Eric Margolis at the Toronto Sun touches on a topic we at USTV have been pointing out for some time now, and that is the increasingly disturbing transformation of our nation into the U.S.S.A.

This week’s tentative agreement between Bush and Congress may somewhat limit torture, but exempts U.S. officials from having to observe the Geneva Convention.

Canadians had a shocking view of similar creeping totalitarianism as the full horror of Maher Arar’s persecution was revealed. Thanks to false information from the RCMP, the U.S. arrested a Canadian citizen and sent him to Syria. Arab states and Pakistan were being used by the Bush administration for outsourced torture. Syria denies the charges.

Suspects were kidnapped by the U.S., often on the basis of faulty information or lies, then sent to Arab states to be tortured until they confessed. The apparent objective of this “rendition” program? To find a few kernels of useful information. The Cheka and East Germany’s Stasi used the same practice.

I never thought I’d see the United States — champion of human rights and rule of law — legislating torture and Soviet-style kangaroo tribunals. I never thought I’d see Congress and a majority of Americans supporting such police state measures. Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln must be turning in their graves.

Is there any wonder as to why we refer to them as “Busheviks”?

Read The Full Article Here

Noam Chomsky brings some important facts and analysis to direct light with this piece in Counterpunch.

“Terror” is a term that rightly arouses strong emotions and deep concerns. The primary concern should, naturally, be to take measures to alleviate the threat, which has been severe in the past, and will be even more so in the future. To proceed in a serious way, we have to establish some guidelines. Here are a few simple ones:

(1) Facts matter, even if we do not like them.

(2) Elementary moral principles matter, even if they have consequences that we would prefer not to face.

(3) Relative clarity matters. It is pointless to seek a truly precise definition of “terror,” or of any other concept outside of the hard sciences and mathematics, often even there. But we should seek enough clarity at least to distinguish terror from two notions that lie uneasily at its borders: aggression and legitimate resistance.

If we accept these guidelines, there are quite constructive ways to deal with the problems of terrorism, which are quite severe. It’s commonly claimed that critics of ongoing policies do not present solutions. Check the record, and I think you will find that there is an accurate translation for that charge: “They present solutions, but I don’t like them.”

Suppose, then, that we accept these simple guidelines. Let’s turn to the “War on Terror.” Since facts matter, it matters that the War was not declared by George W. Bush on 9/11, but by the Reagan administration 20 years earlier.

They came into office declaring that their foreign policy would confront what the President called “the evil scourge of terrorism,” a plague spread by “depraved opponents of civilization itself” in “a return to barbarism in the modern age” (Secretary of State George Shultz). The campaign was directed to a particularly virulent form of the plague: state-directed international terrorism. The main focus was Central America and the Middle East, but it reached to southern Africa and Southeast Asia and beyond.

A second fact is that the war was declared and implemented by pretty much the same people who are conducting the re-declared war on terrorism.

Read The Full Article

More and more are finally speaking up in regards to the obvious. These voices and this perspective have been around since the beginning of the neo-cons declaration of the so-called ‘War On Terror’ (war ‘of’ terror might be a more fitting term), but it has only more recently been getting any currency in the domestic press.

For the past five years, Americans have been regularly regaled with dire predictions of another major al Qaeda attack in the United States. In 2003, a group of 200 senior government officials and business executives, many of them specialists in security and terrorism, pronounced it likely that a terrorist strike more devastating than 9/11 — possibly involving weapons of mass destruction — would occur before the end of 2004. In May 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that al Qaeda could “hit hard” in the next few months and said that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on U.S. soil were complete. That fall, Newsweek reported that it was “practically an article of faith among counterterrorism officials” that al Qaeda would strike in the run-up to the November 2004 election. When that “October surprise” failed to materialize, the focus shifted: a taped encyclical from Osama bin Laden, it was said, demonstrated that he was too weak to attack before the election but was marshalling his resourcs to do so months after it.

On the first page of its founding manifesto, the massively funded Department of Homeland Security intones, “Today’s terrorists can strike at any place, at any time, and with virtually any weapon.”

But if it is so easy to pull off an attack and if terrorists are so demonically competent, why have they not done it? Why have they not been sniping at people in shopping centers, collapsing tunnels, poisoning the food supply, cutting electrical lines, derailing trains, blowing up oil pipelines, causing massive traffic jams, or exploiting the countless other vulnerabilities that, according to security experts, could so easily be exploited?

One reasonable explanation is that almost no terrorists exist in the United States and few have the means or the inclination to strike from abroad. But this explanation is rarely offered.

The perpetual police ’security’ state in pursuit of Emmanuel Goldstein.

Read The Full Article

For more on this, I recommend the excellent BBC series “The Power of Nightmares”, which has worldwide distribution, but except for a handful of public access outlets, almost zero exposure in the United States. You can actually watch it on line Here

Fred Branfman writes…

As a teenager, I could not understand how the German people could claim to be “good Germans,” unaware of what the Nazis had done in their names. I could understand if these ordinary German people had said they had known and been horrified, but were afraid to speak up. But they would then be “weak or fearful or indifferent Germans,” not “good Germans.” The idea that only the Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust made no sense. Whatever the Germans as a whole know about the concentration camps, they certainly knew about the systematic mistreatment of Jews that had occurred before their very eyes, and from which so many had profited. And if they were not really “good Germans,” what should or could they have done, given the reality of Nazi tyranny?

——————–

Every generation or so an evil arises which is so monstrous, so degrading to the human spirit, so morally bankrupt that even to debate it is a sign of moral corruption. Today, torture, a practice far more degrading to us than to our victims, represents such an evil. The real question for us, however, is what this says not about President Bush and our other leaders, but about ourselves. What are we, as citizens, as human beings, willing to live with? Are we willing to live with a president, vice-president, secretary of defense, secretary of state, and attorney-general who either engage in or rationalize torture in our names, even as they shamelessly deny they are doing so?

For most of my own life, from my earliest days, I have been somewhat fixated on the question of how societies could live with such duplicity and complicity with such barbarous crimes against humanity. Whether it be under the guise of fascism, or the even more historically murderous regimes of totalitarian Communism. I would judge these societies, and their complicit citizens harshly. I did so from my own safe vantage point of privilege living in the unspoken empire of the USA. I, as all thinking and conscious citizens must acknowledge, must now confront the banality of such complicity to evil that is festering in my own beloved country. Fred Branfman challenges his fellow countrymen and women with this essay, which pulls no punches and places the responsibility for the growing atrocities being committed in America’s name squarely at the feet of the so-called ‘conservative movement’ where it belongs.

It is not only disturbingly to the point, but contains personal anecdotes which are rather moving as well.

Read The Complete Essay

He was eerily dead on before, and now Alex Jones is raising the alarm to fever pitch. ‘Code Red’ I guess you could say, on the “Terror Alert” index.

Hear Alex Jones’ message

He strongly asserts that a terrorist attack is on its way. The question is, however, who are the actual terrorists perpetrating it / them and how do we stop it?

I believe there is real legitimacy to these warnings. Anyone else out there willing to venture a perspective on this?

For more on this and related issues, visit www.infowars.com

This guy was on it from the get go. G. Edward Griffin details tyranny’s need for ‘terrorism’.

And this from shortly after the attacks of September 11th. This really is a must read when it comes to the full dynamics at work with how societies react to violent attack, and who stands to benefit from those reactions.

In 1982 I produced a video documentary entitled No Place to Hide; The Strategy and Tactics of Terrorism. Immediately after Tuesday’s attack, I began to get inquiries about the program. Friends who possessed copies ran them on public-access cable. Suddenly, the video, which had remained almost forgotten in the back pages of our catalogue, became a best seller. There is good reason for that. When I did the research for this topic, I discovered that terrorism involves a lot more than just blowing things up and killing people. There is a well-defined strategy behind it that has to do with the anticipated reaction of the target government and its citizens. Terrorists themselves phrase it this way: The action is in the reaction. They know that, after repeated attacks, people will become angry with their leaders for not preventing terrorism. This sets citizens against their own government. They also know that terrorist attacks will cause people to curtail travel, business ventures, and the purchase of luxuries, all of which will depress the economy. In our modern age, many people have come to think that the health of the economy is government’s responsibility. So, any decline in the market, loss of jobs or purchasing power will also be blamed on the government, making it even more unpopular. The most important reaction, however, is that terrorism causes the target government to respond with police state measures against its own citizens.

Read The Full Article Here

By the way, has anyone seen photos or videos of the plane crashing into the Pentagon on September 11th? And why did WTC building 7, a 47-story steel structure, collapse all on its own hours after the attacks that morning, even though it was not even hit by anything on that day? If anyone has any answers, please feel free to post them in the comments section below.

In Reuters there is an article on the United States initiating Counterrorism under the auspices of Homeland Security. When I read that article the hairs stood up on the back of my neck. Now, I’m not so stupid that I don’t believe the U.S. is not already engaged in counterrorism, but initiating a Homeland Security Department of Counterterrorism utilizing the NSA, CIA, FBI and others, complete with funding and guidelines is laying the groundwork for the U.S. as a Terrorist State. This would put the seal of government approval on the tortures and overthrows and horrors that any crackpot president or congress can think of to slam any state it “suspects” of anything. This harkens back to the plots to overthrow Castro, the actual carrying out of many “sick-minded” things we’ve witnessed, up to and including the actual assassinations of JFK, RFK, MLK, Malcolm X and countless others around the world. The question is: Is this the kind of country we want???

Read The Full Article Here

See definition of ‘Counterterrorism’ below. Doesn’t it sound like a child’s game. If you hit me, I’ll hit you. If you mess with my pick-up sticks, I’ll scatter yours. But it isn’t a child’s game with this “big-people toys” in our world.

I’d say let your house or senate members know, but that is practically useless in today’s world. We no longer have a worthwhile government. Bush and His Republicans have almost completely killed it! And they are not finished yet.

So, I guess the next best thing is to develop a healthy paranoia about what is happening all around us today. Someone far wiser than I once said: there’s a grain of truth in every paranoia. maddi

“coun-ter-ter-ror-ism”

Pronunciation: (koun”tur-ter’u-riz”um), [key] ˜n.
terrorism in reaction to or retaliation for some previous act of terrorism

- Posted by Maddi for USTV Media

Can’t let those meddling do gooders in Congress get in the way of Dear Leader’s efforts to protect the Fatherla… Homeland. After all, it is all about Unitary Executive Power. Thank you, Herr Alito.

“Congress doesn’t have the power to “tie the President’s hands in regard to torture as an interrogation technique. It’s the core of the Commander-in-Chief function. They can’t prevent the President from ordering torture.”
- Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo; Interview with The New Yorker, 2005

“The Fuehrer must have all the rights postulated by him which serve to further or achieve victory. Therefore–without being bound by existing legal regulations–in his capacity as leader of the nation, Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, governmental chief and supreme executive chief, as supreme justice, and leader of the Party–the Fuehrer must be in a position to force with all means at his disposal every German, if necessary, whether he be common soldier or officer, low or high official or judge, leading or subordinate official of the Party, worker or employee, to fulfill his duties.”
- Greater German Reichstag; Resolution on the legal powers of the Fuehrer April 26,1942

Might be a good time to remember the words of Judge Robert Jackson right about now.

“While the United States is not first in rancor, it is not second in determination that the forces of law and order be made equal to the task of dealing with such international lawlessness… While this law is first applied against German aggressors, if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men (sic) answerable to the law.”
- Judge Robert Jackson, Chief Judge of the Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal Court

‘Torture is prohibited by law throughout the United States. It is categorically denounced as a matter of policy and as a tool of state authority. Every act constituting torture under the Convention constitutes a criminal offense under the law of the United States. No official of the government, federal, state or local, civilian or military, is authorized to commit or to instruct anyone else to commit torture. Nor may any official condone or tolerate torture in any form. No exceptional circumstances may be invoked as a justification of torture. US law contains no provision permitting otherwise prohibited acts of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment to be employed on grounds of exigent circumstances (for example, during a ’state of public emergency’) or on orders from a superior officer or public authority, and the protective mechanisms of an independent judiciary are not subject to suspension.’
- Report of the United States to the UN Committee against Torture, October 15, 1999, UN Doc. CAT/C/28/Add.5, Feb. 9, 2000, para. 6.

So just how do they actually explain that its all legal? Or have I simply forgotten the new maxim that its not fascism when we do it, and its not against the law when the President does it.

Yes, Virginia, there are still journalists worth a damn. And Mark Danner is one of them. In this insightful and informed interview, Danner states that torture is a very direct route from human rights, which is to say, restricted power, to unleashed power. We see a movement here backwards from ideals that were at the root of this country’s founding during the enlightenment: the restriction of government power and the conviction that human beings had certain inherent rights, one of which was the freedom from cruel and inhuman treatment.

We’ve got this posted in the ‘Torture and Human Rights’ catagory, but it touches on all sorts of interrelated topics, including the role, performance and even complicity of the media in covering (or not covering) these things in our society.

Read the Complete Interview Here

When people say that this is a Christian nation, I wonder if this is what they mean?

I think that this fairly well deflates the claim that greater religious adherence and belief imbues a society with a better moral compass than that of a predominantly secular nation. I wonder how many of those who participated in this torture are among the 80% that the writer of a USTV feedback letter says count themselves as Christians.

Ed Lacy
UnCommon Sense TV