1. Obama is now fully implicated in torture:
“Thug Diplomacy – Bush Admin. Threatened the UK’s “National Security” if they publish torture evidence
…
It obviously is a threat, as summed up by Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic;
That is a threat to hurt the security of a very close ally unless the British government intervenes into a court process to suppress evidence of US torture. In a critical test of the Obama administration, the demand that such evidence be suppressed was reiterated. (I don’t know by whom. Panetta isn’t in place yet. Brennan? Clinton?) And that’s how illegal torture spreads throughout a legal and military system to undermine alliances as well as the rule of law. The poison of Cheney is still in the system. And it will be for a long time. That was the point: the crimes and blunders they committed were such that their successors find themselves, willy nilly, implicated in them.
Of course, it’s worse than that. How do you suppose a British intelligence analyst would interpret this threat?
Consider the CIA’s “al Qaeda” operatives, Ali Mohamed, Ramzi Yousef and Luai Sakra. It takes years to groom this kind of sophisticated “faux” terror; and even though British intelligence is up to their asses in the same game, they do not hold all the cards.
In shorthand, the analyst could interpret the threat like this; “We have assets in place. Do as we ask, or suffer the consequences.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19323
2. “Why Lee Harvey Oswald Had to Die
Without a bullet that can be proven to have been at the scene of the crime, the government would have had no case against Lee Harvey Oswald, tried in absentia in the media because he was murdered and murdered before he could talk.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19316
3. “Would It Kill Us to Apologize to Iran for the Coup?
When President Obama told al-Arabiya, “if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us,” the most widely reported Iranian response was President Ahmedinijad’s suggestion that if the U.S. truly wants good relations with Iran, it should begin by apologizing for U.S. “crimes” against Iran, including U.S. support for the coup that overthrew Iranian democracy in 1953.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/would-it-kill-us-to-apolo_b_163957.html
4. “Christian Support for Killing Iraqis
Among the things about the Iraq War that I have never been able to understand is how American Christians have been able, in good conscience, to support this war. After all, no one can deny that neither Iraq nor the Iraqi people ever attacked the United States. That makes the United States the aggressor — the attacker — in this particular conflict. How could American Christians support the killing of Iraqis in such a war of aggression? How could they reconcile this with God’s sacred commandment, Thou shalt not murder. “
http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2009-02-06.asp
5. “US Deserter Receives German Peace Prize
The Munich American Peace Committee said it was awarding the prize to Shepherd for his “courage and conviction in despite of the possibly extreme punishment from the US authorities” and “for publicising your convictions to give other soldiers the courage also to leave the army and to push for peace.”
6. Remember, the BBC refused to run an ad helping Gaza victims:
“War Reporters Used To Prefer Morality Over Impartiality
The “normality” of war, part two. We had a great storm in Beirut this week, thunder-cracks like gunfire, great green waves crashing below my balcony, rain like hail. So I curled up on my balcony sofa – coat and red scarf and thick socks – and opened a book sent by a kindly Independent reader, a much bent copy of Snyder and Morris’s 1949 A Treasury of Great Reporting. And I began to wonder – in an age when the BBC can refuse help to the suffering because of its “impartiality” – whether we still report war with the same power and passion as the men and women of an earlier generation.“
