Group items tagged

Not mentioned in the article: the Knesset's Regulation Bill formally annexed territory inside the West Bank and holds that Israeli law, rather than military law, will now govern the annexed portions. That is the fact that establishes a clean break with the 2-state solution and flies in the face of international law including the Fourth Geneva Convention, which strictly prohibits annexation and requires the immediate withdrawal of invading military forces from occupied territories immediately upon cessation of hostilities, which occurred in 1967. The two-state solution is dead, although the Regulation Bill will likely be overturned by the Israeli Supreme Court. Trump gave Israel's ultra-right wing leaders way too much encouragement.

Israel threatening invasion of Iran before the U.S. Presidential election. Which either Obama or Romney would back, sending our troops into yet another war of aggression, the Geneva Conventions be damned.

What exactly is it that John Kerry does not understand about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion[?]" See e.g., Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet,  512 U.S. 687 (1994) (establishment of a Satmar Hasidim Jewish school district violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause). http://supreme.justia.com/us/512/687/case.html. Notice that the Court there faced a school district that was in effect a Jewish school district, not a school district that had an ostensibly religious purpose. Does Kerry believe that the U.S. government may do abroad what the Constitution squarely prohibits, creating a Jewish State? And where does that leave the approximate 20 per cent of the Israel population that is not Jewish, not to mention the right of return to their property secured by the Fourth Geneva Convention for those Palestinians (and their descendants) driven out of what is now Israel in the late 1940s? The Convention provides, for example: "Art. 47. Protected persons who are in occupied territory shall not be deprived, in any case or in any manner whatsoever, of the benefits of the present Convention by any change introduced, as the result of the occupation of a territory, into the institutions or government of the said territory, *nor by any agreement concluded between the authorities of the occupied territories and the Occupying Power,* nor by any annexation by the latter of the whole or part of the occupied territory." And -- "Art. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive."

Abbas finally gets an endorsement from neighboring Arab states backing him on his refusal to recognize Israel as a "Jewish State," part of Netanyahu's negotiation demands. Such recognition would be tantamount to recognition of Israel's denial of the right of Palestinians driven from their homes in 1948 to return to them, a right ensured to them by the Geneva Convention on the rights of civilians in time of war.  

excerpt: "….Transnationalists want to rewrite the laws of war, do away with the death penalty, restrict gun rights and much more-all without having to win popular majorities or heed American constitutional limits. And these advocates are making major strides under an Obama administration that is itself a hotbed of transnational legal thinking…. To be clear, transnationalism isn't a conspiratorial enterprise. In the legal academy, its advocates have openly stated their aims and means. "International law now seeks to influence political outcomes within sovereign States," Anne-Marie Slaughter, then dean of Princeton's public-affairs school, wrote in an influential 2007 essay. International law, she went on, must expand to include "domestic choices previously left to the determination of national political processes" and be able to "alter domestic politics." The preferred entry point for importing foreign norms into American law is the U.S. court system. The Yale Law School scholar Howard Koh, a transnationalist advocate, has written that "domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law." Over the past two decades, activist judges have increasingly cited "evolving" international standards to overturn state laws, and Mr. Koh has suggested that foreign norms can be "downloaded" into American law in this manner…. Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Koh held top posts at the State Department during Mr. Obama's first term, and their tenures coincided with an aggressive push to ratify or recognize as customary law… a host of … progressive causes. For proof that the transnationalist threat isn't merely theoretical, look no further than the European Union…. Today over half of the regulations that affect Europeans' lives are made by administrators in Brussels, not by national legislatures. These regulations include the EU's ban, announced in May, on restau

Meanwhile, illegal NSA spying is expected to cost USA Cloud Computing companies $35 Billion in lost sales and services. "whistleblower Edward Snowden worked for the CIA, rather than the NSA. Here's the original text in the Guardian: By 2007, the CIA stationed him with diplomatic cover in Geneva, Switzerland. His responsibility for maintaining computer network security meant he had clearance to access a wide array of classified documents. That access, along with the almost three years he spent around CIA officers, led him to begin seriously questioning the rightness of what he saw. He described as formative an incident in which he claimed CIA operatives were attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information. Snowden said they achieved this by purposely getting the banker drunk and encouraging him to drive home in his car. When the banker was arrested for drunk driving, the undercover agent seeking to befriend him offered to help, and a bond was formed that led to successful recruitment. In that quotation, there's the nugget of information that the CIA was not targeting terrorists on this occasion, at least not directly, but "attempting to recruit a Swiss banker to obtain secret banking information". That raises an interesting possibility for the heightened interest in Germany, as revealed by Boundless Informant. Given that the NSA is gathering information on a large scale -- even though we don't know exactly how large -- it's inevitable that some of that data will include sensitive information about business activities in foreign countries. That could be very handy for US companies seeking to gain a competitive advantage, and it's not hard to imagine the NSA passing it on in a suitably discreet way. Germany is known as the industrial and economic powerhouse of Europe, so it would make sense to keep a particularly close eye on what people are doing there -- especially if those people happen to work in companies that compete with US firms.

Closely related: see http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/02/telecoms-bt-vodafone-cables-gchq (,) an article on British telecom's collaboration with wiretapping by the UK's counterpart to the NSA, GCHQ. According to an inside source: "The source said analysts used four criteria for determining what was examined: security, terror, organised crime and Britain's economic wellbeing." I also recall that years ago during the furor over the Echelon system, an EU Parliament investigation had concluded that there were concrete instances of commercial intelligence being passed on by NSA to American companies. Specifically, I recall a finding that during development of the AirBus, details of its design had been intercepted by NSA and passed on to Boeing. There was testimony received that more generically discussed the types of economic surveillance conducted. http://cryptome.org/echelon-nh.htm (page search for "economic"). The same researcher stressed that in public statements: "Those targets like terrorism and weapons transport are used as a cover for the traditional areas of spying, the predominant areas of spying, which are political, diplomatic, economic and military."

Stephen Lindman unwinds the mainstream media/U.S. political spin on the Iran/P5+1 interim agreement, summarizing and linking the actual text. As suspected, Iran got way more from the deal and gave up less than reported by mainstream media. My analysis: The spin is mainly based on provisions that are largely meaningless to Iran because it had and has no nuclear weapon ambitions. I now have a strong sniff that the P5+1 negotiation is aimed at removing Israel's excuse (Iranian nuclear weapon threat) for pushing the U.S. and NATO to commence war against Iran and that is the real reason for the War Party's rage against the interim deal. Obama is trying to do this as an executive agreement among the negotiation parties, rather than as a treaty that would require Senate super-majority approval.  But he may face a problem in that regard because of a single agreement provision: "The U.S. Administration, acting consistent with the respective roles of the President and the Congress, will refrain from imposing new nuclear-related sanctions." That carefully crafted sentence would seem to leave Congress free to enact further sanctions if it can overcome an Obama veto, which requires a supermajority in both houses of Congress. The sentence is, however, susceptible to deliberate misportrayal as a provision tying the hands of Congress too in order to attack the agreement as requiring approval by the Senate, cries of outrage about Obama usurping the Congressional role, etc. But there is a body of case law holding that some classes of "executive agreements" do not rise to the level needed to invoke the Constitution's Treaty Clause. Personally, I think that body of case law constitutes unlawful judicial amendment of the Constitution, but it exists. So litigation over the issue in regard to this agreement is unlikely to get any traction.  

Such is the power of the Israel Lobby. Many members of Congress have been getting private briefings by Israeli "intelligence officials"  and publicly stating that they have more confidence in the Israeli briefings than in U.S. intelligence. One might question the honesty of the so-called Israeli "intelligence briefings;" numerous retired Israeli intelligence agency heads have publicly stated that Iran has no present intention to build nuclear weapons and has not made any decision to make such a decision later. It should be kept in mind that the economic sanctions on Iran strike its middle and lower economic classes. They do nothing to harm the Iranian government or military capabilities or R&D. Economic sanctions are widely recognized as acts of war that violate the Fourth Geneva Convention's protections for non-combatants.

So if Raghavan is correct, a new treaty will emerge from the debacle that limits but does not end foreign surveillance. And if so, I predict that it will have no enforcement provisions and absolutely no citizen remedies for rights violated. The farther we go down the NSA rabbit hole, the more convinced I am that it is a stark choice between having spy agencies equipped for digital surveillance and Internet Freedom.  Internet Freedom seems far better equipped to produce world peace through understanding than spy agencies who deliver their "intelligence" to only the favored few. 

Nice to see the NeoCons and Zionists on the defensive for a change. 

No surprise here. The Israeli government is not bargaining in good faith; it wants to continue its expansion into Palestinian territory. When Kerry couldn't persuade Israel from backing off from its preposterous demand that Palestine emerge only as a neutered state without a military, Kerry suggested that the Palestinians accept those conditions. It's a waiting game for both Israel and Palestine. As soon as the U.S.-imposed 6 months of negotiations are over; Israel can get back to flank speed on its settlement building and Palestine's promise expires to refrain from taking Israel to the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The 4th Geneva Convention requires that Israel have withdrawn from the territories it seized in the 1967 war as soon as hostilities ceased and prohibits Israel from migrating its own citizens to the seized territories, as Israel has been doing since 1967.  

Re: "It was not illegal based on the law at the time." The Fourth Geneva Convention, since its adoption in the late 1940s, has granted prisoners the right to remain silent other than providing their name, rank, service number, and contact information for relatives to be notified of their capture and imprisonment. U.S. Dept. of Defense General Order No. 1, first issued by President Dwight Eisenhower, forbids captured U.S. personnel from giving any other information to their captors.  

Horse puckey. The quoted article is misleading, attempting to conflate two distinct sets of documents that the Court ordered the CIA to disclose after removing all properly classified information. The duty to disclose segregable portions of  records that are not classified has been in place since the early 70s. It should have been done without a lawsuit having been filed and litigated. I.e.,it was a court order the CIA knew was coming since it first received the FOIA request from the ACLU. One set is the CIA response to the Senate Committee. The other set is the DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel memoranda on the legality of torture techniques. not documents documenting the torture itself and not the CIA response to the Senate Committee. Even if he CIA really needed more time for the documents in the Senate group, the legal memoranda could be shorn of classified information in a mater of hours, not days, weeks, or months.  It's the legal memoranda disclosure that CIA and DOJ are really trying to delay. At least two of them were written and/or signed by a former head of the DoJ Office of Legal Counsel whose nomination to the First Circuit Court of Appeals is now pending in Congress. And it's crystal clear that he signed memoranda arguing that torture was legal, which bears directly on his fitness to become a federal appellate judge. It takes a lawyer without ethics or morality to argue that torture is legal. It's not, under either U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions governing warfare. Neither  is grabbing people and turning them over to other governments for torture.  Those memoranda will establish that the nominee is a war criminal. We know this because we have already had a preview in the form of a white paper on the topic released by the White House last year that it's known the same nominee had worked on. And the legal arguments in that white paper are preposterous.   The delay attempt is transparently in aid of pushing that nomination through Congress before

Background: An Israeli Defense Force armored personnel carrier hit a landmine in Shujaiya, killing all 7 soldiers aboard. Israel responded with a massive and lengthy artillery bombardment, destroying much of Shujaiya. They also destroyed an ambulance carrying injured civilians, a violation of the 4th Geneva Convention.  

There went Obama's plan for Syria: "Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian opposition.  Tonight, I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train and equip these fighters.  In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people - a regime that will never regain the legitimacy it has lost.  Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all." - Barack Obama (September 10, 2014) And there goes Hillary's election campaign stump speech on Syria. http://goo.gl/psjYQy