Is About to Attack Iran
Paul Craig Roberts, I believe that the American attack on Iran will employ nuclear
weapons, and it will lead to disaster. I also believe that Bush and Cheney are
simply waiting for the pretext, the next "new Pearl Harbor," to push the
The media has
again shirked it's duty to shine light on the machinations of this criminal
administration. I fear that some day, very soon, along with their eggs and coffee,
Americans will be waking up to breathless news reports of an Iranian attack
on American naval assets in the Persian Gulf? Realizing that nothing they do
will prevent a U.S. or combined U.S./Israeli aggression, will the Iranians launch
their Sunfire antiship missiles at our two carriers, or their escorts? Are Bush/Cheney
so stupid as to think that Iran, faced with inevitable war, would not try and
Or is it far worse
than stupidity? Do our "leaders" hope that this is exactly what happens? Push
Iran into a corner, refuse to speak with them, leave them no exit, then wait
for them to bite first?
As Roberts quotes
Russian General Ivashov, "The scale of the provocation may be comparable to
the 9/11 attack in NY. Then the Congress will certainly say 'Yes' to the U.S.
~ John H. Bohn
agree with John. It is a helpless feeling to have to sit and watch the regime
perpetrate another crime.
Forgotten American Dead
about those who have left half their bodies in Iraq? I did combat in Vietnam
and that was my great fear – not combat death.
~ RT Carpenter,
Are Bush's Critics Now?
does this mean: "$50 million U.S.-insured power plant"?
~ David Serota
Gaza electrical generating plant destroyed by Israel was originally built by
Enron, and later bought out by Morganti, a Connecticut company. Morganti insured
the plant for $48 million through the U.S. taxpayer-funded Overseas Private
Insurance Corporation, the U.S. government-sponsored "insurance agency of last
resort." After Israel used its U.S. taxpayer-funded and U.S.-armed military
(F-16 bombers, Apache helicopters, hellfire missiles, etc.) to destroy the U.S.-built
plant, Morganti notified the U.S. government that it wants $48 million in insurance
money. (Some in Congress are likely to call for at least taking $48 million
out of the annual $3 billion aid to Israel and shifting it to OPIC.)
Gaza/Lebanon Crises: Escalating Occupation & Danger of New Border Fighting."
Empire Turns Its Guns on the Citizenry
Robert's articles are to the point. I appreciate what he says.
and more than half of the Americans against Pres. Bush's actions, Congress is
beginning to look stupid with its bickering about the president and his decision
to send more troops to Iraq. In time of war, Congress can give the president
power as the commander-in-chief. There was no threat of war, so why can they
not rescind that power? The "war" over there has surely become a civil
war – and no threat to our "freedoms." The only threat comes from
our own government.
Our safety, our
liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the U.S. The people of
the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress, the courts, and
the president, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men and
women who pervert the Constitution. Abraham Lincoln said words to this effect,
and they should hold good today, otherwise we are a doomed nation.
~ Amelia Aremia
Abraham Lincoln himself attacked the Constitution and suspended civil liberties
in order to wage a war of aggression. Otherwise, I agree with Amelia Aremia's
We can go further
and note that while Congress and the American people debate Iraq, the rest of
the world, from Davos to Russian generals, is expressing dismay at the looming
U.S. attack on Iran.
Rather than focusing
on ending the lost war in Iraq, Congress must act promptly to prevent Bush from
initiating a new war with Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah.
That is the real
challenge before us.
unfortunate reality is that most judges will continue to NOT do their jobs.
Most are complacent products of the system designed to weaken public resistance.
It IS their job not to interfere with higher order diplomacy in order to force
the citizens of this country in to a role subservient to the generally unrecognized
global agenda designed to dismantle our constitutional rights and eliminate
this country as a sovereign nation. Since they have not been successful, at
least up to this point, without creating obvious public confrontation with launching
further illegal and unconstitutional legislation aimed at confiscating our guns
they continue to escalate the use of sophisticated firepower and "special
forces" buildup for the future.
~ Dr. Stephen
C. L'Hommedieu, D.C., Wichita, KS
agree that the Blackstonian legal principles that are the basis, or once provided
the basis, for the protections of the liberty of U.S. citizens have fallen out
of favor and been eroded within the legal system. Larry Stratton and I wrote
a book about the loss of the legal protection of liberty in the U.S. The title
Tyranny of Good Intentions.
Gets its Warm-Water Port
analysis on the current situation in the Balkans is very thought-provoking,
particularly on the errors that the Democrats have made and seem poised to make
in this region.
He did make a
couple of assertions about Germany that merit a rebuttal. The first was, "there
was too much giddiness in the reunified Germany (+ Austria), eager to make a
return to its old imperialist position on the Continent." Really? I've
visited Germany and followed German news and analysis and I just don't see any
reborn imperial ambitions. Some documentation of this is called for. Desiring
to be a player in the international community and imperial ambition are two
The second was
his characterization of the ethnic cleansings carried out by Bosnians and Croatians
as, "the biggest ethnic cleansing campaigns perpetrated in Europe since
the German Nazis in World War II." The truth is that Germans were the victims,
not the perpetrators, of the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in all of European
history. Following WWII fifteen million Germans were driven from their homes
in territories awarded to Poland and Czechoslovakia after the war – often
violently – with two to three million dying in the process. Most Americans
know nothing about this, our historical accounts don't mention it. But a Europe-based
reporter covering these issues should know better.
~ Erik Herzog
you for bringing this serious issue to consideration. I think the "postwar"
nature of what happened to the Germans in Poland and Czechoslovakia is what
leads us to forget categorizing it as you and some other readers have done today.
Often the "internal relocation" policies of totalitarian states are euphemized
away, and for this I owe you an apology. And of course there were several other
vast and destructive "internal relocation" policies after the war in the USSR
and Yugoslavia (even external ones, such as the shipping of the Turks from Yugoslavia
to Turkey). So I should have defined the limits of my discussion to strictly
wartime periods. Fair enough?
As for "German
imperialism," I can see again where I should have been more clear. "Economic
domination" would be a better word. I am sorry that I don't have the statistics
you request, but can only say that German investment is very pervasive. Foreign
investment is certainly not a bad thing; but when being "a player" means using
all available forms of diplomatic intimidation and coercion to ensure that,
say, a lousy telecom monopoly remains extended beyond its legal duration so
as to squeeze all possible profit out of a small Balkan state when said profit
has lessened back in Germany (as has happened here in Macedonia) those of us
on the consumer receiving end can start to feel pretty imperialized. There are
other examples as well.
This is certainly
not to say that I am blaming Germany for the problems in the Balkans today.
But I think that Germany's role in expediting the breakup of Yugoslavia is fairly
In the bigger
picture, I do stand by my stated argument that the situation today of the various
powers jostling for influence in the Balkans, of course in the context of new
political formations and a new international order, is remarkably similar to
the state of the Balkans a century ago. Please see the 10-part study on the
Murzsteg Reforms that I linked in the text for more information ("International
Intervention in Macedonia, 1903-1909: The Mürzsteg Reforms").
Police State Is Closer Than You Think
"The Police State Is Closer Than You Think" by Paul Craig Roberts, I read with
much dismay that "the executive branch claims the power to arrest a citizen
on its own initiative and hold the citizen indefinitely." Wanting to get to
the bottom of this, I headed over to whitehouse.gov and did a search for "habeas
corpus." I was much relieved when I read the words of Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales: "The Military Commissions Act does not apply to American citizens.
[...] The new law does not restrict the rights of United States citizens to
file writs of habeas corpus in federal court." (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20061018.html)
But, perhaps Paul
Craig Roberts is aware of other examples where a member of the executive branch
claims the power to hold citizens indefinitely. Perhaps there's some disagreement
within the executive branch. One thing is certain, though – Paul Craig
Roberts wouldn't have made such an inflammatory claim without citations to back
~ Paul Sturm,
Maple Grove, MN
Padilla is a U.S. citizen. First, let's examine if the reader is correct that
there is no loss of habeas corpus protection for U.S. citizens and examine the
Padilla was held for years in military custody with no formal charges brought.
This means that the Bush regime violated the Constitution and the law. But the
regime has not been held accountable. When challenged in the courts, the Bush
regime handled the case in a shocking manner that avoided a definitive ruling,
thereby retaining the ability to again detain U.S. citizens indefinitely without
Attorney General of the U.S. made the statement that the U.S. Constitution provides
no habeas corpus protection to citizens.
As for the reader's
reliance on Gonzales for reassurance about the Military Commissions Act, here
is what the Wikipedia encyclopedia says about the Act:
9, 2005, a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that President Bush does indeed have the authority to detain Padilla without
charges, in an opinion written by judge J. Michael Luttig. In the ruling, Luttig
cited the joint resolution by Congress authorizing military action following
the September 11, 2001 attacks, as well as the June 2004 ruling concerning Yaser
of the provisions of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 enacted on October
17, 2006 states:
as otherwise provided in this chapter, and notwithstanding
any other law
[emphasis added] (including section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, or
any other habeas corpus provision), no court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction
to hear or consider any claim or cause of action whatsoever, including any action
pending on or filed after the date of enactment of this chapter, relating to
the prosecution, trial, or judgment of a military commission convened under
this section, including challenges to the lawfulness of the procedures of military
commissions under this chapter.'"
Commission Act of 2006 does not . . . rule out similar enemy combatant designations
of U.S. citizens."
have always liked Paul Craig Roberts, but I am disappointed in his rendition
of the facts in this case. He appears to have twisted things quite a bit. Mr.
Roberts' reference to the Lynn Stuart case, where he says the prosecutor thought
that Ms. Stuart represented her client in ways that he didn't like, was not
in accord with my understanding of the case against her. As I recall, the accusation
against her was that she violated her agreement with the Court in that she aided
and abetted her client, a Mullah, in receiving messages out to his followers
to be violent. She brought messengers in under the guise of their being translators,
so they could get a message from her client and get it out on the street. She
had agreed to not be a funnel for communication. Her client was supposed to
be gagged, so to speak. We can disagree with gagging anyone, but that's what
she agreed to and she was accused and convicted of violating that agreement.
That's pretty serious for an attorney.
~ Paul Bjarnason,
person is terribly confused. In the United States, prosecutors cannot legislate
laws, much less criminal felonies, by penning letters of agreement for attorneys
to sign so that they might represent their clients.