jump to navigation

“War Crimes” against Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron and Al-Thani… August 22, 2011

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Five months into the bombing campaign, it is no longer possible to believe the initial official version of the events and the massacres attributed to the “Gaddafi regime”. Moreover, it is now essential to take into account Libya’s legal and diplomatic rebuttal, highlighting the crimes against peace committed by television propaganda, the war crimes perpetrated by NATO military forces, and the crimes against humanity sponsored by political leaders of the Atlantic Alliance.

Just under half of Europeans still support the war against Libya. Their position is based on erroneous information. They still believe, in fact, that in February the “Gaddafi regime” crushed the protests in Benghazi with brutal force and bombed civilian districts in Tripoli, while the Colonel himself was warning of “rivers of blood” if his compatriots continued to challenge his authority.

During my two months’ investigation , I was able to verify that these accusations were pure propaganda intoxication, designed by the NATO powers to create the conditions for war, and relayed around the world by their television media, in particular Al-Jazeera, CNN, BBC and France24.

However, the reader who doesn’t know where he stands on this issue and who – despite the brainwashing of September 11 and Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction – is reluctant to accept that the United States, France, the UK and Qatar were actually capable of fabricating such lies, will be able to forge an opinion over time. NATO, the largest military coalition in history, has failed after five months of bombardments to overthrow the one it designated as a “tyrant.” Every Friday, a large demonstration in support of the regime is organized in a different city and all experts are unanimous in considering that Colonel Gaddafi enjoys at least 90% of popular support in Tripolitania and 70% across the entire country, including the “rebel” areas. These are people who every single day put up with the blockade, aerial bombardments and ground fighting. Never would they be defending with their flesh and blood someone who committed against them the crimes of which he has been accused by the “international community.” The difference between those in the West who believe that Gaddafi is a tyrant who fired on his own people, and those in Libya who believe that he is a hero of the anti-imperialist struggle, is that the former live in an illusion created by TV propaganda, whereas the others are exposed to the concrete reality on the ground.

That said, there is a second illusion to which the West has succumbed – and in the “Western” camp I now include not only Israel, where it has always claimed to belong, but also the monarchies of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Turkey which, though of Eastern culture, have chosen to embrace it -, the illusion to think that it is still possible to devastate a country and kill its people without legal consequences. It is true that, until now, international justice has been the justice of the victors or the powerful. One may recall the Nazi official who heckled the judges at Nuremberg telling them that if the Reich had won the war, the judges would have been the Nazis while those held accountable for the war crimes would have been the Allies.

More recently, we saw how NATO used the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to try to justify post facto that the war in Kosovo was “the first humanitarian war in History,” according to the expression employed by Tony Blair. Or again, how the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was used in an attempt to overthrow the Syrian government, then to decapitate the Lebanese Hezbollah, and probably soon to accuse the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Not to mention, the International Criminal Court, the secular arm of the European colonial powers in Africa.

However, the development of instruments and organs of international justice throughout the twentieth century has gradually established an international order with which the superpowers themselves will have to comply or which they will have to sabotage in order to escape their responsibilities. In the case of Libya, the violations of international law are countless. The main ones, presented below, were established by the Provisional Technical Committee, a Libyan ministerial coordination organ, and expounded at various press conferences by the legal adviser to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, French attorney Marcel Ceccaldi [1].

TV channels which, under the leadership of their respective Governments, have manufactured false information to lead to war, are guilty of “crimes against peace”, as defined by the relevant UN General Assembly resolutions in the aftermath of World War II [2]. The journalist-propagandists should be considered even more culpable than the military who perpetrated war crimes or crimes against humanity, to the extent that none of these crimes would have been possible without the one that preceded them: the “crime against peace.”

The political leaders of the Atlantic Alliance, who diverted the object and purpose of Resolution 1973 to engage in a war of aggression against a sovereign state, are personally responsible before international justice. Indeed, according to the jurisprudence established by the Tokyo Court following the Second World War, crimes cannot be ascribed to either States or organizations, but to individuals. Plundering the assets of a state, establishing a naval blockade and bombing infrastructure to cause people to suffer, attacking an army inside its barracks and ordering the assassination of enemy leaders or, failing this, terrorizing them by murdering their families, all amount to war crimes. Their systematic perpetration, as is the case today, constitutes a crime against humanity. This crime is imprescriptible, which means that Messrs. Obama, Sarkozy, Cameron and Al-Thani will be pursued by the law for the rest of their lives.

NATO, as an organization, is legally responsible for the material and human damage of this war. The law leaves no room for doubt that the organization must pay, even though it will surely try to invoke a privilege of jurisdiction to dodge its responsibilities. It will be up to the Alliance to decide how the bill for the conflict should be split among Member States, even though some of them may be on the verge of bankruptcy. This will be followed by disastrous economic consequences for their peoples, guilty of having endorsed such crimes. In a democracy, no one can claim to be innocent of the crimes committed in its name.

International justice will have to address more specifically the case of the Sarkozy “administration” – I use this Anglicism here to underscore the fact that the French president has been piloting his Government’s policy directly, without going through his prime minister. Indeed, France has played a central role in preparing for this war since October 2010 by organizing a failed military coup and then, as early as November 2010, by planning with the United Kingdom the bombing of Libya and the landing of ground troops on its soil, which was then believed to be feasible, and finally by actively conspiring in the lethal unrest in Benghazi which led to the war.

In addition, France, more than any other power, has deployed Special Forces on the ground – without uniforms, no doubt – and violated the arms embargo by supplying the insurgents, either directly or through Qatari airplanes. Not to mention that France has violated the UN freeze of Libyan assets, funnelling part of the fabulous cash from the Libyan Sovereign Fund to the CNT puppets, to the detriment of the Libyan people who wanted to guarantee the well-being of their children in the face of oil depletion.

These gentlemen from NATO, who hoped to escape international justice by crushing their victim, Libya, in a few short days so that it would not survive to pursue them, will be disenchanted. Libya is still there. She is filing complaints with the International Criminal Court, the Belgian courts (whose jurisdiction NATO falls under), the European Court of Justice, and the national courts of aggressor states. She is undertaking steps before the Council of Human Rights in Geneva, the Security Council and General Assembly of the United Nations. It will be not be possible for the big powers to extinguish these fires all at once. Worse, the arguments they will use to evade a court will ricochet against them in another court. In a few weeks or months, if they have not succeeded in destroying Tripoli, they will have no other way out to avoid humiliating convictions than to negotiate the withdrawal of the complaints at a very high price. Thierry Meyssan said it best in this article  and will have them all be accountable for their actions…

Advertisements

Bush-Obama’s deceptive cost of WAR… July 13, 2011

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

According to some diligent research done by Global Research during his speech on Afghanistan June 22, President Obama revealed that “Over the last decade, we have spent a trillion dollars on war.” He knew this was a deceptive understatement, as did everyone who keeps close watch on the Bush-Obama wars all these years.

 

Few Americans , however, have closely followed Washington’s 21st century wars of choice, so a trillion probably sounds right to them, but that amount in 10 years — when the annual cost of air conditioning alone for the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq amounts to $20.2 billion a year — is  way off base.

 

(It’s difficult to conceive of one trillion, so we’ll repeat a method we’ve used before: Sixty seconds comprise a minute. One million seconds  comes out to be about 11½ days. A billion seconds is 32 years. And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years.)

 

The latest objective estimate for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, made public June 29, is between $3.7 trillion and $4.4 trillion (140,800 years), according to the research project “Costs of War” by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies.

 

The university assembled a team of economists, anthropologists, political scientists, legal experts, and a physician to do this analysis, which included future costs for veterans care and interest on war debts to be paid over the next few decades.

 

The medical costs are huge. “While we know how many U.S. soldiers have died in the wars (just over 6,000),” the report pointed out, “what is startling is what we don’t know about the levels of injury and illness in those who have returned from the wars. New disability claims continue to pour into the VA, with 550,000 just through last fall.” This doesn’t even include the thousands of deaths and injuries among quasi-military contractors. There are about as many contractors as troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

It’s impossible to precisely predict the interest costs on these wars. In 2010, $400 billion of our tax money went toward paying off past war debts as far back as the Korean War of the early 1950s. We’ll pay war debts indefinitely because Washington is always borrowing to plan for or start new wars. So far, the U.S.-led NATO war for regime change in Libya is costing American taxpayers about a billion. The Pentagon has blueprints ready for many different kinds of future wars, from small counter-terrorism escapades, to cyberspace and outer space conflicts, to nuclear war, all the way up to World War III.

 

The Brown University figures may turn out to be underestimates. A few independent studies over the years have been somewhat higher but were brushed aside by the White House and the mass media. This may happen to the Brown calculations as well.

 

The respected Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Professor Linda Bilmes wrote a book three years ago estimating the cost of the Iraq war only, based on data collected in 2006. It was titled “The Three Trillion Dollar War.” They based their calculations on the “hidden” costs of the war that include enormous medical care expenses over the next 50 years for tens of thousands of badly wounded soldiers, other benefits, equipment replacement, and interest on war debts.

 

Stiglitz and Bilmes calculated in 2008 that the combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be between $5 and $7 trillion.  They called these adventures the “credit card wars.” Using a somewhat different methodology a few years ago, the Joint Economic Committee of Congress, estimated the Iraq war ultimately will cost $3.5 trillion. They didn’t include the Afghan war.

 

Assuming Obama is reelected, the Bush-Obama wars — including Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen (and Somalia, where the U.S. is now engaged in drone strikes), plus the wars in Obama’s final years — will certainly top $5 trillion in real costs.

 

In this connection, we cannot forget that current Pentagon spending of around $700 billion a year represents a huge increase since 2001, when it totaled about $380 billion. (By comparison, during this same time period, military spending by Iran — portrayed by Washington, Tel-Aviv and Saudi Arabia as the greatest danger to peace in the Middle East — dropped from $9 billion in 2001 to $7 billion in 2010.)

 

But Defense Department expenses are only half the story. Double the Pentagon’s $700 billion for a true estimate of the amount of money the U.S. spent on war-related issues  last year. That’s $1.4 trillion a year for the United States. How is this possible?

 

Instead of just discussing the Pentagon budget, it is essential to also consider Washington’s various other “national security” budgets. That of course includes the costs of Washington’s 16 different intelligence services, the percentage of the annual national debt to pay for past war expenses, Homeland Security, nuclear weapons, additional annual spending requests for Iraq and Afghan wars, military retiree pay and healthcare for vets, NASA, FBI (for its war-related military work), etc. When it’s all included it comes to $1,398 trillion for fiscal 2010, according to the War Resisters League and other sources.

 

It’s not enough just to take note of the money Washington spent on stalemated wars of choice. It’s fruitful to contemplate where our $5 trillion Bush-Obama war funding might have been invested instead. It could have paid for a fairly swift transition from fossil fuels to a solar-wind energy system for the entire U.S. — a prospect that will now take many decades longer, if at all, as the world gets warmer from greenhouse gases. And there probably would have been enough left to overhaul America’s decaying and outdated civil infrastructure, among other projects.

 

But while the big corporations, Wall Street and the wealthy are thriving, global warming and infrastructure repair have been brushed aside. States are cutting back on schools and healthcare. Counties and towns are closing summer swimming pools and public facilities. Jobs and growth are stagnant. The federal government is sharply cutting the social service budget, and Medicare et al. are nearing the chopping block.

Nobel peace Laureate, Barack Obama! October 12, 2009

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
comments closed

The granting of the Nobel “peace prize” to president Barack Obama has become an integral part of the Pentagon’s propaganda machine. It provides a human face to the invaders, it upholds the demonization of those who oppose US military intervention.

The decision to grant Obama the Nobel  Peace Prize was no doubt carefully negotiated with the Norwegian Committee at the highest levels of the US government. It has far reaching implications. 

It unequivocally upholds the US led war as a “Just Cause”. It erases the war crimes committed both by the Bush and Obama administrations.

War Propaganda:  Jus ad Bellum

The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders.

In both its classical and contemporary versions, the Just war theory upholds war as a “humanitarian operation”. It calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against “insurgents”, “terrorists”, “failed” or “rogue states”.

The Just War has been heralded by the Nobel Committee as an instrument of Peace. Obama personifies the “Just War”.

Taught in US military academies, a modern-day version of the “Just War” theory has been embodied into US military doctrine. The “war on terrorism” and the notion of “preemption” are predicated on the right to “self defense.” They define “when it is permissible to wage war”: jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum has served to build a consensus within the Armed Forces command structures. It has also served to convince the troops that they are fighting for a “just cause”. More generally, the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda. Under Obama as Nobel Peace Laureate, the Just War becomes universally accepted, upheld by the so-called international community.  

The ultimate objective is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the US NATO led war.

War becomes peace, a worthwhile “humanitarian undertaking”,  Peaceful dissent becomes heresy.

Military Escalation with a Human Face. Nobel Committee grants the “Green Light” 

More significantly, the Nobel peace prize grants legitimacy to an unprecedented  “escalation”  of US-NATO led military operations under the banner of peacemaking. 

It contributes to falsifying the nature of the US-NATO military agenda.

Between 40,000 to 60,000 more US and allied troops are to be sent to Afghanistan under a peacemaking banner. On the 8th of october, a day prior to the Nobel Committee’s decision, the US congress granted Obama a 680-billion-dollar defense authorization bill, which is slated to finance the process of military escalation:

“Washington and its NATO allies are planning an unprecedented increase of troops for the war in Afghanistan, even in addition to the 17,000 new American and several thousand NATO forces that have been committed to the war so far this year”.

The number, based on as yet unsubstantiated reports of what U.S. and NATO commander Stanley McChrystal and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen have demanded of the White House, range from 10,000 to 45,000.

Fox News has cited figures as high as 45,000 more American soldiers and ABC News as many as 40,000. On September 15 the Christian Science Monitor wrote of “perhaps as many as 45,000.”

The similarity of the estimates indicate that a number has been agreed upon and America’s obedient media is preparing domestic audiences for the possibility of the largest escalation of foreign armed forces in Afghanistan’s history. Only seven years ago the United States had 5,000 troops in the country, but was scheduled to have 68,000 by December even before the reports of new deployments surfaced. (Rick Rozoff, U.S., NATO Poised For Most Massive War In Afghanistan’s History, Global Research, September 24, 2009)

Within hours of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel committee, Obama met with the War Council, or should we call it the “Peace Council”. This meeting had been carefully scheduled to coincide with that of the Norwegian Nobel committee.

This key meeting behind closed doors in the Situation Room of the White House included Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and key political and military advisers. General  Stanley McChrystal participated in the meeting via video link from Kabul.

General Stanley McChrystal ias said to have offered the Commander in Chief “several alternative options” “including a maximum injection of 60,000 extra troops”. The 60,000 figure was quoted following a leak of the Wall Street Journal (AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council, October 9, 2009)

“The president had a robust conversation about the security and political challenges in Afghanistan and the options for building a strategic approach going forward,” according to an administration official (quoted in AFP: After Nobel nod, Obama convenes Afghan war council  October 9, 2009)

The Nobel committee had in a sense given Obama a green light.  The October 9 meeting in the Situation Room was to set the groundwork for a further escalation of the conflict under the banner of counterinsurgency and democracy building.   

Meanwhile, in the course of the last few months, US forces have stepped up their aerial bombardments of village communities in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan, under the banner of combating Al Qaeda.

It unequivocally upholds the US led war as a “Just Cause”. It erases the war crimes committed both by the Bush and Obama administrations.

War Propaganda:  Jus ad Bellum

The “Just war” theory serves to camouflage the nature of US foreign policy, while providing a human face to the invaders.

In both its classical and contemporary versions, the Just war theory upholds war as a “humanitarian operation”. It calls for military intervention on ethical and moral grounds against “insurgents”, “terrorists”, “failed” or “rogue states”.

The Just War has been heralded by the Nobel Committee as an instrument of Peace. Obama personifies the “Just War”.

Taught in US military academies, a modern-day version of the “Just War” theory has been embodied into US military doctrine. The “war on terrorism” and the notion of “preemption” are predicated on the right to “self defense.” They define “when it is permissible to wage war”: jus ad bellum.

Jus ad bellum has served to build a consensus within the Armed Forces command structures. It has also served to convince the troops that they are fighting for a “just cause”. More generally, the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda. Under Obama as Nobel Peace Laureate, the Just War becomes universally accepted, upheld by the so-called international community.  

The ultimate objective is to subdue the citizens, totally depoliticize social life in America, prevent people from thinking and conceptualizing, from analyzing facts and challenging the legitimacy of the US NATO led war.

War becomes peace, a worthwhile “humanitarian undertaking”,  Peaceful dissent becomes heresy.

Military Escalation with a Human Face. Nobel Committee grants the “Green Light” 

More significantly, the Nobel peace prize grants legitimacy to an unprecedented  “escalation”  of US-NATO led military operations under the banner of peacemaking. 

It contributes to falsifying the nature of the US-NATO military agenda.

Between 40,000 to 60,000 more US and allied troops are to be sent to Afghanistan under a peacemaking banner. On the 8th of october, a day prior to the Nobel Committee’s decision, the US congress granted Obama a 680-billion-dollar defense authorization bill, which is slated to finance the process of military escalation:

“Washington and its NATO allies are planning an unprecedented increase of troops for the war in Afghanistan, even in addition to the 17,000 new American and several thousand NATO forces that have been committed to the war so far this year”.

The number, based on as yet unsubstantiated reports of what U.S. and NATO commander Stanley McChrystal and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen have demanded of the White House, range from 10,000 to 45,000.

Fox News has cited figures as high as 45,000 more American soldiers and ABC News as many as 40,000. On September 15 the Christian Science Monitor wrote of “perhaps as many as 45,000.”

The similarity of the estimates indicate that a number has been agreed upon and America’s obedient media is preparing domestic audiences for the possibility of the largest escalation of foreign armed forces in Afghanistan’s history. Only seven years ago the United States had 5,000 troops in the country, but was scheduled to have 68,000 by December even before the reports of new deployments surfaced. Research, September 24, 2009)

Within hours of the decision of the Norwegian Nobel committee, Obama met with the War Council, or should we call it the “Peace Council”. This meeting had been carefully scheduled to coincide with that of the Norwegian Nobel committee.

This key meeting behind closed doors in the Situation Room of the White House included Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and key political and military advisers. General  Stanley McChrystal participated in the meeting via video link from Kabul.

The Nobel committee had in a sense given Obama a green light.  The October 9 meeting in the Situation Room was to set the groundwork for a further escalation of the conflict under the banner of counterinsurgency and democracy building.   

Meanwhile, in the course of the last few months, US forces have stepped up their aerial bombardments of village communities in the northern tribal areas of Pakistan, under the banner of combating Al Qaeda. Micheal Chossudovsky Global Research

 

Can You Hear Me Now?! December 14, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

What’d I tell ya!!! As this century progresses, we’re bound to see the first Hispanic-American president, the first Asian-American president, the first indigenous-disabled-transgender-atheist-undocumented-communist president and who knows what other proud breakthroughs lie ahead for the land of the free and home of the brave? Maybe we’ll cut emissions by 2-3%, the minimum wage will rise by at least 25 cents, and being a loyal American consumer will be so much easier when that national ID card becomes mandatory.

What’s that you say? 10,000 gallons of gasoline are burned in the US every second? We’re losing 200,000 acres of rain forest every 24 hours? 2.2 billion pounds of pesticides are used by Americans each year? 100 plant or animal species go extinct each day? 81 tons of mercury are emitted into the atmosphere each year as a result of electric power generation? Every square mile of ocean hosts 46,000 pieces of floating plastic? 13 million tons of toxic chemicals released across the globe each and every day? 70,000 new chemical compounds have been invented and dispersed into our environment since 1950? There will be no glaciers left in Glacier National Park by 2030? The Arctic region expected to have its first completely ice-free summer in 2040? Coastal glaciers in Greenland thinning by 3 feet per year? 90% of the large fish in the ocean are already gone? 80% of the world’s forests are already gone? Every few seconds, a human being starves to death and 29,158 children under the age of five die from preventable causes every single day.

 Don’t bum me out,  with your pessimistic stats and unconstructive attitude. You’re full of bad news but you never offer a solution. You have no plan. We have a plan—a plan that comes equipped with its own soaring oratory, a plan named Barack Obama. Besides, it’s always best to focus on the positive and not dwell in gloom and doom. How else can we maintain the hope we need to make a difference? How else can we each become the change we wish to see in the world? How else can we justify our Obama worship? 

Before we get to 2076, first things first: Hail Obama, our brilliant, articulate, eloquent, Black man, savior and prince.

Well,  maybe St. Barack is a bit more progressive than we imagined, but you have to admit he’s brilliant, articulate and part-white. And hey! folks, he’s not even in office yet. Give the brother a chance. Once he’s been inaugurated, we’ll hold his feet to the fire and make real progress. We’ll get permits to hold weekend protests (with none of those nasty anarchists invited) and we’ll give voice to the voiceless…in our designated free speech zones, of course. President Obama will hear us, I’m sure. He’ll bring validation to bi-partisanship… After all, you can’t tell me you didn’t shed a tear when you saw all those young people celebrating in the streets. The youth have spoken! The future has arrived! Bushit is dead!!! power to the people.  Lift every voice and sing, Let’s rejoice!!! Let’s sing along with Ani DiFranco’s amazing new song, “Yes We Can”!!!

In fact, I’m willing to go out on a limb right now and boldly predict that by the years end of  2010, the number of US combat troops in Iraq will have dwindled by at least 15-20%. To those who want more, I ask: We can’t expect Obama to simply withdraw those brave, heroic,  superhuman men and women in one day, now can we? No way, not now or never, no cut and run no! no! no! not America. (And remember: we wouldn’t be in this mess if that damn egotistical Katherine Harris and that other Bushit…UUUh! Jeb. (and let’s not forget the American people that voted for 43) and Ralph Nader…. ruined everything in 2000. Nader should be investigated and not be allowed to run, and there needs to be criminal charges brought against all those involved, Make it illegal… I say none of them should be allowed to participate in the democratic process ever.

At least Obama is forming a strong centrist coalition. “A team of rivals,” they say. Some may nitpick and point out that every single appointee is a Washington retread who supported the war and could’ve just as easily been chosen by John McCain had he won, but Obama is clearly in charge and he’s brilliant. He makes the decisions, and he’s so articulate. He promised hope and change and, being that he’s so eloquent, I’m positive he will deliver. It would be negative, bitter, and cynical to think otherwise. In fact, anyone not thrilled with the historic election of a black man that came out of the womb of a white woman should not be allowed to breathe our precious oxygen.

Africa! Is it The next Iraq? November 18, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

 As the dynamics of world trade resuscitates  considerable interest in the discovery of oil in Africa, the United States government has reasserted its interest in and quest for  control over  what it claims to be the most powerful and useful resource in the world. The United States has already put the wheels in motion for war with Africa since the recent discovery of oil.  Currently, there is fighting going on with Zimbabwein rebels against US corporations over oil, because Zimbabwe refuses to do business with the US— there is a lack of trust in the US when it comes to honesty and integrity over oil in this Bushit administration.  There is more oil in western Africa than in all of the Persian Gulf.  The U.S. has stationed ships off the west coast of Africa to establish a military presence, signifying the financial interest that America has as part of its strategic plan for piracy and tactical overthrow, which is what the U.S. has been conjugating for a long time, dating back to when the real “Tricky Dick” Cheney was Chairman and CEO of Haliburton.   To illustrate the basis for these statements…  (1) United States national energy policy according to a report from Vice President (Tricky Dick) Richard Cheney confirms that Africa would be the fastest growing oil source for the United States; (2) In February 2002, Walter Kansteiner, Assistant Secretary of State for African affairs stated “African oil has become an appealing national strategy for the United States”. 

   In 2003, according to United States security analyst Michael Klare, there were several warnings given concerning Washington’s potential implication on the African continent with regards to where the next oil conflict will be after Iraq.  Of course, if America selects another oil family as they’ve done in the past with other oil magnates, this is surely without doubt a clear cut sign. Bush and Clinton politics of war will be fought on the shores of Africa which would then involve China as a major component…  This is the only interest the United States has in being in Africa.  The United States has been there for nearly seventy five years on what Americans call peacekeeping missions, but Africans are dying of hunger and disease in the same record numbers today as they have in the past, all under the watchful eye of United States

Bush Family makes billions from taxpayers October 30, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Information for this article comes from long-time business, finance and political writer and analyst Bob Chapman who publishes the bi-weekly International Forecaster. It’s power-packed with key information and a valued source for this writer. He obtained voluminous material directly from its source. People need to know it. Read on.

SueAnn Arrigo is the source – http://www.libertycalling.com. She was a high-level CIA insider. Her title was Special Operations Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). She also established the Remote Viewing Defense protocols for the Pentagon in her capacity as Remote Viewing Advisor to the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). It earned her a two-star general rank in the military. She called it a “ploy” so the Pentagon could get more of her time and have her attend monthly Joint Chiefs of Staff meetings. Only high-level types are invited, and she was there from October 2003 to July 2004.

Part of her job involved intelligence gathering on Iraq and Afghanistan – until August 2004 when she refused to spread propaganda about a non-existant Iranian nuclear weapons program and left. She followed in the footsteps of others at CIA who resigned for reasons of conscience and became critics – most notably Ray McGovern, Ralph McGehee, and Phil Agee.

On May 16, 2008, Arrigo sent extensive government corruption and cover-up information to Henry Waxman, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform committee – in 12 separate cases. This article covers four of them or about one-third of what Congress got. The 12 are explosive and revealing but just the tip of the iceberg:

— of government corruption and war profiteering;

— sweetheart deals and kickbacks;

— high-level types on the take;

— trillions of missing dollars;

— on September 10, 2001, Rumsfeld admitting “According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions;”

— imagine the current amount;

— its corrosive effect on the nation; and people should

— demand accountability – who profits, who pays and what are the consequences of militarism gone mad.

SueAnn Arrigo offers a glimpse and at great personal risk. In August 2001, DCI George Tenet told her to assemble “a moving van full of Pentagon documents showing Defense Contractor kickbacks to Pentagon officials.” She did as instructed but not to expose corruption as she learned – to conceal it and in her judgment so CIA could divert defense business to Halliburton and “Carlyle-related contractors.” She stated: “The mood at the CIA and Pentagon was ‘war is coming’ because the Bush Family stands to make billions from it — so get ready.”

Arrigo was shocked at what she found and how brazenly the Pentagon wrote it up because it feels untouchable, especially since 2001. That notion proved misguided after CIA used the material to blackmail or bribe its officials “into ‘working on’ the Halliburton-Carlyle team.” Top CIA types were involved, and Tenet laid it out for Arrigo: You’ve “given me the keys to the kingdom. (These) documents will make me rich.”

She collected three types. Her report covers one but has plenty of incriminating evidence. Her precise recall of dates and names is incomplete, but events are factually right and damning on how Washington operates. It’s always been this way but never to the degree as under George Bush. Arrigo exposes the scheme – the systematic looting of the treasury to enrich contractors and high-level officials at Pentagon, CIA and others well-placed in government. Precise amounts are unknown, but at mimimum are countless multi-billions, even trillions – at taxpayer expense and diverted from essential social and infrastructure needs.

Case 1: Ordering Unneeded New Fighter Aircraft

Arrigo discovered high-level Pentagon corruption. It involved bid-rigging and implicated “an Air Force general on the JCS and a Defense Contractor, Boeing.” She disclosed it to JCS Chairman Hugh Shelton and DCI George Tenet, and in both instances drew blanks. She also reported it to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress. It was vetted and confirmed, but left unaddressed the larger issue of whether new generation planes are needed at an enormous cost to taxpayers. Arrigo believed not, and several Air Force generals agreed. Not other JCS members, however, who she learned are on the take.

There’s more. They “had the gall to try to force through another unneeded plane contract for Boeing.” At an early 2004 JCS meeting, Arrigo complained about the previous undelivered order because it didn’t meet Pentagon specifications. Yet one general in particular tried “to force the US military to buy another (unneeded) upgrade.” One other JCS member backed her to no avail, and the new order went through. Arrigo rightfully concluded that new plane orders were to enrich Boeing and high-level Pentagon types getting kickbacks for their cooperation.

She also learned how much – an average $22,000 “for each (JCS meeting) vote according to their bank” records. Not US ones. CIA-arranged Swiss accounts specifically for this purpose. Everyone at the meeting cashed in, except Arrigo and one dissenting general. More disturbing is that this is standard Pentagon practice – handouts to contractors; kickbacks to complicit brass; and taxpayers out multi-billions – year after year.

Jeff St. Clair wrote about it in his 2005 book “Grand Theft Pentagon: Tales of Corruption and Profiteering in the War on Terror.” It’s an explosive account of how contractors like Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Bechtel and the Bush family-connected Carlyle Group scam multi-billions at taxpayer expense and not a whiff of it in the mainstream. It’s the reason US annual “defense” spending tops $1.1 trillion (conservatively) with all military, homeland security, veterans, NASA, debt service and other allocations included.

Case 2: Halliburton Delivers Half Full Cartons to the Pentagon’s “Swing Shift”

Arrigo refers to the Pentagon’s Receiving Department “swing shift” personnel. They alone are on the take so other shifts are shut out and can’t report it. As a CIA insider, she checked and found damning evidence – about “the military (not) getting supplies to the troops on time.” She also learned that Halliburton has its “Representative to the CIA,” and one at the Pentagon as well. Both get federal salaries but neither was “hired by CIA or the military through their personnel departments. Neither had done military training or trained at (CIA’s) ‘Farm’ as a spy.” Arrigo was disturbed and with good reason when orders from the top said back off.

It got worse. Arrigo worked at CIA for over 30 years and reported directly to Tenet. But she wasn’t prepared for what she found – a new section at the Agency without her knowledge. It employed 40 people, all working for Halliburton “while being paid by the US taxpayer as if they were CIA.” It was secret. No files were on them. They were never interviewed, never vetted, and she concluded: “CIA had a back door in its security to let Halliburton put anyone they wanted in (its) hallways. It was an outrageous (breach) of US National Security,” and in a post-9/11 “war on terrorism” climate.

She was shocked and told Tenet. His reply: “Yes, I know.” Head of CIA building security also knew. Arrigo asked what he’d do about it. His answer: “Keep my mouth shut so I can stay alive and I suggest you do the same.” She asked if he, CIA or Halliburton would kill her if she talked. He didn’t think so. Would national security firm CACI do it because it’s affiliated with Halliburton and also has a CIA back door for its personnel at the Agency.

Arrigo dug deeper. She got inside Halliburton’s area and asked questions. Why was the company shipping half the contracted for amounts and shortchanging the troops and taxpayers. It was no different for war zones. Halliburton “set up the same corrupt system of swing shift receivers (for) at least 3 continents. They received the cartons and signed (off) that the goods were all received properly. Then the shortages later were chalked up to thefts or war damage, etc.”

Arrigo again informed Tenet. His answer: “This is nothing new,” then added: “Have a report about it on my desk before Christmas (2001).” It got worse. Arrigo told Tenet he’s responsible for “correct(ing) Halliburton’s short-shipping and its invasion of the CIA.” He said he couldn’t because the White House tied his hands. Call Congress, Arrigo said. DCI “should be a man of courage.” Tenet ignored her, so Arrigo faxed documents revealing Halliburton fraud to GAO – omitting national security secrets. One of them crowed about the scheme’s profitability, and having high-level officials involved made it foolproof.

It was clever and even more devious than Arrigo imagined. Halliburton uses each shortage complaint as a new order. “In that way (it) never (loses) by having to make good for (what’s) missing,” and (it gets) paid double for the same merchandise.

Arrigo knew too much, took risks to learn it, and what happened next is shocking. Halliburton’s “CIA Representative” confronted her, tore out her phone, ransacked her office, removed every shred of paper, and hauled her off bodily “to a prison cell” inside its basement offices. She was intimidated and threatened. Thought she might be killed. She survived, but the message was clear. She complained to Tenet. Showed him her bruises. He responded dismissively: “There, there, everything will be all right in the morning.”

GAO still has Arrigo’s files. It began investigating but stopped. She thinks that Congress can resume it and asked Waxman to do it. That’s where things now stand.

Case 3: The White House Conspiracy to Cook the Books – Halliburton, Carlyle and CIA

In 2002, Arrigo tried a new tact – ingratiating herself with “Halliburton’s Man” and using it to her advantage. She offered cooperation for access to his space and make him think she was on his side. It worked, went on for four and one-half months through late May, and it paid off – with plenty of insider knowledge “about Halliburton and how it works.” Enough to fill a book, she says, but her account sticks to highlights.

First off, it’s pure myth that Dick Cheney stopped running the company. “He called in orders to the man I worked for almost every day and sometimes two or more times a day. He remained (Halliburton’s) functional head in all but name. No one….had the power to override his orders.” Second, Cheney never divested himself of Halliburton profits. “He merely hid how (he got them) through a series of shell companies.”

One of Arrigo’s jobs was to liaison between Halliburton and CIA’s “creative accounting departments.” In other words, their co-conspiratorial treasury looting efforts, and Arrigo got insider access to it. Her advanced math and computer software training qualified her. In a few months, she became expert in how CIA and Halliburton hid their “financial illegalities.”

She explained – “Computers are good ways to fool most people because (they don’t) look inside of them.” They can be programmed “to print out one set of books for regulators, another for Defense Contractors, another for the Pentagon, another for the taxpayer,” and so forth. It’s simple. Decide what you want, and machines will create it in any desired form. The trick is doing it expertly, most criminals can’t, so they need professionals to do it for them. It means crimes are never secret, and many computer experts know about them. CIA has always been tainted, kept it secret since inception, so far has been untouchable, but remains vulnerable to exposure by people of conscience like Arrigo.

She explained: Halliburton has eight software programmers at CIA. Its home office has many more. She was on conference calls with 60 of them on ways to conceal illegalities and assure none of it leaks out. The company has less expertise than CIA so the Agency took charge to make the two systems compatible. It took several years and over 100 programmers. They came, left for other jobs, and took insider knowledge with them. It risks more leaks about Halliburton, other contractors, CIA, the Pentagon, high-ups in government, and the Basel-based Bank of International Settlements for its part in corruption.

Many investigations are ongoing, but huge pressure is exerted to quash them. It’s feared leaks may unravel the whole scheme – a vast corruption web involving countless numbers of contractors, related companies, and many high level government and Pentagon insiders. Cover-up software hides it. Taxpayers fund it. Amounts keep getting greater, and they’re up to unimaginable levels.

Arrigo explained the system. Suppose Halliburton sold product A in 100 Lot Sizes, in Quantity X at Price Y to the Pentagon on a given date. Most civilian invoices disclose this. Pentagon ones don’t so contractors can cheat and Pentagon brass profit. Missing information conceals whether all merchandise was delivered as nothing indicates quantities shipped. Further, repackaging also hides proper amounts. Omitting the price alone conceals whether a shipment was shorted, but CIA is more clever than that. It experimented with “tested receivers at some of its front companies” to learn how best to deceive them. What works best is “shifting prices around like random noise” – one day this cost, another a different one, and so forth.

One company used a “gross overcharge method” that looked suspicious. It got receivers to discover the real price, and that defeated CIA’s scheme. When it works, it cooks the books, and no one’s the wiser. Ledger entries are inflated, undercut, omitted, added, or varied in amounts of similar transactions. Like a “professional crime institution,” CIA is expert at falsifying books so no one catches on. How? By random price variations to keep auditors off balance and unable to discover corruption patterns.

Another example:

CIA varies its front company prices monthly. Suppose Halliburton made a purchase “when it (used) a cost inflation idea of cheating. Halliburton (has) an incentive to inflate the cost of its purchases (to) justify (its) high (price) to the military.” So as standard practice it uses CIA’s highest price and claims that amount for its cost.

But comparing two sets of books reveals the scheme. So methodology became more sophisticated to conceal it. Halliburton takes CIA prices and doubles them on its books. It then claims the Agency recorded half the charge “accidently,” says its front company promised a 50% discount, but never delivered. CIA looks bad, and it balked. No matter. Halliburton still does it, but CIA has “lots of fronts with lots of customers and worse problems (to hide) than merely jacking up prices. Some fronts (are) fictitious and (make) no products.” Others have real customers plus fake ones to launder money. CIA tries to “make (their) crimes ‘undetectable.’ ” Halliburton hopes to “sneak by” until caught, then find a way to weasel out of it with minimal damage or cost.

Case 4: Halliburton’s Rigged Back Door Accounting Computer at the Pentagon

In early 2002, GAO got damning evidence: that Halliburton overbills and short-ships – deliberate fraudulent acts as standard company practice, confident it can get away with it, and most often it does.

GAO has the goods to expose it from Halliburton and Pentagon invoices. They reveal a problem. They don’t match, are grossly inflated, and payments exceed amounts billed – by about 35%. Arrigo met with GAO and compared notes. Halliburton has similar Pentagon and CIA-paid staff, and George Bush approved it in a secret Executive Order Arrigo has for proof. She gave it to GAO plus other documents showing national security is compromised and taxpayers cheated – hugely.

One document lists Halliburton’s CIA and Pentagon staff, what little official records discloses about them, their secret office locations, and information on their private security staff. Arrigo discovered that Halliburton’s top CIA man served time for felony fraud. Another at Pentagon was convicted as well – for stealing Army vehicles, then profiteering by transshipping them overseas.

Dick Cheney knew, blocked background checks to conceal it, but Arrigo found out and about the Pentagon fraud that followed. She has a handwritten Cheney memo instructing his man “to make sure that the Pentagon pays us all that it owes us and then some.” CIA’s forgery department verified the writing is Cheney’s.

Arrigo also has a letter from Halliburton’s Pentagon man to his CIA counterpart, and it’s damning. He brags how he’s “getting more than we bargained for (from) the Pentagon” and suggested they get together to compare notes. They did and Arrigo taped it. The evidence once more is damning – about how easy it is to scam the system; befriend accounting personnel; install company programmers; check bills supposedly behind in payments; install a special software code for higher amounts; and do all of the above at Pentagon and CIA.

Arrigo informed George Tenet so he’d stop “Halliburton from ripping off the American taxpayer via the CIA and Pentagon.” Tenet hardly blinked and responded casually: “Well, you certainly have done a thorough job as usual.” He then offered to inform the White House to “correct the problem.” Arrigo did herself, GAO as well, and later learned that the Bush administration (likely Dick Cheney) blocked an investigation.

This article covers four of Arrigo’s 12 cases. Their evidence is damning and shows systemic contractor, government, CIA and Pentagon fraud involving enormous amounts of money. One or more articles will follow if more material can be obtained. It’s not what Pentagon and CIA want outed so getting it is never simple and revealing it not without risks.

Pelosi August 24, 2008

Posted by tetrahedron in Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , ,
comments closed

Hello Browneyed girl ! very interesting point you make… why Pelosi refused to allow impeachment? Well, it’s nothing short of her saving the hides of the majority of congress, being brought up on charges, as well; Because they ‘ve allowed this administraion to do whatever they wanted…Because they all had a common goal and that was, and is, to…Have this war with Iraq and Afghanistan to control their oil and resources for their own selfish and personal gains, and to hell with the people and the Constitution. and what Bill of Rights?

B

%d bloggers like this: