Not old news, but important news. If the world could put their colonial-imperial bullshit aside, and stabilize this idea that is “nationalism,” electricity generation, and the resulting climate change wouldn’t be any issue.
Iranian general says Tehran wants to help Iraq fight uprising using same tactics it deployed against rebels in Syria.
IRAN IS NOT SOME GREAT SATAN, people. Jesus Christ. It just knows how to fight.
Why on earth we consider these racist, apartheidist monsters our friends will forever be beyond me… and forever be something I work to counteract
“It’s a complicated a relationship. They have their interests. We have our interests. For the U.S., it’s a balancing act.”
~Joseph Wippl, a former senior CIA clandestine officer
America gives Israel $3 billion a year. Free. No strings attached. Cash money. Our congress has voted to cut funding for women’s rape crisis centers and free lunch programs for kids in elementary but we can afford to give $3 billion to Israel. What do they give us in return? They spy on us. They commit acts of espionage and then they sell those stolen secrets to countries like China. But yesterday – President Obama sent off another $70 million in American aid to help Israel – America’s #1 Frenemy.
And unlike Israel – America has real allies like Australia, Canada, Britain and New Zealand who DO NOT SPY on us. To put it another way … I feel like I’m the little boy in the crowd yelling “the Emperor has no clothes!”.
The AP details some examples of how Israel spies on the U.S. HERE:
The CIA station chief opened the locked box containing the sensitive equipment he used from his home in Tel Aviv, Israel, to communicate with CIA headquarters in Virginia, only to find that someone had tampered with it. He sent word to his superiors about the break-in.
The incident, described to the Associated Press by three former senior U.S. intelligence officials, might have been dismissed as just another cloak-and-dagger incident in the world of international espionage, except that the same thing had happened to the previous station chief in Israel.
Despite inarguable ties between the U.S. and its closest ally in the Middle East and despite statements from U.S. politicians trumpeting the friendship, U.S. national security officials consider Israel to be, at times, a frustrating ally and a genuine counterintelligence threat.
In addition to what the former U.S. officials described as intrusions in homes in the past decade, Israel has been implicated in U.S. criminal espionage cases and disciplinary proceedings against CIA officers and blamed in the presumed death of an important spy in Syria for the CIA during the administration of President George W. Bush.
In fact – under the Bush administration the CIA had a ranking of countries willing to help America in the war against terrorism. According to one former intelligence official … Israel was ranked behind Libya in its support of the war on terrorism. (source)
The Houston Chronicle provides some details regarding the history of Israel’s espionage efforts HERE:
Jonathan Pollard, who worked for the Navy as a civilian intelligence analyst, was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987 when the Friends on Friends agreement was in effect. He was sentenced to life in prison. The Israelis for years have tried to win his release. In January 2011, Netanyahu asked Obama to free Pollard and acknowledged that Israel’s actions in the case were “wrong and wholly unacceptable.”
A former Army mechanical engineer, Ben-Ami Kadish, pleaded guilty in 2008 to passing classified secrets to the Israelis during the 1980s. His case officer was the same one who handled Pollard. Kadish let the Israelis photograph documents about nuclear weapons, a modified version of an F-15 fighter jet and the U.S. Patriot missile air defense system.
In 2006, a former Defense Department analyst was sentenced to more than 12 years in prison for giving classified information to an Israeli diplomat and two pro-Israel lobbyists.
A Pentagon Judge turned down an Israeli national’s request for security clearances and wrote HERE:
The Israeli Government is actively engaged in military and industrial espionage in the United States. An Israeli citizen working in U.S., who has access to proprietary information, is likely to be a target of such espionage.
Veterans Today explains how big the Israeli espionage efforts are HERE:
More recently, FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has reported how many cases of Israeli espionage are dropped under orders from the Justice Department. He provides a “conservative estimate” of 125 worthwhile investigations into Israeli espionage involving both American citizens and Israelis that were stopped due to political pressure from above.Two stories that have been reported in the Israeli media but are strangely absent from the news on this side of the Atlantic demonstrate exactly what is going on and what is at stake. The first report confirms Tel Aviv’s efforts to obtain US technology are ongoing.
Stewart David Nozette, a US government scientist who was arrested in an October 2009 FBI sting operation after offering to spy for Israel, has been waiting in jail to go to trial on espionage charges.
Israel uses America’s military intellectual property and sells it to other countries like the Chinese. The Council for the National Interest writes HERE:
China’s missile-related imports and assistance from Israel have been a subject of particular concern in the United States because of worries that Israel may be providing China with “back door” access to controlled, sensitive US technology. For example, in the early 1990s, reports surfaced that Israel had secretly transferred information on the US Patriot missile system to China, in violation of Israel’s promise to the United States not to transfer the Patriot technology to any third country. Although both China and Israel denied the allegations, US government sources concluded that it was almost certain that a transfer of technology (though not physical equipment) had taken place.
Regarding Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard – Bill Clinton said this when he was President:
“With respect to Mr. Pollard, he was convicted of spying in 1987. He was sentenced to life in prison, he is serving that sentence, and I do not have any expectations that that is going to change.”
And the Jerusalem Post is reporting that Mitt Romney has said he is willing to consider releasing Israeli Spy Jonathan Pollard HERE:
In his only public comments about Pollard so far, Romney told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in December that he was “open to examining” the case. While one Jewish leader said afterward that he was confident that Romney would see the justice in Pollard’s case once he studied it, another Jewish leader present at the meeting said he was disappointed Romney did not call for Pollard’s release.
Of course – Sheldon Adelson … the billionaire Romney donor who has committed as much as $100 million so Romney wins has publicly said “all we care about is being good Zionists” – you can see that HERE. I think it’s safe to say that he would really like to see Jonathan Pollard released as well.
Fox News actually does some NEWS and puts an investigative report on a huge Israeli spy ring that focused on espionage within the U.S. See it for yourself:
Last Thursday, James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 59 others in one of the worst mass shootings in American history. This is a depressingly familiar tale of modern American life – the massacre of innocent people with guns and ammunition legally acquired with relative ease. Unfortunately while such mass killings are all too prevalent, so too is the muted response of policymakers.
The Aurora shooting bleakly follows this pattern: liberals call for more gun control measures; conservatives argue that we need more not less armed Americans to keep us safe. In the end, some of the weakest gun control laws in the developed world remain.
Now imagine this scenario with a different protagonist. Imagine if the killer was a young jihadist, trained in the wilds of Pakistan’s FATA region, or Yemen. Imagine if the atrocity was replicated in other theaters around the country as a co-ordinated mass killing. How would the reaction to this crime differ? It’s not hard to imagine at all. For example, after the so-called underwear bomber failed to blow up an American plane in December 2009, the US ramped up its drone operations against al-Qaida in Yemen. Or go further back to September 11: 3,000 Americans were killed in the worst terrorist attack in American history. In response, the US spent more than $3tn in direct and indirect costs. In addition, subsequent invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq led to more Americans being killed or maimed than died on 11 September itself."
Let’s start there. He was an American boy, born in America. Though he’d lived in Yemen since he was about seven, he was still an American citizen, which should have made it harder for the United States to kill him.
It should at the very least have made it necessary for the United States to say why it killed him.
His name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, and he was 16 years old when he died — when he was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, by the light of the moon. He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was also born in America, who was also an American citizen, and who was killed by drone two weeks before his son was, along with another American citizen named Samir Khan. Of course, both Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan were, at the very least, traitors to their country — they had both gone to Yemen and taken up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and al-Awlaki had proven himself an expert inciter of those with murderous designs against America and Americans: the rare man of words who could be said to have a body count. When he was killed, on September 30, 2011, President Obama made a speech about it; a few months later, when the Obama administraton’s public-relations campaign about its embrace of what has come to be called “targeted killing” reached its climax in a front-page story in the New York Times that presented the President of the United States as the last word in deciding who lives and who dies, he was quoted as saying that the decision to put Anwar al-Awlaki on the kill list — and then to kill him — was “an easy one.”
But Abdulrahman al-Awlaki wasn’t on an American kill list. Nor was he a member of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninusla. Nor was he “an inspiration,” as his father styled himself, for those determined to draw American blood; nor had he gone “operational,” as American authorities said his father had, in drawing up plots against Americans and American interests.
He was a boy who hadn’t seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family’s home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he’d lived while on his search, and the friends he’d made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.
Now, there will be some who read what I just wrote and say that the death of the son of an avowed enemy of America — the death of another al-Awlaki — is more an inevitability than a tragedy, and perhaps even a boon: a case of a son reaping what his father sowed. There will be some who will shrug and say that we’re at war with Al Qaeda and bad things happen in wars, and there will be some who will believe Nasser al-Awlaki — father of Anwar and grandfather of Abdulrahman — when he says that “We can prove that Abdulrahman was not collateral damage at all, that he was intended to be killed.”
In fact, what is most striking about the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki is both the lack of outrage and the lack of information about it — or, to be more exact, the lack of outrage over the lack of information. I spent the better part of this past spring researching and writing a story for the August issue of Esquire entitled “The Lethal Presidency of Barack Obama,” which explores how President Obama’s expansive embrace of the power to kill individuals identified as America’s enemies has transformed not only his presidency but probably all American presidencies to follow. I conducted over 40 interviews with over 35 people — including former administration officials who could speak with authority about how targeting decisions are made — and tried to understand the moral reasoning of an administration that speaks as though nothing could be harder than killing individuals and behaves as though nothing could be easier, and carries out what amounts to executions on a mass scale. In addition to telling the story of the Lethal Presidency, I also wound up telling the story of the killings of Anwar and Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, because their deaths — the strange common fates of a father and a son who were both American citizens but died hundreds of kilometers away from one another in Yemen — managed to suggest how a policy built on technological precision and moral discrimination winds up blurring the lines between guilt and innocence and war and murder.
The Obama Administration has never formally acknowledged its role in either death, but it has leaked a tremendous amount of information about its decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki because its decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki has evolved into something like “an Obama doctrine” when it comes to targeted killing. The idea that American citizenship is no more a refuge against the attacks of American drones than farflung geography; the idea that the secret deliberations of the executive branch count as “due process” even when an American citizen is being considered for execution without trial; the idea, indeed, that “due process does not guarantee judicial process”: all these ideas have entered the public sphere largely because the Obama administration made the extraordinary decision to target and kill an American citizen named Anwar al-Awlaki.
There has been no similar public discussion over the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki because there was, until now, no hard information available about the death of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. A 16-year-old American boy accused of no crimes was killed in American drone attack, and the administration has neither acknowledged his death or acknowledged that it killed him. It has, indeed, done everything it possibly can to avoid saying how and why it killed him, and has answered the Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the ACLU with a blanket insistence that it is not obligated to confirm or deny the existence of the CIA’s drone program, much less disclose information about those the drone program has killed. (Current administration officials declined multiple interview requests.)
And so while the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki conforms to the narrative essential to the creation of the Lethal Presidency — the narrative of a guilty man afforded unprecedented consideration by an administration wielding technology of unprecedented precision — the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki constitutes a counter-narrative that the Lethal Presidency would do anything to avoid: an innocent killed by an administration that has turned its argument that it hardly ever makes mistakes into an appeal for the right make its mistakes in secret, with no public accountability at all, even when one of its mistakes results in the death of an American citizen.
Or killed. Since I am the first president to claim the right to assassinate US citizens…
from Deep Green Resistance News Service
Homeland Security Does Not Understand British Slang
Emily Bunting and Leigh Van Bryan, a pair of tourists from Great Britain were detained by Homeland Security for twelve hours at Los Angeles International Airport because Bryan had earlier tweeted “Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America.”
Bryan tried in vain to explain that “destroy” is just a quirky Brit way of saying “going out and getting drunk,” but the humorless DHS agents presumably had not heard of partying, either. So they were deported.
“The Homeland Security agents were treating me like some kind of terrorist. I kept saying they had got the wrong meaning from my tweet but they just told me ‘You’ve really fucked up with that tweet, boy’,” Bryan told The Sun.
Bryan had also tweeted that he planned to be “diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up!” — another joke, he said.
“The officials told us we were not allowed in to the country because of Leigh’s tweet,” Bunting told The Daily Mail. “They wanted to know what we were going to do… They asked why we wanted to destroy America and we tried to explain it meant to get trashed and party… I almost burst out laughing when they asked me if I was going to be Leigh’s lookout while he dug up Marilyn Monroe.”
Of course, what this should really leave you wondering is how Homeland Security managed to connect the pair to their tweets in only the time it took them to obtain tourist visas and then clear customs, which is when they were detained.
Fidel Castro has done more to help the oppressed people of Latin America and Africa in five decades than the United States...