Google+ Badge

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

American Confrontation In China’s Sea

White House madman continues quest to spark WWIII before end of term as Australians grasp at Obama's coat-tails in Mussolini-style attempt to gain power and territory in ASEAN  

By Brian Cloughley
10/14/2015

The Pacific International Maritime Conference is held every two years in Australia and is sponsored by the Royal Australian Navy. 


Obama will fight China in ASEAN to the last
Australian
The latest gathering took place in Sydney from 6-8 October and focused “exclusively on naval defence and maritime security issues and equipment procurement.” According to the US Naval Institute it “brings together Navy chiefs from over 50 nations, as well as government and industry delegations from across the world.” It was a hand-shaking, old-boy network jamboree at which two nations with major interest in the Pacific region were not represented. No admirals or industry delegations from China or Russia were welcomed to the Conference, at which the keynote speaker was the commander of the United States Pacific Fleet, Admiral Scott H. Swift, whose impressive chest candy includes medals for humanitarian service and pistol shooting.


After Admiral Swift took command in May 2015 he went on a seven-hour flight over the South China Sea in a P-8A Poseidon intelligence-gathering aircraft. 

A few weeks before his excursion the US Navy had hosted CNN television reporters on a similar flight, after which its ‘Chief National Security Correspondent’ reported that “inside, the jet is home to an array of advanced intelligence-gathering equipment. 


"See all these red buttons? Guess what they are for!" - CNN fraud Jim Sciutto

I have the feeling of entering a CIA listening station in the sky. It’s no accident that the first P-8s – only 18 months old – were deployed to Asia. The P-8 is one expression of the Obama administration’s pivot to Asia, and its principle mission here is keeping a watchful eye on China.” His drum-beating patriotic piece was titled “Behind the scenes: a secret navy flight over China's military build-up.”

The media gave wide cover to the CNN flight and to that of Admiral Swift, and China’s observation was that “for a long time, US military ships and aircraft have carried out frequent, widespread, close-in surveillance of China, seriously harming bilateral mutual trust and China’s security interests which could easily cause an accident at sea or in the air.”


Swift knows full well that Brennan commands his fleet

Now it seems that ‘accidents’ are going to be more likely, because Admiral Swift, as reported by Australia’s News Corporation (owned by US but originally Australian citizen Mr Rupert Murdoch; he changed nationality to avoid paying taxes in the country of his birth) was forceful to the point of being confrontational in his keynote presentation to the Pacific Conference. 

The report in Murdoch’s newspaper was headlined “China told to behave in the South China Sea … or else” and continued that “speaking to a high-powered audience that included senior navy officers from more than a dozen countries at the Pacific 2015 Expo in Sydney, Admiral Swift warned that “friction points” at sea and the “might makes right” approach of some countries (China) could lead to all out conflict in one of the world’s most dangerous flash points.”




The admiral was reported by Reuters as stating that “some nations continue to impose superfluous warnings and restrictions on freedom of the seas in their exclusive economic zones and claim territorial water rights that are inconsistent with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. This trend is particularly egregious in contested waters.”

The admiral’s reference to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) appeared welcome because it is a well-crafted covenant intended to bring clarity and even-handedness to settlement of maritime disputes. It is a good example of the way in which international law can be employed, but it is intriguing that the bellicose Admiral Swift even mentioned the UNCLOS agreement because although its 167 signatories pledge to “settle, in a spirit of mutual understanding and cooperation, all issues relating to the law of the sea” the United States of America has not signed the accord.




For Admiral Swift to criticize any country for allegedly failing to abide by the provisions of UNCLOS is hilarious in its absurdity.

As put succinctly in a paper published by the University of California, “the treaty remains an essential instrument of international law, particularly for resolving international maritime disputes. America’s abstention ... since as the preeminent naval power in the world it should hold a leading role in shaping the law of the sea. Instead, other nations are playing a larger role.”

Of course “other nations” are playing a larger role. They are increasingly amazed at the belligerent presumption of the president of the United States that in some fashion the actions of the United States are above international law. The ultimate credo of the United States of America, as reiterated by its president, is that “the United States is and will remain the one indispensable nation in the world,” but the rest of the world does not see it that way.




There is no such thing as an “indispensable” nation, and for any nation’s leader to presume to make such an imperial pronouncement is a signal of xenophobic arrogance.

The posture of the United States in the South China Sea is directly and deliberately confrontational to China and consistent with Obama’s proclamation of global indispensability – but as pointed out by the Center for a New American Security his arguments are “robbed of moral authority” when “the US refuses to support UNCLOS, the most comprehensive mechanism for multilateral resolution of maritime disputes.”

The main reason that Washington’s rabidly nationalistic politicians refuse to permit signature to a most important international agreement is that the United States might then be compelled by international law to abide by decisions made by independent tribunals. This is anathema to those who actually govern the US, as is the fact that signing UNCLOS would entail adherence to regulation of commercial mining activities in the seabed beyond the territorial jurisdiction of any one country. Third party arbitration is not acceptable to the indispensable nation.




On 8 October a Washington Post headline informed the world that “US Navy to China: We’ll sail our ships near your man-made islands whenever we want.” According to the Post “Pentagon officials” said that the US “could soon send a Navy ship steaming by a chain of man-made islands that China has built in the South China Sea,” which, the Post explained, could have the effect of “potentially exacerbating tensions in an area in which Beijing is expanding its presence.”

If this happens, and the US Navy deliberately provokes China by sending a warship into waters claimed by China, there will be a reaction from Beijing. It is difficult to see how President Xi Jinping could ignore a calculated and insulting military intrusion into what his country considers to be its sovereign waters.

It would be too much to hope that the Pentagon might bear in mind that on 28 May 2014 President Obama said “We can’t try to resolve problems in the South China Sea when we have refused to make sure that the Law of the Sea Convention is ratified by our United States Senate,” because the Pentagon, with the backing of the State Department and the approval of the United States Senate, appears determined on confrontation with China – just as with Russia over its attacks on terrorist groups in Syria who seek, along with the United States, to overthrow the Syrian government and establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in that unfortunate country.


As with Syria, Putin now contemplates handing Obama his
ass yet again in ASEAN
There are many in Washington who are determinedly hostile to China and Russia. They consider it essential that the indispensable nation should be able to dictate to others.

It will be interesting to see who backs down in the US-fabricated confrontation in the South China Sea. If it is the US – by refraining from sending warships and spy planes into Chinese waters and airspace – then we all can breath a sigh of relief and offer thanks that common sense has won.


But if Washington drives Beijing into a situation of embarrassment, there will be calculated reaction, because China will never accept humiliation. Why should it? And why should Russia, either?




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.

CIA Torture Survivors Sue Psychologists Who Designed Infamous Program

Obama's Satanic CIA must be once and for all eradicated, it's demonic employees past and present arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned for life beginning with John Brennan  

THE GUARDIAN
By Spencer Ackerman
10/13/2015

Survivors of CIA torture have sued the contractor psychologists who designed one of the most infamous programs of the post-9/11 era.


In an extraordinary step, psychologists James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen now face a federal lawsuit for their role in convincing the CIA to subject terror suspects to mock drowning, painful bodily contortions, sleep and dietary deprivation and other methods long rejected by much of the world as torture.

In practice, CIA torture meant disappearances, mock executions, anal penetration performed under cover of “rehydration” and at least one man who froze to death, according to a landmark Senate report last year. 


Versions of the techniques migrated from the CIA’s undocumented prisons, known as black sites, to US military usage at Guantánamo Bay, Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan and Abu Ghraib in Iraq

On behalf of torture survivors Suleiman Abdullah Salim and Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, as well as a representative of the estate of Gul Rahman – who froze to death in a CIA black site in Afghanistan – the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the suit against Mitchell and Jessen on Tuesday in a federal court in Washington state, where the two currently reside. They seek compensatory damages of at least $75,000.




The suit calls the torture program a “joint criminal enterprise” and a “war crime” in which the CIA, Mitchell and Jessen colluded and from which Mitchell and Jessen financially profited. 

Although numerous US government investigations have pierced the veneer of secrecy around the torture program, the program’s government architects have faced no legal reprisal. 


The Bush war criminals must all be tried for their roles in their CIA torture program

A Justice Department inquiry ended in 2012 without prosecutions. The new lawsuit, aimed not at government officials but the contractors Mitchell and Jessen, aims to break the trend.

“This case is about ensuring that the people behind the torture program are held accountable so history doesn’t repeat itself,” Steven Watt, one of the ACLU attorneys representing the three ex-detainees, told the Guardian. 

“Impunity for torture sends the dangerous message to US and foreign officials that there will be no consequences for future abuses.


Spawn of Satan: CIA Director John Brennan
“This lawsuit is different from past ones because public government documents now provide exhaustive details on the CIA torture program, and they identify the people who were tortured and how it happened. The government has long abused the ‘state secrets’ privilege to prevent accountability for torture but at this stage, any claim that the torture of our clients is a state secret would be absurd.”



One of the litigants reacted to his torture by attempting to kill himself. Another was kept naked for “more than a month”, the suit alleges, and was subjected to “a form of waterboarding”.

Salim, a Tanzanian fisherman, said in a video published by the Guardian that flashbacks from his ordeal in CIA custody are a permanent part of his life. After five years in CIA and then US military custody, Salim’s captors released him unceremoniously from Bagram in August 2008, presenting him with a memo stating that the US determined him not to pose a threat to the US. 


Torture at Abu Ghraib

“You can’t sleep, you can’t eat, you can’t smell,” said Salim, who says his CIA captors chained his arms and legs to a metal hoop in his cell that forced him into a squatting position so uncomfortable it prevented him from sleeping. Like other detainees, Salim was doused in ice-cold water and then wrapped in a freezing plastic sheet. According to the lawsuit, Salim hid painkillers he was given in order to hoard a dose strong enough for an ultimately unsuccessful suicide attempt. 

“Flashbacks come anytime, so much they make you crazy,” Salim said in the video.


Ben Soud, who now lives in his native Libya, was taken to a CIA black site in Afghanistan, and for extended periods permitted “sleep only for minutes at a time because of painful stress positions, constant blaring music, and guards banging loudly on the door of his cell every hour or so”, the suit claims. Guards paraded him naked around the black site for “15 minutes every half hour through the night and into the morning”, according to the Senate report.


Although the CIA only acknowledges waterboarding three detainees – Abu Zubaydah, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Abdul al-Rahim al-Nashiri – the lawsuit claims the agency subjected Ben Soud to a “form of waterboarding”.

“He was strapped to a wooden board that could spin around 360 degrees,” the suit claims. 




“His interrogators spun him around on this board with a hood over his head covering his nose and mouth. While strapped to the board with his head lower than his feet, his interrogators poured buckets of cold water him. While they did not pour water directly over his mouth and nose, they threatened to do so if he didn’t cooperate.”


CIA scum used poorly-led U.S. military enlisted personnel
to "soften up" Abu Ghraib detainees 
Ben Soud was also treated with the same frigid-water dousing and plastic-sheet coating that Salim received, only Ben Soud reported the freezing water being treated with a gel-like substance, causing it to stick to his body.  Famously, Jessen and Mitchell, former instructors in the military’s Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) program to counter torture, revised torture techniques from the SERE training and proposed to use them on CIA detainees. 


They faced their first test case in the spring of 2002, after the CIA captured Abu Zubaydah, then thought to be a senior member of al-Qaida, and took him to Thailand. 

Although Zubaydah spoke openly with his FBI interrogators who sought to establish a rapport with him, Mitchell cabled the CIA’s Counterrorism Center “nearly every day” for permission to torture him. 


Torture room at Abu Ghraib

CIA personnel, with Mitchell overseeing, waterboarded Zubaydah 83 times in the span of a month. Eventually, according to the Senate intelligence committee’s report – which gives Mitchell and Jessen the pseudonyms Grayson Swigert and Hammond Dunbar – Zubaydah would submit to torture after hearing his captors snap their fingers twice. They forced him into “confinement boxes”, one the size of a coffin and the other just two and a half feet square and 21 inches deep.


Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell et al no doubt were
entertained by Abu Ghraib torture videos and derived sexual
gratification from them
Now missing an eye, Zubaydah is still detained at Guantánamo Bay, although the CIA no longer believes he is a member of al-Qaida

The Senate intelligence committee concluded the torture techniques did not produce any useful intelligence; the CIA’s official position as of 2014 is that the question is unanswerable. But the 2002 test case convinced the CIA, supported by the Bush White House, of the value of torture.


The torture of Abu Zubaydah, who is not a party to the lawsuit, began weeks before the US Justice Department provided its August 2002 legal blessing, since withdrawn, to the CIA torture program. 

An adviser to Condoleezza Rice would later inform the Bush-era secretary of state that use of the techniques Mitchell and Jessen implemented amounted to a “felony war crime”.

Both Bush and Obama criminal regimes must be 
tried for war crimes
A Spokane-based company the two founded, Mitchell and Jessen Associates, would secure $75m from the CIA in contracts, in addition to a further $6.1m from the agency for legal expenses in the event of criminal or civil action stemming from the contract. 

Although Barack Obama banned CIA torture by executive order on the second day of his presidency, the CIA continued to cover the company’s legal bills until 2012. Mitchell and Jessen themselves each received more than $1m from their contracts. 


The suit does not claim that Mitchell and Jessen were present during the torture of Salim, Ben Soud and Rahman. 

But it derives their culpability through the application of the torture techniques – prolonged sleep deprivation, nudity, “stress positions”, cramped confinement – that the two psychologists provided to the CIA, which implemented the techniques. 




“Defendants are directly liable,” the suit charges, “because they designed, developed, and implemented a program for the CIA intended to inflict physical and mental pain and suffering on Plaintiffs, and because Plaintiffs were tortured and subjected to cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment as a consequence of their inclusion in that program.”



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.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ANDREW KREIG: EXPERTS REJECT FIRE AS CAUSE FOR 9/11 WTC COLLAPSES

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

 photo
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

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

 photo
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.

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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...

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

UPDATED 01/07/2015 : FOX NEWS CORPORATE PHARMA SHILL MEGAN KELLY AND FOX NEWS QUACK DOCTOR NOW PUSHING TAMIFLU FOR PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN;

 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg
THE 5TH ESTATE UNEQUIVOCALLY WARNS THE PUBLIC NOT TO TAKE OR GIVE THIS PROVEN DANGEROUS, INEFFECTIVE DRUG TO ANYONE

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...

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 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 . . .

READ MORE >>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


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.

READ MORE >>