The diplomatic battle is playing out in an obscure U.N. General Assembly committee that is considering a proposal by Brazil and Germany to place constraints on unchecked internet surveillance by the National Security Agency and other foreign intelligence services. American representatives have made it clear that they won't tolerate such checks on their global surveillance network. The stakes are high, particularly in Washington -- which is seeking to contain an international backlash against NSA spying -- and in Brasilia, where Brazilian President Dilma Roussef is personally involved in monitoring the U.N. negotiations.
The Brazilian and German initiative seeks to apply the right to privacy, which is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to online communications. Their proposal, first revealed by The Cable, affirms a "right to privacy that is not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with their privacy, family, home, or correspondence." It notes that while public safety may "justify the gathering and protection of certain sensitive information," nations "must ensure full compliance" with international human rights laws. A final version the text is scheduled to be presented to U.N. members on Wednesday evening and the resolution is expected to be adopted next week.
A draft of the resolution, which was obtained by The Cable, calls on states to "to respect and protect the right to privacy," asserting that the "same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, including the right to privacy." It also requests the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, Navi Pillay, present the U.N. General Assembly next year with a report on the protection and promotion of the right to privacy, a provision that will ensure the issue remains on the front burner.
Publicly, U.S. representatives say they're open to an affirmation of privacy rights. "The United States takes very seriously our international legal obligations, including those under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," Kurtis Cooper, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said in an email. "We have been actively and constructively negotiating to ensure that the resolution promotes human rights and is consistent with those obligations."
But privately, American diplomats are pushing hard to kill a provision of the Brazilian and German draft which states that "extraterritorial surveillance" and mass interception of communications, personal information, and metadata may constitute a violation of human rights. The United States and its allies, according to diplomats, outside observers, and documents, contend that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not apply to foreign espionage.
In recent days, the United States circulated to its allies a confidential paper highlighting American objectives in the negotiations, "Right to Privacy in the Digital Age -- U.S. Redlines." It calls for changing the Brazilian and German text so "that references to privacy rights are referring explicitly to States' obligations under ICCPR and remove suggestion that such obligations apply extraterritorially." In other words: America wants to make sure it preserves the right to spy overseas.
The U.S. paper also calls on governments to promote amendments that would weaken Brazil's and Germany's contention that some "highly intrusive" acts of online espionage may constitute a violation of freedom of expression. Instead, the United States wants to limit the focus to illegal surveillance -- which the American government claims it never, ever does. Collecting information on tens of millions of people around the world is perfectly acceptable, the Obama administration has repeatedly said. It's authorized by U.S. statute, overseen by Congress, and approved by American courts.
"Recall that the USG's [U.S. government's] collection activities that have been disclosed are lawful collections done in a manner protective of privacy rights," the paper states. "So a paragraph expressing concern about illegal surveillance is one with which we would agree."
The privacy resolution, like most General Assembly decisions, is neither legally binding nor enforceable by any international court. But international lawyers say it is important because it creates the basis for an international consensus -- referred to as "soft law" -- that over time will make it harder and harder for the United States to argue that its mass collection of foreigners' data is lawful and in conformity with human rights norms.
"They want to be able to say 'we haven't broken the law, we're not breaking the law, and we won't break the law,'" said Dinah PoKempner, the general counsel for Human Rights Watch, who has been tracking the negotiations. The United States, she added, wants to be able to maintain that "we have the freedom to scoop up anything we want through the massive surveillance of foreigners because we have no legal obligations."
The United States negotiators have been pressing their case behind the scenes, raising concerns that the assertion of extraterritorial human rights could constrain America's effort to go after international terrorists. But Washington has remained relatively muted about their concerns in the U.N. negotiating sessions. According to one diplomat, "the United States has been very much in the backseat," leaving it to its allies, Australia, Britain, and Canada, to take the lead.
There is no extraterritorial obligation on states "to comply with human rights," explained one diplomat who supports the U.S. position. "The obligation is on states to uphold the human rights of citizens within their territory and areas of their jurisdictions."
The position, according to Jamil Dakwar, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Human Rights Program, has little international backing. The International Court of Justice, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, and the European Court have all asserted that states do have an obligation to comply with human rights laws beyond their own borders, he noted. "Governments do have obligation beyond their territories," said Dakwar, particularly in situations, like the Guantanamo Bay detention center, where the United States exercises "effective control" over the lives of the detainees.
Both PoKempner and Dakwar suggested that courts may also judge that the U.S. dominance of the Internet places special legal obligations on it to ensure the protection of users' human rights.
"It's clear that when the United States is conducting surveillance, these decisions and operations start in the United States, the servers are at NSA headquarters, and the capabilities are mainly in the United States," he said. "To argue that they have no human rights obligations overseas is dangerous because it sends a message that there is void in terms of human rights protection outside countries territory. It's going back to the idea that you can create a legal black hole where there is no applicable law." There were signs emerging on Wednesday that America may have been making ground in pressing the Brazilians and Germans to back on one of its toughest provisions. In an effort to address the concerns of the U.S. and its allies, Brazil and Germany agreed to soften the language suggesting that mass surveillance may constitute a violation of human rights. Instead, it simply deep "concern at the negative impact" that extraterritorial surveillance "may have on the exercise of and enjoyment of human rights." The U.S., however, has not yet indicated it would support the revised proposal.
The concession "is regrettable. But it's not the end of the battle by any means," said Human Rights Watch's PoKempner. She added that there will soon be another opportunity to corral America's spies: a U.N. discussion on possible human rights violations as a result of extraterritorial surveillance will soon be taken up by the U.N. High commissioner.
Follow me on Twitter: @columlynch.
::Union Paradise®
The classified N.S.A. document, which appears to be a draft and is dated January 2005, states that under specific circumstances, the American intelligence agency may spy on citizens of Britain without that country's consent or knowledge. The memo, provided by the former N.S.A. contractor Edward J. Snowden, is labeled secret and "NOFORN," indicating that it may not be shared with any foreign country.
In recent months, the N.S.A.'s activities have stoked anger across the world after leaked documents have exposed American spying on political and economic partners like Germany and France, as well as various foreign leaders. But until now, there has been almost nothing disclosed about spying among the "Five Eyes" countries — the United States and its close intelligence partners Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
The N.S.A. declined to respond to questions on whether the draft became official policy and whether spying on Britain without its consent had ever taken place.
But portions of the document appear to indicate that, whether by formal agreement or simply longstanding practice, both Britain and the United States believed that in extraordinary circumstances, one country might feel compelled to spy on citizens of the other.
In a reference to an intelligence-sharing compact struck in March 1946, the memo said the two nations had agreed "that both governments will not target each other's citizens/persons."
That agreement, however, came with a caveat that "when it is in the best interest of each nation," unilateral spying by one nation on the other could take place, the memo says. It goes on to expand that mandate to allow spying by the United States on any of the Five Eyes countries.
The memo was provided by Mr. Snowden to The Guardian, which shared it with The New York Times. The N.S.A. also declined to say whether the memorandum merely codified longstanding American practice or was breaking new ground.
"NSA works with a number of partners and allies in meeting its foreign-intelligence mission goals, and in every case those operations comply with U.S. law and with the applicable laws under which those partners and allies operate," the agency said in a written reply to questions.
One former senior intelligence official said he had been unaware there were any exceptions to the policy of the five nations sharing intelligence information with each other, but said he would be surprised if the United States chose to spy on its closest allies very frequently.
"They would do this unilaterally so rarely and in such extraordinary circumstances because they would be so concerned about hurting the relationship," said the former official, who spoke only on condition of anonymity. "My bet is that they wouldn't go to that well very often."
The memo contains several protocols on who should be alerted, and under what circumstances, when spying must take place on other Five Eyes countries — also referred to as "Second Party" countries.
One paragraph, marked secret, appears to suggest that the preferred option is to gain permission from the country whose citizens are to be spied upon. But the very next paragraph, marked secret and NOFORN, indicates that the N.S.A. can go it alone if permission is not forthcoming — or if United States chooses not to ask.
"When sharing the planned targeting information with a Second Party would be contrary to U.S. interests, or when the Second Party declines a collaboration proposal, the proposed targeting must be presented to the Signals Intelligence Director for approval with justification for the criticality of the proposed collection," the passage explains.
It goes on to say that if that spying is approved, the information it gleans "must be maintained in NOFORN channels" — i.e., never shared with the spied-upon country.
A footnote goes further, suggesting that if a Five Eyes citizen is outside of his or her own country, the limits are lifted. In that case, the memo says, "there may be no restrictions associated with that collection" outside of basic N.S.A. rules on avoiding spying on innocent Americans and similar guidelines.
The memo does not detail how much, if at all, these orders differ from existing practice among the spying partners. Even the memo's purpose is classified secret and NOFORN: "This management directive establishes United States Signals Intelligence System (USSS) policy and procedures related to the targeting of Second Party Persons."
From the start, the document raises the intriguing question of whether American and British spy agencies have been loosening the rules established in the nonspying compact of 1946. After referring to the compact, the memo contains a passage stating that "this agreement has evolved" to include the understanding that Britain and the United States would not spy on each other.
But in the next two sentences, the memo asserts that the countries "reserved the right" to spy on each other "when it is in the best interest of each nation."
Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting.
© 2013 The New York Times Company
::Union Paradise®
The third round of nuclear negotiations between Iran and P5+1 is well under way in Geneva. Both proponents of peace, and of war, are looking to the outcome of these negotiations with abated breath. Hope and fear abound, an understanding of the demands and expectations is a good indicator of the direction these talks are likely to take. Moreover, the key to the potential of these talks is to review why Iran's nuclear program is the subject of these negotiations in the first place.
The Road to Sanctions – and Talks
At the onset of the 1979 revolution, Iran abandoned its nuclear power program. However, the considerable damage to Iran's infrastructure during the Iran-Iraq war, and the demand by the growing population prompted the Iranian government to revisit and resume its quest for nuclear power. It announced these intentions in 1982. Thereon, the United States made every attempt to stop Iran – unsuccessfully (see details HERE).
In 2002, Israel provided the means to place further obstacles in Iran's path. It provided the MEK terrorist group a report indicating Iran had undertaken clandestine activities[1]. Iran came under scrutiny for building nuclear sites (which it was entitled to as an NPT member). In 2003, as an act of goodwill, Iran voluntary suspended its enrichment program for two years and allowed intrusive inspections in order to alleviate concerns over its peaceful nuclear program (The Iran-EU Agreement).
To understand what pursued, it is imperative to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to which Iran is a signatory. The main pillars of the NPT are non-proliferation (Articles I & II), disarmament (Article VI), and peaceful uses of nuclear energy (Articles III and IV). While Article IV reiterates the "inalienable right" of member states to research, develop, and use nuclear energy for non-weapons purposes, Article III demands that non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty "undertake to accept safeguards, as set forth in an agreement to be negotiated and concluded with the International Atomic Energy Agency." Iran concluded such and agreement with the IAEA.
There is consensus that Iran has not proliferated. In other words, it has not weaponized or helped another state weaponize, nor has it received or delivered weapons material from or to another state. This much is indisputable. Furthermore, in 2005, the IAEA reported that all declared fissile material in Iran had been accounted for, and none had been diverted.
Yet, contrary to its findings, and in direct conflict with the safeguard agreement it had concluded with Iran, specifically Article 19 (the Agency may refer Iran to the UN Security Council if it is "unable to verify that there has been no diversion of nuclear material required to be safeguarded under this agreement, to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices"), the IAEA reported that Iran "had violated Tehran's IAEA safeguards agreement."
What led to this decision was a push by the United States. This was made possible due to the fact that there is no definition of non-compliance. As the prominent Arms Control Association opines: "Surprisingly, although the IAEA Board of Governors has determined on five occasions that a state was in noncompliance with its NPT safeguards agreement-Iraq (1991), Romania (1992), North Korea (1993), Libya (2004), and Iran (2006)-there remains no established definition of noncompliance."
Noteworthy that the United States contributes about 25% of the total IAEA Technical Cooperation budget. The lack of definition allowed flexibility to enforce a political motivation. America's ability to impose its will was not limited to the IAEA. As former Assistant Secretary for Non-proliferation and International Security at the U.S. State Department, Stephen G. Rademaker confirmed: "The best illustration of this is the two votes India cast against Iran at the IAEA. I am the first person to admit that the votes were coerced."
Iran's nuclear dossier was sent to the United Nations Security Council. Politics and America's might prevailed at the expense of international treaties – and Iran. Sanctions — war by other means, were imposed on Iran. Numerous round of negotiations have only brought harsher sanctions – and progress in Iran's civilian program.
Current Demands
According to Western sources, there have been three demands placed on Iran: 1) limiting the 3.5% enriched uranium, 2) suspension of 20% enriched uranium, 3) halting the construction of the Arak heavy water plant. It has also been reported that Iran is required to ratify the Additional Protocol. Given that the talks hang on these issues, they must be explored.
Limitations on 3.5% enriched uranium - Uranium enriched below 5% is strictly used for fuel. There are several reasons why Iran has 'drawn a red line' on its right to enrich uranium:
Bulletin 26 – Dual Use: Avoiding The Nuclear Precipice of the International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation (INESAP) confirms that Iran's share in the French uranium enrichment plant –Eurodif , and France's refusal to supply Iran with [its own] enriched uranium for use in its power plants, which according to them, justifies Iran's desire to exercise her inalienable right under Article IV of the NPT to enrich uranium indigenously versus importing from any other country.
As important, if not of more concern to the Tehran, is the undeniable fact that prior to the Iranian revolution the United States had signed National Security Decision Memorandums (NSDM) that demanded of Iran to be a hub for enriching and distributing uranium to profit the United States (see full article HERE).
Furthermore, given the rising demand and cost of uranium, Iran is being asked not to enrich its indigenous uranium, and instead be exploited in the same manner that Africans have been exploited with regard to their resources. As explained by Halifa Sallah: "So they getting the raw materials from Africa at very cheap prices and they were processing and selling it back to us at more expensive prices." In the same vein, Iran is being asked to import its fuel needs at a higher cost to benefit the potential providers.
Suspension of 20% Enrichment – 20% enriched uranium is used to produce medical isotopes. In a 1999 report by the Department of Energy two important issues stand out — a coming shortage in medical isotopes, and a promise of new treatments such as ' isotopes for cancer therapy and pain control'.
There are simply not enough medical isotopes to meet demand. It is important to note that Iran uses LEU (low enriched uranium) of under 20% to produce medical isotopes. In sharp contrast, the United States supplies weapon-grade uranium (HEU, 90-percent 235U) to the Canadian radioisotope producers. Not only are there inherent dangers (and legal hurdles) in transporting weapons grade material, but also the conversion of HEU to LEU is a feat in itself.
Demanding a stop to the production of medical isotopes in the face of growing demand and shortage reflects the callous nature of the demands being placed on Tehran.
The Arak Heavy Water Plant – The media, egged on by Western countries, has been quick to refer to Arak heavy water plant as a 'plutonium plant for making bombs'. This is patently false.
Any reactor fueled by uranium can be used to produce Plutonium, including light water reactors. According to World Nuclear Association "Plutonium, both that routinely made in power reactors and that from dismantled nuclear weapons, is a valuable energy source when integrated into the nuclear fuel cycle." Reactor grade plutonium is a by-product of typical used fuel from a nuclear reactor. Weapons grade plutonium is recovered from uranium fuel that has been irradiated 2-3 months in a plutonium production reactor.
It is worth mentioning here that Japan, a close American ally, has more plutonium than any other non-weapons state, with enough plutonium stored in Japan to build 1,000 weapons. In fact, the United States circumvented laws to provide Japan with plutonium.
Arak is a heavy water reactor (HWR) of the type highly recommended by the IAEA. A 2002 IAEA publication encouraged the use of heavy water reactors stating: "HWR technology offers fuel flexibility, low operating costs and a high level of safety, and therefore represents an important option for countries considering nuclear power programmes. " Contrary to NPT commitments, the Treaty is being used as a political tool 'doling out' assistance to chosen allies, while depriving others.
Geneva 3
The current negotiations are said to be a 'beginning' in which Iran has to meet the above demands in exchange for 'some easing of sanctions', and with 'all options on the table'. This cowboy diplomacy has been in the making for years.
In 2007, while still a junior senator, Barack Obama had "crippling sanctions" in mind for the Iranian people when he introduced S. 1430 in 2007. His commitment caught the attention of AIPAC's president and a major donor to his campaign: Lee Rosenberg. In 2008, during his presidential run, he addressed AIPAC:
"Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States it will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation and that will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council."
But Mr. Obama's vision is as limited as his knowledge of Iranians. During the Iran-Iraq war, isolated, disarrayed, and reeling from a revolution, Iran repelled not only Iraq's attacks, but all its backers including America, European and Arab states. Today, Iran is in a much stronger position not only by virtue of its defense forces, its determination and accomplishments, but also due to its relations with the outside world. Iran has the full backing of the Non-Aligned Movement's (NAM)120 countries as well as powerful allies including Russia.
These negotiations present a unique opportunity – not for the United States, but for the revival of international law and treaties – and the rejection if imperialism. Let us hope that the opportunity is not plundered.
Soraya Sepahpour-Ulrich is an independent researcher and writer with a focus on U.S. foreign policy and the role of lobby groups in influencing US foreign policy.
Notes
[1] Connie Bruck, "A reporter at large: Exiles; How Iran's expatriates are gaming the nuclear threat". The New Yorker, March 6, 2006
::Union Paradise®
President Obama's inability to fulfil his promise to close Guantánamo because of congressional opposition, and his unwillingness to hold Bush-era officials to account for their abuses, has hampered his administration in recovering lost moral authority. That may help to explain why the Obama administration has been relatively reluctant to speak out forcefully about abuses of rights by governments such as those of China and Russia. Of course, dependence on those governments economically and eagerness for their collaboration in the ongoing global struggle against terrorism were also probably factors in muting American criticism.
What the world has learned about the NSA's systematic intrusions on the privacy of others has dashed hopes that the US would gradually recover its voice in speaking out for rights. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a government that is seen by many worldwide as a great violator of rights to be credible in promoting those same rights.
Of course, the damage to American foreign policy by the practices of the NSA goes far beyond American capacity to promote human rights. Perhaps the damage in Europe has been the greatest. Europe has much stronger protections for privacy than the US, reflecting a high level of public concern. Nowhere is the commitment to privacy stronger than in Germany, where article one of the country's constitution, the Basic Law, begins with the assertion: "Human dignity is inviolable. To respect it and protect it is the duty of all state power." Dignity, which also has a central place in the European charter of fundamental rights, but is not mentioned in the US constitution, is understood in Germany and elsewhere in Europe to encompass a commitment to privacy. In the absence of a clear repudiation by the Obama administration of practices of the NSA that go far beyond the requirements of national security, including a pledge to discontinue spying on European leaders, and to end indiscriminate surveillance of many millions of European citizens, it seems likely that co-operation with the United States on a host of issues will decline drastically.
The US once enjoyed a reputation as a country that respected human rights. This enhanced its political standing with other countries and gave Washington the capacity to promote these rights worldwide. Its stand on rights had been an asset; now it is turning into a liability. The main reason to respect rights, of course, is because of their intrinsic worth and significance. A secondary reason that is not negligible, however, is that America's practices on rights also have a significant impact on the country's other interests in its relations with the rest of the world.
Aryeh Neier is an American human rights campaigner. He was the president of the Open Society Institute from 1993-2012 and a founder of Human Rights Watch. His most recent book is Taking Liberties: Four Decades in the Struggle for Rights
© 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited
::Union Paradise®
Iran signed a good-faith agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to allow inspectors broad access to its nuclear facilities. Signaling change, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani halted expansion of Iran's uranium enrichment capacity since his election three months ago, according to U.N. inspection reports.
Yet, what has always been available are conflict management methods unexamined by our decision-makers. In developing potential options for adversarial nations, the U.S. government has the Joint Chiefs and security studies hawks on speed dial. Thus, the U.S. stumbles into war after war, informed of the full range of options from A to B. Attack or do nothing. Demonstrate a resolve to kill or show cowardice. It's a wonder we haven't nuked Canada.
Sometimes – as we saw in the 1990s with killer sanctions on Iraq – certain sanctions are hardest on the most vulnerable, innocent children and other civilians. To a large measure, this is the case vis-à-vis Iran. Peace scholars have been pushing for alternative options with Iran, backed by hard data and decades of conflict management experience, since the inception of the conflict. These alternatives have remained largely unnoticed amid the cyclical escalation/de-escalation of war drumming from both sides of the aisle.
In the spirit of sharing what we've learned in our obscure field of Peace and Conflict Studies, let's think about some possible measures right now vis-à-vis Iran:
–Guarantee no-first-use of U.S. military force against Iran
As long as Iranian people and their government fear preëmptive military attack by the U.S. there will be strong motivation for development of nuclear weapons, and it will be easier for Iranian leaders to justify sacrifices, including resolve to endure crippling sanctions.
–Cease military aid to Israel
Even Israeli moderates remain belligerent toward Iran, reserving and openly referencing preëmptive military attack as an option. This keeps Iranian moderates on the defensive, emboldens hardliners, and continually prompts the average Iranian to hate Israel and its sponsor, the U.S. Stopping U.S military aid to Israel brings the region many steps closer to peace, helps take the target off the U.S., and prompts Israel to honestly negotiate its relationships constructively.
–Apologize
Now that declassified documents and an acknowledgment by President Barack Obama have formally recognized the CIA's role in the 1953 overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, a formal apology should be made for this outrageous transgression. A simple apology without qualification, equivocation, justification or even explanation is best.
–Put some U.S. nukes on the table
Make the demand that Iran cease its nuclear ambitions linked to an offer to dismantle (for example) 200 U.S. nuclear weapons, with each party subject to IAEA inspections. Treat Iran like a real country, not a minor player of which we can make demands we won't ourselves honor.
–Open embassies
The two countries should each invite the other to open an embassy with the guarantee of the safety of the personnel that is backed by enormous collateral. The 2011 Obama initiative to maintain an online embassy is a good gesture and not enough; it is time for reciprocity and advancements.
–Reframing U.S.-Iran relations as peaceful scientific collaboration
Iranian domestic legitimacy rests partially on the option of developing nuclear capabilities. Iran's nuclear policy acts as a rallying point for internal cohesion. Reframe Iran-U.S. relations to one of peaceful scientific and health research collaboration, taking care to emphasize Iranian past and present contributions and collaborations with the U.S.
Give President Rouhani a fresh rallying point, highlighting Persian history and collective identity in its peaceful pursuits of science, engineering, technology, medicine and mathematics, and reduce reliance on Iranian nuclear policy for domestic legitimacy. Continuing negotiations would include these peaceful collaborations as additional bargaining points.
–Banking channels and medical supplies
Offer to provide third country banks a waiver against sanctions for facilitating transactions involved in medicines and medical supplies, and/or designate certain U.S. and Iranian financial institutions as open channels for humanitarian transactions. In exchange, Iran must allow consistent international monitoring of its medical enrichment facilities.
Most of these action items would be nonstarters, right? President Obama would never initiate any of them because, after all, the minority of Congress would howl and call him a treasonous coward. Congressional hawks would light up, hair on fire, bullhorns set on sonic warp kill. Peace-loving people would fear the dripping scorn.
If we continue to see the pusillanimity more afraid of knee-jerks in Congress than of allowing Iran to either get nukes or get attacked, we will watch as helpless as Junebugs on our backs while we drift into an ever-uglier world with more nuclear weapons in more hands — or into a stupendously reckless war of grand bloodbath proportions with Iran, war that is completely avoidable.
You do not need to conduct a multivariate regression analysis to know that successful negotiation requires both carrots and sticks. Hardliners are stuck on sticks, both violent and economic, and even low and no-cost carrots drive them "round the bend." Fine. Let them go. Constructive conflict management is the new realpolitik.
Tom H. Hastings is PeaceVoice Director and teaches in the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University.
Erin E. Niemela is PeaceVoice Research Director and a Master's Candidate of the Conflict Resolution program at Portland State University.
::Union Paradise®
In recent months, hundreds of children, under the age of 18 and some as young as five years-old, have been arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial in both the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and in Bahrain.
In Bahrain, it is exclusively the majority Shia communities that are targeted by regime forces of the Saudi-backed Al Khalifa monarchy. Over the past four months, up to 100 children have been snatched from their homes without warrants, detained indefinitely, interrogated and even tortured, according to Bahraini human rights sources. Some of the children have been convicted of terrorism on the basis of forced confessions and given jail sentences of up to 15 years.
Meanwhile, a similar policy of persecuting children is extant in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Over the weekend, four children aged between five and nine years were cuffed and hauled off to unknown detention centers by Israeli soldiers. The arrests took place after Israeli military, firing stun grenades, attacked a peaceful protest, which had been attended by international observers.
This misconduct by Israeli and Bahraini state forces is a gross violation of international law. In legal terms, the unlawful detention of children in this way is tantamount to kidnapping by the state. The interrogation and mistreatment of the children in custody and their long-term incarceration further compounds the flagrant barbarity.
The conclusion is clear: this targeting of children has to have been formulated as a deliberate policy of state terrorism. No doubt the calculation of those engaged in the black arts of population control is that traumatizing young minds is an efficacious method of subjugating future generations.
But there are wider geopolitical implications from these particulars. Bear in mind that the Bahraini autocratic regime is fully supported by its Wahhabi patrons in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Indeed, at various times during the repression of the Bahraini pro-democracy uprising since February 2011, military forces from the other Persian Gulf Arab monarchies have been present in Bahrain and fully assisted in the crackdown against the Shia population.
So, while we are focusing primarily on state terrorism techniques of the Israeli and Bahraini forces here, the partnership with the Zionist regime applies to all the Persian Gulf Wahhabi monarchies ¬¬- for which Bahrain is a surrogate.
Terrorizing children as a way of attacking a target population is not the only area of common practice by the Israeli and Arab despotic regimes.
Destruction of mosques and other places of worship also connote a shared reading of counter-insurgency manuals. The irony of this is that Saudi Arabia refers to itself as "the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites of Islam."
In Bahrain, over the past two years hundreds of Shia mosques and community prayer rooms, called "Mattams," have been either bulldozed or extensively vandalized by state forces. Some of the mosques razed have included ancient sites dating back centuries.
In the occupied Palestinian lands, Israeli forces have also destroyed and desecrated mosques. The pseudo legal justification is tellingly similar to that articulated by the Bahraini regime. Both use Orwellian lexicon by claiming that the places of worship destroyed did not have official construction permits.
Another common method of repression is the indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals against civilians. In both Israeli-occupied Palestine and Bahrain, the chemicals are referred to euphemistically as "tear gas."
But in enclosed spaces, the chemicals are lethal and have resulted in deaths, birth miscarriages and long-term illnesses. The purpose of this saturation use of toxic weapons is "collective punishment" of the civilian population - a crime against humanity - for that population's audacity to have dissenting political views.
We could add more common forms of repression: the ghettoization of persecuted communities and forced deprivation. In Gaza and the West Bank, communities are cut off from farming, fishing and other forms of employment; power and sewage utilities are scuttled, and people are forced to live as exiles within their own native country.
In Bahrain, systematic deprivation against Shia communities also prevails. Construction and land reclamation projects for luxury property development that benefit the Khalifa regime have in turn destroyed traditional fishing and farming, resulting in whole communities being marginalized in poverty and squalor.
Ultimately, the objective is to dehumanize, demoralize and dispossess. And the way that such repression is applied systematically by both the Israeli and Bahraini regimes strongly indicates that there is strategic partnership between the Zionist despots in Tel Aviv and Manama, as well as Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi.
This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that intelligence agencies of these regimes regularly hold clandestine meetings. Saudi Arabia's spymaster, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is known to liaise with Israel's Mossad chief, Tamir Bardo, the most recent meeting between the two reportedly held in the Jordanian port city of Aqaba earlier this month.
Last month, Lebanon's Al Manar news service quoted Israeli Channel Two about a Persian Gulf Arab-Israeli intelligence meeting held in Tel Aviv. Those attending included, "Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan, National Security Advisor and Deputy Chief of Executive Council in Abu Dhabi, Hazza bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in addition to Bahrain intelligence chief, General Adel bin Khalifa Al Fadhel, who is one of the [Persian] Gulf intelligence officers with the strongest ties to Mossad."
Furthermore, Michael Oren, the outgoing Israeli ambassador to the US, made this stunning admission to the Jerusalem Post recently when the spoke of the close, growing ties between Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchies. Oren said, "In the last 64 years there has probably never been a greater confluence of interest between us and several [Persian] Gulf [Arab] states. With these [Persian] Gulf states, we have agreements on Syria, on Egypt, on the Palestinian issue. We certainly have agreements on Iran. This is one of those opportunities presented by the Arab Spring."
Apart from identifying common techniques of repression and intelligence links between these regimes, another all-important indicator of strategic alliance is that they share the same Western sponsors - Washington and London - who afford crucial political cover for these regimes to continue their crimes against humanity.
For the West, the strategic importance of these regimes is that collectively they form a bulwark against movements for democracy.
The bottom line is that the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies have now clearly emerged as strategic partners with the Israeli regime. Despite superficial differences, all are lawless regimes that are guilty of crimes against humanity and crimes against Arab and Muslims in particular. They share criminal methodology and logistics.
This fact removes any pretense by Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf Arab clients that they are somehow the rightful leaders of the Arab and Muslim people. Far from it, these despots are colluding in historic betrayal. That betrayal is not a new development. What is "new" is the visibility of it.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism.
::Union Paradise®
Perhaps Egypt does something to generals. We were always reminded by former President Hosni Mubarak's cronies that he was an air force hero in the 1973 Arab-Israeli war; you'd think that his bombing raid was the only one staged by the Egyptian air force. Sadat loved uniforms when he was president - blue, with far too many ribbons - and of course there was Colonel Nasser and his millions of admirers.
But the mass worship of Sisi has surely gone too far. Journalists adore him, people eat sweets made in his portrait. And now, Egyptians are passing around hundred dollar bills with his coloured portrait Photoshopped over the engraving of Benjamin Franklin. Sisi is in full colour and dress uniform, staring unsmiling at the holder of this weird currency. On the reverse side, over the White House, there he is again, this time seated on a kind of throne, in camouflage fatigues, baseball cap on his head, arm raised to his chin, thinking, no doubt, of Egypt's glorious future.
Egyptians may be grateful to their army commander - and minister of defence, and deputy prime minister, for Sisi is all of these things - for deposing the country's first elected president, Mohamed Morsi, and putting him on trial this month for the deaths of anti-Brotherhood demonstrators last December. But there have to be limits. When an Egyptian journalist walked up to me in the court in which Morsi was being tried, I knew the question she would ask. "Was it a coup or a revolution?" It's the only question a stranger gets asked in Cairo these days. Say it was a coup which overthrew Morsi in July, and you are a Muslim Brotherhood supporter. Say it was a revolution - in other words, a continuation of the 2011 revolution which overthrew Mubarak - and you are with Sisi.
The trial itself was political. Why wasn't the current Egyptian minister of interior also in the dock - he held the same ministry in Morsi's government - for the same crime of killing demonstrators outside the presidential palace. And, for that matter, why wasn't he on trial for the deaths of more than 600 pro-Brotherhood protestors after the coup. For it was indeed a coup; Sisi wasn't elected. Besides, does anyone believe that Morsi will be declared innocent? Yet strangely, the outside world is going along with this nonsense. John Kerry, the US Secretary of State who must be the only man alive to believe he can bring peace to 'Palestine', turned up in Cairo - on the day before Morsi's trial, no less - with soft words for Sisi. Progress towards a civilian government - there are supposed to be parliamentary elections early next year - would "function according to the norms of a global democracy, irrespective of the fact that we may have some cultural variations here and there in terms of our traditions."
What this gobbledegook meant was anyone's guess. Did he mean that Egyptians like armies to overthrow elected presidents, whereas Americans generally don't? But it's true that the military coup is now scarcely criticized, even on foreign satellite TV channels. I noticed at the time that broadcasts abroad of Egyptian state television footage of the violence usually carried the original Egyptian logo, 'War on Terror' - in English - at the top of the screen, without explaining to international viewers that this was not exactly what the coup was about.
Yet millions of Egyptians have now also accepted this interpretation of events. True, there are the makings of a Salafist uprising in Sinai with some vicious mass murders of policemen - perhaps involving Palestinians from across the Gaza frontier - but this has now been conflated with the overthrow of Morsi's legitimate if deeply flawed government. Much publicity has been given to the closing of the tunnels that run beneath the Egyptian border into Gaza and the destruction of eight underground tanks holding 334,000 litres of diesel that was to be smuggled by hose into the Hamas-controlled slums of that pitiful place. But there is also evidence that the Egyptian authorities are simply closing and then re-closing the same tunnels. Certainly, the Palestinian refugees of Gaza are now paying the price of Morsi's alliance with Hamas.
Politically, it is as if many Egyptians have relapsed into the infantilism of the Mubarak era. He always called his people his "children" - he did so, twice, in his final broadcast - until the people grew up, only to discover that it was the government who were children, one of whom was 83 years-old. But do they want to be children all over again? Few are the voices of sanity to speak out against the new and fearful spirit infecting Egypt. Egyptian commentator Nervana Mahmoud is one of them, writing this month that Sisi had clearly managed to win the hearts and minds of Egyptians because of what the people see as good leadership, the very skill which Morsi lacked.
"Should this popularity shield Sisi from criticism?" she then asked. "The answer lies in what Egyptians really wanted when they poured into the streets on 30 June. If they truly wanted to overthrow Islamist fascism, then they should repudiate the equally oppressive national fascism and resist the temptation to elevate al-Sisi to a special, sacrosanct level."
But the new regime's powers creep on. When Brotherhood students began shouting "Al-Sisi is a traitor" at Cairo University, they found the army and police turning up at the gates. University staff claim there has been violence on campus, but would prefer private security guards. The authorities now want to check the identities of all students as they enter and leave universities.
There are reports that the Muslim Brotherhood will be able to participate in elections next year through its political party, and this may be true. The Brotherhood has always been prepared to slide behind the backs of their own supporters and parley with the bad guys. After all, they didn't want to participate in the revolution against Mubarak. While young revolutionaries were being shot down in Tahrir Square in 2011, the Brotherhood's men were negotiating with the late Omar Sulieman, Mubarak's creepy intelligence boss. One of the Brotherhood negotiators was Morsi himself.
Sisi is an interesting man. His uncle was a member of the Brotherhood many years ago - is this why Morsi accepted him as his own defence minister? - but he has never seen combat, unless his forgotten defence of virginity tests on Tahrir demonstrators counts. He graduated from military academy only after the 1973 war and the army leadership today contains no great military heroes. True, the old boys of the '73 war probably support Sisi. One retired general, Sayed Wagdy who is still being treated for his wounds at the Maadi military hospital, publicly declared that in July the army "did what had to be done at the right time to avoid a civil war."
But this year's 40th anniversary celebration of the crossing of the Suez Canal was curiously muted, as if the army did not want to draw attention to itself - or to Sisi's lack of a combat record. One Egyptian government official - a senior man in a position of responsibility within his ministry - told me that Sisi must be careful. "At the moment, it's going OK for him," he said. "But wait until something goes wrong. The economy gets worse, say, or there is even less security - more car-bombings - and then he will get blamed. Sisi won't have a good time forever." And what if Israel decides to abandon any connection with Gaza and tells the Egyptians to take it over? Will the Egyptian army then have to take on Hamas?
And there is something deeply unhealthy about the Sisi worship. The army is always beyond reproach. But Sisi's name is actually uttered in hushed and reverential terms, not so much a father-figure but a mother-protector to rival Egypt's greatest mother, the Nile. Indeed, the voice you hear most was best summed up by a journalist two weeks ago. "Give me a strong army that will shoot down armed men crossing over my border," she wrote. "Give me a national leader who will show no mercy in facing down car bombings, assassinations, sabotage. Give me a statesman who will respect your religion but blow you into your 'janna' (heaven) if you try to snuff out mine."
The journalist was Sharmine Narwani and the headline of her article read: "Forget Democracy, Give Me Safe Borders." But she was writing in support of the Syrian regime. No wonder Bashar al-Assad congratulated the Egyptian military on their overthrow of Morsi.
::Union Paradise®
All you really have to do is take a look at the U.S. Embassy rebuttal of the series. The multi-part, multi-media series was put on line beginning Friday morning, though some parts weren't up until evening. And others are said to be coming during the coming weeks. The U.S. Embassy in Germany press office statement came out just after 3 p.m.
The statement:
"Press Office
U.S. Embassy Berlin
November 15, 2013
U.S. Embassy Statement on "Secret War" Allegations
The article in today's Sueddeutscher Zeitung, 'The Secret War: Germany and the Role of America,' is full of half-truths, speculation, and innuendo. For many decades there have indeed been military facilities in Germany for our mutual security under Status of Forces Agreements, but the fact that they are closed to the public in no way implies that illegal activities are being organized there. Although we do not comment on specifics, as a matter of policy the United States does not engage in kidnapping and torture, and does not condone or support the resort to such illegal activities by any nation. Germany is one of the closest allies and partners of the United States, cooperating in areas ranging from counter-terrorism to international economic sustainability. Outrageous claims like those raised in this article are not helpful to the German-American relationship and to our shared global agenda."
The newspaper reaction to that reaction: "The American Embassy also comments and rejects the reports as innuendo. They are stating the the United States "are not kidnapping and torturing on principal." This is a daring claim. Only seven months ago a commission made up of Democrats and Republicans called it "undeniable" that the United States tortured inmates following the terror attacks of 2001. Even President Barack Obama said in 2009 that the American practice of water boarding was torture."
The website does note that almost 20 reporters started gathering this series more than a year ago.
So it doesn't look as if the newspaper and television station will be backing away from their reporting just yet.
In any case, the U.S. embassy makes a strong statement, and takes on some of Germany's most respected journalists.
Why? One piece of the SZ English language version of the series begins:
"Tapping Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone would seem like an outrageous breach of trust—except that there have been so many other, deadlier and lesser-known, breaches of trust wrought by the U.S. in Germany in recent years.
"Where to begin? There's the worldwide secret drone war—a massive break with international law. Then there's the large and growing shadow army of private spies. And, finally, the asylum seekers, whose knowledge is unwittingly used to drop bombs in their home countries.
"The worst part? Germany doesn't even seem to mind."
The series goes on at great detail in each of these areas. At times, it advances with videos, including one showing it's reporter being stopped from shooting video near the U.S. Embassy in Berlin, or near a number of bases, and allegedly secret bases, of both the United States and the United Kingdom around Germany.
The series reports that the $3 billion a year the United States spends in Germany pay for everything from bases for the 43,000 U.S. soldiers stationed here to the American drone campaign in Africa. According to the newspaper's English language version, that drone program works like this:
"First they practice with their 57 drones getting ready for the real thing. When they receive intelligence on potential targets and suspected terrorists, they deliver that information to U.S. intelligence officers, also based in Germany. And these soldiers are responsible when innocent civilians in Africa die as a result. Moral issues aside, the fact remains: without these bases in Germany, the U.S.'s 'war on terror' would not be the well-oiled machine it is now. Germany acts as the headquarters for secret wars in Africa, the European hub for CIA operations and the training ground for drone attacks worldwide. And Germany's location is indispensable."
There is much, much more, here. And the website notes that stories will be coming out during the next several weeks.
Email: mschofield@mcclatchydc.com Twitter: @mattschodcnews
This article was originally published at McClatchy
::Union Paradise®
The freedoms U.S. citizens have "weren't granted by gifts from above," Chomsky said during a panel discussion Friday at MIT. "They were won by popular struggle."
While U.S. officials have long cited national security as a rationale for domestic surveillance programs, that same argument has been used by the "most monstrous systems" in history, such as the Stasi secret police in the former East Germany, Chomsky said.
"The difference with the totalitarian states is the citizens couldn't do a lot about it," in contrast to the U.S., he added. "If we do not expose the plea of security and separate the parts that are valid from the parts that are not valid, then we are complicit."
He cited the still-in-development Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which critics say could have far-reaching implications for Internet use and intellectual property. Wikileaks recently posted a draft of the treaty's chapter on intellectual property.
Now that the information is out there, "we can do something about [the proposed TPP]," Chomsky said.
What's needed for sure "is a serious debate about what the lines should be" when it comes to government surveillance, said investigative reporter Barton Gellman, who has received NSA document leaks from Snowden, leading to a series of stories this year in the Washington Post. "Knowledge is power and it's much easier to win if the other side doesn't know there's a game."
"We can be confident that any system of power is going to try to use the best available technology to control and dominate and maximize their power," Chomsky said. "We can also be confident ... that they want to do it in secret."
But there's a crucial difference between the U.S. activities and that of the Stasi, Gellman said. "The Stasi was knowingly, deliberately and cautiously squashing dissent," he said. "I don't think that's what we're seeing here at all."
A smartphone is an excellent tracking device "from my location, to who I communicate with, to what I search for," he said while holding up his personal device. "I am paying Verizon Wireless on the order of $1000 a year for this."
Meanwhile, although telcos are making money by selling phone users' personal information to third parties, at the same time "the NSA could not do part of its job as efficiently if the companies weren't selling and retaining [customer] data," Gellman said.
Company disclosures and terms of service have limited benefit as well. "Generally the terms of service are written to say we can do whatever we want, in a lot of words," he said. Even if a customer reads through carefully and notes what pledges are being made, "you have no way of monitoring what they do," Gellman added.
Since publishing stories on the NSA surveillance programs, Gellman has stepped up his personal privacy efforts significantly, through "layered defenses" including "locked rooms, safes, and air-gapped computers that never have and never will touch the 'net," he said. The extra steps are "a giant tax on my time," Gellman added.
It's not clear how many more revelations will come to light from the materials Snowden gave Gellman and other journalists. Snowden reportedly gave reporters up to 200,000 documents.
"The [NSA] documents are far from complete," often providing clues to things that end up being wrong after further investigation, Gellman said.
::Union Paradise®
First, I apologize because these problems should have been evident before we passed the Affordable Care Act. Prior to the ACA, the existence of the insurance industry created tremendous bureaucracy for consumers, doctors, health providers and hospitals as well as for business and the government. It also resulted in millions of Americans not being able to get the healthcare they needed, even if they had insurance. After the ACA we now see these problems persist. This is not surprising. The ACA requires each state as well as Washington, DC and Puerto Rico to have an exchange to sell health insurance. Each exchange has four levels of insurance – platinum, gold, silver and bronze. Within each level there are multiple insurance companies and each insurance company puts forward multiple insurance plans. Each state has its own regulatory system for health insurance and the federal government has thousands of pages of regulations as well. This is a very complex system not only for the purposes of selling insurance, but will remain complex throughout the system. Doctors, health providers and hospitals will continue to need to spend more time and money managing payments for healthcare; businesses will continue to need to spend a lot of overhead figuring out what kind of insurance to have and government will have to create bureaucracy to manage thousands of insurance policies.
Second, I want to apologize for stifling the debate we should have had in developing a national healthcare system. When we began this process we had the opportunity to look at three very distinct systems currently operating in the United States – a market-based system dominated by the insurance industry with healthcare provided for-profit; a single payer system, Medicare, where the government is the only funder of healthcare and private providers deliver healthcare services; and, a completely government-run healthcare system for Veterans (VA) where the doctors, hospitals and healthcare providers all work for the government. This would have been a great debate that would have resulted in the United States putting in place the best national health plan based on our experience, and the empirical evidence, of what has worked and what has not, in US healthcare. I suspect if we had that debate the market-based system would have been shown to be the weakest of the three alternatives and a combination of Medicare and the VA would have been the most cost-effective way to provide healthcare for every person in the United States.
As a former advocate for single payer I knew this, but put aside the empirical evidence. Instead, I allowed those with the most money to decide what kind of healthcare we should have. Even though single payer had the support of more than 60 percent of Americans, two-thirds of doctors as well as nurses, I ignored the desires of the people and instead worked with the insurance industry, pharmaceutical industry and for-profit hospitals. This was a terrible mistake and a missed opportunity that would have resulted in the United States getting on the path to becoming the most efficient and effective healthcare system in the world; instead we remain the most expensive system that produces mediocre results.
Today, I am announcing the drop two words campaign. Rather than producing a law of more than one thousand pages and thousands of pages of regulations, I am going to work to drop "over 65" from the Medicare law so that Medicare will serve everyone. After we pass this law, future administrations can work to make the law better as even the best health systems in the world constantly work to improve themselves. My hope is that Medicare covers more health services and ends out-of-pocket costs for healthcare, but for now we are merely seeking to drop two words and provide healthcare to all.
People will say this is a politically unrealistic goal, which is why I am calling this a campaign. Rather than counting votes in Congress, I will work to build the movement that is needed to force members of Congress to do the people's will. If Members refuse, I will work to remove them from office no matter whether they are Democrats or Republicans. Providing healthcare to every American is more important than either political party or any politician.
While I am apologizing for the healthcare law, I need to apologize for something else that became evident this week. A chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership was made public by Wikileaks. This chapter on intellectual property rights showed that my administration has been doing the bidding of transnational corporations throughout the nearly four years we have secretly negotiated this agreement. And, the documents leaked also show that my government has been the most aggressive in the world in pushing a corporate agenda even if it would undermine Internet Freedom, healthcare and other essential aspects of people's lives. The root cause of these actions by my administration are the same as the root cause of the problems with the ACA – I have allowed Wall Street and other big money interests to dominate the direction of trade negotiation. I apologize for putting their profits ahead of the needs of the people and ahead of the necessity of protecting, and even enhancing the environment.
Tonight I am announcing that we are erasing what has been done so far and re-starting the TPP negotiations. For the last four years we have negotiated in secret with more than 600 corporate advisors helping to draft the text. This text cannot be saved and must be started anew. It is evident from the experience of the last 15 years that negotiating trade agreements that are rigged for big business interests does not work and is not supported by the people. We cannot continue to use trade negotiations as an end-around democracy. The World Trade Organization has been stopped from making progress since the 1990s and 14 trade agreements have been stopped over that time because people do not support rigged trade for transnational corporations. Obviously, the approach we are taking is not working and is not serving the people and planet.
The new approach to trade needs to be transparent and inclusive. We want the participation of civil society in all the countries that are part of the negotiations. I have learned that the public interest is best met when the views of the people are heard. And, we need to set a new framework going forward. Trade needs to build a new economy for the 21st Century. This needs to be the century we end poverty, meet basic necessities and lift the wealth of all people as well as develop economic relationships that help make diplomacy by war a thing of the past. The framework I am putting forward tonight begins with putting the necessities of the people and the protection of the planet before excessive profits by corporations.
Finally, while my administration has been at odds with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, as well as other whistleblowers, tonight I want to say thank you to them. Before becoming president I said that I believed in transparent government and that whistleblowers play an important role in getting out the truth. As president I have learned that sometimes these truths are ones of which I am not even fully aware. I am directing the Department of Justice and Department of Defense to review all prosecutions and convictions of whistleblowers. In addition, the issues they have exposed will now be reviewed by people independent of the government. We will not have the NSA and members of the intelligence establishment reviewing the spying on Americans. We will have critics of the NSA making such a review and recommendations. This is the model we will use on a host of issues that have been exposed.
I realize many Americans are already well-aware of the corruption of government by big business interests that has been created by the rule of money. And, I know that as the candidate who has set two records in campaign spending, that I have been part of that problem. I pledge in my remaining time in office that I will do all I can to end the rule of money and empower people – not only in our electoral system but also in the running of government on a day-to-day basis. I cannot do this without the help and participation of the American people, so this will not be the last message to you on these important matters.
Thank you all for listening tonight.
President Barack Obama
Authors note: If President Obama really wanted to apologize to the American people he would not be focused on the fact that some have been required to drop poor insurance plans, but would apologize for the ACA requiring them to buy poor insurance plans that leave them paying 30 percent to 40 percent of the cost of healthcare if they get the most common silver and bronze plans. He would be apologizing that the ACA is a symptom of his administration which is dominated by Wall Street and other big business interests like Monsanto serving as food czar, the outsourcer General Electric serving as jobs czar and the Attorney General coming from a corporate law firm that represents the big banks and other business interests. We are not holding our breath expecting President Obama to apologize for these actions, but hope that others will work with us to build a mass popular resistance that can change the direction of the government and the economy. Change has always come from the bottom up, so we are not waiting for the top to acknowledge their own corruption.
Kevin Zeese is an organizer at Popular Resistance.
www.PopularResistance.org
::Union Paradise®
