Of Tyrants and Tanks: Remembering Margaret Thatcher Through Her Friends

Thatcher's Tyrants - The Tanks, The Guns, The Christmas Cards

by David Edwards - Media Lens

The late American historian Howard Zinn wrote:

'The truth is so often the reverse of what has been told us by our culture that we cannot turn our heads far enough around to see it.' (The Zinn Reader - Writings on Disobedience and Democracy, Seven Stories Press, 1997, p.400)

What, for example, is the truth of the apparently intense 'mainstream' political and media dislike of dictators?

On the face of it, the loathing is visceral, absolute – newspapers are crammed with denunciations of the crimes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi and the like. The sensitivity is so acute that dissidents who compare these horrors with the West's own crimes are reflexively accused of apologising for tyranny. Forget actions in support, journalists are outraged even by words that might be interpreted as expressing sympathy or support.

Readers will doubtless recall the media bile that greeted then Labour MP George Galloway after he told Saddam Hussein in 1994:

'Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability.'

Galloway claimed his intention had been to salute the 'Iraqi people'.

The press has never forgiven or forgotten these words. Our search of the Lexis media database (April 17, 2013) found 204 UK national newspaper articles containing the terms 'Galloway', 'Saddam' and 'indefatigability'.

Last year, for example, the Independent reminded readers that 'signs that Galloway's views stretched the bounds of public acceptability' had long been evident; for example, 'he was memorably saluting the "indefatigability" of Saddam Hussein, long after the Kuwait invasion'. (Rob Marchant, 'Is anyone in Britain still listening to George Galloway's Respect Party? And should they be?,' The Independent, November 9, 2012)

The Guardian also commented last year:

'Indefatigability was just a word with too many syllables until [Galloway] shamelessly rolled it out for the cameras in 1994. Of course the absurdity of the occasion - obeisance to Saddam Hussein - instantly gave the word itself a new meaning.' (Leading article, 'In praise of... indefatigability,' The Guardian, April 5, 2012)

However foolish, Galloway's comments were just that - comments, words. With this example in mind, it is interesting to compare how political and media commentators have responded to the words and deeds of Margaret Thatcher who died on April 8.

Barack Obama declared Thatcher 'one of the great champions of freedom and liberty'.

George HW Bush described her as 'one of the 20th century's fiercest advocates of freedom', whose 'principles in the end helped shape a better, freer world'.

The Economist agreed, praising Thatcher for 'her willingness to stand up to tyranny'.

The Telegraph's Defence Editor, Con 'Con' Coughlin, opined:

'Mrs Thatcher's uncompromising approach to dealing with the world's dictators, from Argentina's General Galtieri to Iraq's Saddam Hussein, derived from her deep admiration of Churchill.'

According to Charles Powell in the Telegraph, Thatcher was driven by 'a determination to change the world for the better, a quality which she shared with President Reagan, probably the most important strand in their relationship.'

This was admirable indeed, Powell noted, although it 'involved being horrid to foreigners from time to time'. Well, nobody's perfect.

Perhaps inspired by such comments, a letter published in the Birmingham Mail responded to Galloway's ugly 'May she burn in the hellfires' reaction to Thatcher's death:

'That's a bit rich coming from the Cuban cigar-smoking MP (what a sick joke calling his party "Respect") who praised that tyrant Saddam Hussein for his "courage, strength and... indefatigability" and yet dishonours a British Prime Minister in the most disgraceful terms.' (Letters, Birmingham Mail, April 13, 2013)

The letter might itself be deemed 'a bit rich' in light of Thatcher's actual record.

Halabja – Twenty-Five Years Later

Coincidentally, the month prior to Thatcher's death marked the 25th anniversary of Iraq's March 16, 1988 gas attack on the Kurdish town of Halabja. It has been estimated that between 3,200-5,000 civilians died as part of Saddam Hussein's Anfal campaign.

The Halabja atrocity was mentioned frequently in 2002-2003 as Western politics and media propagandised for war on Iraq, ostensibly in response to the 'threat' of weapons of mass destruction. The Lexis database finds (April 17, 2013) no less than 1,227 UK national newspaper articles mentioning Halabja. As we discussed in 2003, the media mostly managed to miss the damning details. By way of a rare exception, Dilip Hiro wrote in the Guardian:

'The images of men, woman and children, frozen in instant death, relayed by the Iranian media, shocked the world. Yet no condemnation came from Washington... [I]nstead of pressuring him [Saddam] to reverse his stand, or face a ban on the sale of American military equipment and advanced technology to Iraq by the revival of the Senate's bill, US Secretary of State George Shultz chose to say only that interviews with the Kurdish refugees in Turkey and "other sources" (which remained obscure) pointed towards Iraqi use of chemical agents. These two elements did not constitute "conclusive" evidence.

'This was the verdict of Shultz's British counterpart, Sir Geoffrey Howe [Thatcher's foreign secretary]: "If conclusive evidence is obtained, then punitive measures against Iraq have not been ruled out." As neither he nor Shultz is known to have made a further move to get at the truth, Iraq went unpunished.' (Hiro, 'When US turned a blind eye to poison gas,' The Observer, September 1, 2002)

Five months after Halabja, Howe noted in a secret report that 'opportunities for sales of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq will be considerable'. In October 1989, foreign office minister William Waldegrave wrote of Iraq: 'I doubt if there is any future market of such a scale anywhere where the UK is potentially so well-placed' and that 'the priority of Iraq in our policy should be very high'. (Quoted, Mark Curtis, Web of Deceit, Vintage, 2003, p.37)

Also in the immediate aftermath of Halabja, the US approved the export of virus cultures and a $1 billion contract to design and build a petrochemical plant that the Iraqis planned to use to produce mustard gas. Profits were the bottom line. Indeed 'so powerful was the grip of the pro-Baghdad lobby on the administration of Republican President Ronald Reagan', Hiro noted, 'that it got the White House to foil the Senate's attempt to penalise Iraq for its violation of the Geneva Protocol on Chemical Weapons to which it was a signatory'.

Walter Lang, a former senior US defence intelligence officer commented:

'The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern.' (Patrick E. Tyler, 'Officers say US aided Iraq in war despite use of gas,' New York Times, August 18, 2002)

In a little over a week after Saddam Hussein was executed on December 30, 2006, Halabja was mentioned 74 times in the US press and 29 times in the UK press. It was deemed a defining example of his criminality. In the week since Thatcher died, Halabja has not been mentioned in the UK press.

In 2003, the Guardian described 'the Thatcher government's duplicitous record' on Iraq:

'For more than a decade, yellowing paper files in a government store have hidden the story of the way £1bn of Whitehall money was thrown away in propping up Saddam Hussein's regime and doing favours for arms firms.

'It took place when many in both the British and US administrations were covertly on President Saddam's side.'

A leaked prime-ministerial brief recommended that the best way to avoid public outrage but still profit from Iraq was to sell only non-lethal equipment but to 'define this narrowly':

'"Contracts worth over £150m have been concluded [with Iraq] in the last six months including one for £34m (for armoured recovery vehicles through Jordan)," writes Thomas Trenchard, a junior minister, in a secret letter to Mrs Thatcher in March 1981.

'The letter also says that a meeting with Saddam Hussein "represents a significant step forward in establishing a working relationship with Iraq which... should produce both political and major commercial benefits".

'Mrs Thatcher wrote by hand at the top of the letter that she was "very pleased" by the progress being made.'

In 2002, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) summarised:

'During the 1980's much of the Campaign Against Arms Trade's work focused on sales to Iran and Iraq, countries which had been at war with one another since September 1980...

'The UK was not in the big league as a supplier to either side, but nonetheless did play a vital role in maintaining both military machines.'

In 1982, for example, International Military Services, a company owned by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), 'was given permission to repair British-made Chieftain tanks captured by Iraq from Iran. The MoD said there had been no abandonment of neutrality, Britain would supply tank spares to both sides but no ammunition'.

Last year, the Guardian reported:

'Foreign heads of state who received seasonal greetings from Thatcher in 1981 included the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi – the card was addressed: "To the Leader of the Great First of September Revolution" – and the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.'

The Super-Saleswoman

We have focused on Thatcher's arming and funding of Saddam Hussein because the media is supposed to despise him and anyone who supports him or so much as 'salutes' him. But Thatcher's arming and funding of the Iraqi tyrant at the height of his criminality is only the tip of a very bloody iceberg. As John Pilger commented:

'Although British companies have long sold arms, legally and illegally, to the world's leading tyrannies... it was Margaret Thatcher who brought a crusading zeal to the task of arming much of the world.

'She became a super-saleswoman, making deals, talking up the finer points of fighter aircraft engines, hard-bargaining with Saudi princes, cajoling buyers and sellers alike.' (Pilger, Hidden Agendas, Vintage, 1998, p.124)

Nima Shirazi, an independent researcher and political analyst, explains:

'Thatcher was a staunch supporter of many of the world's most brutal regimes, propping up and arming war criminals and dictators in service to Western imperialism, anti-Communism and neoliberal hegemony.'

Indeed, it is an astonishing list. For example, Thatcher praised the Shah of Iran as 'one of the world's most far-sighted statesmen, whose experience is unrivaled'. She added:

'No other world leader has given his country more dynamic leadership. He is leading Iran through a twentieth century renaissance.'

In defending the Shah, Thatcher was supporting a political system that had the 'highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture' which was 'beyond belief', according to Amnesty International. It was a society in which 'the entire population was subjected to a constant, all-pervasive terror'. (Martin Ennals, Secretary General of Amnesty International, cited in an Amnesty Publication, Matchbox, Autumn 1976)

Between 1971 and 1976 (before Thatcher became prime minister), the UK sold the Shah 1,500 state-of-the-art Chieftain main battle tanks and 250 repair vehicles costing £650 million.

Thatcher described Indonesian tyrant Suharto as 'One of our very best and most valuable friends.'

The 1965-1966 massacres that accompanied Suharto's rise to power claimed the lives of between 500,000 and 1 million people, mostly landless peasants. A 1977 Amnesty International report cited a tally of 'many more than one million' deaths. In the words of a leaked CIA report at the time, the massacre was 'one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century'. (Declassified US CIA Directorate of Intelligence research study, 'Indonesia - 1965: The Coup That Backfired,' 1968; http://newsc.blogspot.com/)

Suharto's US-armed invasion of East Timor in December 1975, killed 200,000 people out of a total of 700,000 - one of the worst genocides in history by proportion of population killed.

Britain granted Suharto hundreds of millions of pounds of loans to buy weapons before, during and after Thatcher's time as prime minister. On her watch, hundreds of fighter-bombers, tanks, armoured cars and numerous other weapons were delivered and used to kill civilians.

Thatcher told her close friend, the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, that she was 'very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile, you set up a constitution suitable for democracy, you put it into effect'.

Three weeks after Pinochet's US-backed coup in 1973, a secret US briefing paper entitled 'Chilean Executions' put the 'total dead' from the coup at 1,500. The paper reported that the junta had summarily executed 320 individuals. After three months, 11,000 people had been killed. According to the Catholic Institute for International Relations (CIIR):

'the single-minded ferocity of the coup and the subsequent deliberate use of torture, "disappearances" and murder had at that time no parallel in the history of Chile or Latin America, a continent with a long experience of dictatorship and military brutality'. (Quoted, Mark Curtis, The Ambiguities of Power, Zed Books, 1995, p.130)

CIIR described how the Pinochet regime instigated a 'policy of permanent terror'.

Much of the military hardware used in the coup was supplied by UK manufacturers. In 1980, a year after she took office, Thatcher lifted the arms embargo on Pinochet - a flow of weapons, including fighter-bombers, followed.

Thatcher's list goes on and even makes the US look principled. CAAT again:

'The bulk of the UK arms trade to Saudi Arabia resulted from the reluctance of the United States to supply the kingdom. Each tranche of the infamous Al Yamamah deal followed refusals by Congress to allow large packages of US arms to be sold to Saudi Arabia. Thatcher's government, however, had no qualms. The UK stepped eagerly into the gap, signing Al Yamamah I, the largest ever UK arms contract with a foreign customer, in 1986, and Al Yamamah II, "the biggest [UK] sale ever of anything to anyone", in 1988 (Financial Times, 9.7.88). The Al Yamamah sales were a UK endorsement of a country with a history of brutal repression and a "persistent pattern of gross human rights abuses" (Amnesty International Report 1999).'

Thatcher supported Israel in its atrocities against the Palestinians. She supported Egypt's tyrant, Hosni Mubarak, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, P.W. Botha of South Africa, General Zia-ul-Haq in Pakistan, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and so on.

An obvious question arises: how has a media system incensed by Galloway's mere saluting of a tyrant responded to the arming, funding and diplomatic protection of some of the world's worst mass murderers as they were committing their worst crimes?


'A Strong Defence Policy' - The Missing Moral Compass

This, to remind ourselves of the media's supposed intolerance of all who support dictators, was David Aaronovitch on George Galloway in 2003:

'Galloway was once a genuine critic of Saddam's... By 1994, however, he was in Baghdad famously saluting Saddam's courage and indefatigability.' (Aaronovitch, 'Lies and the Left: Galloway and his supporters are foolish to believe that an enemy of America is necessarily their friend,' Observer, April 27, 2003)

In his recent article in The Times on Thatcher, 'She made many of us feel unwelcome in our own land' (The Times, April 9, 2013), Aaronovitch does discuss foreign policy issues: the Falklands war, nuclear disarmament, Greenham Common, and so on. But about the most blatant and lethal feature of Thatcher's foreign policy – her material support for many of the world's mass murderers – he has literally nothing to say. This doesn't make sense. How can mere words of support, a salute, be worthy of repeated condemnation, but actual arming and funding of tyrants be unworthy even of comment?

In fact, mentions of the issue have been few and far between since Thatcher's death.

Indicatively, according to Lexis, over the past month, there have been 461 UK national newspaper articles mentioning the word 'Thatcher'. There have been 29 articles mentioning 'Thatcher' and 'Saddam'. None of these has mentioned that Thatcher armed and financed the Iraqi dictator. Anyone interested in gauging the true extent of freedom of speech in the corporate press need look no further.

Viewing all of this through the BBC's ideological filters, political editor Nick Robinson asserts that Thatcher 'won' the argument for 'a strong defence policy', an analysis 'which few will contest'.

A recent leading article in the Observer did at least mention Thatcher's horrific policies:

'the moral compass she deployed surveying the USSR and its client states served her less well on other international journeys. Among those she admired and supported were a number of men distinguished only by the craven brutality they showed in domestic affairs. Dictators such as General Zia-ul-Haq of Pakistan, Pol Pot of Cambodia and Chile's Augusto Pinochet'.

Thatcher's 'moral compass' merely 'served her less well', we are to believe. Readers were spared the damning evidence which we have only sampled here.

Returning to Howard Zinn's observation, the truth is indeed both neck and mind-bending. The state-corporate system in fact does not loathe dictators, or people who support and salute them. It loathes dictators who obstruct Western power and profit. Tyrants willing to serve the West are sent tanks, guns and Christmas cards. Their crimes are buried out of sight, protected from censure at the United Nations. Likewise, outrage at dissidents' alleged 'support' for tyranny is mostly a device used to attack voices threatening power and profit. The state-corporate moral compass is not malfunctioning or broken - there is no moral compass.


Contact Media Lens: editor@medialens.org

Beit Daras and the Buried

A Hundred Deir Yassin and Counting: Beit Daras and the Buried History of Massacres 

by Ramzy Baroud - PalestineChronicle.com

Few with any sense of intellectual or historical integrity would still question the bloody massacre that took place in the village of Deir Yassin 65 years ago, claiming the lives of over 100 innocent Palestinians. Attempts at covering up the massacre have been dwarfed by grim details by well-respected historians, including some of Israel’s own.

Even narratives offered by historians such as Benny Morris – an honest researcher who remained committed to Zionism despite the ghastly history he had himself uncovered – presented a harrowing version of the events that unfolded on that day:

“Whole families were riddled with bullets… men, women, and children were mowed down as they emerged from houses; individuals were taken aside and shot. Haganah intelligence reported ‘there were piles of dead. Some of the prisoners moved to places of incarceration, including women and children, were murdered viciously by their captors…”

It was the Irgun Zionist militias of Menachem Begin and the Stern Gang (Lehi) lead by Yitzhak Shamir that took credit for the infamy of that day; and both were rewarded generously for their ‘heroism’. The once wanted criminals rose to prominence to become Israeli Prime Ministers in later years.

The importance of the Deir Yassin massacre to historians often obscures important facts. One amongst them is that Deir Yassin was one of many massacres perpetrated by Zionist troops, including Haganah units. Another is that these militias had jointly formed the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) following the official Israeli Declaration of Independence on May 14, 1948 despite their supposed differences during the conquest of Palestine. David Ben-Gurion had made his decision on May 26 and hesitated little to include both the Irgun and Lehi, alongside the Haganah. Not only did the leaders of the terrorist militias command respect and enjoy prestige within Israeli society, armed forces and the political elite, but the very murderers who butchered innocent men, women and children were empowered with bigger guns and continued to ‘serve’ and terrorize for many more years. Another often overlooked fact is that what started at Deir Yassin never truly finished. Sabra and Shatila, Jenin, Gaza and many more are only recreations of the same event.

But another sad reality also emerged and crystalized in the last 65 years. Since then the right to credible narration has still largely been reserved for Israeli historians. Most of these historians, whether sympathetic or otherwise, either played no part in that history, were privileged by its outcome or were themselves active participants. Still, it would take an Israeli historian to ‘discover’ a Palestinian massacre in some village at some point in time. For example, only when Israeli journalist Amir Gilat chose to run a story in Ma’arive newspaper a few years ago, citing the research of Israeli master’s degree student Theodore Katz, did western media acknowledge the Tantura massacre. It mattered little that the descendants and relatives of 240 victims of that grief stricken village who were killed in cold blood by Alexandroni troops, never ceased remembering their loved ones. A ‘massacre’ is only a massacre when half-heartedly acknowledged by an Israeli historian no matter how long it takes for that admission to resurface.

Even Palestinian historians, at least those who are held accountable to the rules of western media and academia, find themselves borrowing mostly from Israeli sources, aggrandizing Israeli writers and celebrating Israeli historians who are supposedly more trustworthy than Palestinians. The logic has it that a sympathetic Israeli narrative would win greater acceptance by American or British audiences than one told by a Palestinian, even if the Palestinian historian had lived the event and experienced its every gory detail.

It is a travesty for the Palestinian narrative to live on borrowed analogies, borrowed histories and borrowed historians in order to enjoy an iota of credibility. This is just the tip of the iceberg and the problem runs much deeper than this.

In my last book, My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story, I charted a detailed account of the Massacre of Beit Daras, when scores of inhabitants of that brave village, located in southern Palestine, were gunned down by Haganah troops only weeks after Deir Yassin inhabitants were massacred in a similar fashion. Beit Daras is the village from which my family was dispossessed to subsist in an impoverished refugee camp in Gaza.

Although Beit Daras was located at the north eastern part of the Gaza District in southern Palestine, it was high on the Zionist leadership agenda as early as the first months of conquest. The small village was one of a few villages and towns marked for destruction in Operation Nachshon and Harel aimed to completely cut off the Jaffa-Jerusalem landmass. The war for Beit Daras began early, as heavy shelling began between March 27-28, 1948, killing 9 villagers and destroying large areas of the village’s crops.

Several attempts had failed to drive the resilient villagers out. What turned out to be the last battle took place in mid-May. Um ‘Adel and Um Mohammed were two young girls in Beit Daras at the time. Now old women in Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza, they helped me connect some of the pieces regarding what happened on that day. I provided their historically consistent accounts in my book on Gaza. Here are few excerpts:

Um ‘Adel recalls: “The women and children were told to leave because the news of the Deir Yassin massacre was spreading and with it lots of fear. We were told that the Jews not only massacre people, but rape women. The women had to be sent away, but the men wouldn’t leave. But so many of them were killed. The men fought like lions, and many were killed as well, including Abu Mansi Nassar and his two brothers, Ali Mohammed Hussain al-Osaji, and four youth from al-Maqadima.”

Um Mohammed elaborated: “The town was under bombardment, and it was surrounded from all directions. There was no way out. They surrounded it all, from the direction of Isdud, al-Sawafir and everywhere. We wanted to pursue a way out. The armed men (the Beit Daras fighters) said they were going to check on the road to Isdud, to see if it was open. They moved forward and shot few shots to see if someone would return fire. No one did. But they (the Zionist forces) were hiding and waiting to ambush the people. The armed men returned and told the people to evacuate the women and children. The people went out (including) those who were gathered at my huge house, the family house. There were mostly children and kids in the house.

“The armed men came and said, ‘the road to Isdud is open, evacuate the people.’ The Jews let the people get out, and then they whipped them with bombs and machine guns. More people fell than those who were able to run. My sister and I…started running through the fields; we’d fall and get up. My sister and I escaped together holding each other’s hand. The people who took the main road were either killed or injured, and those who went through the fields. The firing was falling on the people like sand. The bombs from one side and the machine guns from the other. The Jews were on the hill; there was a school and a water reservoir for people and the vegetables. They showered the people with machine guns. A lot of the people died and got injured.

But many fighters remained in Beit Daras. Not even a massacre would weaken their resolve. The wounded were gathered in many houses, but with little medical care to count on. Some of the dead were hurriedly buried. Many others were unreachable, lying in the sun amidst the blooming fields of spring.


Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is: My Father was A Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold Story (Pluto Press).

Greasing the Revolving Door: Stock Act Passes

Obama Quietly Passed Law Making Inside Easier for US Politicians

by Patrick Henningsen - 21st Century Wire

Remember the good old days, when the good men and women of America got into politics to help serve their country, and not for the money?

Imagine if you were able to pass a law that would regulate your own behavior and ultimately define the consequences of that behavior. That’s what all politicians in Washington DC do on a regular basis.

When it comes to regulating their investments whilst in office, they are able to pass laws that allow them to use special foreknowledge (that only lawmakers and government regulators have) for personal gain.

It’s all about finding that golden loophole. Once upon a time it was called “insider trading”… hardly a crime on Wall Street anymore (props to Goldman Sachs), and neither in Washington DC, or so it seems, according to the President and his legislative branch.

Now we know how hard it is to be a politician these days. Many of you genuinely feel that their should be some additional value-added perks to your job as a public servant. After all, our elected officials deserve some extra compensation for shunning the public sector and offering their incredible talents for the public good, right?

While tragic events in Boston are dominating the national media this week, US President Barack Obama quietly signed a bill, and one which passed rather swiftly through Congress we might add… it’s a bill that prevents key financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online. In a rare display of cross-party cooperation, both sides of the aisle seemed happy to approve (surprise, surprise) by unanimous consent.

This latest bill specifically alters the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or ‘STOCK Act‘, which, when it was originally drafted was intended to be a law designed to combat insider trading on Capitol Hill – until our elected officials got their teeth into it that is.

This is how the criminals usually work – quietly and in secret: the bill passed both House and Senate chambers on a voice vote (where lawmakers’ names are not recorded). Both chambers cleared the legislation in near record time by Washington DC standards - taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House to pass.

According to the report below,”The bill represents a major blow to government transparency”. It certainly does and then some, but more than anything, it just makes it a lot easier to get richer from a career in politics.

This is really the sort of law you would expect to be passed in a corrupt banana republic, with a fascist dictator presiding over a government full of self-interested industrialists. So is this the new America?

Obama signing a bill like this with the hyper-sonic, complete backing of both chambers of government spells out everything that is wrong with American government today and why so few people trust anyone who calls themselves a politician or government staffer. It’s also a prime example as to why so many Americans have all but given up on the political process, almost forced to submit to its systemic corruption.

This is one of the ways in which our long-serving Congressmen/women, Senators, esteemed residents and staff in the White House are able the amass such huge fortunes during their glorious political careers- by simply gaming the system.

One set of rules for the people, and another set of rules for our “leaders”.

It does not appear that they can actually be trusted to make decisions that govern political life.

STOCK Act: President Obama Signs Bill That Would Kill Government Transparency Database

Policy Mic

Keeping tabs of financial conflicts of interest on Capitol Hill just got more difficult. On Tuesday, President Obama signed a bill passed by Congress that would prevent financial disclosure forms filed by senior governmental employees from being posted online.

Washington DC politicians can breathe easier now that Obama has better enabled insider trading for them.

The bill passed both the House of Representative and the Senate on a voice vote. In a voice vote, now members of Congress’s votes are not recorded. The Senate and House both cleared the legislation by unanimous consent, taking only ten seconds in the Senate and 14 seconds in the House of consideration to pass. The bill represents a major blow to government transparency, according to government watchdog groups.

The bill modifies the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, a law passed to combat insider trading. The bill effectively repeals a provision that requires financial disclosure forms to posted online into a searchable database in order to be easily assessed. Proponents of repealing the measure argued that it would increase the risk of identify theft and other crimes against disclosures as well as security concerns for the government.

But such disclosure forms are technically already available to the public. Without the provision, the forms must be requested individually from government agencies. The Center for Responsive Politics and the Sunlight Foundation, two pro-government transparency organizations harshly criticized the bill. Lisa Rosenberg of the Sunlight Foundation said of the move, “The result: More corruption and less trust in government.”

Dan Auble of the Center for Responsive Politics said of the bill,

“Without the provisions, the STOCK act is made toothless. Insider trading by members of Congress and federal employees is still prohibited, but the ability of watchdog groups to verify that Congress is following its own rules is severely limited because these records could still be filed on paper — an unacceptably outdated practice that limits the public’s access.

This is not true disclosure.”

The bill does not completely gut the STOCK Act. Federal workers would still be required to report securities trades over a $1,000 threshold within 45 days and make them available to the public. The president, vice president, members of Congress, candidates for Congress, Cabinet members, and deputy secretaries are still required to post financial transactions online. However the searchable database was killed along with the requirements that federal employees post transactions.

However the searchable database was considered by some to be the most effective part of the act. Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility Ethics in Washington said that, “by getting rid of the online disclosure they get rid of the only effective part. It’s almost a useless act.”

Rather than reforming the act to address privacy concerns, Congress just decided to get rid of those requirements entirely. The approach is known as “security through obscurity,“ the idea being that by making the system difficult, people who want to engage in malicious acts will be discouraged from accessing the information. The drawbacks of such a system are immediately obvious, as a criminal simply needs to be dedicated enough to go through the system in order to gain the information they desire.

The STOCK Act has already been criticized for being incomplete. In 2012, a loophole in the STOCK Act was discovered that could have allowed family members of lawmakers to still profit from inside information, which was promptly corrected. No word if they will fix other efforts at weakening the act soon.

Experimental Lakes Area Cut Following Harper Agenda to Deep Six Inconvenient Science

The Experimental Lakes Area

by Ray Grigg - Shades of Green

The decision by Canada's federal government to close the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA), a unique and world-class research region in Northern Ontario, fits a sobering pattern. Canadian scientists, employed with public funds, have been muzzled and are unable to speak openly to the media without prior approval of the government's Privy Council. Then their messages are often controlled, sometimes even interpreted so the findings are not politically awkward. Federal environmental regulations have been relaxed en masse.

The ELA is the only known place in the world where special ecological experiments can be conducted. The lakes, isolated from the contaminating effects of civilization and from each other, offer the rare conditions where single variables can be introduced under controlled conditions to examine specifically what happens when one environmental factor is changed. Critically important data that has been accumulating over 45 years of experimentation could be rendered useless for further scientific knowledge if the ELA is closed.

The comment of Dr. Carol Kelly, a Canadian scientist who has been doing research at the ELA since 1978, is typical of those made by her colleagues from around the world who are stunned and incredulous at the shortsightedness of closing such a remarkable site. “With the closing of the Experimental Lakes Area, there is about to be the loss not only of the specific and unique experiments going on right now, but also the ability of Canadian science to provide the kind of clear, unambiguous results that only a whole lake experiment can give. When you work in uncontrolled lakes, near towns, there are so many things happening at once that it's hard to say which factor is responsible for what you see, and uncertainty doesn't lead to sound policy. At the ELA, we change one thing at a time, such as phosphorus input, or mercury input, and we see how the whole ecosystem responds. This brings certainty to environmental policy formulation that no other approach can provide” (Globe and Mail, March 20/13).

The possibility of losing this critically important certainty perplexes scientists, who believe — like most people — that environmental policies should be founded on evidence rather than ideology. Profoundly expensive mistakes can be avoided or made depending on the availability of the solid scientific evidence. Phosphates provides a classical example. Corporations manufacturing detergents argued that the unusual algae blooms occurring in lakes and other fresh water bodies were the result of carbon rather than the phosphorus they were using in their products. A simple experiment at the ELA resolved the dispute. Carbon was added to one isolated lake; phosphorus was added to the second adjoining one. The effects of carbon were negligible; the phosphorus was discovered to be a fertilizer that promoted algae growth, generated toxicity and created anoxic conditions that killed fish. This experiment reformed the detergent industry, revolutionized the manner in which waste water is treated, changed how fertilizers are used in farming, and saved the world at least a trillion dollars in remedial costs according to one scientist's estimate. After 45 years, the experiment continues to refine the ecological effects of phosphates in freshwater systems.

Many other experiments at the ELA are in progress. One is examining the effects of iron in fresh water — iron-rich lakes are inexplicably more vital than iron-poor lakes. A study of nitrogen is critical to understanding the consequences of disrupting the global nitrogen cycle, one of the biosphere's most important. Vital studies of mercury contamination are measuring the impact of burning coal — mercury is a major neurological toxin released in emissions. Another study is assessing the impact on fish as global climate change reduces the inflow of water to lakes and raises water temperature. A new study is trying to determine the effects on ecosystems of silver nanoparticles that are increasingly being used as a bactericide in hundreds of consumer products. Because such tightly controlled experiments cannot be conducted elsewhere, the information gathered by all this crucially important research comes to an end if the ELA is closed.

The Canadian government is arguing that the $2 million in savings per year is necessary economy — scientists contend that the actual savings are about $600,000, a mere pittance considering the value of the information in shaping wise environmental policies. Continued research at the ELA could save billions of dollars — and perhaps trillions — by avoiding ecological and health catastrophes in Canada and around the world.

The international scientific community is dumbfounded by the Canadian government's current treatment of science. The muzzling of colleagues, the withdrawal of crucial research funding, the relaxation of carefully constructed environmental regulations, and now the closing of the ELA can only lead to the conclusion that the official position of the government of Canada is anti-science, supposedly because experimental evidence may be in conflict with an ideological agenda. This country's scientists once held a prestigious position as respected and valuable contributors to world science. They are now objects of sympathy as they try to maintain their dignity and freedom in an atmosphere of abandonment and repression.

The cumulative effect is serious. The closing of the Experimental Lakes Area has become a symbol of Canada's collapsing scientific credibility and respectability. Scientists from other countries are showing a reluctance to work here for fear that constraints may limit their ability to conduct open and free research. A prestigious German research organization, the Helmholtz Centre, has ended its collaboration with the University of Alberta on tar sands environmental research because of fears that its reputation could be jeopardized by operating in such circumstances (Ibid.). American scientists are expressing the same concern.

German politicians and the German press have noted Canada's collapse from scientific credibility, not to mention its withdrawal from the legally binding Kyoto Protocol and, most recently, from a 192-nation organization that is trying to mitigate the humanitarian effects of desertification. German anger and frustration is palpable. Its press has published in headlines, “The Stench of Money: Canada's Environment Succumbs to Oil Sands” (Ibid.). And its leaders from all parties have undiplomatically condemned Canada's actions as “dishonest and cowardly”, and “a fatal flight from responsibility” (Ibid.). Other countries clearly take science and the environment far more seriously than Canada does. Indeed, without the intelligent guidance of unfettered science, Canada is set to make some extremely expensive mistakes.

Fingering Gold: Fed Continues Assault on Precious Metal

Update to the Update: The Attack on Gold

by Paul Craig Roberts

Tuesday, April 16: The orchestrated attack on bullion in the paper gold market took the spot prices of gold and silver down on Friday and Monday, but actual physical purchases rose during this period. The sales were of paper claims, not of real metal.

The demand for physical possession of bullion rose so strongly that large wholesalers such as www.tulving.com and large retailers such as Gainesville Coins reported sold out items. Also, dealers raised the premiums above the spot price that is charged for coins.

From Friday to Monday the premium on Silver Eagles at the large online retailer, Gainesville Coins, rose from $3.75 to $5.99 above the spot price of silver. The percentage increase in premium was larger than the percentage decline in the silver price. Thus, the price of a silver one Troy ounce coin did not drop despite the drop in the spot price. Today (April 16) the price of a silver eagle purchased with a credit card from retailer Gainesville Coins is $30.36. You would never know that the market had fallen out.

Today (Tuesday, April 16) Tulving reported 29% of its bar and coin bullion categories sold out and had almost no silver coin stock. The premium over spot on new gold eagles was $63.95. At large online retailers the premium was $71. Gainesville Coins has no silver Buffalos and lists shipment of orders to commence when coins are available, estimated to be May 10.

What I am reporting are facts, not a theory. We have just had two days of massive sales of paper claims on bullion, but during these days when the price of gold and silver collapsed under short sales, it was difficult to get your hands on the metal itself. On telephone orders you wait in long queues to place an order and are told that delivery awaits availability.

Listening to the media and to academic economists such as Paul Krugman, you would think no one any longer wants gold and silver. But try getting your hands on some.

The physical bullion market, gold especially, is dominated by Asians. Americans are a minor player. Most Americans still believe in the almighty dollar, but few Asians do. The Chinese tomorrow would dump their two trillion of US dollar-denominated assets and purchase gold, except that the action would drive down the dollar and drive up the gold price. So, unlike the orchestrated attack on gold, China plays a slow hand, using the orchestrated attack on gold to acquire the metal at lower prices.

As I understand it, the open interest or future contracts on COMEX greatly exceed the bullion available for delivery. This is a paper market mainly settled in cash, not by taking delivery. If the contracts had to be settled in bullion instead of cash, the COMEX would fail.

One advantage of growing old is that one gains perspective. I remember when gold was $35 an ounce and silver $1 an ounce. If memory serves, until sometimes in the 1960s, a person could still take a paper dollar to a bank and be given a silver dollar. There were $1 dollar and $5 dollar silver certificates (paper money) that circulated along with Federal Reserve currency. At that time banks did not differentiate. A dollar was a dollar. Silver certificates today have collectors’s value, but the Federal Reserve currency does not.

If memory serves, sometimes after 1966 if a person presented a silver certificate to a Federal Reserve Bank, he received one or five ounces or raw silver in return depending on the denomination of the certificate, which looked like a Federal Reserve note except it said Silver Certificate. I have some of these envelopes of little pieces of silver.

When silver was taken out of US coins in the 1960s and copper was taken out of the US penny in the early 1980s, despite my opposition as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy, all real constraints on fiat money were removed.

Today we see the Fed protecting its protection of “banks too big to fail” with low interest rates by creating enormous sums of money in order to purchase both Treasury bonds and mortgage backed derivatives.

These Fed purchasers are at the expense of savers and CD and bond purchasers who receive a negative real rate of interest.

Now, to protect its bank rescue policy, the Fed is attempting to drive down the price of bullion, thus depriving Americans of any way of protecting their life savings from the inflation that the Fed’s money printing will ultimately cause.

Save a handful of corrupt banks, screw the American public--that is the Fed’s policy.

Like almost every other American institution, the Fed represents the mega-rich.

Anyone with open eyes can see that it is impossible for the US dollar to maintain its current exchange value and role as world money when its supply is being increased by $1,000 billion per year while the world is ceasing to use the dollar for international payments.

The attack on gold is a desperate attempt to protect the US dollar from the Fed’s policy of quantitative easing. But the attack on bullion has apparently failed. The price was driven down, but the demand for physical possession has hit new highs.

What is it that we really know? What have we learned since the Clinton regime?

We have learned that integrity is rare in the US government, in the justice system, and in the financial sector. Whatever integrity one can find in these arenas wouldn’t amount to one ounce of gold.

Americans live in a rigged system in which propaganda determines the public’s awareness and consciousness. Americans, or most of them, live in the Matrix.

Since the end of WWII, most foreign governments have been in the habit of going along with Washington. Only in the aftermath of Washington’s phony wars based on lies and phony economy based on rigged statistics is the rest of the world beginning to realize that Washington is a destabilizing force.

Chavez, the recently deceased leader of Venezuela made the point most powerfully when he spoke at the UN. Standing at the podium in the General Assembly, he said that “Satan himself stood here yesterday speaking as if he owned the world. You can still smell the sulfur.” He was speaking of George W. Bush, and the entire assembly knew it.

The Russian leader, Putin, speaking of Washington, has declared that we know what comrade wolf is up to.

The Chinese can see the new military bases that stupid Washington is building in the Chinese area of influence.

A country whose currency is being abandoned as the means of international settlement, not only by the BRICS but also by puppet states such as Australia and Japan, has reached the point of absurdity when it tries to eliminate bullion as a refuge against the depreciating dollar.

The Federal Reserve and the US Treasury using their dependent bullion banks, every one of which would be busted if interest rates were not rigged by the Federal Reserve, have used leverage in the paper market to drive down the prices of gold and silver; yet, purchases of physical bullion are outrunning supplies.

What we are witnessing is the failure of a policy of financial corruption.

Integrity is a scarce commodity in the US government. Try to find much of it. Demonstrating a rare example of integrity, Brooksley Born resigned as head of the Federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission, because the Federal Reserve chairman, the US Treasury secretary, and the SEC chairman prevented her from during her statutory duty and regulating over the counter derivatives. The three morons who prevented her from doing her duty caused the financial collapse.

Integrity is almost non-existent in the US justice system.

Integrity is totally non-existent in the US financial system. As Michael Hudson has proven, the financialization of the economy has destroyed the economy.

With dollars, and now with Washington’s demand Japanese yen and European euros being printed in profusion, where can people put their money, at least those who still have some?

Can they put it in bonds when the Federal Reserve is monetizing debt at $1,000 billion annually and real interest rates are negative?

Can they put it in stocks that are pumped up by banks speculating with the Fed’s money while retail sales, labor force participation, and consumer incomes fall?

Safety can only be found in gold and silver, traditional, historical money that cannot be inflated.This is why bullion is under attack by Washington.

Readers ask me what they can do to protect themselves and where can they go to make gold and silver purchases.

I am not a registered financial advisor. I do not provide financial advice.

Every person must make their own decision. All I can do is to provide information, which is not guaranteed to be correct.

There are various simple options in contrast with the more demanding options of the professional trader. A person can accumulate gold and silver coins and keep them in a home safe or bury them on the property. A person can purchase shares of the Central Fund of Canada which convey ownership in a company that owns gold and silver bullion in a vault in Canada. A person can put money under management with companies that have a strong component of gold, such as Golden Returns Capital LLC whose gold depository is in the US.

Or you can decide to go with William S. Kaye (wskaye@pacgrp.com) whose depository is in Hong Kong.

There is GoldMoney, a Channel Islands based depository firm with storage vaults in London, Switzerland and Asia, and there is GoldSwitzerland, a Swiss company with its storage vault in Switzerland.

If you want a reading on whether physical gold is being sold or merely paper shorts, subscribe to John Brimelow brimelowgoldjottings@gmail.com

This list is not exhaustive. Protecting wealth can be harder than acquiring wealth. This is especially true for the middle class. The super rich can lose hundreds of millions of dollars and still be rich.

Gold and silver investments are not my speciality. I am an economist. I am aware that the US media is a propaganda organization, not a purveyor of truth. Currently the US is creating 1,000 billion dollars annually, but the demand for dollars is not growing with the supply.

Therefore, the exchange value of the dollar is at risk. A high and rising dollar price of bullion is an indication that the exchange value of the dollar with regard to other currencies is too high.

To protect the dollar from its money printing practice, the Fed has used naked shorts, its bullion bank dependents, and the presstitute media to drive down the gold price in the paper market, essentially an unreal market not inhabited by purchasers of physical metal. If the dollar’s exchange value takes a visible hit, import prices will rise, and the Fed will lose control over interest rates.

Meanwhile the demand for bullion possession rises.

The latest disinformation being put out is that bullion dealers, faced with the collapse of bullion prices, are afraid of the risk of purchasing bullion to sell to the public. They are going out of business and not replenishing their stocks. Gold and silver bullion is not available, because bullion dealers are afraid to stock the metals.

Little doubt that Americans who believe every fairy tale “their” government tells them will believe this one too. But those who don’t will observe the long lines waiting to purchase physical metal, not paper claims, and continue to load up on bullion.

IDF War Crimes Continue in West Bank: Israeli Army Fires on First Responders

Army Opens Fire At Palestinian Ambulance In Bethlehem

by Saed Bannoura - IMEMC & Agencies

Wednesday evening, April 17, 2013, Israeli soldiers opened fire at a Palestinian Red Crescent Ambulance while trying to provide medical care to family members, including an infant, injured by gas bombs fired by the army at their home, in Al-Khader town, south of Bethlehem.

Abdul-Halim Jaafra, head of the Emergency Unit at the Bethlehem Branch of the Red Crescent, told the Radio Bethlehem 2000 that five Palestinian family members, including an infant, suffocated after inhaling gas fired by the army at their home.

He added that as the medics rushed to rescue the family, the army fired rubber-coated metal bullets at the ambulance shattering its front shield; no injuries were reported among the medics.

The incident took place during clashes in Al-Khader between local youths and invading Israeli soldiers.

Lockheed Martin's Canada Krieg Blitz: Desperate Bid to Boost "Flying Turkey" F-35

Lockheed Martin is desperate - - to get our money! recent publicity blitz

by Sandra Finley - The Battles

News of Lockheed Martin’s Recent Publicity Blitz: Links Follow, with Short Excerpts

- The information in Item #1 set me to laughing out loud (LOL).

The Darth Vader helmet that F-35 pilots would wear has to be “Boys and Their Toys”. I hope the $1 million per helmet (or is it $2M per?) is included in the sticker price of the F-35s!

- After Lockheed Martin:

tacked another $20 million onto the price tag of each F-35, four days later they announced: “one of the biggest myths” is the “rapidly rising costs“

I must say, Darth Vader helmets put the finishing touch on the Theatre of the Absurd!

- Get this: if we DON’T buy their F-35 stealth bombers . . . see Item #5. Boy! are we in trouble!


Lockheed Martin, the war industry, will NEVER have ENOUGH. It’s obvious from the U.S. experience. They mire the whole country deep in debt. Tax-payers become their wage slaves, working to pay taxes – the taxes going straight to Lockheed Martin. For Canadians the amount is projected to be $45 BILLION DOLLARS. I don’t know if that includes the recent price hike of $20 million per stealth bomber.


THE RECENT NEWS

(The last and most important item is: So what are we doing about Lockheed Martin and the F-35s?)


1. Lockheed Martin is not going to stop until Canadians are on the hook for F-35s – - Lockheed’s new “publicity blitz“

… the giant U.S. defence contractor is launching a cross-Canada publicity blitz to convince Canadians to buy its F-35 stealth fighter jet (April 8)

(Ummm, that would be at a price of $45 billion, no wonder they’d like us to buy!)

(The full article: 2013-04-08 Lockheed Martin launches Canadian PR campaign for F-35, U.S. defence contractor takes F-35 simulator on road show, CBC)


2. Lockheed says the price goes up (again!), but just by $20 million per stealth bomber

Steve O’Bryan, Lockheed’s vice-president for the F-35 program, said just 18 months ago that Canada would pay $65 million per plane. Now, O’Bryan tells CBC News the price is $85 million.

BUT! See #8. American tax-payers are hearing $137 million per F-35.

When one of these babies goes down, and one has already (even before they’ve been introduced into active service) just think – - OOPS! $137 million dollars (or maybe it’s only $85 million?) of hard-earned tax money down the toilet.

WHO are the geniuses behind the Canadian war strategy? (policies that bankrupt us are not a “defence strategy“.)

3. Four days later: Oh no, says he, the rapidly rising cost is a myth!

“One of the biggest myths is the cost of the F-35 is rapidly growing. Nothing could be further from the truth,” said O’Bryan.

(The full article: 2013-04-12 Lockheed Martin promos $75M fighter jet in Winnipeg, CBC)


4. WHY this new push to convince Canadians to buy F-35s ? . . . a mid-May deadline on Lockheed Martin.

The defence company has been given until mid-May to provide Ottawa with a status report on the jets . . .

And, they’re desperate. American citizens are revolting. The citizens in other countries that the Pentagon (Lockheed Martin) thought were going to pay for the F-35s are revolting. WHO is going to bail them out? . . . how about dumb Canucks?

5. Earlier, Lockheed Martin tried coercion. If we don’t buy the F-35 stealth bombers, they’re going to take their money and go home!

The F-35 program isn’t so easy to exit, though. A Lockheed spokesman raised the possibility that Canada would lose its F-35-related business — and jobs — if it didn’t buy planes.

“If Canada did pull out of the program, all remaining aspects, including industrial participation, connected to the program would most likely be reviewed,” Michael Rein wrote in a Dec. 17 e-mail to Bloomberg Government.

See 2013-02-22 Flawed F-35 Fighter Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States, Bloomberg News


6. A presentation by Michael Rein, the Lockheed spokesman who “raised the possibility” that they’d leave the playbox, taking their toys with them: “The F-35 Program: Leveraging the Corporate Communications-PR Agency Relationship“

I was curious about what else is known about Rein. Found this:

FPRA 2012 Annual Conference: Breakout Session, The F-35 Program: Leveraging the Corporate Communications–PR Agency Relationship, Michael Rein

http://fprablog.org/2012/08/07/fpra-2012-annual-conference-breakout-session-5b-the-f-35-program-leveraging-the-corporate-communications%E2%80%93pr-agency-relationship-michael-rein/


7. A page from Lockheed Martin’s textbook: Winnipeg (Magellan Aerospace).

(From 2013-04-12 Lockheed Martin promos $75M fighter jet in Winnipeg, CBC)

some of the components for the F-35 are produced in Winnipeg by Magellan Aerospace. . . . “For us, it’s up to $2 billion worth of revenue over 25 to 35 years of production,” said Don Boitson, the general manager of Magellan Aerospace.

Exactly like they’ve done it in the U.S., make local economies dependent upon the war machine. Never mind that overall you are bankrupting the nation, bleeding the tax-payers dry, and adding to global instability.

I was thinking of the mechanisms by which the American military-industrial-government-university complex is being duplicated in Canada:

• offset agreements
• infiltration of “educational” institutions
• huge lobbying expenditures
• quislings, and
• the use of the bureaucracy to get what they want (Lockheed Martin’s Ron Covais quoted in Mclean’s Magazine.) 2006-09-13 Maclean’s Magazine interview, President of the Americas for Lockheed Martin Ron Covais, Meet NAFTA 2.0

Related posting: 2008-09-17 Reply from DND to my email (July 3), “Absolutely NO to “CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY“


8. I forgot (from Lockheed Martin’s text book) the distortions of the truth (use of propaganda):

He said eight countries have signed contracts for F-35s, and if more sign up, prices will go down.

“The cost of the F-35 is rapidly decreasing,” said O’Bryan.

The truth? 2013-02-22 Flawed F-35 Fighter Too Big to Kill as Lockheed Hooks 45 States, Bloomberg News :

Allies have agreed to purchase 721 fighters, yet the soaring price is painful for nations with shrinking defense budgets. The estimated cost of each plane has about doubled to $137 million since 2001, according to a GAO report last year. .…

Canada Reconsiders

Canada had dropped to 65 planes from 80. In December, it said it was reconsidering its commitment to purchase any of the jets after a consultant said the price to buy and maintain them might reach about $45 billion.

(Most of the countries that were sucked into the NATO / American / Lockheed Martin boondoggle have significantly cut back their commitment, except Japan.)

The F-35 program isn’t so easy to exit, though. A Lockheed spokesman raised the possibility that Canada would lose its F-35-related business — and jobs — if it didn’t buy planes. . . .


9. Love this! an online Comment

What does Canada have left to protect? Harper Canada has sold, given away, and outsourced it all. We don’t need these war machines.

Another person pointed out that military technology is moving to drones (which we’ve covered in this blog).

Hmm, the F-35s were conceived in the pre-drone era. Need to dump these manned stealth bombers before they become REALLY obsolete. How about those guillible Canadians?!

10. I wonder in what Lockheed Martin is coaching the students at “Canadian military service academies” . . . “Cyber Security is at the core of all we do” … The irony: 2011-05-27 Hackers broke into Lockheed Martin networks !


FIRST: Would Canadian military service academies include Royal Military College (RMC) in Kingston? with former Chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada participating at RMC ?

From Item #8 in the posting 2008-07-23 Letter to Dalhousie University re 2 million dollars from Lockheed Martin

The “Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute” (CDFAI) is at RMC.

Retired General PAUL MANSON sits on the Advisory Council for CDFAI. At one time he was Chief of Defence for Canada, had involvements with NATO, etc.:

“Following military service, he entered business as the president of a large aerospace company, ultimately retiring in 1997 as Chairman of Lockheed Martin Canada.” You can read his biography at http://www.cdfai.org/advisorycouncil.htm

In what is Lockheed Martin training the students?

http://www.dailymarkets.com/stock/2013/04/15/lockheed-martin-hosts-cyber-defense-exercise-supporting-nsa-for-11th-year/

EXCERPT:

April 15, 2013 /PRNewswire/ – Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT) will host emerging cyber leaders from U.S. and Canadian military service academies to test their capabilities this week against experts from the National Security Agency in the annual Cyber Defense Exercise (CDX).

(Logo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20110419/PH85737LOGO-b)

“Cyber Security is at the core of all we do, so each year we are inspired by these innovative students as they face challenges from veteran NSA experts,” said Darrell Durst, vice president of cyber solutions for Lockheed Martin’s Information Systems & Global Solutions. “The students tackle the same types of threats our nation faces daily in cyber security. Whether detecting intruders, or adapting to sophisticated threats, NSA leverages this opportunity to educate the next generation of cyber professionals.”

Lockheed Martin coordinated with NSA to establish a private network for the exercise, which links all the academies with CDX headquarters at the Lockheed Martin facility in Hanover. The company is also providing technical support for CDX preparation and execution. Lockheed Martin is a leading provider of cyber security technology and services to the NSA and a number of defense and intelligence agencies.


11. How much are Canadians currently paying for the military?

At $18.7 billion, Canada is the 6th highest military spender with NATO (and three of the five higher than Canada have nuclear arsenals). Harper’s annual defence budget has climbed so high, it is now 20 per cent above the average amount spent during the entire four decades of the Cold War. . . .

(Globally, governments squandered $1.73 trillion on militaries in 2011, and still the weapons corporations want more.)


12. So what are we doing about Lockheed Martin and the F-35s?

Make sure your neighbours know. Spread the word about Lockheed Martin. Awareness is the best medicine. Don’t walk into the grave with your eyes shut!
 
Phone your Member-of-Parliament.

Have some fun! Ceasefire.ca $45 billion on F-35’s. How would YOU spend the money?! 
http://www.ceasefire.ca/ (Global day of action on military spending, April, 2013)

Conscience Canada, withhold an amount from your tax payment that represents the portion that will go to Lockheed Martin. Conscience Canada provides the tools to make it easy: http://www.consciencecanada.ca/
Add to the on-line Comments on news articles

MISCELLANEOUS

2012-12-12 Have a laugh. Wall Street Journal article. Canadian government scrapped its plans to buy 65 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets.

Western Democracy Lighting the Way for Syria's New Dark Age

Syria’s Civilian Suffering: Western Imperialism Resorts to Medieval Barbarity

by Finian Cunningham -"SCF" 

The human suffering in Syria, which has escalated from crisis to disaster over the past two years, is the nefarious work of Western governments and their regional allies. It is a simple, provable, glaringly obvious truth. Yet, the thought-control Western mainstream media manage to somehow turn reality on its head, and make a virtue out of something vile and unspeakably villainous.

Western imperialism has created a human tsunami of suffering in Syria. And rather than making any effort to mitigate this suffering by delivering on much promised refugee aid, the Western powers seem to exploiting the massive misery for political advantage to further undermine the Syrian state and government. This tactic of enforced human deprivation is straight out of the Middle Ages, when invading armies would hold siege of cities by enforcing starvation on the occupants.

Two reports this week testify to the above conclusion – albeit indirectly. The first comes from various United Nations relief organizations for refugees. The UN agencies say that food, water and other basic provisions to some 1.3 million refugees that have poured out of Syria and to more than 4 million remaining within the war-torn country will soon no longer be afforded. The dire situation is because only a fraction of the $1.5 billion pledged earlier this year by international donors has actually been received.

Reuters cited Panos Moumtzis, the UN refugee agency’s regional coordinator for Syrian refugees, as saying:
The speed with which the crisis is deteriorating is much faster than the ability of the international community to finance the Syrian humanitarian needs.

The suffering in Lebanon, where most of the Syrian refugees have fled, seems particularly acute. A spokesman for the World Food Program gave this grim warning: «In one month, and with the current funding, more than 400,000 Syrian refugees in Lebanon will no longer receive food assistance».

The number of people displaced inside and outside Syria – more than 5 million – represents about 20 per cent of the total population. In the space of just two years, Syria has gone from a relatively wealthy, stable and peaceful state that was one of the most politically and culturally pluralist in the Middle East to a post-apocalyptic charnel house.

How could such a rapid descent into barbarism be possible? Could a once-stable society really implode like this without external forces bearing down? Why do Western governments seem able to readily find hundreds of millions of dollars worth of material and logistics to aid so-called rebel groups in Syria, yet remain so parsimonious when it comes to the crying needs of refugees? Is such human suffering being used as a tactical weapon by Western governments? How can Western media organizations, in particular, get away with not asking such pertinent questions?

A plethora of militant groups – many of them not even Syrian, but rather comprised of foreign mercenaries – have in the same time frame spawned from pockets of sporadic resistance towards Syrian government forces to become heavily armed battle groups that are now capable of holding down towns and provincial areas, while carrying out indiscriminate car bomb attacks on the capital, Damascus, and the country’s second city, Aleppo.

Given the nature of the indiscriminate bomb and gun attacks on civilians by these militants, and countless sources of evidence for massacres, executions and other heinous violations, as well as the lack of support from the general populace, these militants can rightly be termed «terrorist» in an objective sense. They have admitted so themselves with one of the main fighting groups – the Al Nusra Front – this week openly declaring its affiliation with Al Qaeda. The latter, we have been told over and over again for the past decade and more by Western governments and news media, is supposedly the number one terrorist threat facing the world.

In yet another whistle-stop tour of the Middle East, US Secretary of State John Kerry talked euphemistically about «galvanizing the Syrian opposition». Kerry is coming a bit late to the game – at least in public. For months now, his British and French counterparts, William Hague and Laurent Fabius, have been brazenly calling for overt arming of Syria’s «opposition» (that is, terrorists) to overthrow the government of Bashar Al Assad.

This official posturing is but a charade. These Western regimes have already been supplying weapons, funding, training and logistics to Syria’s death squads. Last month, Croatian media sources reported that the US and Britain had coordinated the supply of 3,000 tonnes of weaponry – 75 plane loads – out of Zagreb to militants in Syria. One of the recipients was the Ahrar Al Sham group, which is aligned to Al Nusra and, by extension, Al Qaeda.

The airlift of weapons dates back to at least November 2012 and was conducted in liaison with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan. That weapons conduit is just one of many that the Western powers have been running into Syria over the past two years.

The myopic Western mainstream media are so pre-occupied with advancing government spin on a day-to-day basis that they fail to see or acknowledge the big picture, even when that big picture falls on their heads with clunking conclusions.

Firstly, Syria is being ravaged by militant groups that seem to have miraculously materialised out of thin air. Even if we don’t describe these groups as terrorists, but give them the more favourable label of «rebels» as the Western media choose to do, it is still abundantly clear that these groups would not be anywhere near as armed-and-dangerous if it were not for the material support from the Western governments and their regional allies. Violence in Syria is therefore largely a Western creation. Instead of elaborating on that line of investigation, the Western corporate media evade and obfuscate.

But the added indictment is that these groups are evidently terrorist in their operations. The facts of indiscriminate multiple car bombs in Damascus and Aleppo that have killed hundreds of civilians, women and children, make this definition incontestable. So there you have it: Western governments, despite all their lofty rhetoric about international law, human rights and the war on terror, are in alliance with terrorists. These governments are using terrorism to achieve their political ends of regime change in Syria. How damningly contradictory of every supposed Western government precept and principle is that?

It seems incredible that the Western media are unaware of long-held plans – going back decades – by the US and its Western allies to topple the Syrian government. US President Dwight Eisenhower and his British counterpart Harold McMillan dallied with the scheme back in 1957. Then it was revived under the watch of President George W Bush in 2007, according to American journalist Seymour Hersch. Under the cover of the Arab Spring revolts across the region in 2011, the US, British and French planners got their opportunity to fully destabilize Syria. That agenda for regime change in Syria has gained impetus from the Western imperialist agenda to re-draw the oil-rich Middle East in its image and interests, to undermine Iran and to cut off Russia and China from vital natural resources. This geopolitical perspective explains much more about what is happening in Syria than naïve Western media narratives about a «Syrian Arab Spring revolt for popular democracy».

The second conclusion from events in Syria that the Western media incredibly feign to ignore is that the sudden and dramatic increase in suffering of some 5 million displaced and homeless Syrians is indisputably correlated with the above dramatic increase in Western-sponsored violence in the country. If it weren’t for the flow of arms and money to Syrian terrorists from Western governments and their regional conduits, it is a safe bet that 5 million Syrians would be presently enjoying the relative comfort of their homes rather than subsisting in tents and hovels in bordering Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq.

Thirdly, it can be concluded that the lack of funds that the UN refugee relief agencies are decrying stand in stark contrast to the hundreds of millions of dollars that Western governments and their Gulf Arab dictator allies have readily delivered to the Syrian terrorist network. The US and Britain have between them stumped up over $300 million of «non-lethal aid» to Syria’s «opposition». Those funds have been matched by the oil-rich dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. And that’s just the publicly declared amounts. Who knows how many more millions of dollars are flowing in from black budgets to fuel the violence?

In stark contrast, where is the aid for the UN refugee relief effort? Reuters reports that UN coordinator Panos Moumtzis is soon to visit the United States, Brussels and London with a begging bowl «to chase» promised, but as yet undelivered, donations.

Meanwhile, on the ground, aid workers say they are already in desperate straits. «It is a catastrophe. We are being asked to do more and more with less and less,» said UNHCR’s Lebanon representative Ninette Kelley in the southern coastal town of Tyre. «We simply don’t have the resources that we need in order to provide the assistance that is so desperately needed by the refugees».

So let’s draw this further damning conclusion. Syria’s humanitarian crisis of 5 million people living under tents and now facing no food or water is a direct result of Western states playing a callous game of regime change, funding terrorist groups to wreck a society and bring a sovereign government to its knees. One has to conclude that the unconscionable «mis-allocation» of funds is a deliberate calculation by the Western powers and their proxies to maximize civilian suffering and thereby intensify the political pressure on the Syrian authorities.

This use of human suffering for political ends is of course a war crime, committed by the Western governments and conveniently obfuscated by their servile media. The barbarity of using human deprivation as a weapon harks back to the starvation sieges inflicted on cities by European armies in medieval times. And yet the same tactic is today being deployed against Syria, with barely a whimper of concern or question from Western mainstream media – supposedly bastions of free speech and critical, independent thinking.

At the beginning of this piece, we mentioned a second report this week that implicates the Western governments for Syria’s suffering – albeit indirectly. That report comes from the US-based Human Rights Watch group. The 80-page document entitled ‘Death from the Skies’ is presented as a damning study of civilian atrocities allegedly as a result of Syrian army air strikes. The report is, however, more accurately a damning study of pro-Western government bias by HRW. It relies heavily on «opposition activists» for testimonies and data, and it focuses entirely on sites allegedly attacked by Syrian government forces. HRW casually admits that «opposition» groups have committed atrocities yet it focuses solely on alleged government crimes. Perversely, given the above evidence of illegal Western, Turk and Arab arms funneling into Syria, HRW reserves exclusive censure for Russia and China for their official supply of weapons to the Syrian government – supply arrangements that have long been in place under bilateral legal trade agreements.

Russia and China’s refusal to support even mild resolutions have paralyzed the [United Nations] Security Council, preventing it from taking action that would meet its responsibility to protect the Syrian people from serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law,» says the HRW report. But there is no condemnation of the far more urgent and extant source of violence in Syria stemming from Western governments and their criminal sponsorship of terrorist groups.

The disproportionate cause of violence in Syria from Western-backed forces is inadvertently indicated by the HRW report. It says that it recorded about 4,300 civilian deaths allegedly from Syrian army air strikes on population centres between July 2012 and the end of March 2013 – a period of nine months.

Even if we accept that figure as accurate, it still pales in significance to the total death toll. This week Reuters reported that at least 10,000 people have been killed in Syria over the past two months alone. Over a nine-month period that death rate would scale up to 45,000. That total death toll equates to 10 times what HRW attribute to victims of Syrian government air strikes. In other words, the discrepancy implies that the preponderance of violence and victims is being perpetrated by non-government forces – the very groups that the Western regimes and their allies are financing and arming.

There can be no mistake or misunderstanding. Syria is a humanitarian disaster made by the West. And, to add massive insult to the massive injury, there is not even a token of aid to the millions of Western-generated victims. Indeed, the West is too busy creating more victims and suffering to expedite its pathological imperialist agenda in Syria and the wider region.

And all the while, the Western mainstream media, with their pretentious claims of free-thinking and speech, act as the dutiful fog machine, hiding the facts, blurring reality and choking any questions that might reveal the grotesque obscenity of what the Western regimes are up to…



© Strategic Culture Foundation

Three Wise Women: Sidney - Salmon Confidential with Alexandra Morton, Elizabeth May and Jane Sterk

Sidney - Salmon Confidential with Alexandra Morton, Elizabeth May and Jane Sterk 

by Salmon Confidential

Mary Winspear Centre in the Charlie White Theatre2243 Beacon Ave, Sidney BC

20 April 2013 - 6:30pm

Green Party of Canada leader Elizabeth May and Green Party of BC leader Jane Sterk will join outspoken scientist Alexandra Morton to discuss the film Salmon Confidential and the state of salmon in BC.

Salmon Confidential follows biologist Dr. Alexandra Morton as she unravels the mysteries of BC's declining salmon stocks using some of the world's top fish labs. What she uncovers should shock anyone who cares about our fish and all that depend on them. This 70 minute film documents Morton's journey as she attempts to overcome roadblocks thrown up by government agencies and bring critical information to the public in time to save BC's wild salmon. Learn about our changing coastal ecology, grasssroots science-based activism, and the inner workings of government agencies tasked with overseeing our fish and the safety of our food supply. Salmon Confidential is a film for all Canadians.

Admission is by donation. To reserve tickets by donation at this time email info@salmonaresacred.org

Neocolonialism's Ugly Face Reared in Afghaninstan

The brutal face of neocolonialism in Afghanistan

by Bill Auken - WSWS

US Secretary of State John Kerry has made a series of public statements ostensibly in mourning for the 25-year-old Foreign Service officer Anne Smedinghoff—one of five Americans, including three soldiers, killed in a Taliban car bomb attack in Afghanistan’s southern province of Zabul on Saturday.

The death of someone so young is tragic, as it has been for nearly 2,200 American troops killed in 11 years of war and occupation. Yet Kerry’s remarks aim not so much at comforting grieving family members and friends, as at justifying and defending the war that cost this young woman’s life.

He said that the death presented “a stark contrast for all of the world to see between two very different sets of values.” On the one hand, he said, was “a brave American … determined to brighten the light of learning through books written in the native tongue of the students that she had never met, but whom she felt compelled to help,” while on the other, were “cowardly terrorists determined to bring darkness and death to total strangers.”

The same day that Anne Smedinghoff lost her life, a US airstrike killed at least 18 people, including 11 children ranging from a few months to eight years old. Six women were badly wounded in the attack. Kerry uttered not a word of sympathy for the loss of these young lives, nor for the parents left to grieve them. Needless to say, the death of 11 children received not one one-hundredth of the coverage given to that of the American diplomat in the US media, which, as always, is contemptuous of Afghan lives.

It is worth recalling that the new US secretary of state and former Democratic senator from Massachusetts began his political career as a young veteran who publicly denounced the Vietnam War. Kerry, now the richest man in the Senate, dedicates himself to promoting and whitewashing new imperialist wars of aggression and covering up the same kind of atrocities he once sought to expose.

Kerry’s rhetoric, about Americans selflessly bringing the light and “future” to Afghanistan and those resisting Washington being cowards, terrorists and the forces of darkness, is as old as colonialism itself. The French in Algeria and Indochina, the British in India, Africa and elsewhere and the other European powers that together conquered over a quarter of the earth’s surface during the closing three decades of the 19th century all used virtually identical language—proclaiming their civilizing and humanitarian principles as they pillaged these lands and slaughtered their peoples.

Afghanistan’s protracted encounter with US imperialism has now gone on for more than three decades, culminating in the last 11 years of direct American military occupation and semi-colonial control over its corrupt US-installed government. What “light” and “future” has it brought to the Afghan people?

Beginning in 1979, under the Democratic administration of President Jimmy Carter, US imperialism initiated a criminal policy, aiming to destabilize a pro-Soviet regime in Kabul and thereby provoke a Soviet military intervention. The aim was, as then US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski explained it, “giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.” The policy proved a success, but the Afghan people were its collateral damage. Washington’s machinations unleashed a civil war that has continued to this day, costing millions of Afghan lives.

Pumping in CIA arms, advisors and money, Washington worked hand-in-glove with right-wing foreign and Afghan Islamists, including the Saudi millionaire Osama bin Laden, whose name most Americans would learn only after September 11, 2001, as well as the founders of the Taliban and other militias that US forces are now fighting in Afghanistan.

As for the years of US occupation, Washington has poured over $100 billion into the “reconstruction” of Afghanistan, but government auditors can account for barely 10 percent of this money. The lion’s share went to corrupt contractors, collaborators and politicians from the Karzais on down.

After more than a decade under the tutelage of Washington, conditions in Afghanistan are as desperate as ever, if not more so. Life expectancy remains at 44.5 for men and 44 for women. The maternal mortality rate is among the highest in the world (1,600 deaths for every 100,000 live births), and more than half of the children under age five are malnourished.

One out of every three Afghans lives in poverty, unable to meet the minimal requirements of daily life, and an estimated 40 percent of the population is unemployed. And surveys have indicated that 65 percent of Afghans suffer from stress disorders and other forms of mental illness as the result of unending war.

Overseeing this humanitarian catastrophe is a collection of thugs and warlords kept in power by US arms and profiting off of both foreign aid and the Afghanistan’s opium trade, which accounts for up to 90 percent of the world’s supply.

US imperialism is not in Afghanistan to fight terrorism—that pretext has been thoroughly exploded as Washington has allied itself with Al Qaeda-linked militias in wars for regime change in Libya and Syria—nor to bring “light” to the Afghan people. It intervened there, as in the Middle East and Africa, to assert Washington’s hegemony against its European and Asian rivals—particularly China—in geo-strategically vital, energy-rich regions of the world.

While the Obama administration has announced a formal deadline of the end of 2014 for the withdrawal of all US troops from Afghanistan, it is negotiating with the regime of President Hamid Karzai to keep thousands of troops and US bases in Afghanistan indefinitely. This force is to include both special operations commandos to continue hunting down and killing those who resist US domination, as well as trainers and advisors to direct Afghan puppet forces and of course air power to continue the kind of bombing raids that killed the 11 children in Kunar province last Saturday.

Washington aims to keep Afghanistan as a base for what the Pentagon terms “power projection” into the Caspian Basin with its vast oil and gas reserves and against both Russia and China. Contained within this strategy are the seeds of a far wider and more catastrophic global conflict.

The struggle for the future of the people of Afghanistan and of working people all over the world depends upon the revival of a genuine movement against war and neocolonialism, based on the independent mobilization of the working class against their source, the capitalist profit system.