I et telegram fra Ritzau kan man læse, at den islamistiske og sektlignende gruppering Hizb-ut-Tahrir for nylig indkaldte til et debatmøde hvor man ønsker at “sætte fokus på pligten til væbnet modstand for muslimerne i Afghanistan og omegn. Vi anser denne modstand som fuldt ud legitim. I den sammenhæng vil myndighedernes forsøg på at kriminalisere eller intimidere enhver krigsmodstander også blive belyst”.
De Radikales retspolitiske ordfører, Lone Dybkjær, mener at dette debatmøde har en skjult dagsorden, idet opfordringen til væbnet opgør i Afghanistan iflg. Dybkjær er ensbetydende med opfordring til væbnet kamp i Danmark, hvilket hun mener er "groft, dybt ubehageligt - og dybt skadeligt". Hvor hun får denne besynderlige logik fra nævnes ikke.
SF’s retspolitiske ordfører, Karina Lorentzen, mener at "det er udtryk for en syg og antidemokratisk tankegang, når en organisation som Hizb ut-Tahrir opfordrer til væbnet modstand." og ønsker derfor at politiet ser nærmere på sagen for at se om der er tale om opfordring til vold, hvilket ville kunne ulovliggøre organisationen hvis en domstol dømmer dette.
Men hvad er egentlige problemet her? Afghanistan er blevet sønderbombet gennem de sidste ni år af udefrakommende magter som ikke har bragt noget godt med sig for den menige afghaner, men som til gengæld har indført et bundkorrupt marionetstyre bestående af heroinbaroner og krigsherrer. Skal det forstås sådan, at Danmark gerne må begå voldshandlinger i en krig som kun har haft negative konsekvenser for mange afghanere, og vover nogen at tale den voldsramte parts sag, ved at opfordre til modstandskamp, i et land hvor vi intet som helst har at gøre, skal de have lukket munden dvs. forbydes under henvisning til at de opfordrer til vold?
Jeg er personligt ikke på nogen som helst måde tilhænger af Hizb-ut-Tahrir, men det her lugter langt væk af hykleri. Hvis Hizb-ut-Tahrir kan lukkes på det grundlag, så skal man begynde at lukke en del organisationer i Danmark, herunder de fleste politiske partier i Folketinget, da de ikke alene har opfordret til vold men aktivt har støttet op om krigshandlinger enten i Afghanistan eller Irak eller begge steder. En ting er, at man ikke kan lide Hizb-ut-Tahrir, hvilket jeg heller ikke kan, noget helt andet er forsøge at forbyde dem fra at organisere sig. Det er da netop "udtryk for en syg og antidemokratisk tankegang".
tirsdag den 28. december 2010
mandag den 27. december 2010
Dagens Citat: Chris Hedges.
"Orwell warned of a world where books were banned. Huxley warned of a world where no one wanted to read books. Orwell warned of a state of permanent war and fear. Huxley warned of a culture diverted by mindless pleasure. Orwell warned of a state where every conversation and thought was monitored and dissent was brutally punished. Huxley warned of a state where a population, preoccupied by trivia and gossip, no longer cared about truth or information. Orwell saw us frightened into submission. Huxley saw us seduced into submission. But Huxley, we are discovering, was merely the prelude to Orwell. Huxley understood the process by which we would be complicit in our own enslavement. Orwell understood the enslavement. Now that the corporate coup is over, we stand naked and defenseless."
Kilde.
Kilde.
lørdag den 25. december 2010
Dagens citat: Glenn Greenwald.
"One of the hallmarks of an authoritarian government is its fixation on hiding everything it does behind a wall of secrecy while simultaneously monitoring, invading and collecting files on everything its citizenry does."
mandag den 20. december 2010
Mediekritik.
I en meget anbefalelsesværdig kronik i Information kaster forfatteren Carsten Jensen sig i ud i en sønderlemmende kritik af danske journalister, som han kritiserer for at være blevet magthavernes villige idioter, da de ofte ikke opfylder deres kritiske samfundsfunktion i noget nær ønskværdig grad. Et samfund med en svag såkaldt fjerde statsmagt er et samfund hvor magtmisbrug og manipulation af befolkningen har alt for gode vilkår. Som Carsten Jensen formulerer det:
"Politikere bør være bange for journalister. De skal ikke tænke på dem som nyttige idioter. De skal få tynd mave, bare de ser en journalist for sig. Men danske aviser repræsenterer i disse år ikke andet end den institutionaliserede magtesløshed."
For magthaverne er ikke bange for journalisterne. Det forholder sig snarere omvendt. Dette blev på pinlig vis illustreret, da man i et klip igår aftes kunne se hvordan sundhedsminister Bertel Haarder gik amok på en journalist som tillod sig at stille kritiske spørgsmål som Bertel Haarder ikke på forhånd var blevet briefet om ville finde sted, som om dette var en legitim kritik af journalisten. Det er det imidlertid ikke. Det er til gengæld et udtryk for mediernes sørgelige tilstand i dagens Danmark, at man for at kunne interviewe en minister først er nødsaget til at briefe vedkommendes spindoktor så ministeren har mulighed for på forhånd at lægge en strategi for hvordan han eller hun vil håndtere medierne. Det er ikke i demokratiets interesse, at en minister gives forberedelsestid i samråd med sin spindoktor, så han eller hun kan glide af på kritiske spørgsmål ved at svare uden om, eller simpelthen nægte at svare på spørgsmål som han eller hun ikke har haft tid til forudgående at forberede sig på. Hvordan skulle det nogensinde kunne blive det?
I en udgave af spindoktorprogrammet "Mogensen og Christiansen", gjorde Michael Christiansen, Anders Fogh Rasmussens tidligere spindoktor, nærmest pralende seerne opmærksomme på hvordan han havde instrueret statsministeren i at omgås journalister på sit ugentlige pressemøde, så han lettest kunne snige sig udenom for mange kritiske spørgsmål. Var dette sket i et blogindlæg kunne man måske slå ud med armene og tænke, at nå ja sådan tænker en spindoktor vel, men det skete på en tv-kanal som delvis er betalt af borgerne for at dække den politiske virkelighed kritisk, og han blev ikke mødt af nogen kritik, for der findes ingen journalist i programmet til at stille sig kritisk overfor denne pressehåndtering. Det er bare the name of the game og det er måske blevet et spil, for alt for ofte synes det som om, at journalisterne som dækker den politiske virkelighed på Borgen er så indfedtede i denne lille lukkede verden, at journalistik forvandles til mikrofonholderi og ukritisk videreformidling af spindoktorernes kyniske indstilling til hvad et velfungerende demokrati egentlig vil sige. Carsten Jensen spørger med rette journalisterne om borgerne og demokratiet er tjente med den danske journaliststand som den ser ud idag.
"Er demokratiet godt tjent med jer? Ja, hvis demokrati handlede om datomærkning af fødevarer, og demokratiet bestod af konsumenter og ikke af borgere. Ja, hvis demokrati kun handlede om at give point til de politiske partiers taktiske positioneringer og bedømme det sprog, de vælger, når de skal sælge sig selv. Ja, hvis virkeligheden ikke fandtes, og alt var spindoktor-retorik, og der ikke var en verden hinsides beslutningstagernes horisont. Ja, hvis demokrati var en tilskuersport og Christiansborg et stadion. Ja, hvis loven i et demokrati kun skal overholdes af folket, men ikke af de folkevalgte ministre. Ja, hvis borgerne i et demokrati ikke har brug for informationer, der gør dem i stand til at tage kritisk stilling til de beslutninger, der tages på deres vegne og i deres navn. Ja, hvis demokrati ikke også vedrører fremtiden, krige på fjerne steder og i det hele taget en stor verden hinsides vore egne grænser.
Lad mig gentage mit spørgsmål: Er demokratiet godt tjent med de medier, vi har i dag? Er det danske folk? Er den trykte presses dramatiske og konstant faldende oplagstal en knusende dom over jeres selvpåførte irrelevans, eller skal vi forstå det som et tegn på en stigende overfladiskhed blandt læserne i en medie- og indtryksbombarderet tid? Er det sådan, at folk ikke gider læse om væsentlige emner, eller er det sådan, at det i hvert fald ikke er i aviserne, de finder dem, og at de derfor opsiger deres abonnement?"
I stedet for at sætte vores lid til, at det nok altsammen ordner sig og der nok bare er tale om passerende tendens, burde vi måske som borgere insistere på en kritisk medievirkelighed, uden uskadelige mikrofonholdere, men som gør en dyd ud af at dække de demokratiske processer på en sådan måde, at politikerne ryster af skræk når de ser en journalist. Jeg kan derfor anbefale folk at støtte op om Jeppe Kabells forslag om en ny form for kritisk offentlighed. Kabell beskriver hvordan dette kunne foregå i sit meget anbefalelsværdige blogindlæg "Sådan kan vi redde journalistikken, genoplive demokratiet og afskaffe mediecirkuset." Der er også andre bemærkelsesværdige initiativer i gang udenfor den etablerede medievirkelighed. Et sådant er medieoplysning.dk hvor jeg selv har bidraget.
"Politikere bør være bange for journalister. De skal ikke tænke på dem som nyttige idioter. De skal få tynd mave, bare de ser en journalist for sig. Men danske aviser repræsenterer i disse år ikke andet end den institutionaliserede magtesløshed."
For magthaverne er ikke bange for journalisterne. Det forholder sig snarere omvendt. Dette blev på pinlig vis illustreret, da man i et klip igår aftes kunne se hvordan sundhedsminister Bertel Haarder gik amok på en journalist som tillod sig at stille kritiske spørgsmål som Bertel Haarder ikke på forhånd var blevet briefet om ville finde sted, som om dette var en legitim kritik af journalisten. Det er det imidlertid ikke. Det er til gengæld et udtryk for mediernes sørgelige tilstand i dagens Danmark, at man for at kunne interviewe en minister først er nødsaget til at briefe vedkommendes spindoktor så ministeren har mulighed for på forhånd at lægge en strategi for hvordan han eller hun vil håndtere medierne. Det er ikke i demokratiets interesse, at en minister gives forberedelsestid i samråd med sin spindoktor, så han eller hun kan glide af på kritiske spørgsmål ved at svare uden om, eller simpelthen nægte at svare på spørgsmål som han eller hun ikke har haft tid til forudgående at forberede sig på. Hvordan skulle det nogensinde kunne blive det?
I en udgave af spindoktorprogrammet "Mogensen og Christiansen", gjorde Michael Christiansen, Anders Fogh Rasmussens tidligere spindoktor, nærmest pralende seerne opmærksomme på hvordan han havde instrueret statsministeren i at omgås journalister på sit ugentlige pressemøde, så han lettest kunne snige sig udenom for mange kritiske spørgsmål. Var dette sket i et blogindlæg kunne man måske slå ud med armene og tænke, at nå ja sådan tænker en spindoktor vel, men det skete på en tv-kanal som delvis er betalt af borgerne for at dække den politiske virkelighed kritisk, og han blev ikke mødt af nogen kritik, for der findes ingen journalist i programmet til at stille sig kritisk overfor denne pressehåndtering. Det er bare the name of the game og det er måske blevet et spil, for alt for ofte synes det som om, at journalisterne som dækker den politiske virkelighed på Borgen er så indfedtede i denne lille lukkede verden, at journalistik forvandles til mikrofonholderi og ukritisk videreformidling af spindoktorernes kyniske indstilling til hvad et velfungerende demokrati egentlig vil sige. Carsten Jensen spørger med rette journalisterne om borgerne og demokratiet er tjente med den danske journaliststand som den ser ud idag.
"Er demokratiet godt tjent med jer? Ja, hvis demokrati handlede om datomærkning af fødevarer, og demokratiet bestod af konsumenter og ikke af borgere. Ja, hvis demokrati kun handlede om at give point til de politiske partiers taktiske positioneringer og bedømme det sprog, de vælger, når de skal sælge sig selv. Ja, hvis virkeligheden ikke fandtes, og alt var spindoktor-retorik, og der ikke var en verden hinsides beslutningstagernes horisont. Ja, hvis demokrati var en tilskuersport og Christiansborg et stadion. Ja, hvis loven i et demokrati kun skal overholdes af folket, men ikke af de folkevalgte ministre. Ja, hvis borgerne i et demokrati ikke har brug for informationer, der gør dem i stand til at tage kritisk stilling til de beslutninger, der tages på deres vegne og i deres navn. Ja, hvis demokrati ikke også vedrører fremtiden, krige på fjerne steder og i det hele taget en stor verden hinsides vore egne grænser.
Lad mig gentage mit spørgsmål: Er demokratiet godt tjent med de medier, vi har i dag? Er det danske folk? Er den trykte presses dramatiske og konstant faldende oplagstal en knusende dom over jeres selvpåførte irrelevans, eller skal vi forstå det som et tegn på en stigende overfladiskhed blandt læserne i en medie- og indtryksbombarderet tid? Er det sådan, at folk ikke gider læse om væsentlige emner, eller er det sådan, at det i hvert fald ikke er i aviserne, de finder dem, og at de derfor opsiger deres abonnement?"
I stedet for at sætte vores lid til, at det nok altsammen ordner sig og der nok bare er tale om passerende tendens, burde vi måske som borgere insistere på en kritisk medievirkelighed, uden uskadelige mikrofonholdere, men som gør en dyd ud af at dække de demokratiske processer på en sådan måde, at politikerne ryster af skræk når de ser en journalist. Jeg kan derfor anbefale folk at støtte op om Jeppe Kabells forslag om en ny form for kritisk offentlighed. Kabell beskriver hvordan dette kunne foregå i sit meget anbefalelsværdige blogindlæg "Sådan kan vi redde journalistikken, genoplive demokratiet og afskaffe mediecirkuset." Der er også andre bemærkelsesværdige initiativer i gang udenfor den etablerede medievirkelighed. Et sådant er medieoplysning.dk hvor jeg selv har bidraget.
Dagens citat: David Graeber om institutionaliseret håbløshed.
"Hopelessness isn't natural. It needs to be produced. If we really want to understand this situation, we have to begin by understanding that the last thirty years have seen the construction of a vast bureaucratic apparatus for the creation and maintenance of hopelessness, a kind of giant machine that is designed, first and foremost, to destroy any sense of possible alternative futures. At root is a veritable obsession on the part of the rulers of the world with ensuring that social movements cannot be seen to grow, to flourish, to propose alternatives; that those who challenge existing power arrangements can never, under any circumstances, be perceived to win. To do so requires creating a vast apparatus of armies, prisons, police, various forms of private security firms and police and military intelligence apparatus, propaganda engines of every conceivable variety, most of which do not attack alternatives directly so much as they create a pervasive climate of fear, jingoistic conformity, and simple despair that renders any thought of changing the world seem an idle fantasy.Maintaining this apparatus seems even more important, to exponents of the "free market," even than maintaining any sort of viable market economy. How else can one explain, for instance, what happened in the former Soviet Union, where one would have imagined the end of the Cold War would have led to the dismantling of the army and KGB and rebuilding the factories, but in fact what happened was precisely the other way around? This is just one extreme example of what has been happening everywhere. Economically, this apparatus is pure dead weight; all the guns, surveillance cameras, and propaganda engines are extraordinarily expensive and really produce nothing, and as a result, it's dragging the entire capitalist system down with it, and possibly, the earth itself."
David Graeber - Hope in Common.
David Graeber - Hope in Common.
søndag den 19. december 2010
torsdag den 16. december 2010
onsdag den 15. december 2010
Bernie Sanders!
Bernie Sanders, den eneste demokratisk socialistiske senator i USA, holdt forleden en otte en halv time lang tale om den amerikanske stats oligarkiske orden i Senatet, Han er uafhængig af de store partier og siger tingene uden omsvøb. Her er et kort uddrag hvor han i skarpe vendinger kritiserer Obamas nye lovforslag om skattenedsættelser til den rige elite.
torsdag den 9. december 2010
Jeremy Scahills Vidnesbyrd foran Kongressen
Den undersøgende journalist Jeremy Schahill, bedst kendt for sin dækning af Blackwater/Xe, gav forleden sit vidnesbyrd for Kongressen og talte blandt andet ved denne lejlighed om USAs hemmelige krigsførelse i Pakistan, Yemen og Somalia. Dette er hele hans vidneudsagn.
"My name is Jeremy Scahill. I am the National Security correspondent for The Nation magazine. I recently returned from a two-week unembedded reporting trip to Afghanistan. I would like to thank the Chairman and the Committee for inviting me to participate in this important hearing. As we sit here today in Washington, across the globe the United States is engaged in multiple wars. Some, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, are well known to the US public and to the Congress.
They are covered in the media and are subject to Congressional review. Despite the perception that we know what is happening in Afghanistan, what is rarely discussed in any depth in Congress or the media is the vast number of innocent Afghan civilians that are being killed on a regular basis in US night raids and the heavy bombing that has been reinstated by General David Petraeus. I saw the impact of these civilian deaths first-hand and I can say that in some cases our own actions are helping to increase the strength and expand the size of the Taliban and the broader insurgency in Afghanistan.
As the war rages on in Afghanistan and--despite spin to the contrary--in Iraq as well, US Special Operations Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency are engaged in parallel, covert, shadow wars that are waged in near total darkness and largely away from effective or meaningful Congressional oversight or journalistic scrutiny. The actions and consequences of these wars is seldom discussed in public or investigated by the Congress.
The current US strategy can be summed up as follows: We are trying to kill our way to peace. And the killing fields are growing in number.
Among the sober question that must be addressed by the Congress: What impact are these clandestine operations having on US national security? Are they making us more safe or less? When US forces kill innocent civilians in "counterterrorism" operations, are we inspiring a new generation of insurgents to rise against our country? And, what is the oversight role of the US Congress in the shadow wars that have spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations?
The most visible among these shadow wars is in Pakistan where the United States regularly bombs the country using weaponized drones. As we now know from diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Prime Minister told a senior US official in Islamabad, "I don't care if [the US bombs Pakistan] as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
At the same time, US Special Operations Forces are engaged in covert, offensive actions in Pakistan, including hunting down so-called high value targets, doing reconnaissance for drone strikes and conducting raids with Pakistani forces in north and south Waziristan. These raids are carried out in secret and denied by Pentagon spokespeople in public. Leaked US diplomatic cables have now confirmed that the sustained denials by US officials for more than a year are false. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, then the US ambassador to Pakistan, offensive operations have been conducted by US Special Operations Forces and coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US Special Operations source told me that the US forces described in the cable as "SOC(FWD)-PAK" were "forward operating troops" from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers. This despite senior Pentagon and State Department officials, including by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, publicly claiming there are no US troops in Pakistan or that the only role of US troops is to train the Pakistani military. Those statements are demonstrably false.
In the fall of 2008, the US Special Operations Command asked top US diplomats in Pakistan and Afghanistan for detailed information on refugee camps along the Afghanistan Pakistan border and a list of humanitarian aid organizations working in those camps. On October 6, Ambassador Patterson, sent a cable marked "Confidential" to senior US defense and intelligence officials saying that some of the requests, which came in the form of emails, "suggested that agencies intend to use the data for targeting purposes." Other requests, according to the cable, "indicate it would be used for "NO STRIKE" purposes." The cable, which was issued jointly by the US embassies in Kabul and Islamabad, declared: "We are concerned about providing information gained from humanitarian organizations to military personnel, especially for reasons that remain unclear. Particularly worrisome, this does not seem to us a very efficient way to gather accurate information." What this cable says in plain terms is that at least one person within the US Special Operations Command actually asked US diplomats in Kabul and/or Islamabad point-blank for information on refugee camps to be used in a targeted killing or capture operation.
What is clear is that US officials have consistently misled the American and Pakistani people on the extent of US military operations inside Pakistan. The reality is that US soldiers are fighting and dying in Pakistan despite the absence of a declaration of war. It is imperative that Congress investigates this shadow war to examine its legality, but also its impact on Pakistan's stability and US national security. If Congress is kept in the dark about these operations, how can it expect to effectively and honestly debate US policy in Pakistan?
One of the most off-the-radar wars the US is currently waging is in the areas around the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden, where US forces are increasingly militarily engaging forces from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While the stated US position is that the US military role in this region is limited to training and weapons support, we now know that on multiple occasions the US has launched cruise missiles carrying cluster bombs at villages in Yemen, killing scores of people. According to the Yemeni parliament, women and children have been among those killed by American bombs. One of these strikes was reportedly aimed at killing a US citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who has been placed on a targeted assassination list by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. Special Operations sources have told me that elite forces from the US Joint Special Operations Command have also engaged in unilateral direct actions--lethal operations--inside Yemen. As in the case of US drone strikes in Pakistan, the Yemeni authorities are colluding with American officials to mask the level of US involvement.
We now know that on September 6, 2009, President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, met with Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to discuss the rising influence of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). According to one cable, "President Saleh pledged unfettered access to Yemen's national territory for U.S. counterterrorism operations... Saleh insisted that Yemen's national territory is available for unilateral [counterterrorism] operations by the U.S." As with the presence of US forces in Pakistan, publicly, the Obama administration insists that its role in Yemen is limited to training and equipping the country's military forces. In secret, however, US Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations in Yemen, including airstrikes, and conspiring with Yemen's president and other leaders to cover-up the US role.
On December 17, 2009, an alleged al-Qaeda training camp in Abyan, Yemen was hit by a cruise missile killing 41 people. According to an investigation by the Yemeni parliament, 14 women and 21 children were among the dead, along with 14 alleged al-Qaeda fighters. A week later another airstrike hit a separate village in Yemen.
Amnesty International released photographs from one of the strikes revealing remnants of US cluster munitions and the Tomahawk cruise missiles used to deliver them. At the time, the Pentagon refused to comment, directing all inquiries to Yemen's government, which released a statement on December 24 taking credit for both airstrikes, saying in a press release, "Yemeni fighter jets launched an aerial assault" and "carried out simultaneous raids killing and detaining militants."
US diplomatic cables now reveal that both strikes were conducted by the US military. In a meeting with General Petraeus in early January 2010 President Saleh reportedly told Petraeus: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours." Yemen's Deputy Prime Minister Alimi then boasted that he had just "lied" by telling the Yemeni Parliament "that the bombs... were American-made but deployed by" Yemen. In that meeting, Petraeus and Saleh also discussed the US using "aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs" with Saleh saying his government would continue to publicly take responsibility for US military attacks. It is clear that we have only seen the beginning of the shadow US war in Yemen and Congress must demand accountability and examine the full extent of the lethal actions currently underway in Yemen.
US forces have also struck multiple times in Somalia and have used the Ethiopian Army as a proxy force to cover the role of US Special Operations troops in a shadow war against al Shabaab and other militant groups. In the years leading up to the December 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, the Pentagon trained Ethiopian forces-including the notorious Agazi special forces unit. The US role continued well into the Ethiopian offensive. A series of at least six US Special Operation incursions into Somalia followed the invasion, beginning with two AC-130 attacks in southern Somalia in early 2007 and another attack from a US warship in mid-2007. In the spring of 2008, five Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from an unidentified US naval vessel at a target in southern Somalia, followed by a second strike in central Somalia that killed alleged al Qaeda commander Aden Hashi Ayro. The most recent operation we know of occurred under President Obama's command in September 2009, when at least two US helicopters-reported to have been AH-6 Little Bird attack helicopters-tracked and killed an alleged senior al-Qaeda leader in the al Shabaab-controlled southern region. A diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks reveals that a foreign official praised the US for the Somalia operation, saying "The Somalia job was fantastic." But the reality is that the invasion of Somalia was a disaster and actually increased support for Islamic radical movements.
These ongoing shadow wars confirm an open secret that few in Congress are willing to discuss publicly--particularly Democrats: When it comes to US counterterrorism policy, there has been almost no substantive change from the Bush to the Obama administration. In fact, my sources within the CIA and the Special Operations community tell me that if there is any change it is that President Obama is hitting harder and in more countries that President Bush. The Obama administration is expanding covert actions of the military and the number of countries where US Special Forces are operating. The administration has taken the Bush era doctrine that the "world is a battlefield" and run with it and widened its scope. Under the Bush administration, US Special Forces were operating in 60 countries. Under President Obama, they are now in 75 nations.
The Obama administration's expansion of Special Forces activities globally stems from a classified order dating back to the Bush administration. Originally signed in early 2004 by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it is known as the "AQN ExOrd," or Al Qaeda Network Execute Order. The AQN ExOrd was intended to cut through bureaucratic and legal processes, allowing US Special Forces to move into "denied" areas or countries beyond the official battle zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a Special Operations veteran told me, "The ExOrd spells out that we reserve the right to unilaterally act against al Qaeda and its affiliates anywhere in the world that they operate." The current mindset in the White House, he told me, is that "the Pentagon is already empowered to do these things, so let the Joint Special Operations Command off the leash. And that's what this White House has done." He added: "JSOC has been more empowered more under this administration than any other in recent history. No question." "The Obama administration took the [Bush-era] order and went above and beyond," he said. "The world is the battlefield, we've returned to that."
While some of the Special Forces missions are centered around training of militaries in allied nations, that line is often blurred. In some cases, "training" is used as a cover for unilateral, direct action. As a former special ops guy told me: "It's often done under the auspices of training so that they can go anywhere. It's brilliant. It is essentially what we did in the 60s. Remember the 'training mission' in Vietnam? That's how it morphs."
As I just returned from Afghanistan, I would like to share with this committee part of my investigation into deadly US night raids in Afghanistan where innocent civilians were killed. These operations, carried out by the same Special Ops teams that operate in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, are part of what is effectively a shadow war within the more publicly visible war in Afghanistan. In one incident in February of this year, US Special Operations Forces raided a civilian compound in the Gardez District of Paktia province. They killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl and two men. US forces tried to cover up their responsibility for the killings and blamed the Taliban and said the women were killed in an honor killing. That was a blatant lie and eventually the US was forced to take responsibility, admitting the raid was conducted by operators from the Joint Special Operations Command.
I went to visit with that family in their home. They were pro-American and anti-Taliban before this raid. In fact, the night US forces stormed their compound, they thought it was a Taliban attack. The two men who were killed were actively working with US forces. One of them was a top police commander trained by the US, the other was a local prosecutor in the Karzai government. One man, who saw his pregnant wife gunned down by US forces, was hooded and handcuffed and taken prisoner for days by American forces. When he was released, he told me, he wanted to become a suicide bomber and blow himself up among Americans. The same was true of a similar raid on the Kashkaki family in Nangarhar province in May 2010 where eight civilians were gunned down by US forces. Local police officials told me the family had no connection to the Taliban. That family is left asking why they should support the US presence in their country after watching their loved ones shot dead before their eyes by a military that claims to be there to liberate them and free their country. The perception I heard expressed widely in Afghanistan was that the US is killing with impunity and strengthening the Taliban in the process.
Former senior State Department official in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, recently told me that the night raids are "a really risky, really violent operation," saying that when Special Operations Forces conduct them, "We might get that one guy we're looking for or we might kill a bunch of innocent people and now make ten more Taliban out of them." I told both of the families targeted in the raids I described that I would bring their cases before the US Congress and ask that they be investigated and that those responsible be held accountable for these extrajudicial killings. On behalf of those families, I humbly ask this committee to consider this request.
In closing, the stated focus of this hearing is US national security policy and civil liberties. I believe strongly that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have a direct impact on what happens here in the United States. The same is true for the covert, shadow wars from Pakistan to Somalia to Yemen and beyond. These wars help to shape our domestic policies as well as world opinion about our nation. It is essential for journalists and this Congress to fulfill their oversight functions and to shed light on actions--as unsavory or as difficult as they might be at times--so that US policy moving forward can truly be based on what is best for the people of this nation as well as the populations of the nations where the US is waging wars, whether declared or undeclared. I thank this body for the opportunity to testify today. I ask that my full, prepared remarks be entered into the official record. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have."
© 2010 The Nation
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/09-7
"My name is Jeremy Scahill. I am the National Security correspondent for The Nation magazine. I recently returned from a two-week unembedded reporting trip to Afghanistan. I would like to thank the Chairman and the Committee for inviting me to participate in this important hearing. As we sit here today in Washington, across the globe the United States is engaged in multiple wars. Some, like those in Afghanistan and Iraq, are well known to the US public and to the Congress.
They are covered in the media and are subject to Congressional review. Despite the perception that we know what is happening in Afghanistan, what is rarely discussed in any depth in Congress or the media is the vast number of innocent Afghan civilians that are being killed on a regular basis in US night raids and the heavy bombing that has been reinstated by General David Petraeus. I saw the impact of these civilian deaths first-hand and I can say that in some cases our own actions are helping to increase the strength and expand the size of the Taliban and the broader insurgency in Afghanistan.
As the war rages on in Afghanistan and--despite spin to the contrary--in Iraq as well, US Special Operations Forces and the Central Intelligence Agency are engaged in parallel, covert, shadow wars that are waged in near total darkness and largely away from effective or meaningful Congressional oversight or journalistic scrutiny. The actions and consequences of these wars is seldom discussed in public or investigated by the Congress.
The current US strategy can be summed up as follows: We are trying to kill our way to peace. And the killing fields are growing in number.
Among the sober question that must be addressed by the Congress: What impact are these clandestine operations having on US national security? Are they making us more safe or less? When US forces kill innocent civilians in "counterterrorism" operations, are we inspiring a new generation of insurgents to rise against our country? And, what is the oversight role of the US Congress in the shadow wars that have spanned the Bush and Obama Administrations?
The most visible among these shadow wars is in Pakistan where the United States regularly bombs the country using weaponized drones. As we now know from diplomatic cables made public by Wikileaks, Pakistan's Prime Minister told a senior US official in Islamabad, "I don't care if [the US bombs Pakistan] as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."
At the same time, US Special Operations Forces are engaged in covert, offensive actions in Pakistan, including hunting down so-called high value targets, doing reconnaissance for drone strikes and conducting raids with Pakistani forces in north and south Waziristan. These raids are carried out in secret and denied by Pentagon spokespeople in public. Leaked US diplomatic cables have now confirmed that the sustained denials by US officials for more than a year are false. According to an October 9, 2009 cable classified by Anne Patterson, then the US ambassador to Pakistan, offensive operations have been conducted by US Special Operations Forces and coordinated with the US Office of the Defense Representative in Pakistan. A US Special Operations source told me that the US forces described in the cable as "SOC(FWD)-PAK" were "forward operating troops" from the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), the most elite force within the US military made up of Navy SEALs, Delta Force and Army Rangers. This despite senior Pentagon and State Department officials, including by Ambassador Richard Holbrooke and Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, publicly claiming there are no US troops in Pakistan or that the only role of US troops is to train the Pakistani military. Those statements are demonstrably false.
In the fall of 2008, the US Special Operations Command asked top US diplomats in Pakistan and Afghanistan for detailed information on refugee camps along the Afghanistan Pakistan border and a list of humanitarian aid organizations working in those camps. On October 6, Ambassador Patterson, sent a cable marked "Confidential" to senior US defense and intelligence officials saying that some of the requests, which came in the form of emails, "suggested that agencies intend to use the data for targeting purposes." Other requests, according to the cable, "indicate it would be used for "NO STRIKE" purposes." The cable, which was issued jointly by the US embassies in Kabul and Islamabad, declared: "We are concerned about providing information gained from humanitarian organizations to military personnel, especially for reasons that remain unclear. Particularly worrisome, this does not seem to us a very efficient way to gather accurate information." What this cable says in plain terms is that at least one person within the US Special Operations Command actually asked US diplomats in Kabul and/or Islamabad point-blank for information on refugee camps to be used in a targeted killing or capture operation.
What is clear is that US officials have consistently misled the American and Pakistani people on the extent of US military operations inside Pakistan. The reality is that US soldiers are fighting and dying in Pakistan despite the absence of a declaration of war. It is imperative that Congress investigates this shadow war to examine its legality, but also its impact on Pakistan's stability and US national security. If Congress is kept in the dark about these operations, how can it expect to effectively and honestly debate US policy in Pakistan?
One of the most off-the-radar wars the US is currently waging is in the areas around the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden, where US forces are increasingly militarily engaging forces from Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). While the stated US position is that the US military role in this region is limited to training and weapons support, we now know that on multiple occasions the US has launched cruise missiles carrying cluster bombs at villages in Yemen, killing scores of people. According to the Yemeni parliament, women and children have been among those killed by American bombs. One of these strikes was reportedly aimed at killing a US citizen, Anwar al Awlaki, who has been placed on a targeted assassination list by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command. Special Operations sources have told me that elite forces from the US Joint Special Operations Command have also engaged in unilateral direct actions--lethal operations--inside Yemen. As in the case of US drone strikes in Pakistan, the Yemeni authorities are colluding with American officials to mask the level of US involvement.
We now know that on September 6, 2009, President Obama's Deputy National Security Advisor, John Brennan, met with Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, to discuss the rising influence of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). According to one cable, "President Saleh pledged unfettered access to Yemen's national territory for U.S. counterterrorism operations... Saleh insisted that Yemen's national territory is available for unilateral [counterterrorism] operations by the U.S." As with the presence of US forces in Pakistan, publicly, the Obama administration insists that its role in Yemen is limited to training and equipping the country's military forces. In secret, however, US Special Operations Forces have been conducting offensive operations in Yemen, including airstrikes, and conspiring with Yemen's president and other leaders to cover-up the US role.
On December 17, 2009, an alleged al-Qaeda training camp in Abyan, Yemen was hit by a cruise missile killing 41 people. According to an investigation by the Yemeni parliament, 14 women and 21 children were among the dead, along with 14 alleged al-Qaeda fighters. A week later another airstrike hit a separate village in Yemen.
Amnesty International released photographs from one of the strikes revealing remnants of US cluster munitions and the Tomahawk cruise missiles used to deliver them. At the time, the Pentagon refused to comment, directing all inquiries to Yemen's government, which released a statement on December 24 taking credit for both airstrikes, saying in a press release, "Yemeni fighter jets launched an aerial assault" and "carried out simultaneous raids killing and detaining militants."
US diplomatic cables now reveal that both strikes were conducted by the US military. In a meeting with General Petraeus in early January 2010 President Saleh reportedly told Petraeus: "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours." Yemen's Deputy Prime Minister Alimi then boasted that he had just "lied" by telling the Yemeni Parliament "that the bombs... were American-made but deployed by" Yemen. In that meeting, Petraeus and Saleh also discussed the US using "aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs" with Saleh saying his government would continue to publicly take responsibility for US military attacks. It is clear that we have only seen the beginning of the shadow US war in Yemen and Congress must demand accountability and examine the full extent of the lethal actions currently underway in Yemen.
US forces have also struck multiple times in Somalia and have used the Ethiopian Army as a proxy force to cover the role of US Special Operations troops in a shadow war against al Shabaab and other militant groups. In the years leading up to the December 2006 Ethiopian invasion of Somalia, the Pentagon trained Ethiopian forces-including the notorious Agazi special forces unit. The US role continued well into the Ethiopian offensive. A series of at least six US Special Operation incursions into Somalia followed the invasion, beginning with two AC-130 attacks in southern Somalia in early 2007 and another attack from a US warship in mid-2007. In the spring of 2008, five Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from an unidentified US naval vessel at a target in southern Somalia, followed by a second strike in central Somalia that killed alleged al Qaeda commander Aden Hashi Ayro. The most recent operation we know of occurred under President Obama's command in September 2009, when at least two US helicopters-reported to have been AH-6 Little Bird attack helicopters-tracked and killed an alleged senior al-Qaeda leader in the al Shabaab-controlled southern region. A diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks reveals that a foreign official praised the US for the Somalia operation, saying "The Somalia job was fantastic." But the reality is that the invasion of Somalia was a disaster and actually increased support for Islamic radical movements.
These ongoing shadow wars confirm an open secret that few in Congress are willing to discuss publicly--particularly Democrats: When it comes to US counterterrorism policy, there has been almost no substantive change from the Bush to the Obama administration. In fact, my sources within the CIA and the Special Operations community tell me that if there is any change it is that President Obama is hitting harder and in more countries that President Bush. The Obama administration is expanding covert actions of the military and the number of countries where US Special Forces are operating. The administration has taken the Bush era doctrine that the "world is a battlefield" and run with it and widened its scope. Under the Bush administration, US Special Forces were operating in 60 countries. Under President Obama, they are now in 75 nations.
The Obama administration's expansion of Special Forces activities globally stems from a classified order dating back to the Bush administration. Originally signed in early 2004 by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, it is known as the "AQN ExOrd," or Al Qaeda Network Execute Order. The AQN ExOrd was intended to cut through bureaucratic and legal processes, allowing US Special Forces to move into "denied" areas or countries beyond the official battle zones of Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a Special Operations veteran told me, "The ExOrd spells out that we reserve the right to unilaterally act against al Qaeda and its affiliates anywhere in the world that they operate." The current mindset in the White House, he told me, is that "the Pentagon is already empowered to do these things, so let the Joint Special Operations Command off the leash. And that's what this White House has done." He added: "JSOC has been more empowered more under this administration than any other in recent history. No question." "The Obama administration took the [Bush-era] order and went above and beyond," he said. "The world is the battlefield, we've returned to that."
While some of the Special Forces missions are centered around training of militaries in allied nations, that line is often blurred. In some cases, "training" is used as a cover for unilateral, direct action. As a former special ops guy told me: "It's often done under the auspices of training so that they can go anywhere. It's brilliant. It is essentially what we did in the 60s. Remember the 'training mission' in Vietnam? That's how it morphs."
As I just returned from Afghanistan, I would like to share with this committee part of my investigation into deadly US night raids in Afghanistan where innocent civilians were killed. These operations, carried out by the same Special Ops teams that operate in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia, are part of what is effectively a shadow war within the more publicly visible war in Afghanistan. In one incident in February of this year, US Special Operations Forces raided a civilian compound in the Gardez District of Paktia province. They killed two pregnant women, a teenage girl and two men. US forces tried to cover up their responsibility for the killings and blamed the Taliban and said the women were killed in an honor killing. That was a blatant lie and eventually the US was forced to take responsibility, admitting the raid was conducted by operators from the Joint Special Operations Command.
I went to visit with that family in their home. They were pro-American and anti-Taliban before this raid. In fact, the night US forces stormed their compound, they thought it was a Taliban attack. The two men who were killed were actively working with US forces. One of them was a top police commander trained by the US, the other was a local prosecutor in the Karzai government. One man, who saw his pregnant wife gunned down by US forces, was hooded and handcuffed and taken prisoner for days by American forces. When he was released, he told me, he wanted to become a suicide bomber and blow himself up among Americans. The same was true of a similar raid on the Kashkaki family in Nangarhar province in May 2010 where eight civilians were gunned down by US forces. Local police officials told me the family had no connection to the Taliban. That family is left asking why they should support the US presence in their country after watching their loved ones shot dead before their eyes by a military that claims to be there to liberate them and free their country. The perception I heard expressed widely in Afghanistan was that the US is killing with impunity and strengthening the Taliban in the process.
Former senior State Department official in Afghanistan, Matthew Hoh, recently told me that the night raids are "a really risky, really violent operation," saying that when Special Operations Forces conduct them, "We might get that one guy we're looking for or we might kill a bunch of innocent people and now make ten more Taliban out of them." I told both of the families targeted in the raids I described that I would bring their cases before the US Congress and ask that they be investigated and that those responsible be held accountable for these extrajudicial killings. On behalf of those families, I humbly ask this committee to consider this request.
In closing, the stated focus of this hearing is US national security policy and civil liberties. I believe strongly that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have a direct impact on what happens here in the United States. The same is true for the covert, shadow wars from Pakistan to Somalia to Yemen and beyond. These wars help to shape our domestic policies as well as world opinion about our nation. It is essential for journalists and this Congress to fulfill their oversight functions and to shed light on actions--as unsavory or as difficult as they might be at times--so that US policy moving forward can truly be based on what is best for the people of this nation as well as the populations of the nations where the US is waging wars, whether declared or undeclared. I thank this body for the opportunity to testify today. I ask that my full, prepared remarks be entered into the official record. I am prepared to answer any questions you may have."
© 2010 The Nation
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/09-7
onsdag den 8. december 2010
Om tvangsskoling.
Debatten om folkeskolen anerkender som regel implicit dens legtimitet. Fokus er som regel på hvordan man kan gøre det bedre vha. nye læringsstrategier som skal eksistere indenfor det eksisterende institutionelle rammeværk, men folkeskolen som institution kritiseres sjældent. Det mener jeg er særdeles problematisk, da jeg anser folkeskolens nuværende struktur for at være endda meget patologisk. Vi har derfor brug for en fundamental omtænkning af folkeskolen.
- Den første problemstilling knyttet til tvangsskoling er, at den alt for ofte skaber forvirring snarere end forståelse hos eleven. Sekvensen af timerne i løbet af en skoledag består af urelaterede emner og en undervisning som afbrydes når klokken ringer, uanset hvor godt man er i gang med noget. I stedet for at fokusere på dyb og kritisk forståelse af interrelateret stof, er fokus i skolesystemet som oftest snarere på indlæring af facts som der ofte ikke er nogen umiddelbar relation mellem. Kvalitetsindlæring er karakteristisk ved, at man går i dybden med et emne over lang tid, hvilket ikke er tilfældet i det meste skoling, hvor fragmentering og forvirring presses ned over børnene.
- Børnene er intellektuelt afhængige af underviserne. Af alle de utallige ting som er værd at lære (om) er det kun et fåtal man får lov at stifte bekendtskab med i skolen. Disse emner er fastsat af usynlige administratorer som åbenbart er så oplyste, at de ved præcis hvad der er værd at lære. Vores egen undervisningsminister er en af disse oplyste. 15 + 16 = 33.
“Gode elever” venter på at få at vide af læreren hvad de skal tage sig til, hvilket sender eleven det uheldige signal, at man må vente på at andre mennesker, bedre trænet og mere oplyste end en selv, skaber mening i ens liv. De “dårlige elever” bekæmper denne intellektuelle afhængighed, selvom de ikke har sproglig forståelse nok til at kunne sætte ord på denne modstand, men den slags findes der selvfølgelig midler imod. Med magt knækkes viljen hos de som gør modstand og dette sker som regel uden forældrenes skepsis. Eventuelt kan man diagnosticere dem som indlæringsbesværede og adfærdsvanskelige og medicinere dem. Det er vist ret populært.
- Børnene har intet privatliv i skolen og som udgangspunkt ingen rettigheder eller egentlig medbestemmelse. Man lærer om demokrati, men den eneste variant i skolen er som regel noget a la valget mellem om man vil i Zoologisk Have eller på museum. Alt det grundlæggende har børnene ingen indflydelse på.
- Børnene er konstant overvågede af påtvungne autoriteter i skolegården, i klasseværelset og i gymnastiksalen, hvilket selvfølgelig er glimrende hvis man ønsker at vænne børnene til et liv i et stadig mere omsiggribende overvågningssamfund, men opdragelse til demokratisk adfærd og værdsættelse af ens ukrænkelige rettigheder kan det næppe siges at være.
For mig at se kan ovenstående aldrig blive indgangen til kritisk fornuft og original selvstændig tænkning. Hvis barnet opnår dette er det på trods af folkeskolen, ikke på grund af den. I Folkeskolen lærer man snarere at vænne sig til at gøre ting man ikke kan lide, at adlyde påtvungne autoriteter og indfinde sig med tvang og straf.
“Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” - Albert Einstein.
- Den første problemstilling knyttet til tvangsskoling er, at den alt for ofte skaber forvirring snarere end forståelse hos eleven. Sekvensen af timerne i løbet af en skoledag består af urelaterede emner og en undervisning som afbrydes når klokken ringer, uanset hvor godt man er i gang med noget. I stedet for at fokusere på dyb og kritisk forståelse af interrelateret stof, er fokus i skolesystemet som oftest snarere på indlæring af facts som der ofte ikke er nogen umiddelbar relation mellem. Kvalitetsindlæring er karakteristisk ved, at man går i dybden med et emne over lang tid, hvilket ikke er tilfældet i det meste skoling, hvor fragmentering og forvirring presses ned over børnene.
- Børnene er intellektuelt afhængige af underviserne. Af alle de utallige ting som er værd at lære (om) er det kun et fåtal man får lov at stifte bekendtskab med i skolen. Disse emner er fastsat af usynlige administratorer som åbenbart er så oplyste, at de ved præcis hvad der er værd at lære. Vores egen undervisningsminister er en af disse oplyste. 15 + 16 = 33.
“Gode elever” venter på at få at vide af læreren hvad de skal tage sig til, hvilket sender eleven det uheldige signal, at man må vente på at andre mennesker, bedre trænet og mere oplyste end en selv, skaber mening i ens liv. De “dårlige elever” bekæmper denne intellektuelle afhængighed, selvom de ikke har sproglig forståelse nok til at kunne sætte ord på denne modstand, men den slags findes der selvfølgelig midler imod. Med magt knækkes viljen hos de som gør modstand og dette sker som regel uden forældrenes skepsis. Eventuelt kan man diagnosticere dem som indlæringsbesværede og adfærdsvanskelige og medicinere dem. Det er vist ret populært.
- Børnene har intet privatliv i skolen og som udgangspunkt ingen rettigheder eller egentlig medbestemmelse. Man lærer om demokrati, men den eneste variant i skolen er som regel noget a la valget mellem om man vil i Zoologisk Have eller på museum. Alt det grundlæggende har børnene ingen indflydelse på.
- Børnene er konstant overvågede af påtvungne autoriteter i skolegården, i klasseværelset og i gymnastiksalen, hvilket selvfølgelig er glimrende hvis man ønsker at vænne børnene til et liv i et stadig mere omsiggribende overvågningssamfund, men opdragelse til demokratisk adfærd og værdsættelse af ens ukrænkelige rettigheder kan det næppe siges at være.
For mig at se kan ovenstående aldrig blive indgangen til kritisk fornuft og original selvstændig tænkning. Hvis barnet opnår dette er det på trods af folkeskolen, ikke på grund af den. I Folkeskolen lærer man snarere at vænne sig til at gøre ting man ikke kan lide, at adlyde påtvungne autoriteter og indfinde sig med tvang og straf.
“Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school.” - Albert Einstein.
torsdag den 2. december 2010
Eisenhowers Advarsel mod Det Militær-Industrielle Kompleks.
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."
tirsdag den 30. november 2010
USAs bevæbning af Saudi-Arabien.
Samarbejdet mellem USA og Saudi-Arabien går tilbage til 1930erne og er fortsat idag en væsentlig komponent i den amerikanske sikkerhedspolitik, hvilket primært skyldes at Saudi-Arabien råder over verdens største oliereserver. Obama-administrationens samarbejde med Saudi-Arabien er således ikke noget nyt men blot en forlængelse af tidligere administrationers.
Det er almindeligt kendt, at Saudi-Arabien ikke just er en mønsterstat hvad styrets magtpraksis overfor civilbefolkningen angår, men det er ikke desto mindre værd at dvæle kortvarigt ved monarkiets jernnæve og menneskefjendske handlinger. Den korte version er iflg. Amnesty Internationals årsrapport fra 2009:
“Thousands of people continued to be detained without trial as terrorism suspects and hundreds more were arrested. In October, the government announced that more than 900 would be brought to trial. Human rights activists and peaceful critics of the government were detained or remained in prison, including prisoners of conscience. Freedom of expression, religion, association and assembly remained tightly restricted. Women continued to face severe discrimination in law and practice. Migrant workers suffered exploitation and abuse with little possibility of redress. Refugees and asylum-seekers were not adequately protected. The administration of justice remained shrouded in secrecy and was summary in nature. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity. Flogging was used widely as a main and additional punishment. The death penalty continued to be used extensively and in a discriminatory manner against migrant workers from developing countries, women and poor people. At least 102 people were executed.”
Selvom dette måske burde vække bekymringer hos Obama-administrationen, hvor man som bekendt taler meget om menneskerettigheder og demokrati, synes det ikke at være tilfældet, da man for blot få dage siden gennemførte en rekordstor våbenhandel med Saudi-Arabien til en værdi af 60 milliarder dollars. Ifølge en bekendtgørelse fra det amerikanske udenrigsministerium består denne gigantiske våbenhandel af 84 F-15 kampfly og 70 opgraderinger af eksisterende F-15'ere til en mere advanceret konfiguration, 70 Apache helikoptere, 72 Blackhawk helikoptere, 36 lette angrebshelikoptere og 12 lette træningshellikoptere. I følge Defense Security Cooperation Agency inkluderer våbenhandelen endvidere hundredevis af missiler, tusindevis af bomber og meget andet.
Men hvad skyldes denne omfattende militarisering af et af verdens mest berygtede diktaturer? Viceudenrigsminister Andrew Shapiro's officielle begrundelse er, at handelen “vil sende en kraftig besked til lande i regionen om, at vi er forpligtet til at støtte sikkerheden hos vores afgørende partnere og allierede i den Arabiske Gulf og det bredere Mellemøsten. Og det vil styrke Saudi-Arabiens evne til at afskrække og forsvare sig imod trusler ved dets grænser og mod dets olie-infrastruktur, hvilket er kritisk for vores økonomiske interesser.”
Disse officielle rationaler bag våbenhandelen problematiseres imidlertid af våben- og sikkerhedsanalytikeren William Hartung fra tænketanken New America Foundation:
“As to the idea of sending a signal to potential adversaries (by which the administration can only mean Iran), the "signal" in question is unlikely to have the intended result. If anything, the Iranian regime is likely to use the Saudi deal as yet another excuse to pursue or accelerate its nuclear ambitions. After all, what could 72 F-15 combat aircraft possibly be used for? Iran has no air force worth the name, so the planes for the Saudis aren't likely to be used to defend against Iran. They could be used as part of a U.S.-led attack on Iran, assuming they were integrated into a well functioning air force with well-trained pilots; but that is also an unlikely outcome. So, the F-15s are either useless (and therefore a waste of money) or unnecessarily provocative (and therefore contrary to genuine U.S. and Saudi security interests).
Will planes, bombs, and attack helicopters be of use in protecting Saudi oil installations? Probably not. The most likely route of attack would be surreptitiously planting a bomb or bombs, not attacking in recognizable groups that could be deterred or counter-attacked by aerial bombing or firing guns or missiles from helicopters. In theory the armed helcopters that are part of the deal could be used to hover near key installations and keep an eye out for potential saboteurs, but that is likely to be futile effort (not to mention being hugely expensive and logistically challenging).
One place that the new weaponry might be used is on Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen, where Houthi rebels and Al Qaeda operatives are present. But bombing alleged Al Qaeda sanctuaries or Houthi forces in northern Yemen are more likely to inflame the local population against Saudi Arabia and its arms supplier -- the United States -- than they are to weaken Al Qaeda.
That leaves one major rationale for the sale: money. In exchange for giving a huge boost to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other U.S. weapons contractors at a time when Pentagon spending is levelling off (although not being reduced in real terms), the Saudi government probably feels that sending boatloads of money to U.S. defense contractors will further cement its relationship with Washington so that the U.S. will come to their aid in a jam. But are large weapons deals the only way to forge strong relations?”
I USA hilser man da heller ikke overraskende våbenhandlen velkommen fra våbenindustriel side. Fred Downey, vicepræsident for interesseorganisationen Aerospace Industries Association udtaler at “The deal, which is expected to pay out over the next 15 to 20 years, will not single handedly save the military aircraft industrial base, but it may well help keep some aerospace companies alive” samt at “the Saudi sales will help keep workers with critical skills - from design engineers to production line workers - remain employed in the aerospace industry”.
.
Det er almindeligt kendt, at Saudi-Arabien ikke just er en mønsterstat hvad styrets magtpraksis overfor civilbefolkningen angår, men det er ikke desto mindre værd at dvæle kortvarigt ved monarkiets jernnæve og menneskefjendske handlinger. Den korte version er iflg. Amnesty Internationals årsrapport fra 2009:
“Thousands of people continued to be detained without trial as terrorism suspects and hundreds more were arrested. In October, the government announced that more than 900 would be brought to trial. Human rights activists and peaceful critics of the government were detained or remained in prison, including prisoners of conscience. Freedom of expression, religion, association and assembly remained tightly restricted. Women continued to face severe discrimination in law and practice. Migrant workers suffered exploitation and abuse with little possibility of redress. Refugees and asylum-seekers were not adequately protected. The administration of justice remained shrouded in secrecy and was summary in nature. Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees were widespread and systematic, and carried out with impunity. Flogging was used widely as a main and additional punishment. The death penalty continued to be used extensively and in a discriminatory manner against migrant workers from developing countries, women and poor people. At least 102 people were executed.”
Selvom dette måske burde vække bekymringer hos Obama-administrationen, hvor man som bekendt taler meget om menneskerettigheder og demokrati, synes det ikke at være tilfældet, da man for blot få dage siden gennemførte en rekordstor våbenhandel med Saudi-Arabien til en værdi af 60 milliarder dollars. Ifølge en bekendtgørelse fra det amerikanske udenrigsministerium består denne gigantiske våbenhandel af 84 F-15 kampfly og 70 opgraderinger af eksisterende F-15'ere til en mere advanceret konfiguration, 70 Apache helikoptere, 72 Blackhawk helikoptere, 36 lette angrebshelikoptere og 12 lette træningshellikoptere. I følge Defense Security Cooperation Agency inkluderer våbenhandelen endvidere hundredevis af missiler, tusindevis af bomber og meget andet.
Men hvad skyldes denne omfattende militarisering af et af verdens mest berygtede diktaturer? Viceudenrigsminister Andrew Shapiro's officielle begrundelse er, at handelen “vil sende en kraftig besked til lande i regionen om, at vi er forpligtet til at støtte sikkerheden hos vores afgørende partnere og allierede i den Arabiske Gulf og det bredere Mellemøsten. Og det vil styrke Saudi-Arabiens evne til at afskrække og forsvare sig imod trusler ved dets grænser og mod dets olie-infrastruktur, hvilket er kritisk for vores økonomiske interesser.”
Disse officielle rationaler bag våbenhandelen problematiseres imidlertid af våben- og sikkerhedsanalytikeren William Hartung fra tænketanken New America Foundation:
“As to the idea of sending a signal to potential adversaries (by which the administration can only mean Iran), the "signal" in question is unlikely to have the intended result. If anything, the Iranian regime is likely to use the Saudi deal as yet another excuse to pursue or accelerate its nuclear ambitions. After all, what could 72 F-15 combat aircraft possibly be used for? Iran has no air force worth the name, so the planes for the Saudis aren't likely to be used to defend against Iran. They could be used as part of a U.S.-led attack on Iran, assuming they were integrated into a well functioning air force with well-trained pilots; but that is also an unlikely outcome. So, the F-15s are either useless (and therefore a waste of money) or unnecessarily provocative (and therefore contrary to genuine U.S. and Saudi security interests).
Will planes, bombs, and attack helicopters be of use in protecting Saudi oil installations? Probably not. The most likely route of attack would be surreptitiously planting a bomb or bombs, not attacking in recognizable groups that could be deterred or counter-attacked by aerial bombing or firing guns or missiles from helicopters. In theory the armed helcopters that are part of the deal could be used to hover near key installations and keep an eye out for potential saboteurs, but that is likely to be futile effort (not to mention being hugely expensive and logistically challenging).
One place that the new weaponry might be used is on Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen, where Houthi rebels and Al Qaeda operatives are present. But bombing alleged Al Qaeda sanctuaries or Houthi forces in northern Yemen are more likely to inflame the local population against Saudi Arabia and its arms supplier -- the United States -- than they are to weaken Al Qaeda.
That leaves one major rationale for the sale: money. In exchange for giving a huge boost to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and other U.S. weapons contractors at a time when Pentagon spending is levelling off (although not being reduced in real terms), the Saudi government probably feels that sending boatloads of money to U.S. defense contractors will further cement its relationship with Washington so that the U.S. will come to their aid in a jam. But are large weapons deals the only way to forge strong relations?”
I USA hilser man da heller ikke overraskende våbenhandlen velkommen fra våbenindustriel side. Fred Downey, vicepræsident for interesseorganisationen Aerospace Industries Association udtaler at “The deal, which is expected to pay out over the next 15 to 20 years, will not single handedly save the military aircraft industrial base, but it may well help keep some aerospace companies alive” samt at “the Saudi sales will help keep workers with critical skills - from design engineers to production line workers - remain employed in the aerospace industry”.
.
mandag den 29. november 2010
Om USAs støtte til Mubaraks diktatur.
Da Barack Obama den 2. Oktober 2002 talte til en anti-krigsdemonstration i Chicago inkluderede talen hård kritik af USA's allierede i Ægypten og Saudi-Arabien. Han sagde:
"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 havde piben imidlertid fået en anden lyd. Mubarak, som han altså tidligere havde omtalt som en ”såkaldt allieret”, blev nu karakteriseret som en ”stålsat allieret” og ”en stabiliserende kraft i regionen”. Til spørgsmålet ”anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?” svarede Obama ”nej” og tilføjede ”Jeg undlader at påklistre mærkater på folk”. Præsidentens udtalelser i interviewet stod således i skarp kontrast til hans udtalelser blot syv år tidligere, hvor han som bekendt beskrev Mubaraks regime som repressivt. Hvad var der sket? Var Mubarak kommet på bedre tanker i mellemtiden og havde derfor ændret sin magtpraksis på så fundamental vis, at der ikke længere var grund til kritik? Desværre ikke.
I Human Right Watch årsberetning fra 2010 kan man læse at Ægypten ”continued to suppress political dissent in 2009” og uddybende, at landets autoriteter ”harassed rights activists, and detained journalists, bloggers, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned organization that is the country's largest opposition group). Authorities used lethal force against migrants and refugees attempting to cross into Israel, and forcibly returned asylum seekers and refugees to countries where they could face torture.” Desuden kunne man i årsrapporten læse, at der foregår omfattende tortur i Ægypten: ”Police and security forces regularly engage in torture and brutality in police stations and detention centers, and at points of arrest.” Heller ikke religionsfriheden har gode vilkår i landet: ”Although Egypt's constitution provides for equal rights without regard to religion, discrimination against Egyptian Christians, and official intolerance of Baha'is, some Muslim sects, and Muslims who convert to Christianity continue.”
I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen officielle ”Human Rights Report” fra 2009 gør man sig heller ikke nogle illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
”The government's respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas ... Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and detention center conditions were poor. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary. The government's respect for freedoms of association and religion remained poor during the year, and the government continued to restrict nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The government partially restricted freedom of expression.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapporter om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten er der imidlertid ikke noget der tyder på, at man fra amerikansk side har tænkt sig at begrænse eller eliminere den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010, får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 “kun” modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “..Although there are no verifiable figures on total Egyptian military spending, it is estimated that U.S. military aid covers as much as 80 % of the Defense Ministry’s weapons procurement costs.”
Om støtten til Ægypten skriver professor i international politik Stephen Zunes: ”... As long as the Mubarak regime knows that the U.S. aid will keep flowing regardless of its violations of internationally recognized human rights, there is little incentive for political liberalization. The growing anti-American sentiment in Egypt stems not as much from U.S. support for Israel as it does from U.S. support for Mubarak's dictatorial rule.” Den amerikanske militarisering af Ægypten og andre lande i Mellemøsten øger endvidere truslen mod USA iflg. Zunes: "..the more the United States has militarized the region, the less secure the American people have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, brave fighting men and women, and brilliant military leadership the United States may possess will do little good if there are hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East and beyond who hate us."
"Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells."
Da Obama gav sit første interview til BBC i Juni 2009 havde piben imidlertid fået en anden lyd. Mubarak, som han altså tidligere havde omtalt som en ”såkaldt allieret”, blev nu karakteriseret som en ”stålsat allieret” og ”en stabiliserende kraft i regionen”. Til spørgsmålet ”anser du Mubarak for at være en autoritær leder?” svarede Obama ”nej” og tilføjede ”Jeg undlader at påklistre mærkater på folk”. Præsidentens udtalelser i interviewet stod således i skarp kontrast til hans udtalelser blot syv år tidligere, hvor han som bekendt beskrev Mubaraks regime som repressivt. Hvad var der sket? Var Mubarak kommet på bedre tanker i mellemtiden og havde derfor ændret sin magtpraksis på så fundamental vis, at der ikke længere var grund til kritik? Desværre ikke.
I Human Right Watch årsberetning fra 2010 kan man læse at Ægypten ”continued to suppress political dissent in 2009” og uddybende, at landets autoriteter ”harassed rights activists, and detained journalists, bloggers, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood (the banned organization that is the country's largest opposition group). Authorities used lethal force against migrants and refugees attempting to cross into Israel, and forcibly returned asylum seekers and refugees to countries where they could face torture.” Desuden kunne man i årsrapporten læse, at der foregår omfattende tortur i Ægypten: ”Police and security forces regularly engage in torture and brutality in police stations and detention centers, and at points of arrest.” Heller ikke religionsfriheden har gode vilkår i landet: ”Although Egypt's constitution provides for equal rights without regard to religion, discrimination against Egyptian Christians, and official intolerance of Baha'is, some Muslim sects, and Muslims who convert to Christianity continue.”
I det amerikanske udenrigsministeriums egen officielle ”Human Rights Report” fra 2009 gør man sig heller ikke nogle illusioner mht. Ægypten. Om tilstanden i landet i 2008 hedder det:
”The government's respect for human rights remained poor, and serious abuses continued in many areas ... Security forces used unwarranted lethal force and tortured and abused prisoners and detainees, in most cases with impunity. Prison and detention center conditions were poor. Security forces arbitrarily arrested and detained individuals, in some cases for political purposes, and kept them in prolonged pretrial detention. The executive branch exercised control over and pressured the judiciary. The government's respect for freedoms of association and religion remained poor during the year, and the government continued to restrict nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The government partially restricted freedom of expression.”
Til trods for ovenstående rapporter om menneskerettighedernes og frihedsrettighedernes svære vilkår i Ægypten er der imidlertid ikke noget der tyder på, at man fra amerikansk side har tænkt sig at begrænse eller eliminere den økonomiske og militære støtte til den ægyptiske diktaturstat. I en officiel rapport til Kongressen dateret 16. september 2010, får vi at vide, at den årlige støtte på cirka 3 milliarder dollars, som man hvert år har ydet til Ægypten siden 1979, var reduceret en smule i 2009, idet Ægypten i 2009 “kun” modtog $200 millioner i økonomisk støtte og $1.3 milliarder i militær støtte. Reduktionen i støtten skyldtes til dels, at man havde skåret den økonomiske støtte ned til det halve, og dermed fjernet den del af støtten som skulle gå til demokratifremmende formål. Om den militære støtte hedder det endvidere at: “..Although there are no verifiable figures on total Egyptian military spending, it is estimated that U.S. military aid covers as much as 80 % of the Defense Ministry’s weapons procurement costs.”
Om støtten til Ægypten skriver professor i international politik Stephen Zunes: ”... As long as the Mubarak regime knows that the U.S. aid will keep flowing regardless of its violations of internationally recognized human rights, there is little incentive for political liberalization. The growing anti-American sentiment in Egypt stems not as much from U.S. support for Israel as it does from U.S. support for Mubarak's dictatorial rule.” Den amerikanske militarisering af Ægypten og andre lande i Mellemøsten øger endvidere truslen mod USA iflg. Zunes: "..the more the United States has militarized the region, the less secure the American people have become. All the sophisticated weaponry, brave fighting men and women, and brilliant military leadership the United States may possess will do little good if there are hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East and beyond who hate us."
Tim Jackson on Prosperity Without Growth.
Every society clings to a myth by which it lives. Ours is the myth of economic growth. For the last five decades the pursuit of growth has been the single most important policy goal across the world. The global economy is almost five times the size it was half a century ago. If it continues to grow at the same rate the economy will be 80 times that size by the year 2100.
This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It’s totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology on which we depend for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world’s ecosystems. For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that – financial crises aside – growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries, where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our wellbeing.
The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters – as it has done recently – politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people’s livelihoods.
Today we find ourselves faced with the imminent end of the era of cheap oil, the prospect (beyond the recent bubble) of steadily rising commodity prices,the degradation of forests, lakes and soils, conflicts over land use, water quality, fishing rights and the momentous challenge of stabilising concentrations of carbon in the global atmosphere. And we face these tasks with an economy that is fundamentally broken, in desperate need of renewal.
In these circumstances, a return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilised society. Economic recovery is vital. Protecting people’s jobs – and creating new ones – is absolutely essential. But we also stand in urgent need of a renewed sense of shared prosperity. A commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world.
Delivering these goals may seem an unfamiliar or even incongruous task to policy in the modern age. The role of government has been framed so narrowly by material aims, and hollowed out by a misguided vision of unbounded consumer freedoms. The concept of governance itself stands in urgent need of renewal.
But the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with considered policy capable of addressing the enormous challenge of delivering a lasting prosperity.
For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.
Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.
From "Prosperity without Growth" by Tim Jackson, Economics Commissioner, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2009.
This extraordinary ramping up of global economic activity has no historical precedent. It’s totally at odds with our scientific knowledge of the finite resource base and the fragile ecology on which we depend for survival. And it has already been accompanied by the degradation of an estimated 60% of the world’s ecosystems. For the most part, we avoid the stark reality of these numbers. The default assumption is that – financial crises aside – growth will continue indefinitely. Not just for the poorest countries, where a better quality of life is undeniably needed, but even for the richest nations where the cornucopia of material wealth adds little to happiness and is beginning to threaten the foundations of our wellbeing.
The reasons for this collective blindness are easy enough to find. The modern economy is structurally reliant on economic growth for its stability. When growth falters – as it has done recently – politicians panic. Businesses struggle to survive. People lose their jobs and sometimes their homes. A spiral of recession looms. Questioning growth is deemed to be the act of lunatics, idealists and revolutionaries. But question it we must. The myth of growth has failed us. It has failed the two billion people who still live on less than $2 a day. It has failed the fragile ecological systems on which we depend for survival. It has failed, spectacularly, in its own terms, to provide economic stability and secure people’s livelihoods.
Today we find ourselves faced with the imminent end of the era of cheap oil, the prospect (beyond the recent bubble) of steadily rising commodity prices,the degradation of forests, lakes and soils, conflicts over land use, water quality, fishing rights and the momentous challenge of stabilising concentrations of carbon in the global atmosphere. And we face these tasks with an economy that is fundamentally broken, in desperate need of renewal.
In these circumstances, a return to business as usual is not an option. Prosperity for the few founded on ecological destruction and persistent social injustice is no foundation for a civilised society. Economic recovery is vital. Protecting people’s jobs – and creating new ones – is absolutely essential. But we also stand in urgent need of a renewed sense of shared prosperity. A commitment to fairness and flourishing in a finite world.
Delivering these goals may seem an unfamiliar or even incongruous task to policy in the modern age. The role of government has been framed so narrowly by material aims, and hollowed out by a misguided vision of unbounded consumer freedoms. The concept of governance itself stands in urgent need of renewal.
But the current economic crisis presents us with a unique opportunity to invest in change. To sweep away the short-term thinking that has plagued society for decades. To replace it with considered policy capable of addressing the enormous challenge of delivering a lasting prosperity.
For at the end of the day, prosperity goes beyond material pleasures. It transcends material concerns. It resides in the quality of our lives and in the health and happiness of our families. It is present in the strength of our relationships and our trust in the community. It is evidenced by our satisfaction at work and our sense of shared meaning and purpose. It hangs on our potential to participate fully in the life of society.
Prosperity consists in our ability to flourish as human beings – within the ecological limits of a finite planet. The challenge for our society is to create the conditions under which this is possible. It is the most urgent task of our times.
From "Prosperity without Growth" by Tim Jackson, Economics Commissioner, Sustainable Development Commission, March 2009.
Herbert Schiller on Corporate Media.
“The media are mutually and continually reinforcing. Since they operate according to commercial rules, rely on advertising, and are tied tightly to the corporate economy, both in their own structure and in their relationships with sponsors, the media constitutes an industry, not an aggregation of independent, freewheeling informational entrepreneurs, each offering a highly individualistic product. By need and by design, the images and messages they purvey, are, with few exceptions, constructed to achieve similar objectives, which are, simply put, profitability and the affirmation and maintenance of the private-ownership consumer society.”
- Herbert Schiller: "The Mind Managers" p. 22. (Beacon Press 1973).
- Herbert Schiller: "The Mind Managers" p. 22. (Beacon Press 1973).
Videnskabsfolk vender ældningsprocessen om i mus.
"Scientists claim to be a step closer to reversing the ageing process after rejuvenating worn out organs in elderly mice. The experimental treatment developed by researchers at Harvard Medical School turned weak and feeble old mice into healthy animals by regenerating their aged bodies.
The surprise recovery of the animals has raised hopes among scientists that it may be possible to achieve a similar feat in humans – or at least to slow down the ageing process.
An anti-ageing therapy could have a dramatic impact on public health by reducing the burden of age-related health problems, such as dementia, stroke and heart disease, and prolonging the quality of life for an increasingly aged population."
The Guardian: Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans.
The surprise recovery of the animals has raised hopes among scientists that it may be possible to achieve a similar feat in humans – or at least to slow down the ageing process.
An anti-ageing therapy could have a dramatic impact on public health by reducing the burden of age-related health problems, such as dementia, stroke and heart disease, and prolonging the quality of life for an increasingly aged population."
The Guardian: Harvard scientists reverse the ageing process in mice – now for humans.
Abonner på:
Opslag (Atom)