Americans can be arrested on home soil and taken to Guant?namo Bay under a provision inserted into the bill that funds the US military. Photograph: John Moore/Getty
Barack Obama has abandoned a commitment to veto a new security law that allows the military to indefinitely detain without trial American terrorism suspects arrested on US soil who could then be shipped to?Guant?namo Bay. Human rights groups accused the president of deserting his principles and disregarding the long-established principle that the military is not used in domestic policing. The legislation has also been strongly criticised by libertarians on the right angered at the stripping of individual rights for the duration of “a war that appears to have no end”.Continue reading “Americans face Guant?namo detention after Obama climbdown”
By rahnuma ahmed
The accused — former President of the United States George W. Bush and former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair — were tried in absentia at the tribunal’s hearings.
Their absence, presumably, was not due to lack of knowledge for the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission (KLWCC) had duly served them notice on charges of committing Crimes against Peace.
Established in 2008, the Commission had received complaints from Iraqi war victims and those who had been incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo for short, termed America’s ‘Gulag’ by many, a reference to forced labour camps in the former Soviet Union) after being illegally detained in Afghanistan and Pakistan in 2009.
Statutory declarations sworn by the victims were presented to the Commission; these were subjected to questioning to verify whether the facts and experiences claimed by the victims before, and during, detention were true.
The Commission conducted an extensive study and investigation for nearly two years, and finalised its report in May 2011.
The investigation revealed that none of the victims, neither those imprisoned at Gitmo, nor the Iraqis, had been charged for any actual offences. Neither had they been given access to legal representation. The due process of international law had not been complied with. All international conventions on human rights, on the dignity of captives had been suspended.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq by the combined forces of the US (148,000), UK (45,000), Australia (2,000) and Poland (194) resulted in the death of 1.4 million Iraqis. Countless others have undergone torture, and untold hardship. The international community has not paid any attention to the cries of these victims (‘complaints had already been filed at the International Criminal Court (ICC) against both Bush and Blair, but the ICC had refused prosecution‘).
KLWCC was established to ‘fill this void.’ To act as the people’s conscience by providing an avenue for victims of aggression and occupation to file their complaints.
Charges were framed by the Prosecution division of the Commission. The first charge was against Messrs Bush and Blair for committing Crimes against Peace.
The second charge is against 8 US citizens, for committing Crimes of Torture and War Crimes. It includes George W. Bush and other members of his administration, 2001-2008: Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Jay Bybee (assistant attorney general, infamous for signing the memo which approved the use of torture) and John Yoo (department of Justice official, author of the ‘torture’ memo) among others.
The first trial, a four-day hearing was held at the headquarters of the Al-Bukhary Foundation at Jalan Perdana, Kuala Lumpur, November 19-22, 2011.
The seven-member Tribunal was headed by retired Malaysian Federal Court judge Dato? Abdul Kadir Sulaiman (member of the Council of Regency, state of Terengganu), and included other well-known and widely-respected figures.
The chief prosecutor was professor Gurdial S. Nijar, whose team included professor Francis Boyle, professor in law, Illinois, USA, and other lawyers.
Since the accused were not present at the hearing, nor had they appointed any counsel to represent them, the Tribunal appointed an amicus curiae (someone not a party to the case), to defend them; the defense team was headed by Jason Kay Kit Leon.
‘Sparks flew’ on the very first day of the hearing, says Cynthia McKinney (former US congresswoman, the Green party’s nominee for President).
Before the actual proceedings could begin, the defence counsel charged that Judge Niloufer Bhagwat would not be ‘fair’ as she had been one of the Judges at the Tokyo International Tribunal for War Crimes in Afghanistan (2004), and a prosecutor of George W. Bush at the People’s Tribunal on Iraq in Istanbul (2005).
In response, Francis Boyle argued that precedents exist at the International Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court, of judges rendering judgments ‘despite what might appear at first glance to be a conflict of interests.’ But Judge Bhagwat announced that she would recuse herself from Charge 1 deliberations; her decision was accepted and she left the Chambers. Judge Datuk Dr Zakaria Yatim too recused himself on objections made by the defence.
The defence’s next line of attack was that the Tribunal lacked the jurisdiction to consider the acts of the President and the Prime Minister. One anticipated by the prosecution which countered that, war crimes had been committed, that, by virtue of the Charter of the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission it had jurisdiction to hear cases of war crimes. That, its proceedings were also inspired by previous precedents such as, the Tribunal on US War Crimes in Vietnam convened in Sweden and Denmark by philosophers Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre (1967),?and the Tokyo Tribunal on Afghanistan.
Further, that international humanitarian law had developed in such a manner over the last fifty years so that ‘no head of state or nation can unilaterally renounce it.’ Nor, does the status of a head of state ‘constitute a defence.’
The Amicus Curiae entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of both the accused.
In his verdict, Chief judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman stated, ‘the essence of legality is the principled, predictable, and consistent application of a single standard for the strong and the weak alike.’ But powerful states had selectively manipulated the law which undermined its legitimacy.
The invasion of Iraq was ‘an unlawful act of aggression and an international crime.’ It ‘cannot be justified under any reasonable interpretation of international law.’ The UN Security Council’s resolution 1441 ‘clearly does not authorise the use of military action to compel its compliance.’
Bush had contemplated attacking Iraq as far back as September 15, 2001, and had confided his intention to Blair ? this is undisputable. ?Both had directed air strikes against Iraq in 2002 without the sanction of the UN Security Council in order to weaken Iraq’s air defences, to prepare for the invasion of 2003. The Downing Street Memo (July 23, 2002) recorded a meeting between Blair and his intelligence officials.?Blair had admitted this as much at the Chilcot inquiry on January 14, 2011 when he said that his attorney general Peter Goldsmith had advised him that a second Security Council resolution? was ‘necessary under international law to authorise the use of military force against Iraq.‘
What occurred in Iraq amounts to ‘mass murder.’ It also threatens the future of the UN and the international law of war. ‘The accused took the law into their own hands.’ They acted with ‘deceit and falsehood’, flagrantly violating the international law of war and peace.
Deceit and falsehoods were many for, Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Both Bush and Blair had admitted post-invasion that they knew intelligence reports on Iraq’s WMD were ‘unreliable.’
To bolster its arguments, the defence counsel mentioned Saddam Hussein’s brutality, his campaign of ethnic cleansing and use of chemical weapons against the Kurds and the Anfal campaign in 1988, but were unable to explain why US presidents Ronald Reagan and Bush senior had ‘sold Iraq chemical weapons and permitted their use.’
The defence also mentioned Al-Qaeda but there was ‘no credible evidence that Iraq had any connections with September 11, 2001 or with Al-Qaeda.’ Similarly, there was no evidence that Iraq was preparing ‘to invade or attack or threaten any nation.’
Iraq had been complying with UN inspections to disarm. The chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had requested another 4 months, to which all UN Security Council members, except the US and UK, had agreed.?In order to obtain a new resolution, the US had ‘forged documents to accuse Iraq of trying to purchase raw materials for WMD on the international market’, while the UK, in the absence of any substantial evidence ‘plagiarized from a student thesis and tried to pass off an out-of-date student essay as an authoritative intelligence report.’
The defence had argued that the situation in Iraq justified ‘humanitarian intervention.’ But official documents submitted by the defence were mostly from one agency of the US government, the US Agency for International Development (USAid), which, according to the the director of the Agency itself, was ‘filled with US undercover intelligence agents and propagandists.’
While the defence cited authority contending that the September 11 attacks demonstrated ‘a change in the nature of the threats confronting the international community’, the prosecution introduced evidence to show that Bush was planning an ‘invasion of Iraq as early as February 1998,’ that the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) mentioned the utility of a ‘new Pearl Harbor’ to galvanise public opinion. And, as the chief judge pointed out in his verdict, no evidence was introduced to establish a ‘planning or operational connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 event’. On the contrary, it is quite probable that, as the prosecution had argued, 9/11 was used as a ‘pretext’ for the invasion of Iraq.
The verdict states, ‘Yet it is still unsettled, what the events of September 11, 2011 are all about.’
The defence attempted to conclude its proceedings by evoking the ’emotionalism of the September 11 tragedy.’ It ‘changed things’, argued the defence counsel. ‘Those of us old enough to have lived through it, who saw it, who could understand it at the time ? we knew instantly that the world would forever be a different place. In our hearts, we knew things would never be the same.’ But regrettably, instead of ‘forgiving’ the? perpetrators of 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo happened. ‘We are fallible human beings. We make mistakes.’
At this point the Judges interjected that a better defense would have been ‘temporary insanity.’ When the Defense team began playing a video of the planes hitting the Twin Towers, professor Boyle termed it a ‘continuation of the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign against Iraq.’
Since the charges against the two accused were proven ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, they were found guilty. These crimes, as the African news agency Mathaba points out, carry the death sentence in many jurisdictions (Bush and Blair Accused, November 21, 2011).
When the defence levelled the charge against Judge Bhagwat’s impartiality, Judge Alfred Webre noted that, although appropriate notice had been served on George W. Bush, he had failed to appear at various people’s tribunals which sought justice for those who had become victims as a result of his Presidential decisions. However, since president Bush had not failed to appear at a Vancouver dinner at which he collected a US$150,000 speaking fee, ‘perhaps the Tribunal should have offered [him] a sizeable speaking fee in order to [ensure] his attendance at the Tribunal.’
In an interview to Press TV, Francis Boyle explained that Bush and Blair have been ‘found guilty under the same law as applied to the Nazis after the end of World War II.’ ?[0:40/2:33]? They are both ‘international criminals [who are] guilty of Nuremberg crimes against peace and they should be prosecuted by any state in the world that gets hold of them.’ ‘We will continue our efforts to bring Bush, Blair to justice and put them in jail.
Boyle, by the way, has recently offered pro bono services to any member of Congress who will introduce a bill of impeachment against incumbent president Barack Obama. Citing specific cases which make Obama eligible for impeachment ? the murder of US citizens, the war against Libya ? he stressed that Obama had ‘gone far beyond Bush.’ While Bush had tried to justify his preventive war policy (which did violate the standards set by the Nuremberg Tribunal) by saying it was for the national defense, ‘Obama simply declares that if a nation is violating his sense of “values,” it is fair game.’ Prof. Francis Boyle Offers To Draft Bill To Impeach Obama, EIRNS press release, November 1, 2011).
The Tribunal recommended that the KLWCC file a report with the International Court of Crime against both under the Nuremberg principles, including reports of genocide and crimes against humanity. That, the names of both be entered into the Register of War Criminals and be publicised. That, the KLWCC publicise the Tribunal’s findings to all nations who are signatories of the Rome Statue, so that they can be prosecuted if they enter the jurisdiction of these nations. And, that the KLWCC should suggest the passage of a resolution in the UN General Assembly to end Iraq’s occupation and to transfer sovereignty back to the Iraqi people.
But, since the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal does not have any ‘formal enforcement power, as professor Glenn Greenwald points out, what use was the Tribunal? Bush and Blair both ‘ignored’ the summons. Every serious political and media elite in the US would ‘scoff’ at the Tribunal, for, in their view, nothing could be more ‘fringe and ludicrous’ than punishing Bush and Blair as war criminals. So, why bother to hold it?
If the principles of Nuremberg (1945-1949) — the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis for having committed Crimes against Peace (planning, waging a war of aggression), War Crimes (violation of the laws or customs of war such as, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, wanton destruction of cities, towns, villages), and Crimes against Humanity (murder, enslavement, extermination, deportation) ? serves a ‘useful purpose’, then, so too does the Malaysian tribunal.
While McKinney thinks that the best thing to come out of the Tribunal was the need for conducting an ‘independent investigation of 9/11.’ As a matter of fact, when the Defence counsel had raised the issue of 9/11, Judge Webre had suggested that the Tribunal should next move on to allegations about 9/11 being a false flag operation, that ‘expert witnesses should be brought to testify before the Tribunal about the truth of the Bush adminstration’s explanation of what happened on that [day].’
As Bengalis are wont to say, kaan tanle matha ashey. Pull at the ear, along comes the head. President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair in 2003. Photo: AP
PIC 2
Datuk Abdul Kadir Sulaiman (centre) heading the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal yesterday. The other judges are (from left) Tunku Sofiah Jewa, Alfred L. Webre, Salleh Buang, Zakaria Yatim, Niloufer Bhagwat and Shad Saleem Faruqi. – ROSDAN WAHID/New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/local/general/war-crime-hearing-against-bush-blair-begins-1.8353#ixzz1ehl3yetn Published in New Age, Monday November 28, 2011
Europe’s unification, a prelude to?global government
By rahnuma ahmed
The initiative of linking ‘governments and economies in Europe and North America amid the Cold War’ ? characterised as ‘an Aristocracy of purpose’ by Hatton in The Rape of the Constitution ? which brought together members of the ruling elite from either side of the Atlantic to Bilderberg meetings, was racial.
‘This conference wishes to explore a number of issues of great importance for Western civilization and is intended to stimulate mutual understanding and goodwill through a free exchange of views,’ said the invitation with a letterhead from the Soestdijk Palace. Signed by the Prince Consort of the Netherlands, Bernard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, it requested invitees to attend the first-ever Bilderberg meeting (‘an informal International Conference’) to be held in Oosterbeek, Netherlands from May 29 to 31, 1954. Seventy personalities from 12 countries (11 west European ones, and the US) obliged.
As Thiery Meyssan rightly points out (Voltaire Network, May 9, 2011), it was the Cold War which determined that the issues of great importance for Western civilization ‘revolved around the struggles for communism’, but a distinct racial element, intertwined with Europe’s colonial powers and privileges (‘the white man’s burden’) was present. A sense of loss (of the white man’s purpose?) is palpable in the writings of Joseph Retinger, one of Bilderberg’s European founders, as he witnesses Europe’s colonies slip away around the mid-20th century: ‘The end of the period during which the white man spread his activities over the whole globe saw the Continent itself undergoing a process of internal disruption… there are no big powers left in continental Europe…? [whose] inhabitants after all, represent the most valuable human element in the world’ (The European Continent 1946).
Political independence and freedom for Asians and Africans was apparently ‘disruptive’ for European colonisers, who, in Retinger’s view, were infinitely more ‘valuable’ than the lesser humans who overthrew their rule.
European power needed to be re-created in a world where political de-colonisation had begun, where the white man’s rule was ending. To re-fashion ‘big power’ status — the white man’s ‘purpose’ –? it was necessary to integrate Europe. Nationalism stood in the way, admitted as much by Prince Bernhard, ‘It is difficult to re-educate people who have been brought up on nationalism to the idea of relinquishing part of their sovereignty to a supra-national body.’ European politicians had ‘failed’ in integrating Europe, said Fiat (Italian)’s head Giovanni Agnelli, adding assertively, ‘we, the old world elite intend to succeed’.
Leadership in this project was provided by sections of the wealthy and powerful elite of the New World (for that is how America was referred to after Columbus’ conquest). The nature of the project was further fleshed out by David Rockefeller, prominent in forming the Bilderberg Group on the American side, who argued at its June 1991 meeting in Baden-Baden, Germany, ‘The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers? is surely preferable to the national auto determination practiced in past centuries.’
One of the main goals of the Bilderberg Group was to unify Europe into a European Union. But before turning to that, I think it makes sense to briefly go over, recapitulate as well, how journalists and scholars who have seriously researched the Bilderberg Group, view it.
It can be best understood, says Andrew Gavin Marshall (foreign policy strategist), as an ‘international think tank aimed at constructing consensus and entrenching ideology among the elite.’ Michael Peters (sociologist) argues in favor of viewing it as a ‘power-elite network and forum’ which acts as an arena for the ‘conduct of intra-capitalist and and inter-corporate strategic debates and long-range social planning, from which wider ‘democratic’ interference is carefully excluded.’ Continue reading “CONCLUDING PART THE BILDERBERG CLUB”
Speculation about the Bilderberg Group runs rife at both ends of the political spectrum ? ‘Bilderberg meetings are a corporate-globalist scheme planning to move the planet toward an oligarchic new world order.’ ‘The Republican Party (US) is secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals who are dominated by the Bilderberg Group, their internationalist policies will pave the way for world communism.’ ‘It is a secret cabal that runs the world.’ ‘Presidents and prime ministers are selected by the Bilderberg.’
It is secret. It is conspiratorial. It runs the world.
Thierry Meyssan of the Voltaire Network International, a web of non-aligned press groups dedicated to the analysis of international relations, blames ‘journalistic hacks’ (he names Alex Jones and Jim Tucker) for making millions of people around the world believe that the Bilderberg Group is not only a secret conspiratorial group that runs the world, but selects presidents and prime ministers so that they can execute the Group’s political and economic agenda (What you don’t know about the Bilderberg Group, May 9, 2011).
Whereas, the Bilderberger Conference is actually ‘nothing more than a? propaganda organisation to prop up and give legitimacy to NATO’ (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation).
But the comfort some readers may hastily derive from reading that it is ‘nothing more than a propaganda organisation’, that the Bilderberg Group is not — contrary to the idea developed by ‘creative journalists’ — working to forge a ‘secret World Government’, will hardly be sustained after reading what Meyssan goes on to write: ‘It is in fact much more serious and dangerous, because it is NATO which aims to be the secret World Government – guaranteeing the international status quo and maintaining U.S. influence.’
Meyssan claims to have been the only journalist who has had access to their archives, to all records for the period 1954-1966, many later day documents as well, in addition to having had the benefit of speaking to a former participant whom he had known for long. Unlike those journalists, who, he says, have helped to construct a stereotypical image of the Bilderberg ? a secret cabal, new world order — popular in many western activist circles.
Meyssan argues that the idea of the Bilderberg Group conspiring to create ‘a mysterious future World Government’ is misleading. It serves to mask their true function and identity, i.e., lobbying for NATO’s interests which is served by setting up a secret world government to maintain the international status quo and US influence. Continue reading “PART II THE BILDERBERG CLUB”
I wander off, from working life, to see and hear what’s new,
And here is what I find — which now is openly in view.
I see the people in two camps (though some are in-between)
And one of them is calling for an ending that’s obscene.
They’re calling for the cops to do what those for hire do best,
To beat up on the ones who dare, their binding chains, to test.
But since the ones who’re testing are these students, who are white,
Or women who are white as well, this gives the rest a fright.
For pepper spray and rods and boots, when used on those who’re darker
Or poorer may be quite okay — and safely out of sight,
Or even guns and bullets, used when we’re asleep at night,
But when it’s done in daylight, with reporters gathered near,
To those who’re lighter, richer — why, then some refuse to cheer,
Though others still approve — and only wish they’d done it sooner.
To both these camps, the other one is certifiably lunar!
And here’s what those in power are now thinking. Hear them say,
To others of their kind, “Let’s stop this wretched thing, today!
“For if some question, what was held for longest time as true,
Then what’s to save some other things from critical review?
We bomb the regions far away — and people burn in hells.
But see, there are no pictures and that story, no one tells.
But what to do when people rise up here, in this, our street,
Or merely sit — near places where we one-percenters meet?
They circumvent the ban on mikes by echoing together!
They point out things that no one did without the tar and feather!
They even give out food and books — and people pause to think…
They’re rodents! If not driven out, this ship of ours might sink!
So hear our drums of war and how we beat them, till at last
Our lust for blood is satisfied. But has the danger passed?
Oh no! These books they distribute, in public in the square,
Must now be gone! And so must those, who advocate we share!”
I wondered off, from working life, and this I saw and heard.
I wondered loud, if rich should share. But I was called a turd.
But here is what some others said, who came to my defense,
And what they said, to me at least, made somewhat better sense.
“Remember that the ones who lived, in this, our bounteous land,
Remembered those who came by ship, but did not understand
The land or cultures that were here. They were, by climate, beaten
And surely would have perished — as do all who haven’t eaten
The season long. But natives came — and gave, it’s said, of maize,
Of turkey and of other things. This did the saved amaze
And they gave thanks (as we still do) not to the ruddy “Indians”
But to their God, their Savior Christ, in these, their new “dominions”.
And natives gave them implements — and other things they needed,
For they were used to sharing all — and those, in trouble, heeded.
But when one needed something back, and asked, this raised a fever
On those who understood him not, and called him, “Indian giver!”
And so it’s been. They’re vanished now, the ones who knew to share…
But should, in turn, these folk depart — who now, to sharing, dare?
Babui / Arjun
2011 November 24th, Th. (Thanksgiving Day)
Brooklyn
(sourced from http://thisistheendoftheworldasweknowit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Bilderberg-Group-2010.jpg)
Last year, when I’d asked Nurul Kabir if he knew that America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, ?was privately-owned (New Age, November 14, 2011),? I’d slipped in a mention of the Bilderberg Club as well. Have you heard of it? No, he replied.
The same reply from another journalist friend, who works for one of the largest-circulation Bangla newspapers, when I met him recently. ‘The Bilderberg Club, does that ring a bell?’ ‘Uh-uh,’ accompanied by a puzzled look on his face.
Not surprising given that the Club, also known as the Bilderberg Group, has been excessively secretive about its existence. In the more than fifty years of their meetings, writes investigative journalist Daniel Estulin — who has relentlessly hunted their secret meeting places for nearly the last two decades, has gained access to insider information of what goes on ‘behind closed doors,’ has photographed those who have attended their annual conferences, and divulged it all in his book The True Story of the Bilderberg Club (2007) — the ‘press has never been allowed to attend, no statements have ever been released on the attendees’ conclusions, nor has any agenda for a Bilderberg meeting been made public.’ Continue reading “THE BILDERBERG CLUB – Part I”
It is not only the American corporate media which keeps the lid on the Federal Reserve System — since, contrary to what most ?Americans believe, it is `not federal’, has `no reserve’, is `not even a bank’ but actually a banking cartel which serves and furthers the interests of the wealthiest men in the world ? American universities too play their role. As Stephen Lendman points out, his MBA curriculum 46 years ago, had `left out the most important parts of the story and never hinted at anything sinister about how the banking system works in fact’ (The Federal Reserve, Z Magazine, June 29, 2006).
A similar situation seemingly prevails in the UK, for, when I asked a relative who teaches business and finance at a British university about who owns the Bank of England, I was told, its nationalised. Its a public organisation wholly-owned by the government. ?Corroborating the official storyline secured in place by the powers-that-be, reflected in the Bank’s website: ?’As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament.’
But this account ? unfailingly subscribed to by most Brits, `You ask the question, Who Owns The Bank Of England? to one thousand Britons, and I kid you not, all of them will say that it is owned by the Government’ (The Tap Blog, February 27, 2010)? glosses over actualities. For instance, the setting up of? a wholly owned subsidiary called Bank of Nominees Limited (BOEN), a private limited company, by the Bank of England in 1977, which was granted an exemption from disclosing its shareholders. ‘It was considered undesirable that the disclosure requirements should apply to certain categories of shareholders.’ This exemption is separate to the fact that the Bank of England is also protected by its Royal Charter status, and the Official Secrets Act. To put it briefly, members of the British public are ‘not allowed to know who the shareholders are who own the company which carries out Central Banking in the UK.’ Continue reading “CONCLUDING PART: The Federal Reserve Bank. America's privately-owned central bank”
Dr. Ben Shalom Bernanke is the current chairman of the Federal Reserve, the `central’ bank of the United States of America.
“I know you are very busy, but you must make time. I have something very important to tell you,” I insisted.
Later, sitting in Nurul Kabir’s office, I asked, did you know that the American Federal Reserve Bank is privately-owned?
Wha-at? No! How?
I spilled the beans: the Fed (as its known for short), America’s central bank, is actually not a central bank, its not government-owned, its actually a banking cartel, the American government doesn’t create, doesn’t print money, this banking cartel does it, and the US government is indebted to it, and Americans are taxed to pay off the interest to this cartel, and the interest is just huge, a staggering amount in trillions of dollars, talk of shudkhors (usurers), its an unbelievable scam, American people generally don’t know about it, the media doesn’t talk about it, it’s a huge big cover-up… I went on excitedly till I ran out of words.
A long pause, then I reeled off the names of some leftists, friends we have in common, and asked Kabir, do you think our anti-imperialist friends, very critical of American capitalism, and for good reasons too, know this? The real story?
No, came the immediate reply. Since I didn’t, I’m sure they don’t either. Oooh, how conceited, I yelped, as I took a long sip of tea, which had gone cold as I gabbled. We laughed, and I moved on to describe how I had come across this extraordinary tale. Continue reading “Part I: The Federal Reserve Bank. America's privately-owned central bank”
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's elated response when told of news reports of Qaddafi's death in-between several TV interviews. Kabul, October 20, 2011.
On hearing news of the Libyan leader colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s death, US secretary of state Hillary Clinton gleefully proclaimed — while paraphrasing the words of the Roman emperor Julius Caesar, Vini, vidi, vici, `I came, I saw, I conquered’ — `We came, we saw, he died.’
These words, uttered in-between formal television interviews which were being recorded in Kabul, has been likened by some to the shouts of `Allahu Akbar’ which accompanied the actions of a large group of rebels, armed and directed by NATO, thousands of miles away in Sirte. The rebels beat, shoved, pushed and dragged a disoriented and bloodied Gaddafi, allegedly sodomised him, before shooting him to death.
I do not know whether drawing parallels between the US secretary of state’s response `We came, we saw, he died’ to the shouts of `God is great’ by NATO’s rebel forces, is appropriate, is justified.
What I do know however, is that secretary of state Clinton had called for the killing of Gaddafi while addressing Libyan students and others in a town-hall style gathering in Tripoli, “We hope he can be captured or killed soon” (Hillary Clinton details new aid package to Libya, The Guardian, October 18). But not even a whisper of outrage, not in The Guardian or in other western news outlets, unlike that which had followed the Iranian leader Khomeini’s call for the death of novelist Salman Rushdie, author, The Satanic Verses, in 1989.
What I also know, as I’m sure you do too, is that Gaddafi’s `death’ (read, murder) has been hailed by world leaders. Britain was “proud” of the role she had played in helping anti-Gaddafi forces in liberating the country, said prime minister David Cameron. The day marked “an historic transition for Libya,” said Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary general. The American president Barack Obama termed it a “momentous day” in the history of Libya as the “dark shadow of tyranny has been lifted.” While the European Union president Herman Van Rompuy and Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso said in a joint statement, Gaddafi’s death “marks the end of an era of despotism” (Sky News, October 20).
What some may not recall however, is that Washington’s arch enemy, the jihadists are working together with NATO in Libya, that “former” al-Qaeda affiliated brigades constitute the backbone of the “pro-democracy” rebellion. (NATO bombings, al-Qaeda and the Arab spring, New Age, October 3, 2011).
A fact that exposes the US-led war on terror against “jihadist Islam” for being what it is, an utter fabrication. One that is repeatedly manufactured by the mainstream western media; demonstrated yet again in the manner in which it reported the Libyan transitional leader’s recent declaration that Sharia law will become the “main source” of legislation in Libya, that Qaddafi-era legal restrictions on polygamous marriage will be done away with. How to explain this “sizable step backward” since polygamy in Gaddafi’s Libya was “limited and rare for decades”? The New York Times, while noting that the news is “unsettling” for Libyan women and its “allies abroad,” resolved its predicament by informing readers that Libya’s new leader Abdel-Jalil is known for his “piety.” (Hinting at an end to a curb on polygamy, interim Libyan leader stirs anger, October 29).
What occurred in Libya is patterned on a model, says Adrian Salbuchi, Argentinian author, financial analyst and founder of the Argentine Second Republic Movement. “First they target a country by calling it a rogue state; then they support local terrorists and call them freedom fighters; then they bring death and destruction upon civilians and they call it UN sanctions. Then they spread lies and call it the International Community?s opinion expressed by the Western media. Then they invade and control the country and call it liberation and finally they steal appetizing oil and call it foreign investment and reconstruction.” (Russia Today, October 21).
Hillary Clinton’s `We came, we saw, he died’ is a message to the world, says Salbuchi, about how the new world order actually works. Continue reading “COLONEL MUAMMAR GADDAFI: Sodomy and murder as spectacle”
