Scandal Alert: Congress Is Quietly Abandoning the 5th Amendment

The Atlantic
Conor Friedersdorf

Meet the prominent legislators who think it's okay to throw Americans in jail forever without charges or trial.

Reuters

What everyone must understand is that American politics doesn't work the way you'd think it would. Most people presume that government officials would never willfully withhold penicillin from men with syphilis just to see what would happen if the disease went untreated. It seems unlikely that officers would coerce enlisted men into exposing themselves to debilitating nerve gas. Few expected that President Obama would preside over the persecution of an NSA whistle-blower, or presume the guilt of all military-aged males killed by U.S. drone strikes. But it all happened.

Really thinking about all that may make it easier to believe what I'm about to tell you.

It may seem like imprisoning an American citizen without charges or trial transgresses against the United States Constitution and basic norms of Western justice dating back to the Magna Carta.

It may seem like reiterating the right to due process contained in the 5th Amendment would be uncontroversial.

It may seem like a United States senator would be widely ridiculed for suggesting that American citizens can be imprisoned indefinitely without chargers or trial, and that if numerous U.S. senators took that position, the press would treat the issue with at least as much urgency as "the fiscal cliff" or the possibility of a new assault weapons bill or likely nominees for Cabinet posts.

It may seem like the American citizens who vocally fret about the importance of adhering to the text of the Constitution would object as loudly as anyone to the prospect of indefinite detention.

But it isn't so.

The casual news consumer cannot rely on those seemingly reasonable heuristics to signal that very old norms are giving way, that important protections are being undermined, perhaps decisively.

We've lost the courage of our convictions -- we're that scared of terrorism (or of seeming soft on it).

News junkies likely know that I'm alluding to a specific law that has passed both the Senate and the House, and is presently in a conference committee, where lawmakers reconcile the two versions. Observers once worried that the law would permit the indefinite detention of American citizens, or at least force them to rely on uncertain court challenges if unjustly imprisoned. In response, Senator Dianne Feinstein tried to allay these concerns with an amendment:

An authorization to use military force, a declaration of war, or any similar authority shall not authorize the detention without charge or trial of a citizen or lawful permanent resident of the United States apprehended in the United States, unless an Act of Congress expressly authorizes such detention.

You'd think the part about American citizens being protected from indefinite detention would be uncontroversial. It wasn't. But the amendment did manage to pass in the United States Senate.

Afterward everyone forgot about it pretty quickly. But not Charlie Savage. He's a journalist at The New York Times. If every journalist were more like him the United States government would be far less able to radically expand the president's unchecked authority without many people noticing.

Here is his scoop:

Lawmakers charged with merging the House and Senate versions of the National Defense Authorization Act decided on Tuesday to drop a provision that would have explicitly barred the military from holding American citizens and permanent residents in indefinite detention without trial as terrorism suspects, according to Congressional staff members familiar with the negotiations.  

Says Adam Serwer, another journalist who treats these issues with the urgency that they deserve:

Of the four main negotiators on the defense bill, only one of the Democrats, Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), opposes domestic indefinite detention of Americans. The Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), believes detaining Americans without charge or trial is constitutional, and only voted for the Feinstein amendment because he and some of his Republican colleagues in the Senate convinced themselves through a convoluted legal rationale that Feinstein's proposal didn't actually ban the practice. Both of the main Republican negotiators, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif) and Senator John McCain (R-Ariz) believe it's constitutional to lock up American citizens suspected of terrorism without ever proving they're guilty.

There is a complication, as he notes: Civil liberties groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact that it protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather than all persons present in the United States. While I respect that principled stand, the more important thing is that this outcome puts us all at greater risk of having a core liberty violated, and that Senators McCain, Levin, and many other legislators suffer no consequences for failing to protect and defend the United States Constitution.
   
As Serwer puts it, "The demise of the Feinstein-Lee proposal doesn't necessarily mean that Americans suspected of terrorism in the US can be locked up forever without a trial. But it ensures that the next time a president tries to lock up an American citizen without trial -- as President George W. Bush previously tried -- it will be left up to the courts to decide whether or not it's legal."

Don't let the dearth of attention fool you -- this is a scandal. Congress has turned its back on safeguarding a core Constitutional protection and a centuries old requirement of Western justice.

Rage, rage against the dying of the 5th.

Beware the Anti-Anti-War Left: Why “Humanitarian Interventionism” is a Dead End

Global Research

Jean Bricmont

Ever since the 1990s, and especially since the Kosovo war in 1999, anyone who opposes armed interventions by Western powers and NATO has to confront what may be called an anti-anti-war left (including its far left segment). In Europe, and notably in France, this anti-anti-war left is made up of the mainstream of social democracy, the Green parties and most of the radical left. The anti-anti-war left does not come out openly in favor of Western military interventions and even criticizes them at times (but usually only for their tactics or alleged motivations – the West is supporting a just cause, but clumsily and for oil or for geo-strategic reasons).

But most of its energy is spent issuing “warnings” against the supposed dangerous drift of that part of the left that remains firmly opposed to such interventions. It calls upon us to show solidarity with the “victims” against “dictators who kill their own people”, and not to give in to knee-jerk anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism, or anti-Zionism, and above all not to end up on the same side as the far right. After the Kosovo Albanians in 1999, we have been told that “we” must protect Afghan women, Iraqi Kurds and more recently the people of Libya and of Syria.

It cannot be denied that the anti-anti-war left has been extremely effective. The Iraq war, which was sold to the public as a fight against an imaginary threat, did indeed arouse a fleeting opposition, but there has been very little opposition on the left to interventions presented as “humanitarian”, such as the bombing of Yugoslavia to detach the province of Kosovo, the bombing of Libya to get rid of Gaddafi, or the current intervention in Syria. Any objections to the revival of imperialism or in favor of peaceful means of dealing with such conflicts have simply been brushed aside by invocations of “R2P”, the right or responsibility to protect, or the duty to come to the aid of a people in danger.

The fundamental ambiguity of the anti-anti-war left lies in the question as to who are the “we” who are supposed to intervene and protect. One might ask the Western left, social movements or human rights organizations the same question Stalin addressed to the Vatican, “How many divisions do you have?” As a matter of fact, all the conflicts in which “we” are supposed to intervene are armed conflicts. Intervening means intervening militarily and for that, one needs the appropriate military means. It is perfectly obvious that the Western left does not possess those means. It could call on European armies to intervene, instead of the United States, but they have never done so without massive support from the United States. So in reality the actual message of the anti-anti-war left is: “Please, oh Americans, make war not love!” Better still, inasmuch as since their debacle in Afghanistan and in Iraq, the Americans are leery of sending in ground troops, the message amounts to nothing other than asking the U.S. Air Force to go bomb countries where human rights violations are reported to be taking place.

Of course, anyone is free to claim that human rights should henceforth be entrusted to the good will of the U.S. government, its bombers, its missile launchers and its drones. But it is important to realize that that is the concrete meaning of all those appeals for “solidarity” and “support” to rebel or secessionist movements involved in armed struggles. Those movements have no need of slogans shouted during “demonstrations of solidarity” in Brussels or in Paris, and that is not what they are asking for. They want to get heavy weapons and see their enemies bombed.

The anti-anti-war left, if it were honest, should be frank about this choice, and openly call on the United States to go bomb wherever human rights are violated; but then it should accept the consequences. In fact, the political and military class that is supposed to save the populations “massacred by their dictators” is the same one that waged the Vietnam war, that imposed sanctions and wars on Iraq, that imposes arbitrary sanctions on Cuba, Iran and any other country that meets with their disfavor, that provides massive unquestioning support to Israel, which uses every means including coups d’état to oppose social reformers in Latin America, from Arbenz to Chavez by way of Allende, Goulart and others, and which shamelessly exploits workers and resources the world over. One must be quite starry-eyed to see in that political and military class the instrument of salvation of “victims”, but that is in practice exactly what the anti-anti-war left is advocating, because, given the relationship of forces in the world, there is no other military force able to impose its will.

Of course, the U.S. government is scarcely aware of the existence of the anti-anti-war left. The United States decides whether or not to wage war according to the chances of succeeding and to their own assessment of their strategic, political and economic interests. And once a war is begun, they want to win at all costs. It makes no sense to ask them to carry out only good interventions, against genuine villains, using gentle methods that spare civilians and innocent bystanders.

For example, those who call for “saving Afghan women” are in fact calling on the United States to intervene and, among other things, bomb Afghan civilians and shoot drones at Pakistan. It makes no sense to ask them to protect but not to bomb, because armies function by shooting and bombing.[1]

A favorite theme of the anti-anti-war left is to accuse those who reject military intervention of “supporting the dictator”, meaning the leader of the currently targeted country. The problem is that every war is justified by a massive propaganda effort which is based on demonizing the enemy, especially the enemy leader. Effectively opposing that propaganda requires contextualizing the crimes attributed to the enemy and comparing them to those of the side we are supposed to support. That task is necessary but risky; the slightest mistake will be endlessly used against us, whereas all the lies of the pro-war propaganda are soon forgotten.

US troops secretly return to Iraq

PressTV

Over 3,000 U.S. troops have secretly returned to Iraq via Kuwait for
operations pertaining to the recent developments in Syria and
northern Iraq, Press TV reports.

According to our correspondent, the U.S. troops have secretly entered Iraq in multiple stages and are mostly stationed at Balad military garrison in Salahuddin province and al-Asad air base in al-Anbar province.

Reports say the troops include U.S. Army officers and almost 17,000 more are set to secretly return to Iraq via the same route.

All U.S. troops left Iraq by the end of 2011, after nine years of occupation, as required by a 2008 bilateral security agreement between the two countries. The troops left Iraq for the neighboring Kuwait.

Washington decided to pull out all its troops from Iraq after Baghdad refused to grant legal immunity to the remaining U.S. soldiers.

Washington claims that the only U.S. military presence left in Iraq now is 157 soldiers responsible for training at the U.S. Embassy, as well as a small contingent of Marines protecting the diplomatic mission.

FACTS & FIGURES

In 2003, the U.S. led the invasion of Iraq under the pretext that former Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein, possessed weapons of mass destruction.

The initial invading force in Iraq was around 130,000 soldiers.  This number was expected to be dropped down to under 50,000 within a year.  Two years later, there were 150,000 U.S. soldiers in the country.  One of the interesting Iraq war facts is that as of November 2009, there were around 115,000 U.S. soldiers still stationed there. iraqwarfacts.com

In October 2004, a CIA report concluded that former Iraqi dictator did not possess weapons of mass destruction at the time of U.S. invasion in 2003.

There is no agency that keeps track of accurate numbers of Iraqis killed but some local sources put the number well over one million.

Most of the Iraqis displaced post-2006 have not returned home, and an estimated 1.5 million live in neighboring countries. undispatch.com

The direct cost of the Iraq war to the United States Treasury was $1 trillion. That excludes the “downstream” costs of things like veteran benefits and long-term care for the wounded. One trillion divided by the U.S. population of 307 million equals a cost of over $3,200 per American citizen taxpayer. undispatch.com

According to icasualties.org, the total number of U.S. military fatalities, as a result of the 2003 attack and the following occupation, stands at 4,486.

Israel's War on Truth | Brainwash Update

Is this child dead enough for you?

PressTV

To all those now hailing the re-election of Barack Obama as a triumph of decent, humane, liberal values over the oozing-postule perfidy of the Republicans, a simple question:

Is this child dead enough for you?

This little boy was named Naeemullah. He was in his house — maybe playing, maybe sleeping, maybe having a meal — when an American drone missile was fired into the residential area where he lived and blew up the house next door.

As we all know, these drone missiles are, like the president who wields them, super-smart, a triumph of technology and technocratic expertise. We know, for the president and his aides have repeatedly told us, that these weapons — launched only after careful consultation of the just-war strictures of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas — strike nothing but their intended targets and kill no one but “bad guys.” Indeed, the president’s top aides have testified under oath that not a single innocent person has been among the thousands of Pakistani civilians — that is, civilians of a sovereign nation that is not at war with the United States — who have been killed by the drone missile campaign of the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate.

Yet somehow, by some miracle, the missile that roared into the residential area where Naeemullah lived did not confine itself neatly to the house it struck. Somehow, inexplicably, the hunk of metal and wire and computer processors failed — in this one instance — to look into the souls of all the people in the village and ascertain, by magic, which ones were “bad guys” and then kill only them. Somehow — perhaps the missile had been infected with Romney cooties? — this supercharged hunk of high explosives simply, well, exploded with tremendous destructive power when it struck the residential area, blowing the neighborhood to smithereens.

As Wired reports, shrapnel and debris went flying through the walls of Naeemullah’s house and ripped through his small body. When the attack was over — when the buzzing drone sent with Augustinian wisdom by the Peace Laureate was no longer lurking over the village, shadowing the lives of every defenseless inhabitant with the terrorist threat of imminent death, Naeemullah was taken to the hospital in a nearby town.

This is where the picture of above was taken by Noor Behram, a resident of North Waziristan who has been chronicling the effects of the Peace Laureate’s drone war.  When the picture was taken, Naeemullah was dying. He died an hour later.

He died.

Is he dead enough for you?

Dead enough not to disturb your victory dance in any way? Dead enough not to trouble the inauguration parties yet to come? Dead enough not to diminish, even a little bit, your exultant glee at the fact that this great man, a figure of integrity, decency, honor and compassion, will be able to continue his noble leadership of the best nation in the history of the world?

Rep. Allen West Refuses to Concede, Seeks Hand-Count, Impounding of Ballots and Voting Systems in FL-18 U.S. House Race

BradBlog

Tea Party-backed Repub reportedly trails challenger Murphy by less than 2,500 votes as tallied by FL's flawed, failed voting systems...

By BRAD FRIEDMAN on 11/9/2012, 6:05am PT 

On Election Night, Democrats and progressives celebrated the reported defeat of far Rightwing Tea Party-backed Rep. Allen West (R-FL22) by his Democratic challenger Patrick Murphy in Florida's newly redistricted 18th Congressional district in Eastern Florida.

With precinct votes unofficially tabulated in the three counties which comprise the new Democratic-leaning district --- Martin, St. Lucie and part of Palm Beach --- Murphy reportedly leads West by 2,456 votes out of 318,200 electronically tallied to date. That number does not include what West's campaign manager describes as "tens of thousands of absentee ballots to be counted in Palm Beach County and potential provisional ballots across the district."
Nonetheless, Murphy has declared victory, which carries no particular legal weight, while West has filed legal documents in St. Lucie and Palm Beach calling for the impounding of voting systems, paper ballots and a hand-count of those ballots.

West may be a far Right extremist. A fair amount of evidence even suggests that West may be certifiably insane. But, even far right, possibly insane candidates, and especially their supporters, deserve to have their votes counted in a way that they can know, for certain, that they either won or lost an election.

Given the oft-failed, easily-manipulated, unoverseeable electronic voting and tabulation systems --- each with a long and well-documented record of failure and miscounts --- used in the three counties that make up Florida's new 18th district (as well as the rest of the state of Florida, and the rest of the 50 states for that matter), West and his supporters have every reason to demand a public, 100% hand-count of paper ballots before conceding defeat. Particularly in an election with such a slim margin, as reported by the flawed electronic systems, said to stand between the two candidates...


Machine tallied results to date

Here are the results of FL-18 as currently known at this hour, according to the Florida Division of Elections website...





That .78% difference between West and Murphy, if it holds after absentees and provisionals are added in, puts the race just outside of the .5% margin that would otherwise trigger a state-sponsored "recount" (albeit on the same faulty machines that tallied the ballots, either accurately or inaccurately, in the first place, as per FL law.)

The county-by-county results for FL-18 show where the race is even tighter, particularly in Palm Beach County, where just 11 votes(!) out of 123,903 tallied there currently separate the two candidates...

On Election Night, as reported by the Sen-Sentinel, Democrats were giddy about the prospect of the controversial West being tossed out of the House.

Florida's U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also serves as chair of the DNC, optimistically trumpeted that "moderate voters totally rejected Allen West's brand of extremism [and] his outrageous commentary. I think they didn't want a member of Congress who was in the news every day for all the wrong reasons."

Indeed, West has made a name for himself by declaring, for example, that he has "heard" some 76 of the 81 members of the Progressive Caucus in the U.S. House are "communists", and, as the Sun-Sentinel also reports, suggesting that "Nazi propaganda chief Joeseph Goebbels would be envious of the Democrats' 'incredible propaganda machine.'"

Wasserman Schultz, the paper notes, "was the subject of one of West's most talked-about tirades, when he called her 'the most vile, unprofessional and despicable' member of the House, labeled her a 'coward,' told her to 'shut the heck up,' and said she had 'proven repeatedly that you are not a lady.'"

9/11 Truth Confronts Amy Goodman & Democracy Now! ~ Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

911 Blogger



9/11 Truth Confronts Amy Goodman & Democracy Now! ~ Cal Poly San Luis Obispo 20Oct12 - - - Mark Phillips, mechanical engineer, and member of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: (AE911TRUTH.ORG), had dinner with Amy Goodman twice since 9/11, and was largely responsible for getting Goodman on local public radio: KCBX FM 90.1, for the San Luis Obispo county. Phillips provided Goodman with evidence of the controlled demolition of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 at a dinner, in New York, three years ago. At that dinner Phillips gave Goodman copies of the NIST report about the free-fall collapse of World Trade Center building 7, a copy of the newly released peer reviewed scientific paper published in the Open Chemical Physics Journal 2009: "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9-11 World Trade Center Catastrophe". This evidence of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center buildings on 9/11, as well as an entire packet of information was provided to Goodman at the dinner three years ago. Goodman was in New York on 9/11, and was an eyewitness to the 47 story free-fall demolition/collapse of World Trade Center building 7, at 5:20pm. Phillips pleaded with Goodman this year, and in the past, to interview one of the authors of the Active Thermite paper on the radio. There has been an entire media black out on the subject, with the exception of George Noory on Coast to Coast AM and the Alex Jones Radio Show. No others, to date, have discussed the Active Thermite paper. Perhaps one day soon Amy Goodman will be brave enough to at least have this debate on the air and get this truth to millions of Americans unaware of this incredible evidence. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and loss of freedoms in the United States all resulted because of 9/11.

Voter turnout in 2012 US presidential elections 9% lower than 2008

PressTV

Latest figures show that 117 million Americans, less than 50 percent of the eligible voters, have taken part in the presidential polls, showing a reduction of about nine percent compared to the 2008 election turnout of 131 million.

Preliminary figures indicate only 95 percent of precincts have so far reported their results and the number could change when more votes are counted.

“By and large, people didn’t show up,” Curtis Gans, director of American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate said Wednesday, adding that voter turnout in most states this year was even lower than 2004.

He went on to say that the 2012 presidential race was riddled with disenfranchising campaign tactics, leaving many voters feeling turned off.

Experts also attributed low voter turnout to the devastation caused by superstorm Sandy.

Moreover, many analysts believe a lower voter turnout in the election has played favorably into the hands of Mitt Romney, though Barack Obama retained his seat in the White House by a considerable margin.

The victory made Obama the first Democrat to win a second term since Bill Clinton in 1996.

Presidential Elections: Powerful “Special Interest Groups” Won Again

Global Research
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

The election that was supposed to be too close to call turned out not to be so close after all. In my opinion, Obama won for two reasons:

(1) Obama is non-threatening and inclusive, whereas Romney exuded a “us vs. them” impression that many found threatening, and

(2) the election was not close enough for the electronic voting machines to steal.

As readers know, I don’t think that either candidate is a good choice or that either offers a choice. Washington is controlled by powerful interest groups, not by elections. What the two parties fight over is not alternative political visions and different legislative agendas, but which party gets to be the whore for Wall Street, the military-security complex, Israel Lobby, agribusiness, and energy, mining, and timber interests.

Being the whore is important, because whores are rewarded for the services that they render. To win the White House or a presidential appointment is a career-making event as it makes a person sought after by rich and powerful interest groups. In Congress the majority party can provide more services and is thus more valuable than the minority party. One of our recent presidents who was not rich ended up with $36 million shortly after leaving office, as did former UK prime minister Tony Blair, who served Washington far better than he served his own country.

Wars are profitable for the military/security complex. Israel rewards its servants and punishes its enemies. Staffing environmental regulatory agencies with energy, mining, and timber executives is regarded by those interests as very friendly behavior.

Many Americans understand this and do not bother to vote as they know that whichever candidate or party wins, the interest groups prevail. Ronald Reagan was the last president who stood up to interest groups, or, rather, to some of them. Wall Street did not want his tax rate reductions, as Wall Street thought the result would be higher inflation and interest rates and the ruination of their stock and bond portfolios. The military/security complex did not want Reagan negotiating with Gorbachev to end the cold war.

What is curious is that voters don’t understand how politics really works. They get carried away with the political rhetoric and do not see the hypocrisy that is staring them in the face. Proud patriotic macho American men voted for Romney who went to Israel and, swearing allegiance to his liege lord, groveled at the feet of Netanyahu. Obama plays on the heart strings of his supporters by relating a story of a child with leukemia now protected by Obamacare, while he continues to murder thousands of children and their parents with drones and other military actions in seven countries. Obama was able to elicit cheers from supporters as he described the onward and upward path of America toward greater moral accomplishments, while his actual record is that of a tyrant who codified into law the destruction of the US Constitution and the civil liberties of the American people.

The election was about nothing except who gets to serve the interest groups. The wars were not an issue in the election. Washington’s provoking of Iran, Russia, and China by surrounding them with military bases was not an issue. The unconstitutional powers asserted by the executive branch to detain citizens indefinitely without due process and to assassinate them on suspicion alone were not an issue in the election. The sacrifice of the natural environment to timber, mining, and energy interests was not an issue, except to promise more sacrifice of the environment to short-term profits. Out of one side of the mouth came the nonsense promise of restoring the middle class while from the other side of the mouth issued defenses of the offshoring of their jobs and careers as free trade.

The inability to acknowledge and to debate real issues is a threat not only to the United States but also to the entire world. Washington’s reckless pursuit of hegemony driven by an insane neoconservative ideology is leading to military confrontation with Russia and China. Eleven years of gratuitous wars with more on the way and an economic policy that protects financial institutions from their mistakes have burdened the US with massive budget deficits that are being monetized. The US dollar’s loss of the reserve currency role and hyperinflation are plausible consequences of disastrous economic policy.

How is it possible that “the world’s only superpower” can hold a presidential election without any discussion of these very real and serious problems being part of it? How can anyone be excited or made hopeful about such an outcome?

Syrian Rebels Commit War Crime by Executing Government Troops with Bullets of "Hope and Change"

A video taken on November 1st, 2012 shows captured soldiers on the ground in Saraqeb, in northern Syria, and later shows them being shot to death.

FSA are executing a group of captured government troops. Executing prisoners of war is in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.

The United Nations said on Friday that a new video from Syria circulating on the Internet that appears to show antigovernment fighters kicking and summarily executing a group of frightened captive soldiers or militiamen could, if verified, represent evidence of a war crime to prosecute the perpetrators.

Occupy Portland spinoff group protests use of pepper spray at protest

The Oregonian
Deborah Bloom

One of an estimated 20 protesters who were
pepper-sprayed on Saturday gets some help.

Upset with the police bureau's use of force at Saturday's rally, Portland protesters are looking for ways to avoid such a reaction in the future when they demonstrate in public.

Portland Action Lab, an offshoot of the Occupy Portland movement, will meet Wednesday to reflect on the rally and discuss ideas for mitigating police officers' use of force, which some protesters have called excessive and violent.

"We keep running into this realization that the police are going to use force on us whenever we're in the streets," said spokesperson Nicholas Caleb.

The roughly 300-person rally against funding cuts to social and public services was mostly peaceful, but ended up with 20 people pepper-sprayed and one demonstrator arrested after police stopped the marchers from making a left turn onto a street in the Lloyd District.

Police began pepper-spraying demonstrators after they were confronted with wooden shields, department spokesperson Pete Simpson said.

The group also didn't have a permit for the rally, which is required for those marching on public streets. If the group had a permit, police would have been willing to escort the protesters through a route already approved by the department, Simpson said.

"We believe to express political dissent we shouldn't have to ask permission,"

said Mike Losier, another spokesperson for the group.

The police department's response to the group had become increasingly violent since the beginning of Occupy Portland, Caleb said.

"They're using riot police when there isn't a riot going on. People get bum rushed by cops in paramilitary fashion and hog tied," Caleb said.

Portland Anti-Austerity Protest Draws 1,000 Despite Police Violence

FP Street
Steve Slater
Matt Scuffham

It’s difficult to build a pre-election protest with so many labor and community groups busy campaigning for Democrats. Nevertheless, over 1,000 people marched the streets in Portland, Oregon against austerity cuts to education and other public services and the consequent debt accumulated by students.

The specific date of the pre-election protest was set to educate the public about the bi-partisan plan of national austerity cuts, which are expected to occur post-election and likely include massive cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, public education, and Social Security.

The Portland demonstration was endorsed or supported by six labor unions, including Portland’s teachers and the largest public employee union in Oregon. Over a dozen community groups endorsed the event.

But the police came ready to start a fight. There was a fleet of bicycle police and dozens of riot police, including those mounted on horseback. The police created confrontations by blocking streets on the marching route and pepper spraying marchers if they got too close. About 24 people were pepper sprayed, including several high school students and an elderly woman.

It should be noted that Portland’s mayor is the first openly gay Mayor in the country and a “liberal” Democrat.

Despite the police’s repeated attempts to dismember the march, the day was an overall success. The demonstration gained enough coverage to teach the city what austerity is, while speakers and fliers offered alternatives that would make austerity cuts unnecessary, such as taxing the rich and corporations instead of making cuts to education and social programs.

Also, the organizational framework has been created for further coalition building against austerity, with labor and community groups finding common purpose against a bi-partisan policy that is destroying the social safety net while being used as an excuse to attack unions.

This is important because future state budget deficits are expected in Oregon. Instead of raising taxes on the rich, whose tax rates have declined for the past three decades, the Democratic governor will likely try again to implement austerity cuts in response to a budget deficit. In other words, he will try to resolve the deficit at the expense of working people and the poor. Cuts will also likely be attempted again on the city level in Portland, in response to yet another budget deficit.

The economic crisis is not over for working people, who are likely to experience years of austerity budgets on all levels of government, while corporations, too, attempt to implement austerity wage and benefit cuts to their workforce in order to “remain competitive.”

If labor and community groups unite the broader population with common goals and collective, massive action, we can build a powerful social movement capable not only of defending ourselves from austerity, but changing the power dynamic in this country to the benefit of working people.

If united in massive numbers, we’ll have the strength to make the rich and corporations pay for this crisis they created.

State's Democrats file lawsuit to keep polling places open as voter anger grows

Guardian
Chris McGreal

People queue to vote early in Miami, Florida, where the
state's Republicans have been accused by the Democrats of
attempting to disenfranchise opponents. 

Florida Democrats have accused the swing state's Republican leadership of impinging on the fundamental rights of Americans amid growing voter anger at lengthy queues to vote, the shutting down of early voting and chaos in Miami over absentee ballots.

The state's Democratic party filed a lawsuit on Sunday to keep polling places open until election day as the Republicans stood accused of attempting to disenfranchise its opponents with new limits on early voting that contributed to waits of more than seven hours to cast ballots in Democratic strongholds such as Miami.

The Miami-Dade elections headquarters shut it doors on Sunday to people attempting to request absentee ballots because so many people showed up. Outside, would-be voters protested, shouting: "Let us vote".

Myrna Peralta, who waited with her four-year-old grandson for nearly two hours before being turned away, told the Miami Herald: "This is America, not a third-world country … They're not letting people vote."

After the outcry spread over social media, the department opened its doors again later in the afternoon. But the incident reflected deepening frustration at what are widely seen as Republican attempts to manipulate the election.

Long queues over the past week for early voting reflected a record turnout to vote early in Florida, with about 4 million people casting their ballots in advance of election day proper on Tuesday, as well as the longest ballot paper in the state's history, including complicated constitutional amendments.

But Democrats said they were also caused by Republican legislation sharply cutting the number of days for early voting from 14 to eight. That included scrapping voting on the final Sunday before election day, when large numbers of African Americans traditionally went to the polls after church.

The Florida Democratic party filed a legal action in Miami to try to keep at least some polling stations open for early voting in three key counties – Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach – which account for about one-third of the party's support in the state.

The lawsuit said "inadequate polling facilities" contributed to long waits in all three places. The last voters in Miami cast their ballots at 1am on Sunday even though the polling place official closed at 7pm on Saturday.

"The extraordinarily long lines deterred or prevented voters from waiting to vote. Some voters left the polling sites upon learning of the expected wait, and others refused to line up altogether," the legal action said. "These long lines and extreme delays unduly and unjustifiably burdened the right to vote."

The state's Republican governor, Rick Scott, who has the power to extend early voting days, declined to do so.

Rod Smith, the chairman of the Florida Democratic party, accused Republicans of impinging on people's rights.

"Voting is a fundamental right, and we all have an interest in assuring that all Americans have effective opportunities to vote," he said.

"Florida's Republican state legislature has already reduced the number of days to early vote by six days. Because of Governor Scott's refusal to follow precedent and extend early voting hours in the face of unprecedented voter turnout in south Florida, we are requesting in federal court that more Floridians have a meaningful chance to early vote."

Separately, a judge ordered an extension to early voting at an Orange County polling station after it was shut by a bomb scare on Saturday.

The US justice department has one eye on the 2000 election debacle of hanging chads and discounted votes, as well as more recent Florida election legislation struck down in federal court as discriminating against minorities, so it is monitoring the conduct of the vote in Florida to determine if the long queues are a deliberate obstacle to voting and therefore in breach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Vote Independent or Stay Home

Global Research
Stephen Lendman

Voting for Obama or Romney is like choosing between death by hanging or firing squad. Either way you’re dead.

The same goes for choosing Republicans or Democrats. Each party replicates the other. On issues mattering most, not a dime’s worth of difference separates them.

They’re pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-Israel, anti-populist, anti-civil and human rights, and anti all values real democratic societies cherish.

Post-November 6, nothing will change. Duopoly power assures harsher times ahead. Expect direct and proxy imperial wars to continue. New ones will be launched. War on terror/existential threat deception will justify them.

Waging war on freedom rages domestically. Hypocrisy, not democracy, is policy. Dissent is endangered. Big Brother spying is endemic. Democratic values are fast eroding en route to disappearing altogether.

Torture is official policy. It’s institutionalized at home and abroad. America’s gulag is the world’s largest. Anyone can be arrested, detained, and held uncharged indefinitely for any reason or none at all.

Obama appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. His kill list decides who lives or dies. No one is safe anywhere including US citizens. State-sponsored murder is policy. Death stalks anyone threatening Washington’s imperium.

On November 27, 1941, Franklin Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2524. He declared December 15 Bill of Rights Day. It was done to commemorate its 150th 1791 ratification.

At the time, he hailed “America(‘s) charter of personal liberty and human dignity.” He said it includes “freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the free right to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

American freedom always was far less than he claimed. Today it’s vanishing in plain sight. Tyranny is replacing it. Constitutional, statute and international laws don’t apply. Presidential diktats replaced them.

Obama governs that way. Romney won’t change a thing. Due process, civil protections, and judicial fairness are null and void. Police state laws destroyed them. Expect harsher ones to quash freedom entirely.

Third worldizing America is planned. Bipartisan complicity assures it. Poverty, unemployment, homelessness, hunger, inequality, and overall human deprivation are at unprecedented levels or close to them.

At the same time, $4 trillion or more in domestic spending cuts are planned. When help is badly needed, ordinary people will be hurt most. Medicare, Medicaid, and other vital programs are targeted. Ahead they’re on the chopping block for elimination along with Social Security.

Job creation remains moribund. Policies aren’t in place or planned to stimulate them. Layoffs will increase. The greatest divide between rich and poor in US history will widen.

Military spending and generous corporate handouts will rise. Corporate taxes will be cut. No matter who wins, policies Obama’s (Simpson-Bowles) deficit cutting team proposed will be instituted. They include:

•ending or capping middle class tax breaks; home mortgage interest deductions and tax-free employer provided medical insurance will be affected;

•billions of dollars in Medicare cuts;

•substantial Medicaid co-pay increases and steep cuts overall; millions will be denied vital healthcare when they most need it;

•raising the Social Security retirement age and cutting benefits by reducing or eliminating cost-of-living increases;

•cutting or eliminating welfare benefits; food stamps and other vital programs will be affected; and

•other socially destructive policies.

At issue is destroying social America. Corporate bosses and privileged elites demand it. They want it all for themselves.

Obama and Romney agree. So do congressional leaders. It has to go. Eliminating it is planned to further Washington’s imperium, increase corporate empowerment and profits, and benefit super-rich elites already with too much.

America’s ruling class wants everything its own way. Social justice isn’t in its vocabulary. It’s in the way so kill it.

In the 1970s, America began shifting right. Since the 1980s, neoliberalism dominated US politics under both parties. Bush I continued Reagan policies. Clinton hardened them. Bush II went further.

Obama outdid him. He did what supporters thought impossible. He matched Star Trek. He went where no administration went before. Imagine what he’ll do in a second term. Expect Romney to match or exceed him blow for blow. Congressional Republicans and Democrats assure it.

Money power runs America. Corporate bosses demand it. Whatever they want they get. Ordinary people suffer most. Social justice are four-letter words.

So is prosperity for millions losing out entirely. Bad as things are now, expect worse. Expect America’s great divide between rich and poor to widen.

Neoliberal/imperial priorities let essential public needs go begging. It’s baked in the cake. Party leaders are on board. Rhetoric alone differentiates one side of the isle from the other.

America’s democracy is fake. Back room deals decide who rules. Free, fair and open elections don’t exist. They don’t rise to the level of bad fiction. They mock legitimate governance.

No wonder so many people opt out. Maybe one day an election will be held and no one will show up. Something has to give to change things.

America’s duopoly offers no choice. Vote independent or stay home. Support people oriented candidates committed to real democracy of, by, and for everyone fairly and equitably.

Back peacemakers, not rogues wanting to ravage one country after another. Choose wisely for a society worth living in. Do it because it matters. Throwing out bums for new ones never solved a thing and won’t now.

Real change more than ever is needed. Great struggles are won in small steps. Take one on November 6. Boycott America’s duopoly.

Oppose the corporate driven pestilence. It’s destroying personal freedoms and social justice. Have your say. Do it wisely.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@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

What happens when you can’t trust the state

Le Monde Diplomatic
Serge Halimi

There would seem to be no chance that a man who made a fortune out of financial speculation might reach the White House just four years after private banks caused a crisis and had to be bailed out by taxpayers. The uncertainty to the very last minute about the outcome of the US election was probably due to worsening distrust of the state, and everything it does.

The problem of public debt is now at the very heart of US political life, thanks to the dramatic increase in budget deficits caused by the cost of two simultaneous wars (Afghanistan and Iraq), the bank bailouts and new enormous tax cuts (1). Some people claim that “we would love to help but we can no longer afford it.” Others also look to the incestuous links between government and private enterprise, the dubious process that transforms former heads of government into lobbyists or highly paid public speakers (see Blair Inc). The old fear of bureaucratic waste, parasitic middlemen and huge projects that come to nothing, is increasingly exacerbated by suspicions of venality.

The justification that “it costs too much and it won’t work” was already a powerful deterrent against any social action by the state. But perhaps there is now also a conviction that elected representatives have become too remote, too corrupt and too closely associated with the interests of an oligarchy to serve the common good. The right, claiming to be liberal, takes advantage of this lack of confidence and suggests (as with Mitt Romney) that if you want to run a country you might as well first prove yourself by managing a company or a hedge fund.

Yet fraud and waste are rife in the private sector, too. Unknown numbers of engineers, accountants and sociologists, trained at public expense, squander their talents on perfecting the lines of a car bonnet, a new packaging material or a cigarette filter, or on designing outlandish insurance contracts and tax-free investment schemes. Financial success is almost always more important to a company than the social value of its products.
A scandal may occasionally damage or destroy the head of a corporation; it generally does so without questioning the structures on which their activities and power are based. But prevarication by a mayor or a minister, supposed government capitulation to a lobby, or doubts about the funding of an election campaign have immediate repercussions for the state. They undermine its right to raise taxes, organise the country and mobilise the nation.

Almost everywhere people are eager for change. But without the proper instruments to achieve their aims, new or old, all they can do is feel their way, mark time, and sometimes — against all their hopes — go into reverse.

Mitt Romney Has Made It Clear That He Backs Indefinite Detention Too

Business Insider
Abby Rogers

President Barack Obama has been getting slammed for his act allowing the indefinite detention of anyone, including American citizens, remotely connected to terrorist groups.

But would the Mitt Romney Administration be any better?

Earlier this year during one of the Republican presidential debates, Romney was asked point blank if he would sign the NDAA as it's currently written. "Yes I would have," he responded, causing the crowd to begin vehemently booing. "And I do believe that it's appropriate to have in our nation the capacity to detain people who are threats to this country."

Watch the full clip, first brought to our attention by the Examiner:

Has the Election already been Stolen for Romney/Ryan?

Global Research
Larry Chin

For at least the past four decades, the American election process has been controlled by corpora

tions and agents connected to the Republican Party. This year’s “contest” is no different.

Voter suppression campaigns have been underway across America, by Republican operatives. (See Black Box Voting andBrad Blog). Nothing is being done to stop it.

Mitt Romney has direct ties to voting machines (also see the report by Brad Friedman). His son, Tagg Romney (who wanted to punch Barack Obama in the face) and a cadre of former Bain Capital business partners are owners of Hart Intercivic, whose voting machines are used in all fifty states. And this is just one of the many companies with ties to the right-wing, which include Diebold, ES&S, and Sequoia. In 2004, Diebold’s Walden O’Dell promised to “deliver votes” to George W. Bush. His machines did, stealing what should have been a John Kerry win.

To this day, American democracy remains privatized and hackable. Nothing has been done about it. Theft continues unabated.

Backlash and cover-up

The few investigators who keep bringing exhaustive factual evidence of vote fraud to light have been attacked as “conspiracy theorists” by corporate media gatekeepers, and ignored by officials. These same accusers have refused to lift a finger to verify any of the facts. The “progressive” establishment Left has joined in this cover-up. The Democratic Party-affiliated Center for American Progress, and its site ThinkProgress, recently attacked reporter Brad Friedman.

for raising questions about Romney’s ties to voting machines.

Why is the establishment Left dissuading their own constituents from waking up?  Going back to the days of COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird, the Left gate keeping apparatus has long operated as a system of controlled dissent, offering channels to express certain ideas, but smashing down factual truths that are deemed truly threatening to their agenda.  The notion that American democracy—the vote—is thoroughly corrupted is such a threat. Unfortunately, it is the fact.

Nevertheless, we find the liberal consensus still pushing illusions and naïve ideas. Obama is still portrayed as a populist hero, despite his Bush/Cheney-esque record. The Democrats continue to urge their followers to believe that turnout and early voting solve everything.

But what if those votes are not counted? If the machines counting the votes are controlled by Republicans and Romney/Ryan, the game may already be over.

With a few clicks of a keyboard of a Hart Intercivic machine (Tagg Romney could even do it himself), the White House is seized, just as it was in 2000 and 2004.

Romney/Ryan: As Teflon as Bush/Cheney

Simultaneous with a vote-rigging apparatus in place for the Republicans, the corporate media—dominated by the corporate right-wing— has gone out of its way to give Romney and Ryan a free pass in news coverage.

Corporate media is ignoring their unsavory backgrounds, and ignoring the clear dangers of their policy agenda, and also ignoring the neocon fanatics advising the campaign. Tax returns that contain the history of his dirty schemes at Bain Capital are not the focus of critical investigation.

Countless Romney/Ryan campaign blunders, embarrassing debate losses and pathological lying have not slowed down their momentum.

Many polls continue to put Romney in the lead. Some polls even put Romney ahead of Obama among women, despite his outrageous misogyny. It is impossible to believe that these numbers correlate with realities on the ground.

Clearly the illusion of a close election is being created, in order to provide political cover for vote theft on November 6th. As demonstrated in 2000, close elections are easier to steal.

Bush/Cheney on steroids

The parallels with the stolen election of 2000 that installed Bush/Cheney in the White House are clear, and palpable. The larger political situation is also eerily similar.

Coming off of a period of neoliberal place-holding under Clinton, it was time to hand the controls over to Washington’s most hawkish right-wing enforcers, in order to start the war for oil (9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq) in earnest.

A Romney/Ryan administration will deliver a return to neoconservative rule—this time for the wars in Iran and Syria, and to impose austerity programs domestically—with militant messianic fervor.

The arrogant and malleable Mitt Romney, a suit as empty as George W. Bush, is the perfect man for the job. Ryan, a peevish and sadistic ideologue is also an ideal “enforcer”.

Iran Issue, a US Election Stratagem

Iran Review
Afsaneh Ahadi
Expert on Strategic and US Affairs

Iran’s nuclear issue has been a focus of attention for both the Republican and Democrat candidates during 2012 election hustings. In fact, Iran was among issues to which both rival candidates have paid special attention since the beginning of election campaigns. As election campaigns close to their end, the two rivals are paying even higher attention to Iran and how to deal with it. The focus on Iran has been so intense that other foreign policy issues have been discussed by presidential hopefuls in the light of Iran issue and the candidates use it to barrage each other’s positions. The Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, and his Democrat rival who is also the incumbent US president, Barack Obama, have been trying throughout their election debates and also in their other public addresses to depict Iran as a major threat to national security of the United States.

Although a similar trend has been rife in previous US presidential elections, during the current campaigns, both candidates are trying to draw more public attention to Iran issue, by putting too much emphasis on and giving urgency to Iran issue. In fact, the only way to get the American voters believe that there is an issue in the country’s foreign policy which is more pressing than economic issues is to aggrandize the threat posed by that issue to the United States national security. This is being done while the American people’s concern about gravity of their country’s economic situation is growing and various opinion polls have shown that economic programs offered by both candidates have been treated coldly by the American people. A comparison between the impressions made on the American people by either candidate’s economic program clearly proves that none of them have been considered attractive by the general public. In a recent poll conducted by the Gallup Institute, 48 percent voted for Obama while 47 percent took sides with Romney’s economic program.

At any rate, the main issue which is of utmost urgency to both rival candidates is to attract the so-called ‘swing’ votes which are cast by people in a number of states whose final vote cannot be forecasted up to the eleventh hour. Traditionally, a certain part of the US population votes for Democrat candidates, while another part supports the Republicans and their candidates. However, there is also a part of the population with no special allegiance for either party in some US states, which are known as ‘swing states.’ Such undetermined votes account for about 23 percent of all votes during this year’s presidential polls, which is quite considerable. As a result, both candidates are doing their best to win the votes of this part of the population.

Therefore, stressing on the critical nature of an issue and reiterating the necessity of taking a serious stance on it will be a good ploy in order to put a cap on the weak performance of a candidate in other fields. Iran is now in the center of the crisis theme chosen for this year’s presidential elections in the United States. This is quite similar to what happened during the US presidential polls in 1980. At that time, due to hostage taking crisis related to the American diplomats in Tehran, the American people paid special attention to political stances of both candidates.

Although the Americans saw Iran threat more tangible then, the ongoing negative propaganda against the Islamic Republic has once more brought the alleged Iran threat to the fore. As a result, the republican candidate is accusing Obama of having adopted futile and ineffective policies in order to stop Iran’s nuclear activities and is calling for a more serious treatment of Iran which may even include a military option. Polls conducted so far show that despite too much emphasis, which has been put on the serious nature of Iran’s nuclear energy program, the American people are not in favor of a military option against Iran and the beginning of a new war. This is truer taking into account that the American people are currently grappling with a major economic crisis and they believe that the main cause of the crisis is their country’s engagement in two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, the Republican candidate is trying to show that sanctions have not been of enough effect against Iran and have failed to produce a major impact on the Islamic Republic. Therefore, he has called for further escalation of sanctions against Iran. Romney has already questioned Obama’s position of considering the capability to build nuclear weapons as the red line for Iran’s nuclear energy program, and believes that any form of nuclear capability in Iran will pose a serious threat to security of both Israel and the United States.

Many experts believe that any sudden development in relation to Iran’s nuclear issue can have a great impact on the situation of the US presidential candidates and even a development with an ephemeral effect can be consequential. Perhaps this is why a few days before the last election debate between Obama and Romney, the New York Times daily reported that the United States and Iran have reached an agreement to launch direct talks and the negotiations are to be started following the US presidential election. Although the report was rejected by both the Iranian and American officials, in short term, it can leave its mark on the US presidential contest in favor of Obama and can improve his standing compared to his Republican rival. The Republican candidate, on the other side, has noted that any kind of negotiations with Iran will be ineffective and has slammed Obama for showing unacceptable weakness in the face of Iran. Critics believe that despite international sanctions against the Islamic Republic, Iran’s nuclear program in ceaselessly progressing. On the other hand, experience has shown that even in the case of direct talks between the two sides, they are very probable not to achieve any clear-cut result just in the same way that direct talks between the United States and North Korea over the latter country’s nuclear program failed to produce a tangible result.

Why Is President Obama Sending 12, 000 U.S. Troops To Libya?

Countercurrents
Cynthia McKinney

It is with great disappointment that I receive the news from foreign media publications and Libyan sources that our President now has 12,000 U.S. troops stationed in Malta and they are about to make their descent into Libya.

For those of you who have not followed closely the situation in Libya, the resistance to rule of the National Transitional Council is strong. The National Transitional Council (NTC) cast of characters has about as much support on the ground as did Mahmoud Abbas before the United Nations request for Palestinian statehood or Afghanistan's regal-looking but politically impotent Hamid Karzai or for that matter, George W Bush after eight years. The NTC not only has to contend with a vibrant, well-financed, grassroots-supported resistance, but the various militias of the NTC are now also fighting each other. I believe this “sociocide” of Libyan society, as we previously witnessed in Iraq and Afghanistan before it, is part of a carefully crafted plan of destabilization that ultimately serves U.S. imperial interests and those of a Zionist state and its US agents who are bent on Greater Israel's suzerainty over huge swaths of Arabic-speaking populations. Pakistan is also on the list for neutering in Muslim and world affairs, saddled with its own unpopular civilian leadership that finds itself in the hip pocket of the United States for survival, often getting sat upon by its fiscal guarantor.

The “Arab Spring” has sprung and the indelible fingerprints of malignant foreign financed operations must be erased if the people are to have a chance to truly govern themselves. Unfortunately, these foreign-inspired organizations are present and operating in just about every country in the world. The threat is ever-present like sleeping cells–all that is needed is that the right word to “activate” be given. Both Daniel Ortega and Hugo Chavez can write tomes on the impact of the National Endowment for Democracy in the political life of their countries.

In other words, those who create the chaos have a plan and in the midst of chaos, they usually are the ones who will win. Those who wrote the plan of this chaos were affiliated with the Project for a New American Century–read A Clean Break if you already haven't. General Wesley Clark told us of the plan to invade and destroy the governments of seven countries in five years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. “These people took control of the policy in the United States,” Clark continues. He concludes, “This country was taken over by a group of people with a policy coup: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and . . . collaborators from the Project for a New American Century: they wanted us to destabilize the Middle East.” Richard Perle, Bill Kristol publicize these plans and “could hardly wait to finish Iraq so they could go into Syria,” Clark goes on. “The root of the problem is the strategy of the United States in this region. Why are Americans dying in this region? That is the issue,” he finishes.

Now, from Libya, reports are that even while the Misrata rebels (NATO allies responsible for the murder of hundreds of Libyans, including Moatessem Qaddafi) attempted to scale the petroleum platforms in Brega (an important oil town in Libya), they were annihilated by the Apache helicopters of their own NATO allies. A resistance Libyan doctor-become-journalist reported yesterday that all of the petroleum platforms are occupied by NATO and that warships occupy Libya's ports. Photographs show Italian encampments in the desert with an announcement that the French are to follow. Another news outlet reports that Qataris and Emiratees are the engineers now at the oil plants, turning away desperate Libyan workers.

While long lines exist for Libyan drivers to get their gas, foreign troops ensure the black gold's export. Libyans lack enough food and the basics, the country has been turned upside down, and contaminated with uranium while the true number of dead and unaccounted for remains high and unknown. Thousands of young Libyans, supporters of the Jahamiriya, languish under torture and assassination in a Misrata prison where a humanitarian disaster is about to unfold because Misrata rebels want to kill them all and have already attacked the prison once to do so. An urgent appeal to contact the International Red Cross was issued yesterday to help save the lives of the prisoners. And finally, Black Libyans continue to be targeted for harassment and murder in Libya by US/NATO allies on the ground. Teaching hate, given the images of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan released yesterday, urinating on Afghani dead bodies, is not a difficult thing to do, it would seem. Videos are posted of Black Libyans being beaten, whipped, threatened, harassed, and humiliated. These videos remind me of the antebellum South–reminiscent of the days of slavery and The Confederacy. So, when I use the word “descend” to describe U.S. anticipated actions, I mean just that: U.S. troops are about to descend into the hell on Earth created by their President and the leaders of other countries who approved of, aided, or participated in the death of Libyan-owned society. A report from last night indicates that one militia, fearing other militias even invited foreigners in to protect them.