Tuesday, February 11, 2014

War On Iraq : Open letter to John Kerry From Fallujah Veteran

Drooling, doofus swift boat traitor called out by U.S. Marine

By Ross Caputi

Dear Secretary Kerry,

I am writing to you veteran-to-veteran, man-to-man. However, I have decided to write to you publicly. The issue that I am writing about is too important, too many lives depend on it, and I cannot take the chance that this letter and the linked petition will only reach the eyes of one of your aides. 
Like you, I felt betrayed that my country sent me to fight an unjust war, though my war was several decades after yours, and in Iraq. I have spoken out against that war to the best of my ability, as you once did against your war before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In recent years you have found yourself on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, but your attitudes towards war have changed drastically.

You supported the war in Iraq, the war that I was deployed to as a Marine, where I participated in the 2nd siege of Fallujah. You were at the end of your Presidential run during the build up to this operation. The 2nd siege of Fallujah was compared to Hue City for its military character, and to the My Lai Massacre for its moral character. But you supported this operation. 
Marines pray over fallen Brother in Fallujah
Fallujah is currently under siege once again. You have stated that US troops will not be sent back to Iraq to assist in the current siege, but you have agreed that the US should send weapons to the Iraqi government. I am writing to implore that you do everything within your ability to stop shipments of US weapons to Iraq, whether they are sold, gifted, or loaned. Arming an oppressive regime so that they may better crush a popular uprising is not in the best interest of Americans or Iraqis. 
U.S. Marine Cpl. Michael Anderson near Fallujah, Iraq, KIA
During that 2nd siege of Fallujah we killed thousands of civilians, displaced hundreds of thousands, destroyed nearly the entire city, and brought immeasurable loss and hardship upon those poor people. Since then I have devoted my life to raising awareness about the suffering I helped create in Fallujah, and to assisting Fallujans in their struggle with a public health disaster and ongoing repression.

I feel a moral obligation to do whatever is within my power to help these people who I once hurt. But I was not a lone actor in Iraq. I had the support of a nation behind me and I was taking orders from the world’s most powerful military. The 2nd siege of Fallujah was not exceptional; rather it was symbolic of our military’s conduct in Iraq and the way that our mission impacted the lives of Iraqis. Our war and occupation took so much from them. 
Marines returned home to be arrested by coward, feral pigs
It resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions displaced, permanent environmental contamination, and a new repressive regime that most Iraqis regard as begin more brutal than that of Saddam Hussein. This is the legacy of America’s involvement in Iraq. The least that we can do at this point is to end our complicity in their suffering.

The current violence in Fallujah has been misrepresented in the media. The Iraqi Ministry of Interior asserted earlier in the month that al Qaeda had taken over half of Fallujah and the media parroted this assertion. However, journalists who have done serious investigations into this assertion found it to be false. The uprising in Fallujah is a popular uprising, not one lead by an international jihadist group. The Iraqi government has not been attacking al Qaeda in Fallujah. Their assault has been indiscriminate, killing dozens of civilians and wounding even more. Many of these deaths have been documented by human rights organizations within Fallujah. 
Marine Scott Olsen shot by coward, feral Oakland CA pigs
I know that the US plans to send further shipments of Apache attack helicopters and Hellfire missiles. If we continue to send weapons to the Iraqi government, we will be further complicit in this violence. 
Iraqis have long known the Maliki regime to be brutal and repressive. This is not a regime the US should be sending weapons to. Some of your colleagues in Congress have voiced this same concern.

When you spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971, you spoke with compassion for the Vietnamese people. You sympathized with the suffering that our illegitimate war brought to them. I am asking you to do the same for Iraqis. Please end all shipments of US made weapons to Iraq.  
I have attached a petition with 11,610 signatures. Most of the signatories are Americans like myself who want to be able to feel proud of their country, but cannot do so while we are assisting the Iraqi government in its violent internal repression.

Ross Caputi

Petition to Stop US from Arming Iraqi Government’s Assault on Fallujah

We created a petition demanding that the US stop sending weapons to the Iraqi government. Since December 22, the Maliki government has been carrying out an operation in Iraq’s al Anbar province under the banner of fighting terrorist groups that are hiding there, but it soon became clear that it was a widespread, armed attack directed at the residential areas in Rumadi and Fallujah, with random bombing of buildings using heavy artillery, tanks, and air strikes. 

While the Iraqi government has claimed that Fallujah is overrun by ISIS, ISIL, or Al Qaeda, this has been proven untrue. In fact, there is is a popular uprising in Fallujah.

The US recently shipped helicopters for the Maliki government’s use an dis discussing sending an additional shipment of hellfire missiles. The US should not be selling, gifting, or loaning weapons to a government that is using them to kill its own people.

We collected 11,610 signatures. View them here

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

U.S. "Mainstream Media," Politicians Mobilize Against Sochi Olympics

A transparent attempt by the White House criminals to "punish" Putin for the ongoing Snowden revelations

By Andrea Peters

The Sochi Olympics opened on Friday amid a propaganda onslaught from the US media. Taking its cues from the Obama administration and allied powers in Europe, the American press has sought to sabotage the event and turn it into a humiliation for the regime of President Vladimir Putin. 
Obama Sochi "terror" includes CIA butt-sniffing dogs
More than 2,800 athletes are competing in 98 events unfolding over the course of two weeks in the Black Sea resort town. Moscow’s intention was that the Sochi Olympics would signify Russia’s economic and geopolitical resurgence. Coming in the midst of sharpening tensions between the White House and the Kremlin over the domination of Eurasia, Washington and Brussels are working to turn the games into a diplomatic and publicity debacle for Moscow.

No major Western leader or top official is attending the Sochi Olympics, and the Obama administration deliberately sent a delegation of low-ranking figures to represent the US. It includes a White House aide, former Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, and US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, who has been a vociferous advocate of the anti-Putin opposition and just announced his resignation from his post. McFaul’s departure is widely viewed as signifying an end to the official US policy of “resetting” relations with Russia after the rift created during George W. Bush’s presidency. 
Hilarious, bare-faced CIA comedians
Great Britain, France, and Germany have followed the US lead, with top political figures calling for government representatives to boycott the event. British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg announced on the opening day of the games that he had banned Liberal Democratic ministers from going, allegedly over Russia’s anti-gay laws. In December, German President Joachim Gauck declared he was boycotting the event. 
Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letti, the only G8 leader outside of Japan to show up in Sochi, has been roundly criticized for attending.

Recently passed anti-gay laws in Russia that ban “homosexual propaganda” are being utilized as one of the principal cudgels against the Putin government. While the US maintains the closest ties with regimes like Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is punishable by flogging and death, Washington and its allies have whipped up a frenzy in the human rights community around these issues with regards to Russia. 
Terrifying, "Black Widow" breast-implant bombers
Germany’s Olympic athletes paraded into Friday’s opening ceremony attired in rainbow-colored uniforms, a symbol of gay rights. 
The same day Google changed its Olympic-themed logo of the day to a similar color scheme. Writing for the New Republic, Julia Ioffe reported that Sochi’s one gay club has been deluged by foreign journalists requesting interviews with management and clientele. 

Joining in the pile-on are a whole number of leading writers and artists, who published an open letter in Britain’s Guardian newspaper last week denouncing the Russian government for suppressing free speech and expression. Salman Rushdie, G√ľnter Grass, EL Doctorow, Margaret Atwood and Tony Kushner, to name just a few, called on the Kremlin to “recognise Russia’s obligations under the international covenant on civil and political rights to respect freedom of opinion, expression and belief.” The letter, clearly timed to coincide with the start of the Sochi Olympics, is part of the burgeoning “human rights” campaign against Russia. 
Terrorist toilets and acid-squirting bidets
While Russia is hardly a paragon of democratic rights, the signatories of this letter come from countries that are carrying out a massive assault on civil liberties. US President Barack Obama openly declares that he has the right to authorize the assassination of US citizens without due process, and has done so. His government presides over the largest spying operation in world history.

Accompanying the orchestrated political snubs and “human rights” agenda that have been unleashed against the Sochi Olympics are endless press stories about every alleged security and infrastructure failure. The American media, having gotten its marching orders from Washington, is in full swing.

The initial focus on the danger of a terror attack—which ignored the fact that the greatest threat to the Sochi Olympics stems from Islamist forces allied to US-backed rebels in Syria—has given way to ongoing reports about everything from the game’s massive costs and environmental damage to lurid tales of brown water coming from hotel room faucets, broken toilets and door handles, stray dogs roaming the city, and large heaps of construction garbage. 
Terrorist, Chechen "Killer Kitties"
“Journalists at Sochi are live-tweeting their hilarious and gross hotel experiences,” reported the Washington Post on February 4. “Sochi: Worst Olympics Travel Destination Ever?” was the title of a recent piece in the leading US magazine Time.

In its February 7 article, “The Darkness Behind Sochi’s Sparkle,” the NY Times sought to undermine any positive impression observers might have gotten from watching Friday’s elaborate opening ceremony. 
“It was so entrancing, and ran so smoothly, that it was tempting to forget what was behind the pageantry and sparkle,” wrote Juliet Macur, adding, “This week Sochi was like a party host whose guests had shown up way too early: just out of the shower, hair in curlers, no makeup, dirty dishes in the sink.”

The media has also focused on the existence of stray dogs in Sochi. As if on cue, animal rights activists have joined in the condemnation of Russia. The Humane Society International has even prepared a document outlining how one can adopt a stray from the Black Sea town.

In a display of media hypocrisy, the Washington Post’s Sally Jenkins attacked the Sochi games for the misuse of public funds, the poverty of the surrounding region, and environmental damage. Jenkins, who has forgotten that she hails from a country in which the top 20 percent of the population controls 90 percent of all household wealth, vacillates between complaining about the quality of the carpeting in the hotel rooms and “root[ing] against Putin and the small group of 110 billionaire accomplices who have hijacked [Russia’s] wealth.” She criticizes the Sochi Olympics for their grandiosity, which is intended “to make the ordinary citizen quail with helplessness at the power of the ‘new’ Russian state.”

Her comments and that of the American press as a whole bring to mind the old adage: those in glass houses should not throw stones.

The Washington Post has come out in defense of the creation of an American police state and the NSA’s mass spying operations, which it has sought to justify as a necessary part of the war on terror. When it comes to the interests of US imperialism, this leading daily has no problem with ordinary people quailing “with helplessness.”

As for the glaring wealth gap that exists in Russia and surrounds the Sochi Olympics, recent Olympic Games hosted in the US and Britain were no different.

At the time of the 1996 summer Olympics, the US host city Atlanta ranked ninth in the country for poverty and second in violent crimes per capita. The neighborhoods immediately surrounding the Olympic Ring were deeply impoverished, with a median household income that stood at just $8,621.

The 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, which were engulfed in a scandal over bribery allegations, were also sharply criticized by environmentalists for harming the region’s pristine natural areas. Alexis Kelner, co-founder of the Utah environmental group Save Our Canyons, told the Los Angeles Times at the time, “The only thing green about these Games is the color of the currency being thrown around.”

Every Olympics in modern history has been marred by reports of graft and corruption. The $30 billion of allegedly unaccounted for Russian government expenditures on the Olympics, while sizable, pales in comparison to the $85 billion that the US government has been injecting into the financial system on a monthly basis as part of its “quantitative easing” strategy. This ongoing bailout of the financial industry has fueled a massive stock market boom and a further transfer of wealth to the super-rich.

The press coverage of the Sochi Olympics reflects the media’s total subordination to the interests of the American ruling class. The US views Russia second only to China as an impediment to its imperialist interests. Washington is aggressively working to undermine Moscow’s influence in Eastern Europe, supporting a far-right, anti-Russian protest movement in Ukraine that threatens to split the country in two and instigate a civil war. The White House and the Kremlin are presently at loggerheads over policy in the Middle East, with regards to both Syria and Iran.

The attitude of Washington and its European allies to the Sochi Olympics is driven by these and other simmering geopolitical divisions with Russia. With the aid of a subservient media, the White House is attempting to undercut the international stature of one of its major rivals, lay the groundwork for regime change in Russia, and prepare the American population for future military conflict.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


U.S. Analysts Debate Plans For War Against China

A desperate Obama plans to start WWIII with China to escape impeachment from ongoing devastating Snowden revelations

By James Cogan

Last November’s declaration by the Chinese government of an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) reignited a debate within a narrow circle of American strategic analysts—most of whom have served in the military and various government positions for the Bush or Obama administrations. Summing up its content, one of its participants last year characterised the debate as “the war over war with China.”
The provocative flying of US military aircraft through China’s ADIZ by the Obama administration and the Japanese government posed the possibility of armed clashes in East Asia. 
This fact prompted renewed criticism of the current US military doctrine, known as AirSea Battle, on the grounds that its tactics make “escalation” to the point of nuclear war a virtual certainty.

Two critics from the RAND think tank, David Gompert and Terrence Kelly, described AirSea Battle last August in the following terms: “US forces would launch physical attacks and cyberattacks against the enemy’s ‘kill-chain’ of sensors and weaponry in order to disrupt its command-and-control systems, wreck its launch platforms (including aircraft, ships and missile sites) and finally defeat the weapons they actually fire. The sooner the kill-chain is broken, the less damage US forces would suffer, and the more damage they will be able to inflict on the enemy.”
Gompert and Kelly noted that Chinese military planning would take into account that the US twice launched pre-emptive air assaults on Iraq, in 1991 and 2003, to wipe out its command-and-control and limited air defence systems. The very conception of destroying China’s defensive network before it could retaliate, they commented, meant that “with the advent of AirSea Battle, there is the danger that the US and China are both moving toward military postures and embracing operating concepts—if not war-fighting plans—that create spiralling incentives to act first.”

In other words, a clash last November between US and Chinese aircraft in the ADIZ could have prompted either side to launch a full-scale military response before the other did—up to the point of a desperate Beijing regime deciding to use its nuclear arsenal before it was wiped out by US strikes.
The issue in this debate is not whether United States should be actively planning and preparing for a war on China. 
The strategists involved take it as a given that the US should use its military might to maintain the dominant position it has held in the Asia Pacific and internationally since the end of World War II.

As Seth Cropsey of the Hudson Institute, another critic of AirSea Battle, told a US Senate subcommittee last December: “With China, our objective ought to be to prevent the rise of an Asian hegemon, a power that would destroy the current US alliance system in Asia, dominate the world’s most populous region economically and militarily, and perhaps extend itself into Eurasia and beyond.”

The differences among the analysts are solely over the methods to be employed to contain, and if necessary, crush China as a potential rival to US hegemony.

The alternative being advocated, supposedly to lessen the likelihood of a nuclear holocaust, is largely based on a document written in 2012 by Thomas X. Hammes, titled “Offshore Control: A proposed strategy for an unlikely conflict.”

Hammes, a former marine colonel, authored several books on counter-insurgency warfare. He came to prominence in 2006 when, alongside two other ex-military officers, he criticised the conduct of the Iraq invasion and called for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation. In 2011, Hammes authored criticisms of the Obama administration’s escalation of the war in Afghanistan, calling it a “failure in the making.” Currently a senior research fellow at the National Defense University, he has published several articles since December promoting his “Offshore Control” plan.

In summary, Hammes proposed in 2012 that the US repudiate direct attacks on targets located on the Chinese mainland and focus instead on preparing for an economic blockade of China, which is included within AirSea Battle but only as a secondary aspect.

Offshore Control, he wrote, “seeks termination of the conflict on US terms through China’s economic exhaustion without damage to mainland China’s infrastructure or the rapid escalation of the conflict... It recognises the fact that the concept of decisive victory against a nation with a major nuclear arsenal is fraught with risks, if not entirely obsolete.”

Hammes advocated that the US military instead “cripple China’s export trade, which is essential to China’s economy.” This would involve sinking or intercepting and turning back vessels—in other words, what in peacetime would be piracy on a mass scale. He noted that “80 percent of China’s imported oil transits the Straits of Malacca. If Malacca, Lombok, Sunda, and the routes north and south of Australia were controlled, these shipments could be cut off,” causing a massive energy crisis.

Australia, which is crucial to the Pentagon’s war plans, is central to Offshore Control. One of the major “advantages” that Hammes cited for his strategy was that “the only bases the United States requires to sustain the operation are either on US territory or in Australia.” The US would not require its facilities in Japan, South Korea or elsewhere in Asia. Countries across the region, he declared, would be “free to declare their neutrality” and stay out of the war—with the exception of Australia, which he simply assumed would loyally function as the main staging base and ally in the US military efforts to collapse the Chinese economy.

Hammes concluded: “Rather than seeking a decisive victory against the Chinese, Offshore Control seeks to use a war of economic attrition to bring about a stalemate and cessation of conflict with a return to a modified version of the status quo.”

A self-confessed supporter of the Offshore Control plan, Mark Morris of the National War College, detailed the envisaged scenario last November:

“War starts and the United States and its allies begin offshore controlling. Chinese seaborne imports and exports are reduced drastically. Factory production drops and millions of workers are laid off; soon the numbers soar to tens of millions and perhaps a hundred million... When jobs are not found, they start protesting… Now the Chinese Communist Party is faced with tens of millions of unemployed protesters. It will try to blame some enemy that can’t be seen… Not believing the party, discontent grows and protests increase. The Chinese Communist Party orders the People’s Liberation Army to break the blockade, but the People’s Liberation Army-Navy replies that China doesn’t have the right type of Navy for that and are unable to comply with the orders. Discontent grows and protests become more worrisome to party leaders. The Chinese Communist Party declares that it has taught the foreign dog a lesson and seeks a [peace] conference at Geneva.”

Among Hammes’s assumptions was the “high probability that a conflict with China would be a long war” that “would result in massive damage to the global economy.” In plain language, a blockade of the country where over 15 percent of the world’s gross domestic product is produced, and which is the largest trading partner of at least 77 other countries, would shatter globally integrated finance, production and trade. It would trigger an economic depression, wipe out trillions of dollars in assets and destroy tens of millions of jobs. Hammes made the bizarre suggestion that, amid such a socio-economic catastrophe, “maritime geography would allow the rest of the world to rebuild trading networks without China.”

Hammes detailed the range of military and diplomatic responses that China was likely to make, which included possible attacks on Japan and South Korea, a full-scale invasion of Taiwan, challenges to the “legality of the blockade” and efforts to “bring European nations to pressure the United States to cease interfering with trade.”

Hammes’s central assumption was that the Chinese ruling elite would not retaliate with its nuclear arsenal against US and Australian attempts to destroy the country’s economy because “no-one can win a major nuclear exchange.”

Such an assumption is unjustifiable. US imperialism has attempted to economically strangle a rival before, provoking a full-scale war in which every weapon available was used. In June 1941, the US placed an oil embargo on Japan, demanding that it withdraw its forces from China and French Indo-China. The Japanese ruling elite, confronting the prospect of economic collapse and unprepared to accept US terms, responded with the attack on Pearl Harbour and the invasion of South East Asia to try to gain a quick strategic advantage. The Pacific war was marked by savagery on both sides and ended with the US dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Today, there are simply no grounds for assuming that a blockade of China would not trigger acts by the besieged Beijing regime that would lead to all-out war, including the use of nuclear weapons by both sides.

The documents being produced by US analysts are a staggering insight into the mind-set of individuals whose strategic views heavily influence the decisions of the American government. They are calmly debating how to fight World War III and plunge the world’s population into an abyss. While they ardently profess that they do not want a nuclear war, they are prepared to risk provoking one. In the final analysis, they consider it a better outcome than US imperialism losing its global dominance.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.


Obama Drone Attacks Verge On Genocide

Obama criminals and their murdering CIA will all be brought to justice for the mass murder of innocent foreign civilians and American citizens

By Sherwood Ross

President Obama's drone attacks on Middle Eastern nations are not just lawless war crimes. As the "murderous drone campaign is both widespread and systematic it thus qualifies as a crime against humanity that verges on genocide," the distinguished international legal authority Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, Champaign, says.

Child victims of Obama's coward CIA drone mass-murderers
In an exclusive interview, Boyle points out that "Obama's victims are Muslims" and Article II of the 1948 Genocide Convention expressly defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: (a) Killing members of the group..."

Boyle added that as the U.S. "is a contracting party to the Genocide Convention" this would make CIA Director John Brennan as guilty of genocide as Obama.

Boyle added, "They are just terrorizing everyone into submission and they know it. Like the Nazis bombing London." As the Pentagon also has actively launched drones, presumably it shares culpability for genocide.

The CIA's Brennan told a group of academicians, "We only authorize a strike if we have a high degree of confidence that innocent civilians will not be injured or killed, except in the rarest of circumstances," Charlie Savage of The New York Times reported.

Brennan acknowledged "instances when - despite the extraordinary precautions we take - civilians have been accidentally injured, or worse, killed in these strikes. It is exceedingly rare, but it has happened. When it does, it pains us and we regret it deeply, as we do any time innocents are killed in war."

Exceedingly rare? The non-profit Bureau of Investigative Journalism, of London, reports the total killed by Obama's drone strikes is at least 2,537; that the minimum number of civilians killed is at least 416 and may be closer to 1,000, and that at least 168 children have been killed.

What's more, the number of injured in the attacks is at least 1,128 and may be as high as 1,557, the BIJ says. Others say the BIJ figures are understated.

In a speech to the Easley, S.C., Rotary Club last year, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said the number of people killed by drones had climbed to 4,700.

CIA coward, mass-murderer, American traitor John Brennan
Example: According to Craig Whitlock of The Washington Post, Amnesty International reported a July 6, 2012, drone attack in the village of Zowi Sidgi, near the city of Miran Shah, in which it said 18 civilians - including a 14-year-old boy - were killed.

In that case, The Post reported, a group of male laborers had gathered in a tent for dinner when a missile blast killed 10 of them. A few minutes later, as rescuers arrived at the scene to treat the wounded, another round of missiles killed eight more people, according to Amnesty. (Note: there have been numerous reports of drone attacks on first responders and even on funerals.)
The Miran Shah airstrike took place on September 12, 2008, in North Waziristan in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan, Wikipedia reports. It was part of a series of attacks targeting presumed militants, and was carried out by a United States Air Force drone aircraft. The missiles hit two buildings - in one three women and two children were killed, and in the other seven Taliban militants died.

While the CIA boss tries to make it appear the strikes are surgical in nature, the fact is that populations living under the drone flights are terrorized en masse so that many civilians are afraid to go to work, open their businesses for the day, and send their children to school. "(The CIA knows) exactly what they are doing and they just don't care," Boyle says, adding, "Ditto for Obama."

Sherwood Ross is a Miami-based public relations consultant for good causes who has received awards for his reporting and poetry. To contact him or contribute to his anti-war news operation email him at sherwoodross10@gmail.com Boyle is the distinguished author of numerous books challenging U.S. "defense" policy, notably nuclear issues and preemptive wars. Among his books is "Protesting Power: War, Resistance, and Law," published by Rowman & Littlefield.

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5th Estate.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

U.S. Suspect Possibly Targeted For Drone Attack

Obama criminals now opening the door for the illegal murder of American expat journalists and whistleblowers; U.S. military wants no part of White House murder machine

By Kimberly Dosier


An American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, U.S. officials say, and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.
Obama now opening door for killing U.S. expat journalists
The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he's a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn't completed.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. 
And President Barack Obama's new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.
But one U.S. official said the Defense Department was divided over whether the man is dangerous enough to merit the potential domestic fallout of killing an American without charging him with a crime or trying him, and the potential international fallout of such an operation in a country that has been resistant to U.S. action.

Another of the U.S. officials said the Pentagon did ultimately decide to recommend lethal action.

The officials said the suspected terrorist is well-guarded and in a fairly remote location, so any unilateral attempt by U.S. troops to capture him would be risky and even more politically explosive than a U.S. missile strike.
Under new guidelines Obama addressed in a speech last year to calm anger overseas at the extent of the U.S. drone campaign, lethal force must only be used "to prevent or stop attacks against U.S. persons, and even then, only when capture is not feasible and no other reasonable alternatives exist to address the threat effectively." 
The target must also pose "a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons" — the legal definition of catching someone in the act of plotting a lethal attack.

The Associated Press has agreed to the government's request to withhold the name of the country where the suspected terrorist is believed to be because officials said publishing it could interrupt ongoing counterterror operations.

The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified drone targeting program publicly.

House Intelligence committee chairman Mike Rogers, R-Mich., complained last week that a number of terrorist suspects were all but out of reach under the administration's new rules that limit drone strikes based on the target's nationality or location. Two of the U.S. officials said the Justice Department review of the American suspected terrorist started last fall.
The senior administration official confirmed that the Justice Department was working to build a case for the president to review and decide the man's fate. The official said, however, the legal procedure being followed is the same as when the U.S. killed militant cleric and former Virginia resident Anwar al-Awlaki by drone in Yemen in 2011, long before the new targeted killing policy took effect.

The official said the president could make an exception to his policy and authorize the CIA to strike on a onetime basis or authorize the Pentagon to act despite the possible objections of the country in question.
The Justice Department, the Pentagon and the CIA declined to comment.

If the target is an American citizen, the Justice Department is required to show that killing the person through military action is "legal and constitutional"— in this case, that the Pentagon can take action against the American, as the administration has ruled him an enemy combatant under the Authorization for Use of Military Force, a resolution Congress passed a week after the 9/11 attacks to target al-Qaida.

Mary Ellen O'Connell, a professor of international law at the University of Notre Dame, said there is a school of thought that the Obama administration's drone policy is "lawless."
"Why should the Justice Department issue the execution warrant for anyone abroad? The fact that they give extra scrutiny only because he's an American exacerbates this negative impression," O'Connell said.

U.S. drones have killed four Americans since 2009, including al-Awlaki, who the administration said was actively plotting to kill U.S. citizens.

Attorney General Eric Holder said the three other Americans were killed by drones, but were not targeted. The three are Samir Khan, who was killed in the same drone strike as al-Awlaki; al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, a native of Denver who was killed in Yemen two weeks later; and Jude Kenan Mohammed, who was killed in a drone strike in Pakistan.
The case has galvanized congressional opponents of Obama's plan to transfer drones from the CIA to the Defense Department. Before the plan was announced, either CIA or Pentagon drones could go after terrorist targets, even if they were U.S. citizens. 
The CIA could also fly drones in areas where host countries might object. But by law, the Pentagon can only strike in war zones, in countries that agree to U.S. counterterrorism action or in lawless areas like parts of Somalia where that government's security forces cannot reach. Even then only al-Qaida-linked suspects can be targeted.

"It is very clear that there have been missed opportunities that I believe increase the risk of the lives of our soldiers and for disrupting operations underway," Rogers said last week.
U.S. officials said both Senate and House appropriators have blocked funding to transfer the CIA's stealth RQ-170 drone fleet to the Pentagon. Some lawmakers want the White House to come up with a fix for targeting suspects in areas where the Pentagon is banned from operating — either by leaving some part of the CIA operation running or by granting the Pentagon authority to strike covertly despite the location — meaning they could legally deny the operation.

Lawmakers including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have also objected to the shift to the Pentagon, arguing that the CIA has more experience flying drones.

Any opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The 5th Estate.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.