If the Brothers Tsarnaev’s bombing at the Boston Marathon is an argument against immigration, then Tim McVeigh’s bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City is an argument against reproductive freedom.
Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev came to the United States from the Caucasus as youngsters. On what grounds should they have been barred from the country? That their family was Muslim? Does that mean all Muslims should be forbidden from immigrating? And if so, wouldn’t that mean no Muslim should be allowed to visit the United States either?
That’s where this silly line of thinking leads: the exclusion of an entire group of people because of their families’ religious affiliation. Yet this is a position embraced by many conservatives, such asLaura Ingraham, a radio talk-show host, author Ann Coulter, and Fox News Channel host Sean Hannity. After the bombings, Hannity said, “If people are coming from countries where perhaps they grew up under Sharia law, I think we can make a safe assumption that they have been radicalized. I think allowing foreign students into the country without investigative background checks that are exhaustive is a mistake and it’s putting Americans at risk.”
What would an exhaustive investigative background check on 16-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev and 9-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have revealed? Not much, I imagine. About as much as would have been revealed by a background check on 16-year-old Tim McVeigh. Perhaps Hannity and his ilk would find it simpler just to exclude anyone coming from a Muslim country. But then they would have a problem with the prospect that an immigrant might convert to Islam once he or she is in the United States. Would they prohibit that? Or perhaps they would deport anyone converting to Islam. They might have a constitutional problem expelling an American citizen who became a Muslim, but their stated devotion to limited government has not deterred them in the past.
Authentic advocates of freedom — who understand that the freedom to cross arbitrary national boundaries without first securing government permission is a natural right — are appalled by the fear mongers’ attempt to seize on the Boston Marathon bombing to score points for the anti-immigrant cause. The fear mongers are trying their hardest to break the momentum of even the bogus immigration “reform” moving through Congress. Bogus “reform”? Yes, indeed. The consensus that has emerged, and which the xenophobic right can’t abide, holds that those human beings who have come here without government permission ought to have a pathway to legal status — but only if they pay fines and taxes and learn English. This act of alleged humanitarianism would be combined with a reinforced border and revised rules to make sure that only immigrants of a quality “we” can use are allowed into the country.
Hannity & Co. call this amnesty, while fearing that the border won’t be secure enough.
Like these conservatives, I believe amnesty is inappropriate — but for a very different reason: The people who crossed the border without permission did nothing wrong, so there’s no offense to forgive. But didn’t they break the law? To be sure, they violated a statute, but as natural-law advocates have long taught, a statute that conflicts with natural law and natural rights is no law at all. Thus, so-called illegal immigrants, who are merely people without government papers — big deal! — should just be left alone: no penalty, no fees, no back taxes, and no hounding them to learn English. And the welcome mat should be put out for those who wish to come here. We’d all benefit.
The government should no more engineer the immigrant population than it should engineer the native population. Freedom really should count for something. (Note that conservatives don’t think free enterprise includes the freedom to hire whoever is willing to work.)
But let’s not deny the potential danger that someone who comes to this country might want revenge against Americans for a perceived injustice. There’s actually a good way for the government to reduce the chances of this happening: it can stop invading, occupying, bombing, droning, embargoing, and torturing people in foreign countries.
Who “radicalized” the Brothers Tsarnaev? My candidate is President Obama.
Sheldon Richman is vice president and editor at The Future of Freedom Foundation (www.fff.org) in Fairfax, Va. He can be reached through his blog, Free Association.
New questions on Boston bombing suspects’ ties to US intelligence
Information continues to come to light raising questions about the relationship between American intelligence agencies and the Tsarnaev brothers, who are suspected of carrying out the April 15 bombing at the Boston marathon.
The brothers’ parents continue to insist that their sons are innocent, with the mother claiming they were set up by the American state and “controlled” by the FBI.
US authorities have acknowledged that the Tsarnaev brothers were investigated by the FBI and CIA. However, they claim that at most the intelligence and security agencies are guilty of a “failure to communicate” what they knew about the two.
This is an echo of the “failure to connect the dots” explanation that was given for the failure of the CIA and FBI to prevent the 9/11 attacks, even though many of the perpetrators were known to these agencies and were being tracked. Despite the staggering security lapses that were acknowledged in the aftermath of 9/11, no high-level officials were fired. Robert Mueller, who headed the FBI in 2001, remains the head of the top federal police agency.
Details continue to emerge over the close surveillance by state intelligence agencies of the Tsarnaevs and their associates. In March 2011, the Russian federal security services (FSB) intercepted a call between Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older of the two brothers, and his mother, in which they “vaguely discussed jihad.”
In another wiretapped conversation, Tsarnaev’s mother spoke with someone in the Caucasus who is under FBI investigation, although the reasons for the investigation have not been revealed.
According to news reports, the recorded calls were one of the things that prompted the Kremlin to alert the FBI to the Tsarnaevs in 2011, and then contact the CIA about them later in the year, after the FBI dropped its investigation. The FBI claims that the Russian government did not say at the time why it was issuing these warnings and did not share the content of the wiretapped conversations.
The manner in which these issues are being handled testifies to the breakdown of democratic processes in the United States. None of these questions is being seriously investigated in the media or made the subject of public congressional hearings. Instead, the Boston bombings are being seized upon to argue for boosting the authority and power of the intelligence agencies.
As the events in Boston graphically demonstrated, this will only facilitate plans already well advanced for the imposition of dictatorial forms of rule. The Boston Marathon bombing was seized upon as the pretext for placing the entire city of Boston and a number of its suburbs under a police-military lockdown and carrying out house-to-house warrantless searches.
The American mass media have ignored an April 24 report in the Russian newspaper Izvestia that it is in possession of documents from the Georgian Interior Ministry revealing that Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended a workshop in Georgia in the summer of 2012 sponsored by an organization called the Caucasus Fund, whose purpose was to recruit operatives in the northern Caucasus.
Based on statements by Colonel Grigoriy Chanturiya, a Georgian counterintelligence specialist, Izvestia claims that the Caucasus Fund was founded in 2008, after the Russo-Georgian war, in order to develop intelligence assets in southern Russia. According to Chanturiya’s report, the Caucasus Fund had a monthly budget of about $22,000 and had spent approximately $2.7 million since it began operations.
In 2008, Russia and the US nearly went to war in the Caucasus, when the US-backed Georgian government attacked the Russian-controlled breakaway region of South Ossetia. Although the White House backed away from a full-scale military confrontation with the Kremlin, it had advance knowledge of the Georgian attack on Russian forces and did not stop it. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had visited the country one month prior to the attack.
According to Izvestia, the Caucasus Fund was shut down in late 2012 over concerns that it had attracted the attention of the Russian secret services. The former vice president of the organization told the newspaper that since January of this year it had ceased operating almost entirely. He did not say why.
The Caucasus Fund allegedly worked with the regime in Tbilisi and the Jamestown Foundation, a US think tank headed by a number of senior figures from the US political and military establishment, including former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski.
The Georgian Interior Ministry has denied Izvestia ’s allegations, insisting that Tsarnaev never set foot in Georgia and that no one named Grigoriy Chanturiya works for the ministry.
However, the Caucasus Fund has acknowledged holding a joint conference with the Jamestown Foundation in 2011. It wrote in an April 24 statement that it aims to “establish and develop scientific, cultural, and humanitarian relations between the peoples of the South and North Caucasus.”
The northern Caucasus is a restive region in southern Russia, bordering the ex-Soviet republics of Georgia and Azerbaijan in the southern Caucasus. It includes the republic of Chechnya, where a separatist movement has been active since the collapse of the Soviet Union and against which Moscow has waged two bloody wars. Chechen separatism has become increasingly intertwined with a burgeoning Islamic extremist movement in the Muslim-majority region.
Powerful sections of the American ruling class have long given support to Chechen separatism. The American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus (ACPC), sponsored by the right-wing organization Freedom House, has led such efforts for many years. A 2004 article in the British Guardian newspaper entitled “The Chechens’ American Friends” noted that ACPC portrayed Chechen separatism as a “fashionable ‘Muslim’ cause,” deserving and requiring US support.
The director of programs in the Caucasus for the Jamestown Foundation formerly worked for Freedom House.
In the US media, the Izvestia report has been mentioned only by a few foreign policy publications, which have dismissed it as a “conspiracy theory.”
In fact, the close ties between the US foreign policy establishment and Chechen Islamist forces form a critical part of the background to the Boston bombings. By suppressing such information the media are denying to the public key information regarding not only the identity of possible forces involved in the bombing, but also the reactionary implications of Washington’s ongoing collaboration with Islamist terrorist forces in the Middle East.
The US is working in alliance with Muslim extremists in Syria, who function as Washington’s proxy force in the war to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. In this war, Chechen Islamists play a major role. The Muhajireen Brigade of foreign Islamists fighting as part of the Syrian opposition is led by an ethnic Chechen, Abu Omar al-Shishani, and reportedly includes many other Chechens.
Before his death last October, the Chechen Abu Bara was a brigade commander in the Al-Nusra Front, the Al Qaeda-affiliated group that is playing the dominant military role in the US proxy war against Assad.
The US government has a long tradition of cultivating ties with such reactionary forces. It played a central role in fomenting radical Islamism in Afghanistan before and during the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s, in an effort to undermine Soviet influence in the region. The emergence of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which evolved out of the organization that oversaw logistical support to the Islamist anti-Soviet fighters, was the direct product of this war.
The US intelligence community is so familiar with the consequences of losing control of its former assets that it has coined a term for it: blowback. However, the media have avoided raising any possibility that the Boston bombings might be an example of blowback, or an operation carried out with the tacit support or assistance of forces within the state.
STEPHEN LENDMAN: US False Flag Pretext for War on Syria
Editor’s Note: Here’s the sanctimonious claptrap being distributed by the American media to the perennially clueless American public (this version courtesy of the Wall Street Journal) as they tighten the noose around the Syrian regime’s neck. As always, American officialdom’s hypocrisy beats just about any emetic on the market—PG
WASHINGTON—Republicans and Democrats pressed President Barack Obama on Sunday to do more to intervene and stop the civil war in Syria, citing a U.S. intelligence report released last week that concluded President Bashar al-Assad used small amounts of chemical weapons against his opponents.
But leading lawmakers, including Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), also uniformly stressed on Sunday talk shows that they didn’t believe the U.S. should send American troops into Syria to confront Mr. Assad. Both lawmakers and the Obama administration are wary about U.S. involvement in another conflict in the Middle East after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. McCain argued that the U.S. should instead support a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians and rebels from Mr. Assad’s forces. Other lawmakers called for significantly more humanitarian aid.
“We have said that they need a no-fly zone, which could be obtained without using U.S.-manned aircraft,” said Mr. McCain, a sharp critic of Mr. Obama’s Syria policy, appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “We could use Patriot batteries and cruise missiles to take out their air and to supply…the resistance with weapons.”
He said he didn’t want American “boots on the ground” but said that the international community should “be prepared with an international force to go in and secure these stocks of chemical and perhaps biological weapons.”
Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) said on the same show: “I believe the United States could play a greater role in dealing with the humanitarian crisis…I don’t think the world’s greatest superpower, the United States, can stand by and not do anything.”
Obama abhors peace. He prioritizes war. His appetite exceeds his predecessors and then some. It’s insatiable. He’s currently waging multiple direct and proxy wars. He plans more in Africa. He destroyed Libya. He’s ravaging Syria.
Read the Stephen Lendman piece on next page.
US False Flag Pretext for War on Syria
By Stephen Lendman
UK Daily Mail headlined “US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime,’ ” saying:
“Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.”
“A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.”
“Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.”
“It reads: ‘Phil….We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington…’We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.’ ”
” ‘They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.’ ”
” ‘Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?’ ”
” ‘Kind regards, David.’ ”
“The emails were released by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes and copies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber War News.”
“Dave Goulding’s Linkedin profile lists him as Business Development Director at Britam Defence Ltd in Security and Investigations.”
“A business networking profile for Phil Doughty lists him as Chief Operationg Officer for Britam, United Arab Emirates, Security and Investigations.”
“The US State Department had not returned a request for comment on the alleged emails to MailOnline today at time of publication.”
On January 30, Voice of Russia headlined “Britam tells VoR it was hacked,” saying:
It denied involvement “in a plot to destabilise Syria.” Red Hot Russia quoted a “software systems administrator” using the nickname “KungFu Spider,” saying:
“After looking at the email headers….I have to admit that the email does indeed look genuine.”
“The email was sent from ‘81.156.163.12’ which is a BT Wholesale ADSL IP address.”
“Finally it was delivered to a local mailbox on that server.
I hate to admit it, but all these facts check out. So with Mythbusters objectivity I have to call this one plausible…I just hope I don’t get a visit from the plods for this ill advised sleuthing.”
Last summer, Obama warned:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.”
That would change my calculus. That would change my equation…We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”
They include full-scale US intervention. Last March, a Brookings Institution report headlined “Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change.”
To “protect US interests,” it said, Assad can’t be allowed to triumph. Six options were proposed:
(1) diplomacy;
(2) coercion and diplomatic isolation;
(3) providing full support for opposition forces to oust him;
(4) a Libya-style air campaign;
(5) invasion “with US-led forces;” and
(6) a “multilateral, NATO-led (regime change) effort.”
On the one hand, it recommended giving diplomacy “one last chance.” On the other, it said it’s unlikely “diplomacy alone can resolve the crisis.”
It said Washington must intervene “to protect (its) many interests affected by the bloodshed of Syria.”
Russian politician Alexei Mitrofanov is a Duma Information Policy Committee member. Voice of Russia quoted him saying:
“Syria is facing a global info war. The masterminds of this war are doing everything they can to prevent information of Syrian official sources from leaking out.”
“(T)he truth about the Syrian conflict is different from the one presented by the western press.”
On April 28, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported Assad’s Permanent UN Representative, Bashar al-Jaafari saying “western countries are raising the issue of chemical weapons use in Syria is part of the campaign of pressure exerted on Syria in order to get concessions from it in various issues.”
“….Syria’s enemies fabricated various issues to pressure Syria’s but to no avail, and now they’re attempting to exploit the Security Council to recreate the Iraqi scenario, asserting that they will not succeed in these machinations because Syria has real friends in the Security Council, and because experts are presenting credible reports like the recent one which stated that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and the UAE are all involved in smuggling weapons into Syria.”
“….the media war of exaggeration against Syria seeks to poison the international and Arab public opinion by promoting an erroneous image of what is actually happening in Syria, affirming that the Syrian government isn’t killing its own people as some claim; rather it’s facing armed terrorist who commit suicide bombings in residential areas, murder students in schools and universities, and undermine the national economy’s infrastructure.”
Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi said its military successes prompted false accusations about chemical weapons use. Russian Federation Council Deputy Chairman Ilyas Umakhanov suggested Moscow won’t leave Syria alone in its time of crisis, saying:
“Russia’s stance is that the Syrian people alone have the right to solve their problems without foreign interference.” The battle for Syria rages. Western propaganda continues. Joseph Holliday is an Institute for the Study of War (ISW) fellow and former senior research analyst. ISW calls itself “committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve US. strategic objectives.”
On April 26, Holliday’s Foreign Policy article headlined “Assad’s Chemical Romance,” saying:
“….the Syrian dictator’s cynical and clever chemical weapons strategy outfoxed Obama.”
“The Syrian regime’s subtle approach deliberately offers the Obama administration the option to remain quiet about chemical attacks and thereby avoid the obligation to make good on its threats.”
“But even more worrying, Assad’s limited use of chemical weapons is intended to desensitize the United States and the international community in order to facilitate a more comprehensive deployment in the future – without triggering intervention.”
Holliday appears to be goading Obama to intervene. He claimed previous Assad chemical weapons use. Repeating lies often enough get people to believe them. He said Assad “established a clear modus operandi for ramping up the battle without triggering international intervention: toe the line, confirm Western inaction, and then ratchet up the violence further.”
He made numerous false accusations. Assad’s “introduction of weapons of mass destruction intends to pave the way for more lethal and wide-ranging chemical attacks against the Syrian people in the future,” he claimed. Obama said “he’ll need a big, smoking gun to push him into taking on the responsibility of a decisive US response.”
“Unfortunately, the wily Assad doesn’t seem likely to give (him) such an easy decision.” False flags and misinformation make it easier. On April 28, Haaretz headlined “Defected Syrian general claims he was ordered to use chemical weapons,” saying:
On March 15, Zakir al-Sakit defected. He claims superiors told him to use chemical weapons against “rebels” and civilians in Busra al-Harir. It’s about 90 km south of Damascus. Expect defectors to say anything. Perhaps al-Harir was well-rewarded. His accusation lacks credibility.
He said he instructed his forces to use a harmless liquid. Haaretz cited opposition Syria National Coalition officials claiming Syrian forces fired “missiles with chemical arms” near Damascus.
Expect these type reports to continue. Obama appears heading for more war. Expect Syria to become another US charnel house. American-style humanitarian interventions turn out that way.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Selling us imperialist wars 24/7 In any decent society, warmongering should be regarded as serious felony or worse.
UPDATE: Read the addendum, by Stephen Lendman, detailing the full-dress campaign for war on Syria being provided, once again, by the utterly filthy US mainstream media. Is there anything more repulsive than these propagandists for war against weaker nations? —PG
Ward: Beware of toxic reporting.
Many naive people marvel that the all-powerful American corporate state, unlike the totalitarian behemoths of the past, does not seem to have a real propaganda arm. The simple answer—as practically our entire audience knows—is that the US ruling class does not need a formal propaganda apparatus (although it does have that, too, of course, with multiple organs of disinformation operating covertly and semi-covertly all over the place), for it needs none. It has something far better than that, the gianormous globe-girding oxymoronic “Free Press” with countless careerist running dogs falling all over each other to do all the propagandizing and truth-twisting that the American state thinks necessary.
Face the Nation, CBS flagship “news & commentary” show hosted by Bob Schieffer is a standout in this crowded category. Besides being immensely boring given its inalterable rule to present only establishment worthies with their predictable scripts, FTN is one of those media platforms where, with a bit of education on the wiles of consciousness manipulation, you can easily spot the naked hand of propaganda. By any standard of “objectivity” which these folks pretend to observe, this fatuous show is simply scandalous. The 4/28/13 edition is a good example. Featuring excrescences from the South like the inevitable big mouth Sen. Lindsey Graham, whose ego won’t tolerate a single major issue to slip by without injecting some poisonous opinion, and colleagues like Saxon Chambliss and Claire McCaskill who, as loyal members of the political class unambiguously incarnate the idea the US has the God-given right to meddle anywhere for whatever reason it deems advisable (reasons which it routinely fabricates anyhow), it also includes the usual “impartial” opinion gallery, with reactionary stalwarts like Peggy Noonan and the abysmally ignorant Norah O’Donnell. Not to mention foreign correspondent Clarissa Ward (more on her below).
Watch carefully how each of the voices, in their own way, form a chorus decrying the US government supposedly “pusillanimous” response to the “Syrian regime crimes.”
P. Greanville
_______ Intro by Schieffer
ADDENDUM
Creating a Pretext for War on Syria
by Stephen Lendman
What’s ongoing now bears eerie resemblance to events preceding Bush’s Iraq war. Obama’s replicating a familiar scenario. Waging war requires a pretext to do so. When none exists, it’s invented. It’s easy. Lies substitute for truth. Claims about Syria using chemical weapons don’t wash. Repetition gets people to believe them. We’ve seen it all before.
Colin Power’s infamous February 5, 2003 Security Council speech led to war. It was shameless deception. Later he admitted WMD claims were false. It was too late to matter.
Plans were set. The die was cast. Weeks later, America bombed, invaded and occupied Iraq. The cradle of civilization was destroyed. No WMDs existed. It was well-known but ignored. More on that below.
Powell lied claiming them. US media scoundrels repeated what demanded renunciation. A New York Times editorial headlined “The Case Against Iraq,” saying:
“Secretary of State Colin Powell presented the United Nations and a global television audience yesterday with the most powerful case to date that Saddam Hussein stands in defiance of Security Council resolutions and has no intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have.”
A (no longer available online) Washington Post editorial headlined “Irrefutable,” saying:
“….it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction.”
Months later, a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report titled “WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications” said the Bush administration “systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq’s WMD and ballistic missile programs.”
Asked about the report, Powell stood by his Security Council testimony, saying:
“I am confident of what I presented last year. The intelligence community is confident of the material they gave me. I was representing them.”
“It was information they presented to the Congress. It was information they had presented publicly and they stand behind it, and this game is still unfolding.”
Powell’s speech was bald-faced deception. He willfully lied, saying:
“The material I will present to you comes from a variety of sources. Some are US sources. And some are those of other countries.”
“Some of the sources are technical, such as intercepted telephone conversations and photos taken by satellites. Other sources are people who have risked their lives to let the world know what Saddam Hussein is really up to.”
“….Iraq’s behavior show(s) that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.”
“We also have satellite photos that indicate that banned materials have recently been moved from a number of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction facilities.”
“The Iraqis have never accounted for all of the biological weapons they admitted they had and we know they had. They have never accounted for all the organic material used to make them.”
“And they have not accounted for many of the weapons filled with these agents such as there are 400 bombs. This is evidence, not conjecture. This is true. This is all well-documented.”
He claimed Saddam stockpiled “between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agents.” He added that “(t)here can be no doubt that (he) has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more.”
In August 1995, Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamel, defected to the West. He headed Iraq’s weapons programs. US intelligence officials debriefed him. He said “All weapons – biological, chemical, missile and nuclear were destroyed….Nothing remained.”
The New York Times and other US media sources reported his comments.
CNN’s Brent Sadler asked him: “Can you state here and now – does Iraq still to this day hold weapons of mass destruction?”
He responded: “No. Iraq does not possess any weapons of mass destruction. I am being completely honest about this.”
In the run-up to March 2003, media misinformation replaced earlier headlines. It’s standard practice. It repeating again now. Obama appears heading for full-scale war on Syria. Big lies launch wars. In “The Art of War,” Sun Tzu said “All war is based on deception.” Fear, misinformation and duplicity enlist public support. Naked aggression is called humanitarian intervention.
Libya 2.0 looms. Fabricating chemical weapons use looks like pretext for full-scale war. Secretary of State John Kerry claims Syria launched two chemical weapons attacks. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said using them “violates every convention of warfare.”
On April 25, the Los Angeles Times headlined “US lawmakers call for action on Syria’s chemical weapons,” saying:
They want quick action. [The lynch mob is, as usual, bipartisan. It’s an establishment thing.]
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D. CA) warned that without decisive action, “President Assad may calculate he has nothing more to lose.” He might “further escalate this conflict.”
“It is clear that ‘red lines’ have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger scale use,” she added. “Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons.”
Senator John McCain (R. AZ) said “(i)t’s pretty obvious the red line has been crossed.”
Rep. Adam Schiff (D. CA) believes Assad’s testing the international community. “The administration has said (chemical weapons use is) a game changer, but it’s not clear what that new game will look like.”
“I think it is incumbent on the international community to take strong action.”
A same day LA Times editorial headlined “A ‘red line’ on Syria,” saying: “If the Assad regime has indeed used chemical weapons, the US must honor its commitment to act.”
“(U)se of chemical weapons would represent a reckless escalation of Assad’s war on his own people.”
“Yes, the president must be sure before he acts; but if it is proved that Assad has crossed the ‘red line,’ Obama must respond.”
Chicago Tribune editors headlined “The pink line,” asking: “If Assad used chemical weapons, what will Obama do?”
He “drew a clear red line last August….(He) ‘put together a range of contingency plans,’ but he didn’t spell them out.”
“Now there’s mounting, though not yet conclusive, evidence that if Assad hasn’t stormed across that red line, he may be tiptoeing on it.”
Tribune editors want more decisive action. “We’ve long argued that the US should directly arm the rebels.”
Operating covertly from southern Turkey, CIA operatives have been doing it all along. It’s handled through a network of intermediaries. Weapons are also entering from Lebanon, Jordan and Israel.
Tribune editors urge more. Impose a no-fly zone “to ground Assad’s air force.” Doing so is an act of war.
“(B)omb access roads where chemical weapons are transported, to make moving (them) difficult if not impossible.”
Bombing anywhere assures doing it everywhere considered strategically important. Tribune editors urge war. They’re not alone.
On April 25, Wall Street Journal editors headlined “Chemical Weapons and Consequences: Syria calls President Obama’s bluff on WMD,” saying:
“As President of the United States, I don’t bluff,” said Obama.
He “famously said (it) in March 2012, warning Iranian leaders that he would not allow them to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Last month he said:
“I’ve made it clear to Bashar al-Assad and all who follow his orders: We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists.”
“The world is watching; we will hold you accountable.”
“Or not,” said Journal editors. “Israel will have to consider its own military options to secure the stockpiles if the US won’t act….”
“Presidents who are exposed as bluffers tend to have their bluff called again and again, with ever more dangerous consequences.”
Official accusations are familiar. So is heated rhetoric that follows. Obama heads closer to full-scale intervention. Reports say around 20,000 US troops will be deployed in Jordan.
On April 26, Obama hosted Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Washington. Perhaps they discussed invasion plans.
A Final Comment
While meeting with King Abdullah, Obama stopped short of saying Assad crossed a “red line.” Earlier he warned doing so would unleash “unspecified consequences.” Likely he meant direct US intervention.
“Horrific as it is when mortars are being fired on civilians and people are being indiscriminately killed, to use potential weapons of mass destruction on civilian populations crosses another line with respect to international norms and international law,” he told reporters.
“That is going to be a game changer. We have to act prudently.”
“We have to make these assessments deliberately. But I think all of us….recognize how we cannot stand by and permit the systematic use of weapons like chemical weapons on civilian populations.”
Sorting things out requires “increased urgency,” he stressed. White House spokesman Jay Carney said “(h)e retains all options to respond.” Further reports will explain more.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev: Sinister self-motivated terrorist or FBI patsy? Plenty of room for doubt.
Boston’s marathon bombings leave disturbing questions unanswered. Official accounts lack credibility. Mounting evidence suggests FBI responsibility. It doesn’t surprise. Project Censored’s fourth top 2013 censored story headlined “FBI Agents Responsible for Majority of Terrorist Plots in the United States.” More on that below.
Post-9/11, George Bush declared war on terrorism. It continues under Obama. America needs enemies. When none exist, they’re invented. Muslims are America’s target of choice. Numerous innocent victims are entrapped. It occurs when law enforcement officials or agents induce, influence, or provoke crimes that otherwise wouldn’t be committed.
Project Censored discussed Russia Today’s report. It headlined “FBI organizes almost all terror plots in the US.”
Mother Jones covered the same issue. Its article titled “The Informant” said “(T)he FBI has built a massive network of spies (allegedly) to prevent another domestic attack. But are they busting terrorist plots – or leading them?”
The FBI employs around 15,000 undercover agents. In 1975 they numbered 1,500. In 1980 it was 2,800. By 1986 it was 6,000. They’re involved in sting operations designed to entrap. They’re well paid. They earn around $100,000 per assignment or more.
Law-abiding people are targeted. According to Mother Jones, “in case after case, the government provides the plot, the means, and the opportunity.” FBI informants target Muslim communities. They seek members unhappy with America’s imperial war agenda. Mother Jones said their names are “cross-referenced with existing intelligence data, such as immigration and criminal records.”
“FBI agents may then assign an undercover operative to approach the target by posing as a radical. Sometimes” a plot is proposed. Explosives and/or other weapons are provided. Once “enough incriminating information” is gotten, an arrest follows. A press conference announces another “foiled plot.”
The process repeats ad nauseam. From fall 2010 – fall 2011 alone, Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at UC-Berkeley examined 508 alleged terrorism prosecutions. They found:
nearly half involved paid informants;
sting operations targeted 158 defendants;
agent provocateurs were involved in 49 plots;
“with three exceptions, (all) high-profile domestic terror plots of the last decade were actually FBI stings;”
most often, “key encounters” between informants and targets aren’t recorded;
proving entrapment is hard to impossible; and
even when evidence is suspect or lacking, beating terrorism-related charges in court rarely happens.
According to defense attorney Martin Stolar:
“The problem with the cases we’re talking about is that defendants would not have done anything if not kicked in the ass by government agents.”
The FBI “create(s) crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror.”
Attorney General Eric Holder defends entrapment. He’s done so publicly. He’s done it by calling provocative targeting terrorism stings. He’s unapologetic.
In March 2012, he spoke at Northwestern University School of Law. “We are a nation at war,” he said. “And, in this war, we face a nimble and determined enemy that cannot be underestimated.”
Justice Department lawyers and agents aim to “detect and disrupt terrorist plots, to prosecute suspected terrorists, and to identify and implement the (so-called) legal tools necessary to keep the American people safe.”
He defended disturbing practices involved, as well as military commissions and targeted assassinations of individuals alleged to be “imminent threat(s).”
He justified lawless practices on grounds of national security.
Earlier in December 2010, he addressed a San Francisco area Muslim audience. He called tactics used an “essential law enforcement tool in uncovering and preventing terror attacks.” He did so despite evidence many times they’re used to entrap.
Attendees weren’t pleased. Muslim Advocates president, Farhana Khera said entrapment operations “may be getting people involved in (alleged) terrorism who otherwise would not have done anything.”
“These operations also divert investigators from actual threats and provoke widespread anti-Muslim sentiment,” she added.
According to Council on American-Islam Relations spokesman Ibrahim Hooper:
“We maintain concerns about FBI policies regarding informants in mosques and provocateurs in our community.”
“There’s a sense of being under siege in many Muslim communities. People just assume there are agents or informants in their mosque now. It’s a fact of life.”
Law Professor David Cole says beating terrorism-related charges is near impossible. He told Mother Jones:
“The plots people are accused of being apart of – attacking subway systems or trying to bomb a building – are so frightening that they can overwhelm a jury.”
It dares not convict. Members are intimidated to do so. Disturbing unconstitutional issues aren’t addressed. Prosecutorial and FBI claims about keeping Americans safe don’t wash. Many cases explain why.
In December 2010, the Washington Post headlined “Tension grows between Calif. Muslims, FBI after informant infiltrates mosque,” saying:
Craig Monteilh, aka Farouk al-Aziz, code name Oracle, spied on dozens of Irvine Islamic Center Muslims. He did so “in a quest for potential terrorists….But the FBI’s approach has come under fire from some Muslims.”
“In the Irvine case, Monteilh’s mission….backfired. Muslims were so alarmed by his talk of violent jihad that they obtained a restraining order against him.”
They reported him to the same FBI office that recruited him. He helped build terrorism charges against a mosque member. It collapsed.
The Justice Department “took the extraordinary step of dropping charges against the worshipper, who Monteilh had caught on tape (allegedly) agreeing to blow up buildings, law enforcement officials said.”
“Prosecutors (falsely) portrayed the man as a dire threat.”
Monteilh went public. He revealed FBI tactics. He said his “handlers” trained him to entrap Muslims in mosques, at home and at work.
He was a well-paid informant. Court records and other documents showed he got $177,000 tax free in 15 months.
Southern California Muslims cited a pattern of pervasive surveillance and entrapment. According to Islamic Shura Council of Southern California Executive Director Shakeel Syed:
“The community feels betrayed. They got a guy, a bona fide criminal (just out of prison for grand theft), and obviously trained him and sent him to infiltrate mosques.”
“And when things went sour, they ditched him and he got mad. It’s like a soap opera, for God’s sake.”
Most FBI informants are either charged suspects, convicted felons, or undocumented immigrants facing deportation. In return for cooperation, leniency is offered.
Monteilh was a convicted felon. He was involved in ripping off cocaine dealers. He became a Drug Enforcement Administration asset. He later agreed to be an FBI informant.
According to Mother Jones, informants’ “first assignment is often a fishing expedition.” They’ve testified in court that “FBI handlers tasked them with infiltrating mosques without a specific target….”
They’re “directed to surveil law-abiding Americans with no indication of criminal intent.”
They’re told to infiltrate mosques without probable cause. They look for likely targets to entrap. Muslims are America’s target of choice. Innocence is no defense.
Guilt by accusation works. Prosecutors claim another war on terror victory. Innocent people suffer.
Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaeve is Washington’s latest victim. Media scoundrels convicted him in the court of public opinion. Authorities claim he confessed. His last Facebook message said:
“This will be the last message before the police get me. I never ‘done’ it. They set me up. Father please forgive me. I am sorry it has come to this.”
It bears repeating. Innocence is no defense. Lies substitute for truth. Imperial priorities matter most.
America’s war on terror shows no mercy. It’s institutionalized. Everyone’s harmed. Freedom is fast disappearing.
America’s war on humanity continues. Full-blown tyranny looms.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
