Het
zoveelste bewijs dat mensen dom worden gehouden door politici en de reguliere
(massa-) media, werd geleverd door Pompeo, VS minister van buitenlandse zaken (eerder topgraaier van de CIA), hij houdt samen met de media in de VS het volk
voor dat Iran Al Qaida onderdak geeft…… Dit terwijl de VS Al Qaida Syrië (al-Nusra) een paar jaar geleden van de terreurlijst heeft gehaald en de VS ook nu nog op het
door hen illegaal bezet gebied in Syrië meerdere terreurgroepen
beschermt, onder die groepen al-Nusra (Al Qaida Syrië) en een groot aantal ISIS
moordenaars……..
Al Qaida
is een soennitische organisatie die bewezen terreur uitoefent op
sjiieten en dan is Iran ook nog eens een sjiitische staat….. Blijkbaar heeft Pompeo
de idee dat zijn leugen niet opgemerkt zal worden en niet onterecht
daar de reguliere media die weliswaar de pest hebben aan de Trump
administratie, waarin Pompeo een belangrijke functie vervult, alles
op het gebied van agressie in het buitenlandbeleid van deze
administratie steunt, dus ook deze leugen neemt men met grote graagte
over……. (overigens is dit niet de eerste keer dat de VS met deze beschuldiging komt aan het adres van Iran, zoals het eerder Irak beschuldigde van het steunen van Al Qaida, terwijl de regering onder Saddam Hoessein deze terrreurgroep bestreed…..)
Uiteraard heeft Pompeo geen flinter aan bewijs geleverd voor zijn bewering, niet vreemd daar het gaat om de zoveelste smerige leugen van deze vreselijke oorlogsmisdadiger….. (laten we hopen dat ook hij ooit terecht zal staan voor het Internationaal Gerechtshof [ICC] in Den Haag, al zijn er nog wel ‘wat meer’ VS bestuurders en presidenten die daar al gevangen zouden moeten zitten, zoals oorlogsmisdadigers Clinton [inclusief zijn vrouw Hillary, de bloedige oorlogshoer], Bush, Obama en de gekozen VS president Biden, die onder Obama als minister van buitenlandse zaken een fikse lijst aan oorlogsmisdaden beging in de illegale oorlogen van de VS tegen o.a. Libië en Syrië…..)
De opmerking van Pompeo zou kunnen leiden tot een aanval op Iran tijdens de laatste dagen van Trump in het Witte Huis, daar de VS in 2001 een wetgeving heeft aangenomen: de ‘Authorisation of Use of Military Force’ (AUMF), die het VS leger toestemming geeft om Al Qaida in welk land dan ook aan te vallen……
Het
volgende artikel werd gepubliceerd op Al Jazeera, ik nam het over van Information
Clearing House, onder het artikel kan je klikken voor een ‘Dutch
vertaling’, dit neemt wel een tiental seconden tijd in beslag (oh ja en zie de video!!):
‘Warmongering
lies’ Pompeo says al-Qaeda’s ‘new home base’ is Iran with no
evidence
By
Al Jazeera
January 12, 2021
“Information
Clearing House”
– US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Tuesday al-Qaeda has a
new home base in Iran, though he offered no evidence in a speech in
Washington, DC, a claim Iran immediately rebuffed.
Pompeo said al-Qaeda
had centralised its leadership inside Tehran and that deputies of
leader Ayman al-Zawahiri are currently there. Such claims have been
met with some scepticism within the intelligence community and
Congress.
“Al-Qaeda has a new
home base. It is the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Pompeo said in a
speech at the National Press Club.
“I would say Iran is
indeed the new Afghanistan – as the key geographic hub for al-Qaeda
– but it’s actually worse,” he said. “Unlike in Afghanistan,
when al-Qaeda was hiding in the mountains, al-Qaeda today is
operating under the hard shell of the Iranian regime’s protection.”
The secretary of
state, who will leave office on January 20 when President Donald
Trump’s term ends, also urged more international pressure on
Tehran, but stopped short of calling for military action, saying: “If
we did have that option, if we chose to do that, there’s a much
greater risk in executing it.”
‘Warmongering
lies’
Iranian foreign
minister Mohammad Javad Zarif swiftly accused Pompeo of “warmongering
lies” in a tweet
denouncing the claims.
The
statements by Pompeo could represent an escalation in the US’s
ability to use force against Iran.
US legislation, the
2001 Authorisation of Use of Military Force (AUMF) allows US forces
to pursue al-Qaeda anywhere in the world.
Pompeo’s claim could
allow the Trump administration to claim it already had Congressional
approval for an attack on Iran under that authorisation if al-Qaeda
were proved to be on Iranian territory.
Alexander
Rubinstein publiceerde een artikel over de verbintenis van de
Verenigde Arabische Emiraten (VAE) en IS, waar hij in de kop de vraag
stelt of de door de VS gesteunde VAE leiders van IS naar Jemen heeft
getransporteerd. De vraag stellen is haar beantwoorden: ja dus.
Opvallend dat Rubinstein daar zo verbaasd over is, immers de
opgestapte president Al-Hadi (onder druk van S-A is hij nu
juntaleider) werd gedwongen af te treden daar hij IS en Al Qaida
onderdak had gegeven in Jemen……
Deze
twee soennitische terreurgroepen begingen daarna moorden en ander
barbaarsheden tegen de voornamelijk sjiitische bevolking van Jemen,
de mensen waren zelfs in moskeeën niet veilig voor de terreur van
deze groepen……. Daarop bonden de Houthi rebellen, gesteund door
een deel van het Jemenitisch leger, de strijd aan met IS, Al Qaida en
de al-Hadi getrouwe militaire macht…… Samen met de Koerden in Syrië waren de Houthi rebellen in Jemen de eersten die succesvol IS
bestreden.
Dat
succes stak het soennitische Saoedi-Arabië en zij zetten de gevluchte
al-Hadi onder druk het presidentschap weer op te nemen zodat hij S-A te
hulp kon roepen om de haar getrouwe terroristen van IS en Al Qaida bij te staan in de strijd tegen de Houthi-rebellen……
De VS
heeft overigens aan de wieg van IS gestaan, samen met Egypte, Turkije en
Saoedi-Arabië (en naar het schijnt zou Israël ook een rol hebben
gespeeld), niet voor niets dat deze landen het vervoer regelden voor
IS leden uit Libië, die werden getransporteerd naar Irak waar ze over
de grens met Syrië werden gebracht, inclusief wapens, munitie en
pickup trucks…….
Voordat
Rusland begon met de steun voor het reguliere Syrische leger in de strijd tegen de zogenaamde
gematigde rebellen, is de VS meermaals betrapt op het bombarderen van
woestijngebied, zonder dat daar een strijder te bekennen was, echter
volgens de VS waren dat bombardementen tegen IS……. Vandaar ook
dat het jaar voordat Rusland ingreep er praktisch geen successen
werden geboekt door de VS coalitie tegen IS, een coalitie die zogenaamd IS bestreed……
Rusland was duidelijk het kantelpunt voor IS, dat de ene na de
andere klap te verduren kreeg…. Na de successen van het reguliere
Syrische leger en de Russen tegen groepen als IS kon ook de VS-NAVO
coalitie niet anders doen dan af en toe terreurgroepen
raken…….
Onlangs
gaf de VS nota bene toe dat IS ook vocht in het Syrische Aleppo, terwijl men dat
destijds glashard ontkende, er zouden alleen ‘gematigde
terreurgroepen’ (die niet bestaan en niet bestonden) aanwezig zijn
geweest in Aleppo……..
Voorts blijkt keer op keer dat wapens uit de VS in handen zijn van terreurgroepen o.a. in Jemen, hier een link naar een YouTube pagina met meerdere video’s over terreurgroepen met VS wapens. (het Pentagon zijn de laatste jaren miljarden verdwenen, daarmee is de vraag deels beantwoord waar dat geld heenging…… (naar terreurgroepen!)
Lees het
volgende artikel van Rubinstein en zie het smerige spel van de
grootste terreurentiteit op aarde, de VS:
The
de facto alliance between the U.S. with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, AQAP,
and now allegedly ISIS in Yemen has led to one of the worst
humanitarian disasters in modern history,
ADEN,
YEMEN — Ali Abdullah al-Bujairi — a Yemeni politician
who served as a senior member on the failed UN-brokered transitional
government and as Yemen’s ambassador to Iraq under former president
Ali Abdullah Saleh — is accusing the United Arab Emirates of
facilitating a transfer of ISIS officials into Yemen.
“The
UAE has recently transferred an ISIL commander namely Abu Bakr
al-Zokhri (with Sudanese nationality) — nom de guerre, Khaibar
al-Sumali — from Iraq to Aden in Yemen to recruit and strengthen
the ISIL in Yemen,” al-Bujairi told Qatari
media.
Since
the toppling of ISIS’ so-called caliphate — with Raqqa, Syria as
its capital — the terrorist organization has gained a foothold in a
number of other countries. In Afghanistan, Russia and Iran have
accused the U.S. of helping to facilitate the group’s spread.
Despite
its loss of territory in Iraq and Syria, “ISIL is still active in
ten countries in 2017,” according to the 2018 Global Terrorism
Index report from
the Institute for Economics & Peace, which further states:
The
collapse of ISIL in Iraq and Syria has moved the group’s activities
elsewhere, in particular to the Maghreb and Sahel regions, most
notably in Libya, Niger, and Mali, and Southeast Asia, most notably
the Philippines.”
In
2017, the terror group’s reach was felt in many corners of the
world. The report states: “ISIL committed attacks in 286 cities
around the world in four different regions: Asia-Pacific,
Europe, MENA [Middle East and North Africa], and the Russia and
Eurasia region.” However, those hit hardest by the group’s terror
have mostly been in the Middle East and North Africa. The report
concludes:
Of
all ISIL attacks, 98 percent of incidents and 98 percent of deaths
occurred within the MENA region. Ninety percent of all terror attacks
and 81 percent of terror-related deaths from ISIL occurred in Iraq
alone.”
These
figures, however, do not include the Islamic State’s chapter in
Afghanistan, referred to as the Khorasan Group (ISIS-K), nor does it
include ISIS affiliates in Egypt.
The
campaign by the U.S. with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, AQAP, and now
allegedly ISIS in Yemen has led to one of the worst humanitarian
disasters in modern history, with large portions of the population at
risk for starvation, millions displaced, and scores of civilians and
children killed, MintPress
News has
reported.
While
the Saudi-led coalition’s dealings with the Yemen affiliate of ISIS
remain largely unexplored, the main partners have their own ties to
al-Qaeda in the country. This unholy alliance meant to depose the
Houthis, has seen the coalition, of which the supposedly democratic
government of the U.S. became a member without prior authorization
from Congress, work hand-in-glove with al-Qaeda.
Running
with cynical circles
Little
is known about the presence of ISIS in Yemen, with the numbers of
fighters believed to be in the low- to mid-hundreds, according to
the UN Security Council. The U.S. conducted a grand total of 36
airstrikes against terrorist groups in the country in 2018, but the
overwhelming majority targeted the much larger Al-Qaeda affiliate,
Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), and the U.S. has not
struck ISIS
in Yemen since January 2018.
While
ISIS has attacked Houthi and Shia Muslim targets in Yemen, it has no
territory. AQAP, on the other hand, controls large swaths of the
southeast. According to the Global Terrorism Index, “Adan-Abyan
Province of the Islamic State is primarily active in the southern
coastal province of Adan, while AQAP in active in the provinces of
Abyan and Lahij, and Ansar Allahin Taizz and Marib.” Other ISIS
affiliates once existed in Yemen but have since dwindled out.
While
the extent and nature of U.S. relations with ISIS in Yemen is
unclear, its relationship with its regional rival AQAP, which is best
described as that of “frenemies,” is more widely known.
(Op deze plek stond in het origineel een video die is echter verwijderd)
In
December, the U.S. Congress voted to end support for Saudi Arabia’s
war on Yemen, but the U.S. remains authorized to fight on Yemeni soil
because of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF).
This document also provided the U.S. cover for its war in Syria. The
bill allows for the use of force against groups associated with
attacks on 9/11, and ISIS was tenuously linked to al-Qaeda.
However,
the U.S. was a member of the Saudi-led coalition for years. This
partnership became unpalatable to mainstream media pundits and
audiences over the summer when a U.S.-made bomb was used by Saudi
Arabia on a bus in an airstrike that left 40 children dead.
While
AQAP is the ostensible enemy of the United States, they appear to be
a friend of a friend in the very least. In February, it
was revealed that
Saudi Arabia and the UAE gave U.S.-made weapons to al-Qaeda fighters
in the country. CNN reports:
Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, its main partner in the war,
have used the U.S.-manufactured weapons as a form of currency to buy
the loyalties of militias or tribes, bolster chosen armed actors, and
influence the complex political landscape.
One
of those militias linked to AQAP, the Abu Abbas brigade, now
possesses U.S.-made Oshkosh armored vehicles, paraded in a 2015 show
of force through the city.
Abu
Abbas, the founder, was declared a terrorist by the U.S. in 2017, but
the group still enjoys support from the Saudi coalition and was
absorbed into the coalition-supported 35th Brigade of the Yemeni
army.
In
October 2015, military forces loyal to the government boasted on
Saudi- and UAE-backed media that the Saudis had airdropped
American-made TOW anti-tank missiles on the same frontline where AQAP
had been known to operate at the time.”
Speculation
that the Saudi-led coalition was working with terrorists was finally
legitimized in the mainstream media over the summer, when
the Associated Press revealed that “the coalition
cut secret deals with al-Qaeda fighters, paying some to leave key
cities and towns and letting others retreat with weapons, equipment
and wads of looted cash, [while] hundreds more were recruited to join
the coalition itself.”
Key
participants in the pacts said the U.S. was aware of the arrangements
and held off on any drone strikes…
Coalition-backed
militias actively recruit al-Qaida militants, or those who were
recently members, because they’re considered exceptional fighters…
In
one case, a tribal mediator who brokered a deal between the Emiratis
and al-Qaeda even gave the extremists a farewell dinner.”
The
U.S. had been fighting on two fronts in Yemen: one against Al-Qaeda,
in closer partnership with the UAE; and another alongside the
Saudi-led coalition, which includes the UAE, against the Houthi
government. The latter was, of course, the priority. In contrast to
the 36 bombing missions the U.S. conducted against AQAP and the ISIS
affiliate in Yemen in 2018, the U.S. refueled coalition fighter
jets more
than 9,000
times between March 2015 and July 2017.
This
dynamic has fostered an alliance of convenience between the U.S. and
AQAP, materialized by the flow of U.S.-made weapons from the U.S. to
gulf monarchies, which, in violation of U.S. rules, use them as
bargaining chips with jihadists.
In
fact, the U.S. was “aware of an al-Qaeda presence among the
anti-Houthi ranks,” AP said, citing a “senior
American official.” Even the Saudi-backed former president of
Yemen, Abdrabbuh Mansur Hadi, “tapped” Adnan Rouzek to be a “top
military commander.” Rouzek was a senior al-Qaeda official who
escaped from prison in 2008 with other members and continues to be
photographed with known al-Qaeda operatives. His militia under Hadi
“became notorious for kidnappings and street killings, with one
online video showing its masked members shooting a kneeling,
blindfolded man.”
In
November 2017, Hadi picked Rouzek to coordinate the military campaign
and serve as a top commander of a new fighting force, and gave him
$12 million for a new offensive.
Another
“coalition-backed warlord is on the U.S. list of designated
terrorists due to his ties to al-Qaeda.” That warlord is Sheikh
Aboul Abbas.
One
security official told AP that “Aboul Abbas’
forces attacked security headquarters in 2017 and freed a number of
al-Qaeda suspects.” He said he reported the attack to the
coalition, but the perpetrators were rewarded with “40 more pickup
trucks.” “The more we warn, the more they are rewarded,” he
told AP. “Al-Qaeda leaders have armored vehicles given
to them by the coalition while security commanders don’t have such
vehicles.”
“Elements
of the U.S. military are clearly aware that much of what the U.S. is
doing in Yemen is aiding AQAP and there is much angst about that,”
terrorism expert Michael Horton told AP at
the time. Horton called parts of the U.S.-UAE campaign against AQAP a
“farce.”
While
Saudi Arabia has been roundly denounced for its attacks on civilians
and infrastructure in Yemen, particularly since the unrelated slaying
of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, less attention has been paid to
allegations of UAE war crimes in the country. NGOs and reporters have
accused the country of running a network of secret prisons in the
south that use torture as a feature of detention.
Degrading
an enemy whose presence is “exaggerated”
While
the UAE is now being accused of helping to spread ISIS into new
theaters of conflict, the U.S. was accused of doing the same in
Afghanistan last year.
The
Afghanistan-based affiliate “was responsible for 14 percent of
terrorism deaths, or 658 people, in 2017, a 26 percent increase from
the prior year,” according to the Global Terrorism Index report. In
neighboring Pakistan, ISIS affiliates were “responsible for 233
deaths.”
Meanwhile,
the “two deadliest attacks in South Asia” in 2017 “were
committed by the Khorasan Chapter of the Islamic State in Afghanistan
and Pakistan, killing 93 and 91 persons respectively.”
Share
of responsibility for terrorism-related deaths by Afghanistan’s
ISIS affiliate in 2017. Source | Institute
for Economics & Peace
On
repeated occasions last year, Moscow and Tehran accused Washington of
using unmarked helicopters to transfer Daesh fighters into the Haska
Meyna region in Afghanistan where ISIS is active.
In
March of 2018, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif told a
congregation of diplomats, academics and journalists in Pakistan:
We
see intelligence, as well as eyewitness accounts, that Daesh
fighters, terrorists, were airlifted from battle zones, rescued from
battle zones, including recently from the prison of Haska [Meyna].”
This
time, it wasn’t unmarked helicopters. They were American
helicopters, taking Daesh out of Haska prison. Where did they take
them? Now, we don’t know where they took them, but we see the
outcome. We see more and more violence in Pakistan, more and more
violence in Afghanistan, taking a sectarian flavor.”
After
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made a big deal out of ISIS’s
presence in an April press conference in Pakistan, U.S. officials
went into defense mode, with General John Nicholson, NATO’s
Afghanistan commander, and the mission’s public-affairs director
swearing that the Russian claims were exaggerated and arguing that
there was “little
evidence” that ISIS was expanding in the country.
Yet,
according to an earlier report from
the U.S. government-funded Voice of America, U.S. troops “routinely
accompany the Afghan forces into battle against [ISIS].”
Flash
forward to August, when NATO confirmed that it had killed ISIS’
leader in Afghanistan, Abu Sayeed Orakzai, as well as 10 other
fighters. As NBC Newsnoted at the time the U.S. estimated
that there were about 2,000 ISIS fighters in the country, while local
Afghan leaders claim that Orakzai was the “fourth” ISIS leader to
be killed in less than a year.
Top
Photo | A Yemeni militant holds an ISIS banner as he stands
behind bars during a court hearing in Sanaa, Yemen. Hani Mohammed |
AP
Alexander
Rubinstein is
a staff writer for MintPress News based in Washington, DC. He reports
on police, prisons andprotests
in the United States and the United States’ policing of the world.
He previously reported for RT and Sputnik News.
Republish
our stories! MintPress
News is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License.
Zie ook de volgende berichten aangaande de strijd in Jemen (voor meer berichten over de oorlog in Irak en Afghanistan, klik op de betreffende labels, direct onder dit bericht. Let wel, na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst getoonde telkens herhaald, dan even opnieuw op het gekozen label klikken onder het laatst gelezen bericht):
Kavanaugh,
Trump’s kandidaat voor het hooggerechtshof in de VS, wordt nu terecht
zwart gemaakt voor zijn seksueel wangedrag in het verleden. Echter
veel belangrijker zijn de prestaties en uitspraken die deze hufter
als rechter heeft neergezet en gedaan.
Kavanaugh
heeft lak aan het internationaal recht, als daardoor VS belangen
kunnen worden geschaad. Zo stelt Kavanaugh dat
mensenrechtenschendingen begaan door VS
huurlingenlegers die voor het Pentagon werken (‘military
contractors’ als Blackwater) niet vervolgd hoeven te worden en dat al helemaal niet
door andere landen….. Je hoeft je niet af te vragen wat Kavanaugh
vindt van oorlogsmisdaden begaan door het leger van de VS of van de
onderaannemers van het Pentagon, die deze misdaden begaan >>
niet vervolgen!!
Onder
oorlogsmisdaden vallen ook verkrachtingen en martelingen en daar kom
je terug bij waar men zich nu druk over maakt in de VS als het om
Kavanaugh gaat. Het is wel duidelijk dat Kavanaugh niet zwaar tilt
aan zware misdaden begaan tegen vrouwen, of zelfs seksueel geweld
tegen mannen, je weet wel misdaden waarvoor de CIA zelfs geheime diensten van andere landen traint…….
Lees
het volgende artikel van Carey Wedler en verbaas je net als ik over
het feit dat men opperschoft Kavanaugh nog durfde te kandideren voor een
taak die belangrijk is voor de vraag of de VS eigenlijk nog wel een
rechtsstaat is……… (dat is de VS al lang niet meer en toch
levert Nederland zelfs landgenoten uit aan dit land, waar het recht
met voeten wordt getreden, zoals met het meer dan achterlijke ‘plea
bargain’ >> je kan beter bekennen, ook al heb je iets niets gedaan, daar
je anders een extreem lange gevangenisstraf kan worden
opgelegd…..)…..
What
the Media Isn’t Telling You About Brett Kavanaugh
(ANTIMEDIAOp-ed) —
As expected, the corporate media’s coverage of Brett Kavanaugh’s
appointment process is disappointingly superficial. While there’s
no doubt sexual harassment is a pressing issue in modern-day America,
left-leaning establishment outlets and individuals alike are mired in
these accusations, as well as partisan political divides as they fail
to recognize Kavanaugh’s very troublesome record of court
rulings—rulings that show his verifiable proclivity toward using
the government to very literally harass the American people and the
rest of the world.
While
Congress and the people bicker over their disagreements with
Kavanaugh as he testifies, few are discussing what he has in common
with both factions of the American ruling class.
The
ACLU compiled a report in
August detailing his many troublesome perspectives, highlighting his
past decisions on surveillance, free speech, presidential and
congressional war powers, and as a result, the overarching iron fist
of government power that few care to challenge, choosing instead to
fight for control of the institution at large.
As
the ACLU summarized in its “Report of the American Civil Liberties
Union on the Nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh To Be
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court”:
“[Kavanaugh’s]
record shows his extreme deference to presidential war power and
national security claims, an unwillingness to enforce international
law absent express incorporation by the political branches, and
a tendency to find obstacles to holding government
officials accountable for constitutional and human rights
abuses in national security cases.”
One
of the greatest constitutional violations since 9/11 has been the
U.S. government’s denial of fair trials and redress over government
violations of rights within the justice system. Kavanaugh has
encouraged these encroachments. In the 2015 case Meshal v.
Higgenbotham, Kavanaugh moved to deny “a remedy to an
American citizen detained and abused by FBI agents overseas,”
siding with security over freedom, claiming that giving the American
citizen in question his constitutional rights might undermine efforts
to fight terrorism.
In
a 2009 case, Saleh v. Titan, he asserted military
contractors cannot be held liable to human rights abuses as long as
they are acting under the authority of the U.S. military.
There
is ample evidence of these abuses, but Kavanaugh does not believe in
holding government affiliates accountable. Similarly, in the same
ruling, he asserted that “government contractors [are] immune
from torture claims brought under the [Alien Tort Statute] when the
contractors operate under the control of the U.S. military.”
The military’s violent authority trumps all.
In
2008, he sided with the executive branch on war powers. Kavanaugh
wrote in the ruling for Harbury v. Hayden that
“courts cannot review allegations of executive branch wrongdoing
if the claims challenge national security or foreign affairs
decisions.”
In
still another case, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v.
United States (2010), he showed his “inclination
to dismiss cases alleging government misconduct where national
security or foreign affairs are at issue.”
He
has also opined that the U.S. government’s war powers are free from
the constraints of international law and that international treaties
can be ignored if U.S. courts “construe statutes, at least when
related to war powers.” Further, he has asserted that while the
U.S. should technically respect international law, the courts have no
power to make the government comply with it. That decision should be
left to the president and Congress (most of us know how they’ve
handled their war powers).
Regarding
“continued detention” pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use
of Military Force, Kavanaugh went so far as to acknowledge in
2013’s Ali v. Obama that “this is a long war
with no end in sight,” but still decided “it is not the
Judiciary’s proper role to devise a novel detention standard that
varies with the length of detention.”
Kavanaugh’s
prompted another judge to claim the current Supreme Court nominee had
stretched the meaning of the AUMF so far that some habeas corpus
rulings were “functionally useless.” Similarly, as the ACLU
observed, Kavanaugh has “joined or written numerous D.C. Circuit
opinions that have turned judicial habeas review of Guantánamo
detention into a virtual rubber stamp.”
His
record on free speech is less atrocious than his reverence for
authoritarian war powers, protecting government corruption and
violence, and denying justice to citizens and noncitizens alike.
Nonetheless, he has been known to side with suppressing speech on
some occasions. As the ACLU report explains:
“His
jurisprudence suggests that, where the precedent is clear, he
faithfully applies the law. Where the case law offers ambiguity,
however, he has shown a willingness to restrict speech rights.”
With
regard to government spying, in Klayman
v. Obama in
2015, he disturbingly said the “suspicionless
mass collection of Americans’ call records is ‘entirely
consistent with the Fourth Amendment.’”
Further, he said: “The
Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party
such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a
search under the Fourth Amendment”—and
that even if bulk collection did constitute
a search, such searches are totally reasonable.
He
is also supportive of America’s growing police state. In the 2007
ruling United
States v. Askew,
he sided in favor of police stop-and-frisk tactics, another violation
of the 4th amendment. In another broad show of support of police
powers, he endorses qualified immunity, which is used to
exempt “government
officials from liability for constitutional rights violations where
their actions are not clearly unconstitutional.” This
concept has been used by the Supreme Court to let a police officer
who shot a woman in her own yard off the hook, setting further
precedents to prevent police accountability. Though he opposes
“absolute immunity,” his support for a concept that already
limits government responsibility is troublesome on its own – and is
consistent with rulings regarding the government’s war powers.
The
national conversation about Kavanaugh is obsessively focused on
sexual harassment allegations and his views on traditional partisan
divides like women’s rights and healthcare. While these are not
unimportant issues, it is painfully telling that few are concerned
about the exact same issues both the left and right agree upon that
amount to verifiable harassment — by the government against the
American people and victims of his war machine.
Will
Congress be questioning Kavanaugh on mass surveillance? Doubtful,
considering they continue to pass legislation
to enable it. Will they question him about his endorsement of
unrestrained executive and legislative war powers? Again, doubtful
given their unrelenting warmongering
and commitment to spending taxpayer
dollars on their crumbling empire. As Congress continues to violate
the people’s rights while feigning concern for their well-being—and
as the media routinely fails to
inform the public of these incremental erosions of their freedoms and
liberties, it’s no surprise the country at large remains
unconcerned about Kavanaugh’s authoritarian record on war powers
and surveillance or his dubious commitment to free speech and holding
domestic law enforcement accountable.
Het label ‘Academi’ onder dit bericht staat voor het bedrijf Blackwater, men heeft deze naam geïntroduceerd nadat Blackwater psychopaten een groot aantal oorlogsmisdaden hadden begaan, waardoor er ophef ontstond over dit duivelse geteisem…..
Een ongelofelijk staaltje
volksverlakkerij waar je steil van achterover slaat: De Senaat heeft
een wetsvoorstel ingediend waarmee de macht van Trump zou worden ingeperkt om oorlog te kunnen
voeren, terwijl deze hem juist meer macht geeft om illegale oorlogen te
starten…!!
Landen die Al Qaida, IS of de Taliban
steunen kunnen met de vernieuwde Authorization for the Use of
Military Force (AUMF) wetgeving, gesteund door Republikeinen en
Democraten, simpel door de president als vijand kunnen worden aangemerkt,
waarna deze kan besluiten het betreffende land (of zelfs landen) aan te vallen, pas na 60 dagen wordt er dan geëvalueerd…… Uiteraard zal men dan niet
het onderste uit de kan halen en eisen dat de troepen worden
teruggetrokken, immers je loopt dan al snel de kans te worden
uitgemaakt voor laffe verrader van ‘de heroïsche VS troepen (ofwel de
grootste terreurorganisatie op aarde…)…..
Bovendien kan de president ook nieuwe
terreurgroepen aanwijzen als vijand in de oorlog tegen terreur……
In de lijst van 9 terreurgroepen die nu wordt gebruikt, is vreemd genoeg ook Al Qaida
Syrië opgenomen, terwijl deze terreurgroep vorig jaar nog van de VS zwarte lijst met terreurgroepen werd gehaald, blijkbaar ‘zijn de
banden wat verwaterd’, sinds dit feit bekend werd gemaakt…….. De president kan deze groepen zelfs aanvallen als ze zich naar de mening van bijvoorbeeld de CIA in een bepaald land verbergen (zonder deze soevereine staat daar eerst in te kennen, waar bijvoorbeeld Pakistan als kandidaat voor een illegale VS oorlog kan worden aangemerkt………)…..
Lees hoe de VS tot in de (verre)
toekomst oorlog zal blijven voeren en reken maar dat de
champagnekurken hebben geknald bij dit nieuws (in de directie burelen
van de wapenfabrikanten en het Pentagon wel te verstaan…)
SENATE
PROPOSAL TO CONSTRAIN TRUMP’S WAR MAKING WOULD ACTUALLY EXPAND
PERPETUAL WAR
Senator
Tim Kaine introduced a new authorized use of military force
resolution with Sen. Bob Corker. (Photo via AFGE on Flickr)
A
new authorization for the use of military force proposed by
Democratic and Republican senators would further entrench the United
States in endless war. It would also streamline the ability of
President Donald Trump and future presidents to expand the “war on
terrorism” to additional countries and broaden a list of
“associated forces” that are “co-belligerents” of al-Qaida,
the Taliban, or the Islamic State.
Under
the proposed AUMF [PDF],
which was drafted to replace the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs still in effect,
military force against the Taliban, al-Qaida, ISIS, and “designated
associated forces” is renewed.
On
January 20, 2022, and every four years after, the president is to
submit a report on the “use of military force,” which includes a
“proposal to repeal, modify, or leave in place” the current AUMF.
It
removes some of the ambiguity previously in the phrase “associated
forces” by naming the groups: al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP), al-Qaida in Syria (including al-Nusra), the Haqqani Network,
and al-Qaida in Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
When
the president determines that a “new organization, person, or force
is an associated force covered,” a report should be submitted to
the “appropriate congressional committees and leadership.”
A
similar procedure is to be followed when adding new foreign countries
to the list of places where the U.S. is at war. “New” countries
are any countries other than Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia,
Yemen, and Libya.
The
AUMF proposal was put
forward by
Republican Senator Bob Corker and Democratic Senator Tim Kaine* with
the bipartisan support of Republican Senators Jeff Flake and Todd
Young and Democratic Senators Chris Coons and Bill Nelson.
In
1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution as a response to the
Vietnam War. The resolution was intended to ensure the President of
the United States could only deploy U.S. military forces abroad
through declarations of war, “statutory authorizations,” or in
the case of a national emergency.
What
the proposed AUMF would effectively do is cement Congress as the war
clerk for the Executive Branch. It would represent a complete
abdication of responsibility over matters of war, as granted by the
separation of powers in U.S. government. The president would come to
leaders of congressional committees with a report that is reviewed,
filed, and updated accordingly, with Congress’ only task to make
sure they can fit the latest war making into the parameters laid out
for perpetual war.
Trump’s
latest strikes against Syria renewed attention on Congress’ failure
to assert authority over war making by the Executive Branch. Several
Democrats, like Representative Nancy Pelosi, made process critiques
and argued there
must be an AUMF for Syria before Trump pursued more war. Yet, the
proposed AUMF does not really deal with the issue of military action
against sovereign countries.
It
does not provide authority for the president to use military force
against any nation state, but it also does not contemplate what
Congress should do if the president is engaged in actions, like the
strikes on Syria, which senators or representatives never approved.
Additionally,
the proposed AUMF grandfathers in the war in Yemen, where the United
States military has played an integral role in supporting a coalition
led by Saudi Arabia that has brutally attacked Yemenis and blockaded
civilians.
Senators
Chris Murphy, Mike Lee, and Bernie Sanders attempted to force a vote
on withdrawing U.S. military support for the war in Yemen because
Congress has not authorized war in the country. Corker took great
offense to this, and through the proposed AUMF, he and other senators
are ensuring Murphy, Lee, and Sanders cannot challenge U.S. military
action in Yemen again by retroactively approving war.
Out
of 535 members of Congress, Democratic Representative Barbara Lee was
the only
person to vote against
the 2001 AUMF. She previously opposed bombing Iraq in the 1990s and
committing U.S. troops to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s
intervention in Kosovo.
Lee
declared, “This resolution, even though it was focused on the World
Trade Center attack, is open-ended. It doesn’t have an exit
strategy; it does not have any reporting requirements. And the
president already has authority to use force [internationally for 60
days without congressional approval] under the War Powers Act. So
what was this about?”
Her
caution went unheeded by elected officials. The Executive Branch used
the open-ended AUMF to develop a targeted assassination program,
where the groups it believed it could attack with drones or other
aircraft under the AUMF were kept entirely secret from the public.
Lee
opposes the proposal from Corker and Kaine because she believes it
will “continue our state of perpetual war.”
“Rather
than reining in the Trump Administration’s blank check for war, the
Corker-Kaine AUMF would continue all current military operations,
allow any president to unilaterally expand our wars, and effectively
consent to endless war by omitting any sunset date or geographic
constraints for our ongoing operations. This legislation also further
limits Congress’s role in war making by requiring a veto-proof
majority to block military action from the president,” Lee
declared.
Republican
Senator Rand Paul also outlined
his opposition to
the proposed AUMF while he was on CNN on April 17. “It is a good
idea to debate whether we should be at war or not. Unfortunately, the
[AUMF] they’re putting forward actually expands the president’s
ability to commit war.”
He
continued, “For the first time, it will list six or seven groups
that we’re at war with. If you remember, after 9/11, we were at war
with those who attacked us and who aided and abetted them. But now,
this is for the first time gonna codify six or seven groups, maybe
10-15 countries that we can be at war in. Really it’s limitless.”
“If
we detect any of the groups having any activity in any country, the
president can go to war there. He just has to submit a notice saying,
hey guys, we’re now at war in a new country. And that to me is not
a limitation. It’s an expansion of war making, and I think, a huge
mistake,” Paul concluded.
Democratic
Senator Jeff Merkley opposes the
proposed AUMF for similar reasons. “This new AUMF has no sunset
clause – meaning it can be used indefinitely by President Trump and
his successors to continue expanding the scope and geography of U.S.
military action around the world. The absence of a sunset clause all
but guarantees that this AUMF will be stretched by the executive
branch to avoid coming to Congress for future authorizations, which
is completely unacceptable.”
“Even
more concerning, this legislation allows the president to
unilaterally expand the scope of the authorization, both in the
specific groups being targeted and in the countries in which the
United States takes military action. The clear constitutional vision
was for Congress and Congress alone to have the authority to initiate
war. This AUMF stands that on its head, giving the President that
power and leaving Congress with the impossible task of overriding
presidential actions.”
“I
cannot support an authorization that gives a blank check for endless
war and turns Congress’s power over to the president. The Senate
should indeed debate a new AUMF, but it must be one that has built-in
timelines, mandates congressional approval, and limits the scope of
the conflict.”
That
is, for the most part, the extent of public opposition to the
proposed AUMF, as of April 22.
Its
supporters, like former Democratic Party vice presidential nominee
Tim Kaine, actually contend it
will end the notion that the president has a “blank check to wage
war.”
Democratic
Senator Bill Nelson is gung-ho about the proposed AUMF, sounding like
President George W. Bush’s administration in the days after 9/11.
“Terrorists
groups such as ISIS pose a serious threat to our national security.
This bill will give the president the clear legal authority he needs
to target these groups in Iraq, Syria or anywhere else they may be
hiding,” Nelson said.
Efforts
to repeal and update the AUMF have occurred multiple times in the
past decade. Most prominently, in 2015, President Barack
Obama provided
legislation for
an AUMF that would cover strikes against ISIS. The proposal lacked
limitations like this recent proposal. Congress never voted on the
authorization, and Obama continued to rely on the 2001 AUMF to claim
authority for military action.
“Over
the last sixteen years, we have witnessed the consequences of
unfettered executive power in matters of war,” Lee stated. “Instead
of further endorsing perpetual war, we need to insist on an AUMF that
is narrow, clearly defined, and respects Congress’s constitutional
duty to debate and authorize military action.”
Senators
appear to be appropriately concerned about the ways in which Trump
could abuse his authority, unlike under the Obama administration. But
that concern seems increasingly likely to translate into a measure
that will transform Congress’ efforts to challenge the imperial
presidency into even more of a charade.
==================================
* Tim Kaine, de ex-running mate van hare kwaadaardigheid Hillary Clinton.
VS terreur op groter plan: Obama, de winnaar van de Nobelprijs voor de Vrede laat psychopathische moordenaars los op zo ongeveer de hele wereld! Tijd dat massamoordenaar Obama wordt aangeklaagd bij het Internationaal Strafhof!
Hier het artikel daarover op Information Clearing House van 30 november 2016 (onder dit artikel kan u klikken voor een ‘Dutch’ vertaling, dit neemt wel enige tijd in beslag):
Obama
Extends Global Reach of US Special Operations Death Squads
By
Patrick Martin
November
29, 2016 “Information
Clearing House”
– “WSWS” (World Socialist Web Site) – In major actions reported only briefly by the establishment
press, President Obama has given vast new scope to the Pentagon’s
Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), authorizing it to carry out
assassinations across the globe.
The
units of JSOC have long been employed by the chiefs of the six major
regional military commands, such as Centcom, which covers the Middle
East and Central Asia, to conduct counter-terrorism operations. One
such unit, Seal Team Six, carried out the assassination of Al Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden in May 2011.
Obama
has approved a proposal to give JSOC independent authority to operate
outside the regional commands, essentially as a globalized
assassination force. JSOC units will bypass the regional commanders
and report directly to Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the
Pentagon.
According
to the Washington
Post,
“The missions could occur well beyond the battlefields of places
like Iraq, Syria and Libya, where Joint Special Operations Command
(JSOC) has carried out clandestine operations in the past. When
finalized, it will elevate JSOC from being a highly-valued strike
tool used by regional military commands to leading a new multi-agency
intelligence and action force.”
The
mandate of the new formation, to be called the “Counter-External
Operations Task Force,” or Ex-Ops in Pentagon jargon, will embrace
the entire planet. This means US military death squads could be sent
to virtually any location, from European cities to South American
jungles, including the United States itself.
According
to the Post,
a reorganization making counter-terrorism an independent, global
command has been discussed in the Pentagon for 15 years, since the
9/11 terrorist attacks, but it was always rejected on the grounds
that it would cause friction with the regional commanders and create
duplication in command structures.
The
newspaper did not address the question of why now, a
decade-and-a-half later, the Obama administration has decided to
press forward with the new global counter-terrorism initiative. The
decision is likely, at least in part, a response to the debacle of
the US “war on terror” from the standpoint of the global aims of
American imperialism.
The
US wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria and repeated drone
strikes in other countries, including Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia,
have inflicted catastrophic levels of death and destruction, but they
have not achieved the hoped-for hegemonic control of the region and
its vast energy resources. Obama’s decision represents a
determination to escalate US military violence in Central Asia, the
Middle East, North Africa and beyond.
Another
likely consideration is the possibility that the ongoing military
offensives against Islamic State territories in Syria and Iraq, and
particularly the siege of Mosul, could lead to thousands of ISIS
militants turning to terrorist attacks outside the Middle East.
Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter traveled to Paris last month with SOCOM
Commander Raymond Thomas for talks with security officials from
several European countries. A major topic was the impact on Europe of
a sudden weakening in the military position of ISIS in Iraq and
Syria. Carter told his European counterparts that JSOC “has been
put in the lead” of countering ISIS external operations, the first
mention of the impending Pentagon reorganization.
The Post report
sought to present the Obama-approved reorganization as an effort to
set limits on the operations of special forces under the incoming
Trump administration, including “approval by several agencies
before a drone strike and ‘near certainty’ that no civilians will
be killed guidelines.” But these restrictions are for cosmetic
purposes only and have not stopped the mass slaughter of civilians by
drone missile warfare.
Moreover,
Trump is not bound in any way by executive orders issued by Obama.
The fascistic president-elect has already made his intentions clear,
as far as US Special Forces operations are concerned. He has vowed to
order the killing of the wives and children of suspected ISIS
fighters, a war crime under the Geneva Conventions.
The
latest White House orders serve to facilitate these homicidal
intentions. Less than a month ago, Obama was campaigning against the
election of Trump, denouncing him as unfit to be commander-in-chief
and as a menace to the world. Now, as Foreign
Policymagazine
reported, Obama is “handing the incoming Trump team tools to wage
war that no president has held before.”
In
one particular theater of US counter-terrorism operations, Somalia,
Obama has taken additional action to escalate the carnage by
declaring the Islamist group al-Shabab to be part of the armed
conflict authorized by the US Congress in 2001 after the 9/11
attacks.
The
legal maneuver, reported Monday by the New
York Times,
demonstrates the infinitely expandable scope of the US-declared “war
on terror.” The Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF),
passed by Congress on September 14, 2001, approved military action
against Al Qaeda and associated forces, including the Taliban regime
in Afghanistan.
The
2001 AUMF has been interpreted by the Bush and Obama administrations
as a blanket authorization for military action wherever the president
claims to find a connection to Al Qaeda, no matter how tenuous.
Al-Shabab was not founded until 2007, six years after the 9/11
attacks, in response to the US-backed invasion of Somalia by
Ethiopian troops. It has never conducted operations outside of East
Africa.
The Times noted
that the Somalia decision was one of a series of Obama actions
expanding the military’s authority, including broadening the scope
of air strikes in Afghanistan and approving air strikes against
Sirte, the Libyan city held by supporters of ISIS. More than 400 air
strikes followed, pounding into rubble a city already devastated by
five years of civil war following the 2011 US-NATO bombing campaign.
The
preparations to reinforce the pseudo-legal basis of the war in
Somalia no doubt began well before the election, when Obama expected
to hand off authority to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
But it has continued uninterrupted after Trump’s victory, and as
the Times reported,
it is “a move that will strengthen President-elect Donald J.
Trump’s authority to combat thousands of Islamist fighters in the
chaotic Horn of Africa nation.”
Earlier
this month, the British-based Guardian reported
that “Barack Obama will not tighten the rules governing US drone
strikes ahead of Donald Trump’s inauguration.” An Amnesty
International USA official, Naureen Shah, told the newspaper, “Obama
has normalized the idea that presidents get to have secret
large-scale killing programs at their disposal.”
These
events shed a new and sinister light over the reports of frequent
closed-door discussions between Obama and Trump during the three
weeks since the November 8 election. “They’ve been talking
regularly on any number of issues,” Trump campaign manager
Kellyanne Conway said on CNN’s “State of the Union” program
Sunday.
Obama
was at pains, in his first post-election statement, to dismiss the
bitter vituperation of the election campaign, declaring that the
electoral struggle between the Democrats and Republicans was merely
“an intramural scrimmage.” This is profoundly true: both parties
represent the same class, the American financial aristocracy, and its
global interests, defended in the final analysis by death and
destruction inflicted by the American military machine.
Zoals u kon lezen: het wachten is op de eerste illegale militaire psychopathische VS acties, middels een doodseskader, tegen burgers in de EU, ik wed, dat dit binnen een paar jaar zal gebeuren….. Sterker nog, de mogelijkheid bestaat dat dit al is gebeurd en/of momenteel plaatsvindt………
Klik voor meer berichten n.a.v. het bovenstaande, op één van de labels die u onder dit bericht terug kan vinden, dit geldt niet voor de labels: AUFM, Ex-Ops, JSOC, R. Thomas, SOCOM en WSWS.
Nederlands
English
Русский
Español
简体中文
Français
Deutsch
हिन्दी
Italiano
Português