An Arms Race with Only One Runner?

The Wall Street Journal  reports (behind a paywall, so here’s a Telegraph rehash) that the Pentagon has re-designed its 30,000 pound “Massive Ordnance Penetrator” bomb, also known as the “bunker buster,” for the express purpose of making it big and bad enough to penetrate an Iranian nuclear facility near Qom.

The goal seems not so much to be actually attacking the facility as convincing the Israeli government that “time hasn’t run out” to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

But there’s little evidence that such any program exists (US intelligence agencies have been saying for years that Iran doesn’t seem to be pursuing nukes), and good reason to believe that it doesn’t: Iran’s “Supreme Leader,” Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has publicly renounced nuclear weapons on religious principle.

Of course, the same warmongers who insist that every hostile word from a Muslim leader must be taken at face value because, after all, Muslims are all violent religious nutcases who wear their extremism on their sleeves, demand that we dismiss Khamenei just this one little time.

And now that the “improved” MOP has been built, a War Party lobby will spring into action to demand that it be used … against something, against anything, but preferably against the hobgoblin du jour.

Important Briefing on Drones Tomorrow, Friday, May 3

from the Arab American Institute

Last week, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights held the first Senate hearing on drones. With the testimony of one particular witness, Yemeni youth activist Farea Al-Muslimi, policymakers were confronted with the reality of this policy. During his powerful and emotional presentation, Farea spoke of the impact of a drone strike on his village, stating that “What the violent militants had previously failed to achieve, one drone strike accomplished in an instant.”

We believe Farea’s voice is critical for members of Congress to hear and are hosting him for a congressional briefing on the House side tomorrow entitled Drones: A Slippery Slope on Lives and Liberty.  Experts will be present to address the civilian impact of targeted strikes and the legal framework underlying US drone policy.

If you are in DC, please join us in person. If not, we will be live-streaming the briefing on our website at www.aaiusa.org.

There needs to be greater transparency about our government’s drone policy, but also better clarity on the legal justification and the basis for the targeted strikes. It is also critical that measures are taken to ensure that civilian populations do not continue to comprise the overwhelming majority of causalities. It is our hope that taking this conversation directly to policymakers on the Hill will help move us in the right direction.

Thank you for your continued support.

WHAT: Congressional Briefing on Drones: A Slippery Slope on Lives and Liberties

WHEN: Friday, May 3, 2013, 10:00am-11:30am

WHERE: 2226 Rayburn House Office Building

Speakers:

Farea Al-Muslimi: Yemeni youth activist; formerly worked with the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, USAID, and Resonate! Yemen.

Jennifer Daskal: Adjunct Professor of Law and Fellow at the Center on Law and National Security at Georgetown University Law Center; formerly served as counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security at the Department of Justice.

Naureen Shah: Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School; co-authored the report, “The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes;” consultant to Amnesty International USA.

Moderator: Yasmine Taeb, AAI Government Relations Manager

The Usual Suspects v. Syria: WMD for We but not for Thee

The French, British and Israeli governments have all accused Syria’s regime of using chemical weapons in its ongoing struggle with foreign-backed rebels. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon is urging Assad to allow UN inspectors into the country to verify or disprove the claims. And US president Barack Obama, while carefully avoiding a direct accusation, has publicly mused that proof of the charge would be a “game-changer,” by which he means that it would serve as an excuse to escalate US meddling in the conflict.

But the allegation rings hollow … or at least hypocritical:

• The Israeli government openly used chemical weapons in the West Bank at least as recently as April 26.
• The French government gassed hundreds of protesters in Paris at least as recently as April 24.
• Chemical weapons are routinely used by US regime forces for purposes as unimportant as breaking up rowdy college parties. And if we want to expand our focus to more general weapons of mass destruction, the US remains the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on large civilian populations. I suppose we could also talk about white phosphorous and depleted uranium, but you get the picture.
• Both the US and the UK supply chemical weapons to repressive regimes around the world.

If it seems perverse to compare CS (“tear gas”), the particular chemical weapon used by all these regimes as described above, to GB (“sarin”), the agent they accuse Bashar al-Assad of using, consider, think again: CS is specifically designated as a chemical weapon, just as illegal for use in international warfare as GB, under the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.

The governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States have signed and ratified that convention. Israel’s government has signed it, although it remains unratified by the Knesset. Yet all four governments freely and frequently use an illegal chemical weapon “on their own people,” the Israelis use it in foreign areas they militarily occupy, and the US and UK export it for use by other governments “on their own people” — all while condemning Syria’s government for allegedly exercising exactly the same domestic/internal exemption. Not that Syria needs such an exemption; it is one of five governments which has never signed or ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

The definition of “chemical weapon” and “weapon of mass destruction” gets inflated or deflated as necessary to serve the purposes of a regime’s ruling class, both at home and abroad.

When a US drone fires a Hellfire II missile with an 8-pound fragmentation/anti-personnel warhead into a wedding party in Pakistan, that’s just cricket. When Dzhokhar Tsarnaev allegedly sets off two pressure cookers filled with black powder and ball bearings at the Boston Marathon, that’s “using a weapon of mass destruction.”

When the US government uses tanks to pump CS into an American church, sets the building on fire and machine-guns the fleeing residents, that’s “law enforcement.” When Bashar al-Assad allegedly uses sarin on armed opponents trying to overthrow him, that’s “murdering his own people.”

Why are governments so eager to make distinctions between types of weapons? Because those governments are otherwise so much alike as to be indistinguishable one from another.

[cross-posted from the Center for a Stateless Society]

Stop U.S. Subversion of Human Rights Organizations: PEN’s new Executive Director, Suzanne Nossel, Advocate of U.S. Military Interventions, Must Go.

From the Change.org petition site:

There has been growing concern that Human Rights organizations are being subverted by the U.S. government to advance its foreign policy. With the appointment of its new director, Suzanne Nossel, formerly Under Secretary of State, the human rights organization PEN has become the most blatant and overt example of such subversion.

PEN is an organization of writers and related professions, which we all support when we purchase works by its members. PEN presents itself as an organization in favor of peace and human rights. But PEN has now hired as its new Executive Director, Suzanne Nossel, Underecretary of State under Hillary Clinton. Nossel has been a relentless advocate for pre-emptive war, illegal under international law, and a champion of “Smart Power” which includes “not least” U.S. military force. Nossel has used “human rights” as a cover for such wars. This undermines the genuine quest for human rights. Her leadership of PEN is inconsistent with its commitment to peace and human rights and as an organization independent of the U.S. government. She must be dismissed or resign.

Click here to sign and for more info.

Bi-Partisan Platitudes at the George Bush Library

On April 25, all living US presidents from Jimmy Carter onward gathered in Dallas, Texas to herald the opening of the George Bush presidential library. Democrat and Republican alike, along with their wives, participated in a flattering ceremony that deemed George Bush worthy of bearing title to a bastion of books and knowledge.

The bipartisan support for such a library, however traditional it may be, reflects the meaninglessness of American political parties in the first place. Bill Clinton praised the Bush presidency and Obama expressed respect for the ex-president’s leadership skills at Ground Zero in 2001.

Commentary on the murderous, deceptive, and criminal policies that characterized the Bush presidency was omitted, except for Bush’s own joking comment that he inspired “many opportunities to exercise” the right of free speech and disagreement with government.

This acknowledgment from the war criminal himself reflects the extent of substantive disagreement between the two ruling parties: None. As Obama and Clinton remained silent on the crimes of Bush Jr., it is apparent that they did so not only for the sake of politeness at a carefully planned PR moment for the government.

Their affection is also because these presidents, before and after the Bush presidency, carried out the same crimes that their liberal constituents once railed against.

Syria Blowback, Internet-Style

Per BBC:

The Associated Press news agency is the latest Western news organisation to fall victim to the Syrian Electronic Army’s cyber war, with a false tweet about an explosion at the White House causing a sudden albeit brief dip in the Dow Jones index by up to 140 points.

The Syrian Electronic Army is a pro-Assad group which styles itself “a group of enthusiastic Syrian youths who could not stay passive towards the massive distortion of facts about the recent uprising in Syria.” Whether or not that description is strictly accurate (e.g. whether they might actually be part of the regime’s apparatus), the real question is “who lost money, and how much, seemingly due to the US government’s refusal to keep its nose out of Syria’s internal affairs?”

Copperhead: Coming to Your Town?

Ron Maxwell’s first two films set in the American Civil War – Gettysburg and Gods and Generals — are about the men who fought that war. His third, the forthcoming Copperhead, is about the men and women who didn’t think it should be fought.

You’re going to want to see it — the story is compelling, the production values look outstanding and it features a stellar cast including Billy Campbell, Angus McFadyen and Peter Fonda — but historical dramas, especially antiwar historical dramas, need a bit more “audience push” onto local screens. Help the makers of Copperhead, and help yourself and your movie-viewing friends, by “demanding” the movie in your town:

• Go to http://copperhead.demandthemovie.com/;
  
• Enter your email address and ZIP code (or “demand” using Facebook);
• Share with others.