Flagrant Lies Governments Tell You - International Imperialism

Flagrant Lies Governments Tell You
by David Edwards via jax - Raw Story, ICH Thursday, Jul 15 2010, 7:26pm
international / imperialism / other press

Criminal Government, Criminal State

In a interview with Ralph Nader on C-SPAN's Book TV to promote his book Lies the Government Told You, Judge Andrew Napolitano said that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should have been indicted for "torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant."

The judge believes that it is a fallacy to say that the US treats suspects as innocent until proven guilty. "The government acts as if a defendant is guilty merely on the basis of an accusation," said Napolitano.

Nader was curious about how this applied to the Bush administration. "What about the more serious violations of habeas corpus," wondered Nader. "You know after 9/11 Bush rounded up thousands of them, Americans, many of them Muslim Americans or Arabic Americans and they were thrown in jail without charges. They didn't have lawyers. Some of them were pretty mistreated in New York City. You know they were all released eventually."

"Well that is so obviously a violation of the natural law, the natural right to be brought before a neutral arbiter within moments of the government taking your freedom away from you," answered Napolitano.

"So what President Bush did with the suspension of habeas corpus, with the whole concept of Guantanamo Bay, with the whole idea that he could avoid and evade federal laws, treaties, federal judges and the Constitution was blatantly unconstitutional and is some cases criminal," he continued.

"What should be the sanctions [for Bush and Cheney]?" asked Nader.

"They should have been indicted. They absolutely should have been indicted for torturing, for spying, for arresting without warrant," said Napolitano.

"I'd like to say they should be indicted for lying but believe it or not, unless you're under oath, lying is not a crime. At least not an indictable crime. It's a moral crime," he said.

This isn't the first time that Napolitano's comments have veered away from the standard talking points at Fox News. He has predicted that Arizona's controversial immigration law will be blocked by the court. Napolitano also said Arizona's governor would "bankrupt the Republican Party" fighting for the law.

Copyright applies.

Follow link for videos.

"Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?"
(Epitaphs of War, Rudyard Kipling, 1865-1936.)

We live in strange times. In October 2009, the fledgling President Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for: " .. his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and co-operation between peoples." He was: "surprised and deeply humbled", accepting it as : "a call to action." Oh good, more "... diplomacy and co-operation ...?" Not quite.

Two months later Barack Hussein Obama announced that killing more Afghans and throwing $'s millions in to doing it was his first priority. (He didn't quite put it like that. He told an audience at West Point * that the deployment of 30,000 additional troops was a goal vital to: “the common security of the world.” It would: " ... break the Taliban’s momentum and increase Afghanistan’s capacity ..." Goals would not be set: "... beyond our responsibility, our means, or our interests.”)

Six and a half months in to 2010 US ied (impovised explosive device) deaths alone are 188, already exceeding the 152 for the whole year of 2008, in "Operation Enduring Freedom." Total deaths for 2009 within Afghanistan were 317, this year they are already 231. (1) Youthful dismemberments, disfigurements, and deaths, on a hiding to nowhere, are seemingly part of those "interests." Enduring freedom indeed, from life and limb, with of course, Afghan killings and casualties: "not productive to count."

Under this shining example of all the Nobel Peace Prize now stands for, US drones are killing citizens of Pakistan,Yemen and Somalia. Iran is in the cross hairs and Poland has had the dubious honour of hosting US missiles, to protect it in case it is attacked by - Iran, according to the seemingly increasingly delusional US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton.

In to this Orwellian world, enter "Teflon Tony" Blair, set to collect the latest in a glittering array of Awards for services to humanity. His contribution to the betterment of mankind, has included enjoining the United States, in the Afghanistan invasion and between 1997 and 2003, in the silent cull of an average of six thousand Iraqi children a month, instructing Britain's UN officials to veto everything from vaccines to ventolin, insulin to incubators and intubators, paper to pencils, female hygiene appliances, to aids for children at the schools for the blind and deaf.

After six years of this decimation, under his watch, added to the previous seven under his predecessor, John Major, Blair's officials cooked up a pack of lies. He ignored the advice of his top Law Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and joined his little friend on Capitol Hill, in reducing what remained of the Cradle of Civilization, to an illegally invaded pile of rubble, the destruction of swathes of its ancient history and historical records, and the lynching, "disappearing" of and imprisoning of a legitimate government, whose sovereignty was guaranteed by the United Nations.

Recent estimates are than a further million Iraqis have died since the invasion, almost certainly an under estimate, since those in remoter areas are often unrecorded, as those who died in vast numbers at the sieges of Najav,Tel Afar, the two assaults on Falluja and numerous other mass murders.

Lord Goldsmith, it now transpires, had written in his advice, six weeks before the invasion of Iraq: "My opinion is that Resolution 1441 does not revive the authorisation to use force ... in the absence of a further decision by the Security Council." Barrister Blair scribbled in the margin: "I just do not understand this." Did any one ask which part of "No", he could not grasp? Two weeks later the legal opinion was reiterated in a further note.

Blair of course, walked from this carnage, to be Middle East Peace Envoy, telling Parliament on his resignation: "As I learned ... it is important to be able to bring people together ..." He can undoubtedly do delusion with some of the greats. As William Blum recently pointed out :

'General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, mass murderer and torturer: "I would like to be remembered as a man who served his country."

P.W. Botha, former president of apartheid South Africa: "I am not going to repent. I am not going to ask for favours. What I did, I did for my country."

Pol Pot, mass murderer of Cambodia: "I want you to know that everything I did, I did for my country."

Tony Blair, former British prime minister, defending his role in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis: "I did what I thought was right for our country." '(2)

Patriotism is indeed the last refugee of the scoundrel.

Blair certainly did what he "thought was right" for Tony Blair. As Peter Oborne pointed out in March : "We now know that the wretched Blair has multiplied his personal fortune many times over by trading off the connections he made while in Downing Street. Shockingly, he fought a long battle to conceal the source of his new-found wealth, and only this month did it finally become public that one of his largest clients was a South Korean oil company, the UI Energy Corporation, with extensive interests in Iraq ... he has also made £1million from advising the Kuwaiti royal family. It can be fairly claimed that Blair has profiteered as a result of the Iraq War in which so many hundreds of thousands of people died ... in the league of shame, Tony Blair is arguably the worst of them all." (3)

And the rewards for being an ally in mass starvation and murder, keep rolling in.The latest is the 2010 Liberty Medal, awarded by the US Constitution Centre (plus $100,000 prize money. Small change compared to the estimated $20 million he's raked in since leaving office, but every little helps.)

The Liberty Medal, according to the Constitution Center: ".. reflects the values of the US Constitution - a belief in justice, fairness, self-governance ... a balance between individual rights and communal responsibility, in the power of the epople ... and in resolving issues through deliberation,, compromise and respect for diverse viewpoints."

It is to be presented to him by his close friend and fellow Iraqi childrens' tormenter, "Bomber" Bill Clinton, who says of Blair : " ... Tony continues to demonstrate the same leadership, dedication and creativity in promoting economic opportunity in the Middle East and the resolution of conflicts rooted in religion around the world, and is building the capacity of developing nations to govern honestly and effectively. I'm pleased the Constitution Center is awarding him the Liberty Medal in recognition of his work to promote the actions necessary to make peace, reconciliation, and prosperity possible.

"Economic opportunity" indeed.

If your head is not yet over a bucket, David Eisner, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, said: "Tony Blair has significantly furthered the expansion of freedom, self-governance, equality and peaceful coexistence. This award recognizes both his dedication to and his success in building understanding among nations and creating lasting solutions in areas of conflict."

"TeflonTony" responded: "It is an honor to receive the Liberty Medal ... Freedom, liberty and justice are the values by which this medal is struck. Freedom, liberty and justice are the values which I try to apply to my work ... preparing the Palestinians for statehood. They are the values which drive ... as we try to show that people of different faiths can live together constructively, in peace and harmony."

He will be donating the prize money to two of his charities. He said the same thing when he won $'s one million in February 2009 with the Dan David Award, from the Tel Aviv based Dan David Foundation, for his: "..steadfast determination and morally courageous leadership ..." Revolving doors come to mind.

A month earlier he had been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush for being " ... a true friend of the United States (who has) at his very centre (belief) in freedom." Tell that to the Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians with the ghettoised people of Gaza. He was in good company, receiving it with Australia's former Prime Minister John Howard and Columbian President Alvaro Uribe, both adherents to Blair and Bush's particularly unique interpretation of freedom.

In July 2009, he pitched up to collect his Fenner Brockway Award, in London (for: " ...shared vision ... global role in working for justice and security.") with a black eye. Had someone finally found a dark night, a dark alley and a baseball bat?

Incidentally, six of those who were awarded the Liberty Medal, have gone on to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. It was Tom Lehrer who said: "Satire became redundant the day Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize." No longer.

Blair may already share something with Kissinger: checking with his legal advisers every time he boards a 'plane, should he be arrested for war crimes on arrival.

And just another reminder, George Orwell's real name was Eric Arthur Blair.

With thanks to Neil Sheehan.

Copyright applies.

Notes:

1. http://www.icasualties.org
2. http://www.killinghope.org
3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1260204/Tony-Blairs-legacy-sleaze-cleaned-up.html#ixzz0tAqgpoDn

The BBC reported on July 4 that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the US ballistic missile base in Poland was not directed at Russia. The purpose of the base, she said, is to protect Poland from the Iranian threat.

Why would Iran be a threat to Poland? What happens to US credibility when the Secretary of State makes such a stupid statement? Does Hillary think she is fooling the Russians? Does anyone on earth believe her? What is the point of such a transparent lie? To cover up an act of American aggression against Russia?

In the same breath Hillary warned of a “steel vise” of repression crushing democracy and civil liberties around the world. US journalists might wonder if she was speaking of the United States. Glenn Greenwald reported in Salon on July 4 that the US Coast Guard, which has no legislative authority, has issued a rule that journalists who come closer than 65 feet to BP clean-up operations in the Gulf of Mexico without permission will be punished by a $40,000 fine and one to five years in prison. The New York Times and numerous journalists report that BP, the US Coast Guard, Homeland Security, and local police are prohibiting journalists from photographing the massive damage from the continuing flow of oil and toxic chemicals into the Gulf.

On July 5 Hillary Clinton was in Tbilisi, Georgia, where, according to the Washington Post, she accused Russia of “the invasion and occupation of Georgia.” What is the point of this lie? Even America’s European puppet states have issued reports documenting that Georgia initiated the war with Russia that it quickly lost by invading South Ossetia in an effort to destroy the secessionists.

It would appear that the rest of the world and the UN Security Council have given the Americans a pass to lie without end in order to advance Washington’s goal of world hegemony. How does this benefit the Security Council and the world? What is going on here?

After President Clinton misrepresented the conflict between Serbia and the Albanians in Kosovo and tricked NATO into military aggression against Serbia and after President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the secretary of state, the national security advisor and just about every member of the Bush regime deceived the UN and the world that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, thus finagling an invasion of Iraq, why did the UN Security Council fall for Obama’s deception that Iran has a nuclear weapons program?

In 2009 all sixteen US intelligence agencies issued a unanimous report that Iran had abandoned its weapons program in 2003. Was the Security Council ignorant of this report?

The International Atomic Energy Agency’s weapons inspectors on the ground in Iran have consistently reported that there is no diversion of uranium from the energy program. Was the Security Council ignorant of the IAEA reports?

If not ignorant, why did the UN Security Council approve sanctions on Iran for adhering to its right under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty to have a nuclear energy program? The UN sanctions are lawless. They violate Iran’s rights as a signatory to the treaty. Is this the “steel vice” of which Hillary spoke?

As soon as Washington got sanctions from the Security Council, the Obama regime unilaterally added more severe US sanctions. Obama is using the UN sanctions as a vehicle to which to attach his unilateral sanctions. Perhaps this is the “steel vice of oppression” of which Hillary spoke.

Why has the UN Security Council given a green light to the Obama regime to start yet another war in the Middle East?

Why has Russia stepped aside? At Washington’s insistence, the Russian government has not delivered the air defense system that Iran purchased. Does Russia view Iran as a greater threat to itself than the Americans, who are ringing Russia with US missile and military bases and financing “color revolutions” in former constituent parts of the Russian and Soviet empires?

Why has China stepped aside? China’s growing economy needs energy resources. China has extensive energy investments in Iran. It is US policy to contain China by denying China access to energy. China is America’s banker. China could destroy the US dollar in a few minutes.

Perhaps Russia and China have decided to let the Americans over-reach until the country self-destructs.

On the other hand, perhaps everyone is miscalculating and more death and destruction is in the works than the world is counting on.

Like the Gulf of Mexico.

Copyright applies.

Topics

Other Press

Cleaves on Disc/Stick