminal charges against Mr. X and was removed from office a few days before he could do so).

The Virgin Island companies, “Blackstone Asia Real Estate Partners” and “Tanore Finance” were no slouches either, with the latter wiring $680 million into the account of Mr. X in a single month. We imagine that any normal tax serf would have been visited by nosy government minions for a little quality inquisition time shortly after receiving the first of this series of large deposits – exonerating letters from mystery princes notwithstanding.

Mr. X – the codename that has actually been assigned to him at AmBank – has evidently been spared such indignities. The reason is that he is otherwise known as Najib Razak and has been Malaysia’s prime minister since 2009.

State of Fear

The revelations about the prime ministers account are connected to the so-called 1MBD scandal involving Malaysia’s sovereign wealth fund. The fund has been an utter disaster, “mislaying” some $4 billion in total – and its advisory board is chaired by none other than Najib Razak.

Two things have piqued our interest: for one thing, we were beginning to wonder about the fact that Najib Razak actually remains in office and has so far successfully deflected all attempts to unseat him over the scandal, including massive public protests (however, the air is clearly getting thinner now).

Secondly, ABC has recently sent a team of investigators to Malaysia, who were briefly arrested after attempting to ask the prime minister a few questions. For a while it looked like they may actually face jail time, but that was probably considered one step too far and they were let go after two weeks. They were in Kuala Lumpur while filming a documentary on the still burgeoning scandal.

The documentary – “State of Fear: Murder and Money in Malaysia” – is truly fascinating. As the blurb at ABC’s web site says:

“It’s a story of intrigue, corruption and multiple murders, stretching from the streets of Malaysia’s capital Kuala Lumpur, to Switzerland, France and the US as well as Hong Kong and Singapore, all the way to Australia’s doorstep.”

Pater Tenebrarum is an independent analyst and economist and social theorist. He has been involved with financial markets in various capacities for about forty years and currently writes economic and market analyses for independent research organizations and a European hedge fund consultancy as well as being the main author of the acting-man blog.

Burying Ferdinand E. Marcos alongside our nation’s heroes who fought for our freedom is an affront to the thousands of lives tortured and murdered during his reign. A hero does not take away freedom, he campaigns for it and fights for its survival for the sake of others. Laying him to rest at the Heroes’ Cemetery is a disdainful act that will send a message to the future of our nation – our children – that the world we live in rewards forceful and violent hands.

Several other reasons why Ferdinand E. Marcos should not be buried in the Philippine’s Heroes’ Cemetery:

1. According to you, President Duterte: “The issue on the burial of Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani has long created divisions among our people,” – This is not what’s causing the division. It will in fact further sever the opportunity for unity since this is an injustice to the victims of Martial Law and the families they left behind.

2. It is a known historical fact that Ferdinand E. Marcos proclaimed Martial Law in 1972 which stayed in effect until 1981. Under Martial Law 70,000 people were imprisoned, 34,000 were tortured, and 3,240 were killed.

3. The United States Army concluded after World War II that claims by Ferdinand E. Marcos that he had led a guerrilla resistance unit during the Japanese occupation of his country were ”fraudulent” and ”absurd.” Blatant lies of manipulation is not a heroic act.

4. Only two of 33 war medals were received by Marcos during the 2nd World War. Fabricating stories about war accomplishments for political gain is not heroic.

5. His gross plunder and mass murder trumps his status as a soldier. Serving one’s country in war does not warrant heroism if they place that same country in ruin. Foreign debt increased from $355 million in 1962 to $28.3 billion in 1986. The peso value to the dollar decreased from 3.90 in 1966 to 20.53 in 1986.

6. According to you, President Duterte: “I will allow the burial of President Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani not because he is a hero. He was a Filipino soldier, period.” –  Not all soldiers were buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani. Burying him there will label him a hero whether he was a Philippine soldier or not. “Those who were dishonorably separated, reverted, or discharged from the service, and those who were convicted of an offense involving moral turpitude cannot be buried at the cemetery.” Marcos was ousted from power. On these grounds alone, he is not qualified.

Ferdinand E. Marcos is not a hero. Only heroes are buried in the Heroes’ Cemetery as the name so literally states.

Please reconsider your position in the matter.

To sign the petition demanding that the President of the Republic of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte stop his plans to bury former dictator Ferdinand Marcos as a hero please click here.

MANILA, Philippines – It’s often said that young people have become clueless about Martial Law. If the protest on a holiday is any indication, however, then it can be said that some millennials have not forgotten.

Student leaders from different universities gathered in front of the oblation statue in the University of the Philippines – Diliman on Wednesday, July 6, to oppose the planned burial of former president Ferdinand Marcos at the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Marcos’ son, defeated vice presidential candidate Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, said that he had met with President Rodrigo Duterte who was eyeing a September burial for the late president at the Libingan.

Student representatives from University of the Philippines Diliman, Manila and Cebu, Ateneo De Manila University, Far Eastern University and Polytechnic University of the Philippines held pictures of young Martial Law activists who either disappeared or died while remembering the battles they fought for during the said era.

Included in the lineup of people commemorated were Jun Quimpo, Cristina Catalla, Emmanuel Alvarez, Rizalina Ilagan, Leo C. Alto, Juan Escandor, Nona Del Rosario, Gerardo Faustino, Ronald Quimpo, Bobby Dela Paz and Ma. Leticia Ladlad, all victims of Martial Law.

Martial Law is blamed for at least 3000 executions and 35,000 torture cases, according to military historian Alfred McCoy.

“Patuloy nating pangangaralan ang buhay ng mga bayani na nag-alay ng kanilang buhay para sa kalayaang tinatamasa natin ngayon,” fresh Ateneo graduate Yesu Hernandez said while holding the photo of Emmanuel Alvarez.

(We will continue to commend the heroes who gave up their lives for the freedom that we have right now.)

Not a golden era

The protest, titled #BawatBato, is a youth-organized event that follows the same initiative done on June 26 where human rights victims under Martial Law went to the heroes’ cemetery to lay stones at the grave site supposedly assigned for the dictator. (READ: Building a foundation of dissent vs Marcos dynasty)

The stones laid below the Oblation statue, just like the ones in the Libingan ng mga Bayani, had written in them names of people kidnapped, tortured and murdered during those times.

Aida Santos, a Martial Law survivor who joined the Diliman Commune when she was a student, said in the event: “Sinasabi nila na golden years ang Martial Law. Kami ang buhay na patunay na hindi ‘yan totoo. Sinasabi nila, ‘kunin niyo na lang ang pera niyo, huwag na kayong umangal, move on’. Hindi ito issue ng pera; ito’y isyu na kami’y nakilaban bata pa kami, binigay na namin ang buhay namin sa aming paniniwala na ito ang tama.”

(They say that Martial Law are golden years. We are the living proof that such is not true. They say, “just get the money and move on”. It’s not an issue of money, it is the fact that we fought for this when we were young and that we fought for this knowing that this is the right thing to do.)

She added that they might be wrong in many things, but they were not wrong in opposing Martial Law.

“Maaaring nagkamali kami sa Diliman Commune, maaaring marami kaming pagkakamali, pero ang hindi ho kami nagkamali, kami ho ay naninindigan para sa kalayaan at para sa demokrasya, at hanggang ngayon, tatayo kami hanggang huling hibla ng aming hininga,” Santos added.

(We might be wrong in the Diliman Commune, we might be wrong in many things, but we are sure that we are not wrong that we stood up for freedom and democracy, and we will stand for it until our last breath.)

Meeting of different generations

Rafaela David, chairperson of Akbayan Youth, understands that opposing a Marcos burial at the national heroes’ cemetery would be difficult.

“Ito ‘yung importanteng panahon para magsama-sama, iba’t ibang henerasyon mula sa Martial Law activists mula pa noong 1970s, 1980s. Ngayon, ‘yung mga kabataang lider naman ng henerasyon ngayon, ‘yung tinatawag nating millennials,” she said.

(This is the important time for people of different generations, from Martial Law activists in the 70s and 80s to the youth leaders – the millennials – that we have today)

She added that the protest aims to fight the historical revisionism of the pro-Marcos groups.

“This is a meeting of different generations to make sure that the fight for democracy and human rights, the fight to to make sure that the history of martial law is told truthfully, at the end of the long struggle, will still win,” David added.

Activist Clara Balaguer echoed the challenges that comes with the opposition and confirmed reports that security forces at the heroes’ cemetery has restricted people from visiting the site.

“We were approached by two military personnel, they took our stones, escorted us into the office, and we were given a ‘friendly lecture’. Our IDs were taken, photographs taken, and we were given a convoluted lecture on why we were not allowed to do our protest there,” she narrated.

She said, however, that the guards lied. “I said, I looked up at malacanang.gov.ph and Libingan ng mga Bayani is listed as a tourist attraction along with Manila North Cemetery… We’ve been to the site many times as tourists, cameras, no problem, whatsoever’,” she added.

While Balaguer said that they were not scared with how they were treated, she found it alarming “to hear the lies, and the lies to your face.”

Education in schools

Former Commission on Human Rights chairperson Etta Rosales, the keynote speaker of the event, said that the agency under her term has collated oral histories of the human rights violations during the Martial Law era, including the Palimbang Massacre in 1974.

“Kailangan kasama ng event na ito ang pananaliksik. Ang gawin ninyo, himay-himayin niyo with your social science teachers – the students and the teachers. Likhain natin yung alyansa ninyo. So ‘yung social science teachers will look into this and will make some human rights education modules para dito,” she said.

(This event should also call for research. What you should do is expound on the topic with your social science teachers. Forge the alliance between teachers and students. So that your social science teachers will look into this and will make some human rights education modules on Martial Law)

Rosales added that she has talked to former education secretary Bro. Armin Luistro and they both discussed the project with newly appointed secretary Leonor Briones,whom she said is their “dear friend.”

Quoting Vice President Leni Robredo, she said: “Remember, ‘The powers of bringing the nation together are much more powerful than the powers that divide the nation and keep them apart.”

Dwight Angelo De Leon is the president of DZUP Radio Circle, the official student organization arm of the University of the Philippines Diliman’s official AM radio station, DZUP 1602. He is also currently an intern for Rappler.

On June 14 a group of Americans were deported after the authorities deemed their actions to be sufficiently suspicious. Two of them worked for US Customs and Border Protection and tried to «inspect» the work of the Nicaraguan customs agency without permission from the Nicaraguan government. They had also taken steps to obtain information about shipments of military equipment from Russia, including plans to import T-72 tanks. The US embassy in Managua protested the expulsions and explained that their «inspectors» were interested in restricted-access sites simply as part of their mission to combat international terrorism.

Also deported from the country was Evan Ellis, a professor at the US Army War College, who had arrived in Nicaragua at the same time as the «inspectors» and, like them, had been staying at the Hilton Princess hotel. Judging by the number of his published papers, Ellis’s level of academic productivity is unusually high. His research, which usually employs the confrontational terminology of the Cold War, primarily focuses on the inroads made by China and Russia into Latin American and Caribbean countries.

In Nicaragua, Ellis was interested in the transoceanic canal being built there. The professor claims to have prepared for his visit to Managua as a private citizen and that he held preliminary discussions of the schedule for his trip with Nicaragua’s ambassador to the United States, the chairman of the Grand Canal Authority – Manuel Coronel Kautz, and a number of other relevant Nicaraguan officials. Meetings were planned with government functionaries, businessmen, diplomats, journalists, and social activists for the purpose of gathering information about the canal.

However, the professor did not even manage to stay in Nicaragua for 24 hours. Before being deported, Ellis had only time to visit an exhibition of photos sponsored by the National Council for the Defense of the Land, Lake, and Sovereignty – an NGO that is protesting the construction of the canal. That very evening, immigration agents came to Ellis’s hotel room and informed him that since he did not have official permission to conduct an investigation of the transoceanic canal he must leave the country immediately. The American ended up on the next flight to the US.

After his expulsion, Ellis lost his temper and sounded off on the Internet. His accusations all echoed Washington’s position, which is hostile to the construction of the Nicaragua Canal, a likely competitor to the one in Panama that is unofficially under US control.

Ellis is primarily questioning the feasibility of the project, stating that «the Nicaraguan government has managed the canal project behind a cloak of secrecy, possibly to conceal the personal benefits accruing to those involved on the Nicaraguan side».

To Ellis, the deportation of the US diplomats is an indication that the «strategy of constructive, respectful engagement with the Nicaraguan regime is not working». Therefore, on the eve of the November elections in Nicaragua, the US administration «has both the right and the moral obligation to work with civil society groups to advance meaningful democracy». For Ellis, the refusal to allow observers from the US government or the Carter Center to monitor the elections in Nicaragua is an act that «undermines democracy». So now he calls for the United States to intervene in order to prevent Nicaragua from ultimately degenerating into a «Venezuela-style» authoritarian regime. Pointing to the possible «criminal behavior» of Nicaragua’s leaders, Ellis cites the need for them to be continuously monitored by US law enforcement agencies. His report includes some threatening overtones: «Those connected to transnational organized crime, or enriching themselves at the expense of the Nicaraguan people, will not escape justice to live with their ill-gotten gains once they leave office».

There is a good reason that Ellis is proposing this sort of oversight: the Sandinista leaders are an unending irritant for the Obama administration. It is common knowledge that US intelligence services conduct intensive surveillance of Daniel Ortega. But he takes a blasé attitude toward this – as Hugo Chávez once did – because he has neither secret foreign accounts nor kleptocratic inclinations. Another motive for the attack on «Ortega’s regime» is Nicaragua’s military and technical cooperation with Russia. This is another area where Ellis stresses the need for continued vigilance. For example, the Marshal Zhukov Training Center: what is its actual purpose? Is it merely being used to train army servicemen? Or another example – the shipment of two missile boats and four patrol cutters to Nicaragua. Why so many? Russia has clearly launched an arms race of unprecedented magnitude in the waters of the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean! Ellis is also concerned about deliveries of updated T-72B1 tanks to Nicaragua. Twenty arrived in the first shipment, and Nicaraguan tank operators can expect a total of 50 armored vehicles by the end of the year. Ellis recommends working more actively with Nicaragua’s neighbors like Costa Rica. It is not entirely clear what the American professor is specifically referring to in this instance. Does he mean helping the traditionally peace-loving nation of Costa Rica to develop a full-scale standing army? Or building the Pentagon’s next military base within that country?

Last December the work on Nicaragua’s transoceanic canal was suspended until August of this year. The postponement was precipitated by the financial difficulties of the primary contractor, a Hong Kong-based consortium known as HK Nicaragua Canal Development Investment Co. [APR editor’s note: more properly called the Hong Kong Nicaragua Canal Development Group/ HKND Group, MDN]. Ellis notes that this mega-project has not progressed very far since the construction of the initial infrastructure began: two deepwater ports have not been built, nor have the warehouses or factories to produce the construction materials, the completion of which was scheduled for April 2016. In addition, environmental NGOs are working ever more vigorously, encouraged by the Americans to egg on the protests by farmers who are suddenly distressed about the clear-cutting of the forests near Lake Nicaragua and the Brito and Las Lajas rivers.

With the assistance of experts like Ellis, the pro-American media is trying to persuade Nicaraguans that the canal is «Sandinista propaganda» and its construction dauntingly complex. For the same reason, the US mass media, as well as the Latin American media under American control, give prominence to their coverage of the efforts to update the Panama Canal. The leitmotif is clear: no alternative canals are needed in the Western hemisphere because the one in Panama is capable of «solving almost all the problems» of Asian-US trade, which includes the capacity to accept ships up to 14,000 TEU. Then the corresponding picture pops up: the Cosco Shipping Panama, a Chinese container ship that has successfully navigated through the new locks of the Panama Canal.

On the eve of the Nicaraguan elections, Washington is doing all it can to undermine the position of Daniel Ortega, who has once again been nominated for the presidency by the Sandinista National Liberation Front party. This explains why all sorts of emissaries and experts are being dispatched to that country.

Nicaragua’s fifth column is isolated and needs support. And the citizens of Latin American countries are often used to provide this support. For example, Viridiana Ríos, a Mexican staffer with the Wilson Center in Washington, DC, fled Nicaragua in panic after the Americans were deported because she felt she was being followed. She claims to have been gathering information about the issues of public safety and violence. Several of her studies are being used by the CIA, DEA, and FBI, so she did have some cause for her panic and subsequent flight. A group of Latin American student environmentalists who were detained in southern Nicaragua were also at the center of some suspicious incidents. Apparently, these «environmentalists» were teaching the native Indians how to use explosives.

The expulsion of these foreign provocateurs is a sign that the Sandinistas will not permit the destabilization of their country. Hence the hysterical campaign in the international media about «Ortega’s dictatorship».

Nicaragua’s socioeconomic progress, Nicaraguans’ improved standard of living, and the stability and security there (compared to the increase in crime in most Central American countries) can all largely be credited to President Ortega. He is a faithful defender of Nicaragua’s interests on the international stage and enjoys the support of the vast majority of Nicaraguans. This is why the subversive activities of the US intelligence services and their «strategy of chaos» will not work in Nicaragua.

This report was first published in December 2015. No criminal charges against Hillary in relation to her emails. The FBI has also been investigating the Clinton Foundation.

By David Sirota and Andrew Perez 

Even by the standards of arms deals between the United States and Saudi Arabia, this one was enormous. A consortium of American defense contractors led by Boeing would deliver $29 billion worth of advanced fighter jets to the United States’ oil-rich ally in the Middle East.

Israeli officials were agitated, reportedly complaining to the Obama administration that this substantial enhancement to Saudi air power risked disrupting the region’s fragile balance of power. The deal appeared to collide with the State Department’s documented concerns about the repressive policies of the Saudi royal family.

But now, in late 2011, Hillary Clinton’s State Department was formally clearing the sale, asserting that it was in the national interest. At a press conference in Washington to announce the department’s approval, an assistant secretary of state, Andrew Shapiro, declared that the deal had been “a top priority” for Clinton personally. Shapiro, a longtime aide to Clinton since her Senate days, added that the “U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army have excellent relationships in Saudi Arabia.”

These were not the only relationships bridging leaders of the two nations. In the years before Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contributed at least $10 million to the Clinton Foundation, the philanthropic enterprise she has overseen with her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Just two months before the deal was finalized, Boeing — the defense contractor that manufactures one of the fighter jets the Saudis were especially keen to acquire, the F-15 — contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation, according to a company press release.

The Saudi deal was one of dozens of arms sales approved by Hillary Clinton’s State Department that placed weapons in the hands of governments that had also donated money to the Clinton family philanthropic empire, an International Business Times investigation has found.

Under Clinton’s leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure — derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) — represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term.

The Clinton-led State Department also authorized $151 billion of separate Pentagon-brokered deals for 16 of the countries that donated to the Clinton Foundation, resulting in a 143 percent increase in completed salesto those nations over the same time frame during the Bush administration. These extra sales were part of a broad increase in American military exports that accompanied Obama’s arrival in the White House. The 143 percent increase in U.S. arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors compares to an 80 percent increase in such sales to all countries over the same time period.

Read complete article at ibtimes 

http://www.ibtimes.com/clinton-foundation-donors-got-weapons-deals-hillary-clintons-state-department-1934187

This incisive WSWS article (originally posted on Global Research in March 2015) confirms the racketeering charges of the FBI against the Clinton Foundation

Several press reports [late February 2015] highlight details of the major donors to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, including right-wing Persian Gulf monarchies, big defense contractors, and an array of corporations and governments seeking influence with the US political establishment—and potentially in the next White House.

Founded in 2001 after the end of Bill Clinton’s second term as president, the Foundation has raised and distributed huge amounts of money, reaching nearly $2 billion. After a brief drop in fundraising coinciding with Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, when most foreign donations were discouraged because of conflict-of-interest concerns, donations jumped $100 million in 2013, reaching $262 million.

The list of the Foundation’s largest donors, available on the Foundation’swebsite, is a virtual who’s who of the super-rich and major corporations. The largest donors, having given over $25 million since 2001, include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, well known for its leading role in the dismantling of public education, Chicago multimillionaire and top Democratic Party donor Fred Eychaner, and, strangely, the Dutch national lottery.

Major corporations appear in spades in the list of 168 individuals and organizations that have given more than $1 million. Defense contractors such as Boeing and Booz Allen Hamilton, both gave between $1 and $5 million, joined by Barclays, Goldman Sachs, and the American Federation of Teachers.

The reactionary Persian Gulf monarchies have poured tens of millions into the Clinton Foundation, including Saudi Arabia ($10 to $25 million), Kuwait, ($5 to $10 million), Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates ($1 to $5 million). In addition, several groups and individuals close to the Saudi government have also made tens of millions in contributions.

The Clinton Foundation made an agreement with the Obama administration not to accept new donations from foreign sources during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, a policy which has now expired. However, tens of millions of overseas dollars continued to flow into the Foundation through an exemption which allowed existing donors to continue making contributions at a similar level.

Claims by Clinton Foundation donors that they were genuinely interested in charity are belied by the circumstances of many of the donations. For example, the Wall Street Journal cited an incident in 2009 in which Hillary Clinton convinced Russia to purchase 50 Boeing 737s; seven months later, Boeing made its first-ever donation to the Clinton Foundation, $900,000 to help “rebuild” Haiti’s school system. Perhaps admitting more than she intended, a Boeing spokeswoman said in a written statement, “Secretary Clinton did nothing for Boeing that former US presidents and cabinet secretaries haven’t done for decades.”

In another case, the Foundation received a $500,000 donation from the government of Algeria for its pro-market “relief” effort in Haiti. TheWashington Post notes that the donation, which violated the Foundation’s earlier agreement with the Obama administration, came in the midst of a particularly heavy lobbying push from Algeria in Washington in the aftermath of a report by Clinton’s State Department condemning Algeria’s human rights record. The donation was more than the Algerian government spent on lobbying for the entire year.

Two years later, Secretary of State Clinton lobbied successfully on behalf of GE in its bids to construct power plants in Algeria, described by the company as “some of its largest power agreements in company history.” A month later, GE donated from $500,000 to $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

The focus in the media, especially from Journal and other ultra-right outlets, has been on the fact that foreign countries, companies and individuals comprise a third of the foundation’s major donors, implying that they are purchasing political influence through the Clintons. While there is a degree of truth to this, this is also a two-way street, as the Clinton Foundation is fully integrated into the political apparatus as an instrument of American imperialist foreign policy.

Instructive in this regard is their role in the “rebuilding” of Haiti after the 2010 earthquake, in which some 300,000 died. The Clinton Foundation played a major role, with Bill Clinton himself co-chairing the panel that distributed all international aid to Haiti. The entire aid effort was used to ram through pro-market restructuring, while American and then UN “peacekeepers” patrolled the country to prevent any opposition from the population. The Obama administration made no objection to the Algerian donation to the Clinton Foundation for the simple reason that it was entirely in line with American foreign policy in Haiti.

The Clinton Foundation’s version of “charity” also involves imperialist intrigue. This included secret maneuvers last year against Sri Lankan president Mahinda Rajapakse, which ultimately led to his electoral defeat last month. The country’s former president Chandrika Kumaratunga, who joined the Clinton Foundation in 2005, played the major role in backroom deals that led to Maithripala Sirisena’s sudden departure from the government and announcement that he would be the “common opposition candidate.” Earlier this month Kumaratunga admitted that unnamed “foreign governments” had urged her to maneuver against Rajapakse.

During her time as secretary of state, Hillary Clinton took the lead in denouncing the Sri Lankan government’s “human rights record” in order to pressure it to move away from its ties with China as part of the Obama administration’s “Pivot to Asia.” She presented resolutions in 2011 and 2012 in her capacity as secretary of state demanding that the UN take action against Sri Lanka for human rights violations during the civil war against Tamil separatist guerrillas.

Hung parliaments are deemed the bane of the Westminster System.  It makes politicians sweat, policy makers work, and the broader system of representative government unusually representative. The latter part is particularly irksome for the majoritarians.

Authoritarian tendencies are never far away from the politically elected. It is always easy to become hubristic when voters go your way, less so when they prefer other options of balance and discernment. Majoritarianism tends to be one of the great dangers of democracy practice, largely because it assumes that the stronger the backing for one force, the more democratic it is.

The fallacy of untrammelled majority rule ignores what parliamentary practice tends to be. Well it may be that governments are elected with a majority, but the rules of representation demand that other parties and voices are accounted for. Strictly speaking, governments may make laws, but parliament passes them in a final vote.

The Australian elections this early July gave politicians a richly deserved outcome. It shocked Turnbull’s conservative government of the day, but did not award victory to Bill Shorten’s opposition Labor party.  While Australia’s Parliament, notably the lower house, could do with many more independents, it was heartening to see five come through in a body with 150 seats.

This is where the hung parliament comes into pay. No government of the day will be entitled to treat debate as a cosmetic exercise.  Policies will have to be thought out instead of rammed through with indifference.  (No government with majorities in either the Senate or the Lower house ever debate anything.)

This point is easily missed by Australian political commentators who find the idea of a shredded majority disturbing. They have nightmares that Australia will become a pseudo-Italian state, marred by the corridor of changing governments. The Australian foreshadowed three years of chaos, with the prospect of another election in 12 months. (Never accept an electorate’s viewpoint till they come around to your viewpoint; but that would be the view of a Rupert Murdoch paper.)

Little thought is given to the obvious fact that Parliament never goes through such a door, remaining with entrenched institutional defiance. Politicians still remain to pass acts.  Debates continue, irrespective of what party decides to subject their leader to decapitation.

The close election result from July 2 makes perfect historical sense.  The entire premise of dissolving both chambers of Parliament by the Prime Minister had been to obtain irrepressible numbers by popular demand. That Malcolm Turnbull assumed he would get such unqualified support suggests a total absence of sentience in Canberra’s governance.

The disgust in what must be one of the more stable political systems in the world with the tribal bloodletting has been well stated in these election results.  Neither side should govern outright.  If governing parties cannot get their act together, they deserve a good electoral scolding at the polling both, and more appropriately, some restraint in practice.  Such figures certainly should not be encouraged with their usual form of behaviour.

Both major parties have found political assassination irresistible.  The Australian Labour Party under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard specialised in sessions of regicide when in government, instigated by party pollsters and propaganda wonks who confused ratings of opinion with effectiveness in government.In 2013, when Tony Abbott, a conservative prime minister, made his way to the office, it took till 2015 for his own party to tire of him. The excuses in removing Abbott in favour of the more conciliatory Turnbull were all too familiar in their historical rhyming: poor consultation, episodes of mania, the firm influence of an inner unelected circle constituted of one.

This Australian parliament, notably at the senate level, has the potential to be as colourful as the last, though establishment chatterboxes fear that some of the figures seem all too reactionary.  In her return to national politics, Pauline Hanson of the One Nation Party will again make her presence felt in Canberra, keeping accompany with a host of other plain speakers who loathe party machines.

Hanson, more than any other member of parliament, has every reason to feel that her pugnacious ideas on halting the arrival of immigrants, refugees and human beings not quite familiar with the “Aussie” way of living were purloined by various governments from the late 1990s onwards.

Hanson is only a scourge in so far as her crude siege philosophy has been totally integrated into Australian political life.  Conveniently called racist, her views pair rather well with the concentration camp essentials of Australian refugee policy.

The attitudinal change inflicted by a hung parliament is a blissful thing indeed.  Rather than being dismissed in a flurry of authoritarian sentiments, it should be embraced as a productive enterprise.  Any decent history of the traumatic years of the Gillard minority government will be aware that working with crossbenchers and independents is exactly what democratic government is all about.  Besides, such trauma is always exaggerated, usually by the calculatingly unimaginative.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

A new wave of militancy, mostly comprising of educated young men, is sweeping through the trouble-torn Kashmir valley. This new breed of Kashmiri militants is more radicalized and more firm in its convictions than its predecessors.

Lately, there has been an unprecedented rise in the number of militants operating in the Kashmir valley with South Kashmir erupting as the new hotbed. Attacks have been carried out against Army, paramilitary forces and police with nonchalance. The number of people attending the funerals of militants is often massive. The militants enjoy huge public support and sympathy; in fact, they had it right from 1989, but now, the new generation of Kashmiri youth is more overt in this. They repeatedly resort to stone pelting near the encounter sites so that the militants have a free escape. Most of the times, this proves successful because of the obvious distraction and also the apprehension of civilian casualties on part of the security establishment.

The security establishment is worried; the people are apprehensive, all the while the volcano of Kashmiris’ distrust for India, which frequently gets manifested in the streets, encounter sites, funeral processions and Friday prayers, is heating up. Without appearing cynical, the immediate aftermath of the recent Pampore attack, in which eight CRPF men lost their lives, was an apt illustration of how common Kashmiris feel about India right now? While the very next day, the whole of India was mourning the death of its soldiers, the Pampore town observed a complete shutdown as a mark of solidarity with the two LeT militants killed in the attack. Young Kashmiri militant, Burhan Wani, has emerged as the new poster boy of militancy in the Kashmir valley. Just take a look on the different social media sites; it is he who has become the new online hero for the Kashmiri teenagers, and not any IAS toppers which would have generally been the case in any normal situation.

The political and security establishments both at the state and central level have acknowledged this disturbing trend. Recently, the GOC Northern Command Let Gen D S Hooda frankly admitted to the ever increasing radicalization and the new found tilt towards militancy among the valley youth. But if Gen Hooda’s acknowledgement is taken as the assessment that his organization has made of this recent radical surge in Kashmir valley, then there needs to be a serious appraisal. He points out the oft repeated reasons—lack of opportunities, religious fundamentalism and role of ISI. Most of the militants are well educated and do not come from the ‘deprived’ sections but from relatively affluent middle class families. Gen Hooda has called for an honest assessment and urgent remedial measures of this problem.

But dismissing and bracketing this militancy, which is totally local in its orientation, as being the handiwork of the neighbouring country’s intelligence agency is surely not an honest and prudent assessment. Gen Hooda and his establishment would be well served if they aim to move away from their self-righteous and simplistic persuasion. One is entitled to pose the question that from where does this alienation emanate? One cannot but agree with Gen Hooda and the perceptions of his organization that there is an urgent need in exploring the ways for de-radicalizing the valley youth. But the million-dollar question that he needs to ask himself and his establishment (both political and military) is that how to achieve an end to the deep-rooted sense of alienation and frustration among the youth? Except the periphery areas, the so-called ‘integrationist’ schemes like the Sadhbhavana have utterly failed to achieve their purposes. It is because the situation is too complex and serious to be resolved by lollypops like Sadhbhavana.

When the state defines itself by sanctioning violent practices, as theorists argue, there is bound to be a counter-definition which at times, like in the case of Kashmir valley, takes things to another extreme. For many people, including those in the establishment, the recent surge in the militancy in the Kashmir valley has been an unexpected development. However, the underlying reality points towards a slightly different direction. While there has been a steady decline in the militancy in valley during the last eight years or so, one thing which has really got unnoticed, is the extreme state oppression which has exacerbated during the same period of time.

The tragedy is not the number of militants joining the militant organizations but the repressive ways of choking the democratic space, recurrent rights violations by the forces, failure and incompetence of police in tackling small law and order problems which results in high-handedness, atrocities and humiliations that an average Kashmiri faces on almost daily basis, and the impunity enjoyed by the erring personnel. All these years, hundreds of Kashmiris have been killed in the street protests. The most recent example is that of six killings in Handwara protesting against an alleged act of molestation. Many more have been imprisoned under the draconian laws. In many ways, the persona of once a bright teenager, Burhan Wani, and the manner in which he was brutalized by the repressive state mechanism to turn into a mutineer, has become emblematic of the whole of Kashmir’s tryst with state oppression. They only ask: how can you have democracy and militarization functioning together?

Not being an alarmist here, the scenario is indeed grim which demands immediate attention. This response certainly cannot be done through neutralizing the militants physically; after all, they carry a certain ideology and how can you kill an ideology with bullets and mortar shells? The need is to engage with them, listen to them, and work for a solution, which is, believe me, what these militants want. Finally, the real cause of this militancy is the unresolved conflict itself and not any other factor. We would do well to move towards the resolution of the conflict through a serious dialogue and an engaging democratic process; only then, the cycle of violence can be broken.

Prof. Basharat Shameem is Lecturer in English Literature, Directorate of Distance Education, University of Kashmir.

Do the American People Want an “Extremely Careless” President? FBI Director James Comey’s Statement On Hillary Clinton’s Emails.

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 06 2016

We bring to the attention of our readers the full text of FBI director James Comey’s statement concerning Hillary Clinton’s emails. No criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. That was to be expected. Political pressure was exerted on both the FBI and the Justice Department.

Hillary and the FBI. Emailgate is but the “Tip of the Clintons’ Criminality”

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, July 06 2016

Tactics of minimisation have been central to Hillary Clinton’s political career. When stumbling takes place, go for the established book of deflective rules.  When violations of the law take place, explain that it was normal at the time.

No Charges Against Hillary for Serious Email Security Breaches

By Stephen Lendman, July 06 2016

No aspirant for high public office in US history is more despicably unworthy and dangerous – scandal-ridden, irreparably tainted, criminally culpable, a global menace if she succeeds Obama.

“If the FBI Doesn’t Recommend Charges, Then She [Clinton] Didn’t Break Any Law.” [??]

By Eric Zuesse, July 06 2016

That seems to be the opinion of the majority of reader-comments at reddit. In response to an article that presented six U.S. criminal laws which clearly describe the most basic aspect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email operation, and some of which U.S. laws specify up to 20 years imprisonment for it, the overwhelming opinion of commenters at reddit has been that if the FBI doesn’t recommend that the case regarding Clinton be pursued in court, then she should be (for all intents and purposes) considered and treated by voters to be innocent in the matter.

FBI Rejects Criminal Charges against Clinton in Email Investigation. “Carelessness” vs. “Negligent Mishandling”. Only the Latter is a Felony

By Patrick Martin, July 06 2016

FBI Director James Comey announced Tuesday that his agency will not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server to handle government communications during her four years as secretary of state in the Obama administration.

Hillary Clinton: Lies, Misdemeanors, Felonies, and Treason

By Hardworking1, July 05 2016

It is hard to imagine how one person could do so much wrong and never once be charged with a crime. Even worse she was elected to the U.S. Senate, was nominated to be Secretary of State and confirmed to be Secretary of State by the U.S. Senate. Now she is about to be “anointed” the President of the United States of America by the Democratic National Committee and Obama in spite of the fact that she is the subject of two FBI criminal investigations.

The beginning of the year 2016 has seen major operational developments in naval power design, born of differing strategic considerations and philosophies of naval power projection. The United States Navy is doubling down on the concept of the nuclear powered aircraft carrier, as well as stealth technology, to form the backbone of its new fleet additions. The resurgent nations, China and Russia, have designed a number of new surface vessels which leverage next generation radar and missile technology. Chief amongst these are next generation guided missile destroyers that will provide both nations with very potent and flexible surface warfare platforms.

The USS Zumwalt DDG 1000, first in class of a projected three vessels, was handed over to the U.S. Navy to begin sea trials on March 20th. Envisioned as the supreme stealth destroyer in the 1990’s, the U.S. Navy originally planned to build 32 such vessels. Now the US Navy will receive only three. With a total program cost of $22.5 billion USD to date, each vessel will cost in excess of $4 billion USD to field. The latest, and most powerful conventional aircraft carrier ever built and put to sea, the USS Gerald R. Ford CVN-78, is also undergoing sea trials and is scheduled for a mid-summer commissioning date. The CVN-78 displaces 90,000 tons, accommodates over 75 aircraft, and employs a number of new technologies, but comes with a price tag of over $13 billion USD.

DDG-1000, pictured during acceptance trials in April 2016, is the lead ship of the Zumwalt-class destroyers; next-generation multi-mission surface combatants tailored for land attack and littoral dominance. (U.S. Navy photo courtesy of General Dynamics/Released)

The Russian and Chinese naval planners and designers have decided on a totally different philosophy for their next generation surface warfare vessels. While they see a limited role for the aircraft carrier in the 21st century, both nations have decidedly refuted its preeminence. Russia has decided to maintain and modernize its sole active carrier, the Admiral Kuznetsov, and have planned a new class of conventional aircraft carrier; however, they have focused the majority of their efforts and funding in procuring a new class of guided missile destroyer of large displacement. The Lider (Leader) Class DDG has a design displacement of between 17,000 and 18,000 tons, putting it well in the displacement category of a Cruiser. The Lider will be a powerful ASW, AAW platform that will also be equipped to launch a variety of anti-ship guided cruise missiles and land attack guided cruise missiles.

The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has been undergoing an expansion of unprecedented proportions over the past decade. In addition to the Liaoning aircraft carrier, China has added modern corvettes, frigates and destroyers to its two principle fleets. China has commissioned 3 Type 052D DDGs, and has a further six vessels in various stages of construction. The Type 052D is an advanced guided missile destroyer that gives China a parity of capability with their most capable, potential adversaries in the region, Japan and the United States. A total of twelve vessels of this class are planned. China has moved a step further by developing the Type 055 Class DDG, which like the Russian Lider Class, has the displacement tonnage of a Cruiser, at between 10,000 and 14,000 tons. This large vessel will provide the PLAN with a powerful ASW/AAW platform that can act as a key component of a future Carrier Battle Group (CBG), or in conjunction with other surface vessels in providing anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capability in Chinese territorial waters and beyond. The Type 055 will be a powerful tool in further developing China’s blue water capability as a whole, allowing the PLAN to project power, maintain a formidable naval presence, and respond to crisis over much larger distances.

Current Geopolitical Realities and Historic Defense Posture

When considering the viability of both large DDG designs, the current geopolitical realities and challenges facing both Russia and China must be understood. Russia is facing a renewed threat from an increasingly belligerent NATO alliance, led by the United States, which threatens its sovereignty and interests in the Baltic, Mediterranean, Balkans, Caucasus, and the recently reunited Crimea. In order to provide a viable defense of the nation and its allies, Russia must maintain and strengthen its A2/AD capabilities in the maritime realm adjacent to these threatened regions. Similarly, the ever increasing brinkmanship in the South China Sea, between China and the United States, brings into clear focus the challenges to China’s interests in the region. China faces further challenges in its dispute with Japan in the East China Sea over the sovereignty of the Senkaku (Daioyu) Islands.

With a few exceptions, the long histories of both Russia and China reveal a mostly defensive military posture. This stands in strong contrast to centuries of the belligerent pursuit of conquest and colonization by the western powers. The Great Wall is a vast physical manifestation of China’s defensive mindset. Throughout its long history, traditional China was assailed from without by many enemies; by warlike kingdoms from Manchuria in the north, nomadic hordes along its western borders, and later from western powers all along its eastern and southern maritime borders, and still later from the brutal invasion of Imperial Japan. The overwhelming majority of China’s more than 5,000 years of recorded history exhibits a China that has concentrated its military resources on maintaining a strong defensive posture, and focusing its energies inward on developing its own culture and society.

Similarly, Russia’s long history tells a similar tale. Besieged by Viking raiders along its many navigable rivers, assailed by nomadic hordes of Mongols and Huns from the east and southeast, Islamic invasions through the Balkans and Caucasus, the expansionist ambitions of Swedish kings, the attentions of Napoleon Bonaparte and other western powers invading through its western borders and the Crimea, and finally the depraved machinations of Nazi Germany in the 20thcentury, paint a vivid picture of a Russia constantly defending itself. Offensive operations during the Crimean War, during the many wars fought against the Ottoman Turks, and even the prosecution of the Afghan War, were fought with an overarching aim of providing for the defense of Russian territory. Russia has never engaged in far reaching colonial endeavors or military missions of conquest far from its borders, unlike the most powerful members of the NATO alliance.

Map illustrating the territorial disputes in the South China Sea and the East China Sea

Once again, both nations are challenged by viable military threats from a singular foreign power. The United States, which has been engaged in constant offensive military operations and invasions thousands of miles away from its borders for the past fifteen years, has become increasingly belligerent toward both Russia and China over the course of the past two years. In the case of China, the U.S. has sided with rival claimants to territories that China claims in both the South and East China Seas, has provided military aid and assistance to these nations, and has taken the unilateral action of sailing warships and military aircraft within the internationally recognized twelve mile limit of sovereignty of these disputed territories. The U.S. is presently engaging two Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) in massive military training operations in the Philippine Sea, adjacent to the main areas of dispute. The Obama administration has seen fit to establish a much more robust defensive treaty with the Philippines, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, to conduct large scale, joint military drills with the Philippine Armed Forces in April of this year, and to lift the long established ban on the trade of weapons to Vietnam just this May. These are all very clear signs that the United States intends to contain China and to limit its ability to pursue its national interests within its own back yard, to dispute China’s access to vital resources in the South China Sea, and to deny China’s ability to expand and improve its defensive capabilities in the maritime realm adjacent to its borders.

German and British forces practice an offensive river crossing in Poland during NATO exercise Anakonda 16, June 7-17th. June, 2016 marks the 75th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s Operation Barbarossa in 1941, a message not lost on Russian political and military leadership.

Similarly, the United States has leveraged its dominant position in NATO and its economic control of Europe through international financial organizations such as the World Bank, WTO and the IMF, and to push for the continued expansion of NATO and the further military encirclement of Russia. Not only has Russia witnessed the largest concentration of foreign military forces along its Western European, Baltic and Balkan borders since Operation Barbarossa of 1941, but it has had its centuries old position of security and trade in Ukraine and the Crimea militarily challenged through a U.S. backed and financed coup, and the resultant proxy war in what was arguably the birthplace of Russian culture. Furthermore, the destabilization and destruction of the Syrian state at the hands of U.S. and NATO backed terrorists and largely foreign insurgents, is a second proxy war that threatens to remove Russia’s long term ally in a strategically important region. Syria harbors Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base at Tartus, key to supporting a Russian Naval presence in both the Mediterranean and the Bosporus, as well as the southern land approaches to the Caucasus republics of the Russian Federation. Further destabilization of this southern border to radical Islamic forces will further enflame Islamic terrorism within Russia’s southern republics and create a powerful enemy in the region, allied with Turkey and Islamic extremists throughout the Caucasus.

It becomes clear that both China and Russia must invest in naval warfare platforms that will allow them to field a strong naval deterrent along their maritime borders, to achieve a strong anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capability in key maritime regions adjacent to their maritime borders, and to provide them with enhanced power projection capabilities at increasing ranges. Both the Lider Class and Type 055 Class DDGs will increase Russia’s and China’s chances of meeting these strategic challenges, and will be force multipliers in ensuring success in any future conflicts. Both vessel designs will not only influence any future naval warfare scenarios, but also provide enhanced seaborne regional anti-ballistic missile defense and air defense capability, as well as offensive strike capability via land attack cruise missiles.

Next Generation Naval Developments

Both Russia and China have gone through different, yet similar, evaluations of the most effective and efficient application of modern technological advancements in naval warfare platforms, and how best to utilize these platforms to develop a war-winning strategy and corresponding naval tactical doctrine. The advent of increasingly powerful and accurate missiles, capable of higher speeds, greater effective range, and intelligent, semi-autonomous guidance with the aid of satellite navigation and information processing, has led both nations to develop a similar naval warfare philosophy. Both Russia and China have accepted the limited role of the aircraft carrier in the current high-tech naval warfare environment. Both have embraced the dominant and deciding role of modern missile technology, coupled with advanced radars and battle management systems.

Russian Caspian Flotilla launching Kalibr land attack cruise missiles against ISIS targets in Syria, 2015.

Russia has been at the cutting edge of missile technology and hopes to field the first operational hypersonic missile, the 3K22 Zircon, by 2018. This will coincide with the completion of the modernization of the guided missile battlecruiser Admiral Nakhimov, which will most likely be equipped with the new missiles, as well as long range Kalibr cruise missiles. Both Orlan (NATO designation Kirov) Class battlecruisers, the Admiral Nakhimov and the Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great)  will be modernized fully and reequipped with far more capable radars, battle management systems and the most capable missiles in Russia’s arsenal. The Peter the Great is scheduled to complete modernization in the year 2025, corresponding with the projected date of delivery of the last of twelve new Lider Class DDGs.

China has invested heavily in developing its arsenal of cruise and ballistic missiles in recent decades. In an effort to provide greater flexibility and power projection capabilities to its newest surface warfare vessels, the Type 052D Class DDGs are equipped with a VLS that can fire any of the PLAN’s guided missiles, including anti-aircraft, anti-ship, anti-ship cruise, and land attack cruise missiles. It is assumed that the Type 055 Class DDGs will retain the same level of flexibility in VLS design. China is in the process of developing a hypersonic missile, yet is far behind Russia in this effort. They have developed a quite capable anti-ship cruise missile, the YJ-18, which presents a significant threat to the most modern of surface vessels due to its range of 290 nautical miles, inertial guidance system, and high terminal stage attack speed of Mach 3. The Type 055 will most likely be equipped with a more modern variant of the YJ-18, along with newer anti-aircraft and anti-ship missiles by the time of completion of the first vessel. Analysts believe that construction has already begun on the first of at least two Type 055 vessels.

A Chinese PLAN Type 054 FFG fires a YJ-83 anti-ship missile.

The Russian Navy Lider (Leader) Class DDG

Russia has publicly announced its plans to modernize a number of key naval assets on numerous occasions over the past two years. The Russian Ministry of Defense has requested design proposals from Russian shipbuilders for a number of vessels based on very specific design criteria. Alongside both nuclear and non-nuclear powered submarines, a new conventional aircraft carrier, and helicopter carriers to replace the failed Mistral acquisition, a powerful surface combatant to replace older Soviet designs was seen as essential in advancing Russian naval capabilities.

The Project 23560E Shykval Lider (Leader) Class destroyer is perhaps a modern reinterpretation of the Soviet era Kirov Class battlecruiser, with a number of key changes. The Kirov Class battlecruisers were envisioned as massive missile-armed heavy combatants that would be able, with AAW/ASW support from accompanying destroyers and frigates, to deliver a devastating and decisive blow to a U.S. Carrier Strike Group in the event of hostilities. They maintain an increased relevance in their modernized and refitted form; however, the new Lider Class is a notable improvement on the original concept in a number of regards.

Scale model of Lider Class DDG.

The Lider is smaller than the Kirov, at a design displacement of between 17,000 and 18,000 tons compared to the 28,000 ton displacement of the older vessel. The Lider is smaller, yet gains the advantages of greater speed, maneuverability, a smaller radar signature (incorporating a modern stealthy, superstructure and integrated mast design), more efficient nuclear/hybrid electric or gas turbine drive main propulsion, and a large complement of modern offensive and defensive missile systems. The Lider is designed to accommodate a VLS system of approximately 200 missiles of various types, including long range Kalibr anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles, a navalized version of the S-500 long range anti-aircraft missile system, and the Zircon hypersonic anti-ship missile currently in development. The vessel will be equipped with Pantsir-M short range anti-aircraft missiles and Palash close-in defense weapons, as well as at least 16 anti-submarine guided missiles and the Paket-NK anti-torpedo system. The Lider Class is equipped with a flight deck and hangar space to accommodate two helicopters for support and ASW duties. The vessel has a strikingly high and angular radar and sensory mast which makes use of modern stealth concepts to reduce the radar signature of the destroyer.

Twelve Lider Class vessels have been ordered to be delivered between 2020 and 2025. The requirement for nuclear/hybrid electric drive may only be for a portion of the total number of vessels, with the remainder being of more conventional gas-turbine propulsion arrangement.  Nuclear propulsion would greatly increase the underway endurance of the vessel, limited only by crew and weapons replenishment needs. Considering training and maintenance requirements, perhaps a third of the planned vessels will be completed as nuclear powered, long-endurance vessels to bolster the Northern and Pacific Fleets. The inclusion of at least one newly designed aircraft carrier in the procurement plans of the Russian Navy greatly changes the envisioned deployment and use of the Lider DDGs. The large DDGs may become the chief AAW/ASW platform for future CSGs, but long term Soviet-Russian naval doctrine exhibits a notable refuting of aircraft carrier importance in naval strategy, and thus any new carriers would most likely be used in a campaign or theater specific role, and not a carrier-centric restructuring of Russian naval doctrine.

Design Specifications:

LOA: 200 meters/656.2 feet

Beam: 20 meters/65.6 feet

Displacement: Between 17,000 and 18,000 tons.

Propulsion: Hybrid nuclear and gas turbine.

Cruising Speed: 30-35 knots.

Range: Practically unlimited with nuclear propulsion. At least 90 day planned endurance.

Weapons Systems: A number of existing missiles, and missiles currently in development.

60 x anti-ship cruise missiles/land attack cruise missiles. Kalibr-NK or Zircon supersonic missiles are a possibility.

16 x anti-submarine missiles.

128 x anti-aircraft missiles. Most likely a navalized version of the S-500 now in development.

Pantsir-M and Palash systems for short range and close-in defense.

Radar/Sensors:

Shrouded in mystery, but the very large integrated mast suggests advanced X and S Band phased array radars for target acquisition and tracking, fire-control and engagement. Other sensory and communications arrays.

Aircraft: Flight deck and hangar space to accommodate 2 x Ka-27 of Ka-32 helicopters.

The Chinese PLAN Type 055 Class DDG

China has been modernizing and expanding its Navy at a rate that far outpaces the rest of the world. China has invested a great deal of its wealth, as the second largest economy in the world, and the world’s largest manufacturer and exporter, into modernizing and expanding its military capabilities. China estimates an increase in defense spending for fiscal year 2016 of between 7% and 8 %, putting the total amount at approximately $980 billion yuan ($150 billion USD). The PLAN has received a large portion of the annual defense budget of China, traditionally amounting to an estimated 25-30% of total expenditures in recent years.

The most modern and capable surface combatant in the Chinese Navy is the Type 052D guided missile destroyer, which the PLAN is building at a rapid rate. The vessel supplements Type 052 destroyers of earlier, less capable variants. It must be noted that the PLAN is also commissioning modern vessels of just about every other designation at the same time, including an aircraft carrier, frigates, corvettes, LPDs, LSTs, tankers and logistics support vessels. Either as an acknowledgement of the need for a larger vessel to serve as a fleet command ship, a powerful AAW/ASW platform to round-out future CBGs, a very capable A2/AD vessel, or all of the above, Chinese naval planners have decided to build a vessel similar to their Russian counterparts. Similar in design, capabilities, and dimensions to the Lider Class, the PLAN Type 055 DDG is an impressive vessel on paper. If Chinese naval architects and engineers can continue their impressive list of achievements in recent years, the Type 055 should live up to its intended role.

Type 055 DDG concept illustrating basic hull and superstructure design and placement of weapons systems.

It is widely thought in military intelligence and analysis circles, that the first Type 055 is currently under construction. A superstructure mock-up was constructed last year in order to test the effectiveness of the superstructure and integrated mast design. An updated Type 346 phased array radar, with at least four arrays mounted on the forward superstructure, in addition to X-band radar and other ECM equipment, and communications and sensory gear yet to be determined, are most likely housed in the integrated mast. As the program is shrouded in secrecy, we must assume that the vessel will incorporate similar, yet more advanced systems than the Type 052D.

Type 055 DDG mock-up superstructure and integrated mast.

As far as weapons systems, the Type 055 will incorporate a similar VLS system as the Type 052D, which utilizes rectangular cells that are quad-packed (4 missiles per cell) and can accommodate any missiles currently in use in the PLAN, and predictably, new missiles of greater capability. Such a VLS design allows for the missile arsenal on the vessel to be tailored to the intended mission, and not limited to specific missiles, as is the case with the U.S. Mk.41 VLS. The Type 055will be armed with one VLS forward of the bridge, and one aft, which will accommodate either 48 or 64 cells each. Although at first glance this number compares to a U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke Class and JMSDF Atago Class DDG, both mounted with 96 cell VLS systems, the Type 055 will have the flexibility of mounting far more offensive missiles. In theory, a Type 055 could be equipped with 384 to 504 anti-ship cruise missiles to attack an opposing fleet, or the same number of land attack cruise missiles to bombard a land target while covering and supporting an amphibious assault. Although a more balanced load of offensive and defensive missiles of all types is most prudent and most likely, the Type 055 will possess the inherent flexibility to be armed to best exploit any strategic situation, and to best achieve specific missions.

Design Specifications:

LOA: 186 meters/610.2 feet

Beam: 23 meters/ 75.5 feet

Displacement: Between 10,000 and 14,000 tons.

Propulsion: Twin gas-turbine main engines, twin marine diesel auxiliaries.

Cruising Speed: 30+ knots.

Range: Unknown, but probably between 5,000 and 6,000 nautical miles.

Weapons Systems: A number of existing missiles, and missiles currently in development

96 -128 cell VLS armed with any combination of ASW, ASCM, LACM, and SAMs.

CY-5 ASW missiles

HHQ-9 long range SAMs

DK-10A medium range SAMs

YJ-18 or YJ-83 ASCMs

CJ-10 LACMs

1 x 130mm DP deck gun

2 x triple launchers for 324mm torpedoes

2 x FL3000N CWIS close-in defense

2 x 30mm CWIS close-in defense

2 x 25mm automatic cannons

Radar/Sensors:

Undisclosed, yet probably a notable improvement on the Type 346 series of phased array radar. Advanced X and S Band phased array radars for target acquisition and tracking, fire- control and engagement. Other sensory and communications arrays.

Aircraft: Flight deck and hangar space to accommodate 2 x

A Revolution in Naval Warfare and the Fate of the Aircraft Carrier

In all respects, the United States Navy is the preeminent naval power in the world. It has far more combatant vessels than any other nation. It employs the largest number of modern, advanced and combat-capable surface warfare vessels of any other navy. The U.S. Navy also operates more aircraft carriers than all other navies of the world combined, and these aircraft carriers are many magnitudes more powerful than those of any other nation. The U.S. navy will be commissioning a new generation of nuclear aircraft carrier (CVN) this summer, the USS Gerald R. Ford Class. With a complement of over 75 aircraft, advanced radar, communication and sensory capabilities, electromagnetic catapults and defensive weapons systems, the CVN is an awesome vessel. However, as the range and capability of modern anti-ship missiles has grown over the past two decades, there is a glaring question being asked. Have conventional aircraft carriers been eclipsed as the most powerful weapon of naval warfare? As increasingly hard to intercept and accurate missiles have been fielded in large numbers, capable of sinking a large vessel with a single hit, have far exceeded the effective range of carrier strike aircraft, is the large CVN a viable fulcrum by which to plan a naval strategy around?

Both China and Russia have fielded extremely capable anti-ship missiles in recent years, both shore based and aboard warships. The latest of these missile-equipping surface warfare vessels, such as the Russian Kalibr #M-54T and Chinese YJ-18, can strike at ranges between 330 and 400 nautical miles, at a speed of approximately Mach 3.0 at their terminal phase, and have warheads of between 300Kg. and 500Kg. depending on the variant. Both nations field land-based cruise missiles that can target and destroy vessels off-shore at ranges in excess of 1,350 nautical miles. The Chinese DF-21D and DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBM) can target a carrier out to range of between 1,700 to 2,500 nautical miles. The ubiquitous F-18 Super Hornet, the U.S. Navy’s only strike fighter, has an effective strike range without aerial refueling, of 600 to 700 nautical miles, depending on payload. Its future replacement, the F-35 JSF, fails to improve this range limitation. The obvious inability of carrier based aircraft to both protect CSGs from long range ASBMs, and be able to strike enemy targets before the CSG becomes vulnerable to attack itself are obvious. Either the U.S. Navy needs to rethink their reliance on carriers, come up with creative ways to employ strike aircraft with aerial tankers, or design and employ a long-range, carrier-borne strike aircraft. Advanced electronic counter measures that would be effective against a supersonic or hypersonic ASBM are not an option due to the supersonic, and even hypersonic speeds involved.

Chinese PLA DF-21D ASBM on mobile launch vehicle.

Have long range ASMs, employed by both surface vessels and submarines, coupled with long range ASBMs rendered the conventional aircraft carrier forces of the U.S. Navy obsolete? The obvious answer is yes, if the Carrier Strike Group is used against an adversary such as Russia or China, that can bring such high-tech missile weapons to bear. The United States has not employed its expensive CSGs against a capable adversary, over the past two decades of major advancement in missile technology. They can’t, and they won’t. The $13 billion USD Gerald R. Ford CVN is a major technological marvel and an extremely capable warship; however, its aircraft complement lacks the range to be of any use in projecting power against a real adversary with a robust A2/AD capability. The proposed replacement for the F-18 Super Hornet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, achieves no range advantage over its predecessor.

The Matter of Economics

An extremely important factor often overlooked in strategic military planning, is the matter of economics and national monetary policy. By late 2011, the United States federal government’s debt exceeded the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the nation. Standing at 102% as of 2015, the national debt continues to climb, regardless of record tax revenues. Only the coupling of the USD to petroleum and its status as the global reserve currency has allowed for such a massive debt to GDP ratio to grow and exist for so long without correction. The United States has been leveraging these factors, and impoverishing future generations to maintain a military that is larger and more costly than its top ten nearest counterparts combined. The United States is spending increasing amounts of money, and getting less in return. Misguided, or more accurately, a self-destructively and derelict monetary policy only fuels the problem, as an inflated USD money supply and unlimited spending by the federal government drives up the cost of national defense.

USS Gerald R. Ford CVN 78 heading out for sea trials.

Is the U.S. Navy misguided in its adherence to the belief in the dominance of the aircraft carrier in modern naval warfare in the twenty-first century? A simple economic exercise may provide the answer. In an extremely insightful, concise and accurate analysis titled “What Cost a Carrier?”, written in March of 2013 for the Center for a New American Security, CAPT. Henry J. Hendrix, USN (Ph.D.) lays out a cost-benefit analysis of the conventional CSG. He takes a look at how a CSG compares to other possible combinations of naval surface warfare vessels, submarines and modern ASBM forces and asks the all-important question, “Has the time of the aircraft carrier as the preeminent tool of U.S. power projection and naval presence finally come to an end?”

Captain Hendrix estimates that the total cost per day to operate a CSG (in 2013) was $6.5 million USD. This includes the total life cycle cost of operating the carrier air wing, the accompanying surface vessels and SSN in the CSG, and the associated total crew. He also determines the life-cycle cost of each F-18 strike aircraft at a conservative $120 million. Considering that each aircraft, over the course of its life-cycle it will only drop 16 weapons total ,assuming 1,000 total strike capable aircraft in inventory, the cost per bomb/missile employed works out to be $7.5 million USD per unit. Considering that a Tomahawk LACM costs only $2 million USD, is this a truly cost effective employment of naval power?

In contrasting the CSG with the Chinese strategy of utilizing land based ASBMs in saturation attacks against CSGs, Capt. Hendrix quite easily comes to the conclusion that The Chinese are getting far more bang for their buck. At an estimated unit cost of $11 million USD per DF-21D SBM, China can afford to build 1,227 of these missiles for the cost of just one Gerald R. Ford Class CVN, at a cost of $13.5 billion USD each. If the Chinese saturated a targeted CSG with a large number of these “carrier-killers”, attacking from multiple approach vectors and at varying speeds (reaching supersonic speeds of Mach 5 to Mach 8), a mission-kill is highly probable. The missile strike need not sink the carrier out-right, merely cause enough damage to render it inoperable for performing its intended mission for an extended period of time.

Conclusion

Faced by an increasingly hostile and belligerent United States, both China and Russia have invested heavily in developing strategies and technologies to defeat U.S. naval power. The United States operates ten Carrier Strike Groups, with an additional carrier in reserve status. The U.S. has trusted in, and expertly utilized the Carrier Strike Group to dominate the maritime domain and to project power across the globe since the aircraft carrier proved its preeminence during the Second World War.

Almost seventy-five years have passed since the Imperial Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that showcased the power projection capabilities of fleets based around aircraft carriers. The United States perfected the use of carriers in the intervening decades, and used them effectively as both a political and military tool. However, just like the seas that these massive weapons of war sail upon, warfare is constantly in a state of change. New technologies have yielded alternative ways of fighting naval engagements, and both Russia and China have made use of these technologies to build an alternative naval warfare strategy meant to counter and defeat the carrier-centric U.S. Navy.

Both nations have invested heavily in developing long range, guided anti-ship missiles and anti-ship ballistic missiles. Their national defense strategies dictate the use of both land based and ship based missile systems to attack U.S. carrier strike groups, first to achieve a mission-kill against the carrier and then to attack the supporting vessels in the strike group with superior firepower. Where U.S. warships are designed to protect an aircraft carrier as their primary mission, and are outfitted with a heavier complement of AAW/ASW weapons, Russian and Chinese surface vessels are designed with greater offensive firepower, to target and destroy enemy warships. Once an aircraft carrier and its air wing are rendered useless, the flexibility and firepower of Russian and Chinese fleets will prove decisive.

The Russian Lider Class and the Chinese Type 055 Class represent the next generation of embracing this alternative strategy, one that rebukes the superiority of the aircraft carrier in 21st century naval warfare. Both ships are larger than traditional guided missile destroyers, despite their DDG designation. They pack far more offensive weaponry than a traditional destroyer, and their VLS design allows them a greater degree of flexibility. They can be mission tailored, and can take advantage of the full arsenal of modern missiles produced by their respective nations. Both are far more cost-effective than an aircraft carrier. In a purely defensive role, when used in conjunction with land-based anti-ship guided missiles and anti-ship ballistic missiles, as well as land-based air superiority fighters and strike aircraft fitted with anti-ship missiles, they will prove even more potent. Such a combination of national defense capability is a viable deterrent to foreign aggression.

The United States has obviously chosen to wager its naval supremacy on larger and more advanced aircraft carriers. It must now decide on how best to counter the Russian and Chinese superiority achieved in stand-off, over the horizon missile strike capability. The obvious answer is to develop a carrier air wing that can protect the CSG at increased range, and strike first. The U.S. has dumped over $1.3 trillion USD into an aircraft that will replace the F-18 super hornet. This aircraft, the F-35 JSF, has failed to exceed the capabilities of the legacy aircraft, and does not possess the needed range to change the range-gap that the CSG now faces. The U.S. Navy needs a new aircraft. In the meantime, the U.S. Navy may have to come up with ingenious stop-gaps that will extend the range of its fleet air arm. One such expedient measure is the adaptation of aircraft not originally designed for the function, to be modified and pressed into service as carrier-based aerial refueling tankers. The U.S. Navy is experimenting with a number of aircraft to see if this is both feasible and practicable.

F-18s Super Hornets ‘buddy refueling’ and V-22 Osprey aerial tanker feasibility tests.

The United States just unveiled a new ABM system based in Romania, ostensibly part of a NATO anti-missile shield aimed at protecting the alliance from unidentified ‘Rogue States’. The United States is following up with a second such ABM base in Poland. In addition, the U.S. has notified China that it is planning to base Terminal High Altitude Aerial Defense (THAAD) ABM systems in South Korea. The reason given by the White House is the threat that a nuclear armed North Korea poses to the allied nations of South Korea and Japan. Reading between the lines, both Russia and China must see that ABM systems placed right on their borders may be used to shoot down any long range anti-ship cruise missiles or ballistic missiles targeting an aircraft carrier strike group.

Technological innovation and human ingenuity are constantly changing the nature of warfare. Opposing forces will continue to try and gain an advantage over one another. This timeless fencing match will continue as it has for centuries. The next generation guided missile cruisers designed by both Russia and China have provided them with a distinct advantage. It is now up to the United States to answer this challenge. It appears that the U.S. has doubled down on the aircraft carrier, and while reaping huge economic gains for the defense establishment, has left the nation, its sailors and airmen, at a distinct disadvantage.

Brian Kalman is a management professional in the marine transportation industry. He was an officer in the US Navy for eleven years. He currently resides and works in the Caribbean.

The European continent has been rocked by one of the largest political earthquakes in recent years, after the British people made the historic decision to leave the European Union (EU). The arrogant, corrupt establishment was so convinced that their concerted propaganda campaign to keep Britain in the EU would prevail over EU detractors, that they clearly were shocked by the Brexit vote.

A personal highlight over the past few weeks has been watching the plethora of EU zealots and puppets of the globalist cabal whining, sulking and generally throwing their dummies out of their prams in response to the democratic wishes of the people. Remember, the Western establishment is only a cheerleader of democracy when it serves their interests, not when it challenges them. 

But what is the significance of the Brexit vote for the future of the EU? Long plagued by problems and perpetual crises, the fabric that holds the undemocratic and technocratic EU together is close to being set ablaze. Will the Brexit vote be the final spark that triggers the entire collapse of the EU, or is another event needed to finally ignite the European project that the globalists hold so dearly?  I would tend to favour the latter over the former, as the response by the EU elites has been to push for further integration and the creation of an EU superstate.

Let the People Vote!

One of the most tectonic implications of the historic vote is how it has worked to energize calls from numerous other EU countries to hold in-out referendums. From the Netherlands to Italy, political organizations opposed to the EU have been emboldened by this vote. But the country that has the greatest potential to put the final nail in the coffin of the EU is France.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of the Front National, has been agitating for an in-out referendum on EU membership for years now, and has said that if she wins the presidential election in April next year, she will call an in-out referendum. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, Le Pen ramped up her calls for a vote, however the French President Francois Hollande recently rejected such calls. According to research conducted by the University of Edinburgh in March of this year, 53 percent of people in France would be infavour of holding a referendum on EU membership.

Although the Brexit vote was an important one, it should be kept within historical context and not overstated. Britain has had a complex relationship with Europe for hundreds of years, and prior to the First World War and the threat to the balance of power in Europe that arose in the early 20th century; British strategists were for large periods more focused on expanding the influence of the British Empire internationally, than on European affairs. As an island, geographically split from mainland Europe by the English Channel, Britain has also often seen itself as having one foot in and one foot outside of Europe.

These realities contributed to the rather late admission of the UK to the union, not becoming an EU member until 1973. A more pivotal vote would be if one of the founding members of the EU voted to leave, with Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands, comprising the six founding countries of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952.

The Brexit spirit seems strongest in the Netherlands and France; with France’s size, strength and instrumental position in creating the EU meaning its voice would have the greatest impact. If the French people vote to leave the EU in a potential future referendum, there is no way the Western elite can prop up their treasured European project anymore.

Steven MacMillan is an independent writer, researcher, geopolitical analyst and editor of  The Analyst Report, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

http://journal-neo.org/2016/07/05/a-frexit-would-be-the-final-nail-in-the-eu-s-coffin/

http://journal-neo.org/2016/07/05/a-frexit-would-be-the-final-nail-in-the-eu-s-coffin/

It must have been clear from the very beginning on 12 September 2015, when cheers lifted the roof and people across the land stood up, punched the air and shouted “Yes!” as the results of the Labour Party leadership elections were read out, that Jeremy Corbyn’s victory would be quickly followed by determined efforts to unseat him.  And so it was.

At regular intervals mainstream media kept issuing reports of unhappiness with Corbyn’s leadership among the Labour MPs, said reports always coming from ‘unnamed MPs’.  Everyone else called them the Blairite MPs who were seeing Tony Blair’s precious New Labour disappear.

One has to recognise that three separate events were going to coincide, more than likely by careful arrangement.  After years of waiting, the report on the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq invasion was due to be published.  In order to deflect or delay any damage to Tony Blair (and himself), Prime Minister David Cameron ruled that it would not appear until after the EU referendum.  After all, the Tories had also backed Blair and voted to invade Iraq.

But Cameron also decided to hold the referendum just 2 weeks before the publication of the report, presumably hoping the debate over the result, whichever way it went, would deflect our attention.  At the same time the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs, headed by arch-Blairite Hilary Benn had already planned to stage their coup against Corbyn immediately after the referendum.

Again, whichever way the vote went, they would base their argument on Corbyn not campaigning actively enough, being lukewarm about the EU, and repeat their argument that in a general election he would make the party unelectable.

Thus, even while Britain was reeling from its decision to vote to leave the EU, the mainstream media became obsessed by the vicious and unrelenting attempts to remove Jeremy Corbyn as leader. The connections between the Chilcot Inquiry and the attempted coup against Corbyn have not passed unnoticed; among others, both former ambassador Craig Murray and former First Minister Alex Salmond have written on the subject.

Let’s start at the beginning.

On the very same day of Corbyn’s landslide victory the idea of his inability to be an electable Prime Minister was being peddled.  Journalists were discussing the issue in November.  In January 2016 there was a further push to discredit him, the Daily Mail claiming that the Iraq war had led Labour to the ‘unelectable and unassailable’ Jeremy Corbyn, while the Spectator said he was untouchable while still being an ‘electoral disaster’.

Membership numbers became a battleground.  In December 2015 Blair’s ally Peter Mandelson had claimed that “30,000 long-term members had left the party (a grossly inflated figure), but in January the Guardian contacted officers and members of Labour constituency parties across the country.  The result:

“Almost every constituency party we contacted reported doubling, trebling, quadrupling or even quintupling membership, and a revival of branches that had been moribund for years and close to folding.”

In March through to the local elections in May, the ‘persistent myth’ of Corbyn’s unelectability kept being raised by the Blairites, despite Labour’s good record in retaining and gaining seats in by-elections, despite a poll showing Labour was now ahead of the Tories; and above all, despite party members emphasising their support for their elected leader.

Then, as soon as the result of the EU referendum was announced, the attempted coup –or Chicken Coup, as some named it – was in full swing.  The accusation that Corbyn had not done enough to persuade Labour voters to back the Labour In campaign was pushed to its limits.  Yet 60 percent had voted to stay with Europe – rather better than the Tory membership, nearly two thirds of which voted for Brexit.

The mass and obviously pre-planned resignation of Shadow Cabinet members made people wonder how long this coup had been in the planning.  So, let’s go back to the beginning – again.

Much of the coup appears to have been orchestrated by the PR firm Portland Communications, that has many links to right-wing Labour MPs.  An unnamed senior Labour party official has claimed that within a month of Corbyn’s election there was a plan in place to get rid of him.  This is backed up by a report in the Times in November.  And it seems that Portland Communications knew of the ‘mass resignation pact’ 6 months ago.

Having decided to act after the referendum, the MPs’ demand for him to go would be based on Corbyn’s ‘lacklustre’ campaigning for the EU.  How could one tell, the media being only interested in pushing negative news on Corbyn, not news on rallies and speeches?

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, Corbyn’s ally for many years, has an interesting addition to the whole messy argument.  Giving a speech  for a Stand up for Labour event in a West London pub on 29 June, he said:

“Jeremy and I met with Angela Eagle and Hilary Benn and they said they wanted to run the European campaign and we said “fine”.  But … we said that we need to agree the politics of this.  We said that we can’t just go out there as simple Europhiles because, to be frank, there was a need for reform in Europe.  And at that point in time they were trying to argue that we should unanimously support Cameron’s deal in Europe.  We refused.

“So we said “get on with the campaign and call us in when you need us, we will do all that we can to support”.  Jeremy toured round this country – the stamina of the man is unbelievable.  Thousands of miles, meeting after meeting.  Both of us spoke in virtually every major city in the country.  But we campaigned on the basis of ‘remain but reform’.  And that is where most of the British population are.  They agree that there needs to be reform.  It was no use going out there just arguing that the European Union was perfect.  It was remain and reform.”

Hilary Benn has been the main instigator behind this coup.  Internet searches show that his campaigning for remaining in the EU was not so much lacklustre as almost invisible.  The media only reported on one speech; but then, they didn’t report on Corbyn’s and McDonnell’s tireless campaigning at all.  You would think someone would notice the large audiences Corbyn and McDonnell draw, but no.

Angela Eagle, probably, or possibly, standing against Corbyn in a leadership election made even less impression.  In the end, the campaign was headed by senior Labour MP Alan Johnson – who is now telling people ‘not to rubbish the last Labour government.’  True, Blair’s government did some very good things for this country, but it will not be forgiven for Iraq.

So desperate are the coup MPs to rid themselves of the membership’s choice they have resorted to outright dishonesty.  For example; following the publication of a letter from 250 Labour councillors backing Corbyn, Labourlist produced one claiming to have been signed by 600 councillors, all backing his removal.

This was immediately called into question.  Birmingham councillor Sharon Thompson said she had not signed the letter.  Instead, she had signed one backing Corbyn.  Other councillors came forward, making the same complaint.  The letter on Labourlist’s website has now been amended, while it denies any responsibility for producing it.

The Deputy Leader Tom Watson has rightly been criticised for his on/off support for Corbyn.  On 27 June he was reported to have told the BBC that he had told Corbyn to resign as leader, but this story has been amended too many times to have any real substance.

Then up pops a story that Corbyn was refusing to talk to Watson – which he has done.  Corbyn’s aides were accused of preventing people from talking to him.  Another ally, Diane Abbott, was said to be physically blocking the doorway (that story disappeared very quickly).  John McDonnell quietly responded that “Jeremy has an open-door policy”.

Watson has now told MPs that he is seeking a meeting with the trade unions in the hope they can persuade Corbyn to resign, he himself having failed.  Speaking for the unions, Len McCluskey had already said they were willing to broker a peace deal between the MPs and Corbyn.  But – the unions regard Corbyn as the party’s democratically elected leader, something the MPs want to ignore.

It is true that Corbyn has lost the support of the majority of Labour MPs but it seems those MPs think they are there to represent themselves, not the people who voted for them.  It is also true that in less than a week the party membership grew by 60,000, taking the total party membership to over 440,000.

Anti-Corbyn MPs are claiming that many of these new members want to vote against Corbyn.  They claimed the same last September when people registered as members and supporters before the leadership election.  Not wholly true then, one doubts the truth of it now.  What is patently obvious is the vast number of people rallying for Corbyn.

This sorry history is full of the word ‘claim’, but that is where we are.  Almost all the anti-Corbyn stories are just that – claims.  Not truth, not facts with evidence attached, but claims snatched out of the air.  As each one is shot down, another one appears, as fact-poor as the last.  Do they never learn?

Labour MP Angela Eagle now claims that “there are many people, MPs, party members up and down the country, asking me to resolve this impasse”.  She does not mention the fact that her Walsall constituency party, both officers and its members, are very angry indeed. With their backing, the Chair had written to her, asking her not to back the No Confidence vote that Benn and his allies had engineered, a request, no, a mandate she ignored.

So, if Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t resign, she threatens to challenge him for the leadership.  Scary.  Or, as the Canary puts it, she is threatening him with his own victory.  Not scary – dumb.  Considering the support he has among the membership this seems to be a remarkably silly challenge.  But it explains why they are all so desperate to get him to go – now.  Before one of them has to stand toe-to-toe with Corbyn, and be humiliated by the party members.

Russia has announced that it will send more advanced aircraft, including K-52 helicopter gunships, to Syria in order to strengthen the Russian military grouping that takes part in anti-terrorist operations.

According to the Defense Ministry, Russia’s sole aircraft carrier of Admiral Kuznetsov will in October carry Ka-52 helicopters to Syrian waters to participate in combat missions across the crisis-hit country. In case the new helicopters’ successful missions in Syria, Russia may to replace some Su-25 fighter bombers deployed in Latakia with Ka-52 helicopter gunships.

In total, the Russian aircraft carrier will have about 15 Su-33 and MiG-29K/KUB fighter jets and more than 10 Ka-52K, Ka-27 and Ka-31 miltiary helicopters that will strikes at militants in Syria from an eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea.

Since last week, Russian warplanes have conducted actively air strikes with special attention to northern Latakia, northeastern Idlib, near the cities of Aleppo and Deir Ezzor. Various sources say that from 40 to 70 terrorist targets were destroyed.

Heavy clashes between the Syrian Arab Army and a joint force of Al Nusra, Nouriddeen Al-Zinki and the Free Syrian Army are ongoing in the strategic Mallah Farms near Aleppo City. Pro-government forces have repelled all militants counter attacks and now in control of about 80% of the farms.

Meanwhile, the Syrian Democratic Forces have repelled ISIS counter attacks south and west of the strategic city of Manbij. Pro-Kurdish sources argue that ISIS has faced significant casualties.

More about the Russian aircraft carrier program:

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via:https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Subscribe our channel!: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaV1…

Visit us: http://southfront.org/

Image: Anthony Freda

“Under CIA manipulation, direction and, usually, their payroll, were past and present presidents of Mexico, Colombia, Uruguay and Costa Rica, “our minister of labor”, “our vice-president”, “my police”, journalists, labor leaders, student leaders, diplomats, and many others. If the Agency wished to disseminate anti-communist propaganda, cause dissension in leftist ranks, or have Communist embassy personnel expelled, it need only prepare some phony documents, present them to the appropriate government ministers and journalists, and – presto! – instant scandal.” (William Blum, CIA Manipulation: The Painful Truths Told by Phil Agee, Anti-Empire Report 27 June 2013)

Independent media outlets are increasingly challenging the powers that be and, thanks to social media, the truth about what is really happening in our world can be shared at the click of a button.

Sadly, the imperial war machine continues to rear its violent head in exponential proportion under the guise of democracy and “War on Terrorism”.

This war machine is promoted by the mainstream media who cannot be trusted for many reasons. It is a well documented fact that the CIA has used journalism as a cover for its agents and has planted stories in the media.

According to CIA documents, “more than 400 American journalists … in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency“, wrote Carl Bernstein in 1977.

In this episode of Alternative views, former CIA agent John Stockwell explains “how CIA ‘disinformation’ tactics manipulate public opinion by planting stories in the press and by financing and supporting right-wing newspapers“.

Planting stories in the media is a standard CIA technique:

A common Agency tactic was writing editorials and phony news stories to be knowingly published by Latin American media with no indication of the CIA authorship or CIA payment to the media. The propaganda value of such a “news” item might be multiplied by being picked up by other CIA stations in Latin America who would disseminate it through a CIA-owned news agency or a CIA-owned radio station. Some of these stories made their way back to the United States to be read or heard by unknowing North Americans. (Blum, op. cit.)

Moreover several journalists are members of the very influential foreign policy think tank Council on Foreign Relations, which has among its corporate members:

1. Major financial institutions such as:

Bank of America Merrill Lynch

Citi

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

JPMorgan Chase & Co

The Nasdaq OMX Group

2. All the companies part of what is known as Big Oil:

BP p.l.c.

Chevron Corporation

ConocoPhillips Company

Exxon Mobil Corporation

Shell Oil Company

TOTAL S.A.

3. Major defense and security contractors which largely rely on military sales (figures from SIPRI) and government subsidies, among others:

DynCorp International (70% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

Lockheed Martin Corporation (78% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

Northrop Grumman (81% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

Raytheon Company (90% of revenues from military sales in 2011)

Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. (99% of revenues from federal government)

In addition, mainstream media experts on foreign policy issues are often linked to the military-industrial complex and are very often presented as “independent”.

During the public debate around the question of whether to attack Syria, Stephen Hadley, former national security adviser to George W. Bush, made a series of high-profile media appearances. Hadley argued strenuously for military intervention in appearances on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, and Bloomberg TV, and authored a Washington Post op-ed headlined “To stop Iran, Obama must enforce red lines with Assad.”

In each case, Hadley’s audience was not informed that he serves as a director of Raytheon, the weapons manufacturer that makes the Tomahawk cruise missiles that were widely cited as a weapon of choice in a potential strike against Syria. Hadley earns $128,500 in annual cash compensation from the company and chairs its public affairs committee. He also owns 11,477 shares of Raytheon stock, which traded at all-time highs during the Syria debate ($77.65 on August 23, making Hadley’s share’s worth $891,189). Despite this financial stake, Hadley was presented to his audience as an experienced, independent national security expert. (Public Accountability, War or No War on Syria: Conflict of Interest of “Experts” who Commented in Favor of Military Intervention, October 15, 2013)

Global Research is independent thanks to you

Here at Global Research, maintaining independence in order to deliver the REAL news is our guiding principle. Our correspondents and volunteers are devoting a great deal of time and energy into covering and analyzing the news as it happens. We are exceedingly grateful for their efforts and excited to convey their research through our websites, to ensure it reaches as many readers as possible.

We know that many of you have been forwarding our articles, posting them to blogs,

linking up through Facebook and Twitter,

watching GlobalResearchTV,

using various means at your disposal to share this timely and critical information,

and we sincerely thank you for that and encourage you to increase your efforts.

It is crucial that we stay “in the know”, now more than ever.

At the same time, we remind our readers that in order to maintain our websites and projects at Global Research, we rely 100% on the financial support of our readers. All that we do is entirely thanks to you.

Our mandate is to deliver articles and videos as broadly as possible, which is why you will never have to pay to access the information.

To do this, however, we rely entirely on your donations, memberships and book purchases.

If you have already purchased our books, how about picking up copies for friends and colleagues? You can make purchases directly through our Shopcart or through Amazon.

And if you are already a member or have donated in the past, we kindly ask that you consider making another donation at this time. Every amount, great or small, contributes directly to our operations and ensures that we can be on top of important issues as they unfold.

We thank you for your readership and encourage you to visit our Shopcart, Donation page and Membership page and find out how you can help Global Research continue to be the reliable source of completely independent news that you have come to rely on.

With appreciation and best wishes for true freedom,

– The Global Research Team

There are different ways that you can support Global Research:

DONATE ONLINE

For online donations, please visit the DONATION PAGE:

DONATE BY MAIL

To send your donation by mail, kindly send your cheque or international money order, in US$, Euro or Can$ made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
PO Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest
Montreal, QC, H2Y 4A7
CANADA

DONATE BY FAX

For payment by fax, please print the credit card fax authorization form and fax your order and credit card details to Global Research at 1 514 656 5294

BECOME A MEMBER

Show your support by becoming a Global Research Member (and also find out about our FREE BOOK offer!)

“Like” our FACEBOOK page and recommend us to your friends!

You can also support us by purchasing books from our Online Store!

Thank you for your ongoing support of Global Research! Let’s keep spreading the word!