Good Morning!
Early May, 2013. Lilacs in my backyard. Photo by: joanneleon
Early May, 2013. Lilacs in my backyard. Photo by: joanneleon
Early May, 2013. Lilacs in my backyard. Photo by: joanneleon
Early May, 2013. Lilacs in my backyard. Photo by: joanneleon
Tunes
Chris Isaak - Wicked Game
News & Opinion
Alexa O'Brien writes about one of the charges against Manning. It's a good thing to review before the court martial trial begins next week.
US v Pfc. Manning | Overview of Aiding the Enemy Charge and USG Classified Witnesses
Bradley Manning is charged with aiding the enemy for knowingly giving intelligence-- specified in a classified document-- to the enemy indirectly via the WikiLeaks website.
The enemy has been defined by the government's bill of particulars as al Qaeda, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and "a classified entity specified in Bates Number 00410660 through 00410664."
According to the Col. Denise Lind, the presiding military judge's definitions and instructions:
'Intelligence' means any helpful information, given to and received by the enemy, which is true, at least in part.
'Enemy' includes (not only) organized opposing forces in a time of war, (but also any other hostile body that our forces may be opposing) (Such as a rebellious mob or a band of renegades) (and includes civilians as well as members of military organizations). ("Enemy" is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and the citizens of the other.)
'Indirect means' means that the accused knowingly gave the intelligence to the enemy through a 3rd party, an intermediary, or some other indirect way.
'Knowingly' requires actual knowledge by the accused that by giving intelligence to the 3rd party or intermediary or in some other indirect way, that he was actually giving intelligence to the enemy through this indirect means. This offense requires that the accused had a general evil intent in that the accused had to know he was dealing, directly or indirectly, with an enemy of the United States. 'Knowingly' means to act voluntarily or deliberately. A person cannot violate Article 104 by committing an act inadvertently, accidentally, or negligently that has the effect of aiding the enemy.
McCain is now collecting intelligence from the Syrian rebels, all by himself and he brings back reports of chemical weapon use (though they admit it might have been tear gas) and gives the figurehead general of the FSA an opportunity to plead for weapons and help from the U.S. The last time that big claims of chemical weapon use by Assad were made by the Israelis it was followed up by reports that it was actually the rebels who had used CW, so maybe our media is not too keen on reporting about it again. The report about chemical weapons is supported by a French news article which is not very likely to be widely read in the U.S. This is an article by Conor Simpson in the
Atlantic.
Syrian Rebels Told John McCain About Assad's Chemical Weapons Use
JThe Daily Beast's Josh Rogin reports Sen. John McCain secretly met with Gen. Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, inside Syria, where he was told about chemical attacks from the Assad regime. The rebels requested the U.S. government supply them with heavy weapons, a no-fly zone, and air strikes against the regime. This report came out on the heels of the monster report from French magazine Le Monde alleging the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons frequently in the fight for the country's capital. Two Le Monde reporters were embedded with Syrian rebels for two months. They witnessed chemical attacks "several days in a row" while visiting the front lines with soldiers in Damascus. The gas attacks usually causes eyes to burn, pupils to dilate, and throats to tighten leading to violent coughing. Sometimes they will start to puke if exposed long enough. If they don't receive treatment quickly, they will die. It's unclear what chemical is being used. Some rebels suspect they are combining different chemicals, potentially tear gas and sarin, among others, before distributing them through grenades, rockets or specially placed mines in order to mask what's being used. The combination makes it harder for doctors to diagnose the problem, leading to potentially wasting medicines that are precious and hard to come by. At one point during the trip, one of Le Monde's photographers was the victim of a chemical attack:
On April 13, the day of a chemical attack on a zone of the Jobar front, Le
Monde's photographer was with rebels who have been waging war out of ruined buildings. He saw them start to cough before donning their gas masks, apparently without haste although in fact they were already exposed. Men crouched down, gasping for breath and vomiting. They had to flee the area at once. Le Monde's photographer suffered blurred vision and and respiratory difficulties for four days.
The big question after the news broke about McCain's trip to Syria was about whether or not he had been sent there by the White House or had permission to go, and whether or not the people actually in charge of diplomacy, the State Department, approved of it, or whether he had gone rogue.
White House was aware of McCain's trip to Syria in advance
"We were aware, of course, that Senator McCain was going to make this trip," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "And we look forward to speaking with Senator McCain upon his return to learn more about the trip."
At the State Department, spokesman Patrick Ventrell noted that members of Congress often travel abroad and make their policy positions known. "I don't have a particular reaction to the trip one way or another," Ventrell said.
[...]
McCain's office said his visit was organized by the Syrian Emergency Task Force (SETF), a non-profit group that backs the Syrian opposition and is based in the United States. [...]
"While meeting with Senator McCain, General Idris and FSA commanders asked that the United States increase its aid to the Free Syrian Army in the form of heavy weapons, a no-fly zone, and air strikes on Hezbollah," the SETF website said, referring to the Shi'ite militant group in Lebanon that backs Assad.
There is no support for another war or intervention. 12%, which is Zip and even lower than the "backwash" 33% that you often see for things like this. That means that getting into another war is intensely unpopular among American citizens, even after months and months of propaganda pushed by the media. This Reuters-Ipsos poll goes further and asks if we should intervene if it becomes evident that Assad has used chemical weapons and even then the number only bumps up to 28%, less than the backwash one third. So if you're wondering why the president might want to go about this in a less than honest way, this is why. It does seem like he does not want to get involved directly, which is a relief, but things are getting really strange lately. Really strange. And Iran has an election coming up in a couple of weeks. Israel is threatening to attack Russian shipments of arms to Syria. Our relations with Russia have been very strange. The president gave an Orwellian speech about ending the Forever War and other things. Things are very strange but one thing isn't strange at all -- Americans don't want another war. They fiercely don't want another war.
Ipsos/Reuters Poll (May 21): Syrian Intervention
Oh look, the warmonger masquerading as a humanitarian wants another war after her brilliant advice to the president and relentless drumbeat for bombing Libya. That worked out so well for the Libyan people, right? Oh well, as long as the western oil companies are getting their contracts, it's all good, right Samantha? Predicatably, Samantha Power is at it again along with her neocon-neoliberal friends. On a "local" level here at dkos, this probably means that there will be some also predictable support and drumbeat for it here too, just as there was for Libya. This whole article is absurd, btw, with beltway "liberal hawks" tiptoeing around the issue of
yet another war after, just days ago, gushing about the Orwell speech at the National Defense University and the peace president. It's almost too surreal for words. The only thing that could make it all more surreal is a big old false flag operation that gives us, sadly, regrettably, no other choice! And if that happens, it won't be a "war" of course, it will just be "kinetic action" or some other new term. Calling all false flags! Also, it becomes more clear every day, IMHO, that "liberal hawk" is a euphemism for neocon. When you get right down to it and compare their policies, there is hardly any substantial difference between them. Most neocons don't care much about social issues as long as they don't interfere with their wars or their profits. Neoliberal hawks use social issues as a fig leaf and are all for them unless they interfere with their profits or their wars.
Liberal hawks were vocal on involvement in Iraq but have been quiet on Syria
Power, who declined to comment, is being vetted for the position nof undersecretary for civilian security, democracy and human rights at the State
Department, according to several sources. She is said to be acting behind the scenes to build support for intervention in Syria. But given Obama’s apparent lack of interest — he told the New Republic that a humanitarian crisis in Syria alone does not justify U.S. military involvement — it is not clear whether having Power in the administration is as useful as having her as a clear voice outside it.
Moon of Alabama comments on the same absurd WaPo article by Jason Horowitz. There are quite a few interesting comments on that post and also on the one that precedes it. I don't know if MoA has changed his opinion but as of a few days ago he still felt that we did not see a win in this and that the US will not intervene.
WaPo Claims "Liberal Hawks" Are Quiet While Describing The Opposite
The piece than names eight "liberal hawks" who argue for intervention in Syria (Vali Nasr, Bill Keller, Anne-Marie Slaughter, Paul Berman, Samantha Power, Michael Ignatieff, George Packer) and two "liberal hawks" who argue against it (Tom Friedman, Fareed Zakaria).
How can the central thesis of the piece be true when the author finds four times as many pro-war as anti-war "liberal hawks"?
Fact is that the "liberal hawks", like their fellow neoconservatives, have been quite noisy arguing for intervention in Syria. Fact is also that the U.S. has intervened from the very beginning of the "revolution" and continued to do so by providing thousands of tons of weapons and ammunition, foodstuff as well as other secret support to the insurgents. It is also managing, not successful though, the exile opposition.
Pat Lang doesn't sound too hopeful.
A Tale of the Two Johns
What a great way to start WW3 this would be. Israel attacks Russian missile deliveries, kills Russians, Russians attack Israel... Presto! The Guns of July. Guess who woud lose the most in that deal. What the hell are we playing at? I listened to Senator Blumenthal of Connecticutt try to speak coherently about the Syria crisis this morning. He couldn't do it! All that came out of his mouth were platitudes and frequenty they were mutually contradictory platitudes.
And then there are the two Johns. McCain can't help himself. He has become a raving madman bent on war everywhere against anyone available. Kerry is just pathetic, a bumbling, conceited fool who thinks charm is the touchstone that will open all doors for him. pl
I had missed this article from the end of April, and this, along with the new Israeli threats, is the thing that now has me reconsidering how I thought things might go. This is profoundly disappointing. It looks to me like the banks want war in Syria.
L.A. Banker to Announce Syrian Reconstruction Fund
A Los Angeles banker, the head of a Middle Eastern investment bank and retired General Wesley Clark plan to announce Monday the formation of an investment fund to help rebuild Syria.
The fund will be a collaboration between Avenue Ventures LLC of Los Angeles and Gulf Financial House, an investment bank in Bahrain.
I took some time last night to read this long form article by Chris Hedges and The Nation magazine.
The Death of Truth
And yet Assange is surprisingly hopeful—at least for the short and medium term. He believes that the system cannot protect itself completely from those who chip away at its digital walls.
“The national security state can try to reduce our activity,” he said. “It can close the neck a little tighter. But there are three forces working against it. The first is the massive surveillance required to protect its communication, including the nature of its cryptology. In the military everyone now has an ID card with a little chip on it so you know who is logged into what. A system this vast is prone to deterioration and breakdown. Secondly, there is widespread knowledge not only of how to leak, but how to leak and not be caught, how to even avoid suspicion that you are leaking. The military and intelligence systems collect a vast amount of information and move it around quickly. This means you can also get it out quickly. There will always be people within the system that have an agenda to defy authority. Yes, there are general deterrents, such as when the DOJ [Department of Justice] prosecutes and indicts someone. They can discourage people from engaging in this behavior. But the opposite is also true. When that behavior is successful it is an example. It encourages others. This is why they want to eliminate all who provide this encouragement.”
“The medium-term perspective is very good,” he said. “The education of young people takes place on the Internet. You cannot hire anyone who is skilled in any field without them having been educated on the Internet. The military, the CIA, the FBI, all have no choice but to hire from a pool of people that have been educated on the Internet. This means they are hiring our moles in vast numbers. And this means that these organizations will see their capacity to control information diminish as more and more people with our values are hired.”
Action
Blog Posts and Tweets of Interest
Evening Blues
More Tunes
Chris Isaak - Baby Did a Bad Bad Thing