1. How ludicrous – but not a surprise:
“Lebanon releases Hariri suspects
The decision by a UN tribunal yesterday to release four Lebanese generals detained in connection with the 2005 assassination of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri was met with almost equal parts resentment and elation here yesterday.
The men, four of the top intelligence officials at the time of the assassination, were detained shortly after the bombing that set Lebanon on a path to years of political turmoil.
…
As Hizbollah supporters celebrated the release, shocked residents of the Sunni working-class stronghold of Tareq Jiddedeh, just a kilometre away, said their hopes for the tribunal had been dashed.
“It looks like the Syrians have signed a settlement and the whole tribunal is now politicised,” said Abu Ibrahim, a shopkeeper. “These criminals, we are sure they are the ones who were behind the murder of the hero Rafiq Hariri.”
http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090430/FOREIGN/704299801/1002
2. Even more ludicrous, and how sad:
“The US bond with Israel is “as unshakable as ever” as both nations pursue peace, President Barack Obama said on the state’s 61st birthday.“
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710816467&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
3. What an awesome literary reference!
“Obama’s Iraq: The Picture of Dorian Gray
Remember when Barack Obama made that big announcement at Camp Lejeune about how all US combat troops were going to be withdrawn from Iraqi cities by June 30? Liberals jumped around with joy, praising Obama for ending the war so that they could focus on their “good war” in Afghanistan.
Of course, the celebrations were and remain unwarranted. Obama’s Iraq plan is virtually identical to the one on Bush’s table on January 19, 2009. Obama has just rebranded the occupation, sold it to liberals and dropped the term “Global War on Terror” while, for all practical purposes, continuing the Bush era policy (that’s why leading Republicans praised Obama’s plan). In the real world, US military commanders have said they are preparing for an Iraq presence for another 15-20 years, the US embassy is the size of Vatican City, there is no official plan for the withdrawal of contractors and new corporate mercenary contracts are being awarded. The SoFA Agreement between the US and Iraq gives the US the right to extend the occupation indefinitely and to continue intervening militarily in Iraq ad infinitum. All it takes is for the puppets in Baghdad to ask nicely…
In the latest episode of the “Occupation Rebranded” mini-series, President Obama is preparing to scrap the June 30 withdrawal timeline.
…
The Iraq occupation is like The Picture of Dorian Gray. No matter what public face the Obama administration attempts to present, it only grows more heinous with each passing day.“
http://original.antiwar.com/scahill/2009/04/29/obamas-iraq-the-picture-of-dorian-gray/
4. “Few tears shed as Army leaves Basra, the city where it was never able to keep order
British Forces will officially stop conducting combat operations in Iraq today after six violent years in the south of the country. At a ceremony at the airport in Basra, the oil-rich city that thousands of British troops failed to prevent from being taken over by local militia, commanders will hand control to the US military, which will now be overseeing operations in the area.
…
Seen at best as an army of occupation, and at worst as appeasers to murderous Iranian-backed militias, few Basrawis will be shedding tears for the departing British Army. With too few troops to confront a full-scale Shia insurgency, as the Americans did with the Sunnis to the north, British Forces had to limit their role in the south, trying to train Iraqi Forces to take the lead in enforcing security.
Soon after the 2003 invasion it became clear that those Iraqi Forces were hopelessly infiltrated by political parties and their militias, with policemen involved in kidnap and murder, and even honest officers often forced to turn a blind eye to crime because of the potential for retribution.“
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6194854.ece
5. Invites? What about a subpoena?
“US Senator invites ‘torture memo’ writer to testify”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hbnz6i_8bCztLGp1XaTFPVniuA7Q
6. No kidding:
“Peres: Bombing Iran may not be the ‘best solution’”
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081918.html
7. As we thought:
“The Swine Flu Might Be Less Deadly Than the Average Winter Flu
The bottom line is that while this flu is certainly spreading worldwide, and many folks will likely catch it – in the same way that many catch the normal flu every winter.“
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/04/swine-flu-could-be-less-deadly-than.html
8. “Department of Homeland Security Guidelines For Possible Swine Flu Quarantines
Until recently, the last involuntary quarantine in the United States was in 1963. Then, in 2007, Andrew Speaker, an Atlanta lawyer, was quarantined inside a hospital in Denver on suspicion of having extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. It turned out that the CDC was incorrect and Speaker had a milder form of the disease.
The CDC’s error is one example of how quarantines can raise civil liberties issues. If a suspected swine flu patient is confined to a hospital isolation ward for a week or two, who pays for the bills? What if private businesses find their buildings requisitioned in an emergency? Or if hospital employees charged with enforcing the quarantine fail to show up for work?
McGaw’s memo on Monday also said that the federal plan to respond to pandemic influenza was “in effect.”
The Bush administration released the National Strategy For Pandemic Influenza in November 2005; it envisioned closer coordination among federal agencies, the stockpiling and distribution of vaccines and anti-viral drugs, and, if necessary, government-imposed “quarantines” and “limitations on gatherings.”
A Defense Department planning document summarizing the military’s contingency plan says the Pentagon is prepared to assist in “quarantining groups of people in order to minimize the spread of disease during an influenza pandemic” and aiding in “efforts to restore and maintain order.”
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13421
9. As we know:
“Top Senate Democrat: bankers “own” the U.S. Congress
Sen. Dick Durbin, on a local Chicago radio station this week, blurted out an obvious truth about Congress that, despite being blindingly obvious, is rarely spoken: “And the banks — hard to believe in a time when we’re facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created — are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.” The blunt acknowledgment that the same banks that caused the financial crisis “own” the U.S. Congress — according to one of that institution’s most powerful members — demonstrates just how extreme this institutional corruption is.
The ownership of the federal government by banks and other large corporations is effectuated in literally countless ways, none more effective than the endless and increasingly sleazy overlap between government and corporate officials. Here is just one random item this week announcing a couple of standard personnel moves:
Former Barney Frank staffer now top Goldman Sachs lobbyist
…
One might think it would be a big news story for the second most-powerful member of the U.S. Senate to baldly state that the Congress is “owned” by the bankers who spawned the financial crisis and continue to dictate the government’s actions. But it won’t be. The leading members of the media work for the very corporations that benefit most from this process. Establishment journalists are integral and well-rewarded members of the same system and thus cannot and will not see it as inherently corrupt (instead, as Newsweek‘s Evan Thomas said, their role, as “members of the ruling class,” is to “prop up the existing order,” ”protect traditional institutions” and ”safeguard the status quo”).
That Congress is fully owned and controlled by a tiny sliver of narrow, oligarchical, deeply corrupted interests is simultaneously so obvious yet so demonized (only Unserious Shrill Fringe radicals, such as the IMF’s former chief economist, use that sort of language) that even Durbin’s explicit admission will be largely ignored. Even that extreme of a confession (Durbin elaborated on it with Ed Schultz last night) hardly causes a ripple.“
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
10. Condi the war criminal:
“Condi Rice Pulls A Nixon:
When the President Does It, That Means It is Not Illegal
Here are the relevant quotes:
“The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”
Nothing we would do? Nothing? As I ask in the video above, what would happen if the president authorized you to murder someone, would it still not be illegal?
Next up, Condoleezza Rice denies any personal responsibility:
“I didn’t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency, that they had policy authorization, subject to the Justice Department’s clearance. That’s what I did.”
Oh I see, she just conveyed the authorization. And how is that different than giving the authorization?
By the way, lest we forget she “conveyed” the authorization for waterboarding, which has been considered torture and illegal under any and all treaties and laws of the United States. That is exactly why this is a legal hot potato that no one wants to get stuck holding at the end of the day. Here she pushes the blame on to two different entities – President Bush and the Justice Department.
Now, the final coup de grace – once the president authorized it, it became legal:
“The United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture, and so by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.” (emphasis added)
That is as close as you can get to Richard Nixon’s infamous comment, “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.”
This is why I say these people don’t understand the whole concept behind America. In our system of government, the president is not supposed to be above the law. He is not a king; his word is not the law. The president can violate the law and when he does, he is supposed to be held accountable. That is supposed to be one of the pillars of our democracy.
Look at what she said: “[B]y definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.” Does that mean the president can authorize any kind of torture under the Convention Against Torture?
If someone doesn’t do something about this dangerous idea it will do more damage than the torture itself. Yes, the torture damaged our reputation across the world, helped terrorists recruit fighters against us, endangered our soldiers and sullied the name of America. But if this precedent – that the president can authorize anything and make it legal “by definition” – is allowed to stand, then our whole form of government is in jeopardy.
A violation of the law is, of course, a big deal, especially on something this grave and important. This is not a jaywalking ticket. There were 34 suspected or confirmed homicides of detainees, some clearly due to torture. It does not get any more serious than this. But what is even worse is if you set the precedent that violations of the law like this will not have any consequences. That is bigger than the crime itself.
The precedent does more damage than the law breaking because it sets the new boundaries and rules for our government. It confirms what Rice and Nixon argue for: When the president does it, that means it is not illegal.
Allowing that idea to stand unchallenged does far more damage to the republic than any one crime committed by any one person (or the prosecution thereof), even if that person is the president.”
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22523.htm
11. “Swine Flu?
A Panic Stoked in Order to Posture and Spend:
Despite the hysteria, the risk to Britons’ health is tiny – but that news won’t sell papers or drugs, or justify the WHO’s budget”
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22521.htm
