by Chris Hedges
This article previously appeared in TruthDig [10].

“If we lose in Hedges v. Obama, electoral politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Nero’s Rome.”

Last Wednesday a few hundred activists crowded into the courtroom of the Second Circuit, the spillover room with its faulty audio feed and dearth of chairs, and Foley Square outside the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan where many huddled in the cold. The fate of the nation, we understood, could be decided by the three judges who will rule on our lawsuit against President Barack Obama for signing into law Section 1021(b)(2) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

The section permits the military to detain anyone, including U.S. citizens, who “substantially support”—an undefined legal term—al-Qaida, the Taliban or “associated forces,” again a term that is legally undefined. Those detained can be imprisoned indefinitely by the military and denied due process until “the end of hostilities.” In an age of permanent war this is probably a lifetime.

Anyone detained under the NDAA can be sent, according to Section (c)(4), to any “foreign country or entity.” This is, in essence, extraordinary rendition [11] of U.S. citizens. It empowers the government to ship detainees to the jails of some of the most repressive regimes on earth.

Section 1021(b)(2) was declared invalid in September after our first trial, in the Southern District Court of New York. The Obama administration appealed the Southern District Court ruling. The appeal was heard Wednesday in the Second Circuit Court with Judges Raymond J. Lohier, Lewis A. Kaplan and Amalya L. Kearse presiding. The judges might not make a decision until the spring when the Supreme Court rules in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, another case in which I am a plaintiff. The Supreme Court case challenges the government’s use of electronic surveillance. If we are successful in the Clapper case, it will strengthen all the plaintiffs’ standing in Hedges v. Obama. The Supreme Court, if it rules against the government, will affirm that we as plaintiffs have a reasonable fear of being detained.

“Once the state seizes this unchecked power, it will inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags.”

If we lose in Hedges v. Obama—and it seems certain that no matter the outcome of the appeal this case will reach the Supreme Court—electoral politics and our rights as citizens will be as empty as those of Nero’s Rome. If we lose, the power of the military to detain citizens, strip them of due process and hold them indefinitely in military prisons will become a terrifying reality. Democrat or Republican. Occupy activist or libertarian. Socialist or tea party stalwart. It does not matter. This is not a partisan fight. Once the state seizes this unchecked power, it will inevitably create a secret, lawless world of indiscriminate violence, terror and gulags. I lived under several military dictatorships during the two decades I was a foreign correspondent. I know the beast.

“The stakes are very high,” said attorney Carl Mayer, who with attorney Bruce Afran brought our case to trial, in addressing a Culture Project [12] audience in Manhattan on Wednesday after the hearing. “What our case comes down to is: Are we going to have a civil justice system in the United States or a military justice system? The civil justice system is something that is ingrained in the Constitution. It was always very important in combating tyranny and building a democratic society. What the NDAA is trying to impose is a system of military justice that allows the military to police the streets of America to detain U.S. citizens, to detain residents in the United States in military prisons. Probably the most frightening aspect of the NDAA is that it allows for detention until ‘the end of hostilities.’” [To see videos of Mayer, Afran, Hedges and other participating in the Culture Project panel discussion, click here [13].]

Five thousand years of human civilization has left behind innumerable ruins to remind us that the grand structures and complex societies we build, and foolishly venerate as immortal, crumble into dust. It is the descent that matters now. If the corporate state is handed the tools, as under Section 1021(b)(2) of the NDAA, to use deadly force and military power to criminalize dissent, then our decline will be one of repression, blood and suffering. No one, not least our corporate overlords, believes that our material conditions will improve with the impending collapse of globalization, the steady deterioration of the global economy, the decline of natural resources and the looming catastrophes of climate change.

“What the NDAA is trying to impose is a system of military justice that allows the military to police the streets of America to detain U.S. citizens, to detain residents in the United States in military prisons.”

But the global corporatists—who have created a new species of totalitarianism—demand, during our decay, total power to extract the last vestiges of profit from a degraded ecosystem and disempowered citizenry. The looming dystopia is visible in the skies of blighted postindustrial cities such as Flint, Mich., where drones circle like mechanical vultures. And in an era where the executive branch can draw up secret kill lists that include U.S. citizens, it would be naive to believe these domestic drones will remain unarmed.

Robert M. Loeb, the lead attorney for the government in Wednesday’s proceedings, took a tack very different from that of the government in the Southern District Court of New York before Judge Katherine B. Forrest. Forrest repeatedly asked the government attorneys if they could guarantee that the other plaintiffs and I would not be subject to detention under Section 1021(b)(2). The government attorneys in the first trial granted no such immunity. The government also claimed in the first trial that under the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act (AUMF), it already had the power to detain U.S. citizens. Section 1021(b)(2), the attorneys said, did not constitute a significant change in government power. Judge Forrest in September rejected the government’s arguments and ruled Section 1021(b)(2) invalid.

The government, however, argued Wednesday that as “independent journalists” we were exempt from the law and had no cause for concern. Loeb stated that if journalists used journalism as a cover to aid the enemy, they would be seized and treated as enemy combatants. But he assured the court that I would be untouched by the new law as long as “Mr. Hedges did not start driving black vans for people we don’t like.”

“Senior officials in the Reagan administration regularly denounced many of us in the press as fifth columnists and collaborators with terrorists.”

Loeb did not explain to the court who defines an “independent journalist.” I have interviewed members of al-Qaida as well as 16 other individuals or members of groups on the State Department’s terrorism list. When I convey these viewpoints, deeply hostile to the United States, am I considered by the government to be “independent”? Could I be seen by the security and surveillance state, because I challenge the official narrative, as a collaborator with the enemy? And although I do not drive black vans for people Loeb does not like, I have spent days, part of the time in vehicles, with armed units that are hostile to the United States. These include Hamas in Gaza and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in southeastern Turkey.

I traveled frequently with armed members of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front in El Salvador and the Sandinista army in Nicaragua during the five years I spent in Central America. Senior officials in the Reagan administration regularly denounced many of us in the press as fifth columnists and collaborators with terrorists. These officials did not view us as “independent.” They viewed us as propagandists for the enemy. Section 1021(b)(2) turns this linguistic condemnation into legal condemnation.

Alexa O’Brien, another plaintiff and a co-founder of the US Day of Rage [14], learned after WikiLeaks released 5 million emails from Stratfor, a private security firm that does work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the Marine Corps and the Defense Intelligence Agency, that Stratfor operatives were trying to link her and her organization to Islamic radicals, including al-Qaida, and sympathetic websites as well as jihadist ideology. If that link were made, she and those in her organization would not be immune from detention.

Afran said at the Culture Project discussion that he once gave a donation at a fundraising dinner to the Ancient Order of Hibernians, an Irish Catholic organization. A few months later, to his surprise, he received a note of thanks from Sinn Féin [15]. “I didn’t expect to be giving money to a group that maintains a paramilitary terrorist organization, as some people say,” Afran said. “This is the danger. You can easily find yourself in a setting that the government deems worthy of incarceration. This is why people cease to speak out.”

The government attempted in court last week to smear Sami Al-Hajj [16], a journalist for the Al-Jazeera news network who was picked up by the U.S. military and imprisoned for nearly seven years in Guantanamo. This, for me, was one of the most chilling moments in the hearing.

“Just calling yourself a journalist doesn’t make you a journalist, like Al-Hajj,” Loeb told the court. “He used journalism as a cover. He was a member of al-Qaida and provided Stinger missiles to al-Qaida.”

“You can easily find yourself in a setting that the government deems worthy of incarceration.”

Al-Hajj, despite Loeb’s assertions, was never charged with any crimes. And the slander by Loeb only highlighted the potential for misuse of this provision of the NDAA if it is not struck down.

The second central argument by the government was even more specious. Loeb claimed that Subsection 1021(e) of the NDAA exempts citizens from detention. Section 1021(e) states: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

Afran countered Loeb by saying that Subsection 1021(e) illustrated that the NDAA assumed that U.S. citizens would be detained by the military, overturning two centuries of domestic law that forbids the military to carry out domestic policing. And military detention of citizens, Afran noted, is not permitted under the Constitution.

Afran quoted the NDAA bill’s primary sponsor, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who said on the floor of the Senate: “In the case where somebody is worried about being picked up by a rogue executive branch because they went to the wrong political rally, they don’t have to worry very long, because our federal courts have the right and the obligation to make sure the government proves their case that you are a member of al-Qaida and didn’t [just] go to a political rally.”

Afran told the court that Graham’s statement implicitly acknowledged that U.S. citizens could be detained by the military under 1021(b)(2). “There is no reason for the sponsor to make that statement if he does not realize that the statute causes that chilling fear,” Afran told the judges.

After the hearing Afran explained: “If the senator who sponsored and managed the bill believed people would be afraid of the law, then the plaintiffs obviously have a reasonably objective basis to fear the statute.”

In speaking to the court Afran said of 1021(e): “It says it is applied to people in the United States. It presumes that they are going to be detained under some law. The only law we know of is this law. What other laws, before this one, allowed the military to detain people in this country?”

This was a question Judge Lohier, at Afran’s urging, asked Loeb during the argument. Loeb concurred that the NDAA was the only law he knew of that permitted the military to detain and hold U.S. citizens.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Chris Hedges, whose column is published Mondays on Truthdig, spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than 50 countries and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News and The New York Times, for which he was a foreign correspondent for 15 years.
Copyright © 2012 Truthdig

[17]
Source URL: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/preventive-detention-and-death-democratic-state
Links:
[1] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/drone-wars
[2] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/department-war/authorization-use-military-force-act
[3] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/kurdistan-workers-party
[4] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/asia-europe-and-middle-east/hamas
[5] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/ndda
[6] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/national-defense-authorization-act
[7] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/hedges-v-obama
[8] http://www.blackagendareport.com/category/us-politics/extraordinary-rendition
[9] http://www.blackagendareport.com/sites/www.blackagendareport.com/files/POLICE-STATE-USA-The-Paranoid-Style-of-American-Governance.jpg
[10] http://www.truthdig.com/
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_Rendition
[12] http://cultureproject.org/
[13] http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/activist_heavyweights_convene_against_the_detention_powers_20130208/
[14] http://usdayofrage.org/
[15] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Sinn+Fein
[16] http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/john_brennan_sami_al-hajj_and_the_blight_of_guantanamo_20130110/
[17] http://www.addtoany.com/share_save?linkurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blackagendareport.com%2Fcontent%2Fpreventive-detention-and-death-democratic-state&linkname=Preventive%20Detention%20and%20the%20Death%20of%20the%20Democratic%20State

by Stephen Lendman

In April 2005, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope Benedict XVI. At the time he said:

“Dear brothers and sisters. After the great Pope John Paul II, the Cardinals have elected me, a simple and humble worker in the vineyard of the lord.”

He hid his dark past. More on that below.

On February 11, he announced he’ll step down. He’s the first pope to do so since Gregory XII in 1415. Vatican spokesman, Federico Lombardi, said he “took us by surprise.”

He’s 85. His energy and health deteriorated. It did so “to the extent that (he) had to recognize (his) incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to (him),” he said.

“For this reason, and well aware of the seriousness of this act, with full freedom (he) declare(d) that (he’ll) renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome, Successor of Saint Peter.”

At 7PM on February 28, it’s official. His office will remain open until a successor is chosen.

He was born on April 16, 1927 in Bavaria. It was six years before Hitler took power. At age 14, he joined his youth movement. Doing so influenced his authoritarian character.

Post-WW II, he studied theology and philosophy. In 1951, he was appointed to the priesthood. In 1953, he earned a doctor of theology.

In 1957, he qualified as a University of Munich theology lecturer. He taught Church dogma until 1981. He rose in its hierarchy.

From 1962 – 1965, he participated in the Second Vatican Council. He served as council theologian. In 1977, he was appointed Munich archbishop and Freising.

Three months later, he was named cardinal. In 1981, John Paul II asked him to become supreme guardian of the faith in Rome.

As Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith head, he was hardline, inflexible, and uncompromising. He served as “grand inquisitor.” He rigidly enforced reactionary positions. He challenged clerics opposing them.

In 2004, the Congregation published a 37-page “Letter on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and the World.”

It defined women’s role in terms of virginity, marriage, motherhood, and supporting family male heads of households. It cited Genesis 3:16, saying:

“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

He incurred opposition from many churchgoers. Most bishops objected. He waged war on liberal ideology. He drove left-of-center theologians out of the priesthood.

He rejects modernity, enlightenment, and democratic values. He deplores social struggles. His word view is authoritarian.

In 2000, he prepared a paper titled “Dominus Jesus.” John Paul II approved it. It asserted Roman Catholicism supremacy. Doing so offended Christians and non-Christians alike. It said:

“Just as there is one Christ, so there exists a single body of Christ, a single Bride of Christ, a single Catholic and apostolic Church.”

He was ordained at age 24. He’s ideologically and politically hard-right. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he opposed reform. John Allen’s book “Cardinal Ratzinger: The Vatican’s Enforcer of the Faith” discussed him, saying:

“Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism.”

“In other words, he believes the Catholic Church serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes.”

As cardinal and pope, he opposes Marxism, liberation theology, liberal morality, ordaining women, permitting priests to marry, homosexuality, masturbation, birth control, abortion, stem cell research, diluting top-down authority, and Vatican II’s softening of traditional orthodoxy on salvation outside the Church, ecumenical relations, and liturgical rites.

He enforces dogma on papal infallibility. He serves as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It was the Inquisition’s successor institution.

He prohibits liberation theology. He bans, censors and/or excommunicates liberal clerics. Doing so got him nicknamed “grand inquisitor.”

Ahead of his election, he said all religions outside Roman Catholicism are “defective.” He denounced what he called “the dictatorship of relativism.”

He was Pope John Paul II’s closest theological advisor. He helped elect two previous popes. He and other pontiffs exercise dictatorial powers.

Their decrees have final say. They’re considered infallible. Pontiffs govern any way they wish. They appoint major Church hierarchy officials they prefer. They consider themselves above reproach. Others disagree for good reason.

Pedophelia scandals occasionally erupt. Times never change. Misconduct is longstanding. In 2004, John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s (JJCCJ) Professor Karen Terry et al published a report commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.

It was based on Catholic diocese surveys. They covered the period 1950 – 2002. They showed under age 18 molestation occurs in:

“more than 95% of dioceses and approximately 60% of religious communities.”

“Of the 195 dioceses and eparchies that participated in the study, all but seven have reported” at least one offending priest.

“Of the 140 religious communities” surveyed, “only 30 reported” no abuses. Doing so doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Given the reluctance of victims to come forward, it’s virtually certain many other incidences took place.

Thousands of children were harmed. Most were 11 – 17 aged boys. Hundreds of priests were involved.

The problem is global. In 2010, widespread child sexual abuse surfaced. It’s especially common in Europe, North and South America, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines.

Coverup is commonplace. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was involved. As Benedict XVI, he swept abuse under the rug. He wanted wrongdoing suppressed.

On March 28, 2010, Marquette University Professor of Moral Theology Daniel C. Maguire headlined “Why Pope Benedict Must Resign,” saying:

“Pope Benedict XVI now faces a major hypocrisy test. He has been accepting resignations from bishops around the world who failed to take action against priest rapists.”

“It is now no longer in dispute that he himself is guilty of the same criminal negligence….”

“He has no moral right to hide behind Vatican walls.” Today’s “perfect storm” includes the pope, “a Vatican cardinal, two members of the Papal Apostolic Delagature, three Milwaukee archbishops, and (what’s usually overlooked) the collusion of the local police and District Attorney.”

Benedict VXI prioritized “protecting the church from scandal.” It doesn’t matter how many boys are harmed. Better them than the Church. It’s been that way for centuries.

Pedophelia is a crime against humanity. Benedict and other top Vatican officials are complicit. Putting them in the dock is warranted. Legal immunity doesn’t wash.

Wrongdoing is indefensible. So is coverup. The Vatican has centuries of skeletons in its closet. Benedict has plenty of his own.

In January 2012, Vatileaks exposed high-level corruption. Documents were leaked to Italian journalists.

In May 2012, Gianluigi Nuzzi’s book titled “His Holiness: The Secret Papers of Benedict XVI” revealed confidential letters and memos between him and his personal secretary, Paolo Gabriele.

Papal finances, bribes, other corruption, and abuse of power were disclosed. Benedict called accusations “exaggerated” and “gratuitous.”

Gabriele was hung out to dry. He was arrested, tried and convicted. He got 18 months in prison. He was ordered to pay legal expenses. On December 22, 2012, Benedict pardoned him. Perhaps he’d already decided to step down.

In his book “God and His Demons,” Michael Parenti confronted the religious right, saying:

“The god of the Holy Bible – so much adored in the United States and elsewhere – is ferociously vindictive, neurotically jealous, intolerant, vainglorious, punitive, wrathful, sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sadistic and homicidal.”

“As they say, it’s all in the Bible. Beware of those who act in the name of such a god.”

“Were we to encounter these vicious traits in an ordinary man, we would judge him to be in need of lifelong incarceration at a maximum-security facility.”

“At the very least, we would not prattle on about how he works his wonders in mysterious ways. In fact, ‘biblical Jesus qualifies quite well as founder and forerunner of an intolerant Christianity.”

“That ‘old-time religion’ is still very much with us and having a considerable impact on U.S. political life.”

Parenti was unforgiving. He challenged iconic religious figures. He exposed their dark sides. He included Mother Teresa, Pope John Paul II, and Tibetan Buddhism.

John Paul II “remained up to his ears in counter-revolutionary politics in Latin America and elsewhere,” he said. He “directed no critical attacks against right-wing dictatorships.” He called them “bulwarks against communist revolution.”

He intervened on behalf of Chilean despot Augusto Pinochet. At the time, he was under house arrest in London.

Mother Teresa jetted around the world “against divorce, abortion, and birth control.”

Her so-called clinics and hospitals were poorly run hospices. Medical care was lacking. Hunger and malnutrition were widespread. She could have done plenty to help but abstained.

Tibetan Buddhism’s reputed beneficence was exposed. “Religions have an age-long relationship not only with violence but also with economic exploitation,” said Parenti.

It “necessitates” violence, he added. Roman Catholicism is rife with it. It predates the Inquisition and Crusades. It’s commonplace today. So is “cashing in on heaven.”

Greed isn’t just good on Wall Street. Holy See self-enrichment comes at the expense of followers.

Religion serves reactionary political goals. “Backed by moneyed interests, the right-wing Christian media propagate free-market corporatism, militarism, and super-patriotism.”

Religion and politics mix. Roman Catholicism and other hard-right religions spread ideological extremism to mass audiences. Media scoundrels give right-of-center views air time. Liberal theologians are shut out. Fundamentalism is triumphant.

“In the mind of theocrats,” said Parenti, ” ‘religious freedom’ means the right to roll back secular culture and impose a monochromatic belief system upon everyone.”

Parenti urges fighting back, saying:

We need to “roll back the theocratic aggrandizement while strengthening our right to entertain our beliefs and disbeliefs openly and with impunity.”

“Only secular strength and organized democratic activism on our part will counter the sectarian intolerance and state-assisted tyranny of reactionary theocrats.”

Benedict XVI represents the worst of them. Expect more of the same from his successor. It’s longstanding policy. It’s the Vatican way.

 ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.  

His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/vatican-changing-of-the-guard/

By John Robles
Global Research, February 06, 2013
Voice of Russia and Stop NATO
Region: Europe
Theme: US NATO War Agenda

A scandal has erupted in Sweden after the Swedish Armed Forces chief, Sverker Göranson, said that his country wouldn’t last even two days against Russia, in an attempt to spur Sweden’s NATO entry. Swedish Prosecution has accused the General of divulging state secrets. The number of Swedes backing NATO entry has been declining ever since Gen. Göranson told the local Svenska Dagbladet daily that Sweden had never been armed well enough to stand against the Soviet Union or Russia on its own. He stressed that in case of a Russian threat Stockholm would require the help of NATO or America. The General pointed out that Swedish politicians were standing in the way of the country’s militarization.

To add substance to his warning, Gen. Göranson reminded the journalist about the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, which allegedly proved that European borders could be changed as a result of a military attack. The Commander also drew attention to Russia’s beefing up its Army under President Vladimir Putin, although he stressed that such an attack on Sweden was very unlikely.

Interview: Sweden Member Of NATO In All But Name

Voice of Russia

February 5, 2013

In part 2 of an interview with the Voice of Russia, Agneta Norberg, Vice Chair of the Swedish Peace Council, Member of Steering Committee of the International Peace Bureau and a member of the board of directors of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space discusses the facts surrounding Sweden’s non-neutrality and the country’ s involvement in NATO and Western military expansion. Ms. Norberg gives her views on drones which she calls “murder machines” and the development and testing of drones in Sweden, including a new drone being developed in a joint European project.

Part 1 of the interview:

http://english. ruvr.ru/2013_ 01_30/Militariza tion-of-the- Arctic-We- have-to-rethink- how-war-is- fought-Nordberg/

Robles: How does Sweden officially explain that they allow these installations? And do you think all these maneuvers are designed to intimidate Russia or to try to exercise sovereignty on the Arctic?

Norberg: Well, when we drift to the Arctic, I think there are two things going on here. When they are interviewed, those who are in charge of these maneuvers, they always answer that this is for the Arctic, they openly express this – these maneuvers are for the Arctic and the resources which will be available when the ice is melting.

But the NATO maneuvers are so seldom covered in the news, in media, specifically not here in the south – I live in Stockholm; up in the north, in the local newspapers they are covered rather extensively. And they used to send quotes from the newspapers for me, otherwise I wouldn’t have known of it, because the media don’t cover it in the south, in Stockholm, where most of the people live.

So, it is sort of secretly hidden from the public to understand what is really going on. But when they are asked, they say: this is for the Arctic.

And also one thing I think you’ve mentioned is that Sweden is neutral. Forget that! We are not neutral! We have for long ago abolished neutrality. We are not non-aligned; we are nothing, because we are openly conducting war games with NATO.

But there is one difficulty, because the people in Sweden and in Finland are against. It is only about 19% of the Swedish population that accept NATO; the others don’t. So, they have that problem here.

But I can see the lust, how they try to form an enemy out of Russia, and you should understand this: how Russia now is demonized, again. And I’m so old, so I remember how they were demonizing the former Soviet Union, always, and almost on a daily basis. And now we are there again.

So, we have here in one of the latest (Names Swedish newspaper in Swedish) a picture of Putin and Russia is arming, here, and how the Russian bear now starts showing its muscles. So, at the same time, as you have these military maneuvers and military flexing of muscles, you seldom get information to the public here.

I was speaking in Norway last summer and they didn’t know about these things. I’m very often on speaking tours in the north. I was in Finland last autumn and they didn’t know about these military maneuvers either. They were really shocked when I told them.

So, here we are again, from the Cold War days, gradually Russia is the threat. And when I talk to Russian people they are not aware of this. It is like when I was travelling in the former Soviet Union, they were not aware of how you were depicted and described as a big, big threat. And I think we are there again, hiding what NATO is doing in our country and in the north, and describing the threat of Russia coming. There we are again.

Robles: Would you say it is worse than it was in the Soviet times?

Norberg: It is about the same now. We are at square one, we are back in the Cold War sentiment in a way. But it is even worse now because during the Cold War, at least Sweden had a posture that we are non-aligned and neutral. Not anymore! We have left our neutrality, we have left our non-aligned posture.

Not openly, the neutrality we have left openly, but not the non-aligned posture. I can give you an example: they are now training in North America (for) war in Nevada.

They were training together with the US in 2006 in Alaska. They went with 6 or 7 warplanes to Alaska and made a huge maneuver outside North Korea together with the US.

So, we are actively joining in different parts of the world. Of course we are in Afghanistan now.

And so I think you have to start to understand that Sweden has quite another position now and we are a NATO country. It is only a document that is left to be done. That’s the situation now in Sweden.

Robles: Can you tell us a little bit about what you think the US and NATO’s plans are for the Arctic?

Norberg: I can see that they are making a lot of war games together up in the north.

And I also know that the US and Canada are the same; I mean they are in the same organization. Canada has lost much of what they had before. I have a map in front of me where I have all the installations, and the North American-Canada Command had merged together.

So, up in the north you have a very strong militarization from Canada’s point of view and they are building up their military as never before.

And one thing that I think is important to mention is the drones. Canada is planning for a huge drone fleet, and so is Sweden. Now we have one of the world’s biggest drones which is ready in the North European Airspace Test Range which is one of the biggest in Europe for training drones.

Robles: What’s your opinion on drones?

Norberg: They should be banished, abolished or banned because they are terrible murder…we call them “murder machines”. They are conducted from a Nevada test site. They sit there in front of computers and kill people in Yemen, in Pakistan and many places.

We have a huge training area, big as Macedonia, called the North European Airspace Test Range in the northern part of Sweden where they train these drones. So, we are in this arms buildup, it’s rather dangerous I think.

The newest one is Neuron. It is a cooperation between Sweden, France, Italy, Germany, Switzerland on one of the world’s biggest drones, Neuron. That is a prototype that is now ready this year.

Robles: What is your opinion on the legality of drones because the users face no risk?

Norberg: They are totally illegal. You sit in a bunker, you don’t see anything, you just sit in front of a screen and see the target. We call them “murder machines” because these are murders. They say they kill Al-Qaeda?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Agneta Norberg is the Vice Chair of the Swedish Peace Council, a member of the Steering Committee in International Peace Bureau and on the board of directors of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

Editors’ Note: Behind all the glitz and celebratory hoopla, Koch was merely a highly opportunistic Reagan Democrat. An anti-union,  self-promoting charlatan. —PG

By Fred Mazelis, wsws.org
6 February 2013
The death of Ed Koch, the three-term mayor of New York City, has provoked a predictable deluge of tributes from the political, economic and media establishments, culminating in a funeral on February 4 attended by Bill Clinton, the three living former New York mayors, several former governors and numerous other political figures.
Koch, who died on February 1 at the age of 88, has been called a historic figure, a man almost single-handedly responsible for the supposed “rebirth” and “rescue” of New York City.

Koch was no doubt a significant political figure, but not in the way that the editorialists, politicians and pundits pretend. He “rescued” New York much the same way Ronald Reagan “rescued” the US.

The many tributes to Koch don’t mention that his tenure at City Hall, from 1978 through 1989, coincided almost exactly with the so-called Reagan era. These two men, the grade B retired actor and the liberal turned loudmouth reactionary, had much in common. They both pretended to speak for the aggrieved middle class, while working at the behest of the ruling establishment to shift official politics sharply to the right and spearheading a social counterrevolution directed against the working class and especially its poorest and most vulnerable sections.

For Koch’s wealthy friends, including multimillionaire retired politicians and other members of the top 1%, New York City has undoubtedly become a happier place. They are expressing their gratitude for the services he rendered. For the many millions of struggling working people, however, the legacy of Koch is no cause for celebration.

Koch’s political trajectory reflected the sharp turn to the right of a broad social layer, beginning in the 1970s. Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal called attention to this in its editorial on the late mayor when it referred approvingly to Koch as “a liberal mugged by reality.”

This is a reference, not attributed by the editors, to Koch’s contemporary, Irving Kristol, the so-called godfather of neo-conservatism, who first coined the phrase. Kristol, who died in 2009, was a student radical in his youth who became a figure beloved in the most right-wing Republican circles for his hatred of socialism and his full-throated support for American imperialism, up to and including the war crimes in Iraq.

When Kristol spoke of liberals mugged by reality he was referring to a social layer that prospered in the period after the Second World War, a selfish and thoroughly self-centered stratum that made it into the upper middle class and in some cases into even wealthier circles, and turned viciously against the great majority of the population beneath them.

Kristol fancied himself an intellectual, while Koch did not. Kristol became a leading advisor to top Republican circles, while Koch remained a Democrat, although a Democrat who often supported Republicans. Their trajectories were quite similar, however—the New York liberal or left-wing radical, tracing their origins back to the more than two million Jewish immigrants who flocked to New York in the decades before Ed Koch was born in 1924, and who came to typify the oversimplified adage that advancing age went hand-in-hand with a turn to the right.

The future mayor was born in the Bronx. His father, a small businessman who went under in 1931, moved the family to nearby Newark, New Jersey and then to Brooklyn. Koch, who served in the Army in World War II, later got a law degree and became active in liberal circles. By the 1960s he was a well-known “reform Democrat,” who, as head of the Village Independent Democrats, became known for ousting the longtime Manhattan Democratic Party boss Carmine DeSapio. Koch was a prominent backer of “anti-war” Democratic presidential aspirant Eugene McCarthy in 1968.

After eight years in Congress representing the Manhattan East Side district previously held by former Mayor John Lindsay, a liberal Republican, Koch entered a crowded primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for mayor in 1977. Running as a law-and-order advocate in the immediate aftermath of New York’s brush with bankruptcy, Koch won the primary and then the mayoralty itself, only weeks after the New York City blackout, accompanied by massive looting that symbolized the city’s desperate state.

Koch parlayed his penchant for “straight-talking” demagogy into three terms as mayor. He was adept at articulating the anger and frustration of more politically backward sections of the middle class. These layers were encouraged to see the social problems of the 1970s not as the consequence of the crisis of the profit system, but as the fault of “lazy” welfare recipients, “overpaid” city employees, the unemployed and the young.

As mayor, Koch made a name for himself through his vicious denunciations of supposed welfare abuse and alleged softness on crime. He made a racial appeal, addressing himself to those who feared “changing neighborhoods” and crime while usually avoiding rhetoric that could be called overtly racist. He combined this with equally violent attacks on municipal workers and other sections of the working class.

When the school bus drivers went out on strike in early 1979—the same section of workers fighting to defend their job security today—Koch denounced them as “goons” and “bastards.” The next year, when New York’s powerful 35,000-strong subway and bus workforce defied the anti-strike Taylor Law in an eight-day walkout, Koch led a crowd across the Brooklyn Bridge, hysterically whipping up sections of the middle class.

In his third term Koch began to outlive his usefulness for the ruling elite. Voters began to tire of his antics, especially as economic problems continued. The thinly-veiled appeals to racism found infamous expression in such incidents as the death of Michael Griffith in Howard Beach, Queens in 1986 and the killing of 16-year-old Yusuf Hawkins in Brooklyn in1989. This was accompanied by a series of police shootings, including the shotgun killing of 66-year-old Eleanor Bumpurs in her own apartment in 1984.

The stock market crash of October 1987, towards the end of Koch’s years in office, deepened a crisis that had never disappeared. The city’s transit system and other public services were badly under funded. The beginning of the crack epidemic testified to the hopelessness that was especially widespread among minority workers and youth. The drug crisis fueled street crime and a murder rate that reached an all time high in 1990, just after Koch left office.

Corruption scandals that erupted in Koch’s last years badly dented Koch’s public image. Although he was not personally implicated, the scandals involving Democratic leaders in Brooklyn, the Bronx and Queens were attributed to Koch’s negligence. Known for his crude narcissism, Koch was faulted for being more interested in his appearances in the press and on television than in the details of city government. When he ran in the Democratic primary in 1989 for an unprecedented fourth term, he was defeated.

Koch found life after his years in office to be quite rewarding. He secured a cushy position in the major law firm of Bryan Cave, and kept busy with such ventures as writing movie reviews, public appearances at $20,000 each, turning out murder mysteries, and becoming a judge on the tabloid television show “The People’s Court.” While continuing to live in a comfortable rental apartment in New York’s Greenwich Village, he became a millionaire many times over.

In 2004, Koch—nominally still a Democrat—endorsed George W. Bush for re-election and spoke at the Republican National Convention. His right-wing views were bound up with his political identification with Zionism. He unconditionally backed the Iraq war and derided the Democrats for not having the “stomach to go after the terrorists” and supposedly advancing “an anti-Israel philosophy.”

An examination of Koch’s legacy exposes the class reality behind the orchestrated praise for his accomplishments. The expansion of affordable housing is claimed as his greatest achievement, with a $5 billion capital program in the mid-1980s allegedly leading in subsequent decades to more than 200,000 new apartments. In fact the crisis of affordable housing has never been greater, with huge numbers of workers paying up to 50 percent of their income on housing costs, and with the official count of occupants of the city shelter system hitting new records every month.

The claim that Koch ushered in campaign finance reform is particularly laughable, considering the fact that for the past 12 years the mayor has been a multibillionaire who has spent hundreds of millions of dollars of his vast fortune to win the keys to Gracie Mansion.

As for inequality, even Koch’s most enthusiastic admirers are not talking about that, not five years after the financial collapse and amidst continuing mass unemployment coupled with massive Wall Street bonuses and daily revelations of the incestuous and corrupt relations between the financial parasites and every level of government.

Koch typified in his own brash way a shift to the right by the whole political establishment. The ruling class needed demagogues like Koch as its crisis not only made it impossible to provide reforms as in the past, but made it necessary to take those timid reforms back.

In mourning Koch, the financial oligarchy and its media are no doubt conscious that the extreme social polarization that prevails in New York City and around the country make it increasingly difficult to secure a popular base for the redoubled assault on social conditions of the broad mass of working people that is being driven by the crisis of capitalism.

Fred Mazelis is a political writer with the World Socialist Web Site, an informaiton arm of the Social Equality Party.

by Stephen Lendman

Clinton’s unabashedly pro-war. She’s a war goddess. Straightaway post-9/11, she urged waging war on terror…She said any nation lending Al Qaeda “aid and comfort will now face the wrath of our country. I’ll stand behind Bush for a long time to come.”

She was Washington’s 67th Secretary of State. She served from January 21, 2009 – February 1, 2013. She’s arguably America’s worst. From 2001 – 2009, she was US Senator from New York. In 2008, she challenged Obama for the Democrat party’s presidential nomination. Supporters urge her to run again in 2016. She’s noncommittal. When asked, she says “I am not thinking about anything like that right now.”

She also said she’ll “do everything (she) can to make sure that women compete at the highest levels, not only in the United States but around the world.”

Husband Bill urges her to run. Some suspect she already made her move.

With or without her support, a “Ready for Hillary” political action committee was formed. It’s raising money for 2016. Campaigning never ends. America’s electoral season is seamless.

Hillary for 2016 T-shirts are on sale. Friends of Hillary Facebook send regular messages. When launching her 2008 campaign, she said “I’m in to win.” Insiders say she hasn’t changed her mind. In 2016, she’ll be 69.

In December, she scored high in public approval. A Washington Post/ABC News poll showed 57% of Americans support her presidential ambitions. Over 80% of Democrats back her candidacy.

Two-thirds of US women do. Two-thirds of Americans give her high marks as America’s top diplomat. She scored higher than any previous Secretary of State in 20 years of polling.

In four years, she visited 112 countries. She traveled nearly a million miles. She self-promoted everywhere. She has larger than life ambitions.

She’s gone from State. She’s very much still involved. The New York Times profiled her. She’s “at the peak of her influence,” it said. She’s “an instant presidential front-runner.”

She’s got lots of time to pursue her goal. “We need a new architecture for this new world,” she says.

Obama exceeded the worst of George Bush. Clinton joined his war cabinet. She’s ideologically hardline. She was a Wellesley College Goldwater Girl. She was president of Wellesley’s Young Republicans.

She’s militantly pro-war. In the 1990s, she was very much part of husband Bill’s foreign policy team. As an aggressive first lady, she had lots of influence.

She was influential in getting Madeleine Albright appointed Secretary of State in 1997. They consulted with each other often.

In her memoirs, Albright described their relationship as an “unprecedented partnership.”

“I was once asked whether it was appropriate for the two of us to work together so closely,” she added. “I agreed that it was a departure from tradition.”

At Secretary of State, Clinton headed foreign policy. She’s complicit in crimes of war and against humanity. She represents the worst of imperial arrogance. She a reliable spear-carrier.

Her outbursts reflect bullying and bluster, not diplomacy. She’s contemptuous of rule of law principles. She scorns democracy. She’s committed to war, not peace.

She’s unabashedly hawkish. As first lady, she urged husband Bill to bomb Belgrade in 1999. She ignored international and constitutional law. She lied about Slobodan Milosevic.

“You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time,” she said. “What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?”

For 78 days, NATO ravaged Yugoslavia. Nearly everything targeted was struck. Massive destruction and disruption followed. An estimated $100 billion in damage was inflicted. A humanitarian disaster resulted. Environmental contamination was extensive.

Large numbers were killed, injured or displaced. Two million people lost their livelihoods. Homes and communities were destroyed.

Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called NATO’s aggression “barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe.”

Lawless aggression became humanitarian intervention. An avenue to Eurasia was opened. A permanent US military presence was established. American imperialism claimed another trophy.

Clinton’s unabashedly pro-war. She’s a war goddess. Straightaway post-9/11, she urged waging war on terror.

She said any nation lending Al Qaeda “aid and comfort will now face the wrath of our country. I’ll stand behind Bush for a long time to come.”

She supported annual defense (aka war) budgets. She voted for the Patriot Act and other police state legislation. She endorsed cluster bomb use in civilian areas and refugee camps.

She’s against banning land mines. She’s dismissive of human suffering. Wealth, power, privilege and dominance alone matter.

In 2005, she was one of only six Democrat senators opposed to blocking deployment of untested missile defense systems. They’re first-strike offensive weapons.

She supported restriction-free nuclear cooperation with Israel and other US allies violating NPT provisions. She endorsed nuclear weapons use in Afghanistan and Pakistan. She calls them deterrents that “keep the peace.”

She was one of the largest recipients of defense contractor cash. She backed war on Afghanistan and Iraq. She opposed a Democrat resolution. It would have required Bush to try diplomacy before launching war in 2003.

Her 2002 Senate speech supported war. She lied. She said “intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein rebuilt his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.”

“He has given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members….It is clear that if left unchecked, (he’ll) continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

“Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

“Now this much is undisputed.” What’s undisputed were her bald-faced lies. She repeated them ad nauseam as Secretary of State.

She supports the worst of Israeli lawlessness. At AIPAC’s 2008 convention, she said:

“The United States stands with Israel now and forever.”

We have shared interests….shared ideals….common values. I have a bedrock commitment to Israel’s security.”

(Against Islamic extremists), our two nations are fighting a shared threat.”

“I strongly support Israel’s right to self-defense (and) believe America should aid in that defense.”

“I am committed to making sure that Israel maintains a military edge to meet increasing threats.”

The only threats Israel faces are ones it invents.

“I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza (and) Hamas’ campaign of terror.”

She lied saying its charter “calls for the destruction of Israel.”

She lied again saying “Iran threatens to destroy Israel.”

She lied a third time, saying “I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is: a terrorist organization. It is imperative that we get both tough and smart about dealing with Iran before it is too late.”

She backs “massive retaliation” if Iran attacks Israel. In 2008, presidential aspirant Clinton said:

“I want the Iranians to know that if I’m president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.”

In other words, she threatened to murder 75 million people. Today it’s nearly 80 million. She’s extremist on all foreign policy issues. She favors police state harshness domestically.

She endorses outsized military budgets. She’s done nothing to contain nuclear proliferation. She supported Bush’s unilateral nuclear first-strike option, including against non-nuclear states.

She represents the worst of America’s dark side. She’s a war criminal multiple times over. She’s arguably America’s most shameless ever secretary of state.

She’s clearly the most brazen. Her language and attitude exceed the worst Cold War rhetoric.

Her take-no-prisoners thinking, character, and demagoguery tell all. She’s addicted to self-aggrandizement and diktat authority.

She relishes death, destruction, and war spoils.

She’s indifferent to human suffering. She’s a monument to wrong over right. She’s a disgrace and embarrassment to her country, position and humanity.

She may become America’s 45th president. Perhaps she won’t get a chance to try. Humanity may not survives its 44th. The fullness of time will tell.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. His new book is titled “Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

http://www.dailycensored.com/hillary-clinton-profile-of-imperial-arrogance-and-lawlessness/