tirsdag den 25. december 2007
mandag den 24. december 2007
Linket henviser til en fin radiodokumentar om overvågningssamfundet og angst, med professor i psykiatri Tom Bolvig om angstens grundlag i krybdyrhjernens pirmitive kamp/flugt mekanisme, og juraprofessor Simon Davies der er leder for Privacy International om den Orwellske NewSpeak ift. Overvågningssamfundet i Storbrittanien, samt nogle enkelt forklarende skits om trinnene mod lignende tilstande i DK.
søndag den 23. december 2007
PET har i de to terrorsager valgt at putte hætter over hovedet på arrestanterne, i hvad ser synes at være ret vidtgående krænkelser af sigtede, som altså nu straffes i kraft af denne urimelige og unødvendige politivirksomhed, inden deres skyld er bevist. Følgende er et par citatet fra den sidste tids aviser. Klik på linkene for at lære mere om PETs usmagelige metoder.
"Det er mit indtryk, at PET er meget opmærksom på at planlægge og gennemføre større anholdelsesaktioner på en sådan måde, at de er til mindst mulig gene for de anholdte, og selvfølgelig også for de beboere og familiemedlemmer, der måtte opholde sig i nærheden af de anholdte,"
Professor dr. med. Bent Sørensen, der tidligere har været Danmarks udpegede medlem af Europarådets komité til forebyggelse af tortur og af FN's komité mod tortur, tager skarpt afstand fra politiets brug af hætter.
»Hætter over hovedet på anholdte er simpelthen forbudt og absolut uacceptabelt. Det er den entydige opfattelse i de to komitéer«, siger han til Information.
torsdag den 20. december 2007
I 61 procent af tilfældene er gerningsmanden påvirket af alkohol eller stoffer - og 64 procent af dem sker fredag, lørdag eller søndag.
Hvor det for ti år siden var ved 3 procent af voldstilfældene, der blev anvendt kniv, var det i 2005-2006 5 procent. En lignende udvikling ser man
ift. skydevåben: Tidligere var det slet ingen, i 2005-2006 2 procent.
Danskerne har altså ingen grund til at føle sig specielt meget mere utrygge. Udviklingen er IKKE ved at løbe løbsk. Det er IKKE værre end nogensinde. Politiet er IKKE ved at miste kontrollen over situationen.
Og det vilde er, at danskerne heller ikke FØLER sig mere utrygge. En dugfrisk undersøgelse viser, at befolkningens bekymring for vold næsten er halveret på 15-20 år.
I årene 1985-1996 var det mellem 60 og 70 procent af befolkningen, der bekymrede sig meget om vold. Siden 2003 har det været 35-37 procent (sidste år var det endda helt nede på 30 procent).
Hvad fanden vi så skal med endnu flere sanktioner og udvidede beføjelser til politiet, der hverken kan begrundes i den faktiske kriminalitetsudvikling eller i befolkningens opfattelse af den.
tirsdag den 18. december 2007
"Hvis de ved, at politiet visiterer bestemte områder, tror jeg trods alt, at de er mere forsigtige med at have maskinpistoler og andet med i bagagerummet, for de ryger direkte i fængsel og får en lang fængselsstraf. Hvis reglerne bliver strammet op, får vi dem i det mindste væk fra gaden, og så kan de sidde i fængslet og tænke over tingene." siger Lene Espersen. (Ekstra Bladet 14-12-2007)
"Oprettelsen af politiets omfattende visitationszoner i det centrale København kastede heller ikke i går de helt store våbenfund af sig. Natten til i går blev i alt 346 personers lommer endevendt af betjente, mens 133 bilister fik set deres handske- og bagagerum igennem, oplyser Københavns Politi. Resultatet var fire våbenlovsovertrædelser, heriblandt et sværd. Natten til lørdag blev omkring 200 personer og 70 biler visiteret. Også her var resultatet fire overtrædelser af våbenloven." (Ritzau 17/12 2007)
Det er meget sigende, at justitsministeren går ud og anbefaler politiet, at gøre brug af visitationszoner som et middel til at bekæmpe ulovlig våbenbesiddelse, for denne form for kollektiv afstraffelse og vilkårlige krænkelser af folk der bevæger sig indenfor for et givent afgrænset område, uden politiet har nogen begrundet mistanke for at foretage sådanne indgreb i den personlige frihed, er virkelig et skridt i en meget ubehagelig retning, og det kan vel næppe heller komme som nogen overraskelse at justitsministeren ydermere anbefaler strengere straffe, for det synes at være hendes løsningsmodel generelt. “så kan de sidde i fængslet og tænke over tingene." siger hun, men hvad skal man helt præcis ligge i dette? Mener hun dermed at det skulle have en præventiv virkning at smide folk i fængslernes kriminalitetsskoler for selv latterlige overstrædelser af våbenlovgivningen, såsom at have en større køkkenkniv liggende i handskerummet, uanset hvorfor den måtte befinde sig der?
Hendes videre argumentation er også ret interessant, for hun hævder at det har en præventiv virkning at politiet laver visitationszoner, da folk så vil tænke sig ekstra godt om før de tager en maskinpistol med i byen. Dette er muligvis rigtigt, men for at vise hvorledes dette ingenlunde gør brugen af visitationszoner til nogen god idé kunne man, for the sake of argument, tage den et skridt videre og sige, at det sandsynligvis ville have en præventiv virkning på antallet af kvinder der udsættes for vold i hjemmet, hvis politiet satte kameraer op i alle hjem og filmede alt i alle døgnets 24 timer, men det gør det da bestemt ikke til nogen god idé, for det gør at en masse uskyldige mennesker, ligesom med visitationszonerne, udsættes for unødigt grove krænkelser af den personlige frihed som for størstedelens vedkommende må siges at savne legitim begrundelse, ydermere gør det at samfundets borgere skal betale en masse penge for en politiindsats som i langt de fleste tilfælde er ineffektiv og unødvendig, og som vel bedst kan betegnes som at skyde gråspurve med kanoner.
Alt dette skal selvfølgelig ikke ses isoleret, men derimod som endnu et led i de meget omfattende lovgivningsfunderede krænkelser af den personlige frihed, såsom antiterror-pakken og logningsbekendtgørelsen, som den borgerlige regering har sat i værk under dens embede. Endnu engang viser justitsministeren med al ønskelig tydelighed at hun og den regering hun er en del af er frihedens fjende nummer et i Danmark.
fredag den 9. november 2007
A National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has been held up for more than a year in an effort to force the intelligence community to remove dissenting judgments on the Iranian nuclear program, and thus make the document more supportive of US Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts of the process provided by participants to two former Central Intelligence Agency officers.
But this pressure on intelligence analysts, obviously instigated by Cheney himself, has not produced a draft estimate without those dissenting views, these sources say. The White House has now apparently decided to release the unsatisfactory draft NIE, but without making its key findings public.
A former CIA intelligence officer who has asked not to be identified told IPS that an official involved in the NIE process says the Iran estimate was ready to be published a year ago but has been delayed because the director of national intelligence wanted a draft reflecting a consensus on key conclusions – particularly on Iran's nuclear program.
The NIE coordinates the judgments of 16 intelligence agencies on a specific country or issue.
There is a split in the intelligence community on how much of a threat the Iranian nuclear program poses, according to the intelligence official's account. Some analysts who are less independent are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmist view coming from Cheney's office, but others have rejected that view.
The draft NIE first completed a year ago, which had included the dissenting views, was not acceptable to the White House, according to the former intelligence officer. "They refused to come out with a version that had dissenting views in it," he says.
As recently as early October, the official involved in the process was said to be unclear about whether an NIE would be circulated and, if so, what it would say.
Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi provided a similar account, based on his own sources in the intelligence community. He told IPS that intelligence analysts have had to review and rewrite their findings three times, because of pressure from the White House.
"The White House wants a document that it can use as evidence for its Iran policy," says Giraldi. Despite pressures on them to change their dissenting conclusions, however, Giraldi says some analysts have refused to go along with conclusions that they believe are not supported by the evidence.
In February 2007, Giraldi wrote in The American Conservative that the NIE on Iran had already been completed, but that Cheney's office had objected to its findings on both the Iranian nuclear program. and Iran's role in Iraq. The draft NIE did not conclude that there was confirming evidence that Iran was arming the Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq, according to Giraldi.
Giraldi said the White House had decided to postpone any decision on the internal release of the NIE until after the November 2006 elections.
Cheney's desire for a "clean" NIE that could be used to support his aggressive policy toward Iran was apparently a major factor in the replacement of John Negroponte as director of national intelligence in early 2007.
Negroponte had angered the neoconservatives in the administration by telling the press in April 2006 that the intelligence community believed that it would still be "a number of years off" before Iran would be "likely to have enough fissile material to assemble into or to put into a nuclear weapon, perhaps into the next decade."
Neoconservatives immediately attacked Negroponte for the statement, which merely reflected the existing NIE on Iran issued in Spring 2005. Robert G. Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and an ally of Cheney, contradicted Negroponte the following day. He suggested that Iran's nuclear program. was nearing the "point of no return" – an Israeli concept referring to the mastery of industrial-scale uranium enrichment.
Frank J. Gaffney, a protégé of neoconservative heavyweight Richard Perle, complained that Negroponte was "absurdly declaring the Iranian regime to be years away from having nuclear weapons."
On Jan. 5, 2007, Pres. George W. Bush announced the nomination of retired Vice Admiral John Michael "Mike" McConnell to be director of national intelligence. McConnell was approached by Cheney himself about accepting the position, according to Newsweek.
McConnell was far more amenable to White House influence than his predecessor. On Feb. 27, one week after his confirmation, he told the Senate Armed Services Committee he was "comfortable saying it's probable" that the alleged export of explosively formed penetrators to Shi'ite insurgents in Iraq was linked to the highest leadership in Iran.
Cheney had been making that charge, but Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, as well as Negroponte, had opposed it.
A public event last spring indicated that White House had ordered a reconsideration of the draft NIE's conclusion on how many years it would take Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. The previous Iran estimate completed in spring 2005 had estimated it as 2010 to 2015.
Two weeks after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced in mid-April that Iran would begin producing nuclear fuel on an industrial scale, the chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Thomas Fingar, said in an interview with National Public Radio that the completion of the NIE on Iran had been delayed while the intelligence community determined whether its judgment on the time frame within which Iran might produce a nuclear weapon needed to be amended.
Fingar said the estimate "might change," citing "new reporting" from the International Atomic Energy Agency as well as "some other new information we have." And then he added, "We are serious about reexamining old evidence."
That extraordinary revelation about the NIE process, which was obviously ordered by McConnell, was an unsubtle signal to the intelligence community that the White House was determined to obtain a more alarmist conclusion on the Iranian nuclear program.
A decision announced in late October indicated, however, that Cheney did not get the consensus findings on the nuclear program and Iran's role in Iraq that he had wanted. On Oct. 27, David Shedd, a deputy to McConnell, told a congressional briefing that McConnell had issued a directive making it more difficult to declassify the key judgments of national intelligence estimates.
That reversed a Bush administration practice of releasing summaries of "key judgments" in NIEs that began when the White House made public the key judgments from the controversial 2002 NIE on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction program in July 2003.
The decision to withhold key judgments on Iran from the public was apparently part of a White House strategy for reducing the potential damage of publishing the estimate with the inclusion of dissenting views.
As of early October, officials involved in the NIE were "throwing their hands up in frustration" over the refusal of the administration to allow the estimate to be released, according to the former intelligence officer. But the Iran NIE is now expected to be circulated within the administration in late November, says Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst and founder of the antiwar group Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
The release of the Iran NIE would certainly intensify the bureaucratic political struggle over Iran policy. If the NIE includes both dissenting views on key issues, a campaign of selective leaking to news media of language from the NIE that supports Cheney's line on Iran will soon follow, as well as leaks of the dissenting views by his opponents.
Both sides may be anticipating another effort by Cheney to win Bush's approval of a significant escalation of military pressure on Iran in early 2008.
(Inter Press Service)
Paris, October 30, 2007 – Since the return of democracy in Spain, Spain’s politica leaders and political society have demonstrated an extraordinary determination to star anew, after the crisis-afflicted 75 years that began with what the Spaniards have called “th catastrophe” – the collapse of the Spanish empire under blows from an exuberant an adolescent United States that believed it was coming of age as a world power. It’s evidenc that empires end, but nations don’t, and resurrection is possible
America’s transcontinental expansion following the Civil War and the garish joys of the Gilded Age gave Americans a taste for foreign adventure, whetted by the proximity and vulnerability of Cuba. And if Cuba, why not Puerto Rico, and the Philippines? Admiral Alfred Mahan, America’s prophet of naval power and of the economic necessity of colonialism, offered convincing economic reasons for American colonial expansion, and the failing Spanish empire was at hand.
A blow to it in the Caribbean, and another in Manila Bay, was enough for it to splinter and collapse. The Spanish Caribbean and the Philippines were ours.
Every empire has its day, and Spain’s phenomenal empire had its during the four centuries that followed the expeditions of Columbus, sailing westward. 1492, and the riches of South American gold, led eventually, and one can say inexorably, to failure in 1898. All things come to an end. You live to die, a principle unpopular among Americans.
The Empire of the United States was launched in 1898, and has since traversed a mere century, experiencing increasing ambition, and suffering increasing difficulties. Could it too last 406 years? The current evidence is not reassuring.
Take the capacity to rule. Take the current Republican party candidates for their party’s presidential nomination. The level of intelligence, emotional and intellectual maturity, and simple information about the subjects on which they discourse, would disqualify them from mainstream political rank in any other major democracy.
This is seriously distressing – although in principle a soluble problem, since there are plenty of intelligent people in the United States, as well as great universities and a rich culture. But elected U.S. government has been so debased by the national willingness to submit elections to the values and habits of a medium of entertainment, television, and to the corruptions of money, that it is hard to see that such a nation can indefinitely maintain representative government.
The Bush administration has demonstrated that major groups and forces in American society indeed do not wish that form of government to survive, and are deliberately engaged in destroying the constitutional order, undermining the powers of Congress and of the courts, so as to install unchecked executive power, rationalized by a novel and authoritarian legal ideology, and sustained by national security demagogy.
I have not spoken of the Democratic candidates for president in the same way because the party’s candidates and debate have not descended to quite the abysmal levels of the Republican pre-primary campaign. But the Democratic party is equally complicit in degrading and subverting the electoral debate and practice of the country, since its candidates are unwilling or unable to challenge the American imperial ideology that drives the country’s foreign policy, an ideology of permanent, unchallengeable global military supremacy.
This ideology is plainly written out in the American Defense Department’s periodical statements of U.S. National Security Strategy, in the latest of which the previously stated goal of “security” in space has now become “supremacy” in space (as everywhere else).
The most influential ground force doctrine foresees decades of American asymmetrical war against urban insurgents springing up in radicalized or “failed” states around the world (including Europe, which the authors of this ideology of an unending World War IV predict will soon be reduced to helotry in service to an “Islamofascist” Caliphate. This hysterical American dystopia feeds fantasies of conquest to its Islamic enemies that the enemies themselves could not imagine. Paranoia reigns in some American circles, close to leading Republican candidates.
All this might be taken as reason for American fear of what is to come. But the dystopic future thus described is impossible. What can come is a United States that burns itself out in the attempt to deal with its paranoid fantasies.
The United States already wages two wasting wars that make no sense. It will never, itself, dominate the disintegrative forces in Iraq today. In Afghanistan it will never succeed in defeating a Taliban radicalism that represents a real if obscurantist national affirmation by a 40-million strong Pathan ethnic community that has always been the dominant force in its historical homeland.
It is not a question of whether these American objectives should be done. That is irrelevant, since they can’t be done. They are impossibilities.
The United States government, in its effort to execute its national security strategy of dominating and defeating global radicalism and extremism, is currently directly attempting to manipulate and control the internal political processes of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and Hezbollah, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Kenya; and indirectly it attempts to exercise decisive influence on the affairs of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, Yemen, Libya, the Gulf Emirates, and a non-existent Kurdistan – and this is to take only a single zone of the world.
This is what the War on Terror has come to mean. It is an attempt to create a universal empire that exists only in the American imagination, by an effort that, because its aim is impossible to achieve, is unlimited in the damage it could do to Americans and others.
© Copyright 2007 by Tribune Media Services International. All Rights Reserved.
tirsdag den 18. september 2007
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia and China expressed alarm on Tuesday over comments by France's foreign minister that Paris should prepare for the prospect of war with Iran, which the West accuses of secretly developing nuclear weapons.
Minister Bernard Kouchner sought, however, to play down his weekend remarks, saying they were meant as a "message of peace".
"I do not want it to be said that I am a warmonger!" he told Le Monde newspaper, days before the five U.N. Security Council permanent members, including Russia and China, and Germany were due to meet to discuss possible new sanctions against Tehran.
"My message was a message of peace, of seriousness and of determination," the paper quoted Kouchner as saying on his plane as he headed to Moscow for talks with his Russian counterpart.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov made it clear at a joint news briefing with Kouchner that his remarks had disturbed a Kremlin, like China, less inclined to sanctions than the West.
"We are worried by reports that there is serious consideration being given to military action in Iran," Lavrov said. "That is a threat to a region where there are already grave problems in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Western powers led by the United States accuse Iran of using a purported nuclear power programme as a screen for development of nuclear arms -- something they fear could add enormously to instability in the already volatile Middle East. They point to Iran's past secrecy over nuclear research as cause for concern.IRAN UNMOVED
ranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an outspoken critic of the West, said Kouchner's comments were meant only for the media. "We do not consider these threats to be serious."
Iran says it seeks nuclear energy only for electricity and condemns U.N. sanctions promoted by the five permanent members -- China, Russia, the United States, France and Britain -- and Germany over its uranium enrichment programme.
Lavrov, signalling its policy at a powers' meeting scheduled for Friday to consider new steps, said Iran should be left to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency before the world considers further sanctions or military action.
"The United States and the European Union are taking tougher anti-Iranian sanctions ... if we agree to work collectively... then what purpose is served by unilateral actions?"
China also condemned Kouchner's weekend remarks.
"We believe the best option is to peacefully resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through diplomatic negotiations, which is in the common interests of the international community," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said at a briefing.
"We do not approve of easily resorting to threatening use of force in international affairs," Jiang said.
Kouchner said France had asked French firms not to bid for work in Iran.
"We must prepare for the worst," he said in the weekend interview with RTL radio and LCI television. "The worst, sir, is war." He said, however, that war was not an imminent prospect.http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-29601820070918
I forlængelse heraf:Reuters: Iran says China on side against fresh sanctions
IT was just after midnight when the 69th Squadron of Israeli F15Is crossed the Syrian coast-line. On the ground, Syria’s formidable air defences went dead. An audacious raid on a Syrian target 50 miles from the Iraqi border was under way.
At a rendezvous point on the ground, a Shaldag air force commando team was waiting to direct their laser beams at the target for the approaching jets. The team had arrived a day earlier, taking up position near a large underground depot. Soon the bunkers were in flames.
Ten days after the jets reached home, their mission was the focus of intense speculation this weekend amid claims that Israel believed it had destroyed a cache of nuclear materials from North Korea.
The Israeli government was not saying. “The security sources and IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] soldiers are demonstrating unusual courage,” said Ehud Olmert, the prime minister. “We naturally cannot always show the public our cards.”
The Syrians were also keeping mum. “I cannot reveal the details,” said Farouk al-Sharaa, the vice-president. “All I can say is the military and political echelon is looking into a series of responses as we speak. Results are forthcoming.” The official story that the target comprised weapons destined for Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shi’ite group, appeared to be crumbling in the face of widespread scepticism.
Andrew Semmel, a senior US State Department official, said Syria might have obtained nuclear equipment from “secret suppliers”, and added that there were a “number of foreign technicians” in the country.
Asked if they could be North Korean, he replied: “There are North Korean people there. There’s no question about that.” He said a network run by AQ Khan, the disgraced creator of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, could be involved.
But why would nuclear material be in Syria? Known to have chemical weapons, was it seeking to bolster its arsenal with something even more deadly?
Alternatively, could it be hiding equipment for North Korea, enabling Kim Jong-il to pretend to be giving up his nuclear programme in exchange for economic aid? Or was the material bound for Iran, as some authorities in America suggest?
According to Israeli sources, preparations for the attack had been going on since late spring, when Meir Dagan, the head of Mossad, presented Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea.
The Israeli spy chief apparently feared such a device could eventually be installed on North-Korean-made Scud-C missiles.
“This was supposed to be a devastating Syrian surprise for Israel,” said an Israeli source. “We’ve known for a long time that Syria has deadly chemical warheads on its Scuds, but Israel can’t live with a nuclear warhead.”
An expert on the Middle East, who has spoken to Israeli participants in the raid, told yesterday’s Washington Post that the timing of the raid on September 6 appeared to be linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labelled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.
The target was identified as a northern Syrian facility that purported to be an agricultural research centre on the Euphrates river. Israel had been monitoring it for some time, concerned that it was being used to extract uranium from phosphates.
According to an Israeli air force source, the Israeli satellite Ofek 7, launched in June, was diverted from Iran to Syria. It sent out high-quality images of a northeastern area every 90 minutes, making it easy for air force specialists to spot the facility.
Early in the summer Ehud Barak, the defence minister, had given the order to double Israeli forces on its Golan Heights border with Syria in anticipation of possible retaliation by Damascus in the event of air strikes.
Sergei Kirpichenko, the Russian ambassador to Syria, warned President Bashar al-Assad last month that Israel was planning an attack, but suggested the target was the Golan Heights.
Israeli military intelligence sources claim Syrian special forces moved towards the Israeli outpost of Mount Hermon on the Golan Heights. Tension rose, but nobody knew why.
At this point, Barak feared events could spiral out of control. The decision was taken to reduce the number of Israeli troops on the Golan Heights and tell Damascus the tension was over. Syria relaxed its guard shortly before the Israeli Defence Forces struck.
Only three Israeli cabinet ministers are said to have been in the know � Olmert, Barak and Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister. America was also consulted. According to Israeli sources, American air force codes were given to the Israeli air force attaché in Washington to ensure Israel’s F15Is would not mistakenly attack their US counterparts.
Once the mission was under way, Israel imposed draconian military censorship and no news of the operation emerged until Syria complained that Israeli aircraft had violated its airspace. Syria claimed its air defences had engaged the planes, forcing them to drop fuel tanks to lighten their loads as they fled.
But intelligence sources suggested it was a highly successful Israeli raid on nuclear material supplied by North Korea.
Washington was rife with speculation last week about the precise nature of the operation. One source said the air strikes were a diversion for a daring Israeli commando raid, in which nuclear materials were intercepted en route to Iran and hauled to Israel. Others claimed they were destroyed in the attack.
There is no doubt, however, that North Korea is accused of nuclear cooperation with Syria, helped by AQ Khan’s network. John Bolton, who was undersecretary for arms control at the State Department, told the United Nations in 2004 the Pakistani nuclear scientist had “several other” customers besides Iran, Libya and North Korea.
Some of his evidence came from the CIA, which had reported to Congress that it viewed “Syrian nuclear intentions with growing concern”.
“I’ve been worried for some time about North Korea and Iran outsourcing their nuclear programmes,” Bolton said last week. Syria, he added, was a member of a “junior axis of evil”, with a well-established ambition to develop weapons of mass destruction.
The links between Syria and North Korea date back to the rule of Kim Il-sung and President Hafez al-Assad in the last century. In recent months, their sons have quietly ordered an increase in military and technical cooperation.
Foreign diplomats who follow North Korean affairs are taking note. There were reports of Syrian passengers on flights from Beijing to Pyongyang and sightings of Middle Eastern businessmen from sources who watch the trains from North Korea to China.
On August 14, Rim Kyong Man, the North Korean foreign trade minister, was in Syria to sign a protocol on “cooperation in trade and science and technology”. No details were released, but it caught Israel’s attention.
Syria possesses between 60 and 120 Scud-C missiles, which it has bought from North Korea over the past 15 years. Diplomats believe North Korean engineers have been working on extending their 300-mile range. It means they can be used in the deserts of northeastern Syria � the area of the Israeli strike.
The triangular relationship between North Korea, Syria and Iran continues to perplex intelligence analysts. Syria served as a conduit for the transport to Iran of an estimated £50m of missile components and technology sent by sea from North Korea. The same route may be in use for nuclear equipment.
But North Korea is at a sensitive stage of negotiations to end its nuclear programme in exchange for security guarantees and aid, leading some diplomats to cast doubt on the likelihood that Kim would cross America’s “red line” forbidding the proliferation of nuclear materials.
Christopher Hill, the State Department official representing America in the talks, said on Friday he could not confirm “intelligence-type things”, but the reports underscored the need “to make sure the North Koreans get out of the nuclear business”.
By its actions, Israel showed it is not interested in waiting for diplomacy to work where nuclear weapons are at stake.
As a bonus, the Israelis proved they could penetrate the Syrian air defence system, which is stronger than the one protecting Iranian nuclear sites.
This weekend President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran sent Ali Akbar Mehrabian, his nephew, to Syria to assess the damage. The new “axis of evil” may have lost one of its spokes.
VIENNA, Sept. 17 (Xinhua) -- Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), called on the international community Monday to settle Iran's nuclear issues through negotiation, stressing that talk about possible war against Iran was "contra-constructive".
He expressed his worries to the media about the increased discussions about the possible military action against Iran at the 51st annual regular session of the IAEA General Conference held in Vienna this week.
The chief of the IAEA urged all parties involved to learn lessons from the Iraq war before talking about military action against Iran.
He stressed the importance of settling Iran's nuclear issues through negotiation, and meanwhile called on Iran to continuously cooperate with the IAEA and clarify its open questions in the nuclear program.
"I was not saying that that's the administration's motive," Greenspan said in an interview Saturday, "I'm just saying that if somebody asked me, 'Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?' I would say it was essential."
Efter den bipolære verdensordens ophør foranlediget af Sovjetunionens fald, stod verden tilbage med den amerikanske supermagt som den altdominerende, og da denne nu var blevet et fjendebillede fattigere, begyndte man at rette opmærksomheden mod et nyt fjendebillede, nemlig terrorismen.
Man har især siden den 11. september brugt truslen fra den usynlige terroristiske fjende som undskyldning for at drive en frygtbaseret politik gennem hvilken det er lykkedes, at legitimere omfattende skærpelser af overvågning, samt en lang række juridiske indhug i de borgerlige frihedsrettigheder, hvoraf det amerikanske The Patriot Act må siges at være et kroneksempel.
Et af problemerne med de terror-definitioner der opereres med er, at definitionerne ikke er videre præcise, hvorfor kritikeren uden de store vanskeligheder kan fremhæve træk ved nogle af USAs diktatoriske samarbejdspartnere, som qua den officielle terrordefinition, i lige så høj grad, som mange af de blacklistede organisationer man hævder at være i krig med, kan siges at være skyldige i udøvelsen af terrorisme.
Som eksempel herpå kan det nævnes at man i den såkaldte National Security Strategy - som blev udgivet af Bush-administration i 2002 – udtrykker at “The enemy is terrorism – premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against innocents […] The United States will make no concessions to terrorist demands and strikes no deal with them. We make no distinction between terrorists and those who knowingly harbor or provide aid to them.”
Spørgsmålene hober sig hurtigt op, og jeg har stadig til gode at få et tilfredstillende svar.
Nogle vil nok undre sig lidt over denne terror-definition, for flere af USA's allierede - nuværende såvel som forhenværende - må siges at være skyldige i terrorisme iflg. den definition. Hvorfor skulle eksempelvis Israels handlinger overfor Palæstinenserne i de besatte områder, hvor børn i mange tilfælde enten lemlæstes eller slås ihjel i gengældelsesangreb, ikke falde ind under definitionen på en terroristisk handling, når nu det er tilfældet når en palæstinensisk selvmordsbomber dræber eller lemlæster israelske børn? Hvorfor er der ikke tale om en “overlagt, politisk motiveret voldshandling begået mod uskyldige,” når en helikopter letter fra israelsk jord, for kollektivt at afstraffe palæstinensere, uskyldige såvel som skyldige? Endvidere melder spørgsmålet sig: Hvorledes USA selv er undtaget fra selv at være skyldig i terrorhandlinger når nu det hævdes at man ikke skelner mellem terrorister og dem som medvidende forsyner disse med støtte, idet man fortsat forsyner Israel med våben til trods for det faktum at staten Israel opretholder en illegitim besættelse af Gaza og Vestbredden. Hvorfor er de mange særdeles ubehagelige konsekvenser af denne langvarige besættelse ikke at anskue, som politisk motiverede voldshandlinger begået mod uskyldige?
mandag den 17. september 2007
lørdag den 15. september 2007
Og en dokumentar i forlængelse heraf, der belyser hvorfor FOX News formidler propaganda fremfor journalistik.
OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdochs War on Journalism
"There might be some parts of this old world where you can push people around and hurt them and they won't fight back, but the Middle East is not one of them."
"It's both unfair and misleading to refer to "Islamic terrorists" or "Muslim terrorists." You will recall that nobody ever referred to the Irish Republican Army as "Catholic terrorists" or their opponents as "Protestant terrorists."
"It's important to understand that the cause of terrorism is political, and therefore there is no military solution. If killing terrorists were the solution, the Israelis wouldn't be enclosing themselves inside a wall and carrying guns all the time. Unless you solve the political problems that cause terrorism, you will never eliminate it."
"Al-Qaeda hates us because we are occupying Muslim lands and killing Muslims. That's true. Al-Qaeda hates us because we support the Israeli brutalization of the Palestinians 100 percent. That is true. Al-Qaeda hates us because the Muslim governments we support are dictatorships. That is true. Al-Qaeda hates us because we are in the Middle East not to spread democracy, but to support Israel and to control Islamic resources, namely oil. That is true."
torsdag den 13. september 2007
De døde i Irak gør optimisme til skamme
P1's Orientering Søndag: Ny amerikansk kurs i Irak?
Synspunkt: The General Lies
The 'proxy war': UK troops are sent to Iranian border
Nuclear chief walks out on EU speech on Iran
U.S. Officials Begin Crafting Iran Bombing Plan
Debat: Don’t Let The Dogs Out! Don’t Bomb Iran!
Israel-lobbyen: AIPAC lobbies for Iran sanctions
Analyse: Iran moves to ditch U.S. dollar
tirsdag den 11. september 2007
In retaliation, the Iranian army has carried out a series of counterattacks in the mountains, which span the border with Iraq.
Murat Karayilan, a Kurdish guerrilla commander, told the Daily Telegraph that Tehran had originally tried to recruit the outlawed groups to fight coalition troops in Iraq.
"The U.S. and Britain came to Iraq to establish a democratic system, but this scared the Iranians, so they negotiated with us and offered many things to attack the coalition," he said under a canopy of trees near his headquarters on Iraqi territory in the Qandil Mountains.
Iranian newspapers have reported the deaths of seven soldiers in recent clashes with Kurdish guerrillas. Last month, the rebels claimed responsibility for shooting down an Iranian helicopter.
A loose alliance of guerrillas, styling itself the Kurdistan Democratic Federation, is fighting for an independent state which would cover the Kurdish-majority areas of Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
Mr. Karayilan, who is from the PKK guerrilla group, said Iran and Turkey were acting in tandem to repress their Kurdish regions. But, he added, the Kurds have been inspired by the autonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, which has been relatively secure since Saddam Hussein's downfall in 2003. "The regional government in Iraqi Kurdistan has increased the national feeling of Kurds everywhere," he said.
Iran believes that the U.S. and Britain are now arming and training the Kurdish guerrillas to strike its territory from bases inside Iraq. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, accused America of supporting terrorism inside the Islamic Republic.
" America wants to carry out actions such as blowing up the country's oil pipelines by supporting bandits and small groups of Kurdish rebels," he told the Iranian press.
mandag den 10. september 2007
“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” arrives carrying heavy baggage. John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a professor of international affairs at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, set off a furor last year by arguing, in an article that appeared in The London Review of Books, that uncritical American support for Israel, shaped by powerful lobbying organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, does grave harm to both American and Israeli interests."
"A bitter debate has raged ever since, with accusations of anti-Semitism leveled by, among others, Alan M. Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor, and Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the principal lobbying organizations taken to task by Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt.
“The Israel Lobby,” an extended, more fully argued version of the London Review article, has done nothing to calm the waters. The authors have been barred from making appearances by at least one university and several cultural centers to discuss their subject, and continue to reap a whirlwind of criticism and abuse. If they were looking for a fight, they have found it.
Slowly, deliberately and dispassionately Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt lay out the case for a ruthlessly realistic Middle East policy that would make Israel nothing more than one of many countries in the region. On those occasions when Israel’s interests coincide with America’s, it should count on American support, but otherwise not. What Americans fail to understand, the authors argue, is that most of the time the two countries’ interests are opposed.
The reason they do not realize this, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt insist, can be explained quite simply: The Israel lobby makes sure of it. Working closely with members of Congress, public-policy organizations and journals of opinion, energetic, well-financed groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the American Jewish Committee, along with dozens of political-action committees, perpetuate the myth, as the authors see it, of Israel as an isolated, beleaguered state surrounded by enemies and in need of America’s unstinting financial and military support.
This lobby is particularly adept at stifling debate before it begins, the authors argue. “Whether the issue is abortion, arms control, affirmative action, gay rights, the environment, trade policy, health care, immigration or welfare, there is almost always a lively debate on Capitol Hill,” they write. “But where Israel is concerned, potential critics fall silent and there is hardly any debate at all.”
"The problem, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt argue, is that Israel has become a strategic liability with the end of the cold war and a moral pariah in its dealings with the Palestinians and, most recently, the Lebanese. Uncritical American support for its closest Middle East ally has damaged American credibility in the Arab world, encouraged terrorism, stymied the search for a solution to the Palestinian problem, and in every way made America’s international position weaker and more dangerous.
Coolly, not to say coldly, Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt mount a prosecutorial brief against Israel’s foreign and domestic policies, and against the state of Israel itself. They describe a virtual rogue state, empowered by American wealth and might, that blocks peace at every turn, threatens its cowering neighbors with impunity, crushes the national aspirations of the Palestinians and, whenever the opportunity arises, bites the hand that feeds it.
Working tirelessly in the background is the Israel lobby, playing Iago to America’s Othello, leading president after president down ever more dangerous paths. Without intense pressure from the Israel lobby, the authors argue, America would not have undertaken the war in Iraq."
The US military said on Monday that it is to build a base on Iraq's border with Iran to stem what it charges is rampant smuggling of weapons and fighters.
The base, which the military describes as a "life support area", will be set up near the headquarters of the Department of Border Enforcement in Badrah, in the central province of Wasit.
The province, currently the theatre of a massive US-led military crackdown targeting Shiite militiamen allegedly involved in weapons smuggling, shares a 200 kilometre (125 mile) border with Iran.
It said the base is "not really permanent, although it will be manned 24/7 and will be used for as long as necessary."
The base will also accommodate some of the 2,000 Georgian soldiers being deployed in the province to staff new checkpoints being set up to control the border, the military said.
"We've got a major problem with Iranian munitions streaming into Iraq," Major General Rick Lynch, the commander of US army forces in central Iraq, was quoted as saying by the Wall Street Journal on Monday.
"This Iranian interference is troubling and we have to stop it."
The newspaper gave further details about the base, saying it will have living quarters for some 200 soldiers, will be built six kilometres (four miles) from the border and should be completed by November.
It said the US military also plans to install X-ray machines and explosives-detecting sensors at Zurbatiya, the main border crossing between Iran and Iraq.
On August 19, Lynch charged that some 50 members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards were inside Iraq training Shiite extremists to launch attacks on US and Iraqi security forces.
The US military has regularly accused Iranian forces of training Iraqi militants to use rockets and explosively formed penetrators (EFPs) -- fist-sized bombs capable of slicing through heavy armour -- but Lynch's comments marked the first claims that they were operating inside Iraq.
The US military says EFPs are manufactured in Iran, smuggled into Iraq and delivered to Shiite extremists for attacks on US-led coalition forces. Tehran denies the charge.http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070910/pl_afp/usiraqiranmilitary
TEHRAN (AFP) — Iran on Thursday accused the United States of supporting separatist rebel groups in its border regions to carry out acts of sabotage, including blowing up oil pipelines.
Iran's top national security official Ali Larijani said that Washington was backing groups like Pejak, a Kurdish separatist group linked to Turkey's outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that has carried out a spate of attacks in northwestern Iran.
"The United States has become so weak that it is trying to strengthen groups like Pejak and other groups to carry out actions like blowing up oil pipelines in Iran," the official news agency IRNA quoted Larijani as saying.
His comments came the day after seven members of the Iranian security forces were killed in a shootout with "rebels" in the western Kermanshah province, which has a substantial Kurdish population.
Last month, six members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards were killed in a helicopter crash near the Iraqi border which the authorities said was due to bad weather, but Kurdish rebels said was due to the chopper being shot down.
Iran has repeatedly accused the United States of aiding banned militant groups in a bid to stir tensions in sensitive regions with ethnic minority populations on its borders with Iraq, Pakistan and Turkey.
Tehran has said that the United States is aiding the Sunni militant group Jundallah which has been behind attacks and abductions in its restive southeastern Sistan-Baluchestan province.
Washington and Tehran are at loggerheads over Iran's nuclear programme and its alleged meddling in Iraq and the United States has never ruled out possible military action against the Islamic republic.
-------------------Dette er interessant hvis man tager i betragtning, at den pensionerede amerikanske oberst Sam Gardiner i et interview med Wolf Blitzer på CNN sidste år, sagde at USA havde foretaget militære operationer i Iran i ti måneder.
Interviewet kan ses her:
Highlights fra rapporten:
"The perception of Iran as the major threat to US interests in the Middle East stems, in part, from the long-term consequences of seeing the apparently secure, authoritarian and pro-American regime of the Shah so easily deposed in a matter of weeks in 1979. The Shah’s Iran had been seen as the lynch-pin of US security interests in the Gulf – a bulwark against Soviet interference. The sudden regime collapse, followed by the traumatic impotence of the United States at the time of the hostage crisis and the subsequent and bitter antagonism to the US demonstrated by the Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Khomenei, meant that Iran was a direct and persistent obstacle to US regional interests.
These were, and are, centred on the Gulf region’s immense oil reserves and the trend of the United States becoming increasingly dependent on imported oil. If the oil factor was important at the start of the 1990s, it is far more so 15 years later, with US oil import dependency increasing year by year, with China in a similar position, and with Gulf fossil fuel resources likely to make the region of profound geopolitical significance over the next thirty years or more.
In such circumstances it is fundamentally unacceptable to the United States for a “rogue” state such as Iran to be allowed to get even remotely near having its own nuclear capability. Such a “deterrent” would greatly limit US options in the region, and would provide a threat to its closest ally – Israel. While Washington may not be implacably opposed to diplomatic options to ensure that Iran does not go down the path of a major nuclear infrastructure, if those fail, then it has to be recognised that destruction of the suspected nuclear weapons infrastructure and associated facilities is likely to be undertaken at some stage.""Israel has maintained a nuclear capability since the late 1960s and is believed to have around 200 nuclear warheads, principally for delivery by aircraft or surface-to-surface missiles. It may also be developing warheads for submarine-launched cruise missiles. Even so, Israel regards it as essential to its security that it is the only state in the region with a nuclear capability."
"A US military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure would be the start of a protracted military confrontation that would probably involve Iraq, Israel and Lebanon as well as the United States and Iran, with the possibility of west Gulf states being involved as well. An attack by Israel, although initially on a smaller scale, would almost certainly escalate to involve the United States, and would also mark the start of a protracted conflict.
Although an attack by either state could seriously damage Iran’s nuclear development potential, numerous responses would be possible making a protracted and highly unstable conflict virtually certain. Moreover, Iran would be expected to withdraw from the Non-Proliferation Treaty and engage in a nuclear weapons programme as rapidly as possible. This would lead to further military action against Iran, establishing a highly dangerous cycle of violence.
The termination of the Saddam Hussein regime was expected to bring about a free-market client state in Iraq. Instead it has produced a deeply unstable and costly conflict with no end in sight. That may not prevent a US or an Israeli attack on Iran even though it should be expected that the consequences would be substantially greater. What this analysis does conclude is that a military response to the current crisis in relations with Iran is a particularly dangerous option and should not be considered further – alternative approaches must be sought, however difficult these may be."læs resten her:
"Paul Bremer, Iraks besættelsesadministrator efter invasionen, lod landets sikkerhedsstyrker opløse, hvilket skabte et fatalt sikkerhedsvakuum. Men Bush og den britiske ledelse gav mig fuld opbakning, insisterer han. Den britiske militærledelse afviser hans fremstilling som uvederhæftig'"
SPIEGEL: Your deputy, Olli Heinonen, who negotiated with the Iranians, is now talking about a breakthrough, a "milestone." Given Iran's history, wouldn't a healthy dose of suspicion be appropriate?
ElBaradei: Obviously we are all pushing for the same strategic goal: That Iran should not get nuclear weapons. We consistently searched for evidence that Iran intends to build nuclear weapons. We found suspicious signs, but no smoking gun. We could now make some progress in setting aside these suspicions by thoroughly inspecting the Iranian facilities and learning details about their history.
SPIEGEL: Washington wants to place the Revolutionary Guards -- an important and, in the case of nuclear policy, decisive element of the Iranian power structure -- on a list of terrorist organizations. The Bush administration has called on foreign banks to cancel their dealings with Iran. Gregory Schulte, the American envoy to the IAEA, has made it clear that the US government wants to see tougher sanctions. Do you believe that the Russians and the Chinese will vote for more severe sanctions in the UN Security Council once they see the new IAEA report?
ElBaradei: We at the IAEA do not make these political decisions.
SPIEGEL: But you would consider tighter sanctions to be counterproductive?
ElBaradei: I don't make a secret of that. You can only set up so many roadmaps. If there is no basis for trust, all that effort is in vain. Sanctions alone will not produce a lasting solution. What we need in the Middle East is not more weapons, but better educational opportunities and more security for people. We should remind ourselves every day of the terrible situation of Iraq's civilians. An improvement in the catastrophic situation in Baghdad, with its tens of thousands of civilian casualties, can only be achieved through political measures -- through concrete improvement of the population's living conditions and through opportunities for education and jobs. And, most of all, by politically involving the neighboring countries.SPIEGEL: The Iranian leadership insists on its right to enrich uranium, and every country that has signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is entitled to this right, at least formally.
ElBaradei: There are concrete suspicions against Iran. That's why I believe that Iran has temporarily forfeited this right, and that it will have to regain it with the international community through confidence-building measures. On the other hand, those in the West must realize that if all they expect is confrontation, they might as well forget dialogue -- and they should not be surprised if the other side seeks retribution.
SPIEGEL: Some politicians and senior military leaders in Israel, as well as in the United States, are seriously considering an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. French President Nicolas Sarkozy has also threatened to bomb the facilities. What do you think about the "military option?"
ElBaradei: Nothing at all. Perhaps a large part of the Iranian facilities could in fact be destroyed. But something like that would trigger a terrible conflagration in the region, and it would certainly strengthen the positions of those in Tehran who favor the development of a nuclear bomb. After presumably withdrawing from the NPT, they would then pursue such a program without any monitoring whatsoever. The already deep conflicts between the Islamic world and the West would explode. We need the opposite: an intensive dialogue involving all major players, the Europeans and especially the United States.
fredag den 7. september 2007
onsdag den 5. september 2007
“Baggrunden for det hele var selvsagt terrorangrebet mod USA 11. september 2001. Dette var en åben krigserklæring til alle os i den vestlige verden fra den nyvakte islamisme, der tager udgangspunkt i den iranske revolution under ayatollah Khomeini i 1979, og hvis øjeblikkelige positioner hedder al Qaeda og Osama Bin Laden.”
Mage til sludder skal man vist lede længe efter. For det første må det siges at være en overordentlig omgang vrøvl at hævde at paraply-begrebet islamisme erklærede krig mod vesten, for hvornår er begreber blevet i stand til at foretage den slags handlinger? Dernæst hugger Krarup en hæl og klipper en tå for at få begrebet ‘islamisme’ til at passe med hans dagsorden. Normalt bruges ‘islamisme’ om fundamentalistiske grupperinger indenfor islam, og denne fundamentalistiske form for islam skulle altså iflg. Krarup have taget sit udgangspunkt i den islamiske kulturrevolution i Iran i 1979, hvilket må siges at være noget forfærdeligt vrøvl, for fundamentalistisk islam har eksisteret meget længere, og blandt “øjeblikkelige positioner” glemmer han da også meget bekvemt at nævne den måske væsentligste, nemlig den i Saudi-Arabien dominerende retning, wahabismen. Denne udeladelse er nok ikke tilfældig, for Saudi-Arabien har til trods for det faktum at det er et brutalt diktatur, under hele den såkaldte krig mod terror været en af koalitionens tætteste samarbejdspartnere, og det er netop fra Saudi-Arabien at man i dag ser den største økonomiske støtte til udbredelsen af fundamentalistisk islam. En økonomisk støtte hvis fundament er olie, som vesten køber ivrigt af.
“Et terrorangreb mod USA [9-11] og dermed imod alle i den vestlige verden. For så vidt en nærmest klassisk gentagelse af begivenhederne fra 1400 års strid mellem islam og kristenheden – f.eks. de islamiske angreb på Europa i 1529 og 1683 [....] Det var slet og ret en vestlig nødvendighed af forsvare sig og slå igen.”
Ovenstående er et meget interessant forsøg på en historisk parallel. Angrebet på World Trade Center der så vidt vides blev begået af studerende med en mulig tilknytning til al Qaeda er altså en “næsten klassisk gentagelse” af angreb på Europa i 1529 og 1683, altså af angreb der begge blev foretaget af store islamisk riger hvoraf ingen længere eksisterer. Hvorledes det er intelligent at foretage en sådan parallel mellem unge studerende flykapreres angreb på World Trade Center i 2001 og osmannerigets angreb fra hesteryg og med krumsabler på Europa for henholdsvis 478 og 324 år siden, må være op til læseren at bedømme. At angrebet i Krarups optik skal ses som en forlængelse af “1400 års strid mellem islam og kristenheden” er da også noget kuriøst, for angrebet var jo netop ikke rettet mod symboler på kristen kultur men derimod mod symboler på den amerikanske militære og økonomiske dominans, på hvilke henholdsvis Pentagon og World Trade Center er og var symboler. Havde man ønsket at rette et angreb på “kristenheden” var der nok andre mål som ville være mere oplagte.
Overordentlig interessant er det da også, at Krarup mener at angrebet på Irak var “en vestlig nødvendighed” som et modsvar på angrebet mod World Trade Center, for der er, som de fleste nok er bekendt med, ikke skyggen af bevis for at Irak på nogen måde var involveret i terrorangrebene den 11. September 2001, om dette skriver Krarup:
“Men hvorfor angribe netop Irak og Saddam Hussein? Eller var Saddam allieret med al Qaeda? Nej, i snæver forstand var Saddam Hussein ikke al Qaedas allierede, selvom han under risiko for et vestligt angreb som bekendt rykkede nærmere til Osama Bin Laden, men Saddam Hussein var uimodsigeligt en del af den islamiske verden, og hans had til Israel og afvisning af at give FN den sikkerhed mod masseødelæggelsesvåben, som FN og også Vesten krævede, gjorde angrebet på denne mellemøstlige diktator naturligt - når et eksempel skulle statueres. I selvforsvarets situation var Irak det oplagte mål. Taleban i Afghanistan havde været et andet. Men at vælte Saddam Hussein var i 2003 en indlysende politik for et Vesten, der ville ramme terrorismen.”
Det er her interessant hvordan Krarup igen hugger en hæl og klipper en tå, for selvom Saddam Hussein ganske korrekt var en del af den islamiske verden - om end han aldrig har været nogen central figur idet han aldrig har nydt nogen nævneværdig respekt blandt muslimer - blev der netop fra den amerikanske administration lagt vægt på at angrebet på Irak ikke skulle ses som et angreb på Islam, hvorfor administrationen altså ikke deler dette præmis for angreb med Krarup, og med god grund, for man har som tidligere nævnt samarbejdet med Saudi-Arabien og Uzbekistan som ligeledes må betegnes som værende dele af den islamiske verden, ligesom man har ydet økonomisk og militær støtte til andre nationer i regionen hvis befolkninger ligeledes må siges at være del i islam.
Dernæst er det overordentligt interessant at han vælger at nævne Saddam Husseins had til Israel, for derefter at nævne hans delvise manglende vilje til at føje FN, som dog ikke kan siges på nogen måde at være total idet der blev foretaget adskiller inspektioner, for netop Israel har gennem årene udvist en total mangel på vilje til at lade FN inspicere landets masseødelæggelsesvåbenkapacitet, og Israel har gennem årene nydt en uhørt opbakning fra USA i problemstillinger som FN har fundet kritisable idet man fra amerikansk side gang på gang har nedlagt veto i FN mod resolutioner der har vedrørt Israel.
I stedet mener man fra NYTimes redaktionelle hold at:
"The abuses grew out of President Bush’s decision to ignore the Geneva Conventions and American law in handling prisoners after Sept. 11, 2001."
"Abusive interrogations, many of them amounting to torture, were first developed for Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after Mr. Bush declared that international and American law did not protect members of Taliban or Al Qaeda, or any other foreigner he chose to designate as an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Once the signal was sent that prisoners in the “war on terror” were not entitled to decent treatment, cynical lawyers, including Alberto Gonzales, who was then the White House counsel, conjured up perverse legal arguments to ensure that the jailers’ bosses would not be prosecuted for abusing them. The techniques and attitudes developed in Guantánamo Bay were exported to Afghanistan, and then to Iraq."
"Pentagon officials say they have learned the bitter lessons of Abu Ghraib, but their civilian bosses clearly have not. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not provide adequate protection to military prisoners, and it gave the Central Intelligence Agency carte blanche to run overseas prisons to which anonymous men are sent for indefinite detention and abuse. In July, Mr. Bush issued an executive order reaffirming his policy of ignoring the Geneva Conventions when he chooses, and approving abusive interrogations at C.I.A. prisons."
tirsdag den 4. september 2007
Det første trin mod det Giuliani kalder “en realistisk fred” er at være realistisk omkring hvem USA’s fjender er. Disse fjender følger iflg. ham en voldelig ideologi som han kalder “radical Islamic fascism”. Det er her særdeles interessant hvordan Giuliani benytter et retorisk kneb hvormed han søger at associere et gammelt fjendebillede, nemlig fascismen, med islamisk terrorisme. Denne retoriske sammenkobling af to fjendebilleder, et gammelt og et nyt, har han tilfælles med den nuværende administration der som bekendt har forsøgt sig med retorisk at sammenkoble fjendebilledet som akse-magterne repræsenterede under anden verdenskrig, med den fjendtlighed som såkaldte slyngelstater hævdes at repræsentere. En kobling vi finder i den nysproglige vending “The Axis of evil”. Denne sammenkobling må karakteriseres som værende ret tomhovedet idet der er åbenlyse forskelle på radikal islamisme og fascisme.
Den største og mest åbenlyse forskel er den, at den radikale islamisme er en religiøst funderet ideologi, mens fascismen, selvom den i stort omfang nød opbakning blandt højtstående medlemmer indenfor den katolske kirke, må siges primært at være en verdsligt funderet ideologi. En anden forskel er den, at Mussolini proklamerede at “fascisme er korporatisme” dvs. at fascismen indbygget i dens ideologi var meget venligt stillet overfor kapitalinteresser, hvorfor han da også et langt stykke henaf vejen modtog en vis opbakning fra vestlige magthavere blandt andet illustreret ved at Roosevelt i 1933 betegnede Mussolini som “that admirable Italian gentleman”, ligesom Roosevelt stadig i 1939 havde pæne ord tilovers for fascismen, idet han mente at ideologien var “of great importance to the world [though] still in the experimental stage.”  Fascismens opbakning af kapitalinteresser, må siges at stå i komplet modsætning til store dele af den radikale islamisme, der som bekendt er fjendtligt indstillede overfor vestlige kapitalinteresser, som illustreret ved angrebet på World Trade Center den 11. september 2001. For det tredje skal det da også lige nævnes at både fascismen og nazismen kom på fode i nogle af verdens højest udviklede lande hvad i datiden angik kultur og videnskab, hvilket vist næppe kan siges at være tilfældet for mange af de radikale islamisters vedkommende, selvom det iranske præstestyre nok må siges at være en undtagelse.
Konklusionen herfra må følgelig være, at hvis Rudolph Giuliani ønsker at være realistisk omkring hvem der er USA's umiddelbare fjender, skulle han måske undlade at foretage en så stærkt revisionistisk kobling mellem fascisme og islamisme, da denne kobling ikke kan siges at være funderet i nogen tidligere eller nuværende realitet.
Et stærkere forsvar er for Giuliani en forudsætning for en succesfuld fremtidig udenrigspolitik. Giuliani hævder at man fra både demokratisk og republikansk hold gennem de seneste 15 år, har bedt det amerikanske forsvar om at gøre “increasingly more with increasingly less”, hvilket selvfølgelig må siges at være en sandhed med modifikationer, idet det amerikanske forsvarsbudget ikke kan siges at være blevet mindre gennem de sidste 15 år.
Giuliani ønsker at forbedre det amerikanske forsvar ved at videreudvikle missilforsvaret, som George W. Bush følgelig fortjener hævd for at have sat i værk. Endvidere er det for Giuliani vigtigt at man, for at imødegå et potentielt angreb på amerikansk jord, via satellitkonstellationer, overvåger våbenfabrikker overalt på jorden, både dag og nat og både over og under jorden.
Som middel til at tjene amerikanske interesser udenrigs mener Giuliani endvidere, at det er nødvendigt at tage propagandistiske foranstaltninger i brug, idet effektiv kommunikation iflg. ham kan være en stærkt virkningsfuld måde at fremme amerikanske interesser på, og for at USA kommer til at vinde det han kalder “the war of ideas.”
Giuliani har også et interessant bud på hvorledes et fremtidigt FN bør se ud. Historien har nemlig indtil videre vist, at sådanne institutioner virker bedst hvis USA leder dem, og FN er da heller ikke meget at råbe hurra for i Giulianis optik, da organisationen “har vist sig at være irrelevant i løsningen af næsten alle større kontroverser gennem de sidste 50 år”, herunder international terrorisme og brud på menneskerettighederne. Interessant er det vel at nævne i denne sammenhæng, at en af grundene til at FN ikke har været succesfuld mht. bekæmpelse af krænkelser af menneskerettighederne, er det forhold at USA konsekvent har blokeret alle sådanne tiltag mod staten Israel, men det er da ganske rigtigt at FN indtil videre ikke har kunnet udvirke de store resultater hvad angår de menneskerettighedskrænkelser som til stadighed foregår på Guantanamo basen på Cuba, hvor tortur og generel hård og forsømmelig behandling af de indsatte, som i manges tilfælde har siddet indespærret i årevis uden at få mulighed for en fair rettergang, har været reglen snarere end undtagelsen. Dette er efterhånden blevet dokumenteret særdeles grundigt, hvorfor jeg ikke mener det er nødvendigt at gentage det her.
Men tag ikke mit ord for det, læs selv resten:
 David Schmitz, The United States and Fascist Italy, North Carolina 1988.
"Right from the very beginning we were all very concerned about the lack of detail that had gone into the post-war plan and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld was at the heart of that process," he said.
"I had lunch with Rumsfeld in February in Washington - before the invasion in March 2003 - and raised concerns about the need to internationalise the reconstruction of Iraq and work closely with the United Nations."
Maj Gen Cross, 59, who was deputy head of the coalition's Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, said he also raised concerns over the number of troops available to maintain security in Iraq.
"He didn't want to hear that message," he said. "The US had already convinced themselves that following the invasion Iraq would emerge reasonably quickly as a stable democracy."
He added: "There is no doubt that with hindsight the US post-war plan was fatally flawed and many of us sensed that at the time."
mandag den 3. september 2007
- Four million Iraqis – 15% - regularly cannot buy enough to eat.
- 70% are without adequate water supplies, compared to 50% in 2003.
- 28% of children are malnourished, compared to 19% before the 2003 invasion.
- 92% of Iraqi children suffer learning problems, mostly due to the climate of fear.
- More than two million people – mostly women and children - have been displaced inside Iraq. - A further two million Iraqis have become refugees, mainly in Syria and Jordan.
læs den her:
"Sir Mike, who took command of the British Army one month before US-led forces invaded Iraq, said Mr Rumsfeld was "one of those most responsible for the current situation in Iraq".
Crucially, the general writes, he refused to deploy enough troops to maintain law and order after the collapse of Saddam's regime, and discarded detailed plans for the post-conflict administration of Iraq that had been drawn up by the US State Department.
In the book, Sir Mike says he believes the entire US approach to tackling global terrorism is "inadequate" because it relies too heavily on military power at the expense of nation-building and diplomacy."
"Sir Mike says the failure of the US-led coalition to suppress the Iraqi insurgency four years after Saddam's overthrow was down to the Pentagon's refusal to deploy enough troops. A combined force of 400,000 would be needed to control a country the size of Iraq, but even with the extra troops recently deployed for the US military's "surge" the coalition has struggled to reach half that figure.
Sir Mike is particularly critical of President Bush's decision to hand control of the post-invasion running of Iraq to the Pentagon, when all the post-war planning had been done by the State Department.
"All the planning carried out by the State Department went to waste," he writes. For Mr Rumsfeld and his neo-conservative supporters "it was an ideological article of faith that the coalition forces would be accepted as a liberating army.
"Once you had decapitated Saddam Hussein's regime, a model democratic society would inevitably emerge."
Sir Mike Jackson's kritik af den amerikanske administrations håndtering af Irak, bakkes op af flere. Generalmajor Patrick Cordingley, som ledte de såkaldte Desert Rats under Golfkrigen i 1991, kalder således Sir Mike Jackson's analyse for "absolutely spot on".
Sir Malcolm Rifkind siger endvidere: "I think one of the most fundamental criticisms is not just that Rumsfeld was incompetent - which he was - but it was actually his boss, George Bush, who actually made the extraordinary decision to put the Pentagon and Rumsfeld in control of political nation-building after the actual war ended."´
torsdag den 30. august 2007
TIME har et spændende portræt af Rudolph Giuliani med titlen "Behind Giuliani's Tough Talk" hvori hans postulerede viden om udenrigspolitik betvivles. Et par highlights fra artiklen.
Vedrørende Giulianis påståede "30 års studier af terrorisme":
"Giuliani and his aides have said he has been 'studying Islamic terrorism' for 30 years. This is an exaggeration. As a prosecutor and Justice Department official in the 1970s and '80s, Giuliani had many successes—against white collar criminals and the Mafia. He did not direct major terrorism prosecutions that led to convictions."
Vedrørende Giulianis udenrigpolitiske erfaring:
"Giuliani has also claimed he knows more about foreign policy than other candidates, but that's exceedingly unlikely. John McCain spent 22 years as a Navy pilot and five as a prisoner of war and is now the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, where he has served for 20 years. He has been to Iraq six times; Giuliani has never been there. (Of the major candidates, only Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John Edwards have never visited Iraq.)"
Vedrørende Giulianis udtalelser under valgkampen:
"On the campaign trail, Giuliani's foreign policy comments have sometimes come off more confident than competent. In New Hampshire this spring, according to the New York Times, Giuliani said it was unclear whether Iran or North Korea was further along on building a nuclear bomb. (North Korea tested a nuclear device in October 2006. Iran has not done so.) Then, in his speech at the Maryland synagogue in July, Giuliani mocked Democratic candidate Barack Obama for claiming that North Korea was the nation's No. 1 enemy. "North Korea is an enemy. North Korea is dangerous. I mean, I grant that. And boy, we have to be really careful about North Korea," Giuliani said, his voice iced with sarcasm. "But I don't remember North Koreans coming to America and killing us."
North Korea is known to sell advanced weaponry to other states that sponsor terrorists. The State Department has listed North Korea as a sponsor of terrorism. The reason North Korea keeps U.S. terrorism experts up at night is not that North Korean operatives will come here and attack us; it's that they might sell a nuclear bomb to people who will."
Artiklen ender med at konkludere følgende:
"In addition to extraordinary grace under fire, Giuliani developed an intimate knowledge of emergency management and an affinity for quantifiable results. On 9/11, he earned the trust of most Americans. ...
The evidence also shows great, gaping weaknesses. Giuliani's penchant for secrecy, his tendency to value loyalty over merit and his hyperbolic rhetoric are exactly the kinds of instincts that counterterrorism experts say the U.S. can least afford right now."
læs resten: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1655262-1,00.html