April 8, 2011 - No. 56
April 9 Day of Action to End the War
in Afghanistan
All Out to Oppose the War on Afghanistan
and Libya! Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO!
Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!
April 9 Day of Action to End the War in
Afghanistan
• All Out to Oppose the War on Afghanistan and
Libya! Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO! Canada Needs an Anti-War
Government!
• The War Against Libya - Letters to the Editor
• Recent Developments in Libya
• The Politics of Assassination -
Tony Seed
April Day of Action to End the War in
Afghanistan
All Out to Oppose the War on Afghanistan and Libya! Get
Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO!
Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!
On April 8 and 9, actions are taking place across the
country to demand an end to the war in Afghanistan and for Canadian
troops
to be brought home now. TML calls on everyone to go all out
to mobilize for and participate in the actions and vigorously express
the people's rejection of the use
of force as a means to solve conflicts between and within nations.
Canada has been involved in NATO's illegal occupation of
Afghanistan since 2001, a war that now includes the slaughter of
civilians in Pakistan by drone attacks. Despite the clear and
unchanging majority will of Canadians that Canada get out of
Afghanistan immediately, the parties in the Parliament extend the
mission time and again.
The mission in Afghanistan was predicated on the false notion that
Afghanistan was to blame for the 9/11 attacks. Rather than trying to
resolve the situation through diplomatic means, as was proposed by the
Afghan government at that time, the U.S. refused to abide by
international law and uphold the peace. It organized
for the NATO countries to commit the supreme war crime -- a crime
against peace -- and invaded Afghanistan. By setting this dastardly
precedent, NATO forces have since then committed all manner of war
crimes with impunity, using the high ideals and values espoused by the
Harper government, the Obama
administration and governments of other NATO member nations to justify
their actions.
As time goes by, more and more crimes committed by NATO
forces, including those from Canada, come to light -- from complicity
in torture, battlefield executions and airstrikes on civilians to the
outright murder of civilians for sport. Rather than being exceptional
incidents, the fundamentally illegal basis for
the war in Afghanistan set the precedent for impunity for war crimes
from which all these subsequent crimes have arisen. Time will reveal
that such crimes are not aberrations but the norm in Afghanistan and
now Pakistan as well, as they were in Korea and Vietnam before this.
The so-called training that Canadian soldiers are to
carry out once their combat mission ostensibly ends is a total
farce. Given that the last people in the world who require training in
how to fight are the Afghans, the training is for purposes of creating
a disciplined force which is subservient to the foreign interests of
the U.S. and its yes-man Canada. For the U.S., Canada and others to
impose so-called western values of democracy on the peoples of
Afghanistan, who have their own thought material that is based in no
small part on the steadfast rejection of foreign occupation, is utmost
self-serving hypocrisy. The mission has nothing
to do with humanitarianism and must be ended immediately.
U.S. soldiers in
Afghanistan pose with the body of an Afghan youth they killed for
sport, January 15, 2010. The photos
are among dozens seized as evidence by investigators and ordered sealed
from public view by the Army.
German magazine Der Spiegel reports that its staff has numerous images
and videos of these activities.
While the Harper government fights in court to hide
from the public the treatment of prisoners Canada hands over
to Afghan authorities, what is hidden is what happened to the Afghans
Canada
handed over to the Americans or, for that matter, how it conducts its
own interrogations. The war in Afghanistan has once again shown that
the so-called civilized values Canada, the U.S. and other NATO
countries stand for include torture and indefinite detention and all
kinds of crimes against humanity which are provided with no end of
justifications.
In its call for the April 9 Day of Action, the Canadian
Peace Alliance recounts recent developments regarding the criminal
nature of the war in Afghanistan:
"The war in Afghanistan has reached new levels of
brutality. Civilian casualties spiked in 2010 and the rate of killing
is increasing each month. It's time for it to end. After almost ten
years of occupation and a half a trillion dollars spent by NATO,
Afghanistan still suffers from a lack of basic services and a corrupt
NATO backed government.
"The
Canadian
Peace
Alliance
and
the Collectif Échec à la
guerre are calling for a pan-Canadian day of action on April 9, 2011 to
demand an end to the war and to bring Canadian troops home now. This
day of action will coincide with anti-war demonstrations in the US in
both New York and San Francisco.
"The statistics are shocking. According to the Afghan
Rights Monitor: 'Almost everything related to the war surged in 2010:
the combined numbers of Afghan and foreign forces surpassed 350,000;
security incidents mounted to over 100 per week; more fighters from all
warring side were killed; and the number
of civilian people killed, wounded and displaced hit record levels.'
"The NATO forces continue with air strikes that kill
civilians such as during the 4 days of attacks on Ghazi Abad which
started on February 16 and killed more than 60 civilians -- 30 of which
were children. In a single two week period between the 12th and 26th of
February, 200 civilians were killed.
"The Canadian deployment of another 1000 soldiers to act
as trainers will only compound the problems faced by the Afghan people.
Any support for the corrupt regime of Hamid Karzai works against the
aspirations of the Afghan people to live in a free and democratic
society. The Harper government admitted
that they were propping up a corrupt regime while at the NATO summit in
Lisbon. They even announced that they would refuse to send aid to the
Afghan president until they had assurances that the money would be
spent properly. One wonders what strange twist of logic has Canada
refusing to send aid for fear
of corruption while they are willing to send Canadian soldiers to help
expand the control of that same corrupt government throughout the
country."
The Canadian Peace Alliance notes that the peoples of
West Asia and North Africa are precisely fighting to set their own
future, free from foreign intervention.
Given NATO and Canada's role in Afghanistan, no one
should have any illusions that Canada's role to oversee the NATO
mission in Libya is anything but to supervise the commission of war
crimes at the behest of the U.S. Once again these crimes are being
committed in defiance of the fundamental principle
of international relations that conflicts within and between nations
must be resolved through peaceful means. As in Afghanistan and
Yugoslavia, the imperialists espouse the highest ideals of
humanitarianism to cover up their criminal use of aggressive military
force to impose their dictate. The fact that the Harper
government has accepted the nefarious role bestowed by the U.S.
imperialists to lead the NATO attacks on the Libyan people is not a
sign of maturity nor a matter of pride but a further blemish on
Canada's deteriorating international reputation as a country that
kowtow's to U.S. imperialism, Zionism and reaction.
Collectif Échec à la guerre, in a March 21
statement condemning the UN Security Council Resolution against Libya
and Canada's support for it, points out that the foreign "humanitarian
intervention" in Afghanistan and Iraq forebode similar war crimes in
Libya:
"After being presented with humanitarian arguments for
intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, our political leaders are once
again giving the argument that we should 'help the people of Libya.' In
Iraq, this 'help' gave rise to hundreds of thousands of casualties and
in Afghanistan it has not ceased to produce numerous
'collateral casualties.' Just remember the 60 civilians, including 30
children, who were killed in four days of attacks in Ghazi Abad from
February 16 to 19. Even if the media are quick to say that the targets
were 'carefully chosen to avoid civilian casualties' it is impossible
to avoid significant civilian casualties.
"We know that our governments continue to support
regimes which are presently carrying out bloody repression against the
civilian uprisings in Bahrain and Yemen. We know that our governments
have given their support for decades to the dictatorial regimes of Ben
Ali and Mubarak and still today to the Saudi
royal family. We are sceptical about the humanitarian argument. We find
odious the selective sensibilities of western political leaders and the
collusion of the big media concerning civilian casualties and the
protection that intervention would offer."
The statement concludes emphasizing the need to respect
the sovereignty of the Libyan people.
TML reiterates its condemnation of the parties
in the Parliament for unanimously supporting the war on Libya and
refusing to uphold the will of Canadians and Quebeckers to bring an
immediate end to the war in Afghanistan. More than ever, the situation
demands that everyone take up the work
for an anti-war government that will get Canada out of NATO, bring its
troops home and uphold the rule of law internationally.
All Out for the April 9 Day of Action to
End the War in Afghanistan!
Hands Off Libya!
Get Canada Out of NATO! Dismantle NATO!
Canada Needs an Anti-War Government!
The War Against Libya
- Letters to the Editor -
Deeds Reveal What Obama's
Words Cover Over
Obama's address on March 28, 2011
to justify the U.S.-led attack
against Libya does not mesh with reality. He attempted to portray the
U.S. mission as a one-time action with the aim of protecting innocent
civilians from attack by brutal armed forces sent to massacre them, not
the action of an imperialist
power hell bent on intervening in a civil war with the intention of
bringing about regime change.
However, just before Obama spoke, the Director of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff Vice Admiral Bill Gortney let slip the truth behind U.S. actions
in a briefing at the Pentagon.
Asked by a reporter if he could make "absolutely sure
that you're
attacking regime forces rather than opposition forces," Gortney
responded: "Well, that is the challenge, the positive identification of
the target. That's why the discipline of the air crew from all of the
coalition partners is absolutely critical. Right
now it appears that where we are striking, the opposition is not where
we can make -- assist in that positive identification, identifying
friend from foe."
Watching the briefing it was clear he was stating that
"where we are striking, the opposition is not." Period.
The transcript leaves this truth out. This reveals that the U.S. war
planes are attacking, not to "protect civilians," but rather they are
aiming their attacks where the so-called rebel forces are not
attacking.
Looked at another way, they are
clearing the way for the
rebel
forces to attack.
Who they are attacking, is not discussed. According
to NATO, Libya is divided between pro- and anti-Gadhafi forces. Anyone
who is killed by NATO planes or Tomahawk missiles or the rebels is
pro-Gadhafi and the bad guys,
and anyone killed who is not pro-Gadhafi must be anti-Gadhafi and
therefore the good guys.
No doubt the rebels are being used by NATO to provide an
internal
pretext for regime change and the imposition of new arrangements onto
Libya which serves the U.S.
Shame on the Canadian Parliament for taking
part in this crime against the people. All of the parties who support
Canada joining this intervention
have the blood of the Libyan people on their hands.
A youth in Windsor
War Against Libya
It was sickening to witness the
shamelessness of the parliamentarians in the House of Commons as they
unanimously "endorsed" Canada's participation in a war of aggression
against Libya on the 21st of March. The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc
Québécois, all supported the
Harper Conservatives and sanctioned this criminal act against Libya and
even applauded afterward.
Not only is this "endorsement" unjust, but it comes after
Canada sent the frigate HMSC Charlottetown to
join
the
flotilla
of
U.S.,
French,
British,
Italian
and
other
warships
off
the
coast
of Libya, and after 6 Canadian F18 fighter jets and the
over 400 military personnel were
already on stand-by ready to bomb the Libyans! The so called debate
in Parliament was a manoeuvre to justify the unjustifiable. It
also shows once again that our Parliament is incapable of being a voice
for peace internationally, and that it is under the dictate of
Anglo-American imperialism and NATO. The
"debate" was to hoodwink the Canadian people into conciliating with
this crime against peace and war crime against the Libyan people. Not
in Our Name! It must not pass!
A Reader in Toronto
So-Called Moral Duty
Defence Minister Peter MacKay in
his comments to start the take-note parliamentary debate on going to
war against Libya said: "We are compelled to intervene, both [as] a
moral duty and by duty [to] NATO and United Nations." It would be
laughable if not so tragic
for the Canadian people and Libyan people to hear Mr. MacKay
shamelessly talk about morality when he himself has no compunction
about involving Canada and Canadians in wars of aggression and
occupation around the world, such as in Afghanistan and now Libya where
civilians are being used for target practice
by Canadian guns and bombs, despite pious words about being concerned
about "collateral damage."
A Worker in Halifax
Canadians Stand for Peace!
After the take-note debate in Parliament, a unanimous
vote was taken to support Canada's participation in the in the
aggression against Libya. News media noted
that some of the MPs were "uncomfortable" about the decision to
support one side in the civil war in Libya given the experience in
Afghanistan or to put "Canadian fliers and sailors in harm's way." The
resolution was nevertheless given
unanimous approval. This is unacceptable. To not take a clear
principled stand on questions of war and peace is to conciliate with
the preparations for a wider war. Video footage shows a
practically empty chamber when the vote took place. Besides the foreign
affairs spokespersons of each party, a motley quorum of some 20 people
made sure a recorded vote did not take place, making the decision
unanimous.
This
is a problem facing Canadians -- that they have a Parliament made up of
warmongers and those who conciliate with warmongers -- who do not
represent their will to have Canada stand
for peace and peaceful relations with other countries, and most
certainly not to be under the dictate of the U.S. or NATO or other
military alliances.
A worker in Hamilton
Canadians Need an Anti-War
Government
The unjust and
criminal war against Libya and the Libyan people is an election issue.
Canadians must discuss how they can have an anti-war government. The
first step is to vote for and elect candidates of the Marxist-Leninist
Party and other small parties
or independent candidates who take a principled stand against the war
on Libya and want to build an anti-war government which will have a
foreign policy based on peace; a government that upholds the principle
of the right of all nations to sort out their problems without outside
interference, and that rejects the
use of force to settle conflicts between nations and within nations.
A youth in Montreal
Recent Developments in Libya
Developing Stalemate
The fighting on the ground has been concentrated around
the eastern
towns of Brega and Misrata, agencies report. Control of Brega has
exchanged hands between government forces and the so-called rebels
several times. It is now reported to have been retaken by government
forces while the so-called rebels have
been pushed back toward the town of Ajdabiya. Their
retreat was due in part to yet another so-called friendly fire NATO
airstrike on rebel forces,
causing them to disperse and retreat.
Top U.S. General Carter Ham told a U.S. Senate hearing
that it
was unlikely that Libyan rebel forces could oust Libyan leader Muammar
Gadhafi, saying the conflict appeared to be turning into a stalemate.
The general, who led the first stage of the coalition air campaign in
Libya, claimed the international
intervention had succeeded in protecting civilians for the most part
but that regime change would not come through military means. Asked at
the hearing about the chances that the opposition could "fight their
way" to Tripoli and replace Gadhafi, Ham said: "I would assess that as
a low likelihood."
And when pressed by Senator John McCain whether the
situation was
essentially a stalemate or an "emerging stalemate," Ham said: "Senator,
I would agree with that at present on the ground." Under further
questioning, he added that a stalemate is "not the preferred solution"
in Libya but that outcome appeared
"more likely" now than at the outset of the air campaign. This
increases the likelihood that a country such as France will try to
challenge U.S. domination of North Africa by getting its own boots on
the ground to shore up the rebel forces.
More "Friendly
Fire" Killings
NATO
says its airstrikes in Libya have killed several rebels using tanks.
The strikes occurred on April 7 at 10:30 am after the so-called rebels
had moved
20 tanks to
the front in their battle to retake Brega, a key coastal installation
that the fighters lost a week ago. NATO, however,
refused to apologize, saying the situation on the ground was "extremely
fluid." Rear Admiral Russell Harding, the deputy commander of the NATO
operation, said that opposing forces had engaged in a series of
advances
and retreats, making it hard for pilots to distinguish between them. He
also said NATO had no previous
information the rebels were operating tanks. At least five opposition
fighters were killed April 7 when their convoy was hit by an air
strike. Canada has taken over command of NATO's air operation from the
U.S. and will have to be held to account for its "humanitarian"
collateral damage.
"We don't want NATO anymore!" said fighter Basit bin
Nasser in response
to the incident, while another yelled, "Down, down with NATO," al-Arabiya reports.
A group of so-called rebels was also hit by "friendly
fire" on the
eastern outskirts of Brega late on April 1, killing 13 of them. "The
rebels shot up in the air and the alliance came and bombed them. We are
the ones who made the mistake," said one fighter of the April 1
incident.
Theft of Libyan Oil Begins
News
agencies note that Brega has great significance, as it along with the
eastern town of Ras Lanuf make up the lion's share of Libya's 1.5
million barrels daily export of crude oil, which has been radically
affected by
the situation in the country. The so-called rebels said
they have signed a deal with Qatar to market "their" crude oil abroad
in exchange for food, medicine and -- they hope -- weapons, al-Arabiya
says. RT reports that on April 6, the so-called rebels sent their first
consignment of crude oil of about a million barrels from the Libyan
port of Marsa al-Hariga
to Qatar.
Diplomatic Solutions Sought
The
Libyan government said on April 5 it was ready to negotiate reforms,
but refused any talk of regime change that western powers which are
attacking the country are demanding, news agencies report. "What kind
of political system is implemented in the country?
This is negotiable, we can talk about it," government spokesman Mussa
Ibrahim told journalists. "We can have anything, elections,
referendums." But Gadhafi's departure is non-negotiable, he stressed.
"We think [Gadhafi] is very important to lead any transition to a
democratic and transparent model," Ibrahim said,
adding that the international community has no right to say whether or
not Gadhafi must stay or leave.
Ibrahim held talks in Turkey and Malta
to seek a
diplomatic resolution to the foreign military aggression against Libya.
However, news reports say that Libya's discussions with diplomats
in Greece,
Turkey and Malta to advance a diplomatic solution were not successful.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan
said at an
April 7 news conference that Turkey is working on a "roadmap" to end
the war in Libya which would include a ceasefire and the withdrawal of
government forces from some cities, al-Arabiya
reports. Turkey held
talks this week with envoys
from the Libyan government and representatives of the opposition. "We
are working on the details of this road map," Erdogan said at a news
conference. "A real ceasefire should be settled immediately and
Gadhafi's military units should end the siege of some cities and
withdraw," Erdogan added. He also urged
the creation of "secure humanitarian spaces" to allow the delivery of
aid to the Libyan people.
Libya's former colonial master Italy dismissed the idea
of a
diplomatic solution saying that Gadhafi and his family had to leave and
that other countries should also support this position.
A similar position was also given by the so-called
opposition, the
Transitional National Council. A spokesman for the council told AFP
"Gadhafi and his sons have to leave before any diplomatic negotiations
can take place."
For its part, Germany has said that the situation in
Libya could not
be solved through 'military means' and has called for a ceasefire.
France's Foreign Minister Alain Juppe admitted there
were
differences
of opinion among European Union members as to how to implement regime
change in Libya. "Some of our partners feel that sanctions are
sufficient. There is disagreement on this point," he stated.
Gadhafi Addresses Letter to
Obama
In
an April 5 letter to U.S. President Barack Obama, whom he referred to
as a son of Africa, Gadhafi urged Obama to bring an end to the
U.S.-NATO intervention and to keep NATO out of Libya's affairs, saying,
"you are a man who has enough courage to
annul a wrong and mistaken action." He stressed to Obama that "As you
know too well democracy and building of civil society cannot be
achieved by means of missiles and aircraft" or by backing the
opposition fighters. He stated that Libya's problems were for Libyans
to solve within the framework of the African
Union.
U.S. Claims "Supporting
Role"
On March 31, U.S.-led NATO assumed overall command of
the
operation in Libya. The U.S. handed command of the NATO operation to
Canadian Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard thereby giving the
impression that NATO is quite independent of the U.S. and the U.S. is
merely playing a supporting role in the aggression against Libya.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen,
the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testifying to the Senate Armed
Services Committee hours after the handover told Senator John McCain
that some of the U.S. AC-130 gunships and A-10 tankbusters will remain
available for
use by the NATO commander if Gadhafi's forces threaten the eastern city
of Benghazi, the headquarters of the alleged rebellion, McClatchy
reports. They
said the U.S. would "limit" itself to a supporting role in which
American aircraft and ships will jam communications and provide midair
refuelling, intelligence and other
specialized aid to Britain, France and other nations that are assuming
leading roles in the operation.
Gates "asserted the rebels needed training more than
guns
but suggested other nations do that job," al-Arabiya wrote.
"My view is that the future of Libya -- the United
States ought not
take responsibility for that. I think there are other countries both in
the region and our allies in Europe who can participate in the effort,"
said Gates, adding, "I just don't think we need to take on another
one." Gates' comments were
echoed by Mullen, McClatchy Newspapers reports.
Gates said he was determined to avoid major U.S.
military
involvement in Libya. "I am preoccupied with avoiding mission creep and
avoiding an open-ended, very large scale American commitment in this,"
he said. "We are in serious budget trouble."
Gates declined to address the presence inside Libya of
CIA
paramilitary teams that U.S. officials say are maintaining contact with
the rebels and gathering intelligence on Gadhafi's forces and targets
for airstrikes.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said that Obama had
taken no
decision on whether the U.S. should arm and train the rebels. But
Carney said that Obama agrees with Gates that other countries should
train Gadhafi's opponents, agencies report.
French Defence Minister Gerard Longuet said providing
weapons was
not part of the UN mandate, while NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen
said, "We are there to protect the Libyan people, not to arm people."
Russian Foreign Minister Serguei Lavrov at a press
conference
warned against NATO providing the aid requested by the so-called
rebels, because to do so would be "meddling in a civil war."
"This was not authorized by the UN Security Council,"
Lavrov told a
press conference. He emphasized that solutions to the ongoing crisis
should be dealt with through negotiations insisting that they can not
be imposed by the use of military force. The reports do not say whether
Lavrov considered
the NATO airstrikes on government forces to be "providing aid,"
"meddling in a civil war" or use of military force.
There are reports that Qatar is already providing
training and
weapons in exchange for the oil they are receiving from the so-called
rebels.
RT
reports that "Protests against NATO actions are becoming a common scene
in Benghazi. Many are accusing the alliance of failing to protect
civilians. Rebels are not asking for help anymore, they are demanding
[to be armed]."
Libyan "Defections"
Global Research writer Gregory
Elich sheds light on the so-called
defections of Libyan officials, which are cited by some as a sign that
the Gadhafi regime is weakening and that the foreign intervention is
succeeding. Elich writes:
"The latest defections, by Libyan foreign minister and
former
intelligence chief Moussa Koussa, and Libyan UN representative Ali
Abdessalam Treki, may not have been quite as spontaneous as Western
officials would have us think.
"'I don't believe that [Koussa] necessarily decided on
his own,'
observes former CIA officer Emile Nakleh. 'I judge that intensive
behind-the-scenes contacts must have been occurring between him and
Western -- people from the West, let's say. I would be appalled,
frankly, if our intelligence services and our
government had not attempted to contact him and encourage him to leave.'
"And indeed, that was the case, as both U.S. and British
intelligence agents were in regular contact with Koussa in the days
leading up to his departure from Libya.
"Koussa had a comfortable life in Tripoli. What
blandishment would
make a man abandon his home and family? He may have been offered money,
but at his age, that seems inadequate motivation for adopting a life of
being effectively held under house arrest, far from family, and
undergoing daily interrogation.
It is anticipated that the interrogation sessions are to last from two
to three years.
"Although a financial reward may someday come his way,
that would
depend on Koussa telling his interrogators what they want to hear, even
if he has to lie to do so, such as taking on blame for the Lockerbie
bombing. Koussa is expected to produce. According to a British
official, 'Absolutely no promises will
be made initially. That's a golden rule because it's too early to know
exactly what his intelligence is worth.' Debriefing sessions can last
as long as six hours at a time. 'This is all about control.
Intelligence staff will make sure he reveals what information they want
and when they want it,' the official pointed out.
"So if no promises were made, how were British and U.S.
intelligence
officials able to persuade Koussa to leave Libya? They may well have
threatened him. The precedent of Yugoslavia is relevant here. In
October 2000, a movement led by individuals trained and funded by the
CIA overthrew the Yugoslav
government. In its place were installed new leaders who immediately set
about the task of putting the entire economy at the service of Western
capital.
"For more than a year beforehand, U.S. intelligence
officials
visited several Yugoslav officials, who had been placed on a travel ban
by U.S. and Western officials. Removal from the travel ban would be
theirs, the Yugoslav officials were told, if they agreed to cooperate
in the U.S.-backed campaign to overthrow
the government. Some were even warned that they would be charged with
war crimes if they refused to collaborate, and might be spirited away
and placed on trial before the criminal tribunal at The Hague.
"It is very likely that similar threats were made
against Koussa and
other defectors. Already, the Chief Prosecutor of the International
Criminal Court, Louis Moreno-Ocampo, has announced that investigations
into Libyan war crimes are underway, and he hopes to issue the first
arrest warrants by May. In addition
to Qaddafi and his sons, those said to be under investigation include
'some people with formal authority who should pay attention to crimes
committed by their people.'
"Steven Rapp, U.S. Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes
Issues, says
that 'it is not a question of if, it's a question of when' Libyan
officials will be charged with war crimes.
"More defections can be expected. British agents are
currently in
touch with ten 'leading Libyan officials.' And it can be assumed that
CIA agents are active as well.
"What inducements are offered can only be surmised:
immunity from
prosecution? Or a promise of a light sentence rather than harsh terms?
"Once again, the system of international war crimes
justice is seen
to serve a political purpose. Indictments against Libyan officials are
already promised. There is not a single government on earth that would
fail to respond with force to an armed uprising, and it is ludicrous to
demand that Libya be the exception.
What is taking place in Libya is a civil war, where the West has
intervened in that state's internal affairs on behalf of one of the
parties in the conflict. Only those on one side of this civil war are
to be charged with crimes. More importantly, NATO and its members
states, as they rain down bombs and cruise missiles
on Libya, are immune from prosecution.
"In the weeks ahead, as further defections are
announced, these will
be presented as evidence of the moral rightness of the NATO war. But it
would be more accurate to say that what will be shown is the moral
bankruptcy of the West's language of threats."
(For the full item with footnotes, see:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24115)
The Politics of Assassination
- Tony Seed -
On November 30, 2010 the former
adviser to Prime
Minister Stephen
Harper and the architect of his election campaigns, Thomas Flanagan,
called for the assassination of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. In a
discussion about the significance of the leaks of U.S. State documents,
Flanagan declared: "I think
Assange should be assassinated, actually. I think Obama should put out
a contract or maybe use a drone or something." Liberal Leader Michael
Ignatieff said Flanagan's comments were "utterly unacceptable" and
"crossed the line." The Prime Minister's office simply dismissed the
extremist call as a matter of definition.
"Everybody knows Tom Flanagan is no advisor to the Prime Minister,"
director of communications Dimitri Soudas said on Twitter. Most
newspapers passed over the statement without comment. After Flanagan
issued an apology for "a glib comment," the extremist threat
disappeared from the media.
Just three-and-a-half months
later, the heads of
Britain, Canada and
France issued direct and indirect threats against the person of Col.
Muammar al Gadhafi on March 19 at the NATO Summit in Paris. On March
20 and 21, TV networks reported the cruise missile bombing by the Royal
Air Force of Bab Al-Aziziyah,
the modest three-story residential compound of Gadhafi in Tripoli on
the second night of the U.S.-NATO attack on
Libya. The block was about 150 yards from the iconic tents which the
Libyan leader uses to officially greet foreign
visitors. Three hundred people
were reported to be in the compound. The attacks were obviously long in
the planning. Fox TV in the U.S. sought to blame the victims by saying
the people were acting as
"human shields." That same day France carried out four air strikes and
112 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from American and British ships
and submarines at more
than 20 Libyan coastal targets. Libya's health officials said
sixty-four people had been killed and 150 others wounded in the air
strikes. On March 22, a residence of Gadhafi in Adjdabiya
was also damaged.
Along with carnage and slaughter of civilians, the
strikes opened a new chapter in the bloody book of political
assassinations. The Daily Mail
reported, "Senior government sources described the strike as a 'shot
across [Gadhafi's] bows'. The target was agreed around four days ago by
British
military personnel
in concert with the U.S. and the French. It was not the result of
specific 'actionable intelligence' that Gadhafi was present." On March
21 a Globe and Mail editorial
reported Harper's comments in Paris
repeating the U.S. line that "Colonel Gadhafi will not be content with
reimposing his authority but will massacre
'every single individual' remotely suspected of disloyalty -- words
that
lend themselves to a very wide interpretation of the protection of the
civilians. Similarly, Liam Fox, the British Defence Secretary, has
declared Col. Gadhafi to be a legitimate target for fighter pilots"
("Don't give in to mission creep"). According
to news reports, Fox's comments were publicly sanctioned by British
Prime Minister David Cameron and Defence Secretary Hague. Nicolas
Sarkozy of France also spoke of "targeted" actions -- meaning
assassination. According to the Montreal
Gazette Harper further
declared that the strikes were "essentially acts
of war." In response to the British declarations, U.S. Defense
Secretary and former CIA chief Robert Gates commented only that the
assassination of Gadhafi would be "unwise." Meanwhile the Ignatieff
Liberals who were exercised by Flanagan's declaration in November were
second to none in demanding Gadhafi's
liquidation in March: "We have to engage on the human rights issues and
we have to engage successfully in making sure Colonel Gadhafi is
history," Bob Rae had declared as far back as March 7. Completing the
scenario, NDP leader Jack Layton, whose party had voted unanimously for
the
ongoing U.S.-NATO military
attack on Libya just ten days before, posed as the moderate: echoing
the assertions by Gates, he said on March 31 his party is now against
"mission creep."
Gadhafi's assassination would not only be a mistake or
"mission
creep," but a crime. NATO threats against the president of the Libyan
government constitute another act of war. Resorting to politics of
assassination is one of the main ways of lowering the standards of
human behaviour and subverting the achievements
of the peoples of the world. Once targetted assassinations are
presented by the big powers and their news agencies as par for the
course, nobody is safe. This is the aim and content of the UN Security
Council Resolution 1973 justifying "the use of all means possible"
against Libya, which overthrows the international
law that emerged from World War II and the victory over fascism. This
is the unacceptable infamy that the extremist Harper, the defender of
"Canadian values," is openly inciting -- just as his former advisor
Flanagan publicly declared in his "glib comment" that the head of
Wikileaks should be assassinated by the
Obama regime. Or as former Chief of Staff Gen. Rick Hillier declared in
2005 that the mission of the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan was to
"kill detestable murderers and scumbags." What was at one time
considered extremist and unacceptable is to be accepted as routine,
normal or "glib."
In 2002, Sandra L. Smith, writing on the 2002 U.S.
missile
attack that obliterated a car in Yemen, instantly killing six people,
pointed out:
"The fundamental premise of a rule of law is that the
authorities in
power cannot and must not make themselves judge, jury and executioner.
Clear note should be taken that while 'targetted assassinations' are
presented in an acceptable light by portraying the victims are
'deserving' of such things, the same politics
are being put in place at home in the form that all agencies of the
state, not just 'security' forces, can act with impunity. It shows that
while preparations are made to unleash imperialist war abroad, all
measures are also being put in place to unleash fascism at home so that
the people are not able to mount an effective
opposition. It must not pass. Every effort must be made to oppose the
criminalization of dissent and make it very clear that it is
unacceptable under any conditions and circumstances with no exceptions.
It is untenable to accept a definition of rule of law which is in
contempt of the very notion of rule of law. This
is the field in which the greatest wrecking activity is taking place.
The fact that all of it is done in the name of 'rights', 'peace',
'democracy', 'security' and even 'nation-building' shows just how
subversive it is."[1]
In this regard, the
"cautionary" and "moderate"
statements of U.S.
Defense Secretary Gates and others of his ilk about "mission creep"
recall the standard modus operandi
of the United States. In 1981
widespread disinformation was floated in Canada and the U.S. about "a
Libyan hit squad" that had allegedly entered
the United States to assassinate then President U.S. Ronald Reagan and
other top officials such as Vice-President George Bush. On December
2, 1981 the White House "officially confirmed" that "hit squads" had
been
dispatched to the U.S. directly by Muammar Gadhafi. Using this and
other
pretexts, some 100 U.S.
aircraft at the direct order of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, under the
code name "El Dorado Canyon," on the night of April 14, 1986 and the
early morning of April 15 specifically attacked Col. Gadhafi's
residence, killing his three-year-old daughter along with dozens
of civilians. The major cities of Tripoli
and Benghazi were bombed. It was Reagan who tried to murder Gadhafi.
This despite Reagan even having signed an executive order which banned
the CIA or any
other government agency from direct or indirect involvement in any
assassination plan. Coinciding with the April 1986 U.S. attack against
Libya, Reagan made a national
address in which he said, "Self-defence is not only our right, it is
our duty. It is the purpose behind the mission ... a mission fully
consistent with Article 51 of the UN Charter."
It was later revealed that the "Libyan hit squad" was
CIA
disinformation which was initiated by planting a story in the foreign
press, the Toronto Star, which was quickly disseminated
within the United States by the Wall Street Journal
and then picked up by the news wires and newspapers
in the USA and other countries -- the "multiplier effect" originally
used in the Guatemala coup of 1954 and again in Chile in 1973. [2] The
"propaganda campaign," wrote one anti-Libyan author who detailed the
operation, was "designed to discredit the Libyan leader and turn him
into an international outlaw."[3]
A psychosis of terror was deliberately fomented to justify the
aggressive military acts abroad and criminalize dissent at home.
Following the April 1986 bombing attack, it was widely reported that
"increased terrorism" was feared. A panic was created in the U.S. and
Canada, leading to the widespread cancellation
of tourist flights to Europe. Professional "terrorism experts" peddled
the absurd claim that a network of terrorist cells with Libyan
connections had spread across Canada; according to the Canadian media,
Expo 86 became a target for terrorist gangs. Draconian security
measures were adopted at the U.S.-Canadian
border, airports and train stations. Passengers with felony
convictions, no matter how minor, or those of Arabic or Middle Eastern
origin, on the Halifax-Montreal train which passed through Maine and
Vermont were simply removed and arbitrarily dropped by the wayside.
The reader can now see the pattern behind the amoral
calls issued
from Paris and elsewhere. Besides the obvious multiplier effect upon
the potential audience they give the appearance of an independent world
consensus. The calls to assassinate Muammar al Gadhafi constitute
nothing more than a crude "strategic
psychological operation" to ensure U.S. deniability.[4] No sooner the
U.S. demands Gadhafi be hauled before the International Court of
Justice as its fig leaf than the "allies" come forward as judge, jury
and executioner. In this manner, Harper and the heads of Britain and
France with the backing of the other
political parties in their parliaments have stepped forward as willing
tools of the U.S. Empire. Thus the road is being prepared for
unleashing the imperialist politics of assassination and intervention
in North Africa by the U.S. Empire and fascism at home. Only they can
declare what is legal and what constitutes the
rule of law, nobody else. Only they can declare what is good and moral
for Canada, nobody else, even as what the whole world can see that what
is good and moral for Canada is not good and moral for the people of
Canada nor the people of Libya and the nations of North Africa.
Notes
1. Sandra L. Smith, "The
Politics of Assassination," TML Daily,
November
14,
2002
-
No.
179.
2. The "multiplier effect" was documented
by the Church Committee,
the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate
committee chaired by Senator Frank Church (D-ID) in 1975
[http://foia.state.gov/reports/churchreport.asp].
For Newsweek's
reference
to
the
disinformation
campaign,
see
"A
Plan
to
Overthrow
Kaddafi,"
Newsweek,
August
3,
1981,
p.
19.
An
excerpt:
"The
details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic
C.I.A. destabilization campaign. One element was a 'disinformation'
program designed to embarrass
Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a "counter
government" to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third --
potentially the most risky -- was an escalating paramilitary campaign,
probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct
small-scale guerrilla operations and
demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force."
In November, "NEWSWEEK has also learned that Kaddafi . . . [is]
ordering the assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Italy. . . . U.S.
intelligence also picked up evidence that Kaddafi had hatched yet
another assassination plot -- this time
against President Reagan." [Michael Reese, "Uniting Against Libya,"
Newsweek, October 19, 1981, p. 43] These and other quotes from the
press are cited by Noam Chomsky, Towards
A
New
Cold
War:
Essays on the
Current Crisis and How We Got There, New York: Pantheon, 1982
3. Edward P. Haley, Qaddafi and the United States Since 1969,
New
York:
Praeger,
1984.
4. "The ultimate objective of U.S.
military psychological
operations," says the Pentagon, "is to convince enemy, neutral, and
friendly nations and forces to take action favorable to the United
States and its allies ... Global in nature, they may be directed toward
large audiences or at key communicators." Psychological
Operations Fact Sheet, U.S. Army Special Operations Command,
http://www.iwar.org.uk/psyops/resources/us/psyops.htm
Website: www.cpcml.ca
Email: editor@cpcml.ca
|