The Constitutionally deplorable intentions of the United States regarding Julian Assange and Wikileaks

At Occasional Planet, Madonna Gauding explains that the U.S. campaign to imprison Julian Assange and put him to death, has nothing to do with national security:

Unfortunately, prosecuting leakers is not really about upholding the law or maintaining national security. It is about making sure the government or corporations can continue to hide information they do not want citizens to know, such as the video of the horrific gunning down of Baghdad civilians by U.S. forces in Iraq that Private Bradley Manning exposed. In this example, this secret brings the lie to the official story of the so called humanitarian mission in Iraq. Exposing military wrongdoing undermines the power of the government and the corporations it supports who make their fortunes off war. Prosecuting Assange to the fullest extent, which could mean prison or even execution for espionage, is not about bringing a criminal to “justice,” or protecting the citizens of the United States. It is about instilling fear and intimidation in any one else (including mainstream journalists) who might want to expose information about government or corporate malfeasance. The purpose of Assange’s prosecution is to send a strong message that whistle blowing will not be tolerated.
Mauding's account is bolstered by the unrelenting and precise writings of Glenn Greenwald, who points out that the Wikileak's release of materials apparently provided by Bradley Manning have done the opposite of threatening U.S. security. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingThe Constitutionally deplorable intentions of the United States regarding Julian Assange and Wikileaks

America’s failed plan for Iraq

At TruthDig, Tom Englelhart takes a look at America's plan for Iraq and then examines the facts, concluding that it is the American nightmare.

Washington, though visibly diminished, remains an airless and eerily familiar place. No one there could afford to ask, for instance, what a Middle East, being transformed before our eyes, might be like without its American shadow, without the bases and fleets and drones and all the operatives that go with them. As a result, they simply keep on keeping on, especially with Bush’s global war on terror and with the protection in financial tough times of the Pentagon (and so of the militarization of this country).

Continue ReadingAmerica’s failed plan for Iraq

The cost of insatiable U.S. warmongering

What are the real costs of the U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan? At Project Syndicate, Economist Joseph Stiglitz sizes both up the numbers and some of the intangibles:

[W]hen Linda Bilmes and I calculated America’s war costs three years ago, the conservative tally was $3-5 trillion. Since then, the costs have mounted further. With almost 50% of returning troops eligible to receive some level of disability payment, and more than 600,000 treated so far in veterans’ medical facilities, we now estimate that future disability payments and health-care costs will total $600-900 billion. But the social costs, reflected in veteran suicides (which have topped 18 per day in recent years) and family breakups, are incalculable.

These are stunning numbers.  By the way, I never believed the government lies about why these "wars" were necessary. No one asked my opinion as to whether we should go to war.  But nonetheless, if I pay my fair share, what is my cost for my country's decade-long military adventures?

Increased defense spending, together with the Bush tax cuts, is a key reason why America went from a fiscal surplus of 2% of GDP when Bush was elected to its parlous deficit and debt position today. Direct government spending on those wars so far amounts to roughly $2 trillion – $17,000 for every US household – with bills yet to be received increasing this amount by more than 50%.

I haven't take a poll, but I'd bet that virtually every taxpaying American family  would rather have that $17,000 back; in fact, I'd bet almost all of them would rather, if they could, reallocate that money to any one of thousands of far worthier causes (e.g., a local school or research for a medical cure or buying books for a library), than to have that money finance Middle East military invasions. The next time a politician-hawk suggests that we ought to invade Iran, he or she should be required to go on national TV first, to present a PowerPoint presentation illustrating these massive costs set forth by Mr. Stiglitz, as well as presenting a long slide show.  That show would include photos of all of the U.S. soldiers killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.   1,648 U.S. soldiers have died because of our invasion of Afghanistan and 4,4,70  U.S. soldiers have died in Iraq so far. Maybe the politician wouldn't actually have time to show a slide of each dead U.S. soldier.  So, perhaps, this morbid slide show, in the name of expediency, should show the faces of 25 dead U.S. soldiers per slide.  Certainly, we'll want to keep each slide of 25 dead soldiers up on the screen for at least a couple minutes per slide, and there will be 244 slides.   That means it will take eight hours to show the faces of all of the dead U.S. soldiers who were fighting for our "freedom."  If you want to show photos of all the wounded too, you'd be in for a much longer slide show.  13,447 U.S. soldiers have been wounded in Afghanistan.  More than 150,000 U.S. soldiers are receiving disability payments as a result of serving in Iraq. That slide show should also include photos of all of those American families who are missing a parent-soldier or a child-soldier.  And interviews of the surviving family members of each of the soldiers who have committed suicide; there have been 1,000 of these soldier-suicides during the Iraq-Afghanistan invasions. And any worthwhile slide show should include at least a few thousand photos of the Iraqi and Afghanistan parents and children killed by any weapons, including U.S. bombs, bullets and drones in Afghanistan and Iraq.  And the slide show really needs to include photos of thousands of American schools back home, all of them in desperate need of repair because the districts can't afford the repairs.  the show should also include photos of millions of Americans out of work because of our reprehensible priorities under George W. Bush and Barack Obama.   For the grand finale, the slide show should include photos of thousands of excellent projects that went un-built (e.g., sustainable energy projects) due to lack of funds that went, instead, to insatiable U.S. warmongering.

Continue ReadingThe cost of insatiable U.S. warmongering

“Spin” defined

World English Dictionary defines "spin" thusly:

13.informal to present news or information in a way that creates a favourable impression
President Obama is kind enough to provide us with an example:
President Obama on Monday announced plans to withdraw combat forces in Iraq, providing assurances that an Aug. 31 deadline will be met as the U.S. moves toward a supporting role in the still-fractured and dangerous nation. U.S. forces in Iraq will number 50,000 by the end of the month — a reduction of 94,000 troops since he took office 18 months ago, the president said in remarks to the Disabled American Veterans. The remaining troops will form a transitional force until a final withdrawal from the country is completed by the end of 2011, he said. ... "Make no mistake, our commitment in Iraq is changing — from a military effort led by our troops to a civilian effort led by our diplomats."
Only in the world of "spin" (or Orwell) would 50,000 troops be considered a "civilian effort led by our diplomats".

Continue Reading“Spin” defined