Wednesday, January 30, 2013

The excuse used to justify the failure of Obama to close Guantanamo is incomplete and misleading. As well as several other elements

few (relatively) short items of note today:



The New York Times reported yesterday that the State Department Savage "reassigned Daniel Fried, Special Envoy for closing prisons Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and does not replace it. "Who moves obviously confirms what has always been assumed: that the field remains open indefinitely and extravagant first day of Obama in the poll will be a dead letter. Dozens of inmates in the camps were approved today by the comments of Pentagon to launch Adnan Farhan - including Abdul Latif, a Yemeni 36 years who died in the camp in September after nearly 11 years in a cage despite never having been charged with a crime. Like many of his fellow prisoners, their efforts to secure their release were vigorously (and successfully) frustrated by the Obama administration.

perfectly symbolizes the path of the Obama presidency, sent a present close Guantanamo now "become coordinator of the department of political sanctions." Marcy Wheeler summarizes the changes in this way: "Instead of closing Guantanamo, we will intercept most of medical goods to Iran." Note that this reflects "how we changed our priorities of human rights." A few days ago, Savage describes how the Department of Justice Obama ignores the views of its own military prosecutors to prosecute Guantanamo detainees in military commissions of crimes that were not even recognized as violations the laws of war.

Whenever the issue is raised to the failure of Obama to close Guantanamo, the same excuse is immediately given in his name, he tried to do, but Congress (including the Liberals as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders) frustrated him not to finance the closure. As I documented at length last July, this excuse is very incomplete and misleading. When it comes to the failure to close Guantanamo, that "Congress, Obama prevented" debt was acquired zombie - never gonna die, whatever clearly and often discredited - but it is always interesting to note the reality.

I will not repeat all the details, quotes and evidence to support them - see here - but there are two indisputable facts that should always be included in this story. The first is that what made Guantanamo travesty of justice that was not their geographical location in the Caribbean Sea, but its system of indefinite detention: people were locked in cages, often for life , without charge or fair trial. Even before the Congress never acted on Obama's plan was to preserve and continue the basic injustice - indefinite detention - but simply moved on American soil.

In short, Obama's plan to close Guantanamo has never been so it was to relocate in Illinois that the ACLU has called "Gitmo North." Therefore, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said Obama 2009 "closing Guantanamo" plan "is just a significant step forward" and that "if Obama inherited the mess at Guantanamo, the current trend is its own policies adoption positive. "This is because, he said," the administration intends to continue the policy of his predecessor of indefinite detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. "

And why Democratic senators like Feingold voted against funding for closing Guantanamo is not because they are afraid to support the closure. This is because they have refused to fund the closure until they see Obama's specific plan

not wanting to support the import system of indefinite detention at Guantanamo Bay U.S. ground

otherwise expressly Obama.

short, Obama "close Guantanamo" was vintage Obama plan: a symbolic gesture designed to allow Democrats to feel good, keeping the basic skills that are the injustice in the first place. As Romero, the ACLU, said: "The closure of Guantanamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its illegal policies on the ground." Again, Mr. Obama had his way - if Congress immediately approved the plan in its entirety - the system of indefinite detention Gitmo makes such a misfortune had followed in its entirety, only in a different


As for the story I wrote about yesterday - a massive expansion of the Pentagon's so-called "cyber-security" program - Here's how the New York Times described the move as a title

But here, as As'ad AbuKhalil noted, is that the article itself describes the program:

The Pentagon is moving to expand its cyber force to deal with the increasing attacks against computer networks in the country,

and extend offensive operations in foreign adversaries computer , defense officials said on Sunday.

While it is easy to take for granted because it is very common, worth pause and observe how courteous and friendly the New York Times is the Pentagon.

on Al-Jazeera "Inside Story Americas" program yesterday, I discussed the Pentagon's expansion of its program with the program two defenders cyberwar: former head of the defense Reagan and current CAP Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb, and Scott Borg of the U.S. Cyber ??Consequences Unit, a research institute funded by the Government 501c3. The series of 20-minute sessions can be found here:

As mentioned above, although 4,000 new employees may not be huge in the overall scheme of Pentagon spending, the expansion of this program and the new contracts that will result is certainly important.


As a hobby over the years, I've become something of an expert on the statements of the U.S. government that are so embedded in obvious irony research that officials should have been pronounced just themselves cackling mischievously when he created them. Among my favorites of this kind were all such allegations by U.S. officials that Iran was "interfering" in Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries had invaded the United States and, at the time the statements were published on tens of thousands of soldiers.

In a Reuters report on Tuesday intercepted a ship off the coast of Yemen, have been carrying weapons for rebels in Yemen and U.S. officials anonymous complaint was sent by Iran is another excellent entry:

"This shows ever pernicious Iranian interference in other countries in the region," the second U.S. official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. "


Dark Zero The comments are coming in. Thirty Israeli journalist Noam Sheizaf calls "the vilest film I saw and immoral war since years, "and separately noted that" Hollywood gives [Kathryn Bigelow] prices because it makes Americans feel good about themselves and their wars. "In the Guardian, Slavoj ?i?ek shows the film as" Hollywood gift American power. "Meanwhile, Richard Lawson Atlantic Wire wrote yesterday that the objections on the increasing film - click here -. Caused the" crash "of their status as early Oscar favorite" something vaguely taboo "

Find best price for : --Glenn----Guardian----Konefsky----Mavi----Fatima----Khalidi----Rashid----Columbia----School----Brooklyn----Niger----Mali----Dark----Zero----Times----ACLU----Bernie----Feingold----Russ----Obama----Guant?namo----Daniel----Savage----Charlie----York----GITMO--