British Sheep Talk to We Are Change (Video)

We Are Change

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Key US Senate panel backs limited Libya conflict

Libyan rebels capture a network of bunkers
in the desert around 25 kilometres (15 miles)
from the hilltown of Zintan
© AFP Florent Marcie

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A key US Senate panel voted Tuesday to authorize limited US strikes on Libya as part of a NATO-led campaign against Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi but to forbid the deployment of ground troops.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee's 14-5 vote set the stage for what was sure to be a volatile full Senate debate as early as this week, with lawmakers deeply divided on whether President Barack Obama's Libya policy flouts US law.

The panel heard earlier from US State Department legal adviser Harold Koh, who argued Obama's approach did not violate the US Constitution or the 1973 War Powers Resolution that aims to constrain presidential war-making authority.

War Counsel: Obama shops for Libya advice that lets him ignore the law

President Woodrow Wilson asking Congress to
declare war on Germany, 2 April 1917 - Wiki Image

Jacob Sullum
Reason Magazine 

During the Bush administration, when the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) got into the habit of rationalizing whatever the president wanted to do, Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen dreamed of an OLC that was willing to "say no to the President." It turns out we have such an OLC now. Unfortunately, as Barack Obama's defense of his unauthorized war in Libya shows, we do not have a president who is willing to take no for an answer.

While running for president, Obama criticized George W. Bush's lawless unilateralism in areas such as torture, warrantless surveillance, and detention of terrorism suspects. "The law is not subject to the whims of stubborn rulers," he declared in 2007, condemning "unchecked presidential power" and promising that under his administration there would be "no more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient."

Obama's nomination of Johnsen to head the OLC, although ultimately blocked by Senate Republicans, was consistent with this commitment; his overreaching responses to threats ranging from terrorism to failing auto companies were not. Last week, by rejecting the OLC's advice concerning his three-month-old intervention in Libya's civil war, Obama sent the clearest signal yet that he is no more inclined than his predecessor to obey the law.

Bill would approve US role in Libya retroactively

US Senator John Kerry
© AFP/File Aamir Qureshi

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Two top US senators on Tuesday introduced a bill that would retroactively support America's military role in Libya, amid a raging debate over whether President Barack Obama flouted the law by not getting prior congressional approval.

"I believe we will find a strong, bipartisan majority that is in favor of authorizing our current military operations in Libya and seeing this mission through to success," said Republican US Senator John McCain, one of the authors of the bill.

"That is a message that (Libyan President Moamer) Kadhafi needs to hear. It is a message that Khadafi's opponents, fighting to liberate their nation, need to hear," McCain told his fellow senators during floor debate in the Senate, as he urged a vote on the measure "as soon as possible."

A Firestorm On The Eastern Horizon

Dees Illustration

Brandon Smith
Alt-Market

The Middle East is and always has been an incredible waste of time, energy, capital, and of course, human lives. Every civilization that has attempted to tame and corral the region has met with resounding frustration and defeat. Every empire that moves to extend its borders around its existing cultures has withered under the strain of constant war and revolution. Long before petroleum became a sought after commodity and long after its free flow was established, the Middle East has been used as a fulcrum point for turning nations and worlds inside out. One might begin to wonder where the West’s mindless obsession with the place actually comes from...

From crusades for the holy land, to crusades for oil, to crusades for “WMD’s” and the “downtrodden masses”; we have been regaled for centuries by governments and elitists with elaborate rationalizations for indefinite war within the cradle of civilization. Our government in particular has seen fit to topple dictatorships, install new dictatorships, embroil our troops in the quagmire of nation building, instigate social instability and civil unrest, fund terrorist organizations, elevate madmen, and then brandish them like weapons to frighten the American public into relinquishing their civil liberties. Every decade, and every new layer of conflict, brings the U.S. closer to the breaking point, and closer to bankruptcy.

Ron Paul: I Want to Legalize Freedom (Video)

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Eisenhower's worst fears came true. We invent enemies to buy the bombs

Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it

War Mind
 Anthony Freda Illustration

Simon Jenkins
Telegraph

Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?

Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US defence secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defence spending. He said Nato had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialise in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.

This call was echoed by Nato's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the Nato defence expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defence to him is measured not in security but in spending.

Read Full Article


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Vision: An Antiwar Movement That Puts Peace Over Politicians

Instead of continuing the hard work of protesting unjust wars, too many people took the election of politicians with "D"s after their name as their own Mission Accomplished.

Medea Benjamin and Charles Davis
AlterNet

After campaigning as the candidate of change, the man awarded a Nobel Prize for peace has given the world nothing but more war. Yet despite Barack Obama's continuation – nay, escalation – of the worst aspects of George W. Bush's foreign policy, including his very own illegal war in Libya, you’d be hard-pressed to find the large-scale protests and outrage from the liberal establishment that characterized his predecessor's reign (and only seems to pop up when a Republican's the one dropping the bombs).

That's not for a lack of things to protest. Since taking office, Obama has doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan and now looks set to break his pledge to begin a significant withdrawal in July. He has unilaterally committed the nation to an unapologetically illegal war in Libya and in two years has authorized more drone strikes in Pakistan than his predecessor authorized in two terms, with one in three of their victims reportedly civilians. In Yemen, he has targeted a U.S. citizen for assassination and approved a cluster bomb strike that,according to Amnesty International, killed 35 innocent women and children.

Kucinich and Rand Paul Talk About Bipartisan Lawsuit Against Libya War (Video)

Youtube

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Pentagon Papers finally published, 40 years on

Daniel Ellsberg, the man who leaked the
 Pentagon Papers in 1971
© AFP/Getty Images/File Neilson Barnard

AFP

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The Pentagon Papers, a US government report into the Vietnam War, were finally published in full, 40 years after embarrassing details of the document were leaked.

President Lyndon Johnson's administration commissioned a Vietnam Study Task Force in 1967 to write a comprehensive report about America's ill-fated involvement in the Vietnam conflict.

Excerpts were leaked to the New York Times in 1971, by former United States Military Analysist Daniel Ellsberg, showing that successive US administrations had lied to the public about Vietnam, and triggering then president Richard Nixon to attempt to prevent any further such leaks.

The Media Distract the Public from War

Dees Illustration

Sheldon Richman
Future of Freedom

If one is to judge by the tone of the television commentators, America must be deep in a crisis. Long stretches of cable time are devoted to the breaking news. Each detail is presented as more grave and consequential for the republic than the last. The fate of the country surely hangs in the balance.

What is it? War? Fiscal crisis? Mass unemployment? A double-dip recession?

No. A congressman was caught sending lewd photographs of himself to women over the Internet.

This is what now consumes so much of the news media’s attention. This is what outranks in news value continuing occupations of foreign countries, three overt and an undetermined number of covert wars, and a looming fiscal crisis. As America’s imperial elite seeks to hold on to and extend its global power in defiance of economic reality, the spectacle of a congressman, Anthony Weiner of New York, appparently sharing pictures of his private parts with female strangers has taken center stage.

6 in 10 Americans Now Oppose Obama's War in Libya

The president has made himself vulnerable by launching the conflict without congressional cover. Will Republicans capitalize?

Conor Friedersdorf
The Atlantic

Six in 10 Americans don't think the U.S. should be involved in Libya, according to a new CBS News poll. It found that only 30 percent of Americans think we're doing the right thing by intervening militarily in that country. That includes majorities of Republicans, Democrats and independents. As a point of comparison, 51 percent of Americans and a majority of Republicans think we're "doing the right thing" in Afghanistan. The Libya numbers are bad news for the man in the Oval Office.

What does it mean for a president seeking reelection to have launched a wildly unpopular war without congressional approval? That his Republican challengers should run to President Obama's left on at least some aspects of national security. It might've been awkward to do so given that much of Obama's national security strategy is identical to the one that Republicans praised under George W. Bush. But this affords a surprisingly easy opportunity to win support from an electorate that is tiring of expensive foreign wars: The GOP nominee need not disavow conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan that rank and file conservatives defended for so long. He or she need only rail against the expense, execution, and questionable strategic value of fighting in Libya.

Read Full Article


Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US calls Libya rebel council 'the legitimate interlocutor'

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shakes
hands with Abu Dhabi's Crown Prince Sheik
Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan
© AFP/Pool Susan Walsh

AFP

ABU DHABI (AFP) - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton here Thursday described the Libyan rebel council as "the legitimate interlocutor" of the Libyan people, a senior US State Department official said.

Clinton "used the word 'the' rather than 'a' in describing the TNC (Transitional National Council) as the legitimate interlocutor for the Libyan people through this interim period," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

Clinton, he said, made the distinction in a speech to representatives of world powers preparing for a Libya without Colonel Moamer Kadhafi.

"This is our own signal of moving toward that transition of working with the TNC on its own roadmap through this interim period," he said.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Hip-Hop Star Lupe Fiasco calls Obama/US "The Biggest Terrorist" (Video)

Activist Post

CBS interviewed hip-hop star and activist, Lupe Fiasco, where he called Obama and the U.S. government the "biggest terrorist.":

"In my fight against terrorism, to me, the biggest terrorist is Obama, and the United States of America...I'm trying to fight the terrorism that's actually causing the other forms of terrorism. You know, the root cause of terrorism is the stuff that the U.S. government allows to happen, and the foreign policies that we have in place in different countries that inspire people to become terrorists. And it's easy for us because it's just some oil." -- Lupe Fiasco

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

GOING ROGUE: NATO War Crimes in Libya

Susan Lindauer, Contributing Writer
Activist Post

It's a story CNN won't report. Late at night there's a pounding on the door in Misurata. Armed soldiers force young Libyan women out of their beds at gun-point. Hustling the women and teenagers into trucks, the soldiers rush the women to gang bang parties for NATO rebels—or else rape them in front of their husbands or fathers. When NATO rebels finish their rape sport, the soldiers cut the women's throats.

Rapes are now ongoing acts of war in rebel-held cities, like an organized military strategy, according to refugees. Joanna Moriarty, who's part of a global fact-finding delegation visiting Tripoli this week, also reports that NATO rebels have gone house to house through Misurata, asking families if they support NATO. If the families say no, they are killed on the spot.  If families say they want to stay out of the fighting, NATO rebels take a different approach to scare other families. The doors of "neutral homes" are welded shut, Moriarty says, trapping families inside. In Libyan homes, windows are typically barred. So when the doors to a family compound get welded shut, Libyans are entombed in their own houses, where NATO forces can be sure large families will slowly starve to death.

House Passes Authority for Worldwide War

Sam Milgrom
ACLU

The House just passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), including a provision to authorize worldwide war, which has no expiration date and will allow this president — and any future president — to go to war anywhere in the world, at any time, without further congressional authorization. The new authorization wouldn’t even require the president to show any threat to the national security of the United States. The American military could become the world’s cop, and could be sent into harm’s way almost anywhere and everywhere around the globe.

Before the vote, the House debated an amendment that would have struck the worldwide war provision. That amendment was introduced by a bipartisan group of representatives: Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). Given the enormity of the proposed law, you’d expect the House to debate the amendment to strike it extensively, but that’s not what happened. The amendment was debated for a total of 20 minutes. That’s right. Twenty minutes to debate whether Congress should hand the executive branch sweeping worldwide war authority.

US lawmakers pass $690 billion Pentagon bill

The US House of Representatives passed a
$690 billion Pentagon budget Thursday
© AFP/DOD/File

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US House of Representatives passed a $690 billion Pentagon budget Thursday that bars American ground forces in Libya and limits the Obama administration's powers on handling Guantanamo detainees.

Lawmakers voted 322-96 in favor of the budget plan which met the Defense Department's request for $119 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It also placed restrictions on President Barack Obama's authority to reduce the US nuclear weapons stockpile under the new START treaty with Russia, prompting a White House veto threat earlier this week.

NATO's Feast of Blood

A Dispatch from Tripoli

Cynthia McKinney reports
from Libya
Wikimedia Image

Cynthia McKinney
Counterpunch

While serving on the House International Relations Committee from 1993 to 2003, it became clear to me that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was an anachronism. Founded in 1945 at the end of World War II, NATO was founded by the United States in response to the Soviet Union’s survival as a Communist state. NATO was the U.S. insurance policy that capitalist ownership and domination of European, Asian, and African economies would continue. This also would ensure the survival of the then-extant global apartheid.

NATO is a collective security pact wherein member states pledge that an attack upon one is an attack against all. Therefore, should the Soviet Union have attacked any European Member State, the United States military shield would be activated. The Soviet Response was the Warsaw Pact that maintained a “cordon sanitaire” around the Russian Heartland should NATO ever attack. Thus, the world was broken into blocs which gave rise to the “Cold War.”

Paul: Do Nothing Senate Lets Obama Break War Powers Law (Video)

Youtube





Here’s what noted Republican Abraham Lincoln once wrote on the subject:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose — and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British invading us' but he will say to you 'be silent; I see it, if you don’t.' The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.'

Related Article:   

Republicans in Congress to Crown Obama King

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

US senators challenge Obama on Libya

Libyan youth pose with a US flag and a shotgun
at Revolution Square.
© AFP Saeed Khan

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - In a challenge to President Barack Obama's handling of the conflict in Libya, a group of US senators accused him Wednesday of violating a 1973 law aimed at curtailing the White House's war powers.

Conservative Republicans Rand Paul, Jim DeMint, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, Tom Coburn, and John Cornyn wrote a letter to Obama charging that he had committed US forces "without regard to, or compliance with" the War Powers Act.

The senators pressed Obama to say whether he would abide by a requirement in the law -- ignored by several US presidents -- that US forces start withdrawing from a conflict within 60 days unless explicitly authorized by the Congress.