Category Archives: U.S. policy

Murky facts in Treimseh massacre

July 13, 2012 – 5:23 pm

Before everyone jumps on the band wagon of intervention, it’s important to objectively look at the massacre in Treimseh. Anytime something like this occurs in Syria the West is very quick to blame Assad and his forces. They receive information from activists, whose political agenda is never questioned. Well according to AFP, Syrian activists from the Sham News Network told them that most of the dead were rebels. The activist quoted in the article goes by the name Jaafar. He told AFP that:

At this stage, though we do not yet have the final count, the number of civilians killed by shelling is not more than seven.The rest were members of the Free Syrian Army.

Even the shadowy Syrian Observatory for Human Rights/em> has been careful about reporting this recent massacre. Again from the AFP article:

The Observatory was more cautious, saying “several dozen rebel fighters were among those killed,” adding that only around 40 of the dead had been identified, while 30 were burned and 18 were “summarily executed.”

Is it so hard to imagine the the FSA would use a civilian town as cover for launching attacks? This is what Hezbollah did in Lebanon. Indeed this is a tactic used by all rebel groups. The conflict in Syria is a civil war. Contrary to what Secretary Clinton would have you believe, in war their are no good guys and bad guys. Rebel groups don’t preserve human rights. They don’t fight with a copy of the Geneva Conventions in their hand. War is about killing as many people as you can. The FSA is not a chivalrous group.

Of course there is no real way to confirm any of these conflicting reports. It is anyone’s guess as to what really happened in Treimseh. And that is the crux of the problem. We should stop jumping to conclusions. The truth is always the first casualty of war. Those who are pushing is into a war we will never win, and will never end, need to step back and look at the reality of the situation. And the American public needs to question what we read and watch in the media.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Middle East, Syria | Tagged , , , | Comments (0)

NRO collects personal information

July 12, 2012 – 9:04 pm

Thank God for McClatchy.  They truly are the one western news outlet that is actually engaged in serious reporting.  Their newest investigation has to do with the National Reconnaissance Office’s collection of personal information through polygraph tests.  The NRO is in charge of maintaining the United States spy satellites.  An exhaustive investigation by McClatchy has revealed that NRO polygraphers have been obtaining  “intimate details of the private lives of thousands of job applicants and employees, pushing the ethical and legal boundaries of a program that’s designed instead to catch spies and terrorists.”  This desire to catch spy’s is so great within the NRO, that cash bonuses are handed out to polygraphers who ask personal questions, known as Code 55 admissions.  This is all illegal.  The NRO has no jurisdiction or authority to ask personal questions such as, have you ever used marijuana, has you attempted suicide, do you suffer from depression.  Several whistle blowers from with in the NRO have come forward to expose what has been going on.  Of course the NRO has denied any wrongdoing with how they conduct polygraph tests. Here are two wonderful gems from the McClatchy article.  Both of these examples demonstrate how ridiculous the NRO’s poygraph testing is.  They also show how unconcerned they are over real criminal conduct.

Last September, a woman who’d held a clearance for more than 15 years and already had passed a national security polygraph was interrogated for more than four hours over two additional polygraph sessions, said Hinshaw, who said he’d been ordered to do it. Hinshaw’s supervisors launched the aggressive inquiry because they suspected that the woman had smoked pot more than the one time years before that she’d admitted to, records show. In the end, however, the only other information the National Reconnaissance Office extracted from her was that she’d been molested at age 16.

Here is the other more disturbing aspect of the NRO’s polygraph testing:

Despite the agency’s interest in criminal behavior, those who confess to serious offenses aren’t always criminally prosecuted even when child molestation is involved, McClatchy found.

In one case, a contractor who was a former Escondido, Calif., substitute teacher admitted to molesting a third-grade student in 2005 during outside tutoring sessions paid for by the girl’s immigrant parents. In a 2010 polygraph session, the man said that if he were asked, “ ‘Have you ever molested a 9-year-old?’ I’d have to say yes.”

The Escondido Police Department and school district where he’d been employed weren’t notified of the incident. After being contacted by McClatchy, the school district called the Escondido Police Department to file a report.When National Reconnaissance Office polygraphers asked supervisors in a meeting last summer why people weren’t being arrested on the spot after such confessions, they were told that the allegations were referred to the appropriate authorities, Phillips and Hinshaw said.

The agency refused to answer McClatchy’s questions about the molestation confession, saying in a statement only that its polygraph program “is in compliance with the law.”

I would urge everyone to read the full article.  The recent purging of whistle blowers, and the current administrations desire for secrecy, must be exposed for what it is.
By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in America, Intelligence coummunity, U.S. politics | Comments (0)

U.S. and Israel oppose UNESCO “world heritage status” for Church of Nativity

June 29, 2012 – 8:14 pm

The US and Israel have condemned UNESCO for declaring the Church of the Nativity a world heritage site.  They complain that the Palestinians use of “imminent threat” to the church was nothing more than a political move.  When asked about the UNESCO decision Prime Minister Netanyahu said the Palestinians are  “engaging in unilateral actions that only distance peace.”  US ambassador to UNESCO, David Killion, also expressed regret saying that he was “profoundly disappointed” by the vote.  Both Israel and the United States claim that the Palestinians use of “imminent threat” is unfounded and misleading.  Bethlehem is under the control of the PA and thus is not in any danger from Israel, as the Palestinians are claiming.  But, and this is a very big but, the city of Bethlehem is surrounded on three sides by the Israeli separation wall.  Ostensibly the separation wall was built to keep Palestinian militants out of Israel.  In reality the separation wall is part of Israeli’s attempt to grab and annex as much Palestinian land as possible.  For Palestinians living in Bethlehem every year they see more and more of their land disappear. Israel’s insistence of settlement building has also not stopped.  And while there are no new settlements being built in Bethlehem right now, the same basic principle remains, and that is the persistent and illegal annexation of Palestinian land.  The Church of the Nativity may not be in immediate danger right now but the very fabric of the Palestinian people is.  Netanyahu’s claim that this is a political move is right though.  Of course this is a political move.  Politicians be they Palestinian or Israeli make political moves.  It is no more a political move though then Israel’s brainwashing of Evangelical conservatives to support Israel is a political move.  The idea alone that this is a detriment to peace is enough to make your stomach turn.  If the South African’s had tried to designate an ancient site during apartheid would we have told them not to because it might effect gaining their freedom from whit minority rule?  Palestinians are playing the hand they were dealt.  They are not content to sit passively sit at home and watch their land and people disappear.  After decades of occupation they are tired of waiting for Israel and the United States to act.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Israel/Palestine, Middle East, United Nations | Comments (0)

Annan backs off letting Iran negotiate in Syria

June 28, 2012 – 4:29 am

Kofi Annan has been pushing for some time now to have Iran help negotiate an end to the civil war in Syria.  As one of Syria’s few remaining allies Iran could play a very important part in helping to end the violence.  Unfortunately this will not happen.  On Wednesday Annan announced that Iran will not participate in the peace talks scheduled for Saturday in Geneva.  The current roster for the peace talks include the United States, Britain, China, France, Russia and Turkey.  It’s patently clear that the United States did not want Iran to have a seat at the table.  Letting them participate might have gone towards acknowledging that Iran has power and influence, which runs counter to the narrative concocted by the United States.  The US believes that maintaining the perception that Iran is weak and isolated will help them in succeeding to stop their nuclear program.  Of course this is unfounded and arrogant, but plays well for the domestic audience here that views Iran as a threat.  Congressional push back on Iran as a negotiator was also very loud.  Those in Congress preaching about ending the crisis seem to care more about sticking it to Iran than actually bringing about an end to the violence.

Whatever happens in Syria will have an impact on Iran.  As both a friend and neighbor to Assad, Iran will be a factor in whatever happens.  By cutting them out of the discussion Annan has insured that the role Iran plays will be more adversarial towards the West and those pushing for regime change than if they were involved in peace talks.  This represents yet another example of how the civil war in Syria is being fought over by world powers in a very complicated game of geopolitical chess.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in International Relations, Middle East | Comments (0)

Some facts you should know before you enter the spin war

June 26, 2012 – 10:51 am

Mohammad Morsi has officially won the first democratic election in Egypt. But the most significant event in Egypt’s history since Nasser overthrew King Farouk has been sidelined by many in the West. The principle players in the spin war are many of the neoconservatives that brought us the Iraq war. Fox News unsurprisingly has come to the forefront of the spin war to paint the Muslim Brotherhood ascent to power as the most dangerous world event. This morning they had Egypt expert Donald Trump on “Fox and Friends” railing against President Obama’s policy towards Egypt. Trump proclaimed that the administration should have supported Mubarak because he was our “friend” as well as a “friend” to Israel. Later in the day Fox had the lamentable warmonger John Bolton on the air spewing a litany of lies about the ramifications of Morsi as president. So before you get sucked into the spin war it is important to know several key facts about the reality of the situation.

The SCAF is still in totally in control the nation. Many alarmist politicians and pundits have begun proclaiming that Morsi will bring about a radical Islamist agenda to his presidency. This notion is one hundred percent wrong. Morsi has no real power. The SCAF’s June 17 constitution consolidated all power into the hands of the military. Foreign policy and control of the military are solely controlled by Tantawi and his cronies. The June 17 constitution also granted veto power to the military; ostensibly making Morsi little more than a figure head. Dissolving parliament has also ensured that the SCAF will control all aspects of governing in Egypt.

Pro-Israel fanatics have also been raising alarm bells over Morsi’s presidential win. They claim that the Brotherhood government get rid of the long standing peace deal between the two nations. This they fear will usher in a new wave of violence that will threaten “poor defenseless” Israel. There is no way that Morsi will throw out the peace deal between Egypt and Israel. He has nothing to gain from this. While many neo-cons think that the Brotherhood has some diabolical plan to destroy Israel this notion is also incredibly far fetched. Egypt faces many problems in the coming years the least of which has to do with the Jewish state. Unemployment, poverty, and a weak economy are going to be at the forefront of issues that the incoming government must tackle. Why would they decide to take on the most powerful nation in the region? Israel would easily crush any sort of military incursion by Egypt with or with out the aid of America and Europe. Those expressing these irrational and unfounded fears of a hostile Egypt fail to understand the real reasons for such hostility in the first place. It was Mubarak himself who stoked such anger towards the Israelis, not the Brotherhood. Mubarak’s close personal relationship with a nation that brutalized fellow Arabs ais what gave rise to anti-Israeli sentiment. Lastly, Morsi was very clear in his acceptance speech that he would continue all of Egypt’s

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Middle East | Comments (0)

Just to clarify, Afghan security is not improving

June 22, 2012 – 8:31 pm

The recent attack yesterday on the Afghan resort in Qaragha lake is yet another blow the American narrative that Afghan forces are ready to take over.  With ISAF leaving in two years time, a massive propaganda effort has been under way to show Afghan forces as competent and reliable.  Nearly all ISAF press releases laud the Afghan military as the strongest institution in the country.  Yet it was the Norwegian special forces who were responsible for the leading the operation that finally put an end to the bloodshed  at the lake resort.  As reported in McClatchy “reporters at the scene observed Norwegian special forces – trainers for the Crisis Response Unit, Afghan police commandos who supposedly had the lead in the operation – raiding the restaurant where the attackers were holed up, helping to bring an end to the fighting.”  In General John Allen’s press statement on the operation he noted that ISAF support was minimal.  This differed from the McClatchy reporters who “observed the Norwegian forces quietly removing from the scene rocket-launcher tubes that are used by NATO forces, not Afghans, a further sign that the international troops were heavily involved in the operation.”  Even if we were led to believe that the Afghan armed forces were improving the same can be said of the Taliban.  Taliban fighters time and again have shown that they can easily take hold of and maintain sieges of large buildings.

The other half to ISAF’s propaganda war against the Taliban revolves around portraying Afghanistan’s security as improving.   In the past five days at least 24 people have been killed in several different Taliban attacks.  The Afghan public by and large believes that security has deteriorated, and have little faith in an army they view as corrupt, illiterate, and incompetent.  The Taliban are by no means on the run.  So far their summer fighting season has proved to be going splendidly.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in South Asia | Comments (0)

The Atrocities Prevention Board will achieve nothing

April 23, 2012 – 5:16 pm

President Obama announced today the formation of the “Atrocities Prevention Board”, which will be tasked with helping to prevent such horrible acts like genocide. The White House press release on this new initiative is basically a long list of talking points which will have no real impact on human rights, or genocide prevention. Many of these talking points are so obvious to the prevention of genocide, that it begs the question, why did the President feel the need to create this board? While others have simply never worked.

The section of the press release devoted to diplomatic efforts lays out this ground breaking new way of preventing atrocities:

“Diplomatic Initiative: The United States will engage with countries and other stakeholders around the world to expand and deepen international commitment and capacity to prevent and respond to atrocities.”

Mr. President, with all due respect this has pretty much been standard practice for diplomats when trying to prevent atrocities.

The section following this in the press release is devoted to the failed practice of sanctions. Sanctions are a colossal failure. Sanctions have not toppled the regimes in Iran or Syria; nor will they ever. Similarly, they were not successful in getting rid Saddam Hussein, and have had no impact on the Castro brothers grip on power in Cuba. Sanctions are quite successful at making those at the very bottom suffer.

The Presidents new Atrocities Prevention Board will also be tasked with “denying impunity” both in the U.S. and abroad for those accused of genocide and other mass crimes. Certainly one of the more laughable demands of the president’s new panel in light of the immunity deal they helped hammer out for former President Saleh.

The list goes on and on. Dominating much of this new initiative is the notion that the president wants the ability to be made more aware of when atrocities are happening. This insinuates that somehow world leaders are kept in the dark when war crimes are being committed. Somehow the intelligence community will now be better tasked with reporting information when these events are taking place.

The intelligence community will work internally and with our foreign partners to increase the overall collection, analysis, and sharing of information relating to atrocity threats and situations.

Here is yet another fallacy espoused by the president. World leaders, and the president of the United States in particular, know full well when war crimes and other atrocities are taking place. A reconfiguration of intelligence gathering will not lead to less atrocities taking place, because there is no intelligence gap when in comes to intel on atrocities.

Today’s announcement of the formation of the Atrocities Prevention Board will do nothing to stop genocide and war crimes from being committed. Instead it will create more bureaucracy, leading to nowhere, and hampering real methods to stop these despicable acts. The announcement is a nauseating display of political theater. Unable to do anything to stop the bloodshed in Syria, the president wants to give the impression that there will never again be another Syria. Instead of truly empowering the UN and other existing institutions tasked with preventing war crimes, the President decides to create another government entity to tell him what he already knows. Exploiting the civil war in Syria to make himself seem like a caring and just leader is not the way to fight war crimes.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in International Relations | Comments (0)

Is this legal???

January 20, 2012 – 4:15 pm

Gawker reported today on an article in the Atlanta Jewish Times, written by the editor, in which he lays out Israel’s three choices for dealing with Iran. The first two are predictable Israel-Firster policies, attack Hamas and Hezbollah, attack Iran. The third choice takes a very terrifying turn; assassinate President Barack Obama. Here is how owner and editor Andrew Adler describes how option three would work:

“Three, give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.

Yes, you read “three” correctly. Order a hit on a president in order to preserve Israel’s existence. Think about it. If I have thought of this Tom Clancy-type scenario, don’t you think that this almost unfathomable idea has been discussed in Israel’s most inner circles?

Another way of putting “three” in perspective goes something like this: How far would you go to save a nation comprised of seven million lives…Jews, Christians and Arabs alike?

You have got to believe, like I do, that all options are on the table.”

As you can except this left me pretty floored. Gawker describes a “nervous” Adler trying to walk back his comments in the article. He claims that he didn’t really mean any of what he said, and wrote it merely to see what sort of reaction he would get. Even if this is true, which I don’t believe for a second, I am pretty sure that this sort of speech is not protected by the first amendment. The rule of thumb when writing or talking about assassinating the President of the Unites States is that you will definitely be investigated by the secret service. As well you should be.

Now I can already hear everyone yelling “he’s a yahoo, he wasn’t being serious”. At best he is an unadulterated moron for writing that Israel should not take of the table the option to murder the U.S. President. At worst he is a warmongering American citizen advocating killing his own leader so that Israel can “obliterate it’s enimies” and make the Middle East safe.

If a mentally deranged Muslim person went and xeroxed their newsletter saying we should kill President Obama, or better yet Prime Minister Netanyahu, I guarantee he would be arrested. I guarantee that the news would not stop talking about it either. Of course we should note that only white terrorists are capable of being the victims of mental disease. I can’t remember the last time I heard of a person of color accused of terrorism getting off due to insanity. Before we write this guy off as a nut job, let’s keep in mind that our current President has been the target of
more assassination attempts in recent years than previous administrations. It is this sort of political language that has destroyed the environment in which diplomacy

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Middle East | Comments (0)

Sanctions are helping to build bomb

January 5, 2012 – 8:59 pm

It is time for Washington and the citizens of the Unites States to wake up and realize that sanctions are failing to prevent Iran from building a bomb.

The latest round of sanctions were viewed in Iran as an act of war today.  Iran’s finance minister, Shamseddin Hosseini, was quoted in the offical news agency IRNA as saying, “These sanctions are an economic war against us.”  and “The enemies of the Islamic republic’s regime, with all their tricks, have not been able to chain the nation and now they want to chain the economy.”

The purpose of the sanctions is to weaken the Iranians and bring them to the negotiating table, not to raise tensions and bring us closer to conflict.  Sanctions have only emboldened the Iranians to speed up their nuclear capabilities.  The west has now made it impossible for the Iranians to halt building even if they wanted to.  If Iran were to build a bomb, or be at a capacity in which they could construct one very quickly, they would no longer be kicked around by Israel and America.  Recent events have shown what happens when a regime does back track on the building of a nuclear device.  Gaddafi was convinced by the west to dismantle his nuclear facilities under immense international pressure; after he did he was victim to a military intervention and was executed.  If  Gaddafi had had a nuclear weapon there is no way NATO would have implemented a no fly zone.  A bomb for Iran would mean never getting pushed around again by Israel and America.

For an even better explanation read Vali Nasr’s  recent article in Bloomberg.

By porkinspolicyreview | Also posted in Middle East | Comments (0)