Three Criminal Puppet Presidents - International Injustice/Law

These men represent the uninterrupted continuity of US WAR policy from the Balkans to Afghanistan, proving without doubt that today’s Presidents are merely front-men for Corporatist ruling elites.

With the notable exception of Johnson's and Nixon's civilian killing record in Indo-China, Clinton, Bush and Obama have more innocent blood on their hands than all the previous US Presidents combined! History remains unaffected by media hype, myth-making and attempts at revisionism.

Who is able to forget the ‘tranquil’ years of 'world peace' under Cheney and Bush and the civilian holocaust they inflicted in Iraq? Or Clinton’s embargo that killed 500,000 innocent Iraqi children by blocking essential medical supplies. Or Obama’s record breaking request for hundreds of billions of dollars for the Pentagon and ongoing WARS? Given time Obama will no doubt equal, if not surpass, the ‘achievements’ of his sociopathic predecessors!

These men have the (fresh) blood of innocents dripping from their hands and no amount of media distraction is able to wash their murdering hands clean.

Psychopaths are incapable of humanitarian concern; the ‘charity’ offered Haitians masks strategic ulterior motives, of that we can be sure! Consider Obama's escalated Drone warfare where approval is sought prior to launching deadly hellfire missiles on an acquired target in the midst of dozens of innocent civilians. YES, civilians are murdered CONSCIOUSLY by the psychopathic USA. Drone warfare alone is an indefensible war crime yet these men are paraded before us as saviours -- it surely is impossible to bear such flagrant criminal arrogance and effrontery without paying a high soul-destroying price -- such is the nature of decline in America.

Is it an indication of moral integrity or sincerity to kill MILLIONS of civilians without a second thought and then offer 'humanitarian assistance' -- YOU tell me? Clearly, other motives are involved. If nothing else the USA has proven beyond all doubt that it cares little for innocent human life. There will be hell to pay, of that America can be assured.

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."

Peace.

President Obama's response to the tragedy in Haiti has been robust in military deployment and puny in what the Haitians need most: food; first responders and their specialized equipment; doctors and medical facilities and equipment; and engineers, heavy equipment, and heavy movers. Sadly, President Obama is dispatching Presidents Bush and Clinton, and thousands of Marines and U.S. soldiers. By contrast, Cuba has over 400 doctors on the ground and is sending in more; Cubans, Argentinians, Icelanders, Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, and many others are already on the ground working--saving lives and treating the injured. Senegal has offered land to Haitians willing to relocate to Africa.

The United States, on the day after the tragedy struck, confirmed that an entire Marine Expeditionary Force was being considered "to help restore order," when the "disorder" had been caused by an earthquake striking Haiti; not since 1751, 1770, 1842, 1860, and 1887 had Haiti experienced an earthquake. But, I remember the bogus reports of chaos and violence the led to the deployment of military assets, including Blackwater, in New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. One Katrina survivor noted that the people needed food and shelter and the U.S. government sent men with guns. Much to my disquiet, it seems, here we go again. From the very beginning, U.S. assistance to Haiti has looked to me more like an invasion than a humanitarian relief operation.

On Day Two of the tragedy, a C-130 plane with a military assessment team landed in Haiti, with the rest of the team expected to land soon thereafter. The stated purpose of this team was to determine what military resources were needed.

An Air Force special operations team was also expected to land to provide air traffic control. Now, the reports are that the U.S. is not allowing assistance in, shades of Hurricane Katrina, all over again.

On President Obama's orders military aircraft "flew over the island, mapping the destruction." So, the first U.S. contribution to the humanitarian relief needed in Haiti were reconnaissance drones whose staffing are more accustomed to looking for hidden weapon sites and surface-to-air missile batteries than wrecked infrastructure. The scope of the U.S. response soon became clear: aircraft carrer, Marine transport ship, four C-140 airlifts, and evacuations to Guantanamo. By the end of Day Two, according to the Washington Post report, the United States had evacuated to Guantanamo Bay about eight [8] severely injured patients, in addition to U.S. Embassy staffers, who had been "designated as priorities by the U.S. Ambassador and his staff."

On Day Three we learned that other U.S. ships, including destroyers, were moving toward Haiti. Interestingly, the Washington Post reported that the standing task force that coordinates the U.S. response to mass migration events from Cuba or Haiti was monitoring events, but had not yet ramped up its operations. That tidbit was interesting in and of itself, that those two countries are attended to by a standing task force, but the treatment of their nationals is vastly different, with Cubans being awarded immediate acceptance from the U.S. government, and by contrast, internment for Haitian nationals.

U.S. Coast Guard Rear Admiral James Watson IV reassured Americans, "Our focus right now is to prevent that, and we are going to work with the Defense Department, the State Department, FEMA and all the agencies of the federal government to minimize the risk of Haitians who want to flee their country," Watson said. "We want to provide them those releif supplies so they can live in Haiti."

By the end of Day Four, the U.S. reportedly had evacuated over 800 U.S. nationals.

For those of us who have been following events in Haiti before the tragic earthquake, it is worth noting that several items have caused deep concern:

1. the continued exile of Haiti's democratically-elected and well-loved, yet twice-removed former priest, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide;

2. the unexplained continued occupation of the country by United Nations troops who have killed innocent Haitians and are hardly there for "security" (I've personally seen them on the roads that only lead to Haiti's sparsely-populated areas teeming with beautiful beaches);

3. U.S. construction of its fifth-largest embassy in the world in Port-au-Prince, Haiti;

4. mining and port licenses and contracts, including the privatization of Haiti's deep water ports, because certain off-shore oil and transshipment arrangements would not be possible inside the U.S. for environmental and other considerations; and

5. Extensive foreign NGO presence in Haiti that could be rendered unnecessary if, instead, appropriate U.S. and other government policy allowed the Haitian people some modicum of political and economic self-determination.

Therefore, we note here the writings of Ms. Marguerite Laurent, whom I met in her capacity as attorney for ousted President of Haiti Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Ms. Laurent reminds us of Haiti's offshore oil and other mineral riches and recent revivial of an old idea to use Haiti and an oil refinery to be built there as a transshipment terminal for U.S. supertankers. Ms. Laurent, also known as Ezili Danto of the Haitian Lawyers Leadership Network (HLLN), writes:

"There is evidence that the United States found oil in Haiti decades ago and due to the geopolitical circumstances and big business interests of that era made the decision to keep Haitian oil in reserve for when Middle Eastern oil had dried up. This is detailed by Dr. Georges Michel in an article dated March 27, 2004 outlining the history of oil explorations and oil reserves in Haiti and in the research of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin.

"There is also good evidence that these very same big US oil companies and their inter-related monopolies of engineering and defense contractors made plans, decades ago, to use Haiti's deep water ports either for oil refineries or to develop oil tank farm sites or depots where crude oil could be stored and later transferred to small tankers to serve U.S. and Caribbean ports. This is detailed in a paper about the Dunn Plantation at Fort Liberte in Haiti.

"Ezili's HLLN underlines these two papers on Haiti's oil resources and the works of Dr. Ginette and Daniel Mathurin in order to provide a view one will not find in the mainstream media nor anywhere else as to the economic and strategic reasons the US has constructed its fifth largest embassy in the world - fifth only besides the US embassy in China, Iraq, Iran and Germany - in tiny Haiti, post the 2004 Haiti Bush regime change."

Unfortunately, before the tragedy struck, and despite pleading to the Administration by Haiti activists inside the United States, President Obama failed to stop the deportation of Haitians inside the United States and failed to grant TPS, temporary protected status, to Haitians inside the U.S. in peril of being deported due to visa expirations. That was corrected on Day Three of Haiti's earthquake tragedy with the January 15, 2010 announcement that Haiti would join Honduras, Nicaragua, Somalia, El Salvador, and Sudan as a country granted TPS by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

President Obama's appointment of President Bush to the Haiti relief effort is a swift left jab to the face, in my opinion. After President Bush's performance in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and the fact that still today, Hurricane Katrina survivors who want to return still have not been provided a way back home, the appointment might augur well for fundraising activities, but I doubt that it bodes well for the Haitian people. Afterall, the coup against and the kidnapping of President Aristide occurred under the watch of a Bush Presidency.

Finally, those with an appreciation of French literature know that among France's most beloved authors are Alexandre Dumas, son of a Haitian slave, and Victor Hugo who wrote: "Haiti est une lumiere." [Haiti is a light.] Indeed, Haiti for millions is a light: light into the methodology and evil of slavery; light into a successful slave rebellion, light into nationhood and notions of liberty, the rights of man, and of human dignity. Haiti is a light. And an example that makes the enemies of black liberation tremble. It is precisely because of Haiti's light into the evil genius of some individuals who wield power over others and man's ability, through unity and purpose, to overcome that evil, that some segments of the world have been at war with Haiti ever since 1804, the year of Haiti's creation as a Republic.

I'm not surprised at "Reverend" Pat Robertson's racist vitriol. Robertson's comments mirror, exactly, statements made by Napoleon's Cabinet when the Haitians defeated them. But in 2010, Robertson's statements reveal much more: Haitians are not the only ones who know their importance to the struggle against hatred, imperialism, and European domination.

This pesky, persistent, stubbornly non-Western, proudly African people of this piece of land that we call Haiti know their history and they know that they militarily defeated the ruling world empire of the day, Napoleon's France, and the global elite at that time who supported him. They know that they defeated the armies of England and Spain.

Haitians know that they used their status as a free state to help liberate Latin Americans from Spain, by funding and fighting alongside Simon Bolivar; their example inspired their still-enslaved African brothers and sisters on the American mainland; and before Haitians were even free, they fought against the British inside the U.S. during its war of independence and won a decisive battle in Savannah, Georgia, where I have visited the statue commemorating that victory.

Haitians know that France imposed reparations on them for being free, and Haiti paid them in full, but that President Aristide called for France to give that money back ($21 billion in 2003 dollars).

Haitians know that their "brother," then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lied to the world upon the kidnapping and second ouster of their President. (Sadly, it wouldn't be the last time that Secretary of State Colin Powell would lie to the world.) Haitians know, all-too-well, that high-ranking blacks in the United States are capable of helping them and of betraying them.

Haitians know, too, that the United States has installed its political proxies and even its own soldiers onto Haitian soil when the U.S. felt it was necessary. All in an effort to control the indomitable Haitian spirit that directs much-needed light to the rest of the oppressed world.

While the tears of the people of Haiti swell in my own eyes, and I remember their tremendous capacity for love, my broken heart and wet eyes don't dampen my ability to understand the grave danger that now faces my friends in Haiti.

I shudder to think that the "rollback" policies believed in by some foreign policy advisors to President Obama could use a prolonged U.S. military presence in Haiti as a springboard for rollback of areas in Latin America that have liberated themselves from U.S. neo-colonial domination. I would hate to think that this would even be attempted under the Presidency of Barack Obama. All of us must have our eyes wide open on Haiti and other parts of the world now dripping in blood as a result of the relentless onward march of the U.S. military machine.

So, on this remembrance of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., I note that it was the U.S. government's own illegal Operation Lantern Spike that snuffed out the promise and light of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Every plane of humanitarian assistance that is turned away by the U.S. military (so far from CARICOM, the Caribbean Community, Médecins Sans Frontieres, Brazil, France, Italy, and even the U.S. Red Cross)--as was done in the wake of Hurricane Katrina--and the expected arrival on this very day of up to 10,000 U.S. troops, are lasting reminders of the existential threat that now looms over the valiant, proud people and the Republic of Haiti.

© 2010 Cynthia McKinney, Global Research

Wall Street has already figured out how to game the president’s proposal to reform the banking system. Former Goldman executive Nomi Prins on how to stop the trickery.

Seeing Paul Volcker, former Fed Chair and chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, lord over President Obama yesterday as he made his proposal to limit the scope and size of financial institutions, it was easy to imagine him saying “I told you so.” Volcker, after all, has been a long time advocate of slicing up banks and prohibiting them from the majority of speculative activities.

But as I called around New York and Washington yesterday, it already seems that Wall Street has figured out ways to circumvent the administration’s plan, which centers on “proprietary trading”—risky bets the banks make for their own accounts.

The cliff notes from the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board chief economist Austan Goolsbee on yesterday’s press call were: A mandatory ban to prohibit proprietary trading (but not all trading) by firms that own banks. Regulators would prevent commercial banks from owning hedge or private equity funds, and limit non-client related trading. There would remain no limit on investment banks not designated bank or financial holding companies. Regulators could constrain the size of banks, but not break them up. Most important, there would be no return to Glass-Steagall, which divided commercial and investment banks.

The importance of the latter became clear to me as I talked to DC policy advisers yesterday, who had already gotten an earful from Wall Street lobbyists—touch proprietary trading if you must, and leave everything else alone (i.e., no Glass-Steagall). Prop trading, in other words, would be Wall Street’s sacrificial lamb. For a simple reason: They can get around it.

Banks have mucked up their financial disclosures so much that it’s already near impossible to tell how much banks are making from risky trading, much less how much trading is uniquely “proprietary,” versus how much can be classified as customer-driven or used for hedging purposes, which Obama’s rules would allow. Bank of America, for example, has its fixed income, currency and commodities trading figures merged together, making it impossible to see the contribution of Merrill Lynch’s sizeable trading activities, as well as the line between proprietary and possibly customer-oriented trading. Other banks are even more Byzantine. You can’t limit something that isn’t fully disclosed or can be camouflaged on the books.

Plus, in a crisis, it’s hard enough to price securities, let alone figure out which trading distinction they possess. At last week’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, JPM Chase CEO, Jamie Dimon said, “It’s not always possible to evaluate positions…Although we are a proponent of fair value accounting in trading books, we also recognize that market levels resulting from large levels of forced liquidations may not reflect underlying values.”

If “it’s not always possible to evaluate positions,” the notion of evaluating which ones are customer-driven and which are proprietary goes out the window. These firms will just call everything customer driven and alter book distinctions accordingly.

Bringing back Glass-Steagall would force a distinction of commercial banks with access to federal support from those that just call themselves banks, but are in reality Wall Street gambling parlors. Done right, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would have to give up their commercial bank status to continue doing the trading-oriented business they do. Bank of America might be forced to spin off Merrill and JPM Chase may have to chuck the Bear business and part of its “leading global” investment bank business to adhere to new restrictions.

Without such a move, these merged institutions will continue to divert their capital—given to it by mom-and-pop depositors and cheap government money—to trade, before using it to lend. When the markets go up, trading is more profitable and as we’ve seen in bank earnings reports this year, banks beef up trading activities where they can, to offset consumer and commercial credit losses. And it works in reverse: If their commercial and investment businesses remain intertwined, banks will extract costs, such as the $90 billion over-10-year tax Obama proposed last week, from the customers’ pockets. Banks would still be inclined to use their capital to trade (which is a more capital-intensive endeavor than deposits and lending).

Risk is risk whether it's called propriety trading or comes from the customer-trading business. True systemic risk reduction requires dividing out all trading activities from within a firm that also does deposits and lending. That requires a resurrection of a true Glass-Steagall barrier, not a bunch of stuff that sounds like it gets partly there.

© 2010 RTST, INC

Topics

Other Press

Cleaves on Disc/Stick