Thursday, March 31, 2011

Japan's Earthquake: Natural or Engineered?

Japan's Earthquake: Natural or Engineered? - by Stephen Lendman

An earlier article considered whether Haiti's January 2010 quake was engineered. Despite no corroborating proof, technologies exist to do it. More information below.

On March 11 at 14.46 JST, the earth shook around 81 miles east of Japan's Oshika Peninsula of Tohoku near Sendai, its hypocenter about a 20 mile depth. Measured at 9.0, it triggered a 33-foot high tsunami in minutes, compounding the destructive damage over a wide area.

Of greatest concern is damage to four or more nuclear reactors at Tokyo Electric's (TEPCO) Fukushima Daiichi plant. So far (besides many thousands injured and homeless), those dead or missing number almost 30,000, a total to rise exponentially if the worst Fukushima's fears materialize.

According to some experts, it's no longer speculation. It's reality, though government and media reports deny it, concealing the disaster's magnitude, affecting the entire Pacific rim and Northern Hemisphere.

Nonetheless, on March 29, New York Times writers Ken Belson and Hiroko Tabuchi headlined, "Confidence Slips Away as Japan Battles Nuclear Peril," saying:

Plutonium traces in soil and increasing hazards for plant workers "forced government officials to confront the reality that the emergency measures they have taken to" contain the disaster haven't worked. In fact, conditions are worse, not better, suggesting perhaps nothing can contain this monster, threatening to make northern Japan (the size of Pennsylvania) an uninhabitable dead zone, though it's still too early to tell.

On March 29, London Guardian writer Ian Sample headlined, "Japan may have lost race to save nuclear reactor," saying:

"The radioactive core in a reactor at the crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant appears to have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel (onto) a concrete floor, experts say, raising fears of a major release of radiation at the site." It's already major and increasing.

According to Richard Lahey, former GE boiling-water reactors head of safety research:

"The indications we have, from the reactor to radiation readings and the materials they are seeing, suggest that the core has melted through the bottom of the pressure vessel in unit two, and at least some of it is down on the floor of the drywell. I hope I am wrong, but that is certainly what the evidence is pointing towards."

"The reason we are concerned is that they are detecting water outside the containment area that is highly radioactive and it can only have come from the reactor core." Lahey added that it won't be as bad as Chernobyl. In fact, it's multiples worse from:

-- increasing radiation releases, including deadly plutonium;

-- spreading them catastrophically across the entire Northern Hemisphere, especially over wide parts of Japan;

-- causing permanent contamination; and

-- potentially killing millions from deadly cancers.

According to Dr. Tom Burnett:

"Fukushima is going to dwarf Chernobyl. (Its) reactions are getting worse. I suspect three nuclear piles are in meltdown....When the molten mass (reaches) the water table, (it) will explode (releasing) more radioactive particulate matter. The concrete will melt and the problem will get worse."

It'll continue for months. The only solution is bad; namely, "detonat(ing) a 10 kiloton fission device inside each reactor containment vessel and hope to vaporize the cores."

Nuclear core meltdowns are self-sustaining. Only halting the reaction can stop them. That "require(s) a nuclear each containment vessel....(b)ut it will be messy."

On March 30, New York Times writer David Jolly headlined, "High Radiation Levels Found in Seawater Near Nuclear Plant," saying:

Seawater "about 300 yards from the (site contained) iodine-131 at 3,355 times the safety standard, the highest levels reported so far." Each day, they're rising and spreading hazardous contamination. Yet Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency's (NISA) Hidehiko Nishiyama claims public health isn't threatened, perhaps waiting for corpses for proof.

"In a separate development, smoke was seen rising from a second (TEPCO Daini nuclear plant) about six miles south of" Daiichi. As expected, NISA and TEPCO officials downplayed it, perhaps again concealing the worst.

Coverup and Denial in America

Despite spreading contamination in America, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stopped measuring radiation levels in eight of its 18 monitoring stations, including California, Oregon and Washington because readings are getting too high.

In addition, Obama's EPA may substantially increase allowable radiation amounts called safe in food, water and the environment. New guidelines will also permit much laxer long-term cleanup thresholds, greatly endangering public health.

Five Types of Human Activity Causing Quakes

(1) Damn construction

Since water is heavier than air, the crust beneath it is greatly stressed, easily setting off mostly moderate shocks. University of Alaska seismologist Larry Gedney explained:

"Since the (Hoover Dam) reached its peak of 475 feet in 1939, the level of seismicity has fluctuated in direct response to water level. None of the shocks have been particularly damaging - the largest was about magnitude 5 - but the area had no record of being seismically active."

According to geophysical hazards expert Christian Klose, dams trigger about one-third of human-caused quakes. No wonder given their global proliferation, 845,000 according to Discover magazine, including 80,000 in America. Hoover Dam is the largest, storing 1.2 trillion cubic feet of water. China's Three Gorges Dam is the world's largest, holding back 1.4 trillion cubic feet. In 1967, western India's Koyna Dam may have caused a 7.0 magnitude quake. If so, damns in seismically active areas may be much more destructive than believed.

(2) Liquid injection into the ground

In 1951, the US Army constructed Basin F at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal to handle 243 million gallons of contaminated liquid chemical wastes in about a 93 acre area. In 1961, another way was chosen - by drilling a 12,000-foot deep well in the Rocky Mountains to inject napalm toxic waste into the earth's crust. From 1962 - 1966, 165 million gallons went in, likely triggering regional quakes and getting the Army to shut it down. According to seismologist Dave Wolney:

"If you are doing deep well injection, you are altering the stress on the underlying rocks and at some point, (it) will be relieved by generating an earthquake."

Klose also worries about carbon dioxide sequestration, a process of compressing CO2 from coal plants and injecting it into underground deposits. It, too, can generate quakes close to cities, as that's where facilities are located.

(3) Coal mining

Coal provides over half of America's electricity and an even larger percentage in China. Mines produce millions of tons annually, extract up to a dozen times as much water as coal, and cause huge regional mass changes. They, in turn, increase stress that can cause quakes as explained above. According to Klose, mining produces over half of recorded ones.

(4) Oil and gas drilling

A June 23, 2009 New York Times article headlined, "Deep in Bedrock, Clean Energy and Quake Fears," explaining that former oil man, Markus O. Haring, drilled a hole three miles down in Basel, Switzerland prospecting for clean, renewable energy, deep within the earth's bedrock. On December 8, 2006, an earthquake terrifyied residents who remembered the devastating one striking the city 650 years earlier.

Haring terminated his project, but a US start-up company, AltaRock Energy, uses the same technology to drill deep into quake-prone areas two hours' drive north of San Francisco for geothermal energy. The Energy Department backs it with more than $36 million, and several large venture capital firms are involved, despite the risk.

According the The Times:

"The California project is the first of dozens that could be operating in the United States in the next several years, driven by a push to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases and the Obama administration's support for renewable energy. Using the Basel method, it's hoped a breakthrough can be achieved, even though it's known that large quakes occur at great depths."

Three of the largest human-caused ones happened near an Uzbekistan natural gas field, the result of liquid extraction and injection changing its tectonic action. The most severe one registered 7.3, and according to Russian scientists:

"Few will deny that there is a relationship between hydrocarbon recovery and seismic activity, but exactly how strong a relationship exists has yet to be determined."

In regions with high tectonic activity, like northern California near San Francisco, Haiti around Port-au-Prince, or Japan, extraction could trigger severe quakes. It's believed Haiti has significant oil, gas, and other mineral deposits, including gold, copper, and coal. Perhaps drilling around Port-au-Prince bay, the Gulf of La Gonave, and the Island of La Gonave set off the quake, why US domination and human neglect are related to it, and why America, France, Canada and other nations seek to profit from disaster.

(5) Large building construction

On December 2, 2005, Kate Ravilious' UK Guardian article headlined, "Skyscraper that may cause earthquakes." It referred to Taipei 101 in Taiwan, the world's tallest building at 1,667 feet, weighing 700,000 tons. According to National Taiwan Normal University geologist Cheng Horng Lin, the building's stress may have reopened an ancient fault.

Before its construction, the Taipei basin was very stable with no surface ones. Thereafter, "The number of earthquakes increased to around two micro-earthquakes per year during the construction period (1997 - 2003). After completion, two larger quakes were registered, strong enough to feel at magnitudes 3.8 and 3.2."

Lin believes that "the considerable stress might be transferred into the upper crust due to the extremely soft sedimentary rocks beneath the Taipei basin. Deeper down this may have reopened an old earthquake fault."

Other experts are more cautious. UCLA quake expert John Vidale says "A building will change the stress on the ground under (it), but this probably won't reach down to around 10km, the level where earthquakes occur." Compared with dams, coal mining, oil drilling, and underground waste deposits, skyscrapers cause minor stress to the earth's surface. Klose shares that view.

HAARP Technology - High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program

HAARP manipulates the atmosphere, climate, and weather for military purposes. Based in Gokona, Alaska, it's a jointly managed US Air Force/Navy weather warfare program, operating since 1992, yet the HAARP web site explains its purpose as follows:

"HAARP is a scientific endeavor aimed at studying the properties and behavior of the ionosphere (the atmosphere's upper layer), with particular emphasis on being able to understand and use it to enhance communications and surveillance systems for both civilian and defense purposes. (It will be used) to induce a small, localized change in ionospheric temperature so that resulting reactions can be studied by other instruments located either at or close to the HAARP site."

According to Rosalie Bertell, a distinguished scientific expert and president of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health:

HAARP functions as "a gigantic heater that can cause major disruptions in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the planet."

Writing in Earthpulse Press on November 5, 1996, Bertell explained that:

"Military interest in space became intense during and after World War II because of the introduction of rocket science, the companion of nuclear technology....During this time of intensive atmospheric nuclear testing, explosions at various levels above and below the surface of the earth were tried. Some of the now familiar descriptions of the earth's protective atmosphere....were based on information gained through stratospheric and ionospheric experimentation."

Numerous projects preceded HAARP, including:

-- Project Argus in 1958 "to assess the impact of high altitude nuclear explosions on radio transmission and radar operations," and learn more about the geomagnetic field;

-- Project Starfish in 1962, using nuclear detonations to disrupt the ionosphere and assess the effects on the earth's magnetic field;

-- SPS: Solar Power Satellite Project in 1968, using them in geostationary orbit 40,000 km above the earth to intercept solar radiation with solar cells that potentially could be environmentally destructive;

-- Poker Flat Rocket Launch from 1968 to the present to "understand chemical reactions in the atmosphere associated with global climate change;" perhaps more to influence climate for military purposes;

-- Saturn V Rocket in 1975; due to a malfunction, it burned unusually high in the atmosphere (above 300 km) producing a "large ionospheric hole," resulting in over a 60% reduction in "total electron content" over a 1,000 km area lasting several hours; all telecommunications over the Atlantic Ocean were disrupted;

-- SPS Military Implications in 1978 to develop a satellite-based beam weapon for anti-ballistic missile (ABM) use; also as a mind-control/anti-personnel weapon by affecting the human brain;

-- Orbit Maneuvering System in 1981 to study the effect of Shuttle injected gases on the ionosphere; it was learned they could induce holes;

-- Innovative Shuttle Experiments in 1985 using gases to create ionospheric holes;

-- Mighty Oaks in 1986 to develop x-ray and particle beam weapons;

-- Desert Storm in 1991, during which the US deployed an electromagnetic pulse weapon, designed to mimic the electricity flash of a nuclear detonation; and

-- HAARP since 1992

Bertell says it's:

"related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere. (It's) an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature. (Their) implications (are) alarming. Basic to this project is control of communications, both (their) disruption and reliability in hostile environments. The power wielded by such control is obvious."

"The ability of the HAARP/Spacelab/rocket combination to deliver very large amounts of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening." Yet the public is told it's "a space shield against incoming weapons (or) a devise for repairing the ozone layer."

By modifying the ionosphere, HAARP can be hugely destructive. Potentially, it can trigger floods, droughts, hurricanes, tsunamis, forest fires, and power blackouts over entire regions. It can disrupt radar, other communications, agriculture, ecology, and financial and other markets. It can use weather to wage war, and perhaps cause earthquakes like the one devastating Japan.

America "Carried Out a Second Nuclear Attack on Japan"

Noted Pakistani journalist Nusrat Mirza believes that the March 11 disaster was artificially caused by America's X-37B spaceplane. In his article titled, "The Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami - Natural or Artificial?" he argued that Washington caused numerous disasters, including Pakistan's 2005 quake, the country's 2010 floods, the 2004 Indian Ocean quake/tsunami, and 2011 Japanese calamity, possibly by HAARP technology.

Specifically he said:

-- "Whenever the US Spaceplane X-37B is sent Into space, a natural disaster occurs somewhere in the world. He gave examples, including Pakistan devastated by monsoon-triggering floods.

-- America's "objectives are to continue its domination of the world, and not let another power or group of powers challenge its domination. Japan may have been targeted for collaborating with "other countries to replace the US dollar with a new currency for international trading." According to a Nibira TV report, former Japanese finance minister Heizo Talaneka "was warned to hand over the Japanese financial system to (America or be) attacked by an earthquake.

-- "Today, 'rulers (especially in America) are coming to the forefront and, using science, are causing earthquakes, tsunamis, weather alterations, changes in airplanes' routes, plane crashes, and floods."

The Pentagon's Alaska-based transmitter ability to send three billion watts of electromagnetic waves at a frequency of 2.5 - 10 megahertz can cause all of the above destruction and more.

Geoscientist Leuren Moret believes a HAARP-aerosol/chemtrails plasma weapon likely caused Japan's disaster, citing:

-- its intensity and characteristics; and

-- using the Stuxnet virus (a Windows computer worm targeting industrial software and equipment) at Fukushima, causing malfunctions in cooling pumps and valves. "The trouble after the earthquake was that the pumps and valves and controllers malfunctioned so workers could not get (them) working. This just adds to the HAARP earthquake and much more evidence that it was a false flag HAARP event."

Moreover, HAARP-created vortex clouds over San Francisco on March 18 triggered heavy irradiated rain over the Bay area.

Moret also explained calculations she made, saying spent fuel rods stored in cooling ponds above each of six reactors are releasing the equivalent of "92,000 nuclear bombs. Each unit has 400 assemblies of spent fuel rods, with 60....for each assembly. Each individual rod holds 72 pounds of uranium (compared to) a 20-pound" nuclear bomb payload.

She believes enormous amounts of radiation are now being released into the troposphere, traveling below 300 feet over Japan and America, heading east. As a result, air, earth, water, food and humans are being contaminated with deadly radiation. Downplaying the hazard is scandalous.

Investigative journalist Jane Burgermeister also blames HAARP for Japan's disaster and the 2010 one in Haiti, saying:

Haiti and Japan quakes "show surprising similarities that point to an artificial cause and the use of HAARP technology." In January 2010, "low frequency signals of 2.1 Hz were detected for 40 hours before the earthquake occurred, while (in) Japan something similar happened. Low frequency signals of 2.5 Hz were detected for about 55 hours before the earthquake (struck) as well as for 4 hours afterwards."

"A steady signal lasting for so many hours at such a low frequency is highly likely not caused by natural activity in space but by some type of artificial 'human-made' activity." Notably in the case of Haiti, "this signal stopped abruptly at full swing on January 11 at 01:00 hours UTC only to resume with full amplitude again at 3:30 hrs UTC as if it had been switched off and on at full power."

The UN Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (1977)

Its Article I states that:

"Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party."

Article II refers to "environmental modification (ENMOD) techniques (as) any technique for changing - through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space."

Citing Ecology News, defines environmental warfare as:

"(1) the intentional modification of a system of the natural ecology, such as climate and weather, earth systems such as the ionosphere, magnetosphere, tectonic plate system, and/or the triggering of seismic events (earthquakes);

(2) to cause intentional physical, economic, psycho-social, and physical destruction to an intended target geophysical or population location;" and

"(3) as part of strategic or tactical war."

Environmental war weapons include chemtrails, chemical weapons systems (climate and weather modification) and electromagnetic weapons systems (climate and weather modification, as well as seismic warfare).

Other definitions are broader, including the use of depleted uranium and other environmentally destructive weapons, practices and techniques.

International standards on environmental protections during armed conflict date back as early as the 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg. It stated that "the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy."

The 1907 Hague Regulations stressed restraint, saying "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited," and the Geneva Conventions (including Protocol I and Common Article 3) defined the principles of international humanitarian law.

In 1973, the US Senate adopted a resolution calling for an international agreement "prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war...." President Nixon ordered the Defense Department to review the military aspects of weather and other ENMOD techniques.

During the July 1974 summit meeting in Moscow, Nixon and General Secretary Brezhnev agreed to hold bilateral talks to achieve "the most effective measures possible to overcome the dangers of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes."

Discussions continued in 1974 and 1975, resulting in an agreement on a common approach and language. The 1977 UN Convention followed, ratified 98 - 0 by the Senate on November 28, 1979. It took effect on January 17, 1980, but was violated thereafter by both sides.

Human environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) can cause irreversible damage. Yet international standards haven't stopped their development or use.

A Final Comment

On February 17, 1950, Council on Foreign Relations (CRF) member James Warburg told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

"We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent," because powerful globalists want it.

American ones, in fact, want total control of the world's money, resources, law, communications, populations, and military supremacy, no matter how much destructive force it takes to achieve, perhaps using HAARP and other technologies to create enormous new opportunities for greater power and profits.

Other schemes relate to America's longstanding depopulation agenda, a model Henry Kissinger presented in his 1974 National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200). Shaped by Rockefeller interests, it developed over time to cull unwanted "useless eaters" by various means, including:

-- violence;

-- depleted uranium and other hazardous weapons;

-- withholding disaster relief;

-- sterilization;

-- disease;

-- starvation;

-- earthquakes, tsunamis, oil spills, chemical proliferation, and other environmental disasters; as well as

-- widespread radiation contamination, another way to detonate bombs.

Perhaps Japan's disaster is their latest assault on human life, welfare and survival, so global elitists can benefit more by less of us. Think unlikely? Think again.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

Obama on Libya: Defending the Indefensible

Obama on Libya: Defending the Indefensible - by Stephen Lendman

Obama's March 28 television address wreaked of hypocrisy, lies and disdain for basic democratic values, making an indefensible case for naked aggression against a non-belligerent country. America's media approved.

On March 28, New Times writer Helene Cooper headlined, "Obama Cites Limits of US Role in Libya," saying:

Obama "defended the American-led military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have 'stained the conscience of the world,' " even though no threat existed until:

-- Washington showed up with co-belligerents France and Britain;

-- beginning in 2010, armed and funded so-called "rebels" who, in fact, are cutthroat killers, rapists and marauders, terrorizing every area they control, including their Benghazi stronghold; and

-- support them with daily "shock and awe" terror attacks, causing increasing numbers of deaths and injuries, as well as destruction and contamination of all areas struck by depleted uranium bombs, missiles and shells, spreading radiation over wide areas.

Despite Pentagon denials, conservative estimates put civilian deaths at over 100, besides combatants killed and unknown numbers murdered by rebel allies. Since March 19 air attacks began, nearly 1,500 sorties have been flown, that number to rise exponentially as daily strikes continue under US command, running all NATO operations under AFRICOM's General Carter Ham. Alleged new commander, Canada's Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, is his subordinate, a Pentagon figurehead.

The alleged handover is fabricated. NATO is code language for America/the Pentagon. Obama lied announcing otherwise, saying Washington's role will be limited to stop potential "slaughter and mass graves" in Benghazi. In fact, he supports and/or ignores rebel terror killings against defenseless civilians, making him complicit in their crimes, besides widespread ones caused by NATO, America's missile. US attacks, in fact, will continue throughout the campaign, perhaps lasting months at an enormous cost, besides hundreds of billions annually in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Making an indefensible case, Obama said:

"For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant - Muammar Gaddafi," ignoring the numerous regional and global ones America supports, including rogue Israeli regimes, lawlessly terrorizing Palestinians for over six decades with generous US support and funding.

Addressing the issue, Obama's Deputy National Security Adviser, Denis McDonough, said:

"I think it's very important that we see each of these the region as unique. We don't get very hung up on the question of precedent....because we don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent. We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."

Precisely true on the last point. However, policy decisions are very consistent. Allies are supported whether despots or democrats. Outliers are opposed, even benign ones posing no threat to America or neighbors. The rule of law is a non-starter. So are democratic values, "principles of justice and human dignity."

Only imperial aims matter, especially resource and human exploitation adventurism for money and power. For generations, they've guided US policies, notably since WW II, at home and abroad.

Yet pseudo-left apologists back Obama's Libya war, its faux "humanitarian intervention" to save lives, including darling of the left Rachel Maddow, defending the indefensible, pretending Obama's different from Bush when, in fact, he's worse, waging four, not two wars.

He also:

-- supports others in Palestine, Yemen and Somalia;

-- operates US Special Forces in at least 75 countries globally;

-- backs killing US citizens abroad lawlessly;

-- endorses holding detainees indefinitely without charge;

-- practices torture as official US policy; and

-- backs the worst of despotic states, notably in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Bahrain, Egypt under a military junta, Algeria under a military dictatorship (Abdelaziz Bouteflika more figurehead than president), other GCC states, besides others in Africa, Eastern Europe and elsewhere.

Yet Maddow and other faux liberals call Obama a peace president. No matter how great the body count, she's firm saying "he appears to be walking more of that walk as well as talking that talk."

He indeed talks plenty while letting imperial forces reign death and destruction on non-belligerent nations, spends hundreds of billions of dollars, then claims we're too broke to address vital homeland needs, especially social ones and crumbling infrastructure.

Cheerleading Print Media Support

For decades, The York Times endorsed all US imperial wars, the tradition maintained on March 28 in an editorial headlined, "President Obama and Libya," saying:

Obama "made the right, albeit belated, decision to join with allies to try to stop (Gaddafi) from slaughtering thousands of Libyans," despite clear evidence that Washington, France, Britain and rebel killers initiated attacks. Love or hate him, Gaddafi justifiably responded in self defense.

However, despite Obama's willful deception and lies, The Times claimed he "made a strong case for why America needed to intervene in this fight - and why that did not always mean it should intervene in others," notably against subservient despots, no matter how much "violence on a horrific scale" they cause.

"Most important," said The Times, Obama "vowed that there would be no American ground troops in this fight." A previous article explained otherwise, accessed through the following link:

Numerous reports, in fact, suggest a ground assault is planned for late April-early May if air and rebel attacks don't oust Gaddafi, what most experts believe unlikely.

On March 28, New York Times writers Kareem Fahim and David Kirkpatrick suggested as much, headlining "Rebel Advance Halted Outside Qaddafi's Hometown," saying:

"....the American military warned on Monday that the insurgents' rapid advances could quickly be reversed without continued coalition air support," quoting General Ham saying more, in fact, may be needed, stopping short of suggesting ground forces deployed offshore will invade.

Whatever lies ahead, no matter how bloody and destructive, The Times insisted Obama "made the right choice to act."

So did the Washington Post, its editorial opinion headlined, "Mr. Obama and Libya: Where's the strategy to preserve success?" saying:

Obama "was right to act, and he deserves the credit that he claimed....He was right" saying "we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles of freedom and nonviolence," ones, in fact, America spurns at home and abroad, especially during direct or proxy imperial wars.

On March 29, a Wall Street Journal editorial headlined, "Obama, Libya and the GOP," saying:

Obama "made a substantial case for his Libya intervention, (and) we welcome the effort....The credibility of US power is essential to maintaining our influence in a Middle East that is erupting in popular revolt against decades of injustice," much, in fact, America caused.

US media opinions mostly expressed support. The Los Angeles Times said "no one can complain that he didn't make a thoughtful, compelling case for his decision to intervene." The Philadelphia Daily News endorsed "the Obama Doctrine....a rationale for the use of US force, (his Monday speech perhaps) the beginning of a saner foreign policy."

The Chicago Tribune wondered whether a "humanitarian mission (set) a precedent that will be used to demand American involvement in other places." The Boston Globe endorsed his "swift Libyan intervention (wrongly calling it) the first time Obama has ordered US troops into a new conflict, (then saying it's) a key test of his presidency and a moment that allowed him to delineate his most comprehensive vision yet for America's role in the world and the role of the military abroad."

According to the conservative Center for Strategic and International Studies' (CSIS) Stephen Flanagan, Obama "laid the beginnings of an Obama doctrine. He said that there are instances where our safety is not immediately threatened but our interests and values are, and in those cases....we will act, particularly when we can act with a broad international coalition" of willing co-belligerents plus others bullied and/or bribed to join or endorse imperial aggression against another targeted country.

Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) on "Public TV's Libya Limits"

America's Public Television (PBS) and National Public Radio rely heavily on government and corporate funds. As a result, they provide managed news like major media networks, suppressing hard truths on vital issues.

PBS' Libya reporting is instructive, FAIR saying:

"Over the past two weeks, the (flagship) NewsHour has featured an array of current and former military and government officials in discussion segments - leaving little room for antiwar voices, US foreign policy critics and legal experts."

NPR and PBS are similar, supporting state and corporate policies throughout their histories, depriving listeners and viewers of real news, information and opinions on vital issues.

The 1967 Carnegie Commission report (creating PBS) envisioned a "forum for debate and controversy (to) provide a voice for groups in the community that may be otherwise unheard." NPR's founding mandate was similar, yet both operations represent power, money and privilege, not popular interests they were established to serve.

A Final Comment

In his book "The Next Decade," Stratfor Global Intelligence founder George Friedman "consider(s) the relation of the American empire to the American Republic and the threat the empire poses to the republic('s)" survival, given its addiction to war and abandonment of the Constitution's Article 1, Section 8 provision letting Congress alone declare it. It was last done on December 8, 1941 against Japan.

As a result, seven US decades of wars have been lawless. Moreover, no nation may attack another except in self-defense or until the Security Council acts - lawfully according to the UN Charter. In authorizing a no-fly zone (an act of war), SC members acted illegally, brazenly violating international law, letting America and co-belligerents France and Britain wage imperial war against a nation posing no threat to them or neighboring states.

Friedman stressed the importance of congressional declarations of war, "requir(ing) meticulous attention to the law and proprieties." However, he stopped short of addressing international law or explaining the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. Under it, every treaty America ratifies automatically becomes US law, the UN Charter, of course, included. No congressional or presidential act may contravene it, what, in fact, happens regularly, especially on matters of war.

As a result, in a recent interview, University of Illinois Professor of International Law Francis Boyle was blunt, calling Obama's war on Libya "plunder and aggression, (the) first major outright power grab by the United States and the major colonial, imperial powers against Africa in the 21st century." For sure, it's not the last.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Japan's Leaking Water Radiation 100,000 Times Above Normal

Japan's Leaking Water Radiation 100,000 Times Above Normal - by Stephen Lendman

Initial March 27 Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) reports detected Fukushima Daiichi Unit 2 radioactive water readings at ten million times normal levels, including:

-- 2.9 billion becquerels of iodine-134;

-- 13 million becquerels of iodine-131; and

-- 2.3 million becquerels (each) of cesium-134 and 137 per cubic centimeter of water in the turbine building's basement.

This measure was 1,000 times above water readings in Units 1 and 3. Emissions happen during nuclear fission. Tokyo University Professor Naoto Sekimura said the leak came from Unit 2's damaged suppression chamber, designed to contain radioactive substance overflows. French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety's Olivier Isnard believes high readings are "proof that the reactor core (at least) partially melted." Others suggest a likely full meltdown, covered up and downplayed.

A later March 27 Mari Yamaguchi and Yuri Kageyama AP report headlined, "More obstacles impede crews in Japan nuke crisis," saying:

"Mounting problems, including badly miscalculated radiation figures and inadequate storage tanks for huge amounts of contaminated water, stymied emergency workers Sunday as they struggled to" step back from the brink of uncontrollable disaster.

After initial Sunday reports had Unit 2 radiation levels 10 million times normal, Tokyo Electric's Vice President Sakae Muto said a later test found them at 100,000 times, either way too dangerously high. In addition, nearby sea readings are 1,850 times normal. Combined, they're the highest measures since the March 11 earthquake/tsunami, showing conditions are deteriorating, not improving despite government and company reassurances.

Later, TEPCO said surface water outside the reactor contained over 1,000 millisieverts of radiation per hour. According to the EPA, a single dose that high can cause hemorrhaging. In fact, 100 millisieverts causes radiation sickness.

Besides TEPCO's notoriously poor safety record, also at issue is its penchant for coverup and denial. As a result, perhaps true readings are much higher than reported. UCLA Professor Najmdin Meshkati, in fact, believes "the situation is (likely) much more serious than we (are) led to believe."

Others agree, but fading news reports don't explain, especially television ones, their short attention span diverted to cheerleading for imperial war, bogusly called "humanitarian."

Another company official said many months or years are needed to correct the situation, stopping short of whether anything, in fact, can work. Independent experts express great concerns about dangerously high radiation, especially since containment efforts have failed despite nearly three weeks of trying. According to Greenpeace's Rianne Teule:

"It's very worrying. (T)here is something seriously wrong (at Unit 2)." Perhaps also at other units.

In addition, low radiation readings expected to spike are showing up across America, Canada, Iceland and Europe.

Meanwhile, electricity to restart cooling isn't possible since "cables had to be laid through turbine buildings flooded with contaminated water." In fact, no one can reach the turbine houses requiring electrical work. Possibly the idea will be abandoned.

In the face of growing disaster, TEPCO still claims conditions have partially stabilized when evidence shows them more out of control. Miroru Ogoda of Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) said:

"We have somewhat prevented the situation from turning worse. But the prospects are not improving in a straight line and we've expected twists and turns. The contaminated water is one of them and we'll continue to repair the damage."

Skeptical Japanese have grave concerns, fearing the worst despite mixed reassuring statements, intended more to deny reality than reveal it.

On March 27, New York Times writers Hiroko Tabuchi and Keith Bradsher headlined, "Higher Levels of Radiation Found at Japan Reactor Plant," saying:

"Japan's troubled effort to contain the nuclear contamination crisis at its stricken (plant) suffered a setback on Sunday when alarmingly high radiation levels were discovered....raising new questions about how and when recovery workers could resume their tasks," besides whether anything, in fact, can work.

In fact, high radiation readings mean fission likely restarted, "present(ing) the alarming possibility of an out-of-control reactor."

On March 28, Reuters headlined, "Japan finds plutonium at stricken nuclear plant," saying:

On March 11, after the earthquake/tsunami struck, traces of plutonium 238, 239 and 240 were found "in soil at five locations at the complex...."

According to TEPCO vice president Sakae Muto:

"It's not at the level that's harmful to human health."

He lied.

NISA reported samples ranging from 0.18 - 0.54 becquerels per kg. Agency official Hidehiko Nishiyama said:

"While it's not the level harmful to human health, I am not optimistic. This means the containment mechanism is being breached so I think the situation is worrisome."

In fact, it's catastrophic and extremely hazardous to human health at any level, environmental scientist Dr. Ilya Sandra Perlingieri explaining in her article headlined, "Fukushima Catastrophe: Radiation Exposure, Lies and Cover-up, saying:"

"The half-life of many radioactive elements is thousands of years. There is no safe level of exposure! (Claiming otherwise is) media hype and corporate lies. The plutonium fuel used at Fukushima Unit 3 reactor uses MOX (mixed oxide), a plutonium-uranium fuel mixture. A single milligram of MOX is 2-million times more deadly than enriched uranium....Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years; and (for) Uranium-235 (it's) 700-million years."

She quoted distinguished nuclear power/environmental health expert Dr. Rosalie Bertell from her noted 1985 book titled, "No Immediate Danger: Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth," saying:

"Should the public discover the true health cost(s) of nuclear pollution, a cry would rise from all parts of the world and people would refuse to cooperate passively with their own death."

Political Fallout Outside Japan

Taiwan's opposition DPP party said it wants nuclear power phased out by 2025. However, the island state's vulnerability to quakes and tsunamis begs the question of a potential disaster affecting the entire nation if abandoning the technology isn't expedited.

In Germany, an estimated 200,000 anti-nuclear protesters rallied on March 26 under the slogan, "Fushushima Warns: Pull the Plug on all Nuclear Power Plants." Days earlier, Chancellor Angela Merkel ordered seven older plants shut for safety checks.

In 2001, Germany planned to end all nuclear energy by 2021, a policy Merkel reversed besides extending the plant life for 12 years. About 25% dependent on nuclear power makes the country extremely vulnerable to disasters.

A Sunday Baden-Wuerttemberg election result expressed popular angst where anti-nuclear Greens got 24% of the vote. Combined with center-left Social Democrats, it was enough for a new coalition government for the first time against conservative Christian Democrats there since 1953. Experts agreed, calling it a referendum on future nuclear power use, voters rejecting its inherent dangers.

Perhaps also longstanding incestuous ties between industry officials and regulators, a March 28 Wall Street Journal Yuka Hayashi article headlining, "Nuclear Regulator Tied to Industry," saying:

"Japan's nuclear regulator has amassed power while growing closer to the industry it regulates, according to former regulators and industry critics who blame" scandalous laxity for Fukushima's disaster. However, it's also true in America and elsewhere, assuring inevitable future ones ahead, perhaps worse.

Hayashi said Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) "has two distinct and often competing roles regulating the nuclear power industry, and promoting Japanese nuclear technology at home and abroad." In fact, according to former nuclear industry engineer Tetsuya Lida, "(t)he regulators are so friendly with power companies that they don't hold them responsible for so many things."

In other words, proliferation and promotion supersede regulation, similar to America where the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) notoriously conspires with industry, including on matters of safety. As a result, a new Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report documented 14 "near-misses" at US plants in 2010 alone - more than one a month.

Discovered problems included leaking roofs, floods near safety equipment, rusty pipes, faulty pumps, fires and unreported shutdowns. In fact, while plant operators willfully disregarded protocol, NRC inspectors ignored hazardous violations as well as false reports and delayed repairs.

Affected plants were in California, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Nebraska, and Kansas at facilities owned by Entergy, Exelon, Constellation Energy, Duke Energy, FirstEnergy, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern Nuclear, Omaha Public Power District, Dominion Generation, and Wolf Creek Nuclear.

At issue, cutting corners for greater profits takes precedence over safety. According to UCS, "(m)any of the significant events (it documented) occurred because reactor owners, and often the NRC, tolerated known safety problems."

In 2007, candidate Obama called NRC members "captives of the industry they regulate," running mate Biden saying he had no confidence in them. According to Public Citizen's Tyson Slocum, the industry "embedded itself in the political establishment (through) reliable friends from George Bush to Barack Obama (so that government) has really become cheerleaders for the industry."

Moreover, revolving door instances are common, Jeffrey Merrifield one of many examples. An NRC official from 1997 - 2008, he left for an executive position with The Shaw Group that operates an NRC regulated nuclear division.

In Japan, it's called amakudari (descent from heaven), meaning regulators transition young to industry, so while in government, they don't bite future hands who'll feed them.

Japan's METI is especially egregious. Ten of its 22 March 2010 retiring officials took energy and power related jobs. According to Liberal Democratic Party member Taro Kono:

"METI has unabashedly sent retired officials to the power industry (including TEPCO), and politicians have received campaign funds (from these companies). In exchange, power companies were allowed to hold on to their regional monopolies" and avoid regulatory oversight.

America, of course, operates the same way, placing bottom line priorities ahead of safety, public welfare, and environmental considerations because regulation across all industry groups is a mere figure of speech.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Political Prisoners in America: A Shocking Example of Mistreatment

Political Prisoners in America: A Shocking Example of Mistreatment - by Stephen Lendman

A personal note. Writing about America's political prisoners is essential to defend freedom, justice, and other democratic values, especially wrongfully persecuted Muslims for political advantage. I communicate directly with five notable victims, all of whom I greatly respect, including:

-- attorneys Lynne Stewart and Paul Bergrin;

-- Yassin Aref;

-- Dr. Rafil Dhafir; and

-- Shukri Abu-Baker.

I've also written about them all, discussed them on the Progressive Radio News Hour, and am committed to help achieve justice so far denied them.

This article concerns Abu-Baker, after Rafil Dhafir emailed me the following from Terre Haute, IN federal prison Communications Management Unit's (CMU) segregation section where Muslims receive excessively punitive treatment:

"Last night Shukri Baker, here in CMU, got a call from his family that his daughter Sanabil is dying in the hospital. She has cystic fibrosis, Thalassemia major and diabetes. She is not eligible for lung transplant. She is only 24 who has only 2 months left to finish college.
He is distraught. With tears in his eyes he kept asking:

'What did I do to this country to deny me enough time to talk to my dying daughter by phone? Why am I not allowed to hug my baby in her last days of her life? Who is going to council my young daughters and their mother in this hour of grief and uncertainty?'

He asked for extra phone calls to straighten things out. He was given the run around. The Chaplain claimed that he is new and does not know the procedure for approval. Those who can be talked to are no where to be found. It was late Friday when he learned of his daughter's condition.

It broke my heart to see this great man who helped save the lives of millions in places far away from here, who never hurt anyone intentionally, and who dedicated his life to saving and relieving children and needy people be denied the right of a human being to see his dying daughter off and to help his own children.

It is cruel to imprison one for providing relief but it is far worse in cruelty to deny such person the comfort of talking to his dying child. Would one then wonder why these calamities befall the world all over?"

Dr. Rafil Dhafir's Wrongful Conviction for His "Crime of Compassion"

Activist Katherine Hughes explained Dhafir's case in her 2006 article by that title. A Muslim American of Iraqi descent, he practiced oncology until wrongfully convicted for violating Iraqi Sanctions Regulations (IEEPA), using his own funds and what his Help the Needy charity raised to bring desperately needed aid to Iraqis in the 1990s.

Yet, he was convicted on 59 of 60 bogus charges, including tax fraud, money laundering, mail and wire fraud, imprisoning him for 22 years. Like Shukri Baker and other Muslims, he's incarcerated at Terre Haute's infamous CMU. More on it below.

Shukri Abu-Baker: President and CEO of the Holy Foundation (HLF) Charity

A previous article explained his case, accessed through the following link:

A later article followed the sentencing of HLF's five principles. Abu-Baker and Chairman Ghassan Elashi each got 65 years for providing:

-- financial aid to needy and impoverished families;

-- a sponsorship program for orphaned children;

-- various social services;

-- educational services;

-- medical and other emergency work; and

-- community development, including help to rebuild Palestinian homes on their own land in their own country that Israel lawlessly destroyed.

They, in fact, described their work as follows, saying - "We gave:

-- books, not bombs;

-- bread, not bullets;

-- smiles, not scars;

-- toys, not tanks;

-- peace, not terror;

-- liberty, not poverty;

-- hope, not despair;

-- love, not hate; (and)

-- life, not death.

So we ask: If (over six decades of occupation) obviously shatters lives, while charity builds them and charity feeds children, while occupation kills them, why is a charity organization - not occupation - paying the price?"

They, in fact, broke no laws, committee no crimes, but were targeted for their faith, ethnicity, prominence, activism and charity, the two main principles getting a de facto life sentence for being Muslims at the wrong time in America, like many others wrongfully imprisoned.

They provided essential relief to Palestinian refugees in Occupied Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan, as well as to needy recipients in Bosnia, Albania, Chechnya, Turkey and America.

Three other principles, included:

-- volunteer Mufid Abdulqader - 20 years;

-- New Jersey office director Abdulrahman Odeh - 15 years, and

-- California office director Mohammad El-Mezain - 15 years.

They were convicted on most or all 108 counts, including supporting a terrorist organization, money laundering and tax fraud. They also incurred a $12.4 million fine, impossible to pay nor should they.

Communications Management Unit (CMU) Imprisonment

A previous article explained its lawlessness, accessed through the following link:

It's for so-called "high-security risk" Muslim and Middle Eastern prisoners in violation of federal law, prohibiting severely limiting or cutting them off entirely from other inmates, as well as outside contacts and communications.

Segregating prisoners by race, national origin, or language violates the Supreme Court's February 2005 Johnson v. California decision, affirming 14th Amendment protection against racial discrimination. Specifically, the Court:

"rejected the notion that separate can ever be equal-or 'neutral' - 50 years ago in Brown v. Board of Education" repudiated it. This court "refuses to resurrect it today."

US Prison Bureau regulations also stipulate that "staff shall not discriminate against inmates on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, disability, or political belief (including) administrative decisions (involving) access to work, housing and programs."

Nonetheless, the Bush administration instituted these practices. Under Obama, they continue unabated at Terre Haute, IN and Marion, IL federal prison Communications Management Units (CMU). Perhaps additional federal and state facilities will follow for other wrongfully persecuted Muslims.

They're to assure they get fewer rights and privileges than other prisoners, including allowable communications. Also:

-- poorer food quality, amount, or that conforms to a strict Muslim diet;

-- proper medical care; and

-- virtually everything else, prison authorities given much latitude to do as they please, including violating Bureau of Prisons regulations and US law.

As a result, emergency medical care takes days or longer to receive. Essential care can take weeks, months or be denied. Other mistreatment includes harassment, intimidation, food rationing, the serving of forbidden-to-eat kinds, frequent "shake-downs," and removal or theft of personal possessions. Also rejection of simple requests, delay or denial of mail and other communications, as well as restricting them altogether.

In other words, Muslims are fair game to be treated any way prison authorities wish. They take full advantage against glorious men like Dhafir, Abu-Baker, and many others deserving honor, not prison.

Instead, they're out of sight and mind, wrongfully denied justice by a lawless nation, withholding it from innocent victims targeted at home and abroad.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Monday, March 28, 2011

Planned Regime Change in Libya

Planned Regime Change in Libya - by Stephen Lendman

A March 25 White House press release announced Obama's planned March 28 national TV speech:

"to update the American people on the situation in Libya, including the actions we've taken with allies and partners to protect the Libyan people from the brutality of Moammar Qaddafi, the transition to NATO command and control, and our policy going forward."

Imagine the hypocrisy. US-style "humanitarian intervention" reigns death and destruction "to protect the Libyan people." Recall how "shock and awe" protected Iraqis, how war on Afghanistan helps Afghans and neighboring Pakistanis from predatory drone and ground attacks. Libyans are now tasting imperial viciousness firsthand.

In fact, all US wars are imperial, not humanitarian, a long discredited propaganda ruse major media reports don't explain. Instead they cheerlead for war no matter how lawless, mindless, destructive or counterproductive, spreading malicious misinformation to justify intervention, concealing or downplaying the fallout from all conflicts let alone why they're waged.

As a previous article explained, this one's for regime change like others, to replace one despot with another, control the entire Mediterranean Basin, colonize Libya, perhaps balkanize it, control its oil, gas and other strategic resources, exploit its people, privatize state industries, and establish new US bases for greater regional control.

Gaddafi's Removal Planned in 2010

On March 25, headlined, "French plans to topple Gaddafi on track since last November," saying:

"According to right-wing Italian journalist Franco Bechis, plans to spark the Benghazi rebellion were initiated by French intelligence services in November 2010." The progressive ComeDonChisciotte's Miguel Martinez explained that Italy's secret services backed the effort.

"Voltaire Network wishes to point out that Paris promptly paired up with London in its scheme to overthrow Gaddafi (Franco-British expeditionary force). This plan was recalibrated in the context of the Arab revolutions," now controlled by Washington for its own purposes.

Bechis explained the timeline from October 20, 2010 - January 22, 2011, saying Nouri Mesmari, Gaddafi's chief of protocol, "turned himself over to the French secret service, and according to the Italians, he masterminded the revolution against Gaddafi. The document was leaked to the Italian newspaper Libero."

It explained that he revealed "inside information about the regime as well as an account of who's who in Libya and who they should or should not contact." As a result, "by mid-January the French" were ready to begin ousting Gaddafi. The campaign began weeks before the US-led NATO attack.

On March 25, London Daily Mail Online writers David Williams, Tim Shipman and Daily Mail Reporter said before bombing began "it was revealed that hundreds of British special forces troops have been deployed deep inside Libya targeting Colonel Gaddafi's forces - and more are on standby."

"While Chancellor George Osborne repeated that UK ground troops would not be involved, the Daily Mail can reveal there are an estimated 350 already mounting covert operations," along with US Special Forces and Egyptian commandos.

"It is understood that just under 250 UK special forces soldiers and their support have been in Libya since before the launch of air strikes to enforce the no-fly zone against Gaddafi's forces," but they arrived well before its imposition.

Another 100 now supplement the original contingent, comprised of Special Forces Support Group (SFSG) paratroopers. They're drawn from SAS (Special Air Service) and SBS (Special Boat Service) personnel, re-supplied by airdrops from Cyprus. Moreover, 800 Royal Marines "are on five days' notice to deploy to the Mediterranean," a clear sign of impending invasion with 4,000 US marines deployed nearby to join them.

Libya's Rebel Opposition Forces: Democrats They're Not

A London Telegraph Rob Crilly March 23 article headlined, "Libya: it wasn't supposed to be like this in free Benghazi," saying:

So-called rebels "took no chances. They put a knife to the throat of (a) driver before hauling the three men and one woman from (his) car, dragging them through the street into a nearby mosque for a rough round of interrogation."

Inside they were beaten until they admitted planning an attack on the mosque, whether or not true. "It wasn't supposed to be like this in free Benghazi....Rebel leaders admit that dozens of Gaddafi supporters have been arrested or killed."

Every night, vigilante gangs "mop up (suspected) pro-Gaddafi elements." Foreign workers long ago fled the city. Most refugees, in fact, are foreign workers, not Libyan nationals, what major media reports don't explain.

Under rebel control, Benghazi residents are terrorized, many "too frightened to drive through the dark streets at night, fearing a shakedown or worse at the proliferating checkpoints." One man said unless they know you, they assume you're pro-Gaddafi.

Moreover, about 1.5 million black African migrant workers feel trapped under suspicion of supporting the wrong side. Numbers of them have been attacked, some hunted down, dragged from apartments, beaten and killed. So-called "revolutionaries" and "freedom fighters" are, in fact, rampaging gunmen committing atrocities airbrushed from mainstream reports, unwilling to reveal the new Libya if Gaddafi is deposed.

In his latest article, Webster Tarpley supplied more information headlining, "The CIA's Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US NATO Troops in Iraq," saying:

Already France and Portugal recognized anti-Gaddafi rebels "as the sole legitimate representative of the Libyan people." The names of most of their 30 + delegates aren't revealed. Opposition elements are an armed force, backed by Washington, France and Britain, the main co-belligerents.

A 2007 West Point study examined their backgrounds as "foreign guerrilla fighters - jihadis or mujahedin, including suicide bombers - crossing the Syrian border into Iraq during the 2006 - 2007 timeframe, under the auspices of....Al Qaeda."

Study findings are based on about 600 Al Qaeda captured personnel files by US forces in 2007. Most came from Saudi Arabia, others from Syria, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Jordan, and Libya alone supplying almost one-fifth of them, more per capita by far than other regional states. Diverted now from fighting America in Iraq, they were recruited, armed and funded to oust Gaddafi.

A previous article discussed their National Libyan Council leadership, a so-called "transitional government," accessed through the following link:

Tarpley believes the Harabi tribe may be trying "to seize dominance over the" others. "The Harabi are already practically hegemonic among the tribes of Cyrenaica (Libya's eastern coastal region). At the center of the Harabi Confederation is the Obeidat tribe, which is divided into 15 sub-tribes." Harabi apparently has links to violent elements in Benghazi. They're former US enemies, now allies against Gaddafi to oust him.

However, that begs the question. Will forces opposing US dominance, acquiesce once its imperial hand is evident, or will they resist later the way they're now doing. It's a consideration perhaps not planned for in Washington, London and Paris. In the fullness of time we'll know, including whether imperial forces unleashed a tiger they can't control.

Yet Council on Foreign Relations' (CFR) member Charles Kupchan told IPS, "(T)he six million dollar question is where is this heading and I don't think we have a clear sense of it."

As he knows but didn't say, of course we do. It's not humanitarian as he states. It's to terrorize Libyans until Gaddadi's ousted, then toughen things when he's gone as in Iraq and Afghanistan to assure Washington's hegemonic control. Allied with junior partners Britain and France, they'll carve up Libya for profit, crushing resistance mercilessly. It's how America operates globally, including at home where democracy is just a figure of speech, not reality.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Progressive Radio News Hour Guests for March 31, April 2 and 3, 2011

The Progressive Radio News Hour Guests for March 31, April 2 and 3, 2011

Thursday, March 31 at 10AM US Central time: Keith Harmon Snow

Snow is an independent journalist, war correspondent, human rights investigator, photographer, lecturer, and three-time Project Censored award winner.

Middle East events will be discussed.

Saturday, April 2 at noon US Central time: Dave Lindorff

Lindorff is a long-time award-winning investigative reporter/journalist, contributing to numerous publications and popular web sites in America and abroad.

A prolific author, his books include "The Case for Impeachment: Legal Arguments for Removing George W. Bush;" "This Can't Be Happening: Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy;" and "Marketplace Medicine: The Rise of the For Profit Hospital Chains."

Major world and national issues will be discussed.

Sunday, April 3 at noon US Central time: Dahr Jamail

Jamail is an activist and independent award-winning journalist who reported "unembedded" from Iraq from 2003 - 2005. His Dahr Jamail Dispatches can be followed on his web site -

He's also an author, his latest book titled, "The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Jamail's latest writing will be discussed.

BBC: US and UK Imperial Tool

BBC: Imperial US and UK Tool - by Stephen Lendman

One blogger put it this way:

"Let me get this straight. The US is broke, borrowing money from China, and we will be funding the BBC to broadcast in China?"

On March 20, the London Guardian's Ben Dowell broke the news, headlining, "BBC World Service to sign funding deal with US State Department," saying:

Britain's government funded BBC will "receive a 'significant" sum of money from the US government to help (circumvent) the blocking of TV and internet services in countries including Iran and China," as well as develop early warning software to more easily detect jamming.

According to Jim Egan, BBC's controller of strategy and business:

Effective software will help "monitor dips in traffic which act as an early warning of jamming, and can be more effective than relying on people contacting us and telling us they cannot access the services."

Proxy servers will also be used to misdirect web site blockers to countries other than where broadcasts emanate.

"China has become quite expert at blocking websites," said Egan, "and one could say it has become something of an export industry for them - a lot of countries are keen to follow suit. We have (also seen) evidence of Libya and Egypt blocking the internet and satellite signals in recent weeks."

Moreover, Egan said, anti-censorship software will likely need regular updating to counter new technologies developed to subvert it. Another BBC source called it "a bit of a game of cat and mouse," but didn't explain why foreign blocking occurs; namely, to prevent anti-government propaganda from being aired, a reason any nation might act defensively.

Funding also buys influence, assuring US propaganda an influential global outlet, complementing its Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Radio Marti (Radio y Television Marti), as well as America's mainstream media and other Western conduits, delivering managed, not real, news and information.

According to Institute of Economic Affairs director Mark Littlewood:

"The minute you actually start taking the money, there is bound to be a certain element of 'he who pays the piper calls the tune.' It is a strange arrangement, and I would worry that the more complicated we make (BBC), the less pure its message can be," already tainted by British funding and control. More on that below.

EU Parliamentary member Gerard Batten calls BBC "institutionally politically biased, certainly in favour of things like the European Union, mass immigration, and a whole other host of 'politically correct' ideas that I think it peddles to the public."

Accepting government funding from any source exposes BBC hypocrisy. In fact, "(t)he EU bans sponsorship of any news and current affairs TV programs across the EU," said Batten. "Now it would appear then, that if the US State Department is going to fund BBC that would appear to be in breach of the directive."

For BBC, an expected low six-figure sum (a starter amount perhaps to be generously increased with little fanfare), will be channelled through the World Service Trust (its charitable arm) to help reach people in targeted countries. The grant will help offset a 16% annual Foreign Office cut over three years affecting 650 jobs and regional operations.

On May 3, International Press Freedom Day, the formal announcement is expected, following "an increase in incidents of interference with World Service output across the globe," affecting BBC Persian television and its Arabic TV.

On March 22, Dowell headlined, "American anger at BBC World Service Trust's bid for US funding," saying:

Furious US responses followed the announcement. Even Voice of America officials were "deeply angry" at a time "Congress is embroiled in a delicate budgetary standoff with the Obama administration....One Washington source said the Broadcasting Board of Governors, (BBG)" in charge of distributing about $760 million annually to five US international broadcasters, "should receive the funding and not the BBC World Service Trust."

Of course, bankrolling propaganda through any source is reprehensible, especially when commercial outlets do it free, paid for by sponsors.

BBC's Long History as a Reliable Imperial Tool

Since founded in 1922, BBC has been as corrupted as its dominant counterparts. Moreover, it's been around longer than all of them, and it now operates for profit besides with UK government funding under its editorial control, firing anyone too critical of state policy.

Today, nothing's fundamentally changed since founder Lord Reith wrote the establishment saying, "They know they can trust us not to be really impartial." Neither he or his successors disappointed with rare exceptions, followed by staff changes to assure adherence to state policies, operating as a propaganda system for elitist interests.

Claiming "honesty (and) integrity (is) what the BBC stands from political and commercial pressure" is untrue about an organization that from inception betrayed the public trust. Reith, in fact, operated as a strikebreaker, secretly wrote anti-union speeches for Torries, and refused air time to worker representatives.

Throughout its history, job applicants have been vetted to assure pro-government, pro-business credentials. No aberrant candidates are wanted. Whether on war and peace, Israel - Palestine, international intervention, targeted world leaders, or other domestic and foreign issues, neutral, fair and balanced reporting isn't tolerated. For nearly nine decades, serving wealth and power alone matters most, now with State Department funds for America like Britain.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

US-Led Libyan Ground Assault Planned

US-Led Libyan Ground Assault Planned - by Stephen Lendman

In his weekly March 26 address, Obama said:

"As I pledged at the outset, the role of American forces has been limited. We are not putting any ground forces into Libya....And as agreed this week, responsibility for this operation is being transferred from the United States to our NATO allies and partners."

Earlier he said:

"United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster."

As an earlier article explained, American aggression caused a humanitarian crisis. Moreover, the alleged NATO handover is a ruse. NATO is code language for Washington, the Pentagon. It's America's tool, its "missile," reigning death and destruction across Libya and other operational theaters. European allies concur. They're more pawns than partners. Reports now suggest they'll participate in a late April or early May ground operation if air attacks don't oust Gaddafi.

On March 25, Russia's RIA Novosti news service headlined, "Ground operation in Libya could start in April - Russian Intelligence," saying:

According to an unnamed high-ranking Russian intelligence official, "(t)he international coalition force is planning a ground operation that could start in late April. Information coming via different channels shows that NATO countries, with active participation of Britain and the United States, are developing a plan....From all indications, (it'll) be launched if the alliance fails to force capitulate."

The official estimates a late April-early May timetable. UN Resolution 1973 prohibits an occupation force, but authorizes "all necessary measures," including boots on the ground. Hawkish Western military analysts urge it, a March 25 Wall Street Journal report saying:

"The history of air-only military actions is that they rarely, if ever, defeat an adversary without" ground forces.

On March 26, Rick Rozoff's Stop NATO web site mentioned reports of US forces in Libya with a planned ground invasion coming next month. Various March 26 sources were cited, including:

(1) Sofia News Agency reporting:

"US forces are rumored to be already present on the ground in Libya," despite official denials. According to Reserve Colonel David Hand, American soldiers have been in Libya for 12 days. US intelligence Colonel Tony Scheffer confirmed it.

(2) Voice of Russia's Alexander Vatutin said:

"We are witnessing an attempt to seize oil and gas reserves by means of force. Apparently, coalition forces are pursuing targets other than humanitarian operations...." Dozens of civilian deaths are reported.

"In the meantime, NATO has suggested the possibility of a ground operation in Libya unless Gaddafi chooses to surrender. The military are guided by the Second World War saying 'Put on the Ground' which means you can never expect to win unless you reach the enemy's positions on the ground." About 4,000 US marines are positioned in the Mediterranean to invade.

According to Russian Strategic Research Institute's Azhdar Kurtov, "a ground operation is inevitable" whether or not Gaddafi stays or goes, to seize Libya's strategic oil and gas reserves.

(3) AFP reported:

Washington and NATO partners may supply weapons to opposition forces. According to the Washington Post, "recently withdrawn US ambassador to Libya" Gene Cretz said "administration officials were having 'the full gamut' of discussions on 'potential assistance we might offer,' both on the non-lethal and the lethal side."

(4) RIA Novosti said:

"Any foreign military ground operation in Libya will be considered as occupying the country, Russia's envoy to NATO Dmitry Rogozin said on Saturday," in violation of Resolution 1973.

(5) Russia Today reported St. Petersburg State University Professor Guman Isayev saying:

Libya, like Iraq, is becoming a "black hole....As soon as it became clear that insurgents lost the battle," Resolution 1973 was passed, providing wide latitude for intervention. As a result, "Libya may cease to exist, de facto, the way Iraq did. On the other hand, it's unlikely that Gaddafi's regime can be overthrown by air strikes alone. The hopes that insurgents (could oust him) are failing despite active external support."

On Monday, March 28, Obama will address the nation on the Libyan conflict. Expect none of this to be mentioned, just the usual boilerplate propaganda about "humanitarian intervention," when, in fact, Washington's aims are always imperial.

As previous articles explained, a protracted, destructive conflict is likely, including mass casualties so America can solidify its grip on the entire Mediterranean Basin, exploiting its resources and people freely.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Updating Japan's Nuclear Disaster

Updating Japan's Nuclear Disaster - by Stephen Lendman

Japan's March 11 earthquake/tsunami-caused nuclear disaster affects millions of people regionally and throughout the Northern Hemisphere. But you'd never know it from most major media reports, downplaying an unfolding catastrophe.

In fact, distinguished experts like Helen Caldicott long ago warned of inevitable nuclear disasters, especially in seismically active areas. On May 23, 2004, The Japan Times contributor Leuren Moret headlined, "Japan's deadly game of nuclear roulette," saying:

"Of all the places in all the world no one in their right mind would build scores of nuclear power plants, Japan would be pretty near the top of the list."

"Japan sits on top of four tectonic plates....and is one of the most tectonically active regions of the world. (There) is almost no geologic setting in the world more dangerous for nuclear power than Japan."

In 2004, Kobe University Seismologist/Professor Katsuhiko Ishibashi called the situation then "very scary. It's like a kamikaze terrorist wrapped in bombs just waiting to explode."

American cities like New York have no credible evacuation plans in case of nuclear disasters. Neither does Japan, its Fukushima response a clear example. In fact, however, there's no adequate plan possible in cases of catastrophic nuclear events. How and to where do you transfer millions of people. Abandoning the technology alone can work, a possibility not considered, at least not so far.

Japanese nuclear engineer Yoichi Kikuchi told Moret about serious longstanding safety problems at Japanese nuclear facilities, including cooling system cracks in pipes from reactor vibrations. Operators are thus "gambling in a dangerous game to increase profits and decrease government oversight," he said.

Former GE senior field engineer Kei Sugaoka agreed, saying:

"The scariest thing, on top of all the other problems, is that all the nuclear power plants are aging, causing a deterioration of piping and joints which are always exposed to strong radiation and heat."

As a result, Moret, like Caldicott, said:

"It is not a question of whether or not a nuclear disaster will occur in Japan (or most anywhere); it is a question of when it will occur," and if catastrophic enough, perhaps nothing can be done to contain it.

Moreover, all radiation, especially large amounts, is harmful, cumulative, permanent and unforgiving. Yet lunatic fringe, self-styled "nuclear experts" like Ann Coulter told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly that a "growing body of evidence (shows radiation) is actually good for you and reduces cases of cancer." Even O'Reilly reacted skeptically to the "hormesis" notion. Wikipedia calls it:

"the term for generally-favorable biological responses to low exposures to toxins and other stressors," including radiation.

Other toxins aside, no amount of radiation is safe. In her book "Nuclear Madness," Helen Caldicott explained:

"Lower doses of radiation can cause abnormalities of the immune system and can also cause leukemia five to ten years after exposure; (other) cancer(s), twelve to sixty years later; and genetic diseases and congenital anomalies in future generations."

"Nuclear radiation is forever," she added. It doesn't dissipate or disappear. Jeff Patterson, former Physicians for Social Responsibility president said, "There is no safe level of radionuclide exposure, whether from food, water or other sources. Period." In 1953, Nobel laureate George Wald agreed saying "no amount of radiation is safe. Every dose is an overdose."

On March 19, Ralph Nader's "Nuclear Nightmare" article said:

"Over 40 years ago....the Atomic Energy Commission (now the Nuclear Regulatory Commission) estimated that a full nuclear meltdown could contaminate an area 'the size of Pennsylvania' and cause massive casualties."

In square miles, Pennsylvania is one-third the size of Japan. Nader said that "people in northern Japan may lose their land, homes, relatives, and friends as a result of a dangerous technology designed simply to boil water."

On March 25, New York Times writers Hiroko Tabuchi, Keith Bradsher and David Jolly headlined, "Japan Encourages a Wider Evacuation from Reactor Area," saying:

"New signs emerged Friday that parts of the crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant were so damaged and contaminated that it would be even harder to bring the plant under control soon."

Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA) measured seawater showing "the level of iodine-131 at 50 becquerels per cubic centimeter - 1,250 times the legal limit."

Moreover, several workers were contaminated by water measuring 10,000 times above normal, according to the National Institute of Radiological Sciences. In addition, a senior nuclear executive said "a long vertical crack" running down the side of the reactor vessel (expected to enlarge) was detected "leaking fluids and gases." The Times said, "There is a definite crack in the vessel - it's up and down and it's large. The problem with cracks is they do not get smaller."

In addition, contamination is spreading, now affecting Tokyo water with elevated radioactive iodine levels, an alert saying don't let infants drink it. Milk, vegetables, fruits, and likely all crops in northern Japan are affected. Further, on March 25, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper said:

"Iodine-131 detected in Tokyo hit 12,000 becquerels, compared with the previous day, a tenfold increase in both radioactive iodine and cesium." In addition, "Hitachinaka City, Ibaraki Prefecture, saw the highest radioactive values recorded, with 12,000 becquerels of cesium, iodine and 85,000 becquerels."

On March 25, the Takoma Park, MD-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) said:

"Radioactive iodine releases from Japan's Fukushima Daiichi reactors may exceed those of Three Mile Island by over 100,000 times....While Chernobyl had one source of radioactivity, its reactor, there are seven leaking radiation sources at the Japanese site. Together, the three damaged reactors and four spent fuel pools at Fukushima Daiicho contain (much) more long-lived radioactivity, notably cesium-137, than the Chernobyl reactor."

Its half life is about 30 years. According to IEER president Arjun Makhijani, "This accident has long since passed the level of Three Mile Island." Already, large parts of Honshu, Japan's main island, have been affected. Even so, Japanese authorities haven't been forthcoming about actual radiation releases that independent experts believe are extremely high and dangerous.

On March 26, government officials said predictions on when Fukushima could be stabilized aren't known, spokesman Yukio Edano saying "this is not the stage for predictions." According to IAEA head Yukiya Amano, "(t)his is a very serious accident by all standards, and it is not yet over." Ending it "will take quite a long time."

So far efforts to stabilize the damaged reactors haven't succeeded. On March 24, Natural writer Mike Adams headlined, "Radioactive fallout from Fukushima approaching same levels as Chernobyl," saying:

"The radioactive (iodine-131) fallout is now as much as 73 percent of the daily radiation emitted from Chernobyl following its meltdown disaster." For cesium-137, it's 60%.

Monitoring in Hawaii, Alaska, California, Montreal and other cities are registering Fukushima fallout. Yellow rain in Japan was reported, much like what happened after Chernobyl. Whether it's entirely radioactive isn't known. Contamination, however, is spreading, yet "the nuclear industry says stop's all safe!"

On March 25, Natural writer Ethan Huff headlined, "Ominous smoke plumes, contaminated water and food, but everything is just fine in Japan, suggest authorities," saying:

" smoke....was seen billowing from Reactor 3, (containing) highly dangerous MOX plutonium fuel," prompting an "evacuation at all four reactors." No explanation was given.

In addition, Kyodo News said "mysterious neutron beams (were seen) coming from the plant 13 times since" the earthquake/tsunami, suggesting uranium and plutonium releases from damaged reactors and fuel rods.

Interviewed on March 17, nuclear expert Hirose Takashi doubts water sprayed on damaged reactors was effective, saying:

"If you want to cool a reactor down with water, you have to circulate the water inside and carry the heat away, otherwise it has no meaning. So the only solution is to reconnect the electricity. Otherwise, it's like pouring water on lava."

Moreover, by using salt water "(y)ou get salt. The salt will get into all these valves and cause them to freeze. They won't move. This will be happening everywhere. So I can't believe that it's just a simple matter of reconnecting the electricity and the water will begin to circulate....I can't understand it....Now it's a complete mess inside....I'm speaking of the worst case, but the probability is not low....Only in Japan it is being hidden."

"I hate to say it, but I am pessimistic....We have to think of all six (reactors) going down, and the possibility of that happening is not low."

On March 26, Reuters headlined, "Radiation spikes in seawater by stricken Japanese plant," saying:

"Radioactivity levels are soaring in seawater near (Fukushima), Japan's nuclear safety agency said on Saturday...." On March 25, tests showed they spiked to 1,250 times normal. NISA official Hidehiko Nishiyama criticized Tokyo Electric (TEPCO) for not following safety procedures inside the turbine building. Throughout the crisis, TEPCO hasn't given accurate information on the disaster's severity, downplaying it instead.

As a result, independent experts express grave concerns that conditions are much worse than reported. They also believe it will take months perhaps to contain Fukusima. In the meantime, radiation keeps leaking and spreading, but it will be years before the real toll is known. Downplaying its gravity is scandalous.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

NATO: America's Imperial Tool

NATO: America's Imperial Tool - by Stephen Lendman

In 1999, Nobel laureate Harold Pinter called America's bombing and dismemberment of Yugoslavia "barbaric (and despicable), another blatant and brutal assertion of US power using NATO as its missile (to consolidate) American domination of Europe."

Against Iraq and Afghanistan it's to dominate Eurasia, and against Libya for greater regional hegemony, including resource control, privatization of state industries, new Pentagon bases for future imperial wars, and deterring any democratic spark from emerging.

Obama lied saying:

"United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster."

In fact, he caused a humanitarian crisis by killing civilians, the situation worsening daily as deaths and destruction increase.

"We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize (stated) objectives," he added.


Giving NATO operational no-fly command is a ruse. NATO is the Pentagon, America's missile to reign death and destruction on targeted nations directly or through proxies. Washington planned, orchestrated and leads naked aggression on Libya. The announced handover changes nothing. European allies are more pawns than partners. They mostly go along to get along.

America remains in charge for what promises to be a protracted, destructive, expensive war to replace one despot with another. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, it'll likely cost billions of dollars at a time homeland needs are neglected to hand America's wealth to Wall Street, other corporate favorites, and militarists for endless wars - lawless naked aggression each time.

Moreover, humanitarian intervention is cover for mass killing and destruction. The more the better to assure corporate crooks huge contracts to rebuild, then on to the next war, and the next one, ad infinitum, America's addiction, the major media its cheerleading chorus.

NATO, An Alliance for War, not Peace

Established in April 1949, NATO calls itself a "political and military alliance for peace and security." In fact, it was more for offense than defense. Cold War hysteria was contrived to incite fear and assure an arms race for corporate enrichment. Napoleon once said, "Men are moved by two levers only: fear and self-interest."

Until the Soviet Union dissolved, communism was the alleged enemy. Today it's terrorism, as bogus now as then. Both, however, were used for hugely profitable imperial wars from Korea to Libya to numerous proxy ones, as well as trillions of dollars for military readiness - in fact, scandalous amounts in America without enemies for justification since WW II.

Strategically intervening under US control, NATO, in fact, threatens world peace and human survival. In November 2010, Robert Griffiths, general secretary of Britain's Communist Party (CPB) said:

Under NATO, "(a) global military and reconnaissance infrastructure is being created to support US, British and western European big business interests, especially energy, financial and armaments monopolies." What began "as a cold war provocation against a non-existent Soviet threat (now) invent(s) or exaggerat(es) threats from so-called failed or rogue states, Islamic fundamentalism and cyber-terrorism."

Petre Ignat, general secretary of the New Communist Party of Romania, called for NATO's disbandment, saying:

"We cannot and will not recognize such a murderous alliance, with such a horrible track record....which includes the murder of thousands of innocent civilians in places like Bosnia, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. We cannot and will not recognize an alliance which, through its aggressive policy of expanding East and setting up new military bases there, through its gross interference in other countries' internal affairs, through its gross violation of international law, can only increase the likelihood of an inter-imperialist war between Western imperialism and emerging capitalist powers, like Russia."

Its original member countries include America, the five (1948) Treaty of Brussels states (Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), Canada, Portugal, Italy, Denmark and Iceland. It's now expanded to 28 states and dozens of partners, threatening world peace and stability.

Membership, however, is a bonanza for Western and Israeli weapons industries as current members and entering states must maintain modern arsenals to state-of-the art readiness, despite no enemies except ones Washington creates to wage wars.

On April 4, 2009, NATO's 60th anniversary, a major international demonstration was held in Strasbourg, France under the slogan, "No to War - No to NATO." Participating organizations included peace groups, global justice movements, trade unions, students, and others against NATO's aggressive military and nuclear policies.

Rather than providing security, NATO has been an obstacle to world peace. In a public statement, the Strasbourg coalition said:

NATO "is a vehicle for US-led use of force with military bases on all continents, bypassing the United Nations and the system of international law, accelerating militarization and escalating arms expenditures."

Its member countries account for up to 80% of all purchases, used for imperial wars called "humanitarian intervention."

"To achieve our vision of a peaceful world, we reject military responses to global and regional crises," real or contrived. "We refuse to live under the terror of nuclear weapons, and reject a new arms race." World security depends on peaceful cooperation and coexistence, impossible to achieve under NATO.

Today, bogus threats are used to justify its existence, including "terrorism," instability, arms trafficking, and proliferation of ballistic missiles, nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, mostly in Western and Russian arsenals.

Moreover, new justifications are exploited, NATO citing:

"Key environmental and resource constraints, including health risks, climate change, water scarcity and increasing energy needs (that) further shape the future security environment in areas of concern to (member states) and have the potential to affect significantly (their) planning and operations."

In addition, other areas, including the "ability to prevent, detect, defend against and recover from cyber-attacks (and) assessing the impact of emerging security technologies."

At the same time, NATO pays lip service to "creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons" when, in fact, members like America proliferate them. Hypocritically it then states, "As long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, NATO will remain a nuclear power" because Washington, Britain and France won't abandon them.

Rick Rozoff runs the Stop Nato web site:

"an international email news list that examines, from an adversarial position, the expansion of (NATO) and affiliated and allied military blocs into and throughout Europe, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, Central and South Asia, East Asia and the Pacific, Africa, the so-called Greater Middle East and beyond."

As explained above, he calls NATO "the first attempt in history to establish an aggressive global military formation," comprising one-third of world nations as members or partners on five continents. Stop NATO's purpose is "anti-militarist, international and internationalist." The ultimate aim is survival.

NATO wars, in fact, are America's for greater reach. Against Libya it's to control the only North African Mediterranean state outside its partnership, and only one of five African states not under AFRICOM.

Replacing Gaddafi with a subservient puppet will assure its entry, giving Washington unchallenged Mediterranean Basin dominance, a strategically important waterway bordering three continents. Securing control over Iran, Syria and Lebanon successfully will achieve overall regional hegemony.

NATO's European dominance and eastward expansion especially threatens Russia. Its new Military Doctrine listed "main external threats of war" concerns, including:

-- NATO's global expansion, including to Russia's borders;

-- destabilizing nations and regions;

-- deploying foreign forces on territories and adjacent waters bordering Russia and its allies;

-- deploying offensive strategic missile systems targeting Russia;

-- militarizing space;

-- deploying strategic non-nuclear precision weapons;

-- interfering in the internal affairs of Russia and its allies;

-- proliferating weapons of mass destruction, including missiles, related technology, and nuclear weapons;

-- violating international agreements;

-- not ratifying and implementing others on arms limitations and reductions; and

-- escalating armed conflicts and using military force in areas bordering Russia and its allies.

As a result, at the February 2010 Munich Conference, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said:

After the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact dissolved, "a real opportunity emerged to make the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe) a full-fledged organization providing equal security for all states of the Euro-Atlantic area. However, the opportunity was missed, because the choice was made in favor" of expanding NATO eastward, threatening Russia and its allies.

For example, Yugoslavia's 1999 bombing violated international law and NATO's charter "when a group of OSCE countries....committed aggression against another OSCE country." Again in August 2008 in the Georgian - South Ossetian conflict "in violation of the Helsinki Final Act," prohibiting use of force. US-led NATO, in fact, proliferates it globally, Libya its latest adventure, threatening the entire region and beyond.

A Final Comment

It's no exaggeration calling NATO a global menace, waging war, not peace. It should be abolished, dismantled, not expanded. Today, it reserves the right to use nuclear weapons unilaterally in violation of the 1996 International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling stating:

"....the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable to armed conflict, and in particular the principles of humanitarian law," despite no "comprehensive and universal prohibition."

Operating lawlessly and recklessly as America's "missile," NATO threatens world peace, stability, security and survival. Disbanding it is more important than ever. Besides millions of Iraqi and Afghan victims, how many Libyan deaths are needed to prove it.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Also visit his blog site at 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.