dinsdag 21 oktober 2014

Media Corruptie 12












De aan hysterie grenzende anti-Rusland propaganda van mainstream opiniemakers als Hubert Smeets leidt tot onder andere het volgende:

Ex-minister Sikorski (BuZa) vertelt dat Poetin suggereerde om Oekraine weer te verdelen tussen Rus en Polen.

Acht uur later is Smeets gedwongen de bewering te rectificeren, aangezien:

Sikorski ontkent dat Poetin bij Tusk heeft geopperd Oekraine te verdelen tussen Rusland + Polen. Tegenvaller Politico 

Inderdaad 'een tegenvaller,' niet alleen voor 'Politico,' maar ook voor Hubert Smeets die deze canard geloofde om de eenvoudige reden dat hij anti-Poetin is. Let wel, ik verdedig hier niet de president van de Russische Federatie, die net zo min deugt als president Obama en de meeste andere politici van grootmachten, maar ik probeer aan te tonen hoe tendentieus de westerse berichtgeving is. Smeets' bron staat niet bekend als volstrekt onafhankelijk:

Politico is an American political journalism organization based in Arlington County, Virginia, that distributes its content via television, the Internet, newspaper and radio,

en prijst zichzelf aan met beloften als:

We created POLITICO with a simple promise: to prove there's a robust and profitable future for tough, fair and fun coverage of politics and government… We break down the traditional journalistic conventions that make stories dull, predictable and often unreadable… We never lose sight of our most important audience—the political and government decision makers nationwide… We never forget that complacency in the modern media is a deadly cancer. We constantly innovate, both in journalism and as a business proposition. In recent years, we have moved in and captured the dominant market position in providing subscriber-only information on the most important public policy debates with POLITICO Pro and hosting sponsored newsmaking events with the country's most powerful elected officials… We are proud that six years in, the passion to deliver exactly what readers and advertisers need burns more powerfully than ever. 

Politico is een commercieel Amerikaans 'magazine' dat de neoliberale belangen van de  expansionistische Amerikaanse politieke en economische elite verdedigt, en in het kader daarvan ook actief is op het gebied van 'hosting sponsored newsmaking events with the country's most powerful elected officials.' Desondanks, of beter nog, juist daarom citeert Hubert Smeets maar al te graag en te snel negatieve informatie zodra het over het 'Rusland van Poetin' gaat. De achterliggende oorzaak van zijn anti-Poetin propaganda is duidelijk: president Poetin verdedigt de belangen van de Russische elite, en is daardoor een hinderpaal voor het expansionisme van de parasitaire neoliberale elite, met haar 1 procent allerrijksten die nu 48 procent van alle rijkdommen op aarde bezit. In de ogen van de NRC-opiniemaker moet 'Poetin' daarom wijken voor de gangster Michail Borisovitsj Chodorkovski, een Russische 'oligarch, snel rijk geworden over de ruggen van vele anderen, een man die absoluut over lijken ging,' aldus de Volkskrant-correspondent in Rusland, Olaf Koens. Op een rücksichtsloze manier wist Chodorkovski in één decennium de op vijftien na rijkste man ter wereld te worden. Omdat hij een neoliberale politiek voorstaat, die de belangen van de westerse 'oligarchen' in de kaart speelt, is hij in de ogen van Smeets het 'democratisch' alternatief, dat Rusland zo brood nodig heeft om op te stoten in de vaart der volkeren. Om Smeets' verlangen op waarde te kunnen inschatten dienen wij te weten hoe dat 'alternatief' in het Westen is uitgewerkt. Ik vrees niet al te best als we ondermeer uitgaan van de kwalificatie van de Amerikaanse onafhankelijke senator Bernie Sanders dat 

'We are not living in a democracy when 60 percent of Americans are not voting, while billionaires like the Koch Brothers are spending hundreds of millions to buy the United States Senate,' he said. 'We are not living in a democracy when giant corporations like Chevron can buy local governments. That's called oligarchy, not democracy.  We have got to fight back.'
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/10/17/purchase-election-chevron-shows-we-have-oligarchy-not-democracy-sanders

Die waarheid past niet in de neoliberale propaganda van Hubert Smeets. Vandaar dat hij deze werkelijkheid verzwijgt evenals de realiteit zoals die in het boek Four Horsemen. The Survival Manual (2012) wordt beschreven als 'Elite power and unearned wealth,' waarbij een uiterst belangrijk gemeenschappelijk element opvalt in de

descriptions of how the banking sector and the financial markets make money: they do so not by creating real wealth but by manipulating a virtual-money economy. They can only do this because the banks are able to create money at will. This would be fine if they were dealing in matchsticks or Monopoly money, but they are dealing in the same money that is essential to the process of creating real wealth. The real wealth they purchase with money so acquired is entirely unearned…
Unearned wealth is the principal basis for the exercise of elite power.
Democracy didn’t deliver the current economic and financial system. In a properly functioning democracy the economy would be configured to serve the interests of the majority, not a tiny minority. It is the power and influence of a global elite and the coterie of professionals that serves them which sets the global economic agenda today. Why democratically elected governments are unable to challenge this power is a matter for debate. Perhaps they realize that the only way to curb it is through reforms so radical that the mere thought stops them sleeping at night. Whatever the reason, the path to a just and inclusive economy will not be clear until ways are found to curb the privilege of unearned wealth. The only way to do this is to acknowledge and then tackle elite power and entrenched privilege.
The process by which unearned wealth is acquired is sometimes described as ‘rent seeking’… it is the business of earning money, not by investing effort and resources in trying to generate new wealth, but by working to secure for oneself a greater share of already existing wealth. Whereas profit seeking describes the process of investing capital in return for a share of the new wealth created, rent seeking is about skimming off a share of wealth created by others… In such cases, the distribution of income between wages and capital is altered substantially, even though the new ‘capital’ supplied makes no contribution to wealth creation. The income earned by rent seekers often comes in the form of land rent. Russian oligarchs, for example, owe their immense wealth to the fact that they were effectively given free use of vast quantities of natural resources after the fall of communism… Regardless of the propaganda, none of these activities generates any new wealth or adds any real value to society.

There is a further form of rent seeking, driven by more established methods, that has recently become rampant and which negatively impacts the labour market. If, with the proceeds of their rent-seeking activities, top executives of banks and financial institutions pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses, the labour market dictates that senior execs in firms that do create real wealth should be similarly rewarded. This skews the market mechanism because it doesn’t distinguish between the CEO of a rent-seeking investment bank and the CEO of a wealth-creating firm: both end up earning inflated salaries. In order to justify these, they have to keep their shareholders happy. They do this by rewarding them with higher dividends. As a result, a disproportionate share of revenue is taken by shareholders at the expense of wages. Within the distribution of wages, a similarly disproportionate share goes to senior executives at the expense of the rest of the workforce. This doesn’t reflect any change in the contributions of capital and labour, or within the relative contributions of different sections of the workforce; it is a direct result of the impact of rent-seeking behavior on the labour market. It explains the massive increase in the pay multiples earned by senior executives compared with other employees over the last three decades.
The Greek philosopher Plato said the ratio of earnings between the highest and lowest paid in any organization should be no more than six to one. In 1923, banker J.P. Morgan declared that twenty to one was optimum. Today the earnings ratio between the highest and lowest paid in large corporations can be as much as a thousand to one. Herman Daly (gezaghebbende Amerikaanse hoogleraar, voormalige beleidsbepalende econoom van de World Bank svh) has a clear insight into the problems this causes: 'when you are up in the range of five hundred to one inequality, the rich and the poor become almost different species, no longer members of the same community. Commonality of interest is lost and so it’s difficult to form community and to have good, friendly relationships across class differences that are that large.'

De kloof tussen arm en rijk blijft wereldwijd toenemen. Dit verklaart ook de groeiende sociale onrust, zowel in het Westen, maar vooral daarbuiten, waar de helft van alle individuen op aarde probeert te overleven op 1 tot 2 dollar per dag. Ondertussen wordt de toekomst van de hele mensheid bedreigd:
As we look across the globe this month, the signs of a continued escalation of the impacts of runaway anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) continue to increase, alongside a drumbeat of fresh scientific studies confirming their connection to the ongoing human geo-engineering project of emitting carbon dioxide at ever-increasing rates into the atmosphere.

major study recently published in New Scientist found that 'scientists may have hugely underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern hemisphere seas were inaccurate,' and said that ACD is 'worse than we thought' because it is happening 'faster than we realized.'

As has become predictable now, as evidence of increasing ACD continues to mount, denial and corporate exploitation are accelerating right along with it.

The famed Northwest Passage is now being exploited by luxury cruise companies. Given the ongoing melting of the Arctic ice cap, a company recently announced a 900-mile, 32-day luxury cruise there, with fares starting at $20,000, so people can luxuriate while viewing the demise of the planetary ecosystem.
This, while even mainstream scientists now no longer view ACD in the future tense, but as a reality that is already well underway and severely impacting the planet.

It is good that even the more conservative scientists have come aboard the reality train, because a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-led (NOAA) study published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society has provided yet more evidence linking ACD with extreme heat events.

To provide perspective on how far along we are regarding runaway ACD, another recent study shows that the planet's wildlife population is less than half the size it was four decades ago. The culprits are both ACD and unsustainable human consumption, coupling to destroy habitats faster than previously thought, as biodiversity loss has now reached 'critical levels,' according to the report. More than half of the vertebrate population on the planet has been annihilated in just four decades.

Feiten zijn evenwel voor de polderpers van minder belang, de ware bedreiging vormt 'meneer Poetin,' die, zoals Smeets' vriend Geert Mak beweert, 'Europa [dwingt] om meer aan defensie uit te geven,' aangezien de militaire uitgaven van de NAVO (meer dan elf keer die van Rusland), kennelijk nog steeds onvoldoende zijn om de polderpers het gevoel van veiligheid te geven. De enige die van deze paranoïde levenshouding profiteert, is, zoals bekend, het westers militair industrieel complex, in dienst van de neoliberale economische macht. De voormalige 'onder secretaris-generaal van de Verenigde Naties,' Denis J. Halliday wees in het voorwoord van The Globalization of NATO (2012) op het grote gevaar van de militarisering van het Westen:
Martin Luther King, Jr. said that 'those who love peace must learn to organize as effectively as those who love war.' Tragically the leaders of the NATO countries do love war and the arms profits from warfare. Clearly, they are very well organized. To thinking people, the current expansion of NATO is eroding the minds of politicians while infusing fear into the minds of real people. The new arms race and massive expenditures on weapons in a time of growing global hunger, poverty and unemployment is poisoning international relations, further reinforcing corruption of decision making in the UN Security Council and undermining the wellbeing of billions of world citizens. For change, we must turn to youth throughout the world who have the courage to organize and protest injustice, inequality. Their in-the-straat demands for the right to expect peace, social justice and a sustainable future is negated everyday NATO is enabled to expand into an unauthorized world police force with illicit and dangerous military credentials. Ineffective as a peacemaker although the UN has become, NATO has no proven interest whatsoever in peace and non-violent coexistence. Warfare is the most profitable business of all. The military arms industry keeps entire economics afloat. Peace would put NATO out of the large scale and rewarding killing business… 
Dit fundamentele aspect van de gigantisch hoge uitgaven aan zogenaamde 'defensie'  wordt voortdurend met zorg verzwegen door de mainstream-propagandisten. Het militair-industrieel complex van alle NAVO-landen, dat tezamen elk jaar weer meer dan 1 biljoen dollar aan belastinggeld ontvangt, dus 1.000.000.000.000, oftewel een miljoen maal een miljoen, moet natuurlijk zijn bestaan rechtvaardigen. Het moet allereerst een vijand hebben en het liefst meerdere; daarnaast moet het met de regelmaat van de klok oorlog voeren, anders is er al snel geen plaats meer voor nieuw oorlogstuig in de wapenarsenalen en moet de productie ervan vertraagd of misschien zelfs gestopt worden. Bovendien raakt het krijgsmaterieel verouderd als het niet op tijd wordt gebruikt. Bovendien is de NAVO genoodzaakt om regelmatig 'strafoperaties,' ofwel 'corrigerende tikken' als 'tuchtmaatregel' uit te delen aan 'weerspannige volkeren,' om het krankzinnige jargon van Volkskrant-opiniemaker Paul Brill te lenen. De NAVO is, in deze fascistische optiek, gedwongen te intimideren door middel van 'preventief' geweld, anders dreigen inferieure volkeren al snel te vergeten wat 'Europese waarden,' zijn, zoals daar zijn: 'vrijheid en democratie.' De Ierse oud VN-functionaris Denis Halliday:

Today NATO is a much more dangerous thug, very violent in manner with questionable purpose but financed and backstopped by an empire in demise. NATO understands its own aggression as a device to encircle the world with military capacity, gift the arms manufacturing corporations amongst its member states with permanent demand and openly threaten states it deems to have potential for competitive leadership. A redundant military alliance today long after the Cold War passed, NATO constantly seeks new resources, new weapons and new members to pursue violence against non-existent enemies, creating opportunities for warfare that require nothing more than dialogue, cooperation in a mature and civilized manner. There in nothing mature or civilized about NATO, or its leadership. 

Of course NATO can be viewed from various different angles. Looking from China and Russia, it must appear to be a dangerous fiction of collaboration by countries that have no reason to be frightened or feel threatened. These two large sovereign states must see NATO as an opportunistic alliance looking for enhanced hegemony and power. 

Maar een dergelijke kijk op de zaak kan een mainstream-journalist zich niet permitteren. Hij mag de belangen van het militair industrieel complex van de neoliberale economische macht niet dwarsbomen, en dus schreef bijvoorbeeld Volkskrant-opiniemaker Fokke Obbema in zijn krant van 8 maart 2014:

EU vuurt te bescheiden raket 

Poetin zal niet onder de indruk zijn van de Europese besluiten in reactie op zijn bezetting vans de Krim… Rusland heeft de Krim onrechtmatig bezet en daarmee de territoriale integriteit van een Europese staat geschonden. Dat volkenrechtelijk principe wordt door aansluiting nog verder geweld aangedaan. Door de voorafgaande bezetting komt dat neer op annexatie — een voor de Europese vrede uiterst gevaarlijk precedent… 

Niettemin zullen de Europese leiders op enig moment met geloofwaardige sancties moeten komen. Zij moeten de bereidheid aan de dag leggen de prijs daarvoor te betalen. Want uiteindelijk moet het belang van veiligheid en stabiliteit op langere termijn zwaarder wegen dan de economische belangen van dit moment.

Dat een dergelijke confrontatie kan uitlopen op een gewapend, zelfs nucleair conflict waarbij de mensenrechten op grote schaal zullen worden geschonden, speelt geen rol van betekenis voor Obbema,  voormalig 'Press officer. Amnesty International. 1981 – 1984 (3 jaar).' Van doorslaggevend belang voor de mainstream-opiniemaker is zijn/haar eigen status en inkomen, en natuurlijk de schouderklopjes van de economische en politieke macht. Hoor en wederhoor past niet in een dergelijke corrupte journalistiek. Het standpunt en inzicht van de 'vijand' zijn van geen belang. De oud 'UN Assistant Secretary-General' Denis Halliday:

Astonishingly, NATO is tolerated by the same European countries that know the unacceptable horrors of total warfare and have no inclination to return to a living hell. Others like Canada, Australia and the USA that have no in-country experience of modern war are cavalier with the young human resources at their disposal. They seduce young people into their military forces with handsome financial rewards, and call them heroes when they lose their lives for nought. Extraordinarily, some are awarded citizenship posthumously.

As an Irishman, the NATO presence is an unwanted danger to the EU project of active togetherness. To the EU states committed to genuine peacekeeping NATO is an affront. It represents the economic and hegemonic need of American regimes in Washington to continue the occupation of Europe with troops and weapons, including nuclear. Instead, the US should be disarming, ands investing in the poverty of its own people, dealing with its economic collapse and adjusting to the pain of a declining empire facing its demise. 

Het zal iedereen duidelijk zijn dat de berichtgeving van de polderpers geen ruimte openlaat voor deze context waarin de dagelijkse werkelijkheid zich voltrekt. Dit moet verzwegen blijven. Wat het systeem van de 'vrije pers' verwacht is het demoniseren van de 'vijand' om zo de weg vrij te maken voor een nieuwe oorlogen. Dat is de voornaamste reden waarom juist Hubert Smeets en zijn collega's als mainstream opiniemakers zijn aangesteld en geen kritische journalisten. Later meer over de corrupte media.


Volkskrant-opiniemaker Fokke Obbema: 'EU vuurt te bescheiden raket.' 




James Risen

Oct
20
2014

Official Sources May Be the Only Sources

Risen case tests reporters' power to reveal government wrongdoing


New York Timesinvestigative reporter James Risen is taking a stand. Despite being hounded by both the Bush and Obama administrations to reveal his sources, he has vowed to go to jail rather than abandon his pledge of confidentiality.
As fellow journalists and journalism advocacy groups rush to his side, many fear that the US Department of Justice within the self-proclaimed “most transparent administration in history” is preparing to deliver a body blow to the First Amendment’s promise of press freedom.
“This case is the closest we’ve come to the edge of the precipice, to reporter/source privilege being banned,” said Jesselyn Radack, director of national security and human rights for the Government Accountability Project, in a phone interview.
Risen, a Pulitzer Prize–winning reporter, has been ordered by the DoJ to testify in the prosecution of former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling, who is accused of leaking information about a botched Clinton-era CIA mission to give Iran phony nuclear information—which ended up giving Iran real information on how to build a bomb. Risen wrote about the failed operation in his 2006 book State of War.
Risen was initially subpoenaed by the Bush administration in 2008, but the order expired as the reporter fought against it through the courts. To the surprise of many, the subpoena was renewed under President Obama in 2010—despite repeated calls to drop the pursuit.
“Risen informed the public about the dangerous stupidity of a CIA operation and seriously embarrassed the agency in the process,” said Norman Solomon, a longtime FAIR associate and co-founder of RootsAction.org, an online advocacy group, in an email exchange. “Evidently a pair of unforgivable sins in the eyes of both the Bush and Obama administrations.”
If the government does uphold its subpoena and Risen is punished for taking his stand, journalists and free press advocates say that this would set a dangerous precedent for the interpretation of press freedom under the First Amendment.
“Functionally, a reporter will no longer be able to promise source confidentiality,” Radack explained. “This will impact people who want to disclose wrongdoing,” she said. “Whistleblowers disclosing fraud, waste, abuse and illegality will no longer go to the press.”
Robust investigative journalism has already suffered from budget cuts and waning interest in long-form journalism, and this “chilling effect” on sources will provide the “final nail in the coffin of the free press as we know it,” Radack added.
In 2011, a federal District Court ruled that Risen could not be compelled by the government to reveal his sources. “A criminal trial subpoena is not a free pass for the government to rifle through a reporter’s notebook,” wrote District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema, adding that Risen was protected by a limited “reporter’s privilege” under the First Amendment.
The government challenged that decision, and in 2013, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, reinstated the subpoena, arguing that the First Amendment did not protect Risen from being forced to testify against his source.
In June 2014, Risen’s legal battle reached an insurmountable barrier when the US Supreme Court refused to take up his case, affirming the lower court ruling. Now Risen will have to testify or face contempt of court charges, which can lead to either imprisonment or up to $1,000 a day in fines.
After the high court passed on the case, Risen’s attorney, Joel Kurtzberg, told the Committee to Protect Journalists (6/2/14) that he hopes the government won’t hold Risen in contempt “for doing nothing other than reporting the news and keeping his promise to his source.” He noted that the “ball is now in the government’s court.”
On August 14, a coalition of journalists, media advocacy groups and independent media outlets delivered over 100,000 signatures to the Department of Justice, calling on the Obama administration to drop its subpoena.
The petition—organized by Roots Action along with FAIR, the Center for Media and Democracy, Freedom of the Press Foundation, The Nation Institute and The Progressiveargues that “without confidentiality, journalism would be reduced to official stories—a situation antithetical to the First Amendment.”
On the day the petition was turned in, Risen was joined by a number of free press advocates, including Radack and Solomon, at a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC. Speaking before the roomful of reporters, Risen said, “The real reason I’m doing this is for the future of journalism.”
“Freedom of the press is the most important freedom,” agreed Delphine Halgand, director of Reporters Without Borders’ Washington office, who also spoke at the press conference. “It is the freedom that allows us to verify the existence of all other freedoms.”
When asked about the Risen case at a closed-door meeting with a group of journalists, Attorney General Eric Holder (New York Times, 5/28/14) reportedly declared, “As long as I’m attorney general, no reporter who is doing his job is going to go to jail.”
Despite this pronouncement, the prosecution of whistleblowers has become a mainstay of Obama’s presidency (Extra!9/11; FAIR Media Advisory, 8/27/13). During his time in office, the DoJ has pursued eight prosecutions of leakers under the Espionage Act, more than double the total number of such prosecutions since the law was enacted.
McClatchy News (6/20/13) also revealed the existence of a government employee “tattletale” program. By having government employees spying and reporting on each other, the Obama initiative, dubbed “Insider Threat,” aims to thwart future leakers.

The 2014 Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index ranks the US in 46th place--down 14 positions from 2013, due to its "hunt for leaks and whistleblowers."
According to the Reporters Without Borders’ annual Press Freedom Index (2/12/14), the US dropped 14 positions from 2013 to 2014, and now ranks 46th worldwide. The report notes:
In the US, the hunt for leaks and whistleblowers serves as a warning to those thinking of satisfying a public interest need for information about the imperial prerogatives assumed by the world’s leading power.
Advocates say to ensure the protection of journalists in this post-9/11 surveillance state, it is critical to pass a federal shield law that will protect reporters from being forced to disclose confidential information or sources in court. (Most states have some sort of law or protection in place.)
There is a shield bill currently making its way through Congress—S. 987, known as the Free Flow of Information Act—though there is concern that the legislation has too many loopholes that allow the government to claim broad “national security” exceptions and leave some whistleblowers 
without protection (Dissenter5/12/14).
In a recent interview with Times colleague Maureen Dowd (8/17/14), Risen referenced Obama’s “most transparent administration” claim.
“It’s hypocritical,” Risen said. “A lot of people...don’t want to believe that Obama wants to crack down on the press and whistleblowers. But he does. He’s the greatest enemy to press freedom in a generation.”
Among those who have come to Risen’s defense are 21 fellow Pulitzer Prize–winning reporters, who each signed the Roots Action petition and issued personal statements on his behalf.
Included in the testimonies is one from Risen’s New York Times colleague Barry Bearak, who wrote that Risen “is carrying the banner for every American journalist.”
“If he goes to jail,” Bearak continued, “a good bit of our nation’s freedom will be locked away with him.” 
Lauren McCauley is an assistant editor at the website Common Dreams and a documentary producer; her most recent film is Mississippi Messiah, about civil rights leader James Meredith.
Daniel Ellsberg, New York Times
Daneil Ellsberg: The New York Times "thinks of leakers, wrongly, as having clearly broken the law."
Sidebar: NYT Has Benefitted From Leakers—but Not Vice Versa
As the Department of Justice doggedly pursues Pulitzer Prize–winner James Risen, the New York Times has been forced to enter the fray of the government’s so-called “war on information.”
The Times, like many mainstream publications, has openly acknowledged its practice of seeking government approval for sensitive stories (2/6/13), and often serves as a government mouthpiece by publishing sanctioned “leaks” of information.
And although the Times has benefitted enormously from actual leaks of government secrets that were vital for the public to know, it has historically maintained a cautious—if not skeptical—distance from those who risked their careers and liberty to reveal such truths.
Despite publishing the invaluable Pentagon Papers, which exposed government deceptions about the Vietnam War, the Times refused to provide leaker Daniel Ellsberg with any help in his criminal case. According to Ellsberg, then–executive editor Abe Rosenthal told the whistleblower that the paper had no policy for supporting a source who is being prosecuted for leaking information.
“The Times,” Ellsberg explained, “thinks of leakers, wrongly, as having clearly broken the law.”
The paper has given even less support to Chelsea Manning, despite having partnered with Wikileaks in July 2010 to release important revelations from the hundreds of thousands of classified war logs and State Department cables revealed by Manning.
In addition to disparaging her character and questioning her motives in a Bill Keller column (3/11/13), the Times treated Manning’s trial as a nonevent—not sending a single reporter, and only running one AP wire story (12/30/12) on it.
Later, New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan (5/12/12) wrote that the paper had “missed the boat” by not covering Manning’s pretrial testimony.
The paper did run an editorial (1/1/14) supporting NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden; however, that was months after an earlier editorial (8/6/13) essentially calling for Snowden to be extradited for prosecution.
In a January 2013 column about the prosecution of Chelsea Manning, journalist Glenn Greenwald warned corporate media that they “might want to take a serious interest” in the case and “marshal opposition to what is being done to Bradley Manning.”
He continued: “If not out of concern for the injustices to which he is being subjected, then out of self-interest, to ensure that their reporters and their past and future whistleblowing sources cannot be similarly persecuted.”
It seems that time has come. --L.McC

NATO WARS

Na eerst meegeholpen te hebben met het scheppen van een totale chaos in Irak, dreigt nu het volgende:

NATO to help train Iraq's military?

Unsuccessful US airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS) are causing a growing chorus of American officials to lobby for troops on the ground. But an exclusive report from Foreign Policy suggests that the Obama administration wants a reinforced Iraqi army to bear the main burden of taking the fight to ISIS. This would entail an enhanced training programme for the Iraqi military.
 
Citing information from "a person familiar with joint assessments by the American-led coalition and the Iraqi government," the publication explains:
 
The expanded retraining effort being proposed by the US may require as many as 1,000 foreign trainers from the US, UK, France, Germany and Australia to restore the beleaguered Iraqi security forces to a battle-ready state led by American advisers, said the person who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no decisions have been made. The US already has about 1,500 advisers in the country, and Western European allies have signalled their ability to send hundreds of trainers each, the person said. …
 
The US is hoping that many of the NATO members will readily consent to sending their troops to train Iraqi forces particularly after troubling revelations that citizens from Western Europe and Australia are both victims and participants alongside ISIS.
 
NATO officials have previously indicated a willingness to consider a training mission to Iraq. Alliance leaders at their recent summit in Wales noted in their communiqué that:
 
We re-affirm NATO’s continued commitment to the NATO-Iraq partnership, through which we will revitalise our effort to help Iraq build more effective security forces […] Should the Iraqi government request it, NATO will stand ready to consider measures in the framework of NATO’s Defence and Related Security Capacity Building Initiative with an eye to launching such an effort in the near term.
 
NATO already has experience with such a mission. It had 300 trainers working with the Iraqi military and Ministry of Defence between 2008 and 2011. But that mission ended in December 2011.
 
In a related article Foreign Policy reported that in spite of the US State Department's claim that about 60 nations are participating in the coalition against ISIS, there are only 21 "core coalition members" and a recent meeting "produced no immediate announcements of new commitments."
 
Although ISIS is closing in on the Syrian-Turkish border, Turkey, has not sent troops against ISIS out of fear of "being made the fall guy for the United States not having a coherent Syrian policy," according to Reuters.
 
The UK and France have launched airstrikes, and Germany has committed to funding 'moderate rebels' to fight ISIS, but "getting their parliaments to approve sending ground troops into a warzone to train Iraqi forces is likely to be enormously complicated."
 
The UK is also adding Reaper drones to its air power operating in Iraq, according to a report in Defense News. UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said in a statement to Parliament that surveillance and strike missions conducted by the Reaper will start shortly and build up as the aircraft are withdrawn from Afghanistan. The indications are that two (of Britain's 10) Reapers will be deployed initially. The US Air Force is already operating Reapers over Iraq and Syria. 
“The deployment is the first operational use of UK Reaper outside of support to our operations in Afghanistan, where we are beginning to withdraw the aircraft. As Reaper numbers in Afghanistan reduce, we intend to move more of them to the Middle East,” Fallon said. Britain already has eight Tornado jets, a Rivet Joint signals intelligence aircraft and an inflight refuelling aircraft operating in Iraq from an RAF base in Akrotiri, Cyprus. In Afghanistan the Reapers are based at Kandahar but the remotely piloted vehicles are flown operationally by crews sitting in RAF Waddington in the UK.  

Zionist Fascism 276

Jewish volunteers for racial supremacy in Palestine

4 August 2014

140804-israel-army.jpg

Thousands of young Jewish fighters from Europe and its colonial extensions have volunteered themselves for Israel’s colonial army.
 (Yotam Ronen / ActiveStills)
The European Christian fight for anti-Semitism was always a fight to grant Christians superior rights to Jews and to institutionalize that superiority as racial and religious supremacy.
In response, the European Jewish fight against anti-Semitism was and remains a fight against the reduction of the rights of Jews (if not their elimination altogether in the case of the Nazis), against the project to render European Jews an inferior species of citizens, and against white European Christian supremacy.
This has been a historical fight that multitudes of non-Jews have joined on both sides. However, ultimately it was European Jewish fighters against anti-Semitism and their gentile allies who won this key battle against inequality, oppression, racial and religious discrimination and genocide.
The European Jewish and Protestant fight (the latter preceded the former by three centuries) for Zionism, in contrast, has been and remains a fight to grant European Jews more rights than non-Jews (and non-European Jews) on a religious, ethnic and racial basis.
This superiority would be granted especially vis-à-vis Palestinian citizens of the Jewish settler-colony (if not eliminating their rights altogether as many Zionist Jews call for), as well as eliminating the rights of the Palestinians in the territories Israel occupied and colonized since 1967 and those it expelled and exiled since 1948 outside the borders of their homeland.
Multitudes of Jews and non-Jews have also joined this historical fight for racism, discrimination and colonialism. The Palestinians and their Jewish and non-Jewish allies refuse to give up and continue to resist Zionism’s insistence that European (and other) Jews must have superior and supremacist colonial, racial and religious rights in Palestine.
The Jewish fight for Zionism (which has never included and still does not include all Jews) is the exact opposite of the Jewish fight against anti-Semitism (which also never included all Jews); the former is a fight for European Jewish supremacy while the latter is against European Aryan and Christian supremacy.
This in a nutshell exposes the outright Zionist lie that claims that the struggle against anti-Semitism and the struggle for Zionism are one and the same.

Recruiting Jews to kill Palestinians

This is important to consider when we examine the international Zionist Jewish brigades that have volunteered to join the Israeli colonial army with much eagerness to kill Arabs and Palestinians. This has been a successful project in light of the mobilizational Zionist and Israeli Jewish propaganda in the last seven decades among the Jewish communities of the United States, France, the United Kingdom, Canada, Russia and Argentina, to name the most prominent Jewish communities outside Israel.
This propaganda campaign aimed at transforming members of these communities from fighters against white Christian supremacy into fighters for European Jewish racial and colonial supremacy.
The dissemination of racist Israeli Jewish culture internationally goes hand-in-hand with Zionism’s pan-Jewishism, whereby, just as anti-Semitism speaks against all Jews, Zionism claims to speak for all of them — and reassures Jews that Israel is their country and that they should move to colonize it, failing which it would function as a spare country awaiting their arrival on a need to colonize basis.
That the major North American and European organizations that claim to speak for Jews have endorsed Israel’s right to speak for them and have been the major conduits for the hateful racist Israeli Jewish propaganda against the Palestinian people makes them fully complicit in the ongoing slaughter and oppression of the Palestinians. This is especially so given that they openly support anti-Palestinian Israeli colonial policies and urge their respective governments and media to do the same. (We must keep in mind these organizations and their wealthy leaders are not elected by members of the Jewish communities but appoint themselves as their representatives and speak for them in these organizations’ newspapers, which constitute what is referred to as the “Jewish” press.)
This is not to say that members of the Jewish communities are not pro-Israel and fervently anti-Palestinian, which they are in their majority, but it is to say that polls have shown them to be less murderous and hateful than the organizations claiming to represent them.

140804-israel-chicago.jpg

Organized Jewish communities are generally pro-Israel and fervently anti-Palestinian.
 (Tess Scheflan / ActiveStills)
Thus, Israel has created a hegemonic racist Jewish culture that does not only dominate Israeli Jewish communities but also Jewish communities in Europe and its settler colonial extensions (in the Americas, in Australia and in South Africa). This, however, was never sufficiently successful to produce millions of Jewish volunteers for Israel’s colonial cause (no matter how much European and American Jews support Zionism and Israel, few would want to fight or die for it). But it did create the conditions for thousands of young Jewish (mostly male) fighters for European racial supremacy to join the Israeli colonial army seeking to prove the superiority of European Jewishness (and a concomitant European Jewish manliness) by slaughtering Palestinians.
The Israeli colonial army advertises several programs to accommodate international Jewish volunteers for the oppression of the Palestinians. It provides them with the option to serve in the Israeli army in “full combat and support roles,” namely in its “Mahal” program, to fulfill their commitment to the Zionist cause of European Jewish supremacy without necessarily having to become Israeli citizens.
There is also the smaller “Marva” program in which young teenage Jewish recruits for Zionist Jewish supremacy can participate “in this immersive army program, serving alongside fellows from countries around the world.”
Israel’s killing machine proudly declares that “over 300 Jewish teens from all around the world volunteer to serve” in the Israeli colonial army annually as part of the four thousand “Jewish and non-Jewish” volunteers who “fly to Israel and volunteer in the IDF [Israeli military] for several weeks.” These may not be impressive numbers, but there are more.
One of the programs engineered to recruit Jewish youth for racial and religious supremacy is the “Garin Tzabar” project. Garin Tzabar means “cactus seed,” or “Sabra seed,” in reference to Palestine-born Israeli Jews, hence the importance of this program as a reproductive and masculinist project aimed at populating the Jewish settler-colony with more Zionist Jews committed to the superiority of European (and other) Jews over Palestinians.
Garin Tzabar, according to the Israeli colonial army, has “already helped over 1,500 teens from all around the world join the IDF and approximately 70 percent of the immigrants have stayed in Israel after their service.”
Garin Tzabar is not the only volunteer program. There are others like the “Sar-El” program, which claims that it has brought between 1983 and 2011 “more than a hundred thousand volunteers to Israel … 
Staying in Israel for several weeks, the participants share a true IDF experience on IDF bases” (Israel refers to these European and American volunteers for Jewish racial supremacy as “lone soldiers”).
The Israeli military claimed that in 2012, “5,500 lone soldiers” were serving in its colonial forces whereas today it claims to have 4,600 volunteers, one-third of whom are Americans.
In the ongoing barbaric slaughter of Gaza Palestinians, two of the Palestinian baby-killing Jewish soldiers (as I’ve written previously, targeting and killing Palestinian children is an old Zionist tradition) who were killed by the Palestinian resistance were American Jewish volunteers for Jewish racial and colonial supremacy.
They quickly became heroes for the American press, “Jewish” and “gentile” alike. Indeed an article appeared in The Washington Post to show how these baby-killers are different from Muslim foreign fighters who volunteered to overthrow the Afghani communist government and more recently several Arab governments (“‘Foreign Fighters’ for Israel,” David Malet, 22 July 2014). Few, however, mention the White European and American Christian mercenary foreign fighters who have served tyrannies around the word since the Second World War.

Colonial recruitment

These Israeli volunteer programs build on the legacy of the four thousand Jewish volunteers who came to fight the Zionist colonial war of 1948 that captured Palestine and expelled its population and established the European Jewish-supremacist settler-colony. Known as Mahal, the main volunteer program included American Jews as prominent and important members assisting in Israel’s colonial conquest.
They included Mickey Marcus, an American Jewish US Army colonel who became Israel’s first brigadier general. Marcus’ Second World War experience was instrumental in breaking the 1948 “siege of Jerusalem.”
Other important Jewish volunteers included the Canadian officer Ben Dunkelman and US pilot Milton Rubenfeld, as well as British Jewish Major Wellesley Aron who helped in the recruitment of American Jews for Zionism’s colonial war. European and American Christian Zionist mercenaries also helped, especially in the Zionist air force. These colonial volunteers fighting for racism, especially from the UK, constituted almost two-thirds of the settler-colony’s air force during the 1948 war.
David Ben-Gurion, the Jewish settler-colony’s first prime minister, was so thankful to them that he stated that “the Mahal [volunteer] Forces were the Diaspora’s most important contribution to the survival of the State of Israel.” Indeed they were: 123 of them died in that colonial war.

Jews in the struggle against Israeli racism

But unlike Jews inside Israel, Jewish communities in Europe, North and South America, and even in Australia, live in cultures that are not fully controlled by Zionist propaganda and therefore are not fully under the sway of the racist culture that Israel seeks to impose on them. It is this that explains how an increasing number of prominent members in the Jewish communities of the US and the UK, among intellectuals and academics, are in the forefront of the struggle against Israeli Jewish racism and colonialism (in contrast with apartheid South Africa which had a substantial number of white anti-racist activists and intellectuals, only a few Israeli Jewish intellectuals have been able over the decades to escape Israeli racist brainwashing — a feat unto itself).
Today many American Jewish luminaries in academe oppose Israeli policies unreservedly. Whereas once Noam Chomsky was a lone Jewish academic voice critical of Israel, he is today joined by scores of Jewish academics and intellectuals in opposing Israeli policies (of course these Jewish academics along with anti-Zionist gentile academics remain a minority and are outflanked by the much larger Jewish and gentile academics who are militant enemies of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims).

140804-jewish-voice-peace.jpg

The fight for Palestinian rights and liberation is the latest phase of the historic fight against anti-Semitism.
(Tess Scheflan / ActiveStills)
Some, like the prominent American Jewish philosopher Judith Butler, have surpassed Chomsky in their opposition to Zionist and Israeli racism and colonialism, and are vocal supporters of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and call for a one-state solution, both of which Chomsky does not support. In fact, a few Palestinian-American academics have also opposed both of these important positions or remained “neutral” on them (some used the rhetorical strategy, of “on the one hand this and on the other hand that”). Though in the last year some, fearing being left outside the leftist mainstream which has adopted these positions, have decided to show a belated “courage” in adopting these positions more than a decade after everyone else has.
And this is not limited to Jewish intellectuals but extends also to Jewish activists, especially groups like Jewish Voice for Peace (which, among many of its anti-racist activities, played an important role in helping Palestinians and others persuade the Presbyterian Church USA to divest from companies profiting from the Israeli occupation), and the countless Jewish students joining, and in a good number of cases, leading groups like Students for Justice in Palestine based on their commitment to fight racism and colonialism, values that are the diametrical opposite of Zionist colonial racism and fascist tribalism.
It is these Jewish fighters against Zionism and Israeli colonialism and racism that are continuing the Jewish fight against anti-Semitism but who remain unsung heroes in the American “Jewish” and “gentile” press that prefers to celebrate baby-killing Zionist Jewish volunteers for Israeli Jewish supremacy instead.
These Jewish fighters against racism have joined the Palestinian people and their international allies (Jewish and gentile alike) in fighting this ongoing historical battle against the forces of racial supremacy and colonial conquest. They understand well, as the Palestinian national movement has always understood, that the fight for Palestinian rights and liberation from the Jewish settler-colony is the latest phase of the historic fight against anti-Semitism and that the fight for Zionism is part of the war for European racial supremacy and colonialism.
The carnage that Israeli Jewish soldiers and international Zionist Jewish brigades of baby-killers are committing in Gaza (and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, let alone against Palestinian citizens of Israel) is but the starkest reminder of this unshakeable conviction.
Joseph Massad is professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University. He is author of the forthcoming Islam in Liberalism.