Stephen Lendman

Last July, B'Tselem published a report titled, "No Minor Matter: Violation of the Rights of Palestinian Minors by Israel on Suspicion of Stone-Throwing." It discussed their abusive treatment.

From 2005 through 2010, "at least 835 Palestinian minors were arrested" and faced military court trials for alleged stone-throwing. Thirty-four were aged 12 - 13, 255 aged 14 - 15, and 546 aged 16 -17.

All except one were convicted. Due process and judicial fairness were denied. In violation of international law, Israel treats children like adults. Some aged 10 or younger are arrested, intimidated, tortured, or otherwise abused.

In fact, on January 12, Al Haq reported "a new line crossed" after Israeli security forces harassed, blindfolded, arrested, and detained a seriously ill six-year old boy for seven hours. Obviously, his parents were frantic.

Soldiers usually make middle-of-the-night arrests. Children are taken away alone. Parents can't accompany them. Abusive interrogations follow. Enough food and water, bathroom privileges and proper sleep are denied. Nearly always, convictions and detentions follow.

Defense for Children International/Palestine Section (DCI/Palestine) covers their ill-treatment and torture during arrest, transfer, interrogation, detention, and for some, solitary confinement isolation. Case studies explain the traumatizing effects. More on them below.

DCI/Palestine says about 700 Palestinian children are prosecuted annually in Israeli military tribunals affording them no rights. Conviction rates are 99%. Those charged are guilty by accusation.

Children like 12-year old Bashar M. was arrested pre-dawn. His hands were painfully bound behind his back. He was blindfolded, placed on a military vehicle floor, verbally abused, slapped on the face, kept blindfolded at Al Mascobiyya interrogation center, strip-searched on arrival, struck again, denied bail or legal representation, traumatized, and told either confess (to stone throwing) or be imprisoned for a very long time.

Other children report similar or worse treatment including pre-trial isolation, torture, and other forms of abuse.

Read more »

Paul Craig Roberts

Since my January 11 column The Next War on Washington’s Agenda and the news alert posted on January 14, more confirmation that Washington is moving the world toward a dangerous war has appeared. The Obama regime is using its Ministry of Propaganda, a.k.a., the American media, to spread the story that President Obama, Pentagon chief Panetta, and other high US officials are delivering strong warnings to Israel not to attack Iran.

For someone as familiar with Washington as I am, I recognize these reports for what they are. They are Br’er Rabbit telling Br’er Fox “please don’t throw me in the briar patch.”

If you don’t know the Uncle Remus stories, you have missed a lot. Br’er Rabbit was born and raised in the briar patch.

What these “leaked” stories of Washington’s warnings and protests to Israel are all about is to avoid Washington’s responsibility for the war Washington has prepared. If the war gets out of hand, and if Russia and China intervene or nukes start flying, Washington wants the blame to rest on Israel, and Israel seems willing to accept the blame. Nikolai Patrushev, who heads Russia’s Security Council, has apparently been deceived by Washington’s manipulation of the media. According to the Interfax news agency, Patrushev condemned Israel for pushing the US towards war with Iran.

You get the picture. The helpless Americans. They are being bullied by Israel into acquiescing to a dangerous war. Otherwise, no more campaign contributions.

The facts are different. If Washington did not want war with Iran it would not have provided the necessary weapons to Israel. It would not have deployed thousands of US troops to Israel, with a view toward the American soldiers being killed in an Iranian response to Israel’s attack, thus “forcing” the US to enter the war. Washington would not have built a missile defense system for Israel and would not be conducting joint exercises with the Israeli military to make sure it works.

If Washington did not want Israel to start the war, Washington would inform the Israeli government in no uncertain words that an Israeli strike on Iran means that the US will NOT veto the UN’s denunciation of Israel and the sanctions that would be placed on Israel as a war criminal state. Washington would tell Israel that it is good-bye to the billions of dollars that the bilked American taxpayers, foreclosed from their homes by fraudulent mortgages and from jobs by offshoring, hand over by compulsion to Israel to support Israel’’s crimes against humanity.

Read more »

Ellen Brown

An electronic database called MERS has created defects in the chain of title to over half the homes in America. Counties have been cheated out of millions of dollars in recording fees, and their title records are in hopeless disarray. Meanwhile, foreclosed and abandoned homes are blighting neighborhoods. Straightening out the records and restoring the homes to occupancy is clearly in the public interest, and the burden is on local government to do it. But how? New legal developments are presenting some innovative alternatives.

John O’Brien is Register of Deeds for Southern Essex County, Massachusetts. He calls his land registry a “crime scene.” He is mad as hell and he isn’t going to take it anymore. A formal forensic audit of the properties for which he is responsible found that:

● Only 16% of the mortgage assignments were valid.
● 27% of the invalid assignments were fraudulent, 35% were “robo-signed,” and 10% violated the Massachusetts Mortgage Fraud Statute.
● The identity of financial institutions that are current owners of the mortgages could be determined for only 287 out of 473 (60%).
● There were 683 missing assignments for the 287 traced mortgages, representing approximately $180,000 in lost recording fees per 1,000 mortgages whose current ownership could be traced.

At the root of the problem is that title has been recorded in the name of a private entity called Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS). MERS is a mere place holder for the true owners, a faceless, changing pool of investors owning indeterminate portions of sliced and diced, securitized properties. Their identities have been so well hidden that their claims to title are now in doubt. According to the auditor:

What this means is that . . . the institutions, including many pension funds, that purchased these mortgages don’t actually own them . . . .

Read more »

Marjorie Cohn

Travelers to Cuba and music lovers are familiar with the song “Guantanamera” — literally, the girl from Guantánamo. With lyrics by José Martí, the father of Cuban independence, “Guantanamera” is probably the most widely known Cuban song.

But Guantánamo is even more famous now for its U.S. military prison. Where “Guantanamera” is a powerful expression of the beauty of Cuba, “Gitmo” has become a powerful symbol of human rights violations — so much so that Amnesty International described it as “the gulag of our times.”

That description can be traced to January 2002, when the base received its first 20 prisoners in shackles. General Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned they were “very dangerous people who would gnaw hydraulic lines in the back of a C-17 to bring it down.”

We now know that a large portion of the 750 plus men and boys held there posed no threat to the United States. In fact, only five percent were captured by the United States; most were picked up by the Northern Alliance, Pakistani intelligence officers, or tribal warlords, and many were sold for cash bounties.

The Guantánamo story starts in 1903, when the U.S. Army occupied Cuba after its war of independence against Spain. The Platt Amendment, which granted the United States the right to intervene in Cuba, was included in the Cuban Constitution as a prerequisite for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the rest of Cuba.

That provision provided the basis for the 1903 Agreement on Coaling and Naval Stations, which gave the United States the right to use Guantánamo Bay “exclusively as coaling or naval stations, and for no other purpose.”

In 1934, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed a new treaty with Cuba that allows the United States to remain in Guantánamo Bay until the U.S. abandons it or until both Cuba and the United States agree to modify their arrangement. According to that treaty, “the stipulations of [the 1903] agreement with regard to the naval station of Guantánamo shall continue in effect.”

That means Guantánamo Bay can be used only for coaling or naval stations. Additionally, article III of the 1934 treaty provides that the Republic of Cuba leases Guantánamo Bay to the United States “for coaling and naval stations.” Nowhere in either treaty did Cuba give the U.S. the right to utilize Guantánamo Bay as a prison camp.

Read more »