Roberto Abraham Scaruffi

Saturday, 23 June 2012


Messages In This Digest (6 Messages)

Messages

1.

NATO Expands Military Network To All Continents

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com   rwrozoff

Fri Jun 22, 2012 2:51 pm (PDT)



http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/nato-expands-military-network-to-all-continents/

Stop NATO
June 22, 2012

NATO Expands Military Network To All Continents
Rick Rozoff

The top military officials - chiefs of defense staff - and other representatives of 55 North Atlantic Treaty Organization and partnership states met in Croatia on June 18-20 for the 2012 Strategic Military Partnership Conference.

NATO's Allied Command Transformation, established at the 1999 fiftieth anniversary summit in Washington, D.C. and the first alliance command based in the U.S. (in Norfolk, Virginia), reported that participation came from "numerous partnership nations that came from all over the world including South America, North Africa, the South Pacific and East Asia" and that attending nations were members of the bloc's Partnership for Peace, Mediterranean Dialogue, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and other military partnerships.

The first of the above three includes 21 nations in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia (Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.) The Partnership for Peace program was employed to prepare the twelve nations incorporated as full members between 1999 and 2009: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

Mediterranean Dialogue members are Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. As will be seen below, Libya is scheduled to be the next partner.

Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are members of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, with Saudi Arabia and Oman being groomed as new members and perhaps Iraq and Yemen behind them.

The nations in attendance at the NATO meeting in the Croatian capital of Zagreb, subtitled Current and Future Challenges, would have included what were formerly referred to as Contact Countries - Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea - and which are now included in a new category called Partners Across the Globe along with Afghanistan, Iraq, Mongolia and Pakistan.

The South American nation(s) were not identified, but NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, recently identified El Salvador in Central America and Colombia in South America, respectively, as current and future NATO partners and troop contributors in Afghanistan. This March Stavridis told Congress that Brazil and India also were potential NATO partners.

Before assuming the joint roles of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe and commander of U.S. European Command in 2009, Stavridis was commander of U.S. Southern Command and as such in charge of American military operations and military-to-military relations in Central America, South America and the Caribbean. In 2007 the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 conducted "presence operations" in the Caribbean Sea, the first time that alliance warships deployed there.

The inclusion of South America marks the crossing of a new threshold for NATO: It now has members and partners on all six inhabited continents, accounting for over a third of the nations in the world.

In January NATO's Military Committee held a meeting in chiefs of defense staff session in which, as the NATO website described it, "Top level military representatives of 67 countries [discussed] in various formats the evolution of NATO and NATO led operations, the implementation of the new NATO Command Structure and its military consequences." Unprecedented in scope, the military leaders present accounted for over a third of the 194 member states of the United Nations.

The Strategic Military Partnership Conference in Croatia was held a month after the NATO summit in Chicago and concentrated on the results of the latter and the further implementation of the Strategic Concept adopted at the preceding summit in Portugal in late 2010.

French General Stéphane Abrial, Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, opened the three-day conference and placed particular emphasis on two initiatives NATO calls the Connected Forces Initiative and Smart Defense. The second is designed to pool the resources of the bloc's 28 members states in times of economic austerity and the first to increase training and exercises and the use of compatible military equipment; both will have the effect of furthering the integration of NATO members for interoperability in furtherance of operations abroad by making a military virtue of an economic necessity.

The main aspects of Smart Defence were identified as the U.S.-dominated interceptor missile system in Europe, the purchase of American Global Hawk drones by European countries for the Alliance Ground Surveillance program and the patrolling of Baltic air space by NATO warplanes.

The conference participants then discussed three main issues: Implications of the May summit for NATO member states; Partners Stability and security in the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf Region; the Connected Forces Initiative in relation to training, exercises, education and technology. Other topics addressed included what were identified as the future development of partnerships and strategic implications of improvements to military efficiency.

The new Partners across the Globe format was highlighted in discussions on expanding partnership arrangements as were the new Partnership Cooperation Menu, the Partnership for Peace Planning and Review Process, the Operational Capabilities Concept and the Individual Partnership and Cooperation Programme, whose first member is Mongolia as of March and one of whose next is Iraq, both now members the Partners across the Globe program as well. The latest, increasingly international, partnerships and programs are described by NATO's Allied Command Transformation as "focused on the priorities of building capabilities, interoperability, and supporting defence and security sector reforms."

A NATO account of the conference reiterated the current Strategic Concept's assertion that "the promotion of Euro-Atlantic security is best assured through a wide network of partner relationships with countries and organizations around the globe."

In relation to the May summit, the same source stated:

"The Alliance restated its willingness to provide...further support to regional partners in such areas as security institution-building, defence modernisation, capacity development, and civil-military relations. Based on a Moroccan initiative, NATO and MD [Mediterranean Dialogue] countries will develop a new political framework. The Alliance is, moreover, prepared to welcome Libya as a new partner..."

The opening of an Istanbul Cooperation Initiative Regional Centre in Kuwait was also agreed upon at the Chicago summit.

The conference in Croatia accentuated "A framework developed for NATO nations' and partner countries’ available training and exercise ranges, along standardized lines" and the "potential to integrate partners and facilitates participation in exercises."

The deepening and widening of military collaboration between NATO and its scores of partners, including integrating partnership nations into the global NATO Response Force, are to be built on joint efforts during and following NATO's wars on three continents: Those in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Libya.

As NATO has remarked of the Connected Forces Initiative, it is "aimed at ensuring that NATO retains and builds on the valuable gains of interoperability among Allies and partners as a result of NATO’s recent operations."

The steady expansion of NATO military partnerships and operations around the world, which now include all populated continents, has no precedent in history. This is the first attempt to establish an international military alliance that is capable of and prepared to intervene in any nation and region it chooses to for the geopolitical benefit of its leading member states.

====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================
2.

Open Letter on Saudi Arabia

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com   rwrozoff

Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:05 am (PDT)



https://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2012/06/23/open-letter-on-saudi-arabia/


Open Letter
Anthony B. Newkirk



Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) ChairmanHouse Committee on Foreign Affairs
Howard L. Berman (D-CA)Ranking MemberHouse Committee on Foreign Affairs


June 22, 2012
Honorable Members:


On October 20, 2010, the Obama administration announced approval of projected arms transfer agreements with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia totaling over $60 billion in value. On February 16, 2011, I wrote a letter to you requesting further information. As I have not yet received a response, I am resubmitting my questions in a more public forum.

It is not hard to fathom why the United States and Saudi Arabia have very close ties. The perception that our country is dependent on “Arab oil” is firmly implanted in popular opinion. But the topic of security assistance for Saudi Arabia is not, an example being the 2010 Saudi arms deal. Of course, this is hardly the only problem facing our nation in this time of assaults on job security, social services, and civil liberties. It is also far from being the only problem in the Middle East. However, the Saudi arms deal focuses attention on a range of issues related to America’s fiscal soundness, security, and defense of human rights.

Last year Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs Andrew Shapiro called the Saudi arms deal “the largest defense trade deal in history with Saudi Arabia.” In a letter dated November 10, 2010, you and 196 other members of the House of Representatives had expressed concern about the transaction to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. But I am aware of no formal congressional action after the one-month deadline was reached on November 20, 2010, in keeping with the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).

During a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on May 12, 2011, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller testified the events of the Arab Spring put defense trade agreements with the Gulf Cooperation Council “on hold” and details could be discussed in “closed hearing.” While only fragments of information are openly available, notices issued by the Defense Security Cooperation Agency from the very day of your hearing through the end of 2011 indicated otherwise. In this period, the DSCA confirmed Saudi intentions to buy over $2 billion of night vision equipment, armored vehicles, cluster bombs, howitzers, and Humvees from American defense contractors in line with the 2010 announcement. This is besides on-going DSCA notices of proposed sales of advanced weapons systems to all GCC countries.

In November, the Wall Street Journal reported and the DSCA confirmed that the Obama administration was shipping advanced weaponry to GCC members, including Joint Direct Action Munitions systems to the United Arab Emirates. This was not unprecedented because Israel, the UAE, and Oman got JDAMs in the past. But the lack of congressional and, curiously, Israeli opposition to 1,000 JDAM kits in the 2010 arms deal was unprecedented (to be precise, they were tucked into a $30 billion transaction sealed last Christmas Eve for 84 new Boeing F-15SA fighters plus repairs to F-15s in the Saudi air force; the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute judges this the world’s single largest arms transfer in the past two decades and in 2011 alone). Another part of the 2010 arms package has attack helicopters for Saudi internal security forces, which will increase “sustainability and interoperability with the U.S. Army, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries,
and other coalition forces.” Defense Industry Daily reports many agreements between the Saudis and U.S. arms contractors approved in 2010 have gone through, with the rest waiting in the pipeline.

The arms deal does not apply only to land and air forces. In response to questions submitted to Congressman Tim Griffin, a committee member and my congressional representative, his office had emailed me the following message on February 24, 2011:

The $60 billion Saudi deal for F-15 fighters has already cleared Congress but prospective sales of naval ships and missile-defense systems to Saudi Arabia and other regional partners have yet to be completed and could run into congressional hurdles.

It later came to my attention that this passage appeared verbatim in a report published in the Wall Street Journal the previous day, a fact not pointed out in the email. However, the reference to “naval ships” in the newspaper report was interesting if only because there are not yet been any DSCA notices to this effect. But it is also a matter of public record that we have backed the “Saudi Naval Expansion Program II” since it was established in the 1990s.
It is often said that arms transfers to the Persian Gulf are needed to defend the United States and its allies from Iran. This argument rests in a frame of debate encompassing enhanced sanctions, legislation you yourselves introduced a year ago that would hamper diplomatic contact with Iran, or the wild card of general war. A big argument for sanctions is they will forestall Iran’s nuclear weapons program – assuming such a program exists, which Director of National Intelligence James Clapper has his doubts about – and the threatening presence of late of the Iranian navy in the Persian Gulf and surrounding waters. But claims about Iranian designs lack persuasiveness, particularly in comparison with Saudi behavior in the region. It would therefore be wiser to spell out the economic reasons why the United States should protect Saudi Arabia, as a recent Heritage Foundation report attempted to do.
Another argument is that some details concerning talks between arms contactors and foreign nations, facilitated by the federal government, are private and this is necessary in the War on Terror. Still another argument is arms deals bring jobs. But besides using its declining resources to care for our veterans, America must bear the costs incurred by special interests justifying their actions in terms of “privacy.” And while U.S. citizens in effect guarantee the risks of profit-driven defense trade, it has played a small role in increasing sustained employment in the current economic downturn. If I am mistaken, please set me straight.
In terms of America-Saudi relations, little is truly secret. There is a well-documented history of Saudi-U.S. defense cooperation going back to World War II, information Congress already possesses thanks in part to the work of the Congressional Research Service. It is therefore hard to understand why so many elected officials from both parties are hesitant about sharing public information with American taxpayers.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee is to be commended for its attention to the terrible events in Syria. But the human rights implications of arms sales to Saudi Arabia are receiving short shrift. In fact, both Republican and Democratic presidential administrations have been silent when questions about the House of Saud’s commitment to human rights and the sovereignty of neighboring countries arise.

The death of Crown Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz al-Saud reminds us Saudi Arabia is one of the few absolute monarchies left in the world. It is public knowledge that campaigns of repression against dissidents have been underway across the country for a very long time. A report recently issued by Amnesty International claims the Saudi government has meted out harsh prison sentences to hundreds of people, including intellectuals, workers, and professionals, young and old, male and female, citizens and guest workers. The victims are of all tendencies within Islam and well as other faiths. The gross economic inequality between the scions of the House of Saud and the bulk of the Saudi population has even gone viral.

The Saudis staged air strikes in northern Yemen in 2009 against insurgents fighting the country’s president who was a close Saudi ally, a move supported by the United States according to a diplomatic cable disclosed by Wikileaks. In 2011, Saudi troops entered Bahrain, another close ally. As demonstrated by on-going construction at the local U.S. Navy base and renewed arms shipments, Bahrain’s shocking human rights crisis is by no means affecting our deep commercial and strategic ties with that country’s rulers. Like former administrations, the White House claims it has no position on Saudi-Bahraini cooperation.

No one likes to consider matter of Saudi involvement in 9/11, which is understandable as this was truly a day of infamy and Saudi Arabia is a close ally. But there are many unanswered questions and the public has a right to know the truth – a matter incidentally being taken up in Manhattan District Court. Surely the death of Army First Sergeant David Robinson in the Kingdom in October also deserves closer attention.

In light of the enormity of these matters, to say nothing of the seeming contradictions in relation to them, I have eight questions:

1. If JDAMs were considered too controversial to include in the Bush administration’s $63 billion arms package for the GCC in 2007, why were they inserted in the Saudi arms deal three years later?

2. In terms of Saudi Arabia’s internal defense, what is the exact meaning of “sustainability and interoperability with the U.S. Army, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries, and other coalition forces”?

3. Why are littoral combat ships under consideration for sale to Saudi Arabia?

4. What is the current status of the proposed sale of littoral combat ships?

5. Although its existence is not classified, why doesn’t the American public know more about the United States Military Training Mission that has functioned in Saudi Arabia for the past 63 year?

6. While not altogether secret, why is little known  about the Facilities Security Force formed in the Kingdom within the past decade, according to U.S. embassy documents?

7. What were the circumstances of Sergeant Robinson’s death?

8. Why won’t the U.S. government comment on Saudi-Bahraini ties?

Americans have a right to know how, and for what purposes, our tax money is spent in Saudi Arabia. American taxpayers subsidize arms producers like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin with little benefit accruing to general living standards. One might be tempted to wonder if defense trade in general is merely a bailout of the defense industry. But if there is a larger context to defense trade, the American people can come to terms with it. That is, as long as there is nothing dishonest about the larger context. I am sure you agree.

I am sure you also agree that attention should never be distracted from what are obvious contradictions with emotion-laden appeals to prejudice, racial, national, religious, or otherwise (during the Dubai Port World controversy, it was often forgotten some Dubai-based companies have Pentagon contracts). And under no circumstances do random and disjointed pieces of information constitute transparency. Even if my questions are irrelevant in our world of power politics, concern for the democratic process impels me to request frank answers.
Since the inception of our republic, the House of Representatives has been the most open branch of government. The House Foreign Affairs Committee can help to perpetuate this proud tradition by, among other things, backing reform of the AECA. It is true that AECA reform is a source of concern to the House Foreign Affairs Committee. You nevertheless seem to be preoccupied with how to service what you, Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, have termed “our American businesses.” But what needs reforming the most is accountability to the general public that pays for arms contractors’ profits and losses.

When the White House has discussions with congressional staff, Congress should relay these discussions to the public. Or at least the reason why the conversations must be kept confidential should be promptly explained. Information about the public subsidy of private activities with serious human rights implications should not be buried in official hearings or press handouts. My concerns are not unprecedented. For instance, a report issued by the General Accountability Office two years ago addressed problems with defense trade record-keeping practices in the framework of the Gulf Security Dialogue.

Hence, I call for the insertion of unambiguous clauses in a revised ACEA that:

- require the White House to submit its defense trade endorsements to both Congress and the general public for approval;

- grant U.S. citizens enough time to give defense trade endorsements informed consideration, and to vote on them in special referendums;

- deny U.S. approval or funding of private arms sales to governments that violate universally-recognized human rights standards in any context.

If these suggestions are a bit impractical, the fact remains that the Saudi arms deal highlights the dangerous state our foreign and domestic affairs have fallen into. Nor is this specific issue an isolated or unprecedented phenomenon, another fact that should alone give rise to outrage. For the reasons I have outlined and for others you are doubtless much more intimately aware of than I am, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs should demand full transparency about the Saudi arms deal. Let the chips fall where they may.


Sincerely,
Anthony B. Newkirk

====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================
3.

Cold War Politics Redux

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com   rwrozoff

Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:15 am (PDT)



http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

SteveLendmanBlog
June 23, 2012

Cold War Politics Redux
by Stephen Lendman

Following Soviet Russia's dissolution, everything changed but stayed the same. US aims remained hard-wired. Today it's back to the future.

Cold War politics were reinvented. Russia's again the Evil Empire. Today's stakes are much greater. World peace is threatened.

Preemptive aggression is official US policy. America's duopoly power wages permanent wars. Israeli Lobby and Christian Right extremists support them. The fuse is lit for trouble.

Beating up on Russia is relentless. Putin is fast emerging as public enemy number one. Intense propaganda vilifies him. His opposition to America's imperial agenda draws rebukes.

At Mexico's G20 summit, he reiterated his position against foreign intervention to oust Assad. Syrian sovereignty is inviolable. Its people alone should decide who'll lead them.

The same holds for all countries. International law prohibits nations from interfering in the internal affairs of other states, except in self-defense if attacked.

Syria threatens no one. Crisis conditions there should be resolved constitutionally.

"No one is entitled to decide for other nations who will be brought to power and who will be removed," Putin stressed.

"A change of power, if it occurs – and it could only occur by constitutional means - should result in peace and stop the bloodshed."

"In order to achieve that goal, we need to work well, to make all parties to the armed conflict stop the bloodshed, sit down to the negotiating table and agree on how they will jointly live in a common country and how the interests and security of people involved in the conflict will be ensured."

"This should be done beforehand, and not like in some North African countries, where bloodsheds continue despite regime changes."

Rebukes follow these type comments. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN envoy Susan Rice repeat spurious accusations. Media scoundrels regurgitate them. No holds barred propaganda war is waged. Truth and full disclosure don't have a chance.

"Punish the Russian abusers," headlined a Washington Post editorial.

Obama's "hopes of forging a partnership with (Putin) appear to be fading fast."

"Russia is rebuffing U.S. appeals for cooperation in stopping the massacres in Syria, while continuing to supply the regime of Bashar al-Assad with weapons."

"Meanwhile the Kremlin is cracking down on Russians seeking democratic reform or fighting corruption."

"Partnership" and "cooperation" are code terms for surrender.

Putin isn't about to roll over for Washington. As a result, he's public enemy number one.

People, nations, or editorial writers who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. US corruption is rife. Grand theft is official policy. So is stealing from the poor for the rich.

Dissent is an endangered species. Whistleblowers and courageous journalists are targeted. So are nonviolent protesters and anyone challenging US hegemony.

America is the land of the free only in political rhetoric and patriotic songs. Hard facts reveal a nation heading fast for full blown tyranny.

"Congress (must) send Mr. Putin and his cadres the message that their lawless behavior will have consequences."

Congress and administration officials spurn international, constitutional, and US statute laws. Corruption is a way of life. So is war on humanity.

Fingers pointing the right way explain what's vital to expose to the clear light of day.

Scoundrel media suppress what's most crucial to disclose.

An earlier Post editorial headlined "US must maintain way to press Putin regime on human rights," saying:

He campaigned "on a platform of anti-Americanism." As president, he's "inaugurating an era of unrest in a nation whose rising middle class rejects him."

His agenda features "autocratic domestic policies...."

"(D)emocratic reform" is needed.

Putin lacks "political legitimacy."

In fact, with 64.7% support, he won reelection by a landslide. His closest rival finished a distant second with 17%. Putin is Russia's most popular leader.

Times editorial writers claim his popularity is "waning." He'll have to find new ways "to guarantee his legitimacy."

His electoral majority topped every US president since James Monroe. In 1820, he ran virtually unopposed.

Franklin Roosevelt's most impressive win was 60.8% (1936). Lyndon Johnson got 61.1% (1964). Richard Nixon managed 60% (1972). Ronald Reagan's best was 58.8% (1984).

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln won an electoral college victory with 39.8% of the popular vote. His nearest rival got 14.3%.

In 1864, he repeated with a 55% majority.

Putin's victory stands all the more impressive. Nonetheless, Times commentaries call Russia's political system "hermetic." It "parad(ies) democracy."

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Washington spurns democratic values and rule of law principles. Hardline governance is policy.

US Elections are scripted theater. Secrecy and back room deals substitute for a free, fair and open process. Candidates are pre-selected. Big money owns them. Key outcomes are predetermined.

Power brokers control everything. Voters get the best democracy money can buy.

Popular majorities reject both major parties. They're in lockstep on all issues mattering most.

Ravaging humanity is policy. Public welfare is a quaint artifact. So are human and civil rights. No nation spurns them more than America. No media more aggressively support the worst of all possible worlds.

New York Times editorials and op-eds accuse Putin of mocking democratic rights. "There can be no illusions about who Mr. Putin really is," they say. He "bullies his own citizens (and) neighbors."

Other commentaries call him "a strongman." US relations under him "chill(ed)."

Challenging US hegemony draws harsh political and scoundrel media responses. They haven't deterred Putin from saying what few other leaders dare.

A Final Comment

Congressional action on two issues are pending. They include whether or not to repeal Jackson-Vanik (JV). It's a Cold War relic.

Section 401, Title IV of the 1974 Trade Act affects commercial relations with communist and former communist countries.

It targets nations accused of restricting emigration and human rights. Following unanimous congressional approval, Gerald Ford signed it on January 3, 1975. It still influences trade relations with some states. Repealing it is long overdue.

Congressional action approaches. Passage remains uncertain. Obama and Senate Democrats want it. Hardline House and Senate Republicans object.

Eight Senate Finance Committee Republicans issued a joint statement, saying:

"Many aspects of the U.S.-Russia relationship are troubling."

They cited the "flawed election and illegitimate regime of Vladimir Putin."

Hardline House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R. FL) said:

"....concessions to Moscow must stop, including the latest effort to repeal the Jackson-Vanik amendment to give Russia preferential trade benefits."

At issue is linking JV with so-called House and Senate Magnitsky legislation.

On May 19, 2011, S. 1039: Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2011 was introduced. No further action was taken.

On April 19, 2012, HR 4405: Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012 was introduced. It awaits full House consideration.

Both Houses plan linking JV with Magnitsky. Doing so damages US/Russian relations.

Sergei Magnitsky was a Russian attorney. His 2009 death in police custody drew international media attention.

Employed by Firestone Duncan, he specialized in civil law. He did anti-corruption work. He represented Hermitage Capital. He uncovered evidence of tax fraud. He implicated the police, judiciary figures, tax officials, bankers, and Russia's mafia.

He was called "the 'go to guy' in Moscow on courts, taxes, fines, and anything to do with civil law."

In November 2008, he was arrested, imprisoned, and treated abusively. Held for 11 months, he was denied family visits. He developed serious health problems, but got inadequate treatment.

On November 16, 2009, he died for reasons attributed officially to a "rupture to the abdominal membrane" and subsequent heart attack. If trial proceedings didn't begin, he was due to be released eight days later.

At the time, RIA Novosti said his death "caused public outrage and sparked discussion of the need to improve prison healthcare and to reduce the number of inmates awaiting trial in detention prisons."

In December 2009, an independent Moscow Public Oversight Commission said he was subjected to "psychological and physical pressure...."

One of its members first blamed his death on medical negligence. She later believed he was murdered. In November 2009, then President Dmitry Medvedev ordered an official investigation. In July 2011, it blamed his death on medical neglect.

House and Senate Magnitsky legislation imposes visa bans, asset freezes, and other sanctions on Russian nationals accused of committing human rights abuses. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov calls the measure "anti-Russian."

He's right. It's more about targeting Russia and Vladimir Putin than individual human rights abusers.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned Moscow will introduce tough countermeasures if Magnitsky passes.

"If this outrageous move takes place, Moscow's reaction will be complex, multidimensional and really tough," he said. He urged Congress to reconsider. Otherwise, "negative consequences for the whole complex of Russian-US relations" would follow.

He called Magnitsky "inadmissible" extraterritorial legislation.

The US National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) opposes the bill. It urged House and Senate members reject it. Passage will harm US/Russian trade. It'll also cause political damage.

In July 2011, the State Department issued visa bans on several dozen Russian officials accused of involvement in Magnitsky's death. Moscow retaliated in kind.

Linking Magnitsky legislation to lifting JV imposes a major stumbling block on US/Russian relations. It's also about beating up on Putin.

Congressional hardliners apparently have that those objectives in mind. So do supportive media scoundrels.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html
====================================================================

Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:

stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

======================================================================
4.

Pre-Determined Guilt: Wars Waged With Mass Media Complicity

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com   rwrozoff

Sat Jun 23, 2012 5:52 am (PDT)



http://indrus.in/articles/2012/06/22/pre-determined_guilt_16036.html

Russia & India Report
June 22, 2012

Pre-determined guilt
Viktor Litovkin
Modern wars are not conducted without mass media involvement

====

To accuse Moscow of the fact that it promotes "murder of peaceful Syrian citizens" is tantamount to unreasonably assigning responsibility for something to which it is not a party. One must recall that the USA itself is actively supplying weapons (at a rate of 5-7 billion dollars per year) to its closest allies in the Arab world - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - knowing full well that they, in turn, actively arm the Syrian opposition with this military equipment! American weapons in particular are used most frequently to commit mass murders in this troubled country, and not only of the Alawite supporters of President Assad, but also of Christians, which is what happened in Homs.

====

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced recently that Russia is arming Syria with military helicopters, which are then being used in the war against the peaceful population. The Secretary of State was not ready to back up this information, which was instantly spread across the world by the leading mass media outlets, without any facts. It very quickly turned out that there were no such deliveries at all. Even a Pentagon spokesman had to admit that the head of the U.S. government foreign affairs agency sinned against the truth.

Despite the fact that the Secretary of State was obviously embarrassed, she did not even think to apologize. Only her assistant allowed herself to reinterpret the words of her boss, noting that she was not referring to new helicopters, but refurbished ones. A small clarification, but one made in principle. And in vain the global mass media hardly even noticed it.

The fact of the matter is that Syria has around 100 Mi-8 and Mi-17 helicopters, which, in turn, represent a perfected version of the "8." Specialists are well aware that the Mi-8/17 is a transport and multi-purpose helicopter. It is first of all a transport aircraft, and secondly a multipurpose one. It is not delivered abroad, and this is even more true of refurbished aircraft, with installed weapons. It can be made into a military helicopter on the spot: it is possible to install a machine gun or cartridges for unguided missiles. But this is the decision and responsibility of the buyer of equipment.

To accuse Moscow of the fact that it promotes "murder of peaceful Syrian citizens" is tantamount to unreasonably assigning responsibility for something to which it is not a party. One must recall that the USA itself is actively supplying weapons (at a rate of 5-7 billion dollars per year) to its closest allies in the Arab world - Saudi Arabia and Qatar - knowing full well that they, in turn, actively arm the Syrian opposition with this military equipment! American weapons in particular are used most frequently to commit mass murders in this troubled country, and not only of the Alawite supporters of President Assad, but also of Christians, which is what happened in Homs.

Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia, talked about this publicly. But his words were not picked up by the mass media. Meanwhile, Western television and newspapers, as well as their Arab colleagues, try to outdo each other in their talk "about the aggressive plans of the Russians."

Take, for example, what the U.S. television channels are broadcasting, citing the Pentagon. "The U.S. is closely watching the movement of a Russian military cargo ship bound for Syria with a cargo of weapons, ammunition and a detachment of marines."

"American intelligence believes," says CNN television, "that Russia has sent a ship to protect its logistical naval supply point in the Syrian port of Tartus." And it adds that according to shots taken by spy satellites this ship is the Nikolay Filchenkov. It allegedly was loaded in Sevastopol on June 7, and it is now on its way to Tartus.

But, as it turned out, in those days, when the news spread from newspaper to newspaper, the Filchenkov was still standing in port at Sevastopol. And it is still standing there today. But, nonetheless, the information campaign continues. In recent days, there are regular reports that Black Sea Fleet warships with detachments of marines on board are preparing to go to Syria's aid "to perform special actions in the Syrian port of Tartus, where there is a Russian naval logistical supply point."

The media outlets supply names of ships, reporting that the Kaliningrad, a large landing assault ship of the Baltic Fleet, is preparing to take part in this action, although right now it is participating in Kiel Week. Some mass media outlets (in particular, the inter-Arab television channel Al Arabia - V. L.) even are reporting that quadrilateral military exercises are to be conducted in the near future on Syrian territory, where Russian, Chinese, Syrian and Iranian forces will participate with thousands of troops.

To deny such news is even embarrassing. In a country torn by civil war, any kind of exercises are inconceivable. Especially in this configuration. What is this but a new attempt to muddy the waters, to discredit Russia together with China?

Officials at the Ministry of Defense after a long silence said what was clear: no exercises on the territory of Syria are planned. And the Kaliningrad large landing assault ship will return to its port of registration after the end of Kiel Week. Spokesmen for the Ministry of Defense have not uttered one word concerning the large landing ships Caesar Kunikov and Nikolay Filchenkov, which, according to the reports of Western agencies, are ready to leave for Syria.

It seems that our military leadership has no clear and unambiguous plan of action in case the security of our people in Tartus and other Syrian cities is threatened. It is hard to believe that we have no specific plans for the protection of Russian national interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. Hopefully, we will not wait for the blood of our citizens to be spilled, and only then make a decision and announce it publicly.
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================
5.

Gulf Of Tonkin Redux?

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com   rwrozoff

Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:12 am (PDT)



http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

SteveLendmanBlog
June 23, 2012

Gulf of Tonkin Redux?
By Stephen Lendman

=====

Ankara acted provocatively. Perhaps it was at the behest of Washington. Turkey is a NATO member. A previous article explained it can invoke NATO Charter Articles 4 or 5.

Article 4 calls for members to "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any" is threatened.

Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more members, an attack against all, and calls for collective self-defense.

====

Lyndon Johnson wanted war on Vietnam and got it.

The August 1964 false flag Gulf of Tonkin incident initiated full-scale conflict after Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

War was authorized without declaring it.

It's an American tradition. Big lies launch wars. Manufactured pretexts initiate them. Mass killing and destruction follow.

One nation after another is ravaged. Syria's next, then Iran, followed by other states on Washington's hit list.

On June 22, Turkey provocatively flew two warplanes at low altitude over Syrian airspace. It wanted a response and got it.

On June 23, Syria's SANA state media headlined "Military Spokesman: Anti-Air Defenses Intercepted a Target That Violated Syrian Airspace Over Territorial Waters, Shot It Down West of Lattakia," saying:

"At 11:40 AM on 22/6/2012, an unidentified aerial target violated Syrian airspace, coming from the west at a very low altitude and at high speed over territorial waters, so the Syrian anti-air defenses counteracted with anti-aircraft artillery, hitting it directly as it was 1 kilometer away from land, causing it to crash into Syrian territorial waters west of Om al-Tuyour village in Lattakia province, 10 kilometers from the beach."

Syria's military spokesman also said naval forces from both countries were "searching for the two missing pilots."

Some media sources said both crew members were rescued. Others said they're still missing.

On June 23, Turkey's Today's Zaman headlined "Turkey says Syria down(ed) its air force jet," saying:

The incident will "likely....worsen already strained relations between" both countries.

After a two hour security meeting, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed Syrian forces for downing its aircraft. An official statement said:

"Following the evaluation of data provided by our related institutions and the findings of the joint search and rescue efforts with Syria, it is understood that our plane was downed by Syria."

Turkey "will determinedly take necessary steps" in response. No further details were given.

At the time of its report, Today's Zaman said both crew members were missing. It added that Ankara wouldn't "tolerate any action that it deemed violating its security."

Turkish TV reports said two military aircraft were on a reconnaissance mission.

In fact, Ankara acted provocatively. Perhaps it was at the behest of Washington. Turkey is a NATO member. A previous article explained it can invoke NATO Charter Articles 4 or 5.

Article 4 calls for members to "consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any" is threatened.

Article 5 considers an armed attack (real or otherwise) against one or more members, an attack against all, and calls for collective self-defense.

On June 23, Reuters headlined "Turkey warns it would respond decisively to Syria downing it aircraft," saying:

Erdogan's "initial comments and subsequent statement (were) measured in tone. He said Turkish and Syrian forces were working together to search for the two missing crew of the aircraft."

Turkish media also said Syria apologized for the incident.

"Turkish state television interviewed witnesses on the country's Mediterranean coast, near the Syrian border, who said they saw two low-flying fighter jets pass overhead in the morning in the direction of Syrian waters but only one return."

Syrian Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi said:

"There was no aggression." Damascus confirmed "an unidentified target flying at very low range when it violated Syrian airspace." He added that both sides were searching for missing crew members.

The New York Times said an official Turkish statement hadn't "yet concluded that the Syrian action was provocative, and it acknowledged that Syrian rescue teams were cooperating in trying to locate the aircraft and crew."

"But the statement also left open the possibility that Turkey, a NATO member, would respond militarily, an outcome that could further complicate and widen the Syrian conflict."

Washington has longstanding regime change plans. In early 2011, it orchestrated Western-generated violence.

It wants Assad replaced by a subservient puppet leader. If events on the ground don't succeed, expect war to follow.

The Obama and Erdogan administrations may have staged Friday's incident. Whether it's a pretext for full-scale intervention remains to be seen.

Events on the ground keep escalating dangerously. Anything may erupt anytime. Provocations are easy to stage.

Friday's incident may indeed become a casus belli. If not, perhaps something greater is planned to give Obama another war he wants. What better way to silence his Republican critics who call him soft on Assad.

On June 22, Foreign Policy's associate editor Uri Friedman headlined "How would NATO respond to Syria shooting down a Turkish plane?" saying:

"Could this incident - or an incident like it - trigger more aggressive action against Syria by the international community? After all, Turkey is a member of NATO...."

Its Charter affirms its all-for-one-and-one-for-all policy. Attacking one member is considered acting against all 28. Collective self-defense is called for.

On September 12, 2001, NATO invoked Article V for the first time. Will Syria be number two? If Turkey claims Damascus acted aggressively, will war follow?

"It is not an entirely unreasonable" possibility, said Friedman.

In April, Erdogan suggested he might invoke Article V. Whether he plans it now remains to be seen.

According to former UN Permanent Representative to NATO Kurt Volker, Article V gives NATO countries a chance to consult with one another on possible responses. It doesn't automatically suggest a military one.

"A response could be anything from a statement reiterating the inviolability of security guarantees to members coordinating activities so that they can respond to further attacks on Turkish interests."

Volker doesn't think Friday's incident justifies war. At the same time, the ball advanced closer to initiating it without Security Council authorization.

One way would be by creating Syrian "safe zones," providing greater opposition support, and conducting air strikes against strategic military sites.

"I do get the feeling," he added, "that the patience of the international community is growing thinner."

"I think we may be approaching a point at which this kind of coalition intervention is more thinkable than it was a couple of months ago."

Atlantic Council managing editor James Joyner also doesn't believe Friday's incident justifies war.

"It would be one thing if Syria sent ground troops into Turkey and started shooting," he said.

In contrast, "shooting down a plane that might have been surveilling Syrian air space is just a different animal than that."

"This is more of a harsh words and sanctions kind of thing, and frankly there's not much more of that that we can do in terms of Syria."

On June 23, UK government controlled BBC headlined "Turkish warplane downed by Syria 'may have crossed border,' " saying:

Turkish President Abdullah Gul said its aircraft may have violated Syrian airspace. Doing so isn't unusual for short distances at high speed, he added.

"It is routine for jet fighters to sometimes fly in and out over (other) borders....when you consider their speed over the sea," he claimed.

"These are not ill-intentioned things but happen beyond control due to the jets' speed."

Unexplained was that it's one thing for peaceful neighbors occasionally to violate each other's airspace without authorization.

No harm, no foul.

It's quite another given months of intense violence in Syria and Turkey's direct role.

Moreover, violating another country's airspace by trying to avoid its defensive capabilities at low altitude shows clear hostile intent.

Damascus has every right to consider these type actions aggressive and threatening. Turkey would react the same way. So would Washington, key NATO partners and Israel.

A virtual state of war exists in Syria short of officially declaring it. These type incidents can easily be used as pretexts for full-blown conflict. It remains to be seen if Washington has that in mind.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached atlendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War"

http://www.claritypress.com/Lendman.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour
====================================================================
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages

Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com

To subscribe for individual e-mails or the daily digest, unsubscribe, and otherwise change subscription status:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
======================================================================
6.

Turkey May Request NATO Involvement Against Syria

Posted by: "Rick Rozoff" rwrozoff@yahoo.com   rwrozoff

Sat Jun 23, 2012 6:27 am (PDT)



http://www.agi.it/english-version/world/elenco-notizie/201206231034-pol-ren1011-turkish_fighter_downed_by_syria_ankara_might_involve_nato

Agenzia Giornalistica Italia
June 23, 2012

Turkish fighter downed by Syria; Ankara might involve NATO

Ankara: Tension is high between Turkey and Syria after Damascus' admission of having downed a Turkish F-4 fighter aircraft.

Turkish government sources do not exclude the possibility of involving NATO forces on the basis of the Atlantic Pact principle that considers an attack against any member state as an attack against all the other members, thereby legitimizing them to [conduct] an eventual intervention.

Last Friday evening, at the closing of an emergency meeting between the country's competent ministers and military leaders, Turkish Premier Recep Tayyp Erdogan assured that "Turkey will announce its final position and take necessary steps with determination after the incident is entirely clarified."
Posted by Roberto Abraham Scaruffi at 16:38