Adnan Al-Daini

“They can’t lie straight in bed; they say one thing and mean another and they just answer a question with a question.”

So said a voter in Bradford West in answer to a question as to whether the three main parties Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems have lost touch with the grass roots.

A poll by The Independent on Sunday shows that 72% of people believe the Government is “out of touch with ordinary voters” and 60% do not trust the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on the economy.  Yet the Labour Party lost this safe seat in a landslide to George Galloway. 

People do not trust this government but they are not willing to put their trust in Labour either.  And who could blame them for that?  George Galloway put the reasons for the lack of trust in the main parties colourfully and succinctly:

“If a backside could have three cheeks then they [the main parties] are the three cheeks of the same backside. They support the same things, the same wars, the same neoliberal policies to make the poor poorer for the crimes of the rich people. And they are not believable. Nobody believes what they say.”

The report “Reading The Riots” commissioned by the Guardian and the London School of Economics  quotes a 23 year old man from Liverpool who took part in the UK (August 2011) riots saying:

"It doesn't really matter if it's Labour or Conservative because the people behind the scenes are always the same..."

George Galloway articulated the frustration of ordinary voters, regardless of ethnicity or faith, with the politics of the main parties in a way that resonated with their daily struggles and experiences.  So please let us not insult their intelligence by suggesting that faith and ethnicity has something to do with his victory - lest we forget he was standing against a local Muslim ethnic minority Labour candidate.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greets United Arab Emirates'
Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan (l.)
and British Foreign Minister William Hague at the Friends of
Syria Conference in Tunis, Friday. The United States, Europe
and Arab countries are set to back a proposal for Syria's Bashar
al-Assad to step aside and allow in humanitarian assistance to
end a brutal crackdown against opponents. (J. Reed/AP/CSM)

On April 1 in Istanbul, Washington-led rogue leaders discussed ways to destabilize and topple Assad.

They recognized the violent Syrian National Council (SNC) as the "sole representative of the Syrian people." Doing so assures continued conflict, not peaceful resolution. Killer gangs were promised generous funding. They've already gotten plenty, as well as weapons, munitions, and training. Now they'll get more.

Washington and rogue NATO partners plan conflict, not peace. They want Assad replaced by someone they control. Violence rages to achieve it. Expect lots more followed by war if current efforts fail.

In Istanbul, pretense dissolved. So did Annan's sham peace plan. Couched in diplomatic language, it was more theater than resolve to end conflict peacefully.

While calling for both sides to stop violence, it demanded Assad act first. Doing so ignored his responsibility to protect his people against Western-backed insurgents. Yet he's blamed for doing his job.

On April 1, The New York Times headlined, "US Joins Effort to Equip and Pay Rebels in Syria," saying:

Doing so reflects consensus that "more forceful action" is needed to halt violence. SNC leader Burhan Ghalioun called for "a stronger Free Syrian Army. All of these responsibilities should be borne by the international community."

Hillary Clinton said Washington is "discussing with our international partners how best to expand this support."

More »

Barry Grey

The US Supreme Court ruled Monday that prison authorities can routinely subject people detained even on minor misdemeanor charges to invasive strip searches, whether or not there is reason to believe they are dangerous or are concealing contraband.

From The State Torture of Hope Steffey by Schuyler Ebbets

The 5-4 decision, authored by the so-called “swing” member of the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by the four-member right-wing bloc, is the latest in a series of reactionary rulings broadening the police powers of the state and trampling on the Bill of Rights.

The ruling makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, which bars unreasonable searches and seizures. It is but the latest in a host of court rulings, particularly in the aftermath of the 9/11 terror attacks and the launching of the so-called “war on terrorism,” that seek to accustom the American people to intrusive state violations of their privacy rights and the heavy-handed presence of the police in all aspects of life.

While the four-member liberal bloc on the court lined up behind the dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the Obama administration sided with the prison authorities and the right wing on the court. It filed an amicus brief in support of blanket strip searches of newly detained individuals and against the case brought by plaintiff Albert Florence, a New Jersey car dealership finance director who was wrongfully arrested in 2005 on a misdemeanor charge and subjected to two strip searches in six days before he able to see a judge and prove his innocence.

The administration’s intervention in this case to support police state-type measures is not an aberration. It has intervened repeatedly in the federal courts in defense of unconstitutional procedures, including “rendition” of alleged terrorists to be interrogated and tortured in foreign countries and warrantless domestic spying. Over the past several months, Obama has signed a law authorizing the indefinite detention without trial of anyone targeted by the president as a “terrorist,” and his attorney general has defended the “right” of the president to order the assassination of any person, including a US citizen, anywhere in the world.

More »

Stephen Lendman

After ignoring her entire hunger striking ordeal, her lawless detention, and weeks of Israeli ruthlessness, The New York Times finally acknowledged she exists, but little more.

On April 1, The Times headlined "Israel Frees Palestinian Detainee After Hunger Strike of Weeks," saying:

Hana "was released from an Israeli prison on Sunday and sent into temporary exile in Gaza under a deal reached with the Israeli authorities."

The Times regurgitated baseless Israeli accusations, but admitted she was detained uncharged. The article provided sketchy information about what Palestinians endure, but fell woefully short of explaining it properly, let alone decades of Israeli oppression.

Conditionally released from detention, Hana's far from free. Maan News explained headlining, "Hana Shalabi arrives in Gaza," saying:

She "was escorted Sunday through the Erez crossing between Israel and the northern Gaza Strip...."

She agreed to live in exile three years. Palestinian officials condemned her deportation. One day's too much, but Israel plans never letting her back in the West Bank.

Numerous past conditional release deals were violated. Expect Hana to be cheated the same way. Israel makes but ignores deals. Moreover, even in Gaza exile, she's vulnerable to rearrest or targeted assassination.

More »