Stephen Lendman

Don't bet on it, or at most expect prosecutorial pretense, theater, with Baby Doc Duvalier free to return to his luxury French villa, though perhaps later than planned. A previous article discussed his arrival and 15 dictatorial years of rule (plus his father's), accessed through this link.

On January 18, New York Times writer Ginger Thompson headlined, "Former Haitian Dictator to Face Charges," saying:

"Haitian prosecutors presented formal charges of corruption and embezzlement against the former dictator Jean-Claude (Baby Doc) Duvalier on Tuesday, raising the level of uncertainty surrounding his abrupt emergence from exile this week."

Haiti's Chief Magistrate, Marycidas Auguste, announced charges of "government corruption, embezzlement of funds, money laundering, and assassination."

Calling the day's events a "political show," his lawyer, Gervais Charles, said only corruption and embezzlement were involved, adding that "Jean-Claude came into this country at the wrong time. That's what this is about, not the law."

A judge will decide if enough evidence warrants trial, he explained, adding that most charges stem from $4.6 million in Swiss accounts, a small fraction of what he stole, believed to be hundreds of millions of dollars, according to Haitian lawyer Salim Succar, involved in negotiations with Switzerland.

Statute of limitations also matter, having expired in 2006. Duvalier was never prosecuted despite past charges brought, including a 1988 US District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruling (in Jean-Juste v. Duvalier) that he was liable for $500 million in misappropriated public funds, taken for personal use.

His traveling companion, Veronique Roy, was asked if he was arrested. By phone inside court she said, "Absolutely not. We are very relaxed, drinking coffee and water."

Besides stealing millions as dictator, his Tonton Macoute (praetorian guard) killers abducted and murdered tens of thousands of Haitians, many tortured to death in prison.

More »

Kourosh Ziabari

Since its very inception in 1946, the United Nations Security Council demonstrated that it cannot be trusted as a podium of justice for the world countries, specially the oppressed and defenseless nations which eye the assistance and patronage of the powerful and economically influential nations for tackling their political predicaments and crises, and showed that it merely pursues the interests of its small bloc of five permanent members and undemocratically discriminates against a multitude of countries who don't have a say in the policies which directly affects them.

United Nations Security Council is said to be one of the principal organs within the operative system of the United Nations and is "allegedly" charged with the maintenance of international peace and security. The authorities possessed by UNSC are the establishment of peacekeeping missions, imposition of international sanctions and authorization of military actions whenever necessary.

UNSC has five permanent members: China, Russia, Britain, France and the United States. What's the reason? Why should the UNSC have permanent members which cannot be removed from power and must wield an unyielding and resolute authority to make decision over the international affairs? The answer is simple: these five countries are the victorious powers of the Second World War. Their victory in a war which took place and was concluded more than half a century ago minimally accounts for the eternality and endlessness of the power which they possess.

More »

Milo Nickels
Activist Post

Anti-government sentiment is not cause for fear, a sign of insanity, or a precursor of tragedy. Quite the contrary. Anti-government sentiment signifies attentiveness, understanding, and a love of liberty. If you truly value freedom, then you absolutely must distrust and despise government with every fiber of your being. Why? Government has no ability, whatsoever, to give freedom to anyone. Government can only take freedoms away. Our founding fathers fully understood this fundamental truth. They did not view government as a potential source of good, but as a necessary evil. Although they understood that limited government would be necessary to protect individual citizens from each other, they also understood that the Constitution would be necessary to protect all citizens from the government. Our founding fathers knew that if they did not restrain the government with the constitution, then nothing would stop it from taking all of our liberties away. This is simply the nature of the beast.

Many people mistakenly believe that the first Amendment grants us freedom of speech. This is dead wrong. The first amendment tells the government that they are not allowed to take that freedom away. Many people mistakenly believe that the second amendment exists only to protect hunters so that they can feed their families. They are dead wrong once again. Our founding fathers expected our government to overstep its bounds, and the second amendment was intended to be our insurance policy to rise against those encroachments. The second amendment is a direct extension of the Declaration of Independence where it states:

...to secure [our unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...

How do we abolish a government without arms? Our founding fathers were not liberal, government-loving, boot-lickers; they were revolutionaries. They completely and necessarily distrusted the government and hated tyranny. They expected that government would always try to steal freedom, and they expected people to rise up against the government whenever that happens. Indeed, our government was founded on the expectation that it couldn't be trusted.

Look at where we are now. Our government wants to pass laws where we can't speak out against it, wants to limit our second amendment rights, and they use the mainstream media to convince the masses that hating the government makes people crazy. If our founding fathers were alive today, they would be labeled as dangerous, extremist threats to our national security.

More »

Gareth Porter
Antiwar

"The Pentagon [has] embraced the idea of the “long war” ” a 20-year strategy envisioning the deployment of U.S. troops in dozens of countries, and the Army [has] adopted the idea of “the era of persistent warfare” as its rationale for more budgetary resources."

"The military leadership used its political clout to ensure that U.S. forces would continue to fight in Afghanistan indefinitely, even after the premises of its strategy were shown to have been false."

Fifty years after Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Jan. 17, 1961, speech on the “military-industrial complex,” that threat has morphed into a far more powerful and sinister force than Eisenhower could have imagined. It has become a “permanent war state,” with the power to keep the United States at war continuously for the indefinite future.

But despite their seeming invulnerability, the vested interests behind U.S. militarism have been seriously shaken twice in the past four decades by some combination of public revulsion against a major war, opposition to high military spending, serious concern about the budget deficit, and a change in perception of the external threat. Today, the permanent war state faces the first three of those dangers to its power simultaneously – and in a larger context of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

When Eisenhower warned in this farewell address of the “potential” for the “disastrous rise of misplaced power,” he was referring to the danger that militarist interests would gain control over the country’s national security policy. The only reason it didn’t happen on Ike’s watch is that he stood up to the military and its allies.

More »

Elisabeth Zimmermann
WSWS

The village of Mayen, near the city of Koblenz in the German state of Rhineland-Palatinate, is governed by a Social Democratic Party (SPD) administration. A Roma family originating from Kosovo had lived in Mayen since 1999. Despite the serious illness of one of the members of the family, Mrs. Borka T., the whole family was deported under inhumane conditions in early December to Kosovo. Just a month later, Mrs. T. died of a brain hemorrhage.

In the early hours of December 7, police picked up Mrs. Borka T. with her husband and her 14-year-old son Avdil from their home in Mayen. They were given just 30 minutes to pack a few personal belongings. They were then taken by police to Dusseldorf Airport and together with other refugees deported to Pristina, the capital of Kosovo.

Mrs. Borka T. was examined at Düsseldorf Airport by a doctor whose job was to give the okay for her deportation. Mrs. T.’s own specialist doctors had diagnosed her as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and neuralgia. Due to these symptoms, she received regular medication and therapy with the support of the Caritas organisation. These facts were known but ignored by officials at the airport.

The ailing woman’s condition was also swept aside by the local administration in Mayen-Koblenz, which ordered the deportation of the family. The Trier Administrative Court then upheld the deportation, knowing full well that no possibilities of treatment for the woman existed in Kosovo.

The Mayen-Koblenz administration denied any responsibility on its part even after the death of Borka T. was announced earlier this year. A spokesman merely declared that the authority had relied on the judgement of the Trier Administrative Court, which had stated that there were options for her treatment in Kosovo. The spokesman refuted any correlation between a lack of drugs and the woman’s death as absurd, declaring with cynicism: “Intracranial bleeding is always a possibility”.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Merriam-Webster defines racism as

"a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."

It was the basis of South African apartheid and Nazi "master race" superiority above others, especially Jews.

Israel has no constitution. Basic Laws substitute, including statutes affirming exclusive rights for Jews. One is the right of return, granting them automatic citizenship. Goyim are denigrated and not wanted, especially Arabs. David Ben-Gurion once said:

"This is not only a Jewish state, where the majority of the inhabitants are Jews, but a state for all Jews, wherever they are, and for every Jew who wants to be here....This right is inherent in being a Jew." It applies to no one else.

Israel's Law of Citizenship or Nationality Law establishes rules so stringent against non-Jews that many Palestinians in 1948 were denied citizenship, despite family roots going back generations or longer.

On May 5, 2007, Professor Joseph Maddad's Palestine Remembered article headlined, "Israel's Right to Be Racist," discussed a "New anti-Semitism," saying:

"Anti-Semitism is no longer the hatred of and discrimination against Jews as a religious or ethnic group; in the age of Zionism, we are told, anti-Semitism has metamorphosed into something that is more insidious. Today, Israel and its Western defenders insist genocidal anti-Semitism consists mainly of any attempt to take away and to refuse to uphold the absolute right of Israel to be a Jewish racist state."

Israel will do anything to convince Arabs why it deserves to be racist, he said. It also makes peace provisional on "Palestinians 'recogniz(ing) its right to exist' as a racist state," meaning, at best, they'll be tolerated as lesser beings provided they accept inferiority and remain submissive, relinquishing all rights in return for nothing.

More »

Vera Macht
Gilad Atzmon's Blog

Death comes quickly at a place like this. On sunny winter days, when the smell of the night’s rain is still in the air, as if it would have brought some hope for the raped, barren land of Gaza, overrun hundreds of times by Israeli tanks and bulldozers. The land between the foothills of the village of Bait Hanoun and the Israeli border, guarded by watchtowers, soldiers, snipers, helicopters and drones. A land in which death is a regular guest. But despite all that, the 65-year-old Shaban Karmout probably had something like hope when he woke up on that winter morning. His house is in exactly this 300 meter wide strip of land in the so-called buffer zone. He has built his house 40 years ago, in 1971, when Gaza was already occupied by Israel, and yet he had thought to have a future there for himself and his family. Shaban began to plant fruits, his land was full of palms and trees, lemon, orange, clementine and almond trees were growing there. He had a good life.

But in 2003, just at the time of the almond harvest, the Israeli bulldozers came in the middle of the night. It took them three hours to raze the work of 30 years to the ground. Since the Israeli attack in 2009, he could no longer live there, too dangerous had the buffer zone become, where his home was, which has now been declared a closed combat zone by Israel. He had since lived in a rented small concrete house in the middle of the refugee camp near Bait Hanoun, in Jabalia, cramped in a tiny room with his large family. But he went back to his land, every morning, and worked there until the evening. He and his family had to make a living from something, after all. And so this morning, in the morning of the 10th January 2011, he woke up with hope, around 4 o’clock, and left for his fields. Full of hope he was because he and his neighbors had recently received a new well, their old one had been destroyed by an Israeli tank incursion. The Italian NGO GVC had built up the well, it was financed by the Italian government.

More »

Eric S. Margolis
ericmargolis.com

Oops! Something has gone terribly wrong with Washington’s plans for regime change in the Mideast. Wasn’t there supposed to be a US and British engineered revolution against Iran’s mullahs, followed by installation of a cooperative pro-western government and a bonanza for western oil companies?
The revolution came, all right, but in the wrong place. The explosion of popular fury in Tunisia that ousted its dictator of 23-years is sending shock waves across the Arab world and has alarm bells ringing in Washington.

Pay no attention to President Barack Obama’s pious bromides welcoming the revolution in Tunisia. The US, France and their Arab satraps are deeply worried that Tunisia’s popular revolution could spark similar uprising against the dictatorships or monarchies in other members of America’s Mideast Raj, notably Egypt.

It has come to light that Tunisia’s ruling elite had dinners and wine flown in from Paris at government expense for lavish parties in their beachside villas. Shades of the Iranian revolution, when women of the ruling elite in Tehran used to send their dirty laundry to Paris for hand washing, or fly to Paris to have their hair done for a soiree.

In a zesty bit of irony totally lost on the US media, just as a people’s revolution was ousting Tunisia’s brutal US-backed regime, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Qatar piously lecturing local oil monarchs on good government and the need to promote democracy.

Tunisia has not had much strategic importance since Carthage – whose ruins and great war harbor lie in a residential suburb of Tunis – fought Rome in the three Punic Wars. During World War II’s North Africa campaign, Tunisia was battled over by the British, Germans and Italians.

Since then, little Tunisia has been a backwater, known mainly for sunshine, cheap beach vacations, and as a refuge for Italian crooks.

More »

Gideon Levy
Bil'in, a village of Palestine

Mourners carry Jawaher Abu Rahma, a 36-year-old Palestinian wo-
man who died overnight after being teargassed by Israeli troops at
a West Bank protest. (Photo: Abbas Momani/AFP/Getty Images)

Instead of working toward revealing the truth behind the recent death of an anti-fence demonstrator the IDF is reaching into its bag of lies.

Jawaher Abu Ramah died young. She stood facing the demonstrators against the separation fence in her village, inhaled very large quantities of the gas that Israel Defense Forces soldiers fired that day, collapsed and died several hours later at a Ramallah hospital.

These are definitive facts. The IDF should have immediately issued a statement expressing sorrow for the death of the demonstrator, and said it would investigate the excessive means used for dispersing demonstrations at Bil’in, which had killed Bassem, Jawaher’s brother, for no reason. He was hit by a gas canister fired directly at his chest two and a half years ago.

So, the IDF began with the spreading of lies, making up facts and spinning tales, originating with officers who did not dare identify themselves. Following the investigation into Jawaher’s death, it is also necessary to investigate how the army dares to distort in this way. Perhaps it will disturb Israeli society more than the death of a demonstrator.

More »

Stephen Lendman

With more troubles than Job, Haitians now have another after former dictator Jean-Claude Baby Doc's arrival. On January 16, Air France flew him back, New York Times writer Randal Archibold headlining, "A Former Dictator Reappears in Haiti," saying:

"Haitian television and radio stations reported that Mr. Duvalier....landed shortly after 6PM in Port-au-Prince," telling reporters he was there "to help Haiti."

He's most unwelcome. As Haitian dictator from April 21, 1971 - February 7, 1986, he ruled brutally after succeeding his father, Francois Papa Doc, another infamous thug in charge from October 22, 1957 until his April 21,1971 death.

For nearly 30 years, they reigned terror, using Tonton Macoute killers to murder up to 100,000 Haitians, yet America backed their rule. When military strongman Paul Magloire was deposed, rigged elections brought Papa Doc to power. More on his rule and son Baby Doc below.

A previous article explained Haiti's long colonial history, repeated below through Baby Doc's 1986 ouster.

Besides oppressive centuries under Spanish and French rule, colonialism cursed Haiti after revolutionary leader's Jean-Jacques Dessalines' 1806 assassination. Presidents drafted and abolished constitutions at will. From 1949 - 1859, "Emperor" Faustin I suspended Haiti's republic. Debt to France hamstrung the country. Governments controlled agricultural lands. Elites held power directly or through puppet presidents, serving them.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Earlier turmoil began in 2000, the first protests since 1984 bread riots, including a three-day professional drivers strike in Tunis. Demonstrations followed in over a dozen cities by students, unemployed youths and others. Protestors attacked government symbols, including public buildings. Poverty, rising food and energy prices, high unemployment, and political repression were proximate causes. Le Monde, at the time, called the turmoil "the first warning shots aimed at President (Zine al-Abidine) Ben Ali."

Protests then erupted in mid-December after Mohammed Bouazizi, an unemployed graduate working as a vegetable seller set himself on fire in front of government offices in Sidi Bouzid, protesting police confiscation of his merchandise for operating without a permit. At his January 4 funeral, marchers chanted, "Farewell, Mohammed, we will avenge you. We weep for you today. We will make those who caused your death weep."

His uncle, Mehdi Horchani, told AFP, he "gave his life to draw attention to his condition and that of his brothers." Tunisia, like Algeria and other regional countries have high unemployment, especially affecting youths, because economic conditions and structural market mandates forced cuts. Moreover, in Tunisia like elsewhere in the region, it's impossible to get decent jobs without connections or greasing palms.

Unprecedented December protests continued and spread, including in Tunis. As expected, police reacted harshly, opening fire on demonstrators, killing 18-year old Mohammed Amari in Sidi Bou Zid. At the time, Ben Ali warned on television that law and order would "be applied in all firmness to punish a minority of extremists and mercenaries who resort to violence and disorder."

More »

Michael Vail
BlackListedNews

The Neo-Aristocrats never say what they are really thinking, so they engage in sub communication. If you have the wherewithal to decode their speech patterns you can better understand their demented and twisted rational. I will provide you with examples, explanations and direct quotes.

Biodiversity – The Eco-Dictator's trump card. It is more important that some rare species of bug live than you are I because there are so many of us on the planet. We are no longer at the top of the food chain. The UN uses the biodiversity card to steal the best real estate on Earth. The endgame is to abolish all private property for the sake of preserving animals and insects. What a world!

Capacity Building - The creation of a framework that will enforce environmental policy upon the urban community, long term resource management and yes you are also a resource. The overall goal is to force people into the high rise urban slums like a large can of sardines while using transportation agencies to close off access to rural towns and farm land. See also the ‘Man in the Biosphere Program’ and the Wildlands Project.

"Another more specialized change may be suggested as probable. Civilization has taught man how to live in dense crowds, and by that very fact those crowds are likely ultimately to constitute a majority of the world's population. Already there are many who prefer this crowded life, but there are others who do not, and these will be gradually eliminated. Life in the crowded condition of cities has many unattractive features, but in the long run these may be overcome, not so much by altering them, but simply by changing the human race into liking them." --Charles Galton Darwin, The Next Million Years

Collateral Damage – Shit happens! A countries infrastructure is destroyed along with any and all services that people need during times of crisis. Governments bring in the multinational corporations and pay them top dollar to rebuild. The process is repeated again and again. See also Halliburton and Redistribution of Wealth.

Democracy – Indirect representation of the majority. The mob is manipulated to support issues which are not in their interest. Polls are used to polarize groups and to control both sides of an argument. In the final analysis no one is represented but lobbying firms and corporations.

More »

Richard Falk
Global Research

Israel is gearing up for another major offensive into Gaza, yet the world community still remains bafflingly silent.

It is dismaying that during this dark anniversary period two years after the launch of the deadly attacks on the people of Gaza - code-named Operation Cast Lead by the Israelis - that there should be warnings of a new massive attack on the beleaguered people of Gaza.

The influential Israeli journalist, Ron Ren-Yishai, writes on December 29, 2010, of the likely prospect of a new major IDF attack, quoting senior Israeli military officers as saying "It's not a question of if, but rather of when," a view that that is shared, according to Ren-Yishai, by "government ministers, Knesset members and municipal heads in the Gaza region".

The bloody-minded Israeli Chief of Staff, Lt. General Gabi Ashkenazi, reinforces this expectation by his recent assertion that, "as long as Gilad Shalit is still in captivity, the mission is not complete". He adds with unconscious irony, "we have not lost our right of self-defence".

More accurate would be the assertion, "we have not given up our right to wage aggressive war or to commit crimes against humanity".

And what of the more than 10,000 Palestinians, including children under the age of 10, being held in Israeli prisons throughout occupied Palestine?

More »

Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com

For those who regularly write and read about civil liberties abuses, it's sometimes easy to lose perspective of just how extreme and outrageous certain erosions are. One becomes inured to them, and even severe incursions start to seem ordinary. Such was the case, at least for me, with Homeland Security's practice of detaining American citizens upon their re-entry into the country, and as part of that detention, literally seizing their electronic products -- laptops, cellphones, Blackberries and the like -- copying and storing the data, and keeping that property for months on end, sometimes never returning it. Worse, all of this is done not only without a warrant, probable cause or any oversight, but even without reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in any crime. It's completely standard-less, arbitrary, and unconstrained. There's no law authorizing this power nor any judicial or Congressional body overseeing or regulating what DHS is doing. And the citizens to whom this is done have no recourse -- not even to have their property returned to them.

When you really think about it, it's simply inconceivable that the U.S. Government gets away with doing this. Seizing someone's laptop, digging through it, recording it all, storing the data somewhere, and then distributing it to various agencies is about the most invasive, privacy-destroying measure imaginable. A laptop and its equivalents reveal whom you talk to, what you say, what you read, what you write, what you view, what you think, and virtually everything else about your life. It can -- and often does -- contain not only the most private and intimate information about you, but also information which the government is legally barred from accessing (attorney/client or clergy/penitent communications, private medical and psychiatric information and the like). But these border seizures result in all of that being limitlessly invaded. This is infinitely more invasive than the TSA patdowns that caused so much controversy just two months ago. What kind of society allows government agents -- without any cause -- to seize all of that whenever they want, without limits on whom they can do this to, what they access, how they can use it: even without anyone knowing what they're doing?

More »

Stephen Lendman

Oscar Lopez Rivera & Mohammad Khawaja

Earlier articles addressed them, accessed through the following links, here & here.

Pakistani Canadians Mahboob Khawaja, his son Momin, and family were wrongfully targeted for alleged involvement in terrorism. Mahboob is an "academic specializing in Strategic Studies with special interests in Western-Islamic Civilizations, Change and Conflict Resolution."

While working in Saudi Arabia, dozens of Royal Canadian Mounted police arrested his family at gunpoint in Ottawa. They blew open his door, then searched his home lawlessly with no warrant and found nothing. At the same time, Mahboob was arrested in Saudi Arabia, jailed for two weeks, then released. The affair ruined his academic career as a professor of global politics, and Momin's as a software developer and free man.

In March 2004, he was bogusly accused of a UK bomb plot, becoming the first person charged under Canada's 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act. Though acquitted on that charge, he was held without trial for over four years, then convicted on October 29, 2008, and sentenced on March 12, 2009, after a bench trial, to ten and a half years (above time already served) for allegedly:

● donating $859 to an Afghan refugee charity; in fact, he gave $25;
● making a device, readily available at retail, to jam cell phone signals and emails, specifically ones relating to Western imperialism;
● providing material support to Afghan resistance fighters, called terrorists; and
● attending an unknown camp during a Pakistan visit.

Appealing before Ontario's Higher Court from May 18 - 20, 2010, prosecutors restated all trial court charges, including the bogus UK bomb plot. The Lawrence Greenspon-led defense team argued for acquittal on time served.

On December 17, Momin was sentenced to life plus 24 years to be served concurrently, though innocent of all charges. The harsh Appeals Court ruling stressed "the unique nature of terrorism-related offenses," though none whatsoever were committed.

More »