Showing posts with label War Crimes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label War Crimes. Show all posts

Friday, January 29, 2010

"Our Troops" Shoot Father, With His Kids in the Car, Which They Deemed Threatening (a Toyota Corolla)


Oh, so very proud
Hooray.
Yah, right; the expression some of us know to mean the opposite, definitely not right.
Although I only read an excerpt of an article on this story posted at uruknet.info, the excerpt appearing with the link for the article in the home or main index page of the website, I didn't read the whole piece. Just the title and excerpt were enough to tell me that yet another tragic killing occurred and for no valid reason whatsoever. After all, no one can credibly argue that a Toyota Corolla with a man and children in it is threatening, at all.
I suppose it's because the soldiers who committed this tragic killing are just too psychologically stressed due to being in this zone of a totally criminal war, perhaps really suffering from PTSD. If that's the case, then I can't personally consider them as responsible for this tragic incident. Otherwise, they should be charged with murder and made to stand Nurember style trials alongside the war makers and the leading continuers, which means the responsible or guilty people of the White House, but also plenty of other guilty people or elite, military and corporate; none of whom can credibly be treated as committing their criminal leadership due to suffering from PTSD. They suffer from a severe socio-psychological problem, like psychopathia, and another condition called cowardice, but these certainly are not bases for treating these people as not being responsible for their criminal leadership.
The troops commit the actual killings, but the real murderers, and plunderers, occupy the highest offices of the USA's political body and military, and, of course, their masters in Corporate America. They're so evil it's difficult to even think of referring to them as people.


by Mike Corbeil





Bookmark and Share


Friday, December 11, 2009

On eve of receiving Nobel, Obama's DOJ files amicus brief upending Nuremberg Protocols.


by ImpeachKingBushII

If you thought that your vote for President Obama last November helped usher in a new era of justice for the ones who turned the United States of America into a nation of lawless torturers and war crminals, and thus guaranteed the restoration of the rule of law and America's standing in the world, then you better hang on to your ruby slippers baby, because Dorothy you're not in Kansas anymore.

Not only are the authors of the infamous Bush torture memos, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Steven Bradbury --which gave Bush and everyone else in his regime of thugs legal cover to torture in all of our names-- not going to face a Judge and answer to anyone in our Judicial system for their war crimes, but our new president(sic) has taken it upon himself to defend Bush's enablers in Federal Court, thus upending the 64 year old Nuremberg and Tokyo precedents that sent the Judges and lawyers of the German Reich and Imperial Japan to prison. Apparently, the only change we're going to see here is the same old obfuscation, secrecy and lack of transparency we all grew to love so much about Bush.
More under the fold...

Nan Aron of the Huffington Post writes on 12.10.09, basically saying there's a new Sheriff in town, and he's determined to keep his jails locked-up to keep criminals from getting inside them::

"The Department's amicus brief is, as a substantive matter, disingenuous at best. As Scott Horton notes, federal law has long held that government officials who are responsible for torturing individuals may be held accountable in court for their conduct - a principle enshrined in lawyer can be held accountable for unethical and/or illegal conduct that in some way involves matters of national security is through internal review by the Department's OPR and Office of Inspector General, bar disciplinary action, and crimdecisions from the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals which DOJ failed to cite in its brief. DOJ now argues that the only way a government inal prosecution. As Horton, writes, "It effectively boils down to the Justice Department saying that it alone will decide about the accountability of its staffers for wrongful conduct that damages others."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Constitutional law Professor and licensed and practicing world renowned defense attorney, Jonathan Turley, appeared on KO last night and writes on his blog yesterday, 12.09.09:

"John Yoo is being defended in court this month by the Administration. Not the Bush Administration. The Obama Administration. As with the lawsuits over electronic surveillance and torture, the Obama administration wants the lawsuit against Yoo dismissed and is defending the right of Justice Department officials to help establish a torture program — an established war crime. I will be discussing this issue tonight on MSNBC Countdown.
[...]
The Obama Administration has gutted the hard-fought victories in Nuremberg where lawyers and judges were often guilty of war crimes in their legal advice and opinions. The third of the twelve trials for war crimes involved 16 German jurists and lawyers. Nine had been officials of the Reich Ministry of Justice, the others were prosecutors and judges of the Special Courts and People’s Courts of Nazi Germany. It would have been a larger group but two lawyers committed suicide before trial: Adolf Georg Thierack, former minister of justice, and Carl Westphal, a ministerial counsellor.
[...]
If successful in this case, the Obama Administration will succeed in returning the world to the rules leading to the war crimes at Nuremberg. Quite a legacy for the world’s newest Nobel Peace Prize winner."

all emphases mine
For the full article please visit Professor Jonathan Turley's blog at the link below:
http://jonathanturley.org/...

After 8 long years under the Bush Caligula years, where the Constitution was treated with no more respect than a common street whore and America's good name and reputation was nothing less than "quaint and irrelevent", I was proud to support and vote for Obama last year. I bought the bill of goods that he was selling us, that he was our best hope to restore the rule of law, a rule of law that was barely on life support by the time Bush had left office. "Little boots" trampled it under foot at every turn by the pleasure of his own will so many times that its face was barely recognizable by anyone, including its closest of kin.

Source: Daily Kos

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 5, 2009

NEW BREED OF HOLOCAUST DENIER



Having burned out the pejorative phrase “anti-Semite” though overuse and endless misapplication, Israel’s defenders of late have been resorting to their last and most powerful rhetorical weapon of mass distraction, “Holocaust Denier”, to silence critics or at the very least to deprive them of an objective audience ready to give the critic a fair hearing.

“Holocaust Denier” is being hurled hither and yon, and the reality is that hardly anybody being labeled a “holocaust denier” denies anything. They just want to ask a few specific questions about specific historical events, or simply defend the right of all people in this post “Saddam has nookular bombs” era to re-examine everything we have ever been taught by the state-operated schools and media. Nobody is denying that war crimes took place. But that there have been hoaxes and false claims made in the aftermath of WW2 is beyond question.

However, ’sauce for the goose’ etc. and I have decided that from here on out, I will identify all defenders of Israel’s actions in Palestine and all those who are fighting to block the bringing of war crimes charges against Israel for Operation CAST LEAD as “Goldstone Deniers”.

I feel that this is perfectly appropriate because the “Holocaust Denier” label is used to claim that the denier is trying to conceal NAZI Germany’s atrocities. Therefore, those who are trying to conceal Israel’s atrocities should be accorded the same treatment. After all, they are indeed trying to deny the atrocities which took place inside Palestine.

So, that is it. They are all “Goldstone Deniers” from here on out!

Source: Desert Peace

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Help Jewish Voice For Peace Fight efforts to kill the UN Goldstone Gaza report

Fight efforts to kill the UN Goldstone Gaza report

The continued attacks on the Goldstone Report prevent accountability for the civilian victims before, during and after the attack on Gaza -- both Palestinians and Israelis -- and shred the rule of law. That's why we are asking you to say: I support the Goldstone Report. Once you sign, we'll tell you how to easily and quickly lobby Congress and your UN Ambassador in the next few days.


Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

URGENT~STOP AMERICA FROM KILLING GOLDSTONE REPROT


Emergency! Congress Debates Burying the Goldstone Report!
by Max Ajl - Coalition to organize The Gaza Freedom March

The Gaza Freedom March, October 27, 2009
SUBJECT: TELL CONGRESS TO RESPECT US AND INTERNATIONAL LAW!

Emergency – Call Congress Now

The US Congress is a considering a bipartisan resolution which would officially reject the findings of Judge Goldstone’s report on the Gaza war and call on President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to use the US veto to prevent a vote on the report in the United Nations Security Council. A vote on the bill, House Resolution 867, is expected by this coming weekend.
It is urgent that you call both your Senators and your Congressperson today and tell them to vote against this outrageous bill. You can read the bill here. It ignores the conclusions of the Goldstone Report and simply parrots Israeli government denial.

Judge Goldstone has challenged the US to substantiate its claim that his report is "flawed." President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have made no response. The carefully researched and documented report deserves a response, not a veto. The people of Gaza, who were brutally attacked, deserve a hearing. What message are we sending to the rest of the world when we grant Israel complete impunity?

This legislation has very important implications beyond the war crimes committed in Gaza. Israel has responded to the report by demanding the Western powers rewrite international and US law, warning that acceptance of the Goldstone report will mean that the US’ military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan will be subject to similar scrutiny. (Judge Goldstone has drawn a distinction – stating that his report finds that Israel deliberately targeted civilians). This legislation also ignores serious allegations that Israel has violated the US Arms Export Control Act.

Let Congress know that such legislation is unacceptable. It is not in the US interest to disregard war crimes. It is not in the US interest to rewrite international law. It is not possible to grant Israel impunity while demanding that other nations respect human rights.

Call NOW! LINK HERE TO CONTACT YOUR REPRESENTATIVES OR CALL THE CAPITOL SWITCHBOARD at the numbers below.

US House of Representatives (202) 225-3121 or http://www.house.gov/
US Senate (202) 224-3121 or http://www.senate.gov/
Thank you for your support.
Coalition to organize The Gaza Freedom March

Source: Irish4Palestine
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

ISRAEL’S RESPONSE TO UN; OPERATION CAST LEAD WAS NOT A WAR!


cast lead

How’s this for Chutzpah?
Not only do Israelis rewrite history, they are now trying to change the present and the future.

Israel wants law of war changed after damning UN Gaza report

By Ron Bousso

JERUSALEM — Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instructed his government on Tuesday to draw up proposals to amend the international laws of war after a damning UN report on its war in Gaza.

The security cabinet did not, however, discuss calls made by ministers for an internal investigation into the 22-day offensive at the turn of the year that killed some 1,400 Palestinians and 13 Israelis, an official told AFP.

“The prime minister instructed the relevant government bodies to examine a worldwide campaign to amend the international laws of war to adapt them to the spread of global terrorism,” his office said in a statement.

Israel was dealt a heavy diplomatic blow with the adoption by the UN Human Rights Council of the report that accused both Israel and the Hamas rulers of the Gaza Strip of war crimes.

Israel’s closest allies, the United States, Britain and France urged it to investigate war crime allegations raised by the fact-finding missions headed by Richard Goldstone, a former international war crimes prosecutor.

Defence Minister Ehud Barak backed Netanyahu’s call for a diplomatic campaign, saying that Israel should propose changes in the international laws of war “in order to facilitate the war on terrorism,” an official quoted him as saying.

“It is in the interest of anyone fighting terrorism. We must give the IDF (Israeli army) the full backing to have the freedom of action,” Barak said.

Netanyahu dismissed the Goldstone report on the Gaza war and vowed that Israel would not give up its right of self-defence.

“We are struggling to delegitimise the ongoing attempts to delegitimise Israel… We must persistently fight this lie, which is being spread by the Goldstone report,” Netanyahu was quoted as saying.

“I want to make it clear: no one will weaken our ability and right to defend our children, citizens and communities.”

Meanwhile, hardline Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman met with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, reiterating Israel’s stance that peace talks with the Palestinians could not progress amid international support for the Goldstone report.

Lieberman said Palestinian support for the report “raises real questions about the true intentions of the Palestinians: Is it the establishment of a Palestinian state or the destruction of the State of Israel?” he said according to a statement from his office.

Goldstone, the respected South African jurist who led the UN fact-finding team, recommended that the conclusions of the report be forwarded to the prosecutor at the International Criminal Court at The Hague if the two sides fail to conduct credible investigations into the conflict within six months.

Israel has slammed it as a “diplomatic farce” and warned that it risked sinking the stalled Middle East peace process.

Goldstone, who has faced a storm of personal attacks inside Israel since the report’s publication, dismissed the argument and urged the Jewish state to comply with the recommendation to investigate the war.

“It’s a shallow, utterly false allegation,” Goldstone said during a meeting with a group of rabbis in the United States, remarks aired on Monday by Israeli public radio.

“What peace process are they talking about? There isn’t one. The Israeli foreign minister doesn’t want one,” Goldstone said.

Source: Desert Peace


Bookmark and Share

Saturday, October 17, 2009

War criminals are becoming the arbiters of law





The double standard under which the Israeli government operates is too much for everyone except the brainwashed Americans. Even a columnist in the very Israeli Jerusalem Post can see the double standard displayed by “all of Israel now speaking in one voice against the Goldstone report.”

“This is the Israeli notion of a fair deal: We’re entitled to do whatever the hell we want to the Palestinians because, by definition, whatever we do to them is self-defence. They, however, are not entitled to lift a finger against us because, by definition, whatever they do to us is terrorism.

“That’s the way it’s always been, that’s the way it was in Operation Cast Lead.

“And there are no limits on our right to self-defense. There is no such thing as ‘disproportionate.’

“We can deliberately destroy thousands of Gazan homes, the Gazan parliament, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Interior, courthouses, the only Gazan flour plant, the main poultry farm, a sewage treatment plant, water wells and God knows what else.

Deliberately.

“Why? Because we’re better than them. Because we’re a democracy and they’re a bunch of Islamo-fascists. Because ours is a culture of life and theirs is a culture of death. Because they’re out to destroy us and all we are saying is give peace a chance.

“The Goldstones of the world call this hypocrisy, a double standard. How dare they! Around here, we call it moral clarity.” Rattling the Cage: Our exclusive right to self-defense, by Larry Derfner, Oct. 8, 2009.

A person would never read such as this in the New York Times or Washington Post or hear it from any US news source. Unlike Israeli newspapers, the US media is a complete mouthpiece for the Israel Lobby. Never a critical word is heard.

This will be even more the case now that the Israel Lobby, after years of effort, has succeeded in repealing the First Amendment by having the Hate Crime Bill attached to the recently passed military appropriations bill. This is the way the syllogism works:

It is anti-Semitic to criticize Israel. Anti-Semitism is a hate crime. Therefore, to criticize Israel is a hate crime.

As the Jerusalem Post notes, this syllogism has “moral clarity.”

Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, stepped into the hate crime arena when he told Israel Army radio that the Goldstone report on Israel’s military assault on Gaza contains “some very serious details which need to be investigated.”

A year from now when the Anti-Defamation League has its phalanx of US Department of Justice [sic] prosecutors in place, Sawers would be seized and placed on trial. Diplomatic immunity means nothing to the US, which routinely invades other countries, executes their leaders or sends them to The Hague for trial as war criminals.

In the meantime, however, the Israeli government put Sawers and the UK government on notice that British support for the Goldstone Report would result in the destruction of the double standard that protects the West and Israel and create a precedent that would place the British in the dock for war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“London,” declared the Israeli government, “could find itself in handcuffs if it supports the document [the Goldstone report].

Once the DOJ’s hate crime unit is up and running, “self-hating Jews,” such as leaders of the Israeli peace movement and Haaretz and Jerusalem Post journalists, can expect to be indicted for anti-Semitic hate crimes in US courts.

Source: Online Journal

Bookmark and Share

Friday, October 16, 2009

Actress Mia Farrow voices outrage at Gaza blockade


American actress Mia Farrow said she was outraged at the Israeli blockade of the Gaza Strip because of the deplorable conditions it has created for children.

"All people of conscious are offended and outraged by this situation," Farrow told reporters in Gaza, as quoted by AP. "And we sincerely hope that measures will be taken to alleviate this situation as soon as possible."

Farrow visited Gaza in her role as goodwill ambassador for the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). In the territory she visited a school where said children appeared badly affected by Israel's recent war on the Gaza Strip.

"The children appear traumatized," she said at a news conference, according to AFP.

"The teachers say that when they hear a loud noise they (the children) look to the sky and cry out and weep. They don't know what the future holds," she said, speaking alongside Egyptian actor Mahmoud Kabil, also a UNICEF ambassador.

"They deserve better," she said, as quoted by AFP.

Later the same day, Farrow visited an elementary school in Sderot, southern Israel, where she reportedly met with the parents of children who were killed by projectile attacks fired from the Gaza Strip.

Farrow, the star of such films as Rosemary's Baby, Hannah and Her Sisters and Crimes and Misdemeanors, was named UNICEF's goodwill ambassador in 2000.

Israel, with Egypt's cooperation, has maintained a land, sea, and air blockade of the Gaza Strip since June 2007, severely limiting shipments of food, medicine, fuel, and hundreds of other essential supplies. In addition, Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants are banned from travelling.

Last December Israel launched a three-week-long onslaught on Gaza that ultimately left more than 1,400 Palestinians dead, the majority of them women and children.

An Israeli ban on shipments of construction materials means that Palestinians have been prevented from rebuilding homes, government buildings and hundreds of other structures destroyed during by the Israeli military.

Source: Institute for Middle east Understanding

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 12, 2009

Czech Town Divided over How to Commemorate 1945 Massacre: Revenge on Ethnic Germans



By Hans-Ulrich Stoldt

More than six decades after the end of World War II, long-suppressed information about a massacre of around 2,000 Sudeten Germans in June 1945 is dividing the Czech town of Postoloprty. Supporters of a memorial to the incident are clashing with those who want to forget all about the murders.

Nobody could really say why the five boys had joined the fatigue party of men on that fateful summer's day in 1945. Some thought they were hungry, others that they were trying to flee the wrath of the Czechoslovakian army.

Hundreds of Germans had been herded together on the parade ground in the Czech town of Postoloprty (known in German as Postelberg) on June 6, 1945, just a month after the end of World War II in Europe. They could clearly see the fatigue party heading off. The five boys who had hidden among the men were discovered and led back.

"Mr Marek wanted the boys to be flogged," recalls 81-year-old Peter Klepsch, an eye-witness. "But Captain Cerny, the commander of the Czech troops, said the boys should be shot."

The boys' names were Horst, Eduard, Hans, Walter, and Heinz. The oldest was 15, the youngest 12. They were flogged and then shot dead -- in full view of the others, who were held back at gunpoint. The Czechs didn't use machine guns, but their rifles, so it took a long time to kill all five. "One of the boys who hadn't been mortally wounded by the gunfire ran up to the marksmen begging to be allowed to go to his mother," recalls 80-year-old Heinrich Giebitz. "They just carried on shooting."

A Series of Tragic Events

Fully 64 years later, Czech prosecutors have now pinned the blame for this terrible atrocity on policeman Bohuslav Marek and Vojtech Cerny, an army captain. The two men are long dead, so the boys' murders will remain unpunished. And yet this was only one chapter in the brutal massacre of some 2,000 Sudeten Germans in the space of a few days in 1945 in Postoloprty and nearby Zatec, about 60 kilometers northwest of the capital, Prague. "This was undoubtedly the worst in a series of tragic events that took part in Bohemia in May and June 1945," wrote Czech historian Tomas Stanek in the mid-1990s.

The truth was long in coming to light, and even cautious attempts to look into the crimes by legal means proved fruitless. The matter was only addressed in earnest in 2007 when prosecutors in the Bavarian town of Hof asked their Czech colleagues for assistance in investigating the killing of the five boys.

Survivors, bereaved family members, and conscientious Czechs now want to erect a monument to the victims of this post-war massacre -- but are meeting stiff resistance from many of Postoloprty's 5,000 inhabitants. "Most of the locals are completely opposed to it," says historian Michal Pehr, a member of a German-Czech committee set up by the municipal authorities. The committee was supposed to put forward its suggestions for a compromise this week. "The entire story was taboo for many people for decades," Pehr says.

'Let Nobody Survive'

It all began in the weeks and months after the end of the war. It was the time of the so-called "wild expulsions," when ethnic Germans were being hunted down in various parts of Czechoslovakia. The fascists had been beaten. Now the Czechs wanted to rid themselves of their despised countrymen as quickly as possible. Though most of the Nazi perpetrators had long-since fled, the rage and the lust for revenge knew no bounds.

Ethnic Germans had lived on the Czech side of the border for centuries, so when Hitler annexed the area in 1938, they had lined the streets to cheer the soldiers. The rest of Bohemia and Moravia was soon a brutal Nazi protectorate, and in the years that followed more than 300,000 Czechs died at the hands of their German overlords. Theresienstadt concentration camp and the village of Lidice, which was burnt down by the SS, will forever serve as symbols of Nazi barbarism.

At the Potsdam conference in August 1945, the Allies authorized the expulsion of more than 3 million ethnic Germans from Czechoslovakia, albeit on the proviso that "any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." But by that time people had already taken matters into their own hands in many areas.

As early as October 1943, Edvard Benes, who would become the president of Czechoslovakia after the war, had threatened from exile in London that "what the Germans have done in our lands since 1938 will be revenged on them multifold and mercilessly." And speaking during a radio broadcast in November 1944, Sergej Ingr, the commander-in-chief of Czech forces in England, issued his fellow countrymen with the following order: "Beat them, kill them, let nobody survive."

Forced to Run and Sing

Demands such as these were eagerly received in places like Postoloprty and Zatec. When the Soviet army pulled out of the newly-liberated area, soldiers of the 1st Czechoslovakian Corps moved in and immediately set about "concentrating" the region's ethnic German population.

On Sunday June 3, 1945 the army ordered some 5,000 ethnic German men in Zatec to assemble on the market square, from where they were marched the 15 kilometers to Postoloprty to a hail of threats, beatings, and gunfire.

"On Monday evening we were all forced to run around the square and sing Nazi songs or whatever passed as such," Peter Klepsch recalls. "All those who didn't run or sing right were flogged."

The next night he saw a group of men being led off for execution. It wasn't to be the last. He also repeatedly heard volleys of gunfire during the day.


Part 2: Made to Dig Their Own Graves

Klepsch, who had opposed the Nazis and finished the war in prison for trying to help three Frenchman flee, was eventually permitted to leave the scene of the atrocity on the fifth day. An unknown number of men remained behind. Most were methodically and systematically shot dead, many near the barracks, others by the local school.

The largest mass grave, containing almost 500 bodies, was later discovered in the Pheasant Garden, a former pheasant farm out of town.

"Two hundred and fifty men were taken one day, another 250 the next, and a layer of earth was thrown in between," a policeman told a parliamentary inquiry in 1947. "They weren't all executed in a single night, but rather in stages." Often enough the condemned men were given a pick and shovel, and made to dig their own graves.

The perpetrators didn't have many scruples. After all, they were sure they had high-level military backing. Jan Cupka, the head of the defense intelligence service, remembers General Spaniel, the commander of the 1st Czechoslovakian Division, recommending they "clean" the region of its ethnic Germans. "The general told us, 'The fewer of them that remain, the fewer enemies we'll have.'"

'I Gave the Order'

But enough people survived to tell the world about the massacre. Survivors exiled to Germany reported what they had witnessed, and even in Postoloprty and Zatec the stories and rumors about the horrific goings-on refused to go away.

In July 1947 the Czech parliament in Prague felt obliged to launch an official inquiry into the matter. Countless soldiers and local residents were interviewed, including Captain Vojtech Cerny, who immediately assumed responsibility for the killing of the five boys on the parade ground. "I gave the order for their execution," he declared.

The statements from witnesses were all documented together with the findings of an Interior Ministry delegation, which investigated on site and promptly declared that "members of the army were primarily to blame for this bestiality and these executions." However it added that the soldiers' actions had met with widespread approval from the local population, who considered them "justified retribution for German brutality."

The officials sent a report back to their minister recommending that the bodies be exhumed and burnt so that "Germans should have no memorials to which they could point as a source of suffering by their people."

In a top-secret operation in August 1947, several mass graves were dug up, and 763 bodies were removed, most of which were then cremated. There is little doubt that there were more victims whose bodies were never found.

Asked to Drop the Story

Meanwhile, the official documents about "the events in Postoloprty" were classified as confidential and disappeared into the Interior Ministry archives.

That suited the postwar residents of Postoloprty and Zatec, who now lived in the houses of the killed or displaced former inhabitants. They weren't the only ones who feared a reassessment of the past. Quite a few non-Germans first willingly collaborated with the occupying forces, only to then reinvent themselves as the great avengers of Czech maltreatment when the time was right. Silence therefore became the order of the day.

As a result, it was only by chance that Czech reporter David Hertl stumbled upon the crime in the mid-90s when he and a colleague were putting together a series of portraits of local towns for his regional newspaper. The plan was to write about past and present-day life in these communities, but when they got to Postoloprty, they hit a brick wall.

"People either didn't know anything about their past or didn't want to talk about it," Hertl says. "And when we asked them about the Germans, they simply said they'd ended up in the Pheasant Garden."

Their suspicions aroused, the two reporters began investigating -- and met mainly with opposition. "If at all, people would only speak to us anonymously," Hertl says. "They were afraid, and asked us to drop the story."

'You're Going to Hang for This'

When the regional newspaper printed a couple of articles on the matter, with headlines such as "Where are the thousands of Germans from Zatec and Postoloprty?" and "We know the names of the murderers," the threats started pouring in. Anonymous letters with swastikas scrawled across them arrived at the editorial offices, and every morning the answering machine was full of insults like "You're going to hang for this, you swine."

Some things have changed in the time since then, Hertl says today. "More people now know that this crime really took place. Nonetheless most still believe the Germans deserved it."

People would prefer this dark chapter of their past to finally be forgotten once and for all. After all, what if the former inhabitants began returning and claiming their houses back? Hertl calls this fear "a kind of paranoia." Yet it persists -- which is why the project to erect a monument is such a touchy issue.

Split over Wording

"We already decided against building a monument four years ago," says Ludvik Mlcuch, a communist member of the Postoloprty town council. "I see no reason to change our minds. End of story."

Petr Riha runs a small electrical goods store in Postoloprty. He has nothing against a monument. "The important thing is what's on the inscription," he says. Riha would like a memorial to all the victims of the Nazi era and its aftermath, not just to the Germans.

"That wouldn't be enough for me," says Walter Urban, who was born in Postoloprty in 1942 and is one of the few ethnic Germans still living there. His house is in the side street on the edge of town that leads toward the Pheasant Garden. Urban doesn't know whether his father was killed there, by the barracks or by the school. All he wants is a memorial where he can lay some flowers. And that's what he's been doggedly promoting in the small committee that must now present its proposed compromise to the municipal authorities in Postoloprty.

Everyone agrees that the town needs a monument. But the committee is split on the wording for the plaque.

Opponents of a memorial to the murdered Germans always point to the context, namely that the postwar excesses would not have happened were it not for the Nazi terror that preceded them.

"That may be true, but every crime has its origins and its causality," says Otokar Löbl, president of Friends of the Town of Saaz/Zatec, a Frankfurt-based association that has long campaigned for an investigation of the crime. "However it's also true that most of the Germans living in Zatec at the time supported the Nazis." Even so, their murder was a crime that should not only be acknowledged as such but for which people must also accept responsibility.

'A Mental Balancing Act'

Löbl comes from a Jewish German-Czech family. His father's family was killed in a concentration camp. Löbl was born in Zatec in 1950, but left the country in 1970 following the Soviet Union's crushing of the Prague Spring. He has long campaigned for better understanding between Germans and Czechs, and he is the initiator of the "Saaz Way," a declaration of reconciliation signed by people from both sides.

"No future without the past" is the motto of the Saaz Way. It's a statement that Peter Klepsch wholeheartedly agrees with. Klepsch now lives in Spalt near Nuremberg, where he chairs the Heimatkreis Saaz, an association for Sudeten Germans from Zatec. The association's Web site contains the formerly confidential reports and statements of the 1947 parliamentary inquiry.

Once or twice a year the Czech exile travels to his former home, an activity he describes as "a mental balancing act." "People often ask me if we've come to take their houses away from them," Klepsch says. "But I could never expect anyone to leave their home."

His family's former home is now used by the criminal investigation bureau; the same police department that has now finally solved the case of the murder of Horst, Eduard, Hans, Walter, and Heinz on the parade ground in Postoloprty on June 6, 1945.

Source: Spiegel Online


Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 10, 2009

Netanyahu’s attempts to silence Breaking the Silence



Netanyahu has asked Spain, Britain and The Netherlands to stop directly funding the Israeli human rights group Breaking the Silence (BTS). BTS has been releasing IDF soldier testimony on the invasion/massacre in Gaza. The accounts by the soldiers are harrowing and document war crimes. The Israeli government claims that governmental support of “politicized” NGOs undermines democracy in the Jewish state. Netanyahu is “contemplating legislation that would ban foreign government funding for groups such as Breaking the Silence.” The main argument is that foreign governmental funding of non-governmental institutions that are ostensibly working “against” the interests of the duly elected government are undemocratic. Ron Dermer, Netanyahu’s senior political adviser, was quoted as saying that funding from foreign embassies for the group amounted to “blatant and unacceptable” intervention in Israel’s internal affairs.

But Don Futterman (program director, Israel, of the Moriah Fund, a private American foundation working in Israel to support civil society and democracy, immigrant absorption and education.) has a different take,

“If our defense minister (Avigor Lieberman) wants us to live up to the claim that the IDF is “the most moral army on earth,” he should welcome soldiers who speak out about illegal acts that they have witnessed or were asked to perform. In our post-war rush to elections, we unfortunately - and perhaps, conveniently - skipped over any discussion concerning the morality of what the army has done. But even our fears of one-sided international condemnation of our actions in Gaza cannot justify official attempts to silence the messenger, especially when that messenger is us.”

He also argues that:

BTS is not an advocacy organization, It is made up of IDF reservists who have served in the territories during their regular military service over the last nine years. In addition to recognizing the harm we are doing to our Palestinian neighbors, the organization urges us to look closely at the damage we are doing to our own soldiers when they are asked to engage in acts of questionable morality or legality. BTS gathers and then publicizes testimony in both words and pictures from soldiers who are willing to come forward. The organization makes every effort to check the veracity of these testimonies, and will not publish any soldier’s comments unless it has corroborating testimony from at least one other reliable source.”




Indeed, a senior Israeli official objected to friendly nations funding “opposition bodies” inside Israel. IDF soldiers are now considered “in opposition” who do not go along with the government line on Gaza. Futterman, in my opinion gets to the heart of this matter:

“Presumably, what the official meant is that the government and the IDF find intolerable opposition to their attempts to control the discourse concerning Israel’s behavior in the territories”

Democracy is not just the process of voting, selecting representation etc, it is also about discourse freely exchanged.

Some Jewish organizational officials counter that a ban on foreign government support of NGOs is more characteristic of a dictatorship, and would undermine U.S. efforts to support NGOs in Iran and other countries with poor human rights records.

One senior official at a centrist Jewish organization said such an initiative was profoundly counterintuitive, considering how much the Israeli and Jewish establishments had reaped from Western government backing for NGOs assisting Jews in the Soviet Union during the Cold War — and how such support continues today in Iran and the former Soviet Union.

It’s a little surprising,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to avoid embarrassing Israel’s government. “All over the world, NGOs are accused of taking other governments’ dollars and being tainted by that — the National Endowment for Democracy, the National Democratic Institute, the National Republican Institute. If the Israeli government says we’re going to only let certain human rights groups operate, it makes it harder to make our case” elsewhere.”

The good news is that the government’s heavy handed attempts to silence BTS has only emboldened soldiers to come forward.

Futterman continues:

our government (Israel) should welcome other expressions of foreign support for our civil society, not attempt to control it. If the United Kingdom or Spain or any other state wants to be a true friend to Israeli democracy, it will renew its commitment to BTS.

Akiva Elder also brings up the point from Gush Shalom that:

“the discriminatory blocking of European government funding to a specific group of legal and legitimate NGOs may well result in a public backlash in the EU, which would force your government to cut all funding to Israeli NGOs, including to universities and hospitals.”

Further, such NGO mettling could effect Chrisian Zionist organizations in the EU supporting settlement activity in the West Bank.

Presently, partially as a result of this effort to stop the funding of BTS there is a move by EU based human rights groups to pressure EU governments and the European commission to stop all funding to Israeli NGO’s. This is a definite “shoot yourself in the foot moment.” Not that surprising for the Netanyahu/Lieberman government, but certainly something that would have real effects on Israeli civil society.

Some of the arguments in support of such a ban are either manifest-destiny-loony or racist. For example, one “pro Israel” critic of such NGO support said that “the difference is that Israel is a first world democracy — democracies meddling in the business of other democracies is inappropriate.” By implication, those places
defined, by whatever arbitrary process, as not being first world can be meddled with because they are not democratic so its okay for first world democracies to act undemocratically as long as they are doing so in undemocratic/non-first world counties.

Its really the cliché about who’s ox is being gored, trying to limit such support in a supposedly democratic system in order to limit the free speech rights of a specific group will almost always end badly and undermines the core tenants of any functioning democratic system.

Robert Lipton

Source: Muzzle Watch

Bookmark and Share

Friday, July 17, 2009

The genocide Britain hushed up: A new film tells the terrible story of Stalin's own Final Solution - and Churchill's shameful complicity

Keep in mind when reading this, that Katyn was blamed on the Nazis, and charges were brought against German officers at the Nuremberg Trials. They were found guilty and executed.

A blindfold is ripped from a soldier's eyes. Looking up to get his bearings, he notes that he is in a forest. Looking down, he sees a long, deep pit, its floor carpeted with dead bodies in khaki uniform. He has moments left to live. He feels for his crucifix, but a bullet interrupts the conversation with his Maker. His lifeless corpse topples into the hole in the ground.

After him another man is shunted forward, the blindfold removed. The same ritual. Another bullet whistles through another brain. Then another. And another. The gruesome procedure is repeated until the hole fills with the bodies of hundreds and hundreds of innocent men.

This is the harrowing scene of a devastating new film, Katyn. It takes its name from the village in western where the bodies of more than 4,000 Polish prisoners of war were dug up in 1943.

Katyn

Gruesome: A scene from the new film shows a Russian solider shooting a Polish officer in the back of the head before another pushing his body into a mass grave

But these bodies were by no means the only ones to be disinterred. Near the Soviet city of Kalinin, now known as Tver, another 6,000 bodies were unearthed. Near Kharkov in Ukraine there were 4,000.

In all, more than 22,000 Poles - roughly two-thirds of them officers and policemen, the rest political prisoners - suffered the same appalling fate: to be executed, without trial or even warning, and thrown like carcasses into mass graves.

Their murderers were the NKVD, the Soviet secret police. Indeed, the chief executioner of the NKVD personally pulled the fatal trigger no fewer than 6,000 times in just 28 days.

The first genocide of World War II has become known as the Katyn Massacre. It took place in April 1940, 21 months before the Nazi regime devised the Final Solution at the Wannsee conference in January 1942.

The whole world knew that a large group of Polish officers had mysteriously disappeared soon after the Soviet annexation of eastern on September 17, 1939.

The invasion came after the infamous Molotov-Ribbentrop pact which allowed and the Soviet Union to carve up Poland between them. But the fate of the officers remained unknown until the bodies were discovered after the German invasion of the Soviet Union.

Even as the Nazis were liquidating Jews in the Warsaw ghetto, Goebbels's propaganda machine trumpeted the atrocity as evidence of Bolshevik brutality. Stalin counterinsisted that the mass murders had been committed by the Nazis.

Churchill knew the brutal truth, but it made sense to keep quiet. Stalin was our ally in the epic fight against Nazism, and his nose was not to be put out of joint. British silence remains one of the worst stains on our country's war record.

Even by the grisly standards of the 20th century, the Katyn Massacre was a crime of appalling enormity: a concerted attempt to wipe out an entire stratum of a great European nation. Behind the slaughter was a grisly piece of forward planning.

Stalin's long-term intention was for Poland to become a friendly neighbour under the Soviet sphere of influence. The fewer bourgeois enemies of Communism to oppose him, the better. So he started liquidating those Polish officers who, in long, punitive interrogations, could not be coaxed into taking a pro-Soviet stance.

The butchery of the cream of Polish manhood was characterised by a breathtaking lack of fuss. In the Katyn forest, the soldiers were frogmarched to deep, open pits. As his blindfold was removed, each officer would have seen the corpses mounting at his feet, and then heard the trigger.

In other locations - PoWs from camps at Starobilsk, near Kharkov, and Ostashkov, near Kalinin, the extermination took place indoors.

One by one, the officers were dragged to a prison cell, their hands tied behind them with wire, and then shot from behind. To drown out the noise, the cell door was lined with felt, and the drone of loud machines masked the incessant sound of gunshots-The bodies were unceremoniously lugged out through another door to a line of waiting trucks.

On that first night of killing, the NKVD butchers managed to dispatch 390 men. In subsequent days they confined the nightly tally to 250.

Katyn

Devastating: Andrzej Wajda's movie dramatises the events of 1939 in Russia

The grim cargo was then driven to the site of the mass grave in the forest, and its contents dumped. It was a function of Soviet efficiency that, to make use of every cubic inch of space, the corpses were neatly stacked. (When the pits were exhumed, some were found to contain the bones of murdered Poles up to 12 deep. One pit had 1,200 corpses). Only one detail was unvarying: there were 22,000 holes in 22,000 Polish skulls.

Yet for some reason, the name of Katyn has never entered the global consciousness as other atrocities have.

Former Nazi concentration camp guard John Demjanjuk has just been extradited from the U.S. to Germany to stand trial as accessory to 29,000 deaths in the Holocaust. Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic awaits trial in The Hague for his part in the mass murder of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica. But no one has ever stood in the dock for their part in the Katyn massacre.

The new film is the work of the great Polish director Andrzej Wajda, whose father, Jakub, was one of the murdered officers. As well as telling the story of their deaths, Katyn dramatises the aftermath of the war when, in communist Poland, it was forbidden to mention the dead officers.

For those who did, prison awaited. As a result, ignorance of the crime spread throughout Poland over 40 years. For decades, it fell to emigre Poles to keep the name of Katyn alive.

Among them are British Poles for whom Katyn remains a wound which refuses to heal. It's not just that their fathers were murdered - the officers' families also felt the blunt instrument of Soviet oppression. As part of Stalin's larger plan to weaken Polish opposition to Communism, 1.6 million Poles were deported to far-flung corners of the Soviet Union.

One of those British Poles is Andrzej Polniaszek. Now 81, he was 12 in 1939 when his father Franciszek, a doctor of law and an officer, was captured when the Soviets moved into Poland.

Soviet documentation has revealed that his father was taken to the camp in Starobelsk, where, over a long, bitterly cold winter, he would have been subjected to intense political agitation.

By March 5, when Stalin signed his execution order, he had been condemned to death as one of 22,000 'hardened and uncompromising enemies of Soviet authority'.

By April 13, Andrzej's father may well have been already dead. It was on that date that the young Andrzej, with his mother and sister, heard a knock on their apartment door.

'At three in the morning the soldiers came. We had an hour to pack only the things we could carry. They even warned: "Take warm clothes. You'll be there for some time." '

Meanwhile, in the Polish countryside, Waclaw and Janusz Gasiorowski, aged ten and seven, were rounded up with their mother and sister.

Their father Tadeusz, a lieutenant in the Pomeranian infantry, had been taken prisoner the previous September, and they feared the worst.

'There had been regular letters from our father,' recalls Janusz. 'And then it abruptly stopped. Not only our correspondence, but that of everyone who had someone in those camps.'

Andrzej Polniaszek ended up in - 'a godforsaken part of the country with a Siberian climate'. When Waclaw and Janusz got off an overcrowded train carriage after 27 days, they were in Uzbekistan, 100 miles from the Chinese border.

Katyn

Genocide: Polish officers await their fate in the new Katyn film which is out now

They were sent to live in stables spattered with manure, which was the only source of fuel. Waclaw still has the cheerful advice of a Soviet soldier ringing in his ears: 'Don't worry. You will get used to it. And if you don't get used to it, you will die.'

The boys were lucky. Their aunt was a dental surgeon whose skills were valuable. 'If she pulled out the tooth of a Russian, she got half a kilo of butter, a chicken or a bag of potatoes and this kept us going.'

Others were not so lucky. Of the 1.6 million Poles deported into far-flung outposts of the Soviet Union's gulag system, approximately a million died of cold, starvation and disease.

There was a seismic mood swing when news broke of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. The Soviets suddenly needed their captive Poles, so they were freed to join a Polish army mustering under General Anders, who was released from the Lubyanka prison in Moscow, where he had been tortured, to fight with the .

For young Polish deportees, the only problem was how to join up. Railway carriages were clogged with wounded Soviet soldiers, permission to travel was hard to secure and distances were unimaginably vast.

Anders made things harder by taking the first wave of volunteers to Persia. Among them were the Gasiorowski boys, who travelled through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. On the way, Andrzej was separated from his mother and acknowledged that it had known all along who had been the true perpetrators of the Katyn Massacre.

Most, though not all of the graves in Ukraine, have since been exhumed. In 2000, Andrzej went to Kharkov to see the opening of the mass grave where his father was believed to have been buried. The bodies there had been buried in clay and failed to decompose.

To hide the atrocity, the NKVD returned to the grave with massive drilling devices and punched holes in the ground to aerate the grave and encourage decomposition. In the process, they destroyed the bodies.

'You can imagine how I felt when it was opened,' says Andrzej softly. 'The only way they could tell how many dead there were was by counting the skulls which had remained intact. Out of the 4,500 buried in Kharkov, we were only able to find 150 bodies. The rest was a mess.'

Andrzej has spent more than 60 years in his adoptive country. He married an Englishwoman and had three children who speak only pidgin Polish. He thinks he survived the hell of two Siberian winters because 'someone above decided that I could do something useful'.

Twenty years ago he founded the Association of Katyn Families Abroad, which has about 2,000 members. Now that the mood is changing towards the dark Soviet style of old in Putin's Russia, it becomes ever more certain that the murder of thousands of men such as Franciszek Polniaszek. Tadeusz Gasiorowski and, indeed, Jakub Wajda will go unpunished. So the task that remains is clear.

'One of the last things we have to do,' says Andrzej, 'is to keep the memory of what happened to our fathers for future generations. With my son and daughter I went back to Kharkov where my father was killed.

'In the cemetery there is a big bell half-submerged underground, so when it rings the sound goes into the ground where they are still buried. My son and I rang it and listened. And both of us cried.'

And as he recalls the knell clanging dolefully among Polish bones, Andrzej Polniaszek cries again.

KATYN is on release in selected cinemas.

Bookmark and Share

Israeli soldiers claim that they were ordered to fire, regardless of the risk to civilians.

By Alex Thomson Israeli soldiers involved in the attacks on Gaza at the start of this year claim that they were ordered to fire, regardless of the risk to civilians. Alex Thomson reports. Israel banned journalists from its invasion of Gaza in December and January, making it hard to verify allegations of indiscriminate firing, the use of phosphorous bombs, and forcing Palestininas to be human shields. Now an Israeli human rights group has produced a disturbing account of what it says happened in Gaza, as told by soldiers.




Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Eager to Tap Iraq's Vast Oil Reserves, Industry Execs Suggested Invasion


Two years before the invasion of Iraq, oil executives and foreign policy advisers told the Bush administration that the United States would remain "a prisoner of its energy dilemma" as long as Saddam Hussein was in power.

That April 2001 report, "Strategic Policy Challenges for the 21st Century," was prepared by the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy and the US Council on Foreign Relations at the request of then-Vice President Dick Cheney.

In retrospect, it appears that the report helped focus administration thinking on why it made geopolitical sense to oust Hussein, whose country sat on the world's second largest oil reserves.

"Iraq remains a destabilizing influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East," the report said.

"Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export program to manipulate oil markets. Therefore the US should conduct an immediate policy review toward Iraq including military, energy, economic and political/diplomatic assessments."

The advisory committee that helped prepare the report included Luis Giusti, a Shell Corp. non-executive director; John Manzoni, regional president of British Petroleum; and David O'Reilly, chief executive of ChevronTexaco.

James Baker, the namesake for the public policy institute, was a prominent oil industry lawyer who also served as secretary of state under President George H.W. Bush, and was counsel to the Bush/Cheney campaign during the Florida recount in 2000.

Ken Lay, then-chairman of the energy trading Enron Corp., also made recommendations that were included in the Baker report.

At the time of the report, Cheney was leading an energy task force made up of powerful industry executives who assisted him in drafting a comprehensive "National Energy Policy" for President George W. Bush.

A Focus on Oil

It was believed then that Cheney's secretive task force was focusing on ways to reduce environmental regulations and fend off the Kyoto protocol on global warming.

But Bush's first treasury secretary, Paul O'Neill, later described a White House interest in invading Iraq and controlling its vast oil reserves, dating back to the first days of the Bush presidency.

In Ron Suskind's 2004 book, "The Price of Loyalty," O'Neill said an invasion of Iraq was on the agenda at the first National Security Council. There was even a map for a post-war occupation, marking out how Iraq's oil fields would be carved up.

Even at that early date, the message from Bush was "find a way to do this," according to O'Neill, a critic of the Iraq invasion who was forced out of his job in December 2002.

The New Yorker's Jane Mayer later made another discovery: a secret NSC document dated February 3, 2001 - only two weeks after Bush took office - instructing NSC officials to cooperate with Cheney's task force, which was "melding" two previously unrelated areas of policy: "the review of operational policies towards rogue states" and "actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields." [The New Yorker, February 16, 2004]

By March 2001, Cheney's task force had prepared a set of documents with a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and a list titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts," according to information released in July 2003 under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch.

A Commerce Department spokesman issued a brief statement when those documents were released stating that Cheney's energy task force "evaluated regions of the world that are vital to global energy supply."

There has long been speculation that a key reason why Cheney fought so hard to keep his task force documents secret was that they may have included information about the administration's plans toward Iraq.

"Conspiracy Theory"

However, both before and after the invasion, much of the US political press treated the notion that oil was a motive for invading Iraq in March 2003 as a laughable conspiracy theory.

Generally, business news outlets were much more frank about the real-politick importance of Iraq's oil fields.

For instance, Ray Rodon, a former executive at Halliburton, the oil-service giant that Cheney once headed, said he was dispatched to Iraq in October 2002 to assess the country's oil infrastructure and map out plans for operating Iraq's oil industry, according to an April 14, 2003 story in Fortune magazine.

"From behind the obsidian mirrors of his wraparound sunglasses, Ray Rodon surveys the vast desert landscape of southern Iraq's Rumailah oilfield," Fortune's story said. "A project manager with Halliburton's engineering and construction division, Kellogg Brown & Root, Rodon has spent months preparing for the daunting task of repairing Iraq's oil industry."

"Working first at headquarters in Houston and then out of a hotel room in Kuwait City, he has studied the intricacies of the Iraqi national oil company, even reviewing the firm's organizational charts so that Halliburton and the Army can ascertain which Iraqis are reliable technocrats and which are Saddam loyalists."

At about the same time as Rodon's trip to Iraq - October 2002 - Oil and Gas International, an industry publication, reported that the State Department and the Pentagon had put together pre-war planning groups that focused heavily on protecting Iraq's oil infrastructure.

The next month, November 2002, the Department of Defense recommended that the Army Corps of Engineers award a contract to Kellogg, Brown & Root to extinguish Iraqi oil well fires.

The contract also called for "assessing the condition of oil-related infrastructure; cleaning up oil spills or other environmental damage at oil facilities; engineering design and repair or reconstruction of damaged infrastructure; assisting in making facilities operational; distribution of petroleum products; and assisting the Iraqis in resuming Iraqi oil company operations."

In January 2003, as President Bush was presenting the looming war with Iraq as necessary to protect Americans, the Wall Street Journal reported that oil industry executives met with Cheney's staff to plan the post-war revival of Iraq's oil industry.

"Facing a possible war with Iraq, US oil companies are starting to prepare for the day when they may get a chance to work in one of the world's most oil-rich countries," the Journal reported on January 16, 2003.

"Executives of US oil companies are conferring with officials from the White House, the Department of Defense and the State Department to figure out how best to jump-start Iraq's oil industry following a war, industry officials say.

"The Bush administration is eager to secure Iraq's oil fields and rehabilitate them, industry officials say. They say Mr. Cheney's staff hosted an informational meeting with industry executives in October [2002], with ExxonMobil Corp., ChevronTexaco Corp., ConocoPhillips and Halliburton among the companies represented.

"Both the Bush administration and the companies say such a meeting never took place. Since then, industry officials say, the Bush administration has sought input, formally and informally, from executives and industry experts on how best to overhaul Iraq's oil sector."

Guarding the Oil Ministry

Despite the Bush administration's denials about oil as a motivation for war, the Bush administration's focus on Iraqi oil was firmly set.

On April 5, 2003, Reuters reported that the State Department's "Future of Iraq" project headed by Thomas Warrick, special adviser to the Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, held its fourth meeting of the oil and energy-working group.

Documents obtained by Reuters showed that "a clear consensus among expert opinion favoring production-sharing agreements to attract the major oil companies."

"That is likely to thrill oil companies harboring hopes of lucrative contracts to develop Iraqi oil reserves," the news agency reported. "Short-term rehabilitation of southern Iraqi oil fields already is under way, with oil well fires being extinguished by US contractor Kellogg Brown and Root ...

"Long-term contracts are expected to see US companies ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips compete with Anglo-Dutch Shell, Britain's BP, TotalFinaElf of France, Russia's LUKOIL and Chinese state companies."

After US troops captured Baghdad in April 2003, they were ordered to protect the Oil Ministry even as looters ransacked priceless antiquities from Iraq's national museums and stole explosives from unguarded military arsenals.

Unacceptable Options

In April 2001, the report laid out a series of unacceptable options, including helping Iraq under Saddam Hussein extract more oil by easing embargoes that were meant to hem Hussein in.

"The US could consider reducing restrictions on oil investment inside Iraq," the report said. But if Hussein's "access to oil revenues was to be increased by adjustments in oil sanctions, Saddam Hussein could be a greater security threat to U.S. allies in the region if weapons of mass destruction, sanctions, weapons regimes and the coalition against him are not strengthened."

Iraq is a "key swing producer turning its taps on and off when it has felt such action was in its strategic interest," the report said, adding that there was even a "possibility that Saddam Hussein may remove Iraqi oil from the market for an extended period of time" in order to drive up prices.

"Under this scenario, the United States remains a prisoner of its energy dilemma, suffering on a recurring basis from the negative consequences of sporadic energy shortages," the report said. "These consequences can include recession, social dislocation of the poorest Americans, and at the extremes, a need for military intervention."

The report recommended Cheney move swiftly to integrate energy and national security policy as a means to stop "manipulations of markets by any state" and suggested that his task force include "representation from the Department of Defense."

"Unless the United States assumes a leadership role in the formation of new rules of the game," the report said, "US firms, US consumers and the US government [will be left] in a weaker position."

Two years after the Baker report, the United States - along with Great Britain and other allies - invaded Iraq. Now, more than six years later, the US oil industry finally appears to be in a strong position relative to Iraq's oil riches.

However, the price that has been paid by American troops, Iraqi civilians and the US taxpayers has been enormous.

Source: Truthout


Bookmark and Share

Sunday, June 28, 2009

Second IDF soldier refuses to serve over violence towards Palestinians


A second IDF soldier has refused to continue following orders unless his complaints of violence toward Palestinians are investigated, Haaretz has learned. As with another infantry man from the same brigade - who was sentenced to 30 days in military prison last week after refusing to participate in his unit's operations in the territories - the second soldier, who can only be identified as A., came to his decision following a raid by the brigade's Haruv battalion in the village of Kifl Hares in the West Bank on March 26.

A. told his friends that soldiers from the platoon acted with unusual violence toward the residents of the village. "We were sent to look for firearms, but didn't find any weapons," the soldier said. "So we confiscated kitchen knives. But what I was most shocked about was the looting. One soldier took 20 shekels. Soldiers went into homes and looked for stuff to steal."

A. also told of an assault on a mentally handicapped civilian. "He was just shouting at soldiers but then one soldier decided to attack him, so they beat the hell out of him - riffle butt to the head".

A. informed his commanders he will no longer participate in battalion activities, after which he was not court-martialed, but was transferred to guard and kitchen duty. A. then left for home - to be arrested and so to attract greater attention to his claims. He was sentenced to 17 days of detention for absenteeism by battalion commander Lt. Col. Ilan Dikstein, and upon completing the sentence was reassigned to maintenance works in a rear base of the brigade.

The battalion is already being investigated by the Military Police following earlier reports in the media about its conduct.

The IDF spokesman's office said in a statement that according to its information, "The soldier had been convicted of absenteeism, and after completing his sentence met with the battalion commander and informed him he wished to resign from combatant duty on conscientious grounds. The commander relocated him to administrative work at the battalion headquarters."

Source: Haaretz News Jerusalem

Memo confirms Bush and Blair knew claims Iraq had WMDs were lies


A confidential memo obtained by the Observer, detailing a meeting between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirms their determination to press ahead with the invasion of Iraq in 2003 without any evidence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and without United Nations approval.

The five-page memo, written by Blair’s foreign policy adviser Sir David Manning, is dated January 31, 2003, some two months before the invasion began. It records the thinking of Bush and Blair as it became increasingly obvious that United Nations weapons inspectors would not find the advanced weaponry, including a nuclear capability, that both leaders were using to justify military action.

According to the memo, Bush discussed various possible provocations that might trigger a second UN resolution to justify war in the absence of any WMD. One plan being considered by the White House was "to fly U2 reconnaissance aircraft painted in UN colours over Iraq with fighter cover" provoking Iraqi forces into opening fire and thereby putting them in breach of a UN resolution.

Bush also discussed his hopes that an Iraqi defector might still be "brought out" to talk about WMD, or that someone might assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo confirms that the decision had already been taken to go to war. Bush expressed his readiness for war, even if their provocations failed to produce the second UN resolution.

The US, in order to offset its economic decline relative to its rivals, was determined to use its military strength to seize strategically crucial energy resources in the Middle East. Bush, accordingly, had already decided on a date for the start of the war. Manning records, "The start date for the military campaign was now pencilled in for 10 March. This was when the bombing would begin."

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," wrote Manning.

British imperialism hoped to gain some share of the spoils from the plunder of Iraq. Blair told Bush he was "solidly with the president" in his thinking.

At this point, Blair had not yet received any legal advice on the war from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith. Publicly, his government had doctored and manufactured intelligence reports on the supposed WMD. In the face of overwhelming popular hostility to the war, Blair announced that the test of government was its ability to ignore the popular will.

Manning’s memo was copied to Sir Jeremy Greenstock, British ambassador to the UN, Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, the chief of defence staff, and Sir Christopher Meyer, the British ambassador to Washington.

The Manning memo underlines the character of the invasion of Iraq. It was a calculated act of imperialist aggression. The memo demonstrates again the limitations of yet another government-sponsored whitewash. It makes the case for a war crimes tribunal to prosecute Bush, Blair and their fellow conspirators for their murderous actions in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the memo’s release has added to the deepening sense of crisis over Iraq in the UK, with events in danger of spiralling out of control.

Sir John Chilcott was chosen by Prime Minister Gordon Brown to head a panel of privy counsellors to inquire into the Iraq war. They were to meet behind closed doors and were charged, according to Brown, with identifying "lessons learned." They could not, he stressed, "apportion blame or consider issues of civil or criminal liability."

Chilcott was also a member of the 2004 Butler Inquiry that examined the intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq and which produced a whitewash.

With Brown’s government weakened, however, the Conservatives, who fully supported the Iraq war, have opportunistically demanded that proceedings be made more open. They put a motion to parliament Wednesday calling for a change to the inquiry’s remit, on openness and whether witnesses would be questioned under oath. This was defeated by 299 votes to 260 after a six-hour debate in which a small number of Labour MPs called for more openness and threatened to vote with the Opposition.

For the Tories, Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague said that declaring the inquiry would not report before a general election was "utterly cynical and politically motivated" and demanded that the committee should include people with military and ministerial experience.

Broader sections of the establishment are also prepared to make public material that is highly damaging, even dangerous to the government—and particularly to Blair. Lord Guthrie, a former chief of defence staff under Blair, said the memo underlined that the Chilcott Inquiry must not be "a whitewash as these inquiries often are."

Brown’s insistence that the inquiry be held behind closed doors has been rejected by Chilcott himself, who wrote to Brown, "It will be essential to hold as much of the proceedings of the inquiry as possible in public, consistent with the need to protect national security and to ensure and enable complete candour in the oral and written evidence from witnesses."

Brown released the letter two days ahead of Wednesday’s debate and was forced to welcome Chilcott’s position. During the debate, Foreign Secretary David Miliband also conceded to Chilcott that the inquiry "can praise or blame whoever it likes. It is free to write its own report at every stage." It may also be possible to interview witnesses under oath, he said, but insisted again that the inquiry had not been set up "to establish civil or criminal liability."

A Dutch government’s inquiry into the Netherlands’ support for the war will look at all MI5 and MI6 intelligence that was shared with its intelligence services. That inquiry is due to report in November, and this could mean that information about the US and British role will be published ahead of Chilcott’s report next year.