US Feigns “Horror” Over Cooked-Up Report on Syrian War They Engineered
Update: Further details have emerged regarding the authors of the report. It was produced by British law firm Carter-Ruck on behalf of Qatar who funded it (CNN). Carter-Ruck had in the past defended Saudis suspected of funding Al Qaeda.ABC’s “U.S.: Saudis Still Filling Al Qaeda’s Coffers,” would report that Yasin al Qadi was being represented by Carter-Ruck against US charges filed just after 9/11 claiming he was financing Al Qaeda. It should also be noted that Yasin al Qadi is a close ally of US’ partner in the Syrian conflict, Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. The suspicious report, conveniently released just a day before the Geneva conference, emerging from a tangled web of state-sponsored terrorism and dubious Western law firms only further taints the West’s image as they go into “peace talks” regarding Syria.
January 22, 2014 (LD) – As with every Western-backed conference assembled regarding Syria, dramtic fabrications revealed just ahead of proceedings are intended to give them and their predetermined outcomes both gravity and “urgency.” Upcoming “peace talks” to be held in Switzerland are no exception. A report cooked up by the unelected dictatorship in Qatar is based on an anonymous source, codename “Caesar,” and remains admittedly unverified.
The BBC’s report, “US and UN express horror at Syria torture report,” claims:
The report, by three former war crimes prosecutors, is based on the evidence of a defected military police photographer, referred to only as Caesar, who along with others reportedly smuggled about 55,000 digital images of some 11,000 dead detainees out of Syria.
The BBC then reveals the propaganda value the report is intended to serve in upcoming talks by stating:
US state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said it “underscores that it makes it even more important that we make progress [at Geneva II]. The situation on the ground is so horrific that we need to get a political transition in place, and we need to get the Assad regime out of power.”
Of course, spokesman for UN Human Rights Chief Navi Pillay would admit the report remains unverified (emphasis added):
Rupert Colville, spokesman for UN human rights chief Navi Pillay, told AFP: “This report is extremely alarming, and the alleged scale of the deaths in detention, if verified, is truly horrifying.
Codename Caesar, Codename Curveball
Image: From Independent’s “Man whose WMD lies led to 100,000 deaths confesses all: Defector tells how US officials ‘sexed up’ his fictions to make the case for 2003 invasion.” In retrospect, the corporate-media has no problem admitting the insidious lies that were told to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq – the lead up to the war was another story. A verbatim repeat of these admitted lies are being directed at Syria amidst the West’s failure to overthrow the government with terrorist proxies.
All shrines of Ma’loula either destroyed or desecrated
Ma’loula, January 13, 2014
A radical Jabhat al-Nusra “opposition” group, which occupied the small Christian town of Ma’loula in Syria in the last months of 2013, desecrated absolutely all shrines of the town, reports al Hadas portal with the reference to materials of the al Akhbar Lebanese newspaper.
According to evidence of eyewitnesses who fled from Ma’loula during the latest warfare in the region, members of al Nusra tried to change the religious and architectural-historical look of the ancient Christian town entirely: completely destroying some churches, the militants brought down all bells from other ones. The fate of two other world-famous monuments of Ma’loula was no less tragic: extremists blew up the statue of Christ the Savior, which had stood at the entrance of St. Thecla Convent, as well as the statue of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, which had stood close to the Safir hotel, the latter of which served as the main shelter for Takfirists for many months.
Nevertheless, many artifacts that were stolen from the town have survived, becoming smuggled goods. According to the information received by al Akhbar from reliable sources, the al Nusra militants are currently the most active dealers of black market antiques of the Middle East. Local smugglers are helping with “exporting” of the Ma’loula’s antiquities abroad, transporting Christian monuments to many European countries—mainly to Italy and Turkey. It was reported that a great number of ancient icons, (icon) settings, crosses, reliquaries, and statues have already been taken out from Syria and sent abroad.
We Have to Pass it to Find Out What’s in it: Michigan’s SB 94
by Dan Johnson
P.A.N.D.A. People Against The NDAA
Jan 16, 2014
Senate Bill 94, recently signed into law by Governor Snyder, purports to “Nullify” the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act’s detention provisions. It does nothing of the sort. Instead, this bill gives us a great example of, and tells us what to look for, in feel-good, false security legislation. Let’s break it down:
Bill Text as Enrolled:
“AN ACT to prohibit any agency of this state, any political subdivision of this state, any employee of any agency of this state or any political subdivision of this state, or any member of the Michigan national guard from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States under certain circumstances.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on active state service shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012, if such aid would place that state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the Michigan national guard in violation of the United States constitution, the state constitution of 1963, or any law of this state.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to participation by state or local law enforcement or the Michigan national guard in a joint task force, partnership, or other similar cooperative agreement with federal law enforcement if that joint task force, partnership, or similar cooperative agreement is not for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, or detaining any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012.
Enacting section 1. This act takes effect upon the expiration of 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.”
Assessing this legislation through the lens of an elected official or Judge Advocate General (JAG) Attorney attempting to get around it, and violate the rights of one or more citizens, we see several loopholes in this legislation, and some points that SB 94 does not even attempt to take on. First, we will go through those loopholes. We will then talk about crucial issues this bill does not address, and, finally, offer solutions.
Loopholes:
1. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows a state agent not acting in their “official capacity” to assist the Federal government in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
The phrase “acting in his or her official capacity” requires that, in order for the action specified to be illegal, a state agent must be acting officially or “on the clock.” This will allow the Federal government to take a state agent out to a meal, or approach them on an off day, or work with them in any way that is out of their official capacity as an agent of the state. It also implies that assisting a federal extrajudicial military detention (kidnapping by any other name) is legal for a state agent to do. In essence, assisting a kidnapping is okay, so long as the agent is off the clock and the federal government is asking.
2. SB 94, Subsection1, allows state agents to assist any federal agency besides the U.S. Armed Forces in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
Though the phrase “aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States,” provides a written red flag to help agents of the state determine who not to assist, it leaves the door wide open for any state agent to assist any other federal, or international, agency, or mercenary, when implementing the detention provisions, sections 1021 and 1022, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (2012 NDAA). Thus, a state agent could assist the Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, or any number of myriad agencies attempting to implement the 2012 NDAA’s detention provisions in Michigan. Essentially, as long as it’s not the Armed Forces asking, any state agent can assist any federal agent, international agent, or even international armed forces, with a kidnapping in the State of Michigan.
3. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows state agents to assist in applications of the laws of war outside detention, including torture and extrajudicial execution, in Michigan.
The phrase “in any investigation, prosecution, or detention” is an attempt to cover all the bases in the 2012 NDAA, but is far too narrow. According to Section 1021 (c), the 2012 NDAA authorizes the disposition of a covered person under the law of war, including, but not limited to:
“(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity (Emphasis added.)”
Of these, 1 roughly translates to detention, 2 to trial in a Military Court, and 3 and 4 to rendition. Further, as covered persons under the 2012 NDAA are considered “unprivileged enemy belligerents” under the law of war, anything permitted in wartime, including torture and extrajudicial execution, can be applied to persons in the U.S. It would be nearly impossible to enumerate the number of things a person could be subjected to on a battlefield, but the 2012 NDAA authorizes all of it.
SB094 fails to cover anything but an investigation, prosecution or detention. Were a state agent asked to help a federal task force torture or extrajudicially execute a person in Michigan under the 2012 NDAA, or even lock down a city in a scenario like that in Watertown, Massachusetts, nothing in this law would prevent it. Essentially, so long as the Federal government requests assistance with an action under the laws of war, whether that is a citywide lockdown (imposition of martial law) , an extraordinary rendition, or torture of a single person, that is not an “investigation, prosecution, or detention,” state agents in Michigan can easily assist.
4. SB 94, Subsection 1, permits a state agent to assist the Federal government in applying the laws of war, so long as the authority cited is not Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA.
The phrase “pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012” is a major loophole in this law, and seems to show the legislators’ ignorance of the real problem. Since it limits illegal actions to only those performed under this section, it brings two scenarios into play. Firstly, while Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA is the only statutory authority for the imposition of the laws of war on a person inside the United States or an American citizen abroad, several more have been claimed by both the Bush and Obama Administrations.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Bush Administration claimed the power to detain an American citizen under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and under the Commander-In-Chief Authority in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In Hedges v. Obama, as well as in the official explanation for the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen abroad, the Obama Administration has claimed the AUMF as authority for detaining and executing American citizens. Were a federal agent to claim one of these powers, instead of the 2012 NDAA, as the reason a state agent should assist with imposing the law of war on a person in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent that assistance.
The second scenario expands on the first. Since this law limits its prohibition to Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, if the sections were to simply change number, or even be inserted in another piece of legislation (as a few riders on an agricultural bill for example), SB94 would be rendered completely ineffective, and all the hard work put in by activists and legislators to pass it will have been rendered null.
Further, if the Federal government were to completely invent a nonexistent authority as a reason for detention, such as they did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld when they claimed authority to detain an American citizen under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, SB 94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting the federal government in the application of that pretend authority.
Essentially, so long as the Federal government cites anything other than Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, up to and including faeries and rainbows, as an excuse to apply the law of war in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting.
Senate Bill 94, recently signed into law by Governor Snyder, purports to “Nullify” the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act’s detention provisions. It does nothing of the sort. Instead, this bill gives us a great example of, and tells us what to look for, in feel-good, false security legislation. Let’s break it down:
Bill Text as Enrolled:
“AN ACT to prohibit any agency of this state, any political subdivision of this state, any employee of any agency of this state or any political subdivision of this state, or any member of the Michigan national guard from assisting an agency of the armed forces of the United States in the investigation, prosecution, or detainment of any citizen of the United States under certain circumstances.
The People of the State of Michigan enact:
Sec. 1. (1) Subject to subsection (2), notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no agency of this state, no political subdivision of this state, no employee of an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state acting in his or her official capacity, and no member of the Michigan national guard on active state service shall aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States in any investigation, prosecution, or detention of any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012, if such aid would place that state agency, political subdivision, employee, or member of the Michigan national guard in violation of the United States constitution, the state constitution of 1963, or any law of this state.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to participation by state or local law enforcement or the Michigan national guard in a joint task force, partnership, or other similar cooperative agreement with federal law enforcement if that joint task force, partnership, or similar cooperative agreement is not for the purpose of investigating, prosecuting, or detaining any person pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012.
Enacting section 1. This act takes effect upon the expiration of 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.
This act is ordered to take immediate effect.”
Assessing this legislation through the lens of an elected official or Judge Advocate General (JAG) Attorney attempting to get around it, and violate the rights of one or more citizens, we see several loopholes in this legislation, and some points that SB 94 does not even attempt to take on. First, we will go through those loopholes. We will then talk about crucial issues this bill does not address, and, finally, offer solutions.
Loopholes:
1. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows a state agent not acting in their “official capacity” to assist the Federal government in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
The phrase “acting in his or her official capacity” requires that, in order for the action specified to be illegal, a state agent must be acting officially or “on the clock.” This will allow the Federal government to take a state agent out to a meal, or approach them on an off day, or work with them in any way that is out of their official capacity as an agent of the state. It also implies that assisting a federal extrajudicial military detention (kidnapping by any other name) is legal for a state agent to do. In essence, assisting a kidnapping is okay, so long as the agent is off the clock and the federal government is asking.
2. SB 94, Subsection1, allows state agents to assist any federal agency besides the U.S. Armed Forces in the violation of a person’s rights in Michigan.
Though the phrase “aid an agency of the armed forces of the United States,” provides a written red flag to help agents of the state determine who not to assist, it leaves the door wide open for any state agent to assist any other federal, or international, agency, or mercenary, when implementing the detention provisions, sections 1021 and 1022, of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (2012 NDAA). Thus, a state agent could assist the Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, or any number of myriad agencies attempting to implement the 2012 NDAA’s detention provisions in Michigan. Essentially, as long as it’s not the Armed Forces asking, any state agent can assist any federal agent, international agent, or even international armed forces, with a kidnapping in the State of Michigan.
3. SB 94, Subsection 1, allows state agents to assist in applications of the laws of war outside detention, including torture and extrajudicial execution, in Michigan.
The phrase “in any investigation, prosecution, or detention” is an attempt to cover all the bases in the 2012 NDAA, but is far too narrow. According to Section 1021 (c), the 2012 NDAA authorizes the disposition of a covered person under the law of war, including, but not limited to:
“(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.
(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).
(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.
(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person’s country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity (Emphasis added.)”
Of these, 1 roughly translates to detention, 2 to trial in a Military Court, and 3 and 4 to rendition. Further, as covered persons under the 2012 NDAA are considered “unprivileged enemy belligerents” under the law of war, anything permitted in wartime, including torture and extrajudicial execution, can be applied to persons in the U.S. It would be nearly impossible to enumerate the number of things a person could be subjected to on a battlefield, but the 2012 NDAA authorizes all of it.
SB094 fails to cover anything but an investigation, prosecution or detention. Were a state agent asked to help a federal task force torture or extrajudicially execute a person in Michigan under the 2012 NDAA, or even lock down a city in a scenario like that in Watertown, Massachusetts, nothing in this law would prevent it. Essentially, so long as the Federal government requests assistance with an action under the laws of war, whether that is a citywide lockdown (imposition of martial law) , an extraordinary rendition, or torture of a single person, that is not an “investigation, prosecution, or detention,” state agents in Michigan can easily assist.
4. SB 94, Subsection 1, permits a state agent to assist the Federal government in applying the laws of war, so long as the authority cited is not Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA.
The phrase “pursuant to section 1021 of the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2012” is a major loophole in this law, and seems to show the legislators’ ignorance of the real problem. Since it limits illegal actions to only those performed under this section, it brings two scenarios into play. Firstly, while Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA is the only statutory authority for the imposition of the laws of war on a person inside the United States or an American citizen abroad, several more have been claimed by both the Bush and Obama Administrations.
In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld the Bush Administration claimed the power to detain an American citizen under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), and under the Commander-In-Chief Authority in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In Hedges v. Obama, as well as in the official explanation for the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen abroad, the Obama Administration has claimed the AUMF as authority for detaining and executing American citizens. Were a federal agent to claim one of these powers, instead of the 2012 NDAA, as the reason a state agent should assist with imposing the law of war on a person in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent that assistance.
The second scenario expands on the first. Since this law limits its prohibition to Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, if the sections were to simply change number, or even be inserted in another piece of legislation (as a few riders on an agricultural bill for example), SB94 would be rendered completely ineffective, and all the hard work put in by activists and legislators to pass it will have been rendered null.
Further, if the Federal government were to completely invent a nonexistent authority as a reason for detention, such as they did in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld when they claimed authority to detain an American citizen under Article II of the U.S. Constitution, SB 94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting the federal government in the application of that pretend authority.
Essentially, so long as the Federal government cites anything other than Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, up to and including faeries and rainbows, as an excuse to apply the law of war in Michigan, SB94 does nothing to prevent a state agent from assisting.
Read more at http://pandaunite.org/ndaa-we-have-to-pass-it-to-find-out-whats-in-it-michigans-sb-94/#dp72dU3F3Wmy1TtE.99
Syria and the Geneva 2 charade
Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia.
RT
Jan 22, 2014
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon (C) opens the so-called Geneva II peace talks next to UN-Arab League envoy for Syria Lakhdar Brahimi (L) on January 22, 2014 in Montreux. (AFP Photo)
In the summertime, people flock to Montreux, Switzerland, to follow the jazz festival. This week, though, the ‘performance’ is by a positively un-swinging lot, part of the (in theory) very serious Geneva 2 conference on Syria.
What is Geneva 2 for? It has nothing to do with ‘peace’. It won’t yield an international deal to end the Syrian tragedy. The horrible war facts on the ground will remain facts, and horrible; many perpetrators won’t be gathering in Montreux. Syrian civil society has not even been invited.
And then the whole charade degenerated into pitiful parody even before it started.
This past Sunday, it seemed that UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had decided to spring out of his trademark vegetable slumber, inviting Iran to Geneva 2. The invitation lasted less than 24 hours; after the requisite ‘pressure’ by Washington – instigated by those sterling democrats of the House of Saud – it was duly rescinded.
Thus we had Ban Ki-moon parroting the US State Department, according to which Tehran had not agreed to the principles of the Geneva 1 communiqué, which called for a sustained cessation of armed violence. Iranian diplomats strongly begged to differ, stressing how Tehran understands that the basis of the talks is the full implementation of the previous, June 2012 conference, even if Iran was not part of it.
Ban Ki-moon also invited the Holy See, as well as Australia, Luxembourg, Mexico and the Republic of Korea, among others, to Montreux; as if these actors had any clue about what’s going on in Syria.
But the apex of the farce is that Iran cannot go, while Saudi Arabia and Qatar – who continue to weaponize every Syrian ‘rebel’ in sight, from young adrenaline seekers to Western-supported Takfiris and beheaders – can. And will.
VIDEO — Angry Riots: Ukrainians set up catapult to fire at police
RT
Jan 20, 2014
Anti-government protesters in Kiev have set up an improvised catapult, looking to fire stones and firecrackers at police cordons. Ukraine’s Interior Ministry has accused the opposition of arming aggressive protesters with dangerous weapons. READ MORE: http://on.rt.com/8rkxg6
RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air
[related video: War zone Kiev: City center ravaged as anti-govt standoff continues]
VIDEO — Chemical Claims: MIT study finds Syrian regime not behind rocket attacks
RT
Jan 18, 2014
The U.S. conclusion that a chemical attack near Damascus in August was carried out by the government has been challenged by a team of highly respected experts. Washington immediately blamed President Assad, but a new report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the rocket couldn’t have been fired from government-controlled areas. RT’s Alexey Yaroshevsky looked into the MIT study, let’s get more details from him.
VIDEO — War… On Drugs: Captagon pills keep Syria rebels awake, fuel arms trade
RT
Jan 18, 2014
After nearly three years of bloody conflict, Syria is becoming a centre of drug production. With most economic activity practically non-existent, coupled with the proliferation of armed groups, the business is ripening quickly. An outlawed stimulant known as Captagon is now produced in Syria in huge amounts. RT’s Maria Finoshina reports.
PN 