…from beneath the crooked bough, witness 230 years of brutal tyranny by the al Khalifas come to an end

If the United States is the world’s second worst human rights abuser, which is the worst?
26 May, 2012 – Paul Craig Roberts – Stop The War Coalition

The US government is the second worst human rights abuser on the planet and the sole enabler of the worst–Israel.

But this doesn’t hamper Washington from pointing the finger elsewhere.

The US State Department’s “human rights report” focuses its ire on Iran and Syria, two countries whose real sin is their independence from Washington, and on the bogyman- in-the-making–China, the country selected for the role of Washington’s new Cold War enemy.

Hillary Clinton, another in a long line of unqualified Secretaries of State, informed “governments around the world: we are watching, and we are holding you accountable,” only we are not holding ourselves accountable or Washington’s allies like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the NATO puppets.

Hillary also made it “clear to citizens and activists everywhere: You are not alone. We are standing with you,” only not with protesters at the Chicago NATO summit or with the Occupy Wall Street protesters, or anywhere else in the US where there are protests. (ref)

The State Department stands with the protesters funded by the US in the countries whose governments the US wishes to overthrow. Protesters in the US stand alone as do the occupied Palestinians who apparently have no human rights to their homes, lands, olive groves, or lives.

Here are some arrest numbers for a few recent US protests. The New York Daily News reports that as of November 17, 2011, 1,300 Occupy Wall Street protesters were arrested in New York City alone. Fox News reported (October 2, 2011) that 700 protesters were arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. At the NATO summit in Chicago last week, 90 protesters were arrested (Chicago Journal).

In the US some protesters are being officially categorized as “domestic extremists” or “domestic terrorists,” a new threat category that Homeland Security announced is now the focus of its attention, displacing Muslim terrorists as the number one threat to the US. In September 2010, federal police raided the homes of peace activists in Chicago and Minneapolis. The FBI is trying to concoct a case against them by claiming that the peace activists donated money to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. As demanded by Israel, the US government has designated the PFLP as a terrorist group.

In Chicago last week, among the many arrested NATO protesters with whom the State Department does not stand are three young white americans arrested for “domestic terrorism” in what Dave Lindorff reports was “a warrantless house invasion reminiscent of what US military forces are doing on a daily [and nightly] basis in Afghanistan.” If the US government, which stands with protesters everywhere except in America, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Palestine, can make this into a terrorism case, the three americans can be convicted on the basis of secret evidence or simply be incarcerated for the rest of their lives without a trial.

Meanwhile the three american “domestic terrorists” are being held in solitary confinement. Like many of the NATO protesters, they came from out of town. Brian Church, 20 years old, came from Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Jared Chase, 27, came from Keene, New Hampshire. Brent Betterly, 24, came from Oakland Park, Florida. Charged with providing material support for terrorism, the judge set their bail at $1.5 million each.

These three are not charged with actually throwing a Molotov cocktail at a person or thing. They are charged with coming to Chicago with the idea of doing so. Somehow the 16 federal intelligence agencies plus those of our NATO puppets and Israel were unable to discover the 9/11 plot in the making, but the Chicago police knew in advance why two guys from Florida and one from New Hampshire came to Chicago. The domestic terrorism cases turn out to be police concoctions that are foiled before they happen, so we have many terrorists but no actual terrorist acts.

Two other young americans are being framed by their Human Rights Government. Sebastian Senakiewicz, 24, of Chicago is charged with “falsely making a terrorist threat,” whatever that means. His bail was set at $750,000. Mark Neiweem, 28, of Chicago is charged with “solicitation for explosives or incendiary devices.” His bail is set at $500,000.

This is human rights in america. But the State Department’s human rights report never examines the US. It is a political document aimed at Washington’s chosen enemies.

Meanwhile, Human Rights america continues to violate the national sovereignty of Pakistan, Yeman, and Afghanistan by sending in drones, bombs, special forces and in Afghanistan 150,000 US soldiers to murder people, usually women, children and village elders. Weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, schools and farmers’ houses are also favorite targets for Washington’s attacks. On May 25 the Pakistani Daily Times reported that Pakistani Foreign Office spokesman Moazzam Ali Khan strongly condemned the drone attacks: “We regard them as a violation of our territorial integrity. They are in contravention of international law. They are illegal, counter productive and totally unacceptable.”

The US reportedly funnels money to the Iranian terrorist group, MEK, declared terrorists by no less than the US State Department. But it is OK as long as MEK is terrorizing Iran. Washington stands with MEK’s protests delivered via bombs and the assassin’s bullet. After all, we have to bring freedom and democracy to Iran, and violence is Washington’s preferred way to achieve this goal.

Washington is desperate to overthrow the Syrian government in order to get rid of the Russian naval base. On May 15 the Washington Post reported that Washington is coordinating the flow of arms to Syrian rebels. Washington’s justification for interfering in Syria’s internal affairs is human rights charges against the Syrian government. However, a UN report finds that the rebels are no more respectful of human rights than the Syrian government. The rebels torture and murder prisoners and kidnap civilians wealthy enough to bring a ransom. ….more

Bahrain Activist Free on Bail Before Twitter Trial
17 January, 2013 – AP

MANAMA, Bahrain – A lawyer in Bahrain says a human rights activist has been freed on bail after more than two months in custody on charges of posting false news on Twitter.

The case is seen by opposition groups as part of expanding Internet crackdowns by authorities in the Sunni-ruled Gulf nation, which has faced nearly two years on non-stop unrest over demands by majority Shiites for a greater political voice.

Lawyer Mohamed al-Jishi says activist Yousef Al Muhafedha was released Thursday on bail of 100 dinars ($268). His trial was set for Jan. 29.

Al-Muhafedha, a senior figure with the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, was taken into custody in early November on allegations he fabricated details about demonstrations in the capital, Manama. …source

Love and Terror in Bahrain
by Elizabeth Hames – Readers Digest Canada

Naser Al Raas lay disoriented on the cell floor. He felt a tingling in his hands; his 
left foot twitched. Hours earlier, guards had burst in, forced a bag over his head, tied a cable around his wrists and dragged him into a dank room. There, hoisted by his arms and hung like a butcher’s pig, he heard the crackle of electricity. A current shot up his leg, grabbing hold of every muscle in his body and twisting them. He uttered a scream so deep he didn’t recognize his own voice, and he passed out.

Now awake, he squinted up at the bright light bulb dangling from the ceiling. It had been days since he’d seen the sun. There was a burst of angry voices and hurried footsteps outside his cell—the guards, once again, had left his door open. “They did it after each interrogation,” he says, “so I could listen to the other detainees cry out.”
Every day, men and women were hauled down the hallway into the torture room, where they were kicked, punched, whipped, electrocuted—or worse. Al Raas didn’t know how much longer he could take it. “I wished I would die,” he says, “so my suffering would end.”

Six weeks earlier, Al Raas, a 30-year-old IT specialist from Ottawa, had been working in Kuwait, where he began following the news coming out of nearby Bahrain. From the moment the Al Khalifa royal family, who are Sunni Muslims, assumed control of the former British protectorate in 1971, the island kingdom’s Shia majority has complained of widespread discrimination. Shia citizens cannot purchase property in some areas, are excluded from certain jobs and have watched their underfunded neighbourhoods deteriorate. Four decades of discontent exploded on February 14, 2011: inspired by the Arab Spring, tens of thousands of Bahrainis stormed the capital, demanding democracy and greater political rights.

Al Raas’s sister and nieces lived just outside of the capital, Manama, in one of the country’s most troubled neighbourhoods. The intensity of clashes, with reports of injuries and fatalities, worried Al Raas, so he decided to check in. On March 6, he flew to Bahrain on a two-week tourist visa.

His family had barricaded themselves in their tiny flat. Every morning, they woke to the news of burned-out cars, destroyed generators and vandalized schools. His sister described the police raids—how officers would fire tear gas and stun grenades to disperse protesters who had occupied Pearl Square at the city’s centre. She urged her brotherto stay away, but Al Raas had never witnessed a revolution up close. He wanted to see it for himself. …source

For Washington, There Is No Arms Control Abroad
by Tom Engelhardt, 14 January, 2013 – antiwar.com

Given these last weeks, who doesn’t know what an AR-15 is? Who hasn’t seen the mind-boggling stats on the way assault rifles have flooded this country, or tabulations of accumulating Newtown-style mass killings, or noted that there are barely more gas stations nationwide than federally licensed firearms dealers, or heard the renewed debates over the Second Amendment, or been struck by the rapid shifts in public opinion on gun control, or checked out the disputes over how effective an assault-rifle ban was the last time around? Who doesn’t know about the NRA’s suggestion to weaponize schools, or about the price poor neighborhoods may be paying in gun deaths for the present expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment? Who hasn’t seen the legions of stories about how, in the wake of the Newtown slaughter, sales of guns, especially AR-15 assault rifles, have soared, ammunition sales have surged, background checks for future gun purchases have risen sharply, and gun shows have been besieged with customers?

If you haven’t stumbled across figures on gun violence in America or on suicide-by-gun, you’ve been hiding under a rock. If you haven’t heard about Chicago’s soaring and Washington D.C.’s plunging gun-death stats (and that both towns have relatively strict gun laws), where have you been?

Has there, in fact, been any aspect of the weaponization of the United States that, since the Newtown massacre, hasn’t been discussed? Are you the only person in the country, for instance, who doesn’t know that Vice President Joe Biden has been assigned the task of coming up with an administration gun-control agenda before Barack Obama is inaugurated for his second term? And can you honestly tell me that you haven’t seen global comparisons of killing rates in countries that have tight gun laws and the U.S., or read at least one discussion about life in countries like Colombia or Guatemala, where armed guards are omnipresent?

After years of mass killings that resulted in next to no national dialogue about the role of guns and how to control them, the subject is back on the American agenda in a significant way and – by all signs – isn’t about to leave town anytime soon. The discussion has been so expansive after years in a well-armed wilderness that it’s easy to miss what still isn’t being discussed, and in some sense just how narrow our focus remains.

Think of it this way: the Obama administration is reportedly going to call on Congress to pass a new ban on assault weapons, as well as one on high-capacity ammunition magazines, and to close the loopholes that allow certain gun purchasers to avoid background checks. But Biden has already conceded, at least implicitly, that facing a Republican-controlled House of Representatives and a filibuster-prone Senate, the administration’s ability to make much of this happen – as on so many domestic issues – is limited. …more

Canadian human rights group finds countries including Bahrain use Blue Coat devices to track and censor

Harsh regimes use US-made surveillance, censorship technologies
By Natasha Lennard – 16 January, 2013 – Salon.com

Some of the world’s most repressive regimes employ U.S.-made surveillance and censorship technology. Citizen Lab Internet research group, based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, discovered that that governments around the world use systems from made by Blue Coat Systems of Sunnyvale, California.

As the New York Times reported, Citizen Lab “determined that Egypt, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Republic employed a Blue Coat system that could be used for digital censorship. The group also determined that Bahrain, China, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Lebanon, Malaysia, Nigeria, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela used equipment that could be used for surveillance and tracking.”

“We hope Blue Coat will take this as an opportunity to explain their due diligence process to ensure that their devices are not used in ways that violate human rights,” a statement from Citizen Lab noted. The Canadian human rights group used computer servers to scan for the distinctive signature of Blue Coat systems in global networks.

In 2011, the U.S. Department of Commerce investigated Blue Coat when it was found that Syria’s Assad regime was using the California company’s technologies to monitor dissidents. Since Syria is on the U.S. embargo list, technology is restricted from export. Blue Coat acknowledged that Syrian authorities were in possession of their surveillance devices, but claimed that they were sent without the company’s knowledge via a distributor in Dubai.

While the U.S. cannot block exports to countries outside the sanction lists, Citizen Lab hopes their findings will prompt a closer look at the proliferation of surveillance and censorship technologies. …source

Bahrainis hold demonstrations against Al Khalifa
16 January, 2013 – PressTV

Bahraini demonstrators have once again taken to the streets in several towns and villages to protest against the Al Khalifa regime.

The protesters chanted slogans against the regime and called for the immediate release of political prisoners.

A new release of US Defense Department’s documents revealed that Washington has been providing the Al Khalifa regime with weapons and combat vehicle parts.

The United States has also been giving Manama communications equipment, Blackhawk helicopters, and a missile system.

The Bahraini regime has arrested many activists, politicians and medical personnel over the past months.

Recently, Bahrain’s highest court upheld jail terms and life sentences to dozens of activists, a move vehemently denounced by human rights groups.

The Bahraini uprising began in February 2011. The regime promptly launched a brutal crackdown on the protests and called in forces from neighboring Persian Gulf states to help quell the demonstrations.

Bahraini protesters say they will continue holding demonstrations until their demands for the establishment of a democratically elected government and an end to violations of rights are met. …source

Keeping it real: CS Gas is a lethal Chemical Weapon when used as such. It is has been used to deliberately and recklessly to kill and injure people in Bahrain. Those who argue the finer aspects of classifications of such weapons as “riot control agents” vs “chemical weapons” are deluded and cynical when it comes to the misery, suffering and murder of people with such weapons. The symptoms of Chemical Weapons attack in Homs, Syria last December included; labored breathing, disorientation, hallucination, nervousness and lack of limb control and those much closer to the source of the gas had much more severe symptoms, including paralyses, seizures, muscle spasms and in some cases blindness. Six people were killed by chemical gas and scores injured.

U.S. officials said the symptoms suffered by those who inhaled the gas in Homs were similar to those in people exposed to Agent 15. Agent 15 is an incapacitating and easily manufactured and kept in arsenals throughout the Middle East. Agent 15 is controlled by the Chemical Weapons Convention. CS gas is also prohibited in war under the terms of the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention, though it is widely used by domestic police for riot control. The Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits only military use of CS gas. Five nations have not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention: Angola, Egypt, North Korea, Somalia, and Syria.

People have been suffering the symptoms; labored breathing, disorientation, hallucination, nervousness and lack of limb control, paralyses, seizures, muscle spasms, blindness and miscarriage as a result of Agent 15 or lethal use of toxic CS gas since the brutal repression started in Bahrain in February, 2011. Early use of Chemical Agents against protesters in Bahrain were treated in emergency rooms, resulting in arrest and imprisonment of scores of doctors and medical staff who treated what they understood as symptoms of Chemical Weapons attacks. Chemical Weapons attacks resulting in death have occurred as recently as last week in Bahrain – [Jan.2013]. Entire Villages in Bahrain are suffocated in Clouds of Chemical Gas on a daily basis. There have been no investigations into the lethal Chemical Weapons attacks or misuse of Chemical Weapons in Bahrain by US State Department or any other International Agency. Phlipn Out

U.S.: Syria didn’t use chemical weapons in Homs incident
By Elise Labott – 16 January, 2012

The Syrian government did not use chemical weapons against residents of Homs in a December attack, a U.S. State Department investigation shows, but did apparently misuse a riot-control gas in the incident, according to senior U.S. officials.

The investigation stemmed from allegations inside Syria about the use of chemical weapons during an attack on the city of Homs on December 23. The officials said the State Department launched a probe from its consulate in Istanbul after doctors and activists reported dozens of victims suffering from nervous system, respiratory and gastrointestinal ailments after inhaling the gas.

Foreign Policy’s “The Cable” blog reported Tuesday that a secret diplomatic cable provided a “compelling case” that President Bashar al-Assad’s military used chemical weapons in the attack.

The United States was informed of the incident by representatives of a non-governmental organization working in Syria, who told the U.S. consulate in Turkey that they believed a chemical attack took place in Homs, according to a U.S. official. The NGO set up some interviews for the consulate, which then wrote a cable discussing the concerns. The U.S. official said the cable noted that the evidence was inconclusive that there was a chemical attack.

However, the concern triggered a more extensive investigation by the State Department, with intelligence personnel assessing online videos of the attack and pictures of the victims. Chemical weapons experts and doctors experienced in treating patients exposed to chemical weapons were also consulted, according to U.S. officials. And interviews were conducted with Syrian doctors and activists inside the country by a U.S. partner there.

The gas was determined to be a “riot control agent” that was not designed to produce lasting effects, but became more dangerous when it was released in dense areas and was not dispersed in the air quickly, the officials said.

“It is meant to be short term,” one of the officials said. “But just like with tear gas, if you breathe in an entire canister, that can have a severe effect on your lungs and other organs.”

“That doesn’t make it a chemical weapon, however,” the official said.

Dr. Abu al Fida, who treated about 30 of the approximately 100 people who were affected by the mysterious gas, told CNN the victims’ symptoms depended on their proximity to the substance.

People who were further away from the source suffered labored breathing, disorientation, hallucination, nervousness and lack of limb control, al Fida said.

But those closer to the source of the gas had much more severe symptoms, including paralyses, seizures, muscle spasms and in some cases blindness, he said. Six people were killed by the gas, the doctor said.

The senior U.S. officials said the symptoms in those who inhaled the gas were similar to those in people exposed to Agent 15, an incapacitating gas controlled by the Chemical Weapons Convention, although it was later determined not to be Agent 15.

The officials also said that while some Syrian doctors on the ground were convinced the gas was a chemical weapon, others were not.

A senior Turkish diplomat told CNN that Turkey also conducted its own investigation into the chemical weapons allegations, but found the claims to be unsubstantiated.

President Barack Obama has said the use of chemical weapons by al-Assad’s government would cross a “red line” which would trigger a robust U.S. and international response.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” Obama first said in August. “That would change my calculus.”

National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor said that reports about the use of chemical weapons by the regime have “not been consistent with what we believe to be true about the Syrian chemical weapons program.”

“The president was very clear when he said that if the Assad regime makes the tragic mistake of using chemical weapons, or fails to meet its obligation to secure them, the regime will be held accountable,” Vietor told CNN.

Officials tell CNN there are no plans for more robust specific action in light of the investigation. A Deputies Committee meeting of top administration officials is scheduled for Thursday, but officials say they do not expect any policy shifts. …source

A Senator’s Lonely Crusade to Learn the CIA’s Secrets
Conor Friedersdorf – 15 January, 2013 – The Atlantic

Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, has sent an extraordinary letter to top White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, President Obama’s choice to lead the CIA. The letter poses questions about executive power, like “How much evidence does the President need to determine that a particular American can be lawfully killed?” and “Does the President have to provide individual Americans with the opportunity to surrender before killing them?” We’re used to such questions from organizations like the ACLU, journalists like Charlie Savage, and various concerned citizens. And though rules that confer death should always be transparent, the fact that they’re being kept even from Wyden is especially indefensible.

The body he sits on, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is charged with providing “vigilant legislative oversight over the intelligence activities of the United States,” to ensure “that they conform with the Constitution and U.S. law.” There is no one in America more justified in demanding to know the official legal rationale behind actions like targeted killings. Obama isn’t just keeping this information from the American people. He isn’t just hiding his legal reasoning from the U.S. Congress. He is stonewalling one of 15 senators that federal law establishes as the most important check on secret abuses by the CIA.

Understand that the CIA’s capacity to commit abuses is anything but theoretical. As Obama well knows, its history is rife with examples of its personnel using the cover of secrecy to do things that the American people and their elected representatives would have never willingly permitted. CIA abuses inspired the creation of the very same Select Committee on Intelligence in 1976. It began after the Church Committee discovered and revealed abuses as varied as secretly opening the mail of American citizens, attempting to assassinate foreign leaders, trying to monitor private citizens who opposed the Vietnam War, and illegal wiretapping.

Even after Congress committed to more vigilant oversight of the CIA, it continued to operate with far less transparency than other federal agencies. Little wonder that it continued to commit abuses. During the Reagan Administration, for example, the executive branch approved a CIA plan to secretly mine the most important harbor in Nicaragua. Members of the Senate committee claimed that they weren’t sufficiently notified and won a promise of greater cooperation.

Though the Iran-Contra affair was run out of the White House, the CIA was complicit in parts of it, and several agency staffers were disciplined in its aftermath for withholding information. Twelve CIA employees were disciplined in the mid-1990s for failing to adequately inform Congress of its activities in Guatemala. In the aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks, the 9/11 Commission cited insufficient oversight of the CIA as a significant problem. And during the Bush Administration, CIA officers tortured prisoners by blindfolding them, strapping them to a board, and repeatedly forcing water into their lungs so that they’d be so terrified of drowning that they’d talk. Obama has acknowledged that waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” institutionalized under his predecessor were torture, a judgment that hasn’t stopped him from nominating Brennan, then at the CIA, who has defended all but waterboarding.

The evidence is incontrovertible: On numerous occasions in recent American history, the executive branch and the CIA have used to cover of secrecy to commit immoral and illegal acts.

The law is clear too: In order to balance the CIA’s need for secrecy and the prudential need for oversight, Congress created a Senate committee and an analogue in the House. Later, “the Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980, as the law was known, established general reporting requirements for the Intelligence Community vis-à-vis the two oversight committees. The basic obligation imposed by the new law was the same one Carter had imposed on intelligence agencies earlier by executive order: to keep the two committees ‘fully and currently informed’ of their activities.”

Despite all that, Obama is stymieing oversight efforts. …more

The US Sold A Bunch Of Weapons To Bahrain During Its Brutal Crackdown
Michael Kelley – 15 January, 2013 – Business Insider

The U.S. has been selling arms to Bahrain amid the small Mideast nation’s increasingly repressive crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, Justin Elliot of ProPublica reports.

The sales, combined with allegations of censorship by U.S. media, seems to corroborate claims that America has turned a blind eye to the bloody repression inside the country.

The Bahraini uprising — which initially called for greater political freedom and equality for the majority Shia population — began peacefully in February 2011. It was met with a harsh response by the U.S.-backed Sunni ruling party as unarmed protesters were allegedly detained, tortured, targeted by “live ammunition air strikes from Cobra helicopters” and thrown in jail for life.

Defense Department documents released to ProPublica reveal that between February 2011 and February 2012 the U.S. sold the Sunni kingdom items relating to ammunition, combat vehicle parts, communications equipment, Cobra and Blackhawk helicopters, and an unidentified missile system.

Elliot notes that it’s unclear whether the arms have been delivered or if the names of the weapons listed may refer to maintenance or spare parts.

The State Department told ProPublica that the U.S. has only been selling Bahrain items “related exclusively to external defense, counter-terrorism, and the protection of U.S. forces.”

The circumstances surrounding Bahrain led Al-Jazeera to describe the uprising as “the Arab revolution that was abandoned by the Arabs, forsaken by the West and forgotten by the world.”

Former CNN reporter Amber Lyon helped create a series of investigative reports documenting the oppression in Bahrain, but she says the network pressured her to insert Bahraini government propaganda into her stories.

The three-time Emmy winner said she “saw first-hand that these regime claims were lies, and I couldn’t believe CNN was making me put what I knew to be government lies into my reporting.”

In one instance her team produced a hard-hitting 13-minute segment on Bahrain for CNN International, — the most-watched English-speaking news outlet in the Middle East — but the network has refused to broadcast the program.

…source

Western-backed treacherous Bahraini forces attack Muslim mourners
12 January, 2013 – Islamic Invitation

rahimi20130112085942677Bahraini security forces have opened fire on a group people, which had gathered to mourn the anniversary of the death of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

On Friday, the Saudi-backed regime forces attacked a gathering of mourners, firing teargas canisters and bullets to disperse them in the town of Sanabis.

Since a popular revolution began in Bahrain in mid-February 2011, scores have been killed, many of them under torture while in custody, and thousands more detained.

Bahraini authorities have also dismissed hundreds of people from their jobs for taking part in peaceful anti-regime demonstrations.

A report, published by the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry in November 2011, found that the Al Khalifa regime had used excessive force in the crackdown on protests, criticizing Manama for torturing political activists, politicians, and protesters.

Bahrainis say they will continue to hold anti-regime demonstrations until their demands for the establishment of a democratically-elected government and an end to rights violations are met. …source

Revealed: America’s Arms Sales To Bahrain Amid Bloody Crackdown
by Justin Elliott – ProPublica – 15 January, 15, 2013

Despite Bahrain’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, the U.S. has continued to provide weapons and maintenance to the small Mideast nation.

Defense Department documents released to ProPublica give the fullest picture yet of the arms sales: The list includes ammunition, combat vehicle parts, communications equipment, Blackhawk helicopters, and an unidentified missile system. (Read the documents.)

The documents, which were provided in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and cover a yearlong period ending in February 2012, still leave many questions unanswered. It’s not clear whether in each case the arms listed have been delivered. And some entries that only cite the names of weapons may in fact refer to maintenance or spare parts.

Defense Department spokesman Paul Ebner declined to offer any more detail. “We won’t get into specifics in any of these because of the security of Bahrain,” said Ebner.

While the U.S. has maintained it is selling Bahrain arms only for external defense, human rights advocates say the documents raise questions about items that could be used against civilian protesters.

“The U.S. government should not be providing additional military equipment that could make matters worse,” said Sunjeev Bery, Middle East advocacy director for Amnesty International USA.

There have been reports that Bahrain used American-made helicopters to fire on protesters in the most intense period of the crackdown. Time magazine reported in mid-March 2011 that Cobra helicopters had conducted “live ammunition air strikes” on protesters.

The new Defense Department list of arms sales has two entries related to “AH-1F Cobra Helicopters” in March and April 2011. Neither the exact equipment or services being sold nor the delivery timetable are specified.

The U.S. is also playing a training role: In April 2012, for example, the Army News Service reported that an American team specializing in training foreign militaries to use equipment purchased from the U.S. was in Bahrain to help with Blackhawk helicopters.

Bahrain’s ambassador to the U.S., Houda Nonoo, said the country’s military has not targeted protestors. Bahrain’s military “exists to combat external threats,” Nonoo told ProPublica. “[T]he potential for U.S. foreign arms sales to be used against protestors in the future is remote.”

The Obama administration has stood by Bahrain’s ruling family, who are Sunni, during nearly two years of protests by the country’s majority Shia population. Bahrain is a longtime ally and the home to a large American naval base, which is considered particularly important amid the current tensions with nearby Iran.

The itemized arms sales list does not include dollar values but a separate document says military equipment worth $51 million was delivered to Bahrain in the year starting in October 2010. (That period includes several months before the protests began.)

The U.S. has long sold weapons to Bahrain, totaling $1.4 billion since 2000, according to the State Department. The sales didn’t come under scrutiny until security forces killed at least 19 people in the early months of the crackdown in 2011. (Dozens have died since then.)

The administration put a hold on one proposed sale of Humvees and missiles in Fall 2011 following congressional criticism. But Foreign Policy reported that other unspecified equipment was still being sold without any public notification.

The new documents offer more details on what was sold during that period — including entries related to a “Blackhawk helicopter armament” in November 2011 and a missile system in January 2012.

In May 2012, the administration announced it was releasing some unspecified items to Bahrain’s military that “are not used for crowd control” while maintaining a hold on the Humvees and TOW missiles.

State Department spokesman Noel Clay told ProPublica, “We continue to withhold the export of lethal and crowd-control items intended predominately for internal security purposes, and have resumed on a case-by-case basis items related exclusively to external defense, counter-terrorism, and the protection of U.S. forces.”

The U.S. has also sold Bahrain a helicopter fit for the royal family.

In September, Missouri-based aviation services firm Sabreliner reported that, as part of an official government arms sale, it delivered to Bahrain a fully customized UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter for “a variety of missions including transporting heads of state.” The aircraft was outfitted with a “clam shell door” for ease of entry, a “new VIP interior,” and a “custom Royal Bahraini” paintjob.

In other recent developments in Bahrain, the country’s highest court this month upheld lengthy prison sentences for 13 high-profile activists accused of plotting to overthrow the government.

In a rare occurrence in November, a series of homemade bombs were set off in the capital of Manama, killing two and leading some observers to argue that the opposition is growing more militant. Also in November, an Amnesty International report found that despite government promises, “the reform process has been shelved and repression unleashed.” …source

The state-sponsored Arab news networks in the Gulf have given scant coverage to the reform and protest movements in Bahrain, writes Ali Hashem.

The Bahrain Blackout in Arab Media
by Ali Hashem – 13 January, 2013 – Al Monitor

As one matures and ages, I discovered more about the world; the more I knew, the more I realized that what I thought was plated with gold was only rusty iron walls besieging people who live and suffer as we do; they share with us the same air we breathe; and most importantly, they don’t all eat with golden spoons.

It’s not to say that all Gulf States are ruled by tyranny. That would be an unfair judgment. Nevertheless, some of these states have minorities who have been and continue to go through what can be fairly described as “sectarian discrimination,” Bahrain being a blatant example.

On Feb. 14, 2011, a group of Bahraini activists were resolved that it was time to raise the volume. Building on what activists in Egypt and Tunisia achieved, people took to the streets demanding freedom and reform. Those long-suffering under the rule of the Khalifa dynasty demanded to feel they were citizens in their country, a feeling lost long ago.

Nabeel Rajab, Abdul Hadi, Zaynab, Maryam AlKhawaja and many others thought their movement will be embraced by Arab media as were the sister revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia. That was an illusion!

Arab channels were then busy covering the aftermath of the Egyptian revolution, and the first sparks in Libya. The illusion was that nothing drastic was occurring in the tiny Gulf state. Whatever news emerged from there failed to make headlines. That is the same situation today.

News outlets risked their teams’ lives sending them to Libya and Egypt, and later to Yemen and Syria, to secure uncensored coverage. Some lost staff members on the job, but this didn’t shake their determination to be the “voice of the voiceless.” Some reporters became heroes in the countries they risked their lives to report from.

When the uprising in Bahrain erupted, I was then still working for Al-Jazeera, the leading Arab news channel, that was covering on an hourly basis what was to be dubbed the Arab Spring. Grass-roots movements were happy to view fellow Arabs taking to the streets and toppling dictators minute by minute. Many intellectuals and media professionals, however, were questioning the standards the Qatari channel was abiding to in covering certain revolutions whilst ignoring others, namely Bahrain.

When faced with the allegations, seniors at the Qatari channel gave one answer: “We have no access” in Bahrain. That answer could have had some weight if Al-Jazeera’s English Channel hadn’t produced a masterpiece that will always be referred to as one of the best documentaries about Bahrain, Shouting in the Dark. The Al-Jazeera English Channel had undercover reporters in Manama covering the unrest, while the Arabic channel tended to derive its news from agencies. When a reporter was given the permission by the Bahraini authorities to cover, the reports seemed more like messages of reconciliation than field coverage of an ongoing uprising, a rhetoric that differs much from the one the channel adopted in approaching the Arab Spring.

Al-Jazeera’s main competitor, Saudi-owned Al Arabiya, had a different approach to the situation in Bahrain. The channel reflected the official point of view, accusing the activists of being Iranian proxies accusing demonstrators of being armed. The channel’s editorial line wasn’t of a surprise to many given the fact Saudi troops entered Bahrain, to help put an end to the ongoing unrest.
…more

The American War against the Syrian state without prospects
14 January, 2013 – By Ghaleb Kandil – Voltaire.org

From what has came out from the tripartite meeting in Geneva between the Russians, the Americans and the international envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, Friday, January 11, it is clear that the refusal of the United States to recognize the failure of the universal war that they launched against Syria and its president Bashar al-Assad, is a major obstacle that prevents a political solution to the Syrian crisis.

It is Washington that has sabotaged all initiatives by refusing to engage through the Security Council to stop arming and financing armed groups in Syria. This is due to the fact that it is the U.S. who managed the war in Syria, set up operating rooms in Turkey, whose members are CIA agents responsible for coordinating international and regional efforts to mobilize terrorists around the world to send in Syria. U.S. officials publicly boast of providing modern communication equipment to armed gangs, and they expressed no regret, even after acknowledging that much of this equipment has fallen into the hands of al-Qaida fighters of al-Nosra Front, an organization they late put on their terrorist list, on which they could include other groups shortly, why they do not change their position on commitments to stop the violence.

As clear commitments to stop military and financial support to terrorist groups are not officially taken in the Geneva meetings, it means that the U.S. administration is determined to continue the war of attrition against the state Syria in the coming months. The United States, who are unable to bear the human and material losses in a direct confrontation, know that the Syrian national state, which has shown a remarkable strength throughout the war, will be even more determined to preserve its political independence after the end of fighting. It is for this reason that Washington binds the establishment of mechanisms for stopping the war to the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, who is a popular leader, tough, with patriotic choices. If he is to be ousted in the current circumstances, it will open the way to new balances which may put the Syrian army and people away from a truly independent Syria. The axis of the resistance will be, then, seriously weakened.

Lakhdar Brahimi’s comments are below the level of debate, because the international envoy has long been the spokesman for the United States and the West. On the other hand, the strong position of Russia, supported by the Brics countries, especially China and Iran, is motivated by the reality that Syria is the first line of defense for all independent forces that oppose unilateral U.S. hegemony. Assad is the symbol of this reality. Asking for his resignation is like demanding the departure of Fidel Castro in Cuba of the sixties. …more

The Power of Moral Sanction
By Jay Taber – April 2002

The power of moral sanction, as a penalty of conscience for violations of our sense of decency, based on a belief in the application of justice, has been essential to struggles for autonomy and dignity since the Middle Ages, and is, in my opinion, central to the struggle of rebuilding democratic society today. An examination, therefore, of the strengths and weaknesses of this tool of social change is warranted. This paper is my attempt to articulate the related aspects of leadership as demonstrated by the historical figures focused on in our readings and discussion. I begin with some general thoughts and impressions from our seminars, and proceed to particulars revolving around some of the figures examined.

Moral sanction, alone, may be insufficient to constrain political violence or official repression, but it can bring significant pressures to bear on public behavior as well as within institutions under the control or influence of civil society. Indeed, both reform and revolutionary movements, as well as all forms of resistance in fundamental conflict with tyrannical powers, rely on moral sanction as an essential component of warfare.

Resistance warfare may take different and multiple forms: war of position, based on a principle (i.e. boycotts); war of movement, uniting affinity interest groups (i.e. strikes); civil disobedience, to garner attention to an issue or recognition of the aggrieved; underground warfare, to subvert illegitimate authorities (i.e. sabotage); or open conflict, to challenge the police powers of these authorities (including riots and armed insurrection), but the degree of commitment by the oppressed participants, and the

approbation of non-combatants and potential recruits, is largely determined by the ability of resistance leaders to articulate and disseminate the moral values at issue.

In this way, resistors gain not only attention, but also recognition of the validity of their grievances. At the same time, the moral prestige of the oppressive or repressive State is diminished, and opportunities to obtain concessions or to leverage discussion and dialogue are enhanced. The danger encountered at this fulcrum point is in allowing mediation of communication to divert attention from the revolutionary movement toward an often fraudulent negotiating process. Bad faith offers of conflict settlement by official parties are usually welcomed with open arms by observers and less committed allies. The psychological warfare, the war of ideas, and the war of maneuver are constant; those committed to and capable of seizing power must, thus, continue intelligence and self-defense activities in anticipation of future attack.

The strongest movements will, I believe, combine all forms of warfare, emphasizing the appropriate form at the appropriate time. Highly-principled charismatic leaders, such as Gandhi may, unfortunately, become dismayed by movement shortcomings, but this is the unavoidable paradox of leadership: visionaries are essential to inspiring altruistic action, yet the visions are always betrayed; the quest for justice is what motivates the multitudes, but a better deal that can be built on is sometimes all that can be gained.

Chief Joseph came to understand these aspects of the march of human folly, accepting his responsibility toward the survival of his people in order to hope for better times. A much younger and less socially burdened Joan of Arc did not. …more

The moral and organizational strength of the EZLN
16 Decemebr, 2012 – By Jaime Martínez Veloz – Intercontinental Cry

Next 1st of January will mark the first 18 years of the armed uprising of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN). A country that was on the threshold of modernity was surprised that thousands of insurgents, mostly indigenous, had taken up arms as a last resort, to fight for a better life for indigenous peoples and for the country.

The mobilization of thousands of Mexicans forced the state to negotiate with the insurgents for a decent and fair solution. After more than two years of intense negotiations, they managed to come to the first agreement between the federal government and the EZLN on indigenous rights and culture, which was signed on February 16, 1996, in the municipality of San Andres Larrainzar in Chiapas.

When an attempt was made for the agreement to be transferred to the Mexican legislative system through a bill drafted by the Commission for Agreement and Pacification (Cocopa), the state’s reaction was brutal, cynical and stark. The initiative contained the most important items agreed between the federal government and the EZLN, there was not one idea in it that had not been agreed by the parties.

The EZLN’s reaction to the initiative developed by Cocopa was one of acceptance, and that of the authorities was scandal and hypocrisy. The President and the economic power groups in the country had no qualms about accusing the EZLN and the Cocopa of wanting to balkanize, divide and fragment the country. Those who made these accusations are the same people who gave concessions of 25 million hectares to foreign and domestic mining companies, who between 2005 and 2010 extracted mineral resources worth 552 billion pesos and only paid 6,500 million pesos for the rights, that is to say 1.18 per cent. …more

Idle No More: What do we want and where are we headed?
14 January, 2013 – by Pamela D. Palmater – Americas Program

The Idle No More movement is part of a larger Indigenous movement that has been in the making for several years now. Indigenous activists all over the country have been monitoring the political and legal scene in Canada at both the federal and provincial levels and making a concerted effort to help inform First Nation community members and leaders about any potential threats. We noted a clear assimilation agenda that emerged within the Conservative government and we started planning on how we could address that if Prime Minister Harper insisted on putting his plan into action.

We of course worked very hard to try all the usual channels to address our growing concerns, which included lobbying, letter-writing, testifying before Senate and Parliament, endless meetings with MPs, Senators, Ministers and others — all to no avail. The Harper government was not interested in talking to us, let alone consulting or getting our consent. Harper decided instead to use the Assembly of First Nations as his primary vehicle to call all the shots. Harper’s government set the agenda, they drafted the joint action plans and they alone decided what was and was not on the table. In other words, Harper managed to bully his assimilation plan onto the First Nation agenda with hardly a squeak of opposition at the political level.

At the so-called Crown-First Nation Gathering (CFNG) last January 2012, Harper promised First Nations his government would not unilaterally amend or repeal the Indian Act. After the CFNG, he broke that promise and proceeded with an aggressive legislative agenda that will include upwards of 14 bills that will devastate our First Nations in various ways. It is the White Paper 2012 with a twist — instead of it being a policy, like the 1969 White Paper, which wanted to assimilate Indians, Harper’s plan will be law. This is the spark that ignited the Idle No More movement into action.

We always knew action would be required at some point, but the legislation posed an imminent threat and required immediate mobilization. That is how a movement was born. In the early days, some were calling the Idle No More movement, some calling it an Indigenous rights movements, but we all agreed that we needed to immediately oppose Harper’s assimilatory legislative agenda. So many of the early activities included teach-ins which helped explain the legislation’s potential impacts on First Nations and more importantly, what we could do to oppose it. …more

Al-Nusra Front in Levant… Made in KSA
Local Editor – 15January, 2013 – Moqawama.org

A specialized report in strategic affairs issued in Paris revealed that the Saudi General Intelligence is the founder and establisher of “al-Nusra Front in Levant” that plots to establish an “Emirate in Syria.”

Al-Nusra Front, Saudi-Made with Lebanese Assistance

In detail, an “Intelligence Online” report, which receives information from foreign intelligence sources, mentioned, “The Saudi General Intelligence, controlled by Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, exploited its broad calls with Takfiri [atoning] movements in Iraq to help establish al-Nusra Front, a low-profile Takfiri movement.”

The report added, “Thanks to funding from the General Intelligence Department and support from the Saudi Intelligence in Lebanon, al-Nusra was able to swiftly arm its forces, and make the Syrian regime suffer painful blows through its expertise in Iraqi bombings.”

Strikes of this sort included dominating Sheikh Suleiman Base in Aleppo and invading Yarmouk Palestinian Refugee Camp on the 16th of December 2012.

However, many websites had recently published what seemed to be leaked confidential documents issued from the KSA’s Interior, which spoke of “a Saudi military official supplying armed groups in Syria with money and weaponry.”

Another leaked document mentioned “an amnesty to hundreds of criminals sentenced to death on charges of drug-trafficking, murder, and rape, was issued to send them to fight in Syria among the militias of the [so-called] Free Syrian Army.”

Moreover, the US administration had recently listed “al-Nusra Front” as a terrorist organization for being linked to al-Qaeda, after performing hundreds of bombings and attacks in Syria.

Al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State

On a parallel note, “al-Nusra Front” had revealed that it seeks to establish a so-called “Islamic” State in Syria, stressed by its chief Abu Mohammad al-Joulani on the Qatari Jazeera Channel, when addressing his followers, “The regime’s collapse in Syria will create a vacuum that you are qualified to fill.”

He further accentuated that he is heading towards “establishing an Emirate and Shura Council in Syria.”

Furthermore, Le Nouvel Observateur French weekly cited an “al-Nusra” spiritual leader Abu Mohammad al-Atawi as saying, “Victory will not cease in Syria,” foreseeing that “triumph is months away.”

Al-Atawi, who taught for a long time in KSA before returning to Jordan, saw that “The Arab Spring will help Salafists invade the world, starting with Tunisia, then Egypt, Libya, all the way to Syria, and soon in Jordan,” revealing that the Front “includes 8,000 men and is increasing.”

Al-Nusra Front and Militia Dominance in Syria

In a similar context, the Salafist Takfiri leader in Jordan Mohammad al-Shalabi, aka “Abu Sayyaf”, in an interview with the weekly, emphasized his participation in founding “al-Nusra Front” after leaving jail last year on charges of plotting attacks on Jordanian Army bases there.

He further highlighted that he is currently gathering fighters all over Jordan to send them to Syria.

Abu Sayyaf underscored, “The Front’s ideology is the same of that of al-Qaeda,” indicating that his organization “that moved its battle from Iraq to Syria is about to dominate other fighting groups.” ….source

Report-Bahrain: Imports Repressive Arms from Korea
12 January, 2013 – Bahrian Youth Society for Human Rights

The Bahrain Youth Society for Human Rights (BYSHR) has monitored during the past year 2012 the intense use of tear-gas and stun grenades against protestors in Bahrain, and according to the documentation of the BYSHR and international organizations, the use of tear-gas led to the death of at least 20 people, where the security forces used it as a killing device:

1. Security forces deliberately throw tear-gas canisters inside or near houses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5JNiptMvlM&playnext=1&list=PL7591E873E817621F&feature=results_main

2. Security forces deliberately throw teargas canisters inside or near cars.

3. Security forces deliberately throw teargas canisters inside cramped areas.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MgJccgvAMM

Prohibiting repressive arms:

The BYSHR monitored statements of officials from “the U.S, U.K, Belgium and France” that they stopped selling arms that are used for suppressing protests in Bahrain since 2011 due the human rights violations and its misuse by the riot police.

Buying repressive arms:

Since the Bahraini Authorities started using various and new kinds of teargas and stun grenades; the source of those repressive arms could not be found due to the following reasons:

1. Lack of information on the teargas canisters or stun grenades (manufacturing country, expiry date, methods of use);

2. The Bahraini Authorities does not allow public opinion to access information that is considered military;
However, a group of activists and the BYSHR were able to obtain information related to the (manufacturing country, and the side effects) as well as the method of using stun grenades and teargas.

The (DAEKWANG) Korean Company is considered the lead supplier of teargas and stun grenades since approximately a year and a half ago “after the February 2011 protests”. The company exports its products to the most suppressive countries – according to the website – such as Syria and Saudi Arabia. ( Company website: www.teargas.kr) …more