The American Wars that Kill Americans

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | SEPTEMBER 13, 2012

The lifeless body of U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Although the killing of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya might be a direct response to an offensive film produced in the United States, the truth is that the real reason for the violence in Libya is not the film itself, but the United States’ increasingly oppressive foreign policy towards the Middle East in an effort to set the region on fire.

Balkanization to divide and conquer has been the official American policy for many years, as stated in official US government documents.

The attack against the Americans took place in the city of Benghazi, a well known al-Qaeda power center, where alleged al-Qaeda gunmen who belong to Ansar al-Sharia carried out the attack on the Americans, captured the American ambassador and his staff before, paraded them on the streets, lynched them — Gaddafi style — and then killed them.

“The American ambassador and three staff members were killed when gunmen fired rockets in their direction,” said a Libyan official. The same al-Qaeda forces that are responsible for the killing of the ambassador are the ones recently supported by the United States and NATO in their attempt to destabilize Libya.

As reported by various news agencies, al-Qaeda led militias established themselves in Libya back in 2011, before launching multiple attacks against the Gaddafi regime in February of 2011. The core of the terrorist groups supported by the West were headed by a former Guantanamo Bay prisoner, reports Infowars.com.

News agencies like the Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France Presse have all reported about the financial and military support provided by the U.S. to Gaddafi opposition groups in Libya. Many if not all of those groups were al-Qaeda affiliates in the country or groups of armed militias that infiltrated the country from neighboring nations.

At the moment, Libya, Syria and Iran are infested with tribal lords, guerrilla groups and terrorist groups backed by the U.S. government and directly operated by the CIA and other western intelligence agencies. As mentioned by American white papers, the official U.S. policy is to destabilize countries that are not aligned with western imperialist policies.

As Barack Obama warns the world that the murder of the Ambassador will not go unpunished, the truth is that his death will work as an propaganda instrument to push for more American aggression in the region. As of now, the United States has launched drones over Libya in an attempt to “hunt” those who captured and killed Ambassador Stevens.

The same policy used in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, among others, is now being implemented in Libya, Syria and Iran, where intelligence agencies back local government opposition groups to promote conflict, murder innocent people and later call for an armed intervention by NATO or to support United Nations’ resolutions to invade and execute ‘humanitarian’ attacks on the population.

Do not expect the United States to withdraw its forces or rethink its murderous foreign policy abroad. The country will continue to execute their attacks on more nations in the Middle East and Africa to force the fall of more governments and to ‘light up more fires’ that render the West more power and more resources in those regions.

Hollande Blesses Attack on Syria

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | AUGUST 28, 2012

French President François Hollande has said that if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad, resorted to chemical weapons, it would be enough to justify an intervention by the international community.

In early August, rumors of Assad moving chemical weapons to undisclosed locations surged on the main stream media, but no facts to support such assertion were provided. This is the same kind of rhetoric presented on the media before the United States attacked Iraq. Back then, the US government and the intelligence community assured the world that Saddam Hussein was hiding and was prepared to use chemical weapons, which he transported continuously in mobile truck labs. Expect some western intelligence agency or supposed Syrian defector to “show proof” that Assad is using chemical weapons on the Syrian population, a move that will most likely mean an attack on that country.

“We remain very vigilant with our allies to prevent the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, which for the international community would be a legitimate cause for a direct intervention,” said Hollande in his opening speech of the twentieth annual conference of French ambassadors.

Hollande said he is aware of “the difficulty of the work” and the risks involved, but felt that the situation is beyond the scope Syrian security concerns in the Middle East, and “in particular the independence and stability of Lebanon”. While the US supported militias are going around Syria causing mayhem and death, Mr. Hollande has publicly given his support for war against Syria, but said nothing about the US and Turkey stirring conflict against the people of Syria.

“Assad must go. Continues with unusual violence massacring the population, destroying cities, killing women and children. It’s intolerable and unacceptable and against all human consciousness for the security and stability in the region,” he said in that speech.

Hollande also considered to be a recourse of the International Criminal Tribunal to try the perpetrators of crimes in Syria. Needless to say he wasn’t referring to the United States or its terrorist organization Al-Qaeda. He then said that Syrian people must overcome obstacles within the Security Council of the UN, whose capacity is weakened in its view blocking by Russia and China. Both countries have opposed every single unjustified attempt to approve an attack on both Syria and Iran.

“We will press as long as necessary at the Council to reach a consensus in the international community. But immediately, we must act,” he added.

Hollande went on to say that France called on the Syrian opposition to constitute a provisional and representative government, that could eventually become the legitimate government of the new Syria. He urged France’s Arab partners to help them in that way. Hollande said that France would recognize when that government was formed. Mr. Hollande again shows his lack of respect for the will of the Syrian people, even though he says the goal of a military intervention would be their benefit. As we have reported, most of the Syrians are in favor of the current government, and not the other way around. But even if that wasn’t the case, the logical way to take Assad out of office would not include the intervention of foreign invaders.

Hollande said his country also supports those who work on the field for a Free, democratic Syria, which is respectful of human rights and that guarantees the safety of all communities. Unfortunately, that is exactly what he is trying to destroy by supporting the western-led rebel groups who are killing hundreds of Syrians in the name of the country’s liberation.

Obama Drops Veto Threat as Indefinite Detention Bill is Voted

Paul J. Watson
Infowars.com
December 15, 2011

Obama has dropped his threat to veto the bill and is now expected to sign it into law. Remember – it was Obama’s White House that demanded the law apply to U.S. citizens in the first place.

The bill which would codify into law the indefinite detention without trial of American citizens is about to be passed and sent to Obama’s desk to be signed into law, even as some news outlets still erroneously report that the legislation does not apply to U.S. citizens.

“The House on Wednesday afternoon approved the rule for the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), setting up an hour of debate and a vote in the House later this afternoon,” reports the Hill.

Mainstream news outlets like The Hill, as well as neo-con blogs like Red State, are still pretending the indefinite detention provision doesn’t apply to American citizens, even though three of the bill’s primary sponsors, Senator Carl Levin, Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham, said it does during speeches on the Senate floor.

“It is not unfair to make an American citizen account for the fact that they decided to help Al Qaeda to kill us all and hold them as long as it takes to find intelligence about what may be coming next,” remarked Graham. “And when they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.’”

As Levin said last week, it was the White House itself that demanded Section 1031 apply to American citizens.

Read Full Article…

Dead Men Tell No Tales: The CIA and the Awlaki Assassination

by Tom Burghardt
Global Research
October 12, 2011

On September 30, the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) assets under the Agency’s control, assassinated the alleged “external operations” chief of the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as Al-Qaeda, Anwar al-Awlaki, and a second American citizen, Samir Khan, the 25-year-old editor of Inspire magazine, in a drone strike in Yemen.

As The Washington Post reported last month, the “commingling” of CIA officers, JSOC paramilitary troops and contractors “occupy an expanding netherworld between intelligence and military operations” where “congressional intelligence and armed services committees rarely get a comprehensive view.”

Or any “view” at all, which is precisely what the CIA and Pentagon have long desired; an oversight-free zone where American policymakers operate, as Dick Cheney infamously put it, on the “dark side,” a position fully-embraced by the “hope and change” administration of Barack Obama.

Awlaki’s state-sponsored killing, like the May 2 murder of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, resurface many unanswered questions concerning the 9/11 attacks, the so-called trigger for America’s global “War on Terror.”

But before turning to those issues, it is necessary to take a detour and examine administration actions; specifically the deliberations undertaken by Obama’s national security team which culminated in Awlaki’s death.

White House “Death Panel”

Unlike the fantasies of the corporate-controlled Tea Party who charged during the run-up to the White House sell-out of health care reform that the administration would create “death panels” to deny care to the elderly, it has since emerged that Team Obama has stood-up the authentic article.

According to The Washington Post, President Obama’s Justice Department “wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting” of Awlaki. The Post reports that the memorandum “was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi.”

That memorandum, according to The New York Times, was drafted in June 2010, some six months after Awlaki had been placed on the White House hit list, by Office of Legal Counsel attorneys “David Barron and Martin Lederman.”

Both former OLC lawyers are prominent “liberals” from prestigious universities; Barron at Harvard and Lederman at Georgetown University.

Ironically enough, in several scholarly articles they had railed against the previous administration’s adaptation of the “Unitary Executive Theory” promulgated by “torture memo” authors Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Under Bush, OLC opinions were used to justify everything from warrantless wiretapping, the domestic deployment of the military to arrest Americans, to the torture and indefinite detention of “terrorist” suspects at the Guantánamo Bay prison gulag and CIA “black sites.”

This of course begs the question: if Awlaki’s murder was “legal,” why then was the authorization to do so reached in camera by officials following a deliberative process which can’t be shared with the public because of “national security”?

The answer should be chilling and shocking to all Americans: because the nucleus of a death squad state recalling those stood-up in Chile and Argentina during the “dirty war” period of the 1970s may now exist.

Reuters disclosed that Americans “are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.”

“There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel,” reporter Mark Hosenball wrote, “which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council. … Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.”

According to Reuters, “targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC ‘principals,’ meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval.”

A “former official” told Hosenball that “one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to ‘protect’ the president,” i.e., provide Obama legal cover under the thin veneer afforded by “plausible deniability.”

McClatchy News reported that “broadly speaking” White House orders to kill Awlaki were based on claims that “the nation’s inherent right of self-defense [is] recognized under international law.” However, “international law also imposes limits: Targeted killing is banned except to protect against ‘concrete, specific and imminent’ danger.”

And although the administration now claims that Awlaki was targeted for death because “his role in AQAP had gone ‘from inspirational to operational’,” Reuters disclosed that “officials acknowledge that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.”

In fact, the White House has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that Awlaki posed an “imminent danger” to the United States, although there is considerable evidence that he was on the radar of U.S. and allied secret state intelligence agencies for more than a decade, had close ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers and could have been picked up and indicted at any time.

Instead, federal law enforcement officials gave Awlaki a green light to leave the United States, unlike thousands of innocent Muslim-Americans swept-up and detained by the FBI in the post-9/11 hysteria that followed the attacks.

A “former military intelligence officer who worked with special operations troops to hunt down high-value terrorism targets,” told the right-wing Washington Times: “I think it’s pretty easy to understand why they didn’t take him alive. Would you want to deal with the hassle of trying to put him on trial, an American citizen that has gotten so much press for being the target of a CIA kill order? That would be a nightmare. The ACLU would be crawling all over the Justice Department for due process in an American court.”

That about sums up the dominant mindset of an Empire in sharp decline: the rule of law and due process for criminal suspects reduced to a “hassle.”

Read Full Article…

No Longer Free, No Longer Brave

Except for a tiny minority, the United States population is composed of government dependent, ideologically insane, reality ignorant people who are no longer free nor brave.

by Katerina Azarova
Russia Today
September 9, 2011

As terrorists struck New York on September 11th, the United States vowed to fight back and protect their country, their people and their freedom. But 10 years on, it seems that freedom is just an illusion, and the US is becoming an Orwellian state.

When George W Bush spoke about the necessity of “protecting the homeland of our country”, he probably thought that the homeland was literally just that – a land that one calls home. And while most people focused on the fact that the then US president had once again made a grammatical blunder, many saw a hidden danger in his statement – not only because of the Big Brother-type security changes ahead, but also because of the very nature of the word “homeland”.

Merriam-Webster defines “homeland” as “a state or area set aside to be a state for a people of a particular national, cultural, or racial origin.” Now, that really doesn’t apply to one of the youngest countries in the world, which has no shared cultural or racial origin. Dig a little deeper and many linguists will tell you of the word’s decidedly Teutonic origin. A blend of two proto-Germanic words “kham” (home) and “landan” (land), a homeland does not unite people by ideas or beliefs. It ties them firmly to the land. It is a concept that has little to do with patriotism – despite the fact the words do share common Greek roots – and, ironically, it was used ad nauseam by the US government in the post-9/11 world. Ironic because it’s patriotism that is more applicable to the concept of the United States as a nation – one where people of all cultures and backgrounds come together for shared ideas, opportunities and beliefs. And one of the key ideas that most people chose to make the US their home was one much propagated by President Ronald Reagan. The idea of freedom.

Reagan once said that “above all, we must realize that no arsenal or no weapon in the arsenals of the world is as formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.” But 20 years after Reagan was sworn in, the terrorist attacks of September 11th happened – and George W Bush decided that there are weapons more appropriate than freedom.

Because freedom – that greatly advertised American concept – was effectively taken away from the people, with the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. Under the new Patriot Act, The Federal Bureau of Investigation began probing almost every second of every life in the country and when people wanted to leave the country, the Transport Security Administration probed them. The Big German-sounding Brother was fully established, the people living in the ‘land of the free’ under surveillance at all times.

The Patriot Act is probably one of the most controversial pieces of legislature in American history. An acronym that, for all the old and new security bureaus, Provides Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism. But the tools included in the bill weren’t – and still aren’t –considered appropriate by many. Wiretaps and electronic surveillance were legalized. Arrests were made on a daily basis. When the number of those detained reached 1200, officials stopped counting. Personal records no longer remained personal – and that was only the domestic beginning.

What followed – and still continues today – may be labeled by politicians as a ‘war on terror’ or ‘defense of their people’, but really it is just shy of a full-scale military offensive on multiple countries.

While the Department of Homeland Security watched over the land of the no-longer-free, the Central Intelligence Agency, together with the Department of Defense, took the war on terror overseas. The result? Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and multiple ‘black sites’ across Europe, where prisoners and suspected terrorists were tortured, abused and killed. Since 9/11, more than 600 men have been brought to Guantanamo Bay prison alone – and only one has so far been charged.

Many will argue that this is in fact proof of the Patriot Act’s success. But there is a logical issue. The act’s objective is to prevent attacks on America by bringing terrorists under state control – not to investigate or prosecute past cases. Therefore, any evaluation of the Patriot Act requires the disproving of a negative. If there have been no further Al-Qaeda attacks on the United States, it may mean that the act has done its job. But if there are no attacks, how does one prove they were “prevented” by the Patriot Act?

Numerous statements by US politicians have strived to provide some believable data. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft, an avid supporter of the act, dismissed doubts and claims of freedom violations as “hysteria” and claimed no less that “3000 foot soldiers of terror have been incapacitated” since the act’s implementation. No matter that no group or person had independent access to basic information about these alleged terrorists and their alleged plots.

Officially, 1200 special interest detainees were held and investigated under the Patriot Act. The Justice Department examined more than 700 of them, and none was ever linked to any terrorist group or plot. Nevertheless, upon his resignation in 2004, Ashcroft’s letter stated that “The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved.” This should have meant the end of the Patriot Act, for it included a “sunset” provision, to expire in December 2005. Seven years later, it’s still in place and regularly being enforced…not necessarily for a war against terror.

Statistics show that the so-called sneak-and-peak, a search warrant that can be executed without prior warning, is mostly used for drug-related crimes. Between 2006 and 2009, 1618 delayed-search warrants were issued for drugs, 122 for fraud – and only 15 (!) for terrorism.

All this is being done in the name of protection of American soil and citizens. Of protecting their most valued asset, freedom. George W Bush claimed that the war on terror was necessary “for the freedom of the homeland”. But instead of inspiring faith, he only intensified the fear residing within every American citizen since 9/11, for his words sounded a lot like those of another historic leader.’

“What we have to fight for…is the freedom and independence of the fatherland, so that our people may be able to fulfil the mission assigned to it by the Creator.” – Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Related Links:

Togel178

Pedetogel

Sabatoto

Togel279

Togel158

Colok178

Novaslot88

Lain - lain

Partner Links