BASICALLY I’D LIKE TO WORK ON BRINGING TOGETHERNESS IN OUR COMMUNITY , CREATING A YOUTH COUNCIL AND AN ELDERS COUNCIL SO AS CHIEF AND COUNCILLORS CAN BE MORE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE .INSTEAD OF MAKING SOLE DECISIONS IT COULD CREATE A DOORWAY TO EMPOWERING OUR PEOPLE AGAIN .AND OPEN UP POSITIVE COMMUNICATION WHERE THERES BEEN A GAP . YOUTH GATHERINGS AND COMMUNITY GATHERINGS , SO THOSE THAT ARE FORCED TO MOVE AWAY CAN STAY CONNECTED . WE DEFINETLY NEED TO TAKE A STAND FOR OUR TREATY RIGHTS ,AND DEMAND OUR TREATY PAYMENTS BE RAISED FROM $5.00 A PERSON FROM THE EARLIER DAYS TO TODAYS VALUE WITH INFLATION .OUR TREATIES ARE OUR RIGHTS AND MUST BE STOOD UP FOR BEFORE WE LOOSE THEM COMPLETELY .WE COULD HAVE HEALING CIRCLES AND TEACHING CIRCLES .WE COULD ADOPT AN ELDER TO BRING THE YOUNG AND OLD BACK TOGETHER OR ADOPT A YOUTH TO HELP LESS FORTUNATE . EDUCATING THE OTHER COMMUNITIES ,SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THE MENTALITY OF OUR OPPRESSORS AND STAND WITH US .COMMUNITY GARDENS TO LEARN AND BECOME SELF RELIANT .JOB SHARING SO OTHERS CAN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TOWORK UPDATE THERE HOMES ,AND FEED THERE FAMILIES PROPERLY .FOR TROUBLED YOUTHS INSTEAD OF JAIL ,WE COULD USE COMMUNITY SERVICES .WERE THEY CLEAN UP OR CARE FOR COMMUNITY MEMBERS YARDS .TEACHING POSITIVE SKILLS .BEFORE ANYTHING WE NEED TO BEGIN TO HEAL TOGETHER .OR ANY GOOD INTENTIONS WILL REMAIN JUST THAT. WE NEED TO REALIZE HOW POVERTY WORKS DIVIDING US TO CONQUOR EACH OTHER .WE NEED UNITY AND A WILLINGNESS TO STAND FOR SOMETHING . TO BE WILLING TO MAKE SACRIFICES FOR OUR PEOPLE ,OR BE PREPPARED TO BE CONTINUALLY WALK ON .PERSONALLY I HAVE NO BAD WORDS FOR FORMER CHIEFS FOR WERE TAUGHT TO BELIEVE WE ALL CARRY A GIFT FOR EACH OTHER TO SHARE . IN THE PAST I’VE BEEN WILLING TO STAND FOR OUR PEOPLE AND FIGHT , AND HUMBLY WITH MUCH LOVE FOR OUR PEOPLE STILL WILLING TO CONTINUE .DURING PROTESTS IN THE PAST I WAS ASKED TO BE THE ELDERS SPOKESPERSON .TAKING PART IN HOUSING ,ACCOUNTABILTY FROM OUR OWN LEADERS ,ADOPTION ISSUES ,AND BETTER LIVING PROTESTS AND RALLIES .DURING A SUICIDE EPIDEMIC OPENED A 24 HOUR HOTLINE FROM MY HOME FOR TWO WEEKS ,AND ORGANIZED A 3 DAY SUICIDE WORKSHOP AND SHARING CIRCLE IN WHICH 63 KIDS ENDED UP COMMING AS WELL AS ADULTS .I’VE ALSO GONE ON THE LONGEST WALK ACROSS AMERICA CARRYING PRAYERS OF OUR PEOPLE AND REPRESENTING OUR NATION WITH OUR FLAG .CHANGES CAN WORK ,IF THE COMMUNITY IS WILLING TO TRY .IF NOT IT WON’T MATTER WHO COMES IN ,THE SAME PROBLEMS WILL CONTINUE .BUT ONCE WE BEGIN TO TRULY HEAL AND UNDERSTAND , THEN WE CAN BEGIN TO CHANGE .A SIMPLE GOAL WOULD BE TO BRING BACK THE UNITY WE ONCE HAD ,SO INSTEAD OF JUST TALKING ABOUT CHANGE ,WE COULD BECOME IT .I’M NOT HERE TO LIE FOR YOUR VOTE ,I’M HERE TO EARN IT .I’M NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT CHANGES ,I’M HERE TO BRING THEM .ON APRIL 4TH VOTE X BRENDA EVERETT FOR CHIEF

See Brenda Everett’s Facebook page

President Aristide speaks to the Haitian people on Jan. 1, 2004, in a ceremony commemorating the bicentennial of the Haitian revolution – the 1804 defeat of Napolean’s army in the world’s only successful slave revolt, creating the world’s first Black independent country. Plans to celebrate the centennial throughout 2004 were foiled by the coup two months later.

With unbounded hypocrisy, the United States shrieks “democracy!” at the world while denying Haitians every political right of citizenship in their own land. Having deposed and kidnapped the popularly elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, in 2004, the U.S. now pretends not to be the main party standing in the way of his return from South African exile, ahead of the scheduled 20 March run-off elections. Meanwhile, former dictator “Baby Doc” Duvalier re-entered unimpeded on an expired Haitian passport.

If diplomacy is a form of lying, then the United States’ efforts to delay indefinitely the return to Haiti of former President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, is a triumph of the most foul diplomacy. Aristide has a passport, but no permission to land in Haiti and, it appears, no permission to take off from South Africa, where he has lived in exile since his overthrow in a U.S.-backed coup in 2004.

The passport was provided by the outgoing government of Aristide’s onetime ally, President Rene Preval. But the U.S., which really runs the country in a troika with France and Canada, is unalterably opposed to an Aristide comeback. After last year’s devastating earthquake, the Americans said Aristide would be a distraction from the job of national reconstruction. Very little in the way of reconstruction has gotten done since then, but the Americans now claim that Aristide would distract from the runoff elections scheduled for March 20. Three out of four Haitians were already distracted from taking part in the first round of elections in November, without Aristide’s presence. That was undoubtedly because Aristide’s party, Fanmi Lavalas, by far the most popular political grouping in the country, was prohibited from participating – also at the insistence of the Americans and the tiny Haitian elite with which they are allied.

Part of Brazil’s MINUSTAH contingent.
Brazil acts as rent-a-cop for the United Nations mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, but documents show the United States has pressured Brazil to use its influence with South Africa to keep Aristide’s feet planted firmly on African soil. Brazil dearly wants to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council, and feels it cannot afford to make the Yankees angry. South Africa claims its under no pressure from anybody, but then claims it has an obligation to consult “all the role-players to work out the ideal conditions for him to go back.” Clearly, those “role-players” are the Americans and their French and Canadian co-conspirators. Aristide’s lawyer says he will not attempt to leave South Africa without permission.

Of course, if South Africa gave its blessing to an Aristide flight to Haiti, the U.S. would be forced to abandon the charade and give Aristide a yes or a no, in its own voice – which would expose Washington as the occupying power in Haiti. Gone would be all pretensions that the Americans favor Haitian democracy. In hopes of putting the U.S. on the spot, a group of social activists, including Rev. Jesse Jackson, Danny Glover, Randall Robinson, Dick Gregory, and 11 others sent a letter, last week, to South African President Jacob Zuma. The letter expressed hope that President Zuma “can assist the Aristides in making their transition as soon as possible.” It said, “All the last remaining obstacles to the Aristides’ return have been removed” and expectations have been raised among Haitians that Aristide will soon arrive.

But even Aristide’s lawyer, Ira Kurzban, who was wildly optimistic only a few weeks ago, seems resigned that Aristide won’t be going home any time soon. So, all the Haitian people have to look forward to is this month’s elections that they didn’t want, anyway, for candidates that were essentially forced on them by the United States – an exercise that nobody but Americans believes has anything to do with democracy.

Glen Ford

Executive Editor of the Black Agenda Report (BAR) the journal of African American political thought and action.
This author’s articles

READ FULL STORY HERE

by Rick Rozoff*

The talk of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya may sound like an incremental and moderate step. It is, in fact, alarmingly reminiscent of the path of action that culminated in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 and the 2003 attack on Iraq by the “coalition of the willing”. In NATOland, solving problems by peaceful mediation rather than by force is not part of the culture, and the military alliance is gearing up for another victorious little “humanitarian war”, this time against Libya.

March 7 was a pivotal moment in plans by Western powers to launch military operations against Libya.

After meeting with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Washington, President Barack Obama stated “we’ve got NATO, as we speak, consulting in Brussels around a wide range of potential options, including potential military options, in response to the violence that continues to take place inside of Libya.”

In an interview she gave to The Australian newspaper immediately before her departure for the U.S., Gillard stated that she supported the “US placing more military forces on Australian soil if it believes this is necessary in the light of the growing might of China and India.” Her government is also on record as backing military action in Libya.

On the same day North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen held a press conference at the military bloc’s headquarters in Brussels and while formally disavowing plans to intervene in the North African nation said that “as a defence Alliance and a security organisation, it is our job to conduct prudent planning for any eventuality.”

He revealed his true intentions with further statements like:

“We can see a strong wind of change blowing across the region – and it is blowing in the direction of freedom and democracy.”

“This is a humanitarian crisis on our door-step that concerns us all. The civilian population in Libya is the target of systematic attacks by the regime. So we must remain vigilant. The whole world is watching events in Libya and the wider Middle East. Many of our Allies have been evacuating their nationals and helping other people in need. We strongly condemn the use of force against the Libyan people. The violation of human rights and international humanitarian law is outrageous.”

Rasmussen also announced that the defense ministers of NATO’s 28 member states, including American Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will meet at NATO Headquarters on March 10-11 to “discuss the situation in Libya, and the longer term prospects for the region” and to “consider how NATO can do more to help partner countries in North Africa and the wider Middle East.” [1] NATO partnership nations include Libya’s neighbors to the east and west, Egypt and Tunisia, members of the Alliance’s Mediterranean Dialogue.

Almost simultaneously, the U.S. permanent representative to NATO, Netherlands-born Ivo Daalder, informed reporters that on the same day NATO military planners had completed an assessment for enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya in time for the defense chiefs meeting three days later and had decided to conduct around-the-clock air surveillance of the country using AWACS aircraft. The no-fly operation assessment had been presented to the ambassadors of NATO’s 28 members, who planned to meet again on March 8 and 9 to deliberate on the issue.

Daalder also stated that “In coming days, military assessments should be completed into a no-fly zone and how to enforce an arms embargo.” [2]

The U.S. envoy was the National Security Council director for European Affairs in charge of Bosnia policy in the mid-1990s in which capacity he assisted in overseeing the last days of NATO no-fly operations conducted over Bosnia, which is to say largely over the Republika Srpska (the Bosnian Serb Republic), from 1992-1995, Operation Sky Monitor and Operation Deny Flight.

In 1995 Operation Deny Flight gave way to Operation Deliberate Force, directed against the Republika Srpska with 400 aircraft flying 3,515 missions against 338 targets. Daalder also supported the U.S. and British no-fly zone over Iraq in the 1990s and in 2006 co-authored an article for Foreign Affairs, journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled “Global NATO” in which he applauded the military alliance’s role in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq and the Darfur region of western Sudan. [3] At the time the article appeared many in the U.S. were calling for a replication of the no-fly operations employed over Iraq, Bosnia and later Yugoslavia for Sudan.

Daalder criticized his then-former chief President Bill Clinton in 1999 for not introducing ground troops into Kosovo in conjunction with the 78-air war the U.S. and NATO mercilessly prosecuted against the nation.

Susan Rice, like Ivo Daalder a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institutioncurrently on leave, in her case as American ambassador to the United Nations, demanded in 2007 that the U.S. and NATO enforce a no-fly zone over the Darfur region of Sudan and “signal its readiness to strike Sudanese military and intelligence assets, including aircraft and airfields, if necessary.” She also called for the deployment of NATO Response Force troops to western Sudan. Rice will vote on a no-fly resolution for Libya when it is introduced in the UN Security Council. [4]

On March 6 Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told the television news program Meet the Nation “that Libya’s air force could be disabled without the kind of expense and commitment required to maintain previous no-fly zones in Iraq and the Balkans,” [5] and instead “One could crater the airports and the runways and leave them incapable of using them for a period of time.” His position on grounding Libya’s air force was echoed by two of the Senate’s top Republicans, John McCain and Mitch McConnell.

Kerry also called for turning an unspecified amount of the $30 billion in Libyan assets seized by the American government over to rebel groups in the country, adding, “I assume that a lot of weapons are going to find their way there from one means or another over the course of the next weeks.”

Former U.S. ambassador to the United Nation Bill Richards, too, advocated a plan to “covertly arm the rebels” (as did White House spokesman Jay Carney) and enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.

George W. Bush administration national security advisor Stephen Hadley chimed in, telling CNN: “Obviously, if there is a way to get weapons into the hands of the rebels, if we can get anti-aircraft systems so that they can enforce a no-fly zone over their own territory, that would be helpful.”

Reports have circulated about Washington enlisting Saudi Arabia to airlift weapons to rebels in Benghazi.

Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan told Agence France-Pressethat in regard to U.S. plans for Libya, “all options are being considered.”

The New York Times on March 6 listed what those options are. They include the deployment of the USS Kearsarge amphibious assault ship, on which the 26^th Marine Expeditionary Unit is embarked and which took on board 400 more Marines in addition to the 1,200-2,000 it arrived with on the Greek island of Crete and with the USS Ponce amphibious warfare ship is now heading for the Libyan coast in a deployment ordered by Pentagon chief Gates. USS Kearsarge is equipped to carry V-22 Osprey vertical takeoff and landing aircraft and MH-53E Super Stallion helicopters, the largest and heaviest helicopters in the U.S. military arsenal.

“The flotilla can be seen as a modern-day example of ‘gunboat diplomacy,’ intended to embolden rebels and shake the confidence of loyalist forces and mercenaries, perhaps even inspiring a palace coup.” [6]

Gunboat diplomacy is the proper term, reminiscent as it is of the dispatching of four American warships to Tripoli in 1801 where they enforced a blockade of the harbor and where the USS Enterprise defeated the privateer ship Tripoli in a naval battle off what is now Libya’s capital.

The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise, bristling with warplanes, has left pirate-hunting duty off Somalia and is now heading towards Libya.

The current USS Enterprise, the world’s first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, is positioned in the Red Sea with a carrier strike group attached to it which includes the guided missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf, guided-missile destroyers USS Bulkeley, USS Barry and USS Mason, and the fast combat support ship USNS Arctic.

On February 16 Enterprise and Kearsarge, the Enterprise Carrier Strike Group and Expeditionary Strike Group 5, met up in the Red Sea leading to the Suez Canal which USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce passed through on March 1 to the Mediterranean Sea and the American naval base in Souda Bay, Crete.

The New York Times laid out further options in addition to the stationing of American warships off the shores of Libya. They include several offered by planners on the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and its field commands:

Signal jamming “aircraft operating in international air space,” thus disabling “Libyan government communications with its military units.”

“Administration officials said Sunday [March 6] that preparations for such an operation were under way.”

The aforementioned use of the Kearsarge and the Ponce amphibious assault ships, “Known as a Marine Air-Ground Task Force,” which “provides a complete air, sea and land force that can project its power quickly and across hundreds of miles, either from flat-decked ships in the Mediterranean Sea or onto a small beachhead on land.”

“In this task force are Harrier jump-jet warplanes, which not only can bomb, strafe and engage in dogfights, but can also carry surveillance pods for monitoring military action on the ground in Libya; attack helicopters; transport aircraft – both cargo helicopters and the fast, long-range Osprey, whose rotors let it lift straight up, then tilt forward like propellers to ferry Marines…across the desert; landing craft that can cross the surf anywhere along Libyas’ long coastline – and about 400 ground combat troops of the 1^st Battalion, 2^nd Marines.”

Other operations being planned are air-dropping weapons to insurgents in the country and “inserting small Special Operations teams…to assist the rebels, as was done in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban.”

Another option is to launch a “handful of strikes on valued government or military targets…as was done in the Gulf of Sidra raids in 1986,” by the Ronald Reagan administration.

“There are ample planes based in Europe and on the aircraft carrier Enterprise and its strike group, now in the Red Sea, for missions over Libya.

“Pentagon officials said Sunday that those vessels were carefully sailing in the direction of the Suez Canal, gateway to the Mediterranean.”

USS Enterprise, should it join other U.S. and NATO nations’ warships in the Mediterranean, will provide as many as 85 aircraft.

The newspaper account also detailed these actions:

“The destruction of Libyan air-defense radars and missile batteries would be required, perhaps using missiles launched from submarines or warships. A vast fleet of tankers would be needed to refuel warplanes. Search-and-rescue teams trained in land and sea operations would be on hand in case a plane went down.

“The fleet of aircraft needed for such a mission would easily reach into the hundreds. Given the size of such a mission, it would be expected that American and NATO bases in Europe would be used, and that an American aircraft carrier would be positioned off Libya.” [7]

On March 1 the Wall Street Journal quoted an unnamed senior U.S. official recommending another expedient: “The best outcome for those Libyan leaders who are defecting will be (to put) two bullets into the heads of Gadhafi and his son.”

NATO’s Aviano Air Base In Italy, across the Mediterranean from Libya, hosts 42 U.S. F-16 jet fighters. Aviano is the base from which U.S. F-15s and F-16s and NATO warplanes took off for the bombing of the Bosnian Serb Republic in 1995 and Yugoslavia in 1999. In the second case over 38,000 air missions were conducted.

A Russian analyst recently wrote of the parallels between NATO’s first full-scale war in 1999 and the impending campaign against Libya:

“The old term used to describe such actions, ‘gunboat diplomacy,’ is no longer politically correct. Now ‘liberal intervention’ is preferred. But while the name may have changed, the methods have not. Libya appears to be maneuvered down the same path of action that culminated in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which started on March 24, 1999, after a no-fly zone was announced.

“The quest for UN approval is an essentially meaningless but nevertheless indispensable political ritual that always precedes violations of international law. The same thing happened before NATO’s Operation Allied Force (Noble Anvil) in Yugoslavia.”

“The military preparations underway in the Mediterranean go beyond the simple redeployment of U.S. warships ‘just in case.’ These preparations always have a critical mass – the line beyond which war becomes unavoidable.

“USS Kearsarge is one of the world’s largest assault vessels of its kind. It has dozens of helicopters on board, missiles, landing craft, and over 2,000 Marines. The ship was used in the Yugoslavian operation in 1999 to deploy Marines, reconnaissance groups and special forces.” [8]

Associated Press reported on March 4 that “Some NATO countries are drawing up contingency plans modeled on the no-fly zones over the Balkans in the 1990s.”

The news agency cited a senior European Union official stating that “taking control of the airspace over Libya would more likely be modeled on Operation Deny Flight, a 1993-95 NATO mission in which its warplanes patrolled the skies over Bosnia as a civil war raged between government forces and Serb secessionists.”

“During Deny Flight’s 33-month duration, NATO flew more than 100,000 sorties. Roughly half were carried out by fighters and attack jets, and the others by transports, reconnaissance planes and aerial tankers. Four Serbian fighter-bombers were shot down during the operation.”

“NATO planes mostly operated from air bases in Italy and from carriers in the Adriatic Sea and the Mediterranean. Many of those bases, and those in Spain, Crete and Cyprus, could be used for a potential air mission over Libya.” [9]

On the first of the month the European Union scheduled a crisis summit of its 27 heads of state requested by British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy for March 11, which will be the second day of the NATO defense ministers’ meeting also occurring in Brussels. Earlier in the same week the EU imposed its most stringent sanctions to date against Libya and adopted an embargo on arms and equipment to the nation.

On March 5 the Daily Telegraph revealed that the Black Watch (3^rdBattalion, Royal Regiment of Scotland) has been placed on heightened alert, “prepared to deploy to North Africa at 24 hours’ notice.”

The 600-troop infantry unit returned from Afghanistan in late 2009 where it fought in Operation Panchai Palang (Panther’s Claw) and before that participated in the first attack on Basra, Iraq in 2003.

The British newspaper added:

“Nato members yesterday agreed to draw up contingency plans for how their armed forces could intervene. Britain is also preparing to send diplomats and specialist advisers to the eastern city of Benghazi, where the disparate Libyan opposition is based.” The advisers were Special Air Service (SAS) and Military Intelligence (MI6) operatives “carrying espionage equipment, reconnaissance equipment, multiple passports and weapons” who were captured by Libyan rebel forces in Benghazi at the time the above-cited report appeared.

The Guardian reported that Britain was also deploying Typhoon multirole combat aircraft to its base at Akrotiri in Cyprus.

On March 1 Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced in the House of Commons that he was ordering the frigate HMCS Charlottetown with 240 military personnel “to the waters off Libya to enhance its military presence in the region in response to the escalating unrest in the Northern African country.” Defense Minister Peter MacKay said it would take six days for the warship to arrive. Canada also has C-17 Globemaster and two C-130J Hercules military transportation planes as well as a military reconnaissance team of 13 soldiers based in Malta, 300 kilometers north of Libya.

The amassing of military assets – warships, warplanes, assault troops and special forces – near and in Libya means more than brinkmanship, demonstrates more than a show of strength, more than simply “sending a message.”

So does the enforcement of a no-fly zone over the country, which is not a substitute for but a prelude to war. Last week Defense Secretary Gates acknowledged that “A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses.”

It in fact demands the grounding of a targeted nation’s aircraft and the neutralization if not destruction of its surveillance systems and anti-aircraft batteries.

A no-fly regime is succeeded by war as day is followed by night. In Bosnia from 1992-1995 it led to a bombing campaign and the deployment of 60,000 NATO troops. In Yugoslavia in 1999 it was the opening move in an air war which resulted in 50,000 U.S. and NATO troops occupying part of the country’s territory. In Iraq from 1991-2003 it was the lead-up to an invasion and ongoing military occupation that will soon be eight years old.

Britain and France, in close consultation with the U.S. and Germany (collectively the NATO Quad), are jointly writing a draft resolution for a no-fly zone over Libya to be presented to the Security Council. If the resolution is supported by nine or more of the fifteen nations on the Security Council and if permanent members China and Russia don’t veto it, the stage will be set for a series of further military actions by the U.S. and NATO against Libya, which will be presented by the West as UN-sanctioned, in a manner alarmingly evocative of the process used to prepare the attack on Iraq in 2003.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency, but some are questioning why the Harper government has kept silent on the deal.

Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

The new agreement has been greeted with suspicion by the left wing in Canada and the right wing in the U.S.

The left-leaning Council of Canadians, which is campaigning against what it calls the increasing integration of the U.S. and Canadian militaries, is raising concerns about the deal.

“It’s kind of a trend when it comes to issues of Canada-U.S. relations and contentious issues like military integration. We see that this government is reluctant to disclose information to Canadians that is readily available on American and Mexican websites,” said Stuart Trew, a researcher with the Council of Canadians.

Trew said there is potential for the agreement to militarize civilian responses to emergency incidents. He noted that work is also underway for the two nations to put in place a joint plan to protect common infrastructure such as roadways and oil pipelines.

“Are we going to see (U.S.) troops on our soil for minor potential threats to a pipeline or a road?” he asked.

Trew also noted the U.S. military does not allow its soldiers to operate under foreign command so there are questions about who controls American forces if they are requested for service in Canada. “We don’t know the answers because the government doesn’t want to even announce the plan,” he said.

But Canada Command spokesman Commander David Scanlon said it will be up to civilian authorities in both countries on whether military assistance is requested or even used.

He said the agreement is “benign” and simply sets the stage for military-to-military co-operation if the governments approve.

“But there’s no agreement to allow troops to come in,” he said. “It facilitates planning and co-ordination between the two militaries. The ‘allow’ piece is entirely up to the two governments.”

If U.S. forces were to come into Canada they would be under tactical control of the Canadian Forces but still under the command of the U.S. military, Scanlon added.

News of the deal, and the allegation it was kept secret in Canada, is already making the rounds on left-wing blogs and Internet sites as an example of the dangers of the growing integration between the two militaries.

On right-wing blogs in the U.S. it is being used as evidence of a plan for a “North American union” where foreign troops, not bound by U.S. laws, could be used by the American federal government to override local authorities.

“Co-operative militaries on Home Soil!” notes one website. “The next time your town has a ‘national emergency,’ don’t be surprised if Canadian soldiers respond. And remember — Canadian military aren’t bound by posse comitatus.”

Read entire article here

The Independent

By Robert Fisk, Middle East Correspondent

Saudi security forces in armoured vehicles responding to the threat of a Shia uprising this week

Saudi Arabia was yesterday drafting up to 10,000 security personnel into its north-eastern Shia Muslim provinces, clogging the highways into Dammam and other cities with busloads of troops in fear of next week’s “day of rage” by what is now called the “Hunayn Revolution”.

Saudi Arabia’s worst nightmare – the arrival of the new Arab awakening of rebellion and insurrection in the kingdom – is now casting its long shadow over the House of Saud. Provoked by the Shia majority uprising in the neighbouring Sunni-dominated island of Bahrain, where protesters are calling for the overthrow of the ruling al-Khalifa family, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is widely reported to have told the Bahraini authorities that if they do not crush their Shia revolt, his own forces will.

The opposition is expecting at least 20,000 Saudis to gather in Riyadh and in the Shia Muslim provinces of the north-east of the country in six days, to demand an end to corruption and, if necessary, the overthrow of the House of Saud. Saudi security forces have deployed troops and armed police across the Qatif area – where most of Saudi Arabia’s Shia Muslims live – and yesterday would-be protesters circulated photographs of armoured vehicles and buses of the state-security police on a highway near the port city of Dammam.

Although desperate to avoid any outside news of the extent of the protests spreading, Saudi security officials have known for more than a month that the revolt of Shia Muslims in the tiny island of Bahrain was expected to spread to Saudi Arabia. Within the Saudi kingdom, thousands of emails and Facebook messages have encouraged Saudi Sunni Muslims to join the planned demonstrations across the “conservative” and highly corrupt kingdom. They suggest – and this idea is clearly co-ordinated – that during confrontations with armed police or the army next Friday, Saudi women should be placed among the front ranks of the protesters to dissuade the Saudi security forces from opening fire.

If the Saudi royal family decides to use maximum violence against demonstrators, US President Barack Obama will be confronted by one of the most sensitive Middle East decisions of his administration. In Egypt, he only supported the demonstrators after the police used unrestrained firepower against protesters. But in Saudi Arabia – supposedly a “key ally” of the US and one of the world’s principal oil producers – he will be loath to protect the innocent.

So far, the Saudi authorities have tried to dissuade their own people from supporting the 11 March demonstrations on the grounds that many protesters are “Iraqis and Iranians”. It’s the same old story used by Ben Ali of Tunisia and Mubarak of Egypt and Bouteflika of Algeria and Saleh of Yemen and the al-Khalifas of Bahrain: “foreign hands” are behind every democratic insurrection in the Middle East.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mr Obama will be gritting their teeth next Friday in the hope that either the protesters appear in small numbers or that the Saudis “restrain” their cops and security; history suggests this is unlikely. When Saudi academics have in the past merely called for reforms, they have been harassed or arrested. King Abdullah, albeit a very old man, does not brook rebel lords or restive serfs telling him to make concessions to youth. His £27bn bribe of improved education and housing subsidies is unlikely to meet their demands.

An indication of the seriousness of the revolt against the Saudi royal family comes in its chosen title: Hunayn. This is a valley near Mecca, the scene of one of the last major battles of the Prophet Mohamed against a confederation of Bedouins in AD630. The Prophet won a tight victory after his men were fearful of their opponents. The reference in the Koran, 9: 25-26, as translated by Tarif el-Khalidi, contains a lesson for the Saudi princes: “God gave you victory on many battlefields. Recall the day of Hunayn when you fancied your great numbers.

“So the earth, with all its wide expanse, narrowed before you and you turned tail and fled. Then God made his serenity to descend upon his Messenger and the believers, and sent down troops you did not see – and punished the unbelievers.” The unbelievers, of course, are supposed – in the eyes of the Hunayn Revolution – to be the King and his thousand princes.

Read entire article here

Every Saturday – Anti-War – Progressive Truth Teach-in
Coming up at 9:00am Pacific * 12 noon Eastern * 17:00 GMT
Will be archived here after the broadcast by Monday.


REAL HISTORY: The Spanish American War — Dr. Michael Parenti
Why did the US give verbal support to the Cuban liberation movements against Spain while selling weapons to Spain to fight the poplar movement? The Spanish American War was an important turning point in the transition of the US to an imperial power and many of the forces at work are eerily contemporary.

Who first expressed the desire to annex the island of Cuba – and when? The early African American emancipation movement inside the US was critical of US plans to attack Cuba. Why, their leaders asked, was the US government concerned about Spanish repression of the rights of Cubans while the repression of African Americans within the US was ignored. Why did the US attack the Philippines when it was Cuba that they wanted to take over? A TUC Radio Presentation. Part 2 of 5. The rest will be broadcast in this slot over the coming weeks.

The Anti-war Progressive Teach-in broaches upon some of the most highly charged subjects of our day—War & Peace, national healthcare, womens rights, human rights, civil rights, torture, vets against the war, freedom, democracy, protest, demonstrations, etc. We scour the world to find and gather debates and presentations that are extremely informative and educational. Related subjects are also discussed. It provides key information for the uninitiated and the initiated alike.

Pakistani and Indian newspapers are reporting that Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor in jail in Lahore facing murder charges for the execution-slayings of two young men believed to by Pakistani intelligence operatives, was actually involved in organizing terrorist activities in Pakistan.

As the Express Tribune, an English-language daily that is linked to the International Herald Tribune, reported on Feb. 22:

“The Lahore killings were a blessing in disguise for our security agencies who suspected that Davis was masterminding terrorist activities in Lahore and other parts of Punjab,” a senior official in the Punjab Police claimed.

“His close ties with the TTP [the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan] were revealed during the investigations,” he added. “Davis was instrumental in recruiting young people from Punjab for the Taliban to fuel the bloody insurgency.” Call records of the cellphones recovered from Davis have established his links with 33 Pakistanis, including 27 militants from the TTP and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi sectarian outfit, sources said.

The article goes on to explain a motive for why the US, which on the one hand has been openly pressing Pakistan to move militarily against Taliban forces in the border regions abutting Afghanistan, would have a contract agent actively encouraging terrorist acts within Pakistan, saying:

Davis was also said to be working on a plan to give credence to the American notion that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons are not safe. For this purpose, he was setting up a group of the Taliban which would do his bidding.

According to a report in the Economic Times of India, a review by police investigators of calls placed by Davis on some of the cell phones found on his person and in his rented Honda Civic after the shooting showed calls to 33 Pakistanis, including 27 militants from the banned Pakistani Taliban, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an group identified as terrorist organization by both the US and Pakistan, which has been blamed for the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, and for the brutal slaying of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. (You’d think this would be a big story for the Wall Street Journal, especially on the editorial page, but so far, there has been no mention of it in Murdoch’s rag.)
CIA man Raymond Davis keeps some pretty nasty company in Pakistan.

Meanwhile, while the US continues to claim that Davis was “defending himself” against two armed robbers, the Associated Press is reporting that its sources in Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI), are telling them that Davis “knew both men he killed.”

The AP report, which was run in Thursday’s Washington Post, claims the ISI says it “had no idea who Davis was or what he was doing when he was arrested,” that he had contacts in Pakistan’s tribal regions, and that his visa applications contained “bogus references and phone numbers.”

The article quotes a “senior Pakistani intelligence official” as saying the ISI “fears there are hundreds of CIA contractors presently operating in Pakistan without the knowledge of the Pakistan government or the intelligence agency.”

In an indication that Pakistan is hardening its stance against caving to US pressure to spring Davis from jail, the Express Tribune quotes sources in the Pakistani Foreign Office as saying that the US has been pressing them to forge backdated documents that would allow the US to claim that Davis worked for the US Embassy. President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other top US officials have been trying to claim Davis was an Embassy employee, and not, as they originally stated, and as he himself told arresting police officers, just a contractor working out of the Lahore Consulate. The difference is critical, since most Embassy employees get blanket immunity for their activities, while consular employees, under the Vienna Conventions, only are given immunity for things done during and in the course of their official duties.

READ FULL STORY HERE

Coming up every Saturday at 1:00 pm Pacific * 04:00 pm Eastern * 21:00 GMT

A Tale of Two Cindys
Sheehan welcomes a most honored guest, Cindy Corrie. Both of these ladies suffered a mother’s worst nightmare: the loss of her precious child – to the forces of empire! Our listeners here are all aware of the loss of Casey Sheehan in Iraq in 2005. Cindy Corrie’s daughter, peace activist Rachel Corrie, was crushed to death by an Israeli bulldozer in 2003 as she tried to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian family’s home. Motivated by her daughter’s work and sacrifice, Cindy Corrie has dedicated herself to the pursuit of justice and peace in the Middle East. Today – for some reason – neither of these two are big fans of military empire – by anyone, at any time, under any name! (Why can’t they just be reasonable and respectable patriots who accept that “KILLING = GLORY,” just as they’re taught?) My goodness; you might think they were actually offended by the military killing their children! What chutzpah! You’d think they believed in the supreme value of a single human life! How impractical: Kill one single innocent civilian – and you’re guilty of murder. Rack up 100,000 corpses or a few millions, and you’re a glorious hero, conducting foreign policy! Evidently, the bigger the number of victims the more glorious your “victory.” (Or is it really that the more publicity you get, the more glorious your “victory” becomes?) Please use the link above, and listen in while these two bereaved mothers share what’s in their hearts and in their minds.
This interview is from February 13, 2011.

Learn More from the Videos Below.

FakroonMedia | May 23, 2007 | YouTube.com

3asefa | May 11, 2007 | YouTube.com
Rachel’s parents talking about her, how she was killed by the israeli occupation army in Rafah, Gaza Strip. by the way, Rachel was US citizen.

Cindy’s website is here.

REVOLUTION – The Beatles-Set to the Egyptian Revolution

Source www.youtube.com

Walk Like An Egyptian – The Bangles
Source www.youtube.com

guardian.co.uk

3.32pm: There are reports of clashes in the north Sinai town of el-Arish. Al-Jazeera says at least one person died and 20 were injured when people with small firearms attacked a police station. From Reuters:

Around 1,000 Egyptians attacked a police station in the north Sinai town of el-Arish on Friday to try to free prisoners, exchanging gunfire with police who retreated to the roof, witnesses said. The attackers set ablaze three vehicles outside and hurled petrol bombs during confrontation.

3.31pm: My colleague Richard Adams in Washington sends the following:

White House official just said: Mubarak’s departure to Sharm el Sheikh a “positive first step”. Also says Suleiman will be “clarifying” what his powers are. Egyptian TV says statement “from the office of the presidency” very, very shortly. Egyptian army tanks surrounding the presidential palace have turned their gun turrets away from the crowd, according to CNN.

3.30pm: On the Arabist blog, Issandr El Amrani has posted his instant thoughts on the situation as he sees it. It’s worth a read. Amrani believes it is “pretty evident that Suleiman is in charge”. He asks why the regime, still need Mubarak to be nominally in charge. He says: Mubarak needs to be in place, even if only symbolically, for amendments to the constitution to be made. If the constitution is suspended, then this forces the army to take charge itself (presumably through the supreme military council), which opens the way to demands for civilian government and lifts the last layer of distance that the army has vis-a-vis the people.

3.00pm: There are reports that president Hosni Mubarak has left Cairo. Helicopters have been seen leaving the presidential palace in Cairo, and a local government official has said he is in the red sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh.

After Mubarak’s speech last night, it appeared he had defied the people’s call for him to step aside. But today, Egyptian diplomats are briefing that he has indeed relinquished power to his deputy, Omar Suleiman. The army also stated that a handover of power had begun.

Read entire article here

USS Kearsarge with Marine helicopters

A fresh surge of popular anti-Mubarak protest ripping across Egypt Tuesday, Feb. 8 has brought the country closer to a military coup to stem the anarchy than at any time since the street caught fire on Jan. 25.

Vice President Omar Suleiman warned a group of Egyptian news editors that the only choice is between a descent into further lawlessness and a military takeover in Cairo. The distinguished political pundit of the 1960s and 1970s Hasnin Heikal saw no other way out of the crisis but a government ruling by the army’s bayonets.

The arrival of US naval, marine and air forces in the Suez Canal’s Greater Bitter Lake indicated that the crisis was quickly swerving out of control.

debkafile’s military sources report that the American force consists of the USS Kearsarge Expeditionary Strike Group of six warships. Helicopters on some of their decks are there to carry and drop the 2,200 marines of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit which has been bolstered by two special operations battalions.

The flotilla has a rapid strike stealth submarine, the USS Scranton, which is designed to support special forces’ operations.

READ FULL STORY HERE

SANTO DOMINGO, Feb. 8 (Xinhua) — The arrival of former president Jean Claude Duvalier in Haiti and the possible return of exiled Jean-Bertrand Aristide have made the country’s political crisis all the more complicated.

The Haitian government confirmed on Tuesday that former president Aristide would receive the passport he requested to return to Haiti, after having been living in South Africa since 2004.

On Jan. 20, Aristide expressed his wish to return home, four days after the return of Duvalier, who had lived in exile for 25 years in France.

Duvalier, known as Baby Doc, ruled Haiti from 1971 to 1986, inheriting his power from his father at the age of 19. He is now living in the capital city of Port-au-Prince.

Aristide strongly opposed Duvalier’s dictatorship. But he was deposed by general Raoul Cedras only eight months after being sworn in in February of 1991 as the first democratically-elected president in Haiti.

Later in 1994, Aristide was able to recover his power with the help of the United States, and was reelected president in 2000. In 2004, he was overthrown again and sought exile in South Africa.

Now both Duvalier and Aristide seem ready to rejoin the Haitian story which is still in the chapter of mismanagement, terror, hunger, social tragedies and natural disasters — over a year after the hit of a powerful earthquake, which killed more than 250,000 people and left at least 1.3 million homeless.

READ FULL STORY HERE

The Video Stream is archived below.

Coming up Sat Feb 5th: 8am Pacific * 11am Eastern * 16:00 GMT

2 hour special on Egyptian Uprising from Democracy Now

This video archive is on a loop. It will play to the end and then it will restart from the beginning. The audio archive above starts from the beginning.

This is a special 2 hour live broadcast on the Egyptian uprising and the growing pro-democracy protests across the Arab world. It will be hosted by Democracy Now! senior producer Sharif Abdel Kouddous in Cairo along with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez in New York.

This is a Pacifica Radio Network Live Broadcast. It is another one of the great No Lies Radio News Specials we are proud to present to our listeners and viewers.

Get your daily fix of Amy Goodman here!!