Obama's Twisted View of The Rule Of Law and Branding as Traitors Critics Of USA/NATO's Military Interventionism

As usual, anyone who questions the militarism of western governments is instantly smeared as a sympathizer or even supporter of tyrants. Thus, those who opposed the aggressive attack on Iraq were pro-Saddam; those who now oppose bombing Iran love the mullahs; those who oppose NATO intervention in Syria or Libya harbor affection for Assad and Ghadaffi--

 just as those who opposed the Vietnam War 50 years ago or Reagan's brutal covert wars in Latin America 30 years ago were Communist sympathizers, etc., etc. Cameron's outburst was just the standard smear tactic used for decades by western leaders to try to discredit anyone who opposes their wars.

Quote from: Cameron's Attack On George Galloway Reflects The West's Self-Delusions" Glenn Greenwald ,The Guardian, Jan. 31, 2013

"The implications are enormous. The government can now criminalize political, religious and social ideology and speech. Donating to peace groups, participating in protests, attending church, mosque or synagogue, entertaining friends, and posting material on the Internet, for example, could later be found to be illegal because of 'associations,' manufactured by anonymous experts, which in some way allegedly support designated terrorist organizations one has never heard of." by Paul Craig Roberts

Saudis and Jihadi Extremists creating turmoil in Mali and West Africa while Western Nations back Jihadi Extremists in Syria and Libya. Once again we see the contradictory and hypocritical policies of the Western Powers who are just playing the new updated version of "The Great Game" while ignoring the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians.

'Saudi Arabia, Qatar fuel militancy in Africa' 

Published on 20 Jan 2013

An analyst says terror in Mali caused by Saudi, Qatar Salafist terror groups and France going in could destabilize Africa and this is by design. In the background of this, France has begun military action in the resource-rich African nation of Mali with 2,000 French troops in what could become a prolonged presence. The pretext is to fight terrorism, which incidentally compromises of terrorists that France fought side by side with in Libya.





And here's another example of the Obama administration indefinitely detaining someone in this case an Iranian scientists without having any real evidence to charge let alone get a conviction. But he is of course guilty just by being an Iranian in America rather than a Saudi . So it appears even Obama has his own set of prejudices. It's odd since the majority of highjackers on 9/11 were Saudis and Asama Bin-laden was also a Saudi but don't let facts get in the way of your prejudices or your agenda. America hates Iran why who knows . In part because the Iranian people rose up demanding reform and then ousted America's favorite brutal dictator the Shah of Iran . The Americans at that moment could have just dumped the Shah and supported the Iranian people's uprising which might have prevented some of the more extremist take power at that time .

While Israel has been assassinating Iranian scientists the Americans are locking them up when Iran is not a threat but if they keep pushing Iran; Iran might take action but this maybe what Obama and his buddy Netanyahu want to give them an excuse to destroy Iran.

US sentences Iranian scientist to jail
Published on 21 Jan 2013

Iranian scientist Seyyed Mojtaba Atarodi, the professor of Tehran's Sharif University of Technology has been reportedly sentenced to at least 57 months in jail in the US for allegedly violating the US export law, after trying to buy high-tech equipment for his personal lab.

Press TV's Ghanbar Naderi reports from Tehran.

 Paul Craig Roberts laments that the USA is no longer a country that abides by the rule of law as we have come to understand it but rather governments even the Obama government makes up new laws as it goes along and changes what counts or does not count as evidence in a case so if need be the courts can use hearsay evidence or evidence from an anonymous expert witness or whatever it takes to win their case. We see it in the case of whistleblower Bradley Manning who has been held according to the new rules passed by Obama on "indefinite detention". Candidate Obama was all for whisleblowers while President Obama hates and if he can will keep them in jail til they die. Obama has been trying to get Julian Assange sent to the USA so Obama can incarcerate indefinitely and abuse and torture Assange as Obama has done to Bradley Manning.

Paul Craig Roberts believes the situation worsens each day as the government ignores the rule of law and international law. Citizens once accused have no recourse to legal means to fight their accusers and so are silenced placed in isolation if need be. That's the Chicago way.

" In Amerika Law No Longer Exists: The Extermination Of Truth " by Paul Craig Roberts opEdnews, Jan. 31, 2013

In the 21st century Americans have experienced an extraordinary collapse in the rule of law and in their constitutional protections. Today American citizens, once a free people protected by law, can be assassinated and detained in prison indefinitely without any evidence being presented to a court of their guilt, and they can be sentenced to prison on the basis of secret testimony by anonymous witnesses not subject to cross examination. The US "justice system" has been transformed by the Bush/Obama regime into the "justice system" of Gestapo Germany and Stalinist Russia. There is no difference.

In an article...Stephen Downs, formerly Chief Attorney with the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct and Kathy Manley, a criminal defense attorney and member of the New York Civil Liberties Union, report on how the US government destroyed a charity, the Holy Land Foundation, which provided money for feeding the poor and for building schools and hospitals in Palestine.

The charity, aware of the perils of being based in the US and doing anything for Palestinians, relied on the US State Department and the US Department of Justice (sic) for guidance on where to send humanitarian aid. The charity sent its aid to the same aid committees in Palestine that the US Agency for International Development and the UN used to distribute aid to the Palestinians.

In the first trial of the Holy Land Foundation, the US government admitted that none of the charity's donations had gone to terrorist organizations, and the federal prosecutors failed to achieve a conviction. So the prosecutors tried the charity again.

In the second trial, the judge permitted the prosecutors to call an "anonymous expert" to tell the jury that some of the committees used by USAID and the UN and approved by the US Department of State were controlled by Hamas, the elected government of Palestine that Israel requires the US government to brand as "terrorist."

As Downs and Manley point out, an "anonymous expert" cannot "be challenged because he is unknown." There cannot be a cross examination. The "expert" could be anyone -- someone paid to lie to the jury, a Jew who believes all help to Palestinians comprises "aid to terrorists," or a member of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service that has throughly infiltrated the US according to US intelligence experts.

Injustices are everywhere, the authors admit, so why is this important to you? The answer is that the due process clause of the US Constitution requires that criminal laws give fair notice as to what conduct is prohibited. According to Downs and Manley, the Holy Land Foundation followed the US State Department's list of designated terrorist organizations and avoided all contact with organizations on the list, but were indicted and convicted regardless. This tells us that federal prosecutors are viciously corrupt and that jurors are so inept and propagandized that they are useless to defendants.

The US Supreme Court refused to review this most blatant case of wrongful conviction. By so doing, the US Supreme Court established that the court, like the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the executive branch, is not only a servant of the police state but also a servant of Israel and supports the destruction of the Palestinians by designating aid to Palestine as an act of terrorism.

What this means for you is that your involvement in legal transactions or associations can be declared ex post facto by secret witnesses to be criminal involvements. The criminality of your past behavior can now be established, according to Downs and Manley, by "anonymous experts," mouthpieces for the government prosecutors who cannot "be confronted or cross-examined within the meaning of the 6th Amendment."

Downs and Manley write:

"The implications are enormous. The government can now criminalize political, religious and social ideology and speech. Donating to peace groups, participating in protests, attending church, mosque or synagogue, entertaining friends, and posting material on the Internet, for example, could later be found to be illegal because of 'associations,' manufactured by anonymous experts, which in some way allegedly support designated terrorist organizations one has never heard of."

The authors could have added that if the government wants to get you, all it has to do is to declare that someone or some organization somewhere in your past was connected in a vague undefined way with terrorism. The government's assertion suffices. No proof is needed. The brainwashed jury will not protect you.

Glenn Greenwald in a recent article in The Guardian points out that when George Galloway (MP) asks Prime Minister Cameron to explain Britain's policy in the Middle East which appears contradictory in reply the Prime Minister accuses Galloway of supporting Arab Tyrants . Galloway wonders how the government can support Islamic extremists in Syria while claiming to be at war with all Islamic extremists whom they designate as terrorists . As Greenwald Notes PM Cameron doesn't give a substantive answer to the question but rather flippantly accuses Galloway of giving support to the terrorists and brutal dictators.

George Galloway MP exchange with Prime Minister David Cameron during question period in the British Parliament




Glenn Greenwald argues that the USA and the UK and other Western Nations are hypocritical and contradictory in their policies concerning the Middle East and the Global War on Terror. On the one hand they claim to favor reform and democratization in the region while still where possible propping up various brutal dictators in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain , Yemen etc. and selling arms to them so these regimes can suppress even peaceful protesters who are calling for reform. Meanwhile At the same time the USA and its NATO allies while supposedly fighting Islamic extremists in the Global War on Terror they are in fact giving support to such extremists groups with ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban as we saw in Libya and now in Syria.

For instance Greenwald notes:

In 2010, the UK granted licenses for the sale of arms to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the UAE and Yemen. In July of that year, shortly after Cameron assumed office, "the Scrutiny of Arms Exports report by the Parliamentary Committee on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) show[ed] that there are still 600 existing arms exports licences in place for the sale of goods including assault weapons, ammunition, and surveillence equipment, to Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen." In 2011, Der Spiegel reported:

"Britain exported over 100 million ($142 million) in weapons to Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in the last two years alone. Included in those shipments are sniper rifles that may currently be in use against the Libyan opposition. Furthermore, Gadhafi's terror police are British-trained."

In fact these massive arms sales to all of these nations seem to be a large part of the UK's and other Western powers " Raison D'etre " for having diplomatic relations with these nations.

And if we look at Iraq we can see how America's foreign policy and its bombing, invading and then occupying Iraq only led to chaos and the deaths of a million or more Iraqi citizens . Some of these citizens who were not terrorists before the invasion or supporters of Saddam's Baathist Regime joined the so called insurgency to fight those who had invaded and were brutally occupying their country.the Occupation .

Many Iaqi citizens joined not because they were extremists Jihadists but because they had witnessed the wanton carnage of the the occupying Western forces and watched their country being destroyed their homes and villages and towns and cities reduced to rubble while innocent civilians including women and children were gunned down by US troops or young girls and women were sexually assaulted by American and British troops and other civilians were incarcerated and tortured or saw other fellow Iraqis being abused and tortured .

Faced with such an invasion and occupation wouldn't citizens in any nation be justified in fighting back no matter the odds. And wouldn't those who co-operated with the invaders be branded as traitors and collaborators. Once again we are reminded of the Vietnam War in which the citizens fought against the foreign occupiers first the French and then the Americans . In Vietnam the insurgency finally drove the Americans out of their country . Similarly as is well known outside the American media the US left Iraq because the government and people of Iraq finally had enough and kicked the Americans out .Both wars ended in dishonor for the Americans. The US in Vietnam and Iraq were in deed the 'Bad Guys' .

So these Western powers including the USA, Britain and Canada support citizens in Iran who hold protests demanding government reform or even Regime Change and criticize the Iranian government as not just being oppressive but as being downright evil and Demonic and therefore beyond compromises or negotiations while these Western nations happily supply armaments to other governments so they can suppress such protests by citizens calling for reform and protection of their civil and human rights in their respective countries.

So these policies in the Middle East have nothing to do with bringing freedom and democracy to the peoples of the region.
The policies of the United States and its allies is driven by their own agendas such as access to cheap oil and other resources including cheap labor to defending Israel to simply exerting control over the region so nationalist do not arise who put their nation and their citizens before the needs of the Western powers etc.

And as Glenn Greenwald notes and we have also noted over the past few years the about face on the part of Hilary Clinton who supported Mubarak of Egypt and even said he was a close personal friend and we could add she has said the same thing about the King of Bahrain and the rulers of Saudi Arabia and the former leader of Pakistan so no matter how ruthless these dictators are as long as they work on behalf of the United States and various American run International/Multinational Corporations its fine by Clinton or Obama or any other American politician .

...The outgoing US Secretary of State on Wednesday unleashed this bizarre description of the Egyptian people: "It's hard going from decades under one-party or one-man rule, as somebody said, waking up from a political coma and understanding democracy." As As'ad AbuKhalil astutely replied: "The US and not the Egyptian people were in denial about the true nature of the Sadat-Mubarak regime. No, in fact they were not in denial: they knew full well what they were doing against the Egyptian people."

Indeed, it was Hillary Clinton -- not the Egyptian people -- who proclaimed in 2009: "I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family. So I hope to see him often here in Egypt and in the United States."

For decades the USA and its allies defended the brutal Egyptian dictator Mubarak until the peaceful protests by the citizens of Egypt grew to a point where the Egyptian people were supported by the International Community and so the USA was forced to abandon him not because they were in favor of reform or democracy but rather because Mubarak was no longer of any use to them given the circumstances and so was seen as a liability. In other words for the USA and its allies its all just policies and business as usual without any real concern for the average citizens of Egypt or any other nation. Though they will fein concern for the citizens as part of a propaganda strategy in the same way they demonize some leaders such as the leaders of Iran but not others whose regimes may be no better and even possibly worse such as Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Israel etc.

Here's another little example of the outrageous judicial system in Saudi Arabia one of America's greatest allies . The most outrageous examples of Sharia law in Saudi Arabia is often ignored ,dismissed downplayed by the USA and is therefore tolerated where as similar laws in Iran are condemned as evil incarnate. In this particular case a Saudi cleric faces no prison time or other punishment for raping, torturing and killing his six year old daughter. Saudi preacher spared after raping, killing daughter Agence-France-Presse via Raw Story Feb. 2, 2013



" Cameron's Attack On George Galloway Reflects The West's Self-Delusions" Glenn Greenwald ,The Guardian, Jan. 31, 2013

In an act of supreme projection, the British PM accuses a critic of lending support "wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator": the core policy of the US and UK

Galloway stood to ask Cameron about a seeming contradiction in the policy of the British government (one shared by the US government). He wanted to know why it is that the British government is so intent on fighting and bombing Islamic extremists in Mali, while simultaneously arming and funding equally brutal Islamic extremists in Syria (indeed, although it was once taboo to mention, it is now widely reported in the most establishment venues such as the New York Times that while many ordinary Syrians are fighting against the savagery and tyranny of Assad, Islamic extremists, including ones loyal to al-Qaida, are playing a major role in the war against the regime). The same question could have been posed regarding Libya, where NATO-supported rebel factions were filled with fighters with all sorts of links to al-Qaida.

There certainly are reasonable answers to Galloway's point, but whatever one's views might be on those points, there's no denying it's a reasonable question. It is simply the case that the British government, along with its NATO allies including the US, were -- in both the wars in Syria and Libya -- on the same side as, and even arming and funding, the very extremists, "jihaidists," and even al-Qaida-supporting fighters they claim pose the greatest menace to world peace.

In lieu of addressing the substance of the question, Cameron unleashed a 10-second snide attack on Galloway himself. "Some things come and go," proclaimed the Prime Minister, "but there is one thing that is certain: wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator in the world, he will have the support of [Galloway]."

As usual, anyone who questions the militarism of western governments is instantly smeared as a sympathizer or even supporter of tyrants. Thus, those who opposed the aggressive attack on Iraq were pro-Saddam; those who now oppose bombing Iran love the mullahs; those who oppose NATO intervention in Syria or Libya harbor affection for Assad and Ghadaffi -- just as those who opposed the Vietnam War 50 years ago or Reagan's brutal covert wars in Latin America 30 years ago were Communist sympathizers, etc., etc. Cameron's outburst was just the standard smear tactic used for decades by western leaders to try to discredit anyone who opposes their wars.

The more important point here is that of all the people on the planet, there is nobody with less authority to accuse others of supporting "brutal Arab dictators in the world" than David Cameron and his NATO allies, including those in the Obama administration. Supporting "brutal Arab dictators in the world" is a perfect summary of the west's approach to the Arab world for the last five decades, and it continues to be.

...As Maryam Al-Khawaja of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights said: "The US, UK and France attack Russia for providing weapons to Syria, but that's exactly what they are doing for the Bahrain government; Russia is criticised for a naval base in Syria, but the US has one here." Of course, Bahrain wasn't the only close UK ally to violently attack democratic protesters in the kingdom. "During last year's uprising, Saudi Arabia sent forces to Bahrain in British military trucks."

Then there's Britain's long-standing support for the Mubarak dictatorship, and Cameron's personal support for Mubarak as the protest movement unfolded. In January, 2011, as tens of thousands of Egyptians assembled to demand an end to their dictatorship, he sat for an interview with CNN's Fareed Zakaria, who asked him whether Mubarak should resign. Cameron said: "What we support is evolution, reform, not revolution." As Egyptian police were killing protesters, this exchange then occurred:

"ZAKARIA: Is Mubarak a friend of Britain?

"CAMERON: He is a friend of Britain. Britain has good relations with Egypt."

The following month, as Mubarak's crackdown intensified, "the British government refuse[d] to say whether it would follow the example of Germany and France and suspend exports of arms and riot control equipment to Egypt." In 2009, Britain sold 16.4m worth of arms to the regime in Egypt.

In 2010, the UK granted licenses for the sale of arms to Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia, the UAE and Yemen. In July of that year, shortly after Cameron assumed office, "the Scrutiny of Arms Exports report by the Parliamentary Committee on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) show[ed] that there are still 600 existing arms exports licences in place for the sale of goods including assault weapons, ammunition, and surveillence equipment, to Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen." In 2011, Der Spiegel reported:

"Britain exported over 100 million ($142 million) in weapons to Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in the last two years alone. Included in those shipments are sniper rifles that may currently be in use against the Libyan opposition. Furthermore, Gadhafi's terror police are British-trained."

So who exactly is it that is guilty of supporting every "brutal Arab dictator in the world"? At the top of any honest list, one would find David Cameron, along with the leaders of most leading NATO countries, beginning with the US (see here and here). Indeed, as Der Spiegel noted in April 2011 about yet another of Cameron's trips to visit Arab tyrants: "Cameron flew on to Kuwait, where he got down to the real purpose of his trip: selling weapons to Arab autocrats."

Cameron's so-called "slapdown" of Galloway was predictably celebrated in many precincts. The reality, though, is that it was quite cowardly: he refused to answer Galloway's question, then smeared him, knowing that he could not reply, then simply moved on to the next questioner. Galloway was able to respond afterward only by posting an open letter on his website, noting the multiple Arab dictators steadfastly supported not by Galloway but by his accuser, David Cameron.

...In sum, any list of those lending support "wherever there is a brutal Arab dictator in the world" must begin with the leaders of the US and the UK in order to have any minimal credibility.

and so it goes,
GORD.