Wednesday, November 20, 2013

Who Must Be Obeyed: Meeting Fed Head Janet Yellin

The Coronation of Janet Yellin

by MIKE WHITNEY - CounterPunch

“As a first line of defense, we have a variety of supervisory tools, micro- and macro-prudential, that we can use to attempt to limit the behavior that is giving rise to those asset price misalignments.” Janet Yellen’s circular, Greenspan-like response to a simple question about How the Fed should deal with “asset bubbles”.

On Thursday, the Senate Banking Committee conducted hearings to decide whether Janet Yellen would be confirmed as the next chairman of the Federal Reserve. Yellen, who was nominated by President Obama, is in line to replace acting Fed chairman Ben Bernanke in January 2014.

Despite the controversy surrounding the Fed’s unconventional monetary programs, which have buoyed stock prices to record highs but failed to pull the economy out of the doldrums, the hearings were largely uneventful. For the most part, senators were civil and reserved, while Yellen was courteous and attentive. Aside from some predictable grandstanding, there were no hardball questions, no hectoring, and no impassioned denunciations of Central Bank policy. The Committee’s performance was as perfunctory as any ever given on Capital Hill. Yellen was never in trouble nor was her confirmation ever in doubt. She breezed through the 3 hour confab without as much as a scratch.

Yellen is as slippery as they come. She skillfully dodges tough questions by poring over arcane economic theory that sounds like an answer, but really doesn’t reveal anything about how she plans to lead. She also has a good sense of how her diminutive appearance works in her favor making it impossible for male senators to be too tough on her without being seen as “sexist” or “bullies”. Also, she’s already mastered the opaque language of the Fed, that is, she knows how to use circuitous, jargon-laden koans and pompous-sounding gibberish to conceal the Central Bank’s real agenda which is to shift more wealth to its constituents on Wall Street.

On the two questions that were on everyone’s mind–QE and asset bubbles–Yellen was characteristically evasive. While she opined that she would continue to “support the recovery” (in other words, keep the money flowing to Wall Street.) she obliquely added, “the program cannot continue forever.”

How’s that for clarity? In other words, “We’re going to keep doing the same thing, but we’re going to stop, too…. probably.”

To no one’s surprise, the Committee found this answer entirely satisfying.

Yellen was also asked whether the Fed would cut the rate it pays on excess reserves at the banks, to which she replied, “It certainly is a possibility.”

Yes, Janet, we know it’s a possibility. We also know that’s not an answer. What the Committee wants to know is what you plan to do as Fed chairman. At least, that’s what one would expect elected representatives to ask if they had even minimal critical thinking skills …which they don’t.

Instead of grilling the candidate on conspicuously-flawed policies that have failed to produce a sustainable recovery after 5 years, ingratiating senators, like Chuck Schumer, felt their time would be better spent congratulating Yellen and singing her praises.

“I think you’ll make a great chair, and your Brooklyn wisdom shines through,” beamed the Senator from New York.

Thanks for that, Chuck. You’re a great American.

Yellen’s finest moment —if you can call it that–was her “bubble-denial” performance which makes her a shoo-in for this year’s Oscar awards. Yellen dismissed the idea that the Fed’s $3 trillion liquidity surge had made markets more frothy.

“I don’t see evidence at this point, of asset prices, misalignments. Although there is limited evidence of reach for yield, we don’t see a broad buildup in leverage, where the development of risks that I think at this stage poses a risk to financial stability.”

“Limited evidence of reach for yield or buildup in leverage”? No asset bubbles? Are you kidding me?

Is Yellen aware that margin debt on the NYSE (the money that investors borrow to buy stocks) is now at its highest level EVER. ($401 billion) That’s higher than 2008 before the crash! Wouldn’t you think that would send off a few alarms at the Central Bank where regulators are supposed to be monitoring these things?

And what about corporate stock buybacks which are up by nearly 20 percent this year and are on track to beat their previous peak in 2007. In fact, stock buybacks–which are just a way for corporations to juice their stock prices without adding any real value to their companies–is leaps and bounds higher than real non-residential fixed investment. In other words, corporate fatcats are swapping paper to make bigger profits instead of investing in factories, equipment or improvements which add tangible value. It’s all a big paper chase which has been amplified many times over due to the Fed’s low rates and the ocean of liquidity that’s been pumped into the system.

But Yellen says she doesn’t see any of this. (“I see nothing. Nooothing.”) How credible is that?

Then there’s this from the Testosterone Pit:

“Bubble data keep piling up relentlessly. IPOs (Initial Public Offerings) so far this year amounted to $51 billion, the highest for the period since bubble-bust year 2000, the Wall Street Journal reported. Of them, 62% were for companies that have been losing money, the highest rate on record…..
It’s even crazier in the land of bonds….. So far this year, $911 billion in bonds were issued, also a Dealogic record. Emerging-market bond issuance hit $802 billion, a notch below their all-time record last year…”(“The Day The Bubble Became Official, And Everyone Was Happy”, Testosterone Pit)

Everything is bubbly. Everything. Which is what happens when you pump $3 trillion into financial assets. (The Fed’s balance sheet has exploded to nearly $4 trillion mainly due to QE.)

And did you catch that part about investors dumping $51 billion into companies that ARE LOSING MONEY. Chew on that for a minute. This is just like the dot.com craze when rates were so low that speculators loaded up on everything they could get their hands on. It didn’t matter what you bought, because the loose-goosy monetary policy and uber-leverage kept driving stocks higher by the day. Then–without notice– Greenspan pulled the rug out from under the markets by raising rates which sent equities into the shi**er. Remember that? And now we’re seeing the same thing all over again. It’s like Back to the Future 2.

But Yellen sees none of it, in fact, she wants to keep the money flowing for as long as possible, until the bubble is so humongous that the slightest pin-prick puts the financial system into a death spiral and the real economy slumps back into recession.

It’s madness. Just like it’s madness for the committee to even consider a candidate with Yellen’s dodgy resume. Do we really want someone running the Fed who argued “against” deflating the housing bubble because she thought it would only be “a good-sized bump in the road, but that the economy would be able to absorb the shock”?

How’s that for poor judgment? By my estimate, that “bump in the road” amounted to more than $8 trillion in home equity losses, 5 million foreclosures, 14 million jobs, and a thoroughly decimated US economy. That was a bad call on Yellen’s part, and in a sane world it would have disqualified her from contention. But we don’t live in a sane world. We live in a world where failing upwards is a reality and where the best jobs go to the apple-polishers who nose their way to the front of the line by doing what they’re told and keeping their mouths shut.

And that’s why “punch bowl” Janet is going to get the Chairman’s Suite in the Eccles Building. Because she knows how the game is played.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Know Your Fracker: A Tale of Talisman

Talisman frackwater pit leaked for months, kept from public

by Damien Gillis and Will Koop - Common Sense Canadian


A pit storing contaminated fracking water in northeast British Columbia was leaking into the surrounding soil and groundwater for up to six months before owner Talisman formally notified the Oil and Gas Commission and undertook clean-up efforts, The Common Sense Canadian has learned.


Frackwater pits in Talisman’s Farrell Creek operations in northeast BC– photo taken in March. Pond A, on the far right, suffered a rupture, leaking contaminants into the soil and groundwater (Two Island Films)

One of five lined pits connected to Talisman’s Farrell Creek operations north of Hudson’s Hope, referred to as Pond A, suffered a puncture through both of its protective layers, causing toxic fluids to begin escaping into the environment. The pits are used to store “produced water” from previous fracks to be reused later as part of a program to cut back on freshwater use. Ironically, this practice has now threatened local groundwater due to the ruptured liners.

It has proven difficult to obtain straight answers from the regulator or company, but through a series of recent communications, we have been able to piece together a rough timeline of the incident.

Holes in Talisman’s liner, story


Pond A in Sept 2010. Both protective liners would later fail (Will Koop)

Talisman’s storage pits consist of two liners with a a layer of interstitial webbing in between. As Talisman Community Engagement Advisor Dan Glover explained this past Friday over the phone, that webbing contains sensors which detected a leak in the inside membrane during a routine inspection in “late January” of this year.

“What we didn’t pick up at that time was that there was also an issue with the second liner,” added Glover.

“From what I understand, we started draining the pond in late January when the leak was detected, but it didn’t happen quickly,” he acknowledged.

That’s a lot of water to truck away.

Indeed, Pond A holds approximately 30,000 cubic metres (30 million litres) of fluids at capacity. With the three neighbouring pits full, the company had to pump out Pond A by tanker truck, removing the toxic liquid waste to the Silverberry industrial waste transfer site, some 70 km away. Each truck can carry just 30-36 cubic metres, meaning almost 1,000 truck loads to empty the pit (and about 120,000-140,000 total km of travel).

That said, the above aerial image of the pits, taken on March 28, conflicts with Mr. Glover’s statement that the company began emptying the pond back in January after the sensors detected a leak in the inner membrane. At least two months later, there is no visible sign that the company has even begun pumping out Pond A.
Getting to the bottom of Pond A leak

It is unclear when Talisman did begin emptying the pit, but Mr. Glover claims it was fully drained by the beginning of June, after which the company removed the liners and discovered the outer layer had failed too, meaning the pit had been leaking for close to 5 months into the soil and groundwater at that point.

In a November 8 email to Hudson’s Hope Mayor Gwen Johansson, responding to questions from a concerned community member, Glover said, “…in June we informed the OGC that we were taking the pond out of service.” Yet, in an advisory emailed to media last week, the regulator stated, “The BC Oil and Gas Commission is investigating a leak in a Talisman frackwater storage pond that was reported by the company on July 22, 2013.“

We asked Mr. Glover to account for the discrepancy between to two conflicting dates when the spill was reported to the OGC. He explained that the first notification, in June, was an informal “heads-up” from Talisman’s regulatory compliance officer. The July date constitutes the company’s “official self-disclosure” to the regulator.

It would take another two and a half months for the OGC to issue a formal order to Talisman “to delineate the extent of soil and groundwater impact in and around Pond A and provide the results to the OGC,” according to Glover. The OGC has declined repeated requests to furnish us with a copy of the order, but has acknowledged the date was October 4 - with a deadline of November 29 for more detailed reporting of remediation and test results on the soil and groundwater.

The above sequence illustrates some serious gaps in the regulatory framework for the industry, with companies left to self-report such incidents, and an apparent lack of urgency on the part of the OGC for mandating and monitoring emergency clean-up measures.
First Nations upset at lack of disclosure

Chief Roland Wilson of West Moberly First Nations, on whose shared territory the leak occurred, is upset at the lack of disclosure by Talisman and the OGC. He says that dialogue with both entities only began once the Nation initiated it, after hearing about learning of the leak through other sources. “They didn’t come forward with anything. That’s a big concern,” says Wilson.

We have people on the ground – hunters, people practicing their treaty rights. Is this getting into the creeks where they’re camping? Who knows what’s happening? The OGC has the duty to consult. When there is a possible threat to the safety of our members, it’s their duty to inform us.

Talisman also neglected to inform West Moberly of the incident, in spite of a memorandum of understanding between the Nation and company which mandates open dialogue. Mr. Glover doesn’t dispute this point. However, when asked why the company didn’t inform First Nations of the leak in January when it was first detected, he suggests it didn’t yet have enough information to share without further investigation.

We didn’t want to go to them and say, ‘hey guys, we have an issue with one of our ponds,’ then they would ask, ‘what’s the issue?’ and we would have told them we have no idea.

That said, there remains the apparent contradiction between the company’s timeline for draining the pit and the above photographic evidence, which suggests Talisman’s response was far less prompt than it has portrayed.

Mr. Glover says that once First Nations contacted Talisman with concerns about the leaking pit, they were invited for a site inspection. He also maintains the company will share its reports on the clean-up with First Nations throughout the region going forward.

Liners punctured by shale


The 12 metre-deep Pond A in Sept. 2010 (Will Koop)

Talisman believes the pit’s liners were punctured by a chunk of shale protruding from the surrounding soil, in the bottom third of the 12 metre-deep cavity.

Following the draining of the pit, Talisman hired Highmark Environmental Services to remove contaminated soil and Matrix Solutions for groundwater monitoring. Results from preliminary testing were supplied to the OGC on September 16, along with an initial remediation plan, which Highmark began to implement. As of last week, an estimated 4,600 cubic metres of soil had been removed and trucked to the Silverberry facility – with approximately 300 cubic metres of contaminated soil remaining to be removed.

The work is ongoing, with follow up meetings being planned in the coming weeks between Talisman and the regulator to review the company’s progress and further testing results.
Chemicals, contamination largely unknown

The company has been unclear about the nature of contaminants in the frackwater, only acknowledging the presence of chlorides, sodium and dissolved solids. In his email to the Hudson’s Hope mayor, Mr. Glover pointed to the province’s “FracFocus” tool, a database where companies operating in BC are now mandated to file chemicals used in their fracks. However, companies are allowed to keep trade secrets and use other tricks to avoid full disclosure.

For instance, we examined the FracFocus list of ingredients used in Well 93-i of the Altares field, directly across the road from the frack fluid storage pits, as an example of the toxics potentially contained in Pond A. While contractor Schlumberger lists most of the chemicals it used in the well, it leaves out some critical details and product information (known as CAS Registry Numbers). And since the FracFocus tool has only been in place since November 2011 in BC, there is data missing for a number of older wells.

For example, Talisman only reports chemicals used in 73 out of 111 of its wells in the Altares field. The company’s total data for the 73 Altares wells indicates it used 993,832 cubic metres (almost a billion litres) of water for fracking purposes – and about 10,000 cubic metres (10 million litres) of toxic additives.

Moreover, the FracFocus tool does not include drilling additives, which, as revealed in a recent peer-reviewed, published paper, can be just as dangerous as fracking fluids.

In any event, here are just a few of the chemicals disclosed by contractor Schlumberger at Talisman’s well (view the full list here):
Hydrochloric Acid
Distillates (petroleum)
Sodium hydroxide (impurity)
2-Methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one
Trisodium nitrilotriacetate (impurity)

We asked Calgary-based Talisman spokesperson Berta Gomez specifically if the water contained the known carcinogen benzene, to which she replied via email, “Yes the produced water does contain low level concentrations of Benzene. Our sampling has shown an average concentration of 0.465 mg/L with a range of 0.211 – 0.824 mg/L,” though she maintains that’s well below the allowable concentration under BC’s Contaminated Sites Regulations.

Finally, neither the OGC nor Talisman have yet to reveal to the public the naturally occurring toxics released within the fracked flow back water – such as mercury, arsenic, barium, strontium, chromium, BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes), radium, uranium, and whatever other dangerous underground substances are being dredged up by fracking (read our recent story about dead cows and radiation connected to fracking near a farm in Alberta).
Volume of leaked frackwater unknown

According to the OGC, “The volume of fluid leaked [from Pond A] at this point has not been determined.”

For his part, Mr. Glover stated by email:

At this time we don’t know the extent of the groundwater impact; however, initial results indicate the impact is quite localized (immediate vicinity of our pond) and that the groundwater chloride concentrations do not pose a significant risk to freshwater species. We continue to check our groundwater monitoring wells on an ongoing basis and we have drilled additional wells to enhance our understanding of the groundwater conditions.

Of particular concern is the indication on a provincial mapping service, iMap BC, that a stream runs near the four waste pits (shown on the graphic below) – which are perched at the top of a hill. Pond A rests at the eastern edge nearest the downhill slope. The company maintains the penetration of fluids into the soil has been limited to .75 metres in depth and Mr. Glover says there is no visible stream in that location. That said, government data suggests otherwise and the location of the pond at the top of a hill is cause for concern.



Government claims zero water contamination from fracking

The incident is highly inconvenient for industry and government on a number of fronts, as the BC Liberal Government tries to calm environmental concerns in its push to build an LNG industry on BC’s coast.

BC Minister for Natural Gas Rich Coleman penned an op-ed in The Georgia Straight one week after the story of Talisman’s leak was broken by The Globe and Mail, boldly declaring:

The net result of both our strong regulatory framework and our geology is that B.C.’s water supply is protected and safe. It has never been contaminated as a result of hydraulic fracturing.

OGC spokesperson Hardy Friedrich echoed these comments to the media as late as last week, on November 13, stating “Water has never been contaminated as a result of hydraulic fracturing in B.C.”

And yet, both the OGC and Talisman acknowledge there has been groundwater contamination here from the leaking Pond A. The regulator was also quick to defend the industry’s record in its media lines surrounding the leak, stating, “There have been no similar incidents in 2013. There is only one similar instance in the past five years. It occurred in 2011. In that incident the leak was immediately detected, the storage pond drained and the area remediated.”

It is nevertheless incorrect to state that water has never been contaminated from fracking in BC. Moreover, as this incident demonstrates, the regulatory system in place isn’t designed to detect contamination, so we have no real sense of how many other incidents have gone undetected or unreported. As of 2012, the OGC had all of ONE hydrologist on staff.

Talisman’s shale for sale


A Talisman frack pad near Pond A – March 28 (Two Island Films)

This incident also comes amidst the planned sale of most of Talisman’s Montney shale gas assets to Progress Energy – a subsidiary of Malaysian energy giant and would-be BC LNG player Petronas – for $1.5 Billion. The deal involving Talisman’s Farrell Creek and Cypress operations was announced on November 8 and is expected to conclude sometime in the new year.

It would appear the Pond A incident is alreading weighing on prospective owner Progress/Petronas’ mind. Following initial conversations last week about the leaking pond, Talisman spokesperson Berta Gomez told us via email, “Since the Progress/Talisman deal was announced, we need to get approval from them for any media response we provide on any issue that involves them. Can I ask you please to hold the publication of the interview you did to me until I get responses approved by Progress?”

Chief Wilson is worried about the pending handover from Talisman to Progress/Petronas and how that will impact the remediation of Pond A and relations with his community around economic and environmental issues:

This poses a concern for us because we don’t have any kind of a working relationship with Progress. We don’t know if they’re going to honour our Memorandum of Understanding with Talisman, or the employment opportunities we’ve been working on with them for our members. What’s going to happen now?

Mr. Glover says Talisman is aiming to have clean-up completed by year-end, but that doesn’t include any final decision about what to do with the pond beyond that.
Water Act, fracking lawsuit

The Pond A incident also comes as a lawsuit was announced this week by Ecojustice and two BC-based environmental groups over the issuance of water permits for fracking. The filing of the case in the BC Supreme Court coincides with the call for public feedback into the modernization of BC’s antiquated Water Act, which concluded this past Friday.

Clearly, the Talisman leak has revealed holes in more than just the company’s storage pit liners. These gaps in BC’s regulatory framework need to be addressed with the new Water Sustainability Act. The incident also poses somes tough questions for a government that wants to dramatically ramp up fracking to feed proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants on BC’s coast, yet doesn’t seem prepared to acknowledge the risks the controversial practice poses on the ground.

The Hacker's Sentence: Reaction to Hammond's Ten Spot

Chris Hedges and Jeremy Hammond's Mother Decry Hacker's 10-Year Prison Sentence

by TRNN

Supporters react to sentencing of Stratfor leaker Jeremy Hammond to a decade behind bars for exposing corporate espionage.


Serving and Protecting? New Mexico Police Open Fire on Traffic Offender's Children

New Mexico Police Fire On Minivan Filled With Children

by Jonathan Turley - Information Clearing House

There is a disturbing case out of New Mexico where police fired into a van full of children after the mother tried to drive away from officers. As shown on the video below, an officer stopped Oriana Ferrell on a routine traffic stop only to see her drive away. What followed was a chase, smashing windows of the van, and the shocking decision of an to fire into a vehicle with kids in the backseat.



First and foremost, it should be noted that Ferrell had violated a host of laws. She fled the scene, engaged in a high-speed chase, resisted arrest, and police say that they found two marijuana pipes in the car. However, it is the discharge of the weapon that shocked many of us.

Ferrell was originally pulled over for going 71 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone. She argues with the officer who goes back to his car only to see Ferrell drive away. At this point, he is aware that there are five children in the car aged 6 to 18.

He then pulls her over again and yells at her to get out of the van. When she refuses, he tries to force her out. When her teenage son get out to confront him, the officer pulls his taser and the teen goes back into the car.

He tells her that she will be charged and to get out as she argues with him. She inexplicably insists that she did nothing wrong and “didn’t run away.” She gets out of the car and the officer tells her to face the van to be cuffed. After she locks herself back into the van, the officer takes his baton and starts to break windows even though he knows that children are seated inside. The flying glass constitutes an obvious threat to the children and this is the first serious breach that I can see. I do not understand why they do not immobilize the van or why he decides to break the window next to the children rather than the driver.

As he is smashing the windows, she drives away. That is when another officer fires three shots directly into a van filled with children. It is a shocking use of force with no concern for the children inside the van. At this point, Ferrell is only accused of a minor traffic stop, leaving the scene, and resisting arrest. There has been no weapon or attack on the officer. Yet, this officer put three slugs through the back of a van filled with children.

Ferrell then leads the police on a 10-minute chase before turning herself in. The New Mexico State Police have not removed any of the officers from active duty.

Ferrell was charged with five counts of abuse of a child, aggravated fleeing an officer, resisting an officer, reckless driving and possession of drug paraphernalia. The abuse of a child is interesting given the fact that it was the officers that fired into a van full of children. Moreover, it is not clear what the basis is for the charge against her teenage son for battery of an officer.

As the video below shows, there was ample reason for an arrest, but the excessive force used by the police is very disturbing and warrants a full investigation. The officer firing the weapon could have killed three children with this unjustified use of force. The police had multiple cars and could easily stop a minivan without resulting to the use of potentially lethal force.

What do you think?

Kudos: Michael Blott

New World Border Hits the Road: "Homeland" Security Abroad

Border Patrol International: “The American Homeland Is the Planet”

by Todd Miller - TomDispatch

It isn’t exactly the towering 20-foot wall that runs like a scar through significant parts of the U.S.-Mexican borderlands. Imagine instead the sort of metal police barricades you see at protests. These are unevenly lined up like so many crooked teeth on the Dominican Republic’s side of the river that acts as its border with Haiti. Like dazed versions of U.S. Border Patrol agents, the armed Dominican border guards sit at their assigned posts, staring at the opposite shore. There, on Haitian territory, children splash in the water and women wash clothes on rocks.

One of those CESFRONT (Specialized Border Security Corps) guards, carrying an assault rifle, is walking six young Haitian men back to the main base in Dajabon, which is painted desert camouflage as if it were in a Middle Eastern war zone.

If the scene looks like a five-and-dime version of what happens on the U.S. southern border, that’s because it is. The enforcement model the Dominican Republic uses to police its boundary with Haiti is an import from the United States.
Tomgram: Todd Miller, The Border-Industrial Complex Goes Abroad

As with the rest of our homeland security state, when it comes to border security, reality checks aren’t often in the cards. The money just pours into a world of remarkable secrecy and unaccountability. Last week, however, the Government Accountability Office released a report about a Transportation Security Administration decision to spend $200 million a year on a “behavioral screening program” involving 3,000 “behavior detection officers” at 176 airports. The GAO concluded that, $1 billion later, it worked “probably no better than chance.” Put another way, 3,000 specially trained TSA agents could rely on their expensive profiling techniques to pick twitchy passengers out of screening lines as likely terrorists, or they could look at you and flip a coin.

The lesson here: nothing, not even a program without meaningful content that costs an arm and a leg, will stop our national security officials from constantly up-armoring this country and so making it more secure from one of the least pressing dangers Americans face: terrorism. That endless securitization process is transparent in a way that, until the Snowden revelations, nothing much else about our security state was. Any alarming incident, any nut who tries to light his shoes or stashes a bomb in his underwear or enters an airport and blows away a TSA agent, and you promptly get the next set of calls for more: more weaponry, more surveillance, more guards, more draconian regulations, more security technology, more high-tech walls, more billions of dollars going to one “complex” or another, and more of what passes in twenty-first-century America for safety. Much of this -- like that TSA profiling program or our vast set of global eavesdropping operations -- has a kind of coin-flipping quality to it.

Still, it should never be claimed that this mania for what we insist on calling “security” provides no security for anyone. After all, it guarantees the safety of those officially guarding us. They always know that some small set of maniacs or other will make sure the funding never stops, their jobs will remain secure, and the military-industrial-complex, homeland-security complex, and border-security complex will continue to thrive in a country that’s been looking a little on the peaked side of late. In this context, TomDispatch regular Todd Miller, who covers our borderlands for this site, offers us the latest news about how to keep border security rolling in dough. The formula is simple enough, if nonetheless startling: stop thinking of our borders as just those strips of land running between the U.S. and Mexico and the U.S. and Canada. Turning borderlands into Border World is the obvious way to create a cash cow. Tom

Border Patrol International: 

“The American Homeland Is the Planet”

by Todd Miller


CESFRONT itself is, in fact, an outgrowth of a U.S. effort to promote “strong borders” abroad as part of its Global War on Terror. So U.S. Consul-General Michael Schimmel told a group from the Columbia Law School Human Rights Clinic in the Dominican Republic back in 2008, according to an internal report written by the law students along with the Dominican immigrant solidarity organization Solidaridad Fronteriza. The U.S. military, he added, was training the Dominican border patrol in “professionalism.”

Schimmel was explaining an overlooked manifestation of U.S. imperial policy in the post-9/11 era. Militarized borders are becoming ever more common throughout the world, especially in areas of U.S. influence.

CESFRONT’s Dajabon commander is Colonel Juan de Jesus Cruz, a stout, Napoleonic figure with a booming voice. Watching the colonel interact with those detained Haitian teenagers was my first brush with how Washington’s “strong borders” abroad policy plays out on the ground. The CESFRONT base in Dajabon is located near the Massacre River that divides the two countries. Its name is a grim reminder of a time in 1937 when Dominican forces slaughtered an estimated 20,000 Haitians in what has been called the “twentieth century’s least-remembered act of genocide.” That act ensured the imposition of a 227-mile boundary between the two countries that share the same island.

As rain falls and the sky growls, Cruz points to the drenched young Haitians and says a single word, “ilegales,” his index finger hovering in the air. The word “illegals” doesn’t settle well with one of the teenagers, who glares at the colonel and replies defiantly, “We have come because of hunger.”

His claim is corroborated by every report about conditions in Haiti, but the colonel responds, “You have resources there,” with the spirit of a man who relishes a debate.

The teenager, who will undoubtedly soon be expelled from the Dominican Republic like so many other Haitians (including, these days, people of Haitian descent born in the country), gives the colonel a withering look. He’s clearly boiling inside. “There’s hunger in Haiti. There’s poverty in Haiti. There is no way the colonel could not see that,” he tells Cruz. “You are right on the border.”

This tense, uneasy, and commonplace interaction is one of countless numbers of similar moments spanning continents from Latin America and Africa to the Middle East and Asia. On one side, a man in a uniform with a gun and the authority to detain, deport, or sometimes even kill; on the other, people with the most fundamental of unmet needs and without the proper documentation to cross an international boundary. Such people, uprooted, in flight, in pain, in desperate straits, are today ever more commonly dismissed, if they’re lucky, as the equivalent of criminals, or if they aren’t so lucky, labeled “terrorists” and treated accordingly.

In a seminal article “Where’s the U.S. Border?,” Michael Flynn, founder of the Global Detention Project, described the expansion of U.S. “border enforcement” to the planet in the context of the Global War on Terror as essentially a new way of defining national sovereignty. “U.S. border control efforts,” he argued, “have undergone a dramatic metamorphosis in recent years as the United States has attempted to implement practices aimed at stopping migrants long before they reach U.S. shores.”

In this way, borders are, in a sense, being both built up and torn down. Just as with the drones that, from Pakistan to Somalia, the White House sends across national boundaries to execute those it has identified as our enemies, so with border patrolling: definitions of U.S. national “sovereignty,” including where our own borders end and where our version of “national” defense stretches are becoming ever more malleable. As Flynn wrote, although “the U.S. border has been hardened in a number of ways -- most dramatically by building actual walls -- it is misleading to think that the country’s efforts stop there. Rather the U.S. border in an age dominated by a global war on terrorism and the effects of economic globalization has become a flexible point of contention.”

In other words, “hard” as actual U.S. borders are becoming, what might be called our global, or perhaps even virtual, borders are growing ever more pliable and ever more expansive -- extending not only to places like the Dominican Republic, but to the edges of our vast military-surveillance grid, into cyberspace, and via spinning satellites and other spying systems, into space itself.

Back in 2004, a single sentence in the 9/11 commission report caught this changing mood succinctly: “9/11 has taught us that terrorism against American interests ‘over there’ should be regarded just as we regard terrorism against Americans ‘over here.’ In this same sense the American homeland is the planet.”

New World Border


Washington’s response to the 2010 Haitian earthquake provides one example of how quickly a mobile U.S. border and associated fears of massive immigration or unrest can be brought into play.

In the first days after that disaster, a U.S. Air Force cargo plane circled parts of the island for five hours repeatedly broadcasting in Creole the prerecorded voice of Raymond Joseph, Haiti’s ambassador to the United States.

“Listen, don’t rush [to the United States] on boats to leave the country,” he said. “If you do that, we’ll all have even worse problems. Because I’ll be honest with you: if you think you will reach the U.S. and all the doors will be wide open to you, that’s not at all the case. And they will intercept you right on the water and send you back home where you came from.”

That disembodied voice from the heavens was addressing Haitians still stunned in the wake of an earthquake that had killed up to 316,000 people and left an additional one million homeless. State Department Deputy Spokesman Gordon Duguid explained the daily flights to CNN this way: “We are sending public service messages… to save lives.” Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quickly dispatched 16 Coast Guard cutters to patrol Haitian waters, blocking people from leaving their devastated island. DHS authorities also cleared space in a 600-bed immigration detention center in Miami, and at the for-profit Guantanamo Bay Migrations Operation Center (run by the GEO Group) at the infamous U.S. base in Cuba.

In other words, the U.S. border is no longer static and “homeland security” no longer stays in the homeland: it’s mobile, it’s rapid, and it's international.

Maybe this is why, last March, when I asked the young salesmen from L-3 Communications, a surveillance technology company, at the Border Security Expo in Phoenix if they were worried about the sequester -- Congress’s across-the-board budget cuts that have taken dollars away from the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security -- one of them simply shrugged. “There’s the international market,” he said as if this were almost too obvious to mention.

He was standing in front of a black globular glass eye of a camera they were peddling to security types. It was draped with desert camouflage, as if we were out in the Arizona borderlands, while all around us you could feel the energy, the synergy, of an emerging border-industrial complex. Everywhere you looked government officials, Border Patrol types, and the representatives of private industry were meeting and dealing in front of hundreds of booths under the high ceilings of the convention center.

On the internationalization of border security, he wasn’t exaggerating. At least 14 other countries ranging from Israel to Russia were present, their representatives browsing products ranging from miniature drones to Glock handguns. And behind the bustle of that event lay estimates that the global market for homeland security and emergency management will reach $544 billion annually by 2018. “The threat of cross-border terrorism, cyber-crime, piracy, drug trade, human trafficking, internal dissent, separatist movements has been a driving factor for the homeland security market,” the market research company MarketsandMarkets reported, based on a study of high-profit security markets in North America, Europe, and Asia.

This booming business thrives off the creation of new border patrols globally. The Dominican Republic’s CESFRONT, for instance, did not exist before 2006. That year, according to Dominican Today, a group of “U.S. experts” reported that there were “a series of weaknesses that will lead to all kinds of illicit activities” on the Haitian-Dominican border. The U.S. team recommended that “there should be helicopters deployed in the region and [that] there be a creation of a Border Guard.” A month after their report appeared, that country, by Dominican presidential decree, had its own border patrol.

By 2009, the new force had already received training, funding, and resources from a number of U.S. agencies, including the Border Patrol itself. Somehow, it seems that what the U.S. consulate calls “strong borders” between the Dominican Republic and the hemisphere’s poorest country has become an integral part of a terror-obsessed world.

When I met with Colonel Orlando Jerez, a CESFRONT commander, in the border guard agency’s headquarters in the Dominican capital Santo Domingo, I noticed that on his desk he had a U.S. Border Patrol model car, a replica of the one that agency sponsored on the NASCAR circuit from 2006 to 2008 in an attempt to recruit new agents. Along the side of the shiny box that held it was this mission statement: “We are the guardians of the nation’s borders, we are America’s frontlines.”

When I asked Jerez whether CESFRONT had a relationship with our Border Patrol, he replied without a second’s hesitation, “Of course, they have an office in the U.S. embassy.”

Jerez is not alone. Washington’s global boundary-building, its promotion of those strong borders, and its urge to preempt “terrorism against American interests ‘over there,’” as the 9/11 commission report put it, are spreading fast. For example, the Central American Regional Security Initiative, a $496 million U.S. counter-drug plan launched in 2008, identifies “border security deficiencies” among Central American countries as a key problem to be dealt with ASAP. So the U.S. Border Patrol has gone to Guatemala and Honduras to help train new units of border guards.

As in Central America, border patrolling’s most vibrant markets are in places that Washington sees as far too chaotic, yet where its economic and political interests reside. For six years now, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has sent its agents, clad in brown jumpsuits, to Iraq’s borderlands to assist that government in the creation of a force to police its “porous” borders (where chaos has indeed been endemic since the 2003 U.S. invasion and subsequent occupation of the country). U.S. boundary-building efforts began there in 2004 with an operation labeled “Phantom Linebacker” in which 15,000 border guards were trained to patrol in -- as the name of the operation indicates -- the spirit of American football.

In 2012, agent Adrian Long told Frontline, the CBP's in-house magazine, that his agency trains Iraqis “in Border Patrol techniques like cutting sign, doing drags, setting up checkpoints and patrols.” Long was repeating the same lingo so often heard on the U.S.-Mexican border, where agents “cut sign” to track people by their trail marks and do “drags” to smooth out dirt roads so they can more easily see the footprints of any “border intruders.” In Afghanistan, Border Patrol agents are similarly training forces to police that country’s 3,436 miles of frontiers. In 2012, during one training session, an Afghan policeman even turned his gun on two CBP agents in an “insider attack,” killing them and seriously injuring a third.

Around soccer’s World Cup, which South Africa hosted in 2010, CBP assisted that government in creating a Customs and Border Control Unit tasked with “securing South Africa’s borders while facilitating the movement of goods and people,” according to CBP’s Africa and Middle East branch country manager for South Africa Tasha Reid Hippolyte. South Africa has even brought its military special forces into the border patrolling process. Near the Zimbabwean border, its militarized guards were using a triple barrier of razor wire and electric fencing that can be set to offer shocks ranging from mild to deadly in their efforts to stop border crossers. Such equipment had not been used in that country since the apartheid-era.

In many cases, the U.S. is also training border forces in the use of sophisticated surveillance systems, drones, and the construction of fences and barriers of various kinds, largely in attempts to clamp down on the movement of people between poorer and richer countries. More than 15,000 foreign participants in more than 100 countries have taken part in CBP training sessions since October 2002. It is little wonder, then, that an L-3 Communications sales rep would shrug off the constraints of a shrinking domestic national security budget.

Meanwhile, U.S. borders are functionally being stretched in all sorts of complex ways, even across the waters. As Michael Schmidt wrote in the New York Times in 2012, for example, “An ocean away from the United States, travelers flying out of the international airport here on the west coast of Ireland are confronting one of the newest lines of defense in the war on terrorism: the United States border.” There, at Shannon International Airport, Department of Homeland Security officials set up the equivalent of a prescreening border checkpoint for air travelers.

Whether it is in your airports or, as in Haiti’s case, in the international waters around your country, the U.S. border is on its way to scrutinize you, to make sure that you are not a threat to the “homeland.” If you don’t meet Washington’s criteria for whatever reason, you will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, from entering the United States, or even in many cases from travelling anywhere at all.

CBP attachés are now detailed to U.S. embassies in Brazil, Mexico, Kenya, South Africa, Italy, and Canada, among many other countries. According to an agency publication, Customs and Border Protection Today, they have been tasked with the mission of keeping “terrorists and their weapons from our shores,” as well as providing technical assistance, “fostering secure trade practices, and strengthening border authority principles.” The anonymous writer then typically, if floridly, describes “our country’s border” as “the armor of the body politic; it protects the systems and infrastructures that function within. Knives pierce armor and can jeopardize the body -- so we sheath them; keep them at bay; and demand accountability from those who use them.”

As CBP Commissioner Robert Bonner put it in 2004, the U.S. is “extending our zone of security, where we can do so, beyond our physical borders -- so that American borders are the last line of defense, not the first line of defense.”

Perhaps this is why few here batted an eye when, in 2012, Assistant Secretary of International Affairs and Chief Diplomatic Officer for the Department of Homeland Security Alan Bersin flatly declared, "The Guatemalan border with Chiapas is now our southern border."

On the Edge of Empire


As dusk falls and the rainstorm ends, I walk along the river’s edge where those Dominican border patrol agents are still sitting, staring into Haiti. Considering that U.S. forces occupied the Dominican Republic and Haiti numerous times in the previous century, it’s easy to imagine why Washington’s border chieftains consider this sad, impoverished spot part of our “backyard.” Not far from where I’m walking is the Codevi industrial free trade zone that straddles the border. There, Haitian workers churn out jeans mainly for Levi Strauss and the North American market, earning less than three dollars a day.

I approach one of the CESFRONT guards in his desert camouflage uniform. He’s sitting with his assault rifle between his legs. He looks beyond bored -- no surprise since being suspicious of people who happen to be on the other side of a border can be deadly tedious work.

Diaz, as his name patch identifies him, tells me that his shift, which runs from 6 p.m. to midnight, is normally eventless because Haitians rarely cross here. When I explain where I’m from, he wants to know what the U.S.-Mexico border looks like. I tell him about the fencing, the sensors, the cameras, and the agents everywhere you look. I ask if he has ever met agents of the U.S. Border Patrol.

“Of course!” he says in Spanish, “there have been training sessions.”

Then I ask if terrorists are crossing this border, which is the reason the U.S. consulate in Santo Domingo gives for supporting the creation of CESFRONT.

Diaz looks at me as if I’m nuts before offering an emphatic “No!”

No surprise there either. CESFRONT, like similar outfits proliferating globally, isn’t really about terrorism. It’s all about Haiti, one of the poorest countries on the planet. It is a response to fears of the mass movement of desperate, often hungry, people in the U.S. sphere of dominance. It is the manifestation of a new vision of global geopolitics in which human beings in need are to be corralled, their free movement criminalized, and their labor exploited.

With this in mind, the experimental border control technologies being tested along the U.S.-Mexican boundary line and the border-industrial complex that has grown up around it are heading abroad in a major way. If Congress finally passes a new multi-billion dollar border-policing package, its effects will be felt not only along U.S. borders, but also at the edges of its empire.

Todd Miller, a TomDispatch regular, has researched and written about U.S.-Mexican border issues for more than 10 years. He has worked on both sides of the border for BorderLinks in Tucson, Arizona, and Witness for Peace in Oaxaca, Mexico. He now writes on border and immigration issues for NACLA Report on the Americas and its blog “Border Wars,” among other places. His first book, Border Patrol Nation, will be published in spring 2014 for the Open Media Series of City Lights Books.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook or Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Ann Jones’s They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return From America’s Wars -- The Untold Story.

Copyright 2013 Todd Miller

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Who Fears to Lose Should Peace Break Into Iran/US Relations

The Saudi-Israel-French Axis of Anxiety Over US/Iran Rapprochement

by Peter Lee - China Matters

As US-Iran rapprochement inches toward at least partial consummation in Geneva, I wish to offer a few observations:

1) The Iran nuclear weapons threat has always been a McGuffin, an excuse for various powers to advance an anti-Iran agenda.

2) Chief among the usual suspects is, of course, Israel under PM Netanyahu. If the Israeli government is able to spin Iran as a nuclear (almost) capable existential threat to Israel, then Israel can make an absolute claim on US sympathy, support, and protection. If Iran returns to good relations with the United States, the US will arguably become less willing to bear the sizable political, diplomatic, and economic cost of deferring to Israel’s priorities—on the Palestinian question, on regional security, and its obstinate refusal to acknowledge its nuclear arsenal and integrate it into the international arms control regime.

3) The other regional power most interested in thumping the Iran-threat drum is Saudi Arabia. However, I would argue that the high-profile anti-Iran stance of the Kingdom (probably symbolized but not necessarily created by the notorious Prince Bandar) has little to do with the threat of “Iran hegemonism” (a canard frequently retailed in the big-name press) and a lot to do with Saudi Arabia’s decision to go pro-active against the popular democratic agitation expressed by the Arab Spring uprisings by supporting conservative Sunni theology and governance, not just in Shi’ite inflected countries like Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, but also in nations like Libya (where Saudi Arabia and its creature, the Gulf Co-Operation Council were the primary motive force in demanding intervention against Gaddafi) and Egypt. It’s easy for Saudi Arabia to piggyback on the anti-Iran campaign promoted by the US and Israel and cite Iranian subversion as a pretext for the campaign of conservative Sunni rollback; if Iran is removed from the league table of existential enemies subverting the Sunni heartland, Saudi Arabia is left in the exposed position of protecting Wahhabi obscurantism against liberal democracy. That’s not a happy place to be.

4) Western observers have been rather surprised by France’s unapologetic sabotage of the Iran nuclear negotiations in Geneva at Israel's behest. I saw some left-of-center complaining that France’s motivation was the greedy desire to muscle in on the lucrative Saudi arms business. Perhaps, but I think the strategic nature of French involvement should be emphasized. Recall that France’s traditional sphere of influence in the Middle East has been the Levant—that chunk of coastline that includes southern Turkey, Syria, and Lebanon. France claims a paternal interest in the bloody, fascistic and pro-Israeli antics of the Lebanese Maronite community, a Catholic grouping whose origins date back to the Crusades that is perhaps the most conspicuous legacy of the French enthusiasm for meddling in the Middle East. Before Syria blew up, France was at the center of an initiative to install Bashar al-Assad in the affections of the West. Also, recall that the Libyan adventure was a creature of French enthusiasm; that France was also easily the most eager advocate of a US military strike on Syria after somebody crossed President Obama’s gas warfare red line. With the United States displaying a desire to tilt toward Iran, if only a little bit, the Middle East jigsaw puzzle has been shaken up and France has the best potential of any Western power to shape and profit from the new alignment. We can justifiably bitch about France carrying Israel’s water, but if the US pivots toward Asia, as it has promised, there is a strong case for redefining the Arab Middle East as a Mediterranean construct, with France playing the role of keystone (and Iran scolder-in-chief). If Iran wants a European ally, well, Germany is probably there for the asking.

For the edification of China Matters readers, I offer two pieces from the archives below the fold.

First, a piece on the longstanding Saudi eagerness to push dissent into the sectarian pigeonhole, not only in Bahrain but in the entire Persian Gulf region. Hopefully, this provides a corrective to the rather ludicrous assertions of Iranian subversion, typified by allegations that the minority Assad regime is suicidally promoting sectarianism in Syria. The truth is, the Sunni affiliation of the Syrian majority is considered to be a dragon to be awakened in the service of conservative Saudi rollback against non-sectarian democracy, both in the kingdom and in the region.
Second, a discussion of the perennial question of whether Israel can pose a credible unilateral threat to Iran’s nuclear program with a military strike. When I originally wrote the post, it was considered unlikely that Saudi Arabia would provide refueling facilities to Israeli fighter bombers, and plausible that the US occupying forces in Iraq might provide the service. How things have changed. Under the current circumstances, I would say that Saudi Arabia’s enthusiasm for fighting to the last American has simply been transferred to Israel. I think that neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia have the stomach to bomb Iran and, perhaps, start a regional war without strong US backing of the sort that the Obama administration appears loathe to provide; hope I’m right. In any case, the real game is in Syria and western Iraq, regions that if not for that exasperating problem of al Qaeda rollback, would be viewed with unalloyed joy as fertile fields for conservative Sunni rollback and continued bloodshed, no matter what happens with Iran.

Strategic Despotism: Israel and the Arab States Join Hands

Zionist, Arab Despots ‘Strategic Partners’

by Finian Cunningham - PressTV

The use of state terrorism against children by Israeli military and Bahrain regime forces is not some random, isolated aberration. The scale and systematic pattern of the violations strongly suggests that the regimes are collaborating closely in methods of counter-insurgency.

In recent months, hundreds of children, under the age of 18 and some as young as five years-old, have been arbitrarily arrested and detained without trial in both the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and in Bahrain.

In Bahrain, it is exclusively the majority Shia communities that are targeted by regime forces of the Saudi-backed Al Khalifa monarchy. Over the past four months, up to 100 children have been snatched from their homes without warrants, detained indefinitely, interrogated and even tortured, according to Bahraini human rights sources. Some of the children have been convicted of terrorism on the basis of forced confessions and given jail sentences of up to 15 years.

Meanwhile, a similar policy of persecuting children is extant in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Over the weekend, four children aged between five and nine years were cuffed and hauled off to unknown detention centers by Israeli soldiers. The arrests took place after Israeli military, firing stun grenades, attacked a peaceful protest, which had been attended by international observers.

This misconduct by Israeli and Bahraini state forces is a gross violation of international law. In legal terms, the unlawful detention of children in this way is tantamount to kidnapping by the state. The interrogation and mistreatment of the children in custody and their long-term incarceration further compounds the flagrant barbarity.

The conclusion is clear: this targeting of children has to have been formulated as a deliberate policy of state terrorism. No doubt the calculation of those engaged in the black arts of population control is that traumatizing young minds is an efficacious method of subjugating future generations.

But there are wider geopolitical implications from these particulars. Bear in mind that the Bahraini autocratic regime is fully supported by its Wahhabi patrons in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Indeed, at various times during the repression of the Bahraini pro-democracy uprising since February 2011, military forces from the other Persian Gulf Arab monarchies have been present in Bahrain and fully assisted in the crackdown against the Shia population.

So, while we are focusing primarily on state terrorism techniques of the Israeli and Bahraini forces here, the partnership with the Zionist regime applies to all the Persian Gulf Wahhabi monarchies - for which Bahrain is a surrogate.

Terrorizing children as a way of attacking a target population is not the only area of common practice by the Israeli and Arab despotic regimes.

Destruction of mosques and other places of worship also connote a shared reading of counter-insurgency manuals. The irony of this is that Saudi Arabia refers to itself as “the Custodian of the Two Holy Sites of Islam.”

In Bahrain, over the past two years hundreds of Shia mosques and community prayer rooms, called “Mattams,” have been either bulldozed or extensively vandalized by state forces. Some of the mosques razed have included ancient sites dating back centuries.

In the occupied Palestinian lands, Israeli forces have also destroyed and desecrated mosques. The pseudo legal justification is tellingly similar to that articulated by the Bahraini regime. Both use Orwellian lexicon by claiming that the places of worship destroyed did not have official construction permits.

Another common method of repression is the indiscriminate use of toxic chemicals against civilians. In both Israeli-occupied Palestine and Bahrain, the chemicals are referred to euphemistically as “tear gas.”

But in enclosed spaces, the chemicals are lethal and have resulted in deaths, birth miscarriages and long-term illnesses. The purpose of this saturation use of toxic weapons is “collective punishment” of the civilian population - a crime against humanity - for that population’s audacity to have dissenting political views.

We could add more common forms of repression: the ghettoization of persecuted communities and forced deprivation. In Gaza and the West Bank, communities are cut off from farming, fishing and other forms of employment; power and sewage utilities are scuttled, and people are forced to live as exiles within their own native country.

In Bahrain, systematic deprivation against Shia communities also prevails. Construction and land reclamation projects for luxury property development that benefit the Khalifa regime have in turn destroyed traditional fishing and farming, resulting in whole communities being marginalized in poverty and squalor.

Ultimately, the objective is to dehumanize, demoralize and dispossess. And the way that such repression is applied systematically by both the Israeli and Bahraini regimes strongly indicates that there is strategic partnership between the Zionist despots in Tel Aviv and Manama, as well as Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi.


This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that intelligence agencies of these regimes regularly hold clandestine meetings. Saudi Arabia’s spymaster, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, is known to liaise with Israel’s Mossad chief, Tamir Bardo, the most recent meeting between the two reportedly held in the Jordanian port city of Aqaba earlier this month.

Last month, Lebanon’s Al Manar news service quoted Israeli Channel Two about a Persian Gulf Arab-Israeli intelligence meeting held in Tel Aviv. Those attending included, “Saudi intelligence chief, Bandar bin Sultan, National Security Advisor and Deputy Chief of Executive Council in Abu Dhabi, Hazza bin Zayed Al Nahyan, in addition to Bahrain intelligence chief, General Adel bin Khalifa Al Fadhel, who is one of the [Persian] Gulf intelligence officers with the strongest ties to Mossad.”

Furthermore, Michael Oren, the outgoing Israeli ambassador to the US, made this stunning admission to the Jerusalem Post recently when the spoke of the close, growing ties between Israel and the Persian Gulf monarchies. Oren said, “In the last 64 years there has probably never been a greater confluence of interest between us and several [Persian] Gulf [Arab] states. With these [Persian] Gulf states, we have agreements on Syria, on Egypt, on the Palestinian issue. We certainly have agreements on Iran. This is one of those opportunities presented by the Arab Spring.”

Apart from identifying common techniques of repression and intelligence links between these regimes, another all-important indicator of strategic alliance is that they share the same Western sponsors - Washington and London - who afford crucial political cover for these regimes to continue their crimes against humanity.

For the West, the strategic importance of these regimes is that collectively they form a bulwark against movements for democracy.

The bottom line is that the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies have now clearly emerged as strategic partners with the Israeli regime. Despite superficial differences, all are lawless regimes that are guilty of crimes against humanity and crimes against Arab and Muslims in particular. They share criminal methodology and logistics.

This fact removes any pretense by Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf Arab clients that they are somehow the rightful leaders of the Arab and Muslim people. Far from it, these despots are colluding in historic betrayal. That betrayal is not a new development. What is “new” is the visibility of it.

Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. He is a Master’s graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in journalism.

Gorilla Radio with Chris Cook, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Gordon Pollard, Janine Bandcroft Nov. 18, 2013

This Week on GR

by C. L. Cook - Gorilla-Radio.com

For all of my life, and the entirety of the lives of most of the World's population, we have lived with the fear of nuclear annihilation. Swinging over our collective heads since August 6th, 1945 is a real, and seemingly inevitable, fiery atomic destruction. In an address to the United Nations in 1961, then president of the United States, John F. Kennedy summed up the global nuclear stand-off, saying; 
"Today, every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman, and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or by madness." 

Listen. Hear.

But today, in 2013, we're beginning to realize the "madness" is not in the use of these horrific weapons of total destruction alone, but in the very existence of nuclear programmes, regardless of their stated purpose or beneficial application.

Dr. Helen Caldicott is a physician, author, and lecturer, who has for more than thirty years studied, written, and campaigned against the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their derivatives, delivering impassioned speeches and making imprecations to both the suited and unsuitable politicians and power-brokers overseeing the precarious atomic tinderbox reality of our modern lives. Dr. Caldicott's book titles include: 'If You Love This Planet,' 'Nuclear Power Is Not the Answer,'The New Nuclear Danger,' 'Depleted Uranium: Metal of Dishonour,' and 'If You Love This Planet: A Plan to Heal the Earth.'

Caldicott was in California recently to attend the premier of Lawrence Johnston's new documentary film, 'Fallout,' on the making of the Hollywood film based on Neville Shute's seminal book, 'On the Beach,' a tale nuclear apocalypse and humanity's last surviving in her hometown of Melbourne, Australia.

Helen Caldicott live from Melbourne in the first half.

And; this week marks the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of JFK. The November issue of the Victoria Street Newz is marking that milestone with the first installment of an extensive, three part article written by long-time student of the Kennedy's killing and its aftermath, Gordon Pollard. Pollard is a former journalist and teacher who holds a Masters degree in History from Columbia University in New York City and Bachelors in History and English from the University of Victoria.

Gordon Pollard and the day that really changed everything in the second half.

And; Victoria Street Newz publisher and CFUV Radio broadcaster, Janine Bandcroft will join us at the bottom of the hour to bring us up to speed with some of what's good to do in and around our city. But first, Dr. Helen Caldicott and a nuclear peril undiminished.

Chris Cook hosts Gorilla Radio, airing live every Monday, 5-6pm Pacific Time. In Victoria at 101.9FM, and on the internet at: http://cfuv.uvic.ca.  He also serves as a contributing editor to the web news site, http://www.pacificfreepress.com. Check out the GR blog at: http://gorillaradioblog.blogspot.ca/
G-Radio is dedicated to social justice, the environment, community, and providing a forum for people and issues not covered in the corporate media.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Hot Off the Press and Off the Mark: Lara Logan Selling the Sizzle while Burning the Facts

Lara Logan, Hotness and Benghazi Gone Wild: A Sixty Minutes Scandal


by John Grant - This Can't Be Happening


Lara Logan is a formidable TV reporter who has covered wars and other stories at significant risk. She’s supremely confident and has a powerful journalistic institution supporting her.

Lara Logan, her interview with Morgan Jones (really Dylan Davies), his book and Benghazi burning 

But as a would-be ethical journalist, she seems to rely too much on her sexual allure and to be too tight with elite elements of the US military establishment.

When it comes to TV reporters, the 42-year-old Logan's persona epitomizes the pop adjective hot.

She’s a beautiful South African blonde with a come-hither sultry voice. It’s noteworthy that she’s married to a US civilian defense contractor from Texas she met covering the war in Afghanistan. They have two young kids. She made her aggressive militarist credentials clear in a 2012 speech [1] in which she unambiguously called for vengeance by US “clandestine warriors” following the Benghazi attack.

As a journalist, Logan always seems to be falling off Albert Camus’ famous ridgeline separating the two abysses of Frivolous Art and Propaganda. In her case, the Propaganda abyss she’s falling into involves her breathy, seductive adoration of male “warriors” and adventurers she is inclined to report on and interview.


The dust-up over her October 27th 60 Minutes interview with a macho warrior cum bullshit artist about his fantasy heroics in Benghazi makes her sexy style a fair issue for discussion. Her story was timed perfectly and played right into the hands of men like California Rep. Darrel Issa, Senator Lindsey Graham, Sean Hannity and other right-wing elements doing their mightiest to undermine the Obama administration.

It’s not that President Obama’s Libya actions don’t deserve fair criticism; it’s that Lara Logan’s story featuring “security officer” Dylan Davies (using the pseudonym Morgan Jones) posturing as a brave clandestine war hero turned out to be pandering, right wing militarist garbage. Even Fox News was leery of Davies and washed their hands of the man. Finally, Davies as Morgan Jones had produced a ghost-written book called The Embassy House [2] published by Threshold Editions, a right wing imprint owned by Simon and Schuster, which is owned by Lara Logan's boss, CBS, something she failed to mention in her interview.

Logan says she worked on the story for a full year. Anyone who works in the journalism business should now be shaking his or her head. For a reporter with the institutional resources and clout Logan has at her beck and call not to check such a source’s claims to see if they jived with testimony on the topic he had given to the FBI simply beggars belief and deserves much more than the 90-second on-air apology [3] she made last Sunday. That statement amounted to, “Oops! We’re really sorry.” Sixty Minutes producers say they have nothing more to say on the affair. They clearly hope it will just go away.

Sixty Minutes made its brand spurs with the on-the-street, guerrilla journalism associated with Mike Wallace, mike in hand, running after some lowlife creep fleecing the American citizenry. That was then. Nowadays it relies on its institutional heft and its high-level access power. In the post-911 world, on 60 Minutes we tend to get a lot of Pentagon puff pieces segued in with health care scandals and celebrity profiles.

It’s tough being a media consumer these days immersed in what William Arkin calls “martial life” in America. He develops this idea in his new book American Coup: How a Terrified Government Is Destroying the Constitution, in which he shows the problem is much more complicated that an ordinary “coup.” Militarism pervades everything, he says. It’s “more a product of political accretion than diabolic edict -- something akin to too many greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ...[I]t is the product of ignorance -- and manufactured complexity.”

As Pogo put it, “I’ve met the enemy and the enemy is us.”


Citizens are doomed to engage with a runaway militarist machine that deals with citizens in one of two distinct modes: Secrecy or Public Relations. Large corporate-based journalistic institutions like CBS and 60 Minutes are so desperate to fill their news holes their prime concern becomes not losing access to the Pentagon’s world. Access mavens like Lara Logan rise to the top due to their capacity to churn out what amounts to entertaining Pentagon public relations.

One of the more obnoxious 60 Minutes Pentagon puff pieces ran on March 22, 2008. As an anti-war activist who takes the idea of “peace” seriously, I found it personally insulting. The story by correspondent David Martin was called “The Pentagon’s Ray Gun,” [4] and it was about an experimental, non-lethal weapon called an “active denial system.” The track-mounted “gun” could project 100,000 watts of heat as a means to break up crowds. Martin tells us this weapon will be useful in Iraq. When hit by the ray from a half-mile away, volunteers and Martin himself all fled within seconds.

So far so good. An interesting story.


Where 60 Minutes’ integrity fell into Camus’ Propaganda abyss was when the active duty military volunteers were shown marching with signs that called for WORLD PEACE, PEACE NOT WAR and HUG ME, clearly some militarist’s brilliant idea to ridicule the Iraq anti-war movement. You could see the soldier volunteers were having a hoot hollering anti-war slogans. By 2008, of course, the anti-Iraq War movement had been for years accurately and fairly characterizing the Iraq Invasion and Occupation as unnecessary, cruelly destructive and based on official delusions and lies. That view is now shared by a significant majority of Americans that crosses political lines.

I was in Baghdad in December 2003 and January 2004, and I witnessed peaceful street demonstrations critical of the US occupation. By 2008, I’d also been part of a number of massive demonstrations in Philadelphia, New York and Washington DC opposed to the war in Iraq. A very notable feature in these was connected metal railings that operated like cattle chutes and, my favorite feature, metal corrals known as “First Amendment zones.” They were, of course, always at a significant, and therefore safe, remove from the institution being protested.

I have no doubt if we demonstrators and our PEACE NOT WAR signs had become too unruly -- that is, actually effective -- active denial system ray guns would have been deployed in the United States before they were ever seen in Iraq. The R&D has certainly advanced and the ray guns are no doubt parked somewhere and included in someone’s numbered and filed contingency scenario.

Active denial ray guns are about shutting down information going upward. Lara Logan and Sixty Minutes are part of the vast machine that broadcasts controlled information in a downward direction.

In the propaganda game, subtext can be more powerful than the overt message. This was certainly the case with David Martin’s ray gun story. The overt message was, “Look, our military is so humane it doesn’t have to gun people down like the Chinese government did in Tiananmen Square.” The subtext was peace activists are the bad guys; so it’s OK to treat peace activists like the enemy. Sixty Minutes editors played right along with what amounts to a flagrantly biased anti-First Amendment message.

At the very least Martin and 60 Minutes should have commented on the insulting signage. But that would have put the story on a more objective footing, and to do so might have threatened their access on the next Pentagon story. Lara Logan’s stories suffer from the same access-obsessed, public-relations-reliant, pro-military bias.

Logan received a lot of sensational press and some undeserved salacious comments in February 2011 following a brutal 40-minute sexual assault by a mob of men in Cairo’s Tahrir Square the night Hosni Mubarak stepped down. It’s true certain sexually arrogant Muslim men feel that alluring western women are begging to be pawed and groped. I witnessed it in Turkey, where as a westerner, I was asked to accompany a British women under assault on a train. Following the Tahrir Square assault, CBS and Logan decided on-the-ground reporting in Muslim countries like Egypt is probably not the place to send Lara Logan.

Some may feel it’s out of line to emphasize Logan’s sexual allure and to suggest that she exploits her sexual charms. It insinuates that her success may not be based on hard work and intelligence alone. For me, it’s like Ronald Reagan’s charms. I think the man was brilliant in his own way. But Ronald Reagan without his aw-shucks acting charms is unimaginable. And it was Reagan’s acting charms that made him the Great Communicator able to sell what he sold to the American people. The point is, many Americans understand that the myth of American exceptionalism (anti-malaise) he sold the nation led inexorably to a major financial collapse and the bankrupting militarist runaway train we’re now riding in and holding on for dear life.

The Lara Logan affair should be up there with the Judith Miller and Curveball affairs during the Iraq Invasion, all ignoble markers of how really shamelessly pandering the Mainstream Media can be covering the military and its proponents.

Lara Logan is certainly not alone in producing biased journalism. What you’re now reading is arguably biased journalism. But, then, I’m not posing as anything other than an advocate for peace-friendly ideas and certain historical meanings. I clearly don’t have the power and resources of CBS and 60 Minutes at my beck and call.

Last year at the annual luncheon of the Better Government Association, Lara Logan very earnestly said this:

“There is a distinction between investigating something to find out what the real situation is and trying to prove something you believe is true. And those are two very different things, and the second one is a very dangerous thing.”

She clearly needs to ponder her own remarks, because what she did with would-be clandestine warrior hero Dylan Davies was exactly what she called a “very dangerous thing.” In her case, it was profoundly dangerous because so much life and death and destruction could hinge on what she's advocating. Linking up with friendly pro-military voices to propagate right-wing militarist ideas because one has access to them is not the same thing as "investigating something to find out what the real situation is."

It would be a day for rejoicing if mainstream entities like 60 Minutes could find the humility and courage needed to actually cover the runaway Pentagon leviathan as the societal leech it really is. There are, of course, excellent working models for this in reporting based on material leaked by individuals like Bradley/Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. Logan was publicly critical of Michael Hastings for his Rolling Stones expose of the real General Stanley McChrystal. Hasting, of course, died as he was reportedly working on a CIA story in a very mysterious fiery crash recently in Los Angeles.

Let's hope this scandal grows until 60 Minutes stops stonewalling and comes clean about such a shameful reportorial fiasco. Stonewalling is what crooked politicians do. As Finley Peter Dunne’s folksy character Mr Dooley famously put it in 1898, what journalists do is “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

The fact is Lara Logan and 60 Minutes are just too damn comfortable with the Pentagon war machine that sucks our blood and monitors our communications -- while it claims to protect us. Both institutions need to be afflicted more.


Source URL: http://thiscantbehappening.net/node/2040

Links:
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2013/11/11/watch-lara-logan-shares-thoughts-on-benghazi-prior-to-60-minutes-apology/
[2] http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/11/benghazi-dylan-davies-book-excerpt-the-embassy-house
[3] http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50158869n
[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4143150n

Iran: Keeping the World Safe for France's Nuclear Industry

Why Did France Thwart The Iran nuclear deal?

by TRNN

Robert Parry: France was pursuing its own economic, regional interests in thwarting the nuke deal with Iran.


Robert Parry is an American investigative journalist. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 for his work with the Associated Press. In 1995, he established Consortium News as an online ezine dedicated to investigative journalism. From 2000 to 2004, he worked for the financial wire service Bloomberg. Major subjects of Parry's articles and reports on Consortium News include the presidency of George W. Bush, the career of Army general and Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell (with Norman Solomon), the October Surprise controversy of the 1980 election, the Nicaraguan contra-cocaine investigation, the efforts to impeach President Clinton, right-wing terrorism in Latin America, the political influence of Sun Myung Moon, mainstream American media imbalance, United States Defense Secretary Robert Gates, as well as international stories . Parry has written several books, including Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & "Project Truth." (1999) and Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004). 

Fighting for The Peace: Controversial Site C Public Hearings Few and Squeezed into Holiday Season

Stop Site C

by PVEA

It was recently announced that the Joint Review Panel responsible for reviewing Site C has completed reviewing responses to their information requests, and are swiftly moving on to the public hearing phase of the review. With few hearings scheduled close to the Christmas holidays, there are concerns that the public will not be able to participate.

The preliminary hearing schedule also does not outline sessions specifically for important areas of concern such as agriculture and human health and safety.

It’s important to let the federal and provincial governments know that you have serious concerns about Site C and want the project stopped. Please take two minutes to send a letter to B.C. Premier Christy Clark, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and other politicians.

Site C is not clean or green energy. If the dam is built it will increase B.C.’s greenhouse emissions by 150,000 tonnes a year and flood prime farmland. Site C will also destroy critical habitat for at-risk species like the grizzly bear, wolverine and caribou.

Site C dam has already been turned down – twice – by the B.C. government, which said it was too risky and too costly. Electricity from Site C is not needed to power B.C. households and businesses. Residential and commercial customers in B.C. have actually reduced their power consumption since 2008. So-called “clean energy” from Site C would be used to power dirty fossil fuel industries such as fracking and Liquid Natural Gas. Yet B.C. taxpayers will end up footing the $8 billion bill at a time when B.C. Hydro is already deeply in debt.


What You Can Do


Please help stop Site C by sending a letter now!


Your letter will be sent to the following people:

Honourable John Rustad (Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation)
Honourable Adrian Dix (Leader of the Opposition)
Mr. John Horgan (Energy and Mines critic)
Honourable Peter Kent (Federal Minister of the Environment)
Mr. Nicholas Simons (Agriculture critic)
Right Honourable Stephen Harper (Prime Minister)
Honourable Rich Coleman (Minister of Natural Gas)
Honourable Mary Polak (Minister of the Environment)
Mr. Doug Donaldson (Aboriginal Relations critic)
Honourable Christy Clark (Premier)
Mr. Robin Austin (Natural Gas critic)
Honourable Bill Bennett (Minister of Energy and Mines)
Honourable Pat Pimm (Minister of Agriculture)