.
Boston artist Steve Mills - realistic painting
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Do Animated Movies Prepare Children for Sodomy?
Do Animated Movies Prepare Children for Sodomy?
May 22, 2010by Sam Peyo
(for henrymakow.com)
Once we understand that animation picture makers carefully choose every little thing and gesture that goes into a film, it is very interesting to look at all the messages scattered throughout the virtual sets, on book covers, street signs, clothes and so forth.
Nowadays, many movies feature homosexuals (mostly men) gay behavior and even sodomy. While there is no doubt the movie industry is used for social engineering, promoting anti-traditional and subversive values, gays are nevertheless more often pictured as ludicrous than heroic. It is as if even gay directors and script writers (and I bet there are many of them out there) cannot quite give up the notion that a man acting like a hysterical woman is "funny". Let´s see a few examples:
Madagascar 1: Melman, the giraffe, is clearly gay. He is a "sensitive", self-centered hypochondriac completely devoid of androgenic hormones. Certainly there is no suggestion that he suffers from a developmental disorder or that anal intercourse is abnormal. He is a good companion for Alex, Marty and the lovely but dykey hippopotamus, Gloria. In one scene, Melman is submitted to a gynecological examination. In another, Alex tries to get him out of a crate using a palm trunk. When the trunk is inches away from Melman's privates, the giraffe screams "It's Gloria!". Gloria is in fact arriving on the beach at that moment, but the next line, "Oh, hey, it is Gloria!", shows that the first line did not refer to the arrival, but to the "glory" of the imminent sexual experience. In Madagascar 2, the studio decided to correct the impression by making Melman fall in love with Gloria.
In a TV episode of the Madagascar Penguins, the zoo sets up a simple robot which is programmed to give visitors directions. In the end, the robot is accidentally blown up. Debris is falling everywhere and King Julien, the lemur, is covering his head. The last part to fall is the robot's arm. When it does, the forearm bends towards Julien's butt with the hand resembling genitals. The subtitles speak for themselves. Sasha Baron Cohen dubs the voice of King Julien!
Planet 51: Lem's friend Skiff is unmistakably gay. Very "sensitive", crying for almost no reason, and hysterically in love with Rover, a dog-like wheeled probe. On two occasions, the "dog" leaps on his lap wagging its tail strongly. It may not be intended to mean what I think it does, but the way others look on is very telling.
Skiff has a rather loose wrist for a brisk young man! During a street dance he performs the banal "F... gesture" three times while Neera looks on in surprise. Near the end of the movie, Lem tells general Grawl (resembling Schwarzenegger, with a suspiciously large and unruly forelock) that his persecuting behavior is due to his fear of the unknown. What Lem is really insinuating is "Come out of the closet and assume your true gay and peace-loving self!"
Shark Tale: This is the story of Lenny, a gay shark who is not well accepted by his family (resembling the Italian mafia). Interestingly, vegetarianism is used as a proxy for homosexuality. The father's attempt to force his son to have sex with a woman (a virgin perhaps) is illustrated by his bullying him into eating a live shrimp which is begging for its life. The movie makes no secret of Lenny´s homosexuality.
Other films: Examples of sodomy and homosexual behaviors are numerous. I could go on for the rest of the day, but here are three more scenes from Ice Age 2, Barnyard (guy in the middle with the earring in the left ear and the "funny" expression) and The Incredibles ("Syndrome" dances a very queer dance while scoffing at Mr. Incredible for resorting to a homing device).
CONCLUSION
Combined with the mainstreaming of homosexuality in the media, its advocacy in public schools, and the general sexualization of children, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that some animated movies are part of a long-term Illuminati program to prepare children for sodomy
USA:An Economy of Our Own: The Need for White Economic Relocalization
An Economy of Our Own:
The Need for White Economic Relocalization
Feeling squeezed? White males need not apply.
Recently I was at a supermarket that uses the American flag for its logo. The ladies at the deli were handing out samples of buffalo chicken salad, and I asked if I could buy a pound of it. They said, “No, it only comes in sandwiches that were made at a warehouse in Massachusetts.” We can assume the sandwich assemblers were recent immigrants, possibly illegals. Then the ladies at the deli complained that their hours had been cut. I was infuriated. The process of outsourcing jobs and insourcing illegal and legal immigrants has massively accelerated.
What other conclusion can we draw from this article in the Hindustan Times entitled “US healthcare expansion means big business for India.” So let’s get this straight. We are borrowing money from China, to pay India to administer our healthcare system? While there are millions of unemployed?
War has been declared on us.
When white Americans have been outsourced and insourced out of our jobs, we won’t be able to fall back on the Welfare State. Welfare is not for people like us. People like us work to support the welfare state. When we have no work, there will be no welfare state.
Besides, the people I know, in the culture I grew up in, cannot stand to have our work taken away from us. We are proud, independent, hard working people, not a flock of “Social Services Sheeple” who can be bought off with food stamps and free cheese.
Outsourcing and insourcing are not products of “market forces.” They are products of sheer inequities of power. The reason you are being laid off and your job is being shipped overseas is because the people who control the commanding heights of the economy have the power to do it to you. If outsourcing is the imperative of impersonal market forces, why does it not happen to your bosses too? Simple: the reason corporate fat cats are not laid off and their jobs shipped to Bangalore where some bright young MBAs will do them for pennies on the dollar is because you don’t have the power to do it to them.
But you have more power than you think.
The key is economic relocalization: white Americans need to stop being employees who exist at the sufferance of evil elites and far-flung, vulnerable global networks. We need to retrain ourselves to look for opportunities to produce things for ourselves in as localized a manner as possible, and to encourage and support others in our communities who are doing the same thing.
We need to begin now, to get economic relocalization to reach critical mass while we still have the freedom to do so. We need to create something that is resilient enough that it can’t be outlawed or expropriated or crushed under the iron heel. We do not have much time left.
If we lose the country it’s our own damned fault. We are sitting atop more than enough resources; it’s just a matter or redirecting the resources into decentralized/localized rather than centralized/globalized economies.
Millions of ordinary laboring entrepreneurs can do things cheaper, better, more efficiently and more resiliently than Walmart and the US government. I have seen this with my own eyes time and again.
My focus is relocalization of the food supply, because this is the most basic form of local economy. We have to rebuild civilization from the ground up, and it all started with agricultural surpluses.
Right now we are no more than desperate hunter-gatherers of Federal Reserve Notes. All production and distribution is controlled through the fiat currency system, a diabolical network that can rob you of the fruits of your labor not only with printing presses, but merely with the stroke of a computer key.
Relocalization of the food supply will organize people on a micro-social level and teach us social intelligence again. With social intelligence we can turn our private car system into an ad hoc mass transit system, among other things. The only reason we don’t do that now is we lack social intelligence, which allows corporations and government to easily administer a centralized, granular control over us.
Agricultural relocalization will teach us the social intelligence we need to take back control of our own commerce. From this will proceed small workshops, “smith-shops” repair shops, flea markets and second hand trade – a million ways to ameliorate the painful economic contraction by withdrawing from and replacing the consumer-corporate economic model.
So the real mission is to increase social intelligence. Books won’t do it. This is something that must be learned from practice, from a radical change in “lifestyle.”
With social intelligence we can put Walmart out of business and laugh while the US government drowns in a vat of its own debt. That’s not our debt. We didn’t sign any loans to China, or agree to borrow money from Central Banks to give it to Israel or bail out Goldman Sachs or go to war on Iraq and Afghanistan.
If you are the sort of person that makes things happen, get in touch. I am not going to spell out the details of my easily replicated economic relocalization activities in this article, but I will talk to any individual I deem trustworthy. That is relocalization in practice.
P. Buchanan:Take the Deal With Iran, Mr. President
 |
| VDARE.COM - http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/100520_iran.htm May 20, 2010 Take the Deal With Iran, Mr. PresidentBy Patrick J. BuchananIf Barack Obama is sincere in his policy of "no nukes in Iran—no war with Iran", he will halt this rude dismissal of the offer Tehran just made to ship half its stockpile of uranium to Turkey. Iran will deliver 1,200 kilograms, well over a ton, of its 2-ton stockpile of low-enriched uranium (LEU) to Turkey. In return, Iran will receive, in a year, 120 kilograms of fuel rods for its U.S.-built reactor that produces medical isotopes for treating cancer patients. Not only did Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Lula da Silva of Brazil put their prestige on the line by flying to Tehran, the deal they got is a near-exact replica of the deal Obama offered Iran eight months ago. Why is President Obama slapping it away? Does he not want a deal? Has he already decided on the sanctions road that leads to war? If Iran ships the LEU to Turkey, she would be left with only enough low-enriched uranium for one test explosion. And as that LEU is under U.N. surveillance, America would have a long lead time to act if Iran began to convert the LEU to weapons grade. How is the Iranian program then an "existential threat" to anyone? Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons—America thousands. Critics say Iran still refuses to shut down the centrifuges turning out low-grade uranium. But if Iran stops the centrifuges, she surrenders her last bargaining chip to get sanctions lifted. Critics say Iran is trying to abort Hillary Clinton's campaign to have the Security Council impose a fourth round of sanctions. Undeniably true. But if the purpose of sanctions is to force Iran to negotiate its nuclear program, they are already working. Tehran's latest offer represents real movement. Critics say Iran will weasel out if we take up the deal. Perhaps. Internal opposition caused Ahmadinejad to back away from Obama's original offer, after he had indicated initial acceptance. But, if so, Iran will be seen as duplicitous by Turkey and Brazil. To the world today, the United States appears enraged that Iran is responding to America's own offer, that it is we who do not want a peaceful resolution, that we and the Israelis are as hell-bent on war and "regime change" in Iran as George W. Bush was on war and regime change in Iraq. While the Brazilians and Turks have surely complicated Hillary's diplomacy, their motives are not necessarily sinister or malevolent. Lula may be trying to one-up Obama and win a Nobel Prize as he leaves office. But what is wrong with that? Bill Clinton had a Nobel in mind when, in his final days, he went all-out for a Palestinian peace. And Erdogan leads a country that cannot wish to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons. For Shia Iran shares a border with Sunni Turkey, and the two are rivals for influence in the Islamic world and Central Asia. Moreover, an Iranian bomb would force Turkey to consider a Turkish bomb. Erdogan thus has every incentive to seek a resolution of this crisis, to keep Iran free of nuclear weapons, and avert a war between yet another neighbor and his NATO ally, the United States. If Obama refuses to take the Iranian offer seriously, it would appear a sure sign that the War Party has taken him into camp and he is departing the negotiating track for the confrontation track that leads to war. And there are obvious reasons why he might want a deal. First, Iran runs out of fuel this year for its reactor that produces medical isotopes. And despite Tehran's braggadocio about making fuel rods itself out of its existing pile of uranium, there is no evidence Tehran is technically capable of this. Iranians dying of cancer because Ahmadinejad failed to get those fuel rods would create enmity toward him, as well as hatred of us for denying them to Iranian cancer patients. Second, as the U.S. intelligence community yet contends, there is no hard evidence Iran has decided to go nuclear. For this would instantly put Iran in the nuclear gunsights of the United States and Israel. And what benefit would Shia and Persian Iran, half of whose population is non-Persian, gain by starting a nuclear arms race in a region that is predominantly Arab and Sunni? Third, Ahmadinejad leads a nation that is united in insisting on all its rights under the Nonproliferation Treaty, including the right to enrich. But his nation is deeply divided over his regime's legitimacy after last June's flawed, if not fixed, election. If the United States were to accept Iran's counter-offer, it would be a diplomatic coup for Ahmadinejad. Maybe that's the problem. The Powers That Be don't really want a deal with Iran. They want Iran smashed. |
The Death of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh
http://www.washington-report.org/component/content/article/349-2010-april/8821-several-birds-one-stone.html
Several Birds, One Stone
Saleh Al-Naami
THE AGEING father of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who was assassinated in Dubai two weeks ago, did not believe that his son died of a heart attack. “They killed him,” he repeatedly stated.In the beginning, the rest of al-Mabhouh’s family and Hamas leaders believed that he had died as a result of a stroke, as stated in a preliminary report by the Dubai police. It soon became apparent, however, that the intuition of the father was correct.
One week after his death, it was revealed that al-Mabhouh was killed by a highly trained assassination unit. According to information gathered by the Dubai police and Hamas, a group of seven broke into al-Mabhouh’s room at the Rotana al-Bustan Hotel the day he arrived from Damascus, where he resided with his family. Al-Mabhouh had entered the emirate using an alias and forged passport.
A composite picture released on Feb. 15, 2010 by Dubai police shows the ID photos of the 11 European passport-carrying suspects in the Jan. 20 murder in a Dubai hotel room of top Hamas official Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. (Top row, l-r): Peter Elvinger (France), Stephen Daniel Hodes, Melvyn Adam Mildine and Jonathan Louis Graham (all from Britain); (middle row, l-r): Evan Dennings (Ireland), Michael Lawrence Barney and Paul John Keeley (both from Britain), and Kevin Daveron (Ireland); (bottom row, l-r) Gail Folliard (Ireland), Michael Bodenheimer (Germany) and James Leonard Clarke (Britain). (AFP photo/Ho/Dubai Police)The group of seven injected the Hamas leader with a poison that mimics the symptoms of a heart attack, leading Dubai police to believe his death was caused by a stroke. When it was revealed that the victim was a leading member in Hamas, and given the repeated suspicions of his father that Mahmoud was assassinated by Israelis, the police sent samples of al-Mabhouh’s blood to a laboratory in France. After the results confirmed traces of poison, Hamas officially announced that the Israeli Mossad killed al-Mabhouh.While Tel Aviv remained silent about the assassination, soon Israeli cabinet members were strongly hinting that Israel was in fact behind the killing. State Minister Danny Hershkovitz asserted that the successful elimination demonstrates that Mossad Chief Meir Dagan is one of the most competent Mossad leaders in the history of Israel. “He is undoubtedly performing his job above and beyond expectations,”stated Hershkovitz. “Personally, I believe the Mossad knows exactly how to stop Israel’s enemies. Anyone who lays a hand on Jews is risking his life.”
Meanwhile, Minister of Minorities Avishay Braverman proposed, “We should act according to the axiom ‘kill before you are killed.’” Al-Mabhouh was murdered on the same day that Israeli Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau was attending an international energy conference in Abu Dhabi.
A highly placed security source told the popular Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot on Jan. 31: “Al-Mabhouh’s file in Israeli intelligence labels him as a clear and present threat to Israel’s security.” The newspaper claimed that al-Mabhouh was responsible for fund-raising for Hamas, as well as making arms deals and delivering them to Gaza. It further alleged that he was the right hand man to Ezzeddin Khalil, who was in charge of the movement’s finances, and that they worked together to strengthen ties with Iran and Hezbollah officials in Lebanon and Turkey. They also reportedly tapped into rich Muslim circles around the world. Sheikh Khalil was assassinated in Damascus in 2004.
The Israelis are quick to point out al-Mabhouh is one of the founders of the Ezzeddin al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas’ military wing, and played a principal role in kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in 1989. When he was exposed, al-Mabhouh fled from the Gaza Strip through the border with Egypt and settled in Damascus.
The assassination in Dubai is categorized by the Israeli Mossad as a “silent mission”—meaning it leaves no evidence leading to Israel. The operation apparently was retaliation to al-Mabhouh’s resistance activities, and aims to serve as a warning to Hamas military leaders who are holding captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. According to the Israeli logic, the mission was also a message that it can reach Shalit’s kidnappers, and aims to demoralize resistance movements, sow doubt in their ranks, and undermine their capabilities.
The Zionist security apparatus appears also to have wanted to bring about a new political environment, since it expects Hamas to respond to the assassination with military action. Hamas’ expected aggression would be employed by Israel to achieve two main goals. First, Israel would blame Hamas for the deteriorating security situation, improving Israel’s standing in the international arena after it was dealt a severe blow by the release of the Goldstone Report accusing it of crimes against humanity. Second, it would give Tel Aviv a pretext to strike Hamas in Gaza, especially in light of Israeli claims that the movement acquired missiles that would change the strategic balance between the two sides.
Since the Mossad is directly under the authority of the Israeli prime minister, he is directly responsible for issuing orders for assassinations abroad. The Committee of Agency Leaders, whose members include the military chief of staff, the head of military intelligence in Amman, the chief of the Mossad, the head of domestic intelligence (Shin Bet), and the prime minister’s military secretary, draws up the list of candidates to be assassinated.
Since the 1970s and until the failed attempt to kill the head of Hamas’ politburo, Khaled Meshal, in Amman in 1997, the Israeli military—represented by Sayeret Matkal, which is directly accountable to military intelligence—was in charge of killing Palestinians and Arabs in Europe. The attempt on Meshal’s life was a turning point in Israel’s assassination policy because it was the first to be carried out by Mossad on Arab soil. The Kidon unit in the Mossad Special Operations Division—known as Kissaria—attempted to kill Meshal and is most likely to have carried out al-Mabhouh’s assassination.
The question now is whether Tel Aviv will succeed in luring Hamas into another round of confrontations to serve Israeli interests. Judging by statements issued by many leading figures in Hamas, it appears that the group is very cautious in deciding how to react to the assassination. Mahmoud al-Zahhar, member of Hamas’ politburo, believes al-Mabhouh’s slaying indicates Israel’s desire to “change the rules of the game.” Al-Zahhar asserted his group’s right to defend itself, but quickly added: “Reaction to the assassination must be weighed carefully.” He also said that if the group decides to respond, retaliation would take place inside Palestine, not abroad.
Al-Zahhar stated that in seeking retribution, Hamas would be cautious not to jeopardize its relationship with Arab and Muslim countries. “We limit our confrontation with the Israeli enemy to the occupied territories, but if Israel wants to change the ground rules and open up the world stage for the conflict, it will take sole responsibility for the repercussions,” warned al-Zahhar.
Despite the bravado, it is most probable that if Hamas decides to retaliate, this would indeed take place inside Palestine. According to most experts, the group does not have any military infrastructure overseas. Hamas has never targeted Israeli interests outside the borders of Palestine.
Hamas also knows that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is intent on sabotaging negotiations between Hamas and Israel regarding the exchange of prisoners. On the one hand, Netanyahu rejects Hamas’ demands for the release of detainees. At the same time he is under immense pressure by Israeli public opinion and some security and political circles to close a deal. Hence, the assassination of al-Mabhouh is an attempt to push Hamas to a more extreme position, in order to blame it for failed negotiations.
This article first appeared in the Feb. 4-10, 2010 issue of the weekly Al-Ahram. Copyright © Al-Ahram Weekly. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.
Israel Goes Rogue
By Justin Raimondo
When is the world going to finally decide Israel has gone too far—and do something about it?When Israel invaded and retained the occupied territories, imposing a regime that resembles the old South African apartheid system, the world looked the other way—after all, beleaguered Israel was fighting for its survival, and, besides that, peace talks were underway. The daily grinding down of the Palestinians could be accepted as a temporary and even necessary evil as long as there was some sort of vague expiration date attached to the arrangement.
When it began to look like peace might be just a pipedream, and the Israelis continued sponsoring invasive “settlements” to cement their conquest, the world looked the other way. After all, everybody knew Netanyahu had to deal with an increasingly right-wing Israeli electorate, and his government could fall apart at any moment: no one expected President Obama to get tough with Tel Aviv anyway, and so no one was too surprised when the U.S. caved on the settlements issue.
The bombing and continued blockade of Gaza, the barbaric invasions of Lebanon, and the continuing refusal to correct the widespread human rights violations documented in the Goldstone Report—all of this has darkened Israel’s image considerably, even among its staunch supporters. On account of this record, Israel is now widely considered a “rogue” nation, at least outside the U.S. One of the major reasons for this shift in perception has to do with the wide-ranging activities of the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence service.
With a fearsome reputation for ruthlessness second only to the old KGB, the Israeli intelligence services are known for their boldness and their buccaneering tactics. This was once a public relations advantage: their raid on Entebbe was made into a successful movie for a reason. From rescuing hostages, however, the Mossad has lately gone in for assassinations on foreign soil, most recently in Dubai, where they offed Hamas military commander Mahmoud al-Mabhouh.
This is nothing new for the Israelis: picking off their enemies on foreign soil is a longtime favorite sport of the Mossad. The innovation that’s got Israel’s allies in an uproar, however, is a relatively new weapon in the Mossad’s arsenal: identity theft. As the Telegraph reports:
“Ministers are understood to be furious that an alleged hit squad which murdered a Hamas leader in Dubai last month cloned the passports of six unsuspecting Britons, who are now living in fear of reprisals.
“Israel, which has not denied involvement in the murder, had previously promised that Mossad, its secret intelligence service, would never use British passports to help its agents carry out covert operations.”
The six are all British citizens living in Israel, where the Mossad had full access to their essential documents: they simply cloned the passports and sent their agents into Dubai. There the Israelis reportedly assembled quite a contingent, as many as 18, enough to qualify the effort as a full-scale military operation. In effect, the Israelis carried out a mini-invasion of Dubai, a fact not lost on the Emirate authorities.Interpol has posted the photos of the 11 (so far) known suspects, and issued a statement, including the following:
“Since INTERPOL has reason to believe that the suspects linked to this murder have stolen the identities of real people, the Red Notices specify that the names used were aliases used to commit murder. INTERPOL has officially made public the photos and the names fraudulently used on the passports in order to limit the ability of accused murderers from traveling freely using the same false passports.”
If any institution embodies that vague abstraction known as “the international community,” then surely it is Interpol, which coordinates the capture of transnational criminal gangs—sex traffickers, drug lords, and, yes, Mossad assassins. That they see Israel’s intelligence agency as an obstacle in their task of limiting “the ability of accused murderers from traveling freely” speaks volumes about the degree to which Israel has truly crossed the line.This isn’t exactly an innovation on the part of the Israelis: in New Zealand, you’ll recall, they had a large-scale passport “farm” in operation a few years ago. Their agents would identify someone completely disabled, or otherwise unlikely to travel abroad, and—unbeknownst to the victim—apply for a passport in their name. When discovered, the Israelis denied everything, but the cops had the goods and the trial of the Israeli spies was front page news for weeks. The New Zealanders all but broke off diplomatic relations with Israel over the matter, and the Israelis, while never admitting anything, made apologetic noises while the issue—mostly ignored by the Western media outside New Zealand—faded into obscurity.
Now it has arisen once again, but this time in a far more serious context: this isn’t inconsequential-albeit-lovely New Zealand but Britain, France, Germany, Ireland, and possibly other Western nations who have had their passport systems violated. However, the worst of it is that the Mossad has apparently taken to “farming” the passports of Israelis who hold dual citizenships. According to Haaretz: “Five Israelis who hold dual citizenship in Britain and Germany and whose names were on some of the passports denied any connection with the Dubai death.”
If Israel’s intelligence services are now “farming” the passports of those numerous Israelis who hold dual citizenship, then the passport system—the key to maintaining security in the age of terrorism—is no longer reliable or even functional. Israel is a multi-national “nation,” one created by a state-sponsored effort to get people the world over to move there, and many retain citizenship in their country of origin. The U.S. doesn’t compile statistics on dual citizenship, but the number who hold dual Israeli and U.S. citizenship is substantial: they are now all at risk of having their identities stolen by a covert army of assassins.
There’s just one way to solve this growing problem, and that is to ban all dual citizenship, and ask Americans to choose. Yes, there’s a Supreme Court decision standing in the way, but if it requires a constitutional amendment, then so be it. At a time when maintaining the integrity of our passport system is key to preventing terrorist attacks on our territory and against our citizens abroad, it’s worth taking the trouble to patch up this gaping hole in our national security.
That Israel has gone this far in its international campaign of murder and intimidation ought to motivate the civilized nations of the world to unite in protest. The government of Dubai is petitioning to have the head of the Mossad arrested for murder, and, come to think of it, issuing a warrant might not be such a bad idea. With a foreign minister who is the Israeli equivalent of David Duke, and a foreign policy that owes much to the Klingons, Israel, which is veering off into Asiatic despotism, needs to be pulled back toward the West. The way to do that is not to offer the Jewish state unconditional support, no matter how potty and self-destructive its policies may be, but to offer the kind of “tough love” that can bring it back into the Western orbit.
We can’t afford to look away anymore: Israel has massively compromised the security of international travel, and has brought this on itself. Now is the time for the U.S. and other Western countries to rein in their client state gone rogue—before it’s too late.
Justin Raimondo is the editorial director of Antiwar.com and a contributing editor for The American Conservative. This article was first posted on <www.antiwar.com>, Feb. 19, 2010. Copyright ©Antiwar.com 2010. Reprinted with permission.
Court rules prisoners in Afghanistan have no habeas corpus rights
Court rules prisoners in Afghanistan have no habeas corpus rights
By DAVID G. SAVAGE AND CHRISTI PARSONS - Tribune Washington Bureau
 |
May 21, 2010 WASHINGTON The Obama administration has won the legal right to hold its terrorism suspects indefinitely and without oversight by judges - not at Guantanamo or Thomson, Ill., but at the Bagram air base in Afghanistan. In a 3-0 decision, the U.S. appeals court in Washington ruled for the administration Friday and said the Constitution and its right to habeas corpus does not extend to foreign prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan because it is a war zone. The judges dismissed claims from three prisoners who were brought to Bagram from Pakistan and Thailand and have been held for as long as seven years. "It is undisputed that Bagram, indeed the entire nation of Afghanistan, remains a theater of war," said Chief Judge David Sentelle, a conservative who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. Joining him were two Democratic appointees: Judges David Tatel and Harry Edwards. The decision could bring an ironic end to years of legal wrangling over prisoners held by the U.S. military. The ruling, unless overturned by the Supreme Court, appears to the give the Obama administration what the Bush administration had long sought: a place where foreign prisoners can be held by the military out of reach of lawyers and courts. For months, the Obama administration has debated plans to use Bagram as an alternative to Guantanamo for a small number of prisoners caught outside Afghanistan. Currently, only a dozen or fewer of the Bagram prisoners are foreign fighters, Defense officials have said. But that number soon could grow. The court decision came a day after the House Armed Services Committee voted to block the administration from retrofitting a state prison in Thomson, Ill., to hold high-value prisoners from Guantanamo. The administration still hopes to transfer the several dozen remaining prisoners from Guantanamo, but it will need approval from Congress. At the same time, at least 645 prisoners are held at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan, most connected to the war in Afghanistan. Civil liberties advocates denounced Friday's ruling. It "ratifies the dangerous principle that the U.S. government has unchecked power to capture people anywhere in the world, unilaterally declare them enemy combatants and subject them to indefinite military detention with no judicial review," said Melissa Goodman, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. "Just because the plane landed at Bagram instead of Guantanamo should not mean they can be held indefinitely without any court review," said Andrea Prasow, a lawyer for Human Rights Watch. Kirk Lippold, the former commander of the U.S. warship Cole and a fellow with Military Families United, praised the ruling as a "clear vindication" of the military's authority "to fight the war on terror by preventing terrorists from having access to the American court system." The White House and Justice Department had no comment on the ruling. After 2001 and the launch of war in Afghanistan, the Bush administration sent hundreds of foreign prisoners from Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Mideast to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, believing they could be held there and questioned out of reach of lawyers or courts. But lawyers went to the Supreme Court arguing that long-term prisoners had a right to plead their innocence before an independent judge. They decried Guantanamo as a "law-free zone." They won a series of victories at the Supreme Court, including a 5-4 ruling in 2008 that said the Constitution gave these prisoners a right to habeas corpus because Guantanamo was thousands of miles from a battlefield and had been occupied as sovereign U.S. territory for a century. At the same time, the justices said this right to a court hearing did not extend to battlefields or war zones. Afterward, the Bush administration insisted this right to habeas corpus did not extend to Iraq or Afghanistan. And in 2009, the Obama administration adopted the same view. A federal judge in Washington ruled that prisoners who were shipped to the Bagram prison from other countries had a right to challenge their detention, just like the prisoners who were sent to Guantanamo. The Obama administration appealed and won a reversal in Friday's decision. In its opinion, the appeals court acknowledged the administration could "evade judicial review of executive detention decisions by transferring detainees into active conflict zones." White House officials said Friday they are moving forward with a plan to purchase the vacant state prison in Illinois as a possible location for the remaining Guantanamo detainees. They said the House committee vote this week does not affect the federal government's ability to purchase the Thomson prison. Money for the acquisition was set aside in the federal budget for next year; the sale could take place as soon as Oct. 1. "We have always maintained that we need increased prison facility," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, adding that the proposed law may prevent modifications to the prison, but does not prohibit the facility's purchase. (David S. Cloud of the Tribune Washington Bureau contributed to this report.) |
Iraq’s ancient Uruk loses grandeur
Iraq’s ancient Uruk loses grandeur
By Saad Hussein
 |
Azzaman, May 21, 2010 Iraq’s largest archaeological site is in danger and may be lost forever, an Iraqi scientist says. Hadiya Jwan al-Khalidi, head of Muthana University’s History Department, urged the authorities to move quickly to save Uruk before it was too late. She said Uruk was not "an ordinary archaeological site. I am really sad to see what has become of this treasure." Situated east of the present course of the Euphrates, the site was known to the Sumerians as Unu. The Akkadians called it Uruk. Warka is the Biblical version of Uruk, one of Mesopotamia’s most ancient sites and where digs have uncovered traces of almost all ancient civilizations that flourished in southern Iraq. Urging the government to pay attention to Uruk, Khalidi said: "Warka is Iraq’s real treasure. I am so sad to see this ancient site suffering from neglect and being forgotten. Most of its landmarks are now buried under sand." She said Uruk was one of the rare Mesopotamian towns to have continued flourishing until the advent of Islam in Iraq in the 7th century. "This is the site which was an important religious and civil center until the coming of Islam," she said. Early excavation started in Uruk in 1912 and brought to light a large town with growing urban proportions and dating to the 5th millennium B.C. The city has given world museums unusual artifacts among them fine sculpture and cylinder seals. But the site’s most treasured and most renowned artifact is the Lady of Warka. This magnificent sculpture, known familiarly as the Mona Lisa of Mesopotamia, was stolen shortly after the U.S. invasion and later recovered and handed over to the Iraq Museum. Remains of Uruk ziggurat still dominated the site prior to the 2003-U.S. invasion of Iraq, but this terraced structure, a landmark of major Mesopotamian cities, is said to be crumbling. Khalidi said Uruk and its surroundings are rich with archeological sites. "There are more than 200 ancient sites in the area and only a few have been excavated so far," she said. |
Mossad Does Interrogations in Iraqi Jails
Mossad Does Interrogations in Iraqi Jails
May 22, 2010 The Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR) said on Saturday that Israel's intelligence agency Mossad is interrogating Arab prisoners in Iraqi jails. "I received calls from Jordanian prisoners at Iraqi jails and they informed us that Mossad is interrogating them and other Arab prisoners in jails in Iraq," Abdul Karim Shreideh, head of the prisoners and detention centers committee at AOHR, said in a press conference in the Jordanian capital of Amman Saturday. "The prisoners said Mossad gives them the option to work with the agency as their agents and thus be able to leave the prisons or remain in jail," Shreideh told reporters at the conference held to launch the AOHR's annual report on situation of human rights in Jordan in 2009. According to the organization, there are 33 Jordanians jailed in Iraq and thousands of Arab prisoners in Iraqi jails. In the press conference, the AOHR President Hani Dahleh urged the Jordanian government to intensify steps to secure the release of Jordanians jailed abroad. There are 250 Jordanians jailed in Syria, 41 in Saudi Arabia, 37 in Israel, seven in the United States, five in Iran and one in Kuwait. The Jordanian government has repeatedly stressed that the issue of Jordanians jailed abroad tops its priorities and that it is exerting its utmost efforts to follow up on the issue. |
www.uruknet.info?p=66255
Battlefields contaminated with depleted uranium bred cancer plague
Battlefields contaminated with depleted uranium bred cancer plague
RT, May 23, 2010 In Iraq, many doctors believe that the radiation leaked from old weapons used by foreign forces in 1991 and 2003 are continuing to have a deadly impact.Depleted uranium has been used for nearly 20 years as sub-ammunition of artillery shells in international conflicts like the two Iraq Wars and the NATO conflict with Serbia, but the long-term effects of it are unknown. They fear that the remains of the substance are spreading cancer through the population and contaminating water. Seven years after the invasion of Iraq, people there are still dying from its after-effects. In cities and towns across the country, old munitions are leaking radiation, with horrific consequences. "The number of cancer cases among children increased by 227 per cent in the period from 2005 to 2007," stated Doctor K. Suleiman. "Experts at the University of Basra Research Center claim that toxic agents will continue having a harmful effect on human health for the next 50 years." During the Gulf War in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, coalition forces fired thousands of "depleted uranium" shells. Depleted uranium is a by-product of the enrichment process and its immense density makes it a powerful projectile. But it can leave a deadly legacy. "Depleted uranium, which was used back in 1991 and 2003, is the most dangerous substance. Experts reckon that over 350 tonnes of it were used in total. This substance will give out harmful radiation for years into the future,"predicted Dr. Suleiman. "For instance, as many as 35 new forms of cancer not known to the World Health Organization were reported in June 2008." Two reports, one by the US army and the other by the World Health Organization, warned about the dangers of depleted uranium before the 2003 war. When shells fell into the dust, they contaminated it, along with water sources nearby. And when it is inhaled or drunk, radioactive material can sit in the body, damaging DNA and leading to cancer. The Head of a humanitarian organization for children with cancer, L. Shakir, informs that "The reports say that the number of cancer patients is growing. But some doctors say it’s all within the norm and that the number of cancer cases here is smaller than in other countries. We need to consolidate our efforts in fighting cancer. The support of the state, represented by the Health Minister, is of paramount importance, as is the role of NGOs and international organizations." Officially, the US army is skeptical about the link between depleted uranium shells and cancer rates. But where battles were fought, Iraqi doctors are struggling to cope with huge rises in numbers of tumors and birth defects and, for them, the link is obvious. "2,000 new cancer cases are reported in Basra annually. Our patients come from Basra, An-Nasiriyah, Amara and other provinces," Doctor Jivad Ali, an oncologist, said. |
www.uruknet.info?p=66260
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)