Pilger on Julian Assange

Julian Assange is back in the news now that the UK Supreme Court has ruled (5-2) - and subject to, possibly, argument being re-opened - that Assange can be extradited to Sweden to be interviewed.   Bear in mind that Assange hasn't been charged with anything.    The Swedish prosecutor wants to interview him.   Interestingly, the prosecutor has declined Assanges' invitation to come to Britain and interview him there.

John Pilger has a Q & A on Assange in Information Clearing House and the importance of everything associated with him being pursued and what WikiLeaks has done.

"On 30 May, Britain's Supreme Court turned down the final appeal of Julian Assange against his extradition to Sweden. In an unprecedented move, the court gave the defence team of the WikiLeaks editor permission to 're-apply' to the court in two weeks' time. On the eve of the judgement, Sweden's leading morning newspaper, Dagens Nyheter, known as DN, interviewed investigative journalist John Pilger, who has closely followed the Assange case. The following is the complete text of the interview, of which only a fraction was published in Sweden.

DN  Julian Assange has been fighting extradition to Sweden at a number of British courts. Why do you think it is important he wins?

JP Because the attempt to extradite Assange is unjust and political. I have read almost every scrap of evidence in this case and it's clear, in terms of natural justice, that no crime was committed. The case would not have got this far had it not been for the intervention of Claes Borgstrom, a politician who saw an opportunity when the Stockholm prosecutor threw out almost all the police allegations. Borgstrom was then in the middle of an election campaign.  When asked why the case was proceeding when both women had said that the sex had been consensual with Assange, he replied, "Ah, but they're not lawyers." If the Supreme Court in London rejects Assange's appeal, the one hope is the independence of the Swedish courts. However, as the London Independent has revealed, Sweden and the US have already begun talks on Assange's "temporary surrender" to the US -- where he faces concocted charges and the prospect of unlimited solitary confinement.  And for what? For telling epic truths. Every Swede who cares about justice and the reputation of his or her society should care deeply about this. 

DN  You have said that Julian Assange's human rights have been breached. In what way?

JP One of the most fundamental human rights -- that of the presumption of innocence -- has been been breached over and over again in Assange's case. Convicted of no crime, he has been the object of character assassination --perfidious and inhuman -- and highly political smear, of which the evidence is voluminous. This is what Britain's most distinguished and experienced human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, has written: "Given the extent of the public discussion, frequently on the basis of entirely false assumptions ... it is very hard to preserve for [Assange] any presumption of innocence. He has now hanging over him not one but two Damocles swords of potential extradition to two different jurisdictions in turn for two different alleged crimes, neither of which are crimes in his own country. [and] his personal safety has become at risk in circumstances that are highly politically charged."

DN You, as well as Julian Assange, don't seem to have confidence in the Swedish judicial system. Why  not? 

JP  It's difficult to have confidence in a prosecutorial system that is so contradictory and flagrantly uses the media to achieve its aims. Whether or not the Supreme Court in London find for or against Assange, the fact that this case has reached the highest court in this country is itself a condemnation of the competence and motivation of those so eager to incarcerate him, having already had plenty of opportunity to to question him properly. What a waste all this is.

DN  If Julian Assange is innocent, as he says, would it not have been better if he had gone to Stockholm to sort things out? 

JP Assange tried to "sort things out", as you put it. Right from the beginning, he offered repeatedly to be questioned -- first in Sweden, then in the UK. He sought and received permission to leave Sweden - which makes a nonsense of the claim that he has avoided questioning. The prosecutor who has since pursued him has refused to give any explanation about why she will not use standard procedures, which Sweden and the UK have signed up to.
 

DN  IF the Supreme Court decides that Julain Assange can be extradited to Sweden, what consequenses/risks do you see for him? 

JP  First, I would draw on my regard for ordinary Swedes' sense of fairness and justice. Alas, overshadowing that is a Swedish elite that has forged sinister and obsequious links with Washington. These powerful people have every reason to see Julian Assange as a threat. For one thing, their vaunted reputation for neutrality has been repeatedly exposed as a sham in US cables leaked by WikiLeaks. One cable revealed that "the extent of [Sweden's military and intelligence] co-operation [with Nato] is not widely known" and unless kept secret "would open up the government to domestic criticism". Another was entitled "WikiLeaks puts neutrality in the dustbin of history". Don't the Swedish public have a right to know what the powerful say in private in their name?"

Step up and sign up for the "Do Not Kill List"

No comment called for.......

"In the wake of appalling reports that President Obama has created an official “kill list,” a new petition asks the White House to create a “Do Not Kill” list so that American citizens can sign up and "avoid being executed without indictment, judge, jury, trial or due process of law." When it reaches 25,000, the White House has to respond. And thus, presumably, possibly, acknowledge the existence of the list. More on what Glenn Greenwald calls "once unthinkable government claims," now normalized."

From CommonDreams

Child Poverty!

A new report released this week by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) reveals alarming child poverty rates within affluent, or 'developed', nations. The US ranks second highest among all measured countries, with 23.1 per cent of children living in poverty, just under Romania's 25.6 per cent.
 

The report Report Card 10 shows roughly 13 million children in the European Union (plus Norway and Iceland) lack basic items necessary for their development. 30 million children – across 35 countries with developed economies – live in poverty.

“The data reinforces that far too many children continue to go without the basics in countries that have the means to provide,” said Gordon Alexander, Director of UNICEF's Office of Research.

Shameful actions of Brits in deporting Tamils to almost certain death

Hard to believe in a so-called enlightened and civilised society that the UK is today deporting Tamils back to Sri Lanka in the knowledge that they are likely to be killed by the brutal and undemocratic regime there.

"Dozens of Tamil asylum-seekers will be forcibly removed from Britain on a secretive deportation flight today despite credible evidence that they face arrest and retribution on their return.

A chartered plane, PTV030, is due to take off at 15.30 from an undisclosed London airport and fly direct to Colombo. Human-rights organisations have called on the UK Border Agency to halt the flight on the grounds that Tamils who are known to be critical of the Sri Lankan government have been brutally treated following their return.

The forced removals come as Mahinda Rajapaksa, who was the architect of Sri Lanka's final victorious push three years ago against the Tamil Tigers – a military offensive which defeated the brutal insurgency group but also led to the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians – flies into the UK to join the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

Human Rights Watch has documented 13 credible cases over the past two years in which failed Tamil asylum-seekers from Europe have been tortured after landing in Sri Lanka, and warns that those cases are likely to be "just the tip of the iceberg".

Mr Rajapaksa's government has been accused of committing war crimes during the military offensive and of continuing to preside over a culture of impunity in which kidnap, extra-judicial killings and torture are still commonplace, particularly in the heavily militarised Tamil areas in the north.

The Foreign Office's latest report on human rights describes Sri Lanka as an area of "serious concern" when it came to abuses. But that has not stopped the UK Border Agency, which is under political pressure from the Government to ramp up deportations, from forcibly removing hundreds of Tamils in recent months."

The duplicity of major corporations on climate change

From the Union of Concerned Scientists under the banner headline "Leading Companies Contradict Own Actions on Climate Science, Policy - Half of Reviewed Companies Misrepresented Climate Science Despite Publicly Expressing Concerns"

"Many of the country’s leading companies have taken contradictory actions when it comes to climate change science while pumping a tremendous amount of resources into influencing the discussion, according to an analysis released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).

The science advocacy group examined 28 companies in the S&P 500 that participated in climate policy debates over the past several years. All of them publicly expressed concern about climate change or a commitment to reducing emissions through websites and public statements, but half (14) also misrepresented climate science in their public communications. Many more contributed to the spread of misinformation about climate science in less direct ways, such as through political contributions, trade group memberships, and think tank funding.

“Corporations' increased ability to influence policy should come with an increased responsibility to let the public know how they are doing so,” said Francesca Grifo, director of UCS's Scientific Integrity Program and a contributor to the report. “Companies may play a role in policy discussions, but right now, it’s simply far too easy for them to get away with misrepresenting science to achieve their goals.”

Utilizing an array of publicly available data, the report systematically examines how corporate influence fosters confusion on climate change. The analysis found that some American companies, including NRG Energy, Inc., NIKE, Inc. and AES Corporation, accept the findings of climate science and have taken actions in support of science-based policy. Other corporations, including Peabody Energy Corporation, Valero Energy Corporation, and FMC Corporation, have worked aggressively to undermine climate policies and have misrepresented climate science to do so.

Several companies stand out for taking contradictory actions on climate change. Caterpillar Inc., for instance, highlights its commitment to sustainability and climate change mitigation on its website. But the company also serves on the boards of two trade groups that regularly attempt to undermine public understanding of climate science: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers. Caterpillar also funds the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation, two think tanks that have misrepresented climate science.

Similarly, ConocoPhillips says on its website that it recognizes human activity is “contributing to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that can lead to adverse changes in global climate.” But in comments to the Environmental Protection Agency, the company criticized scientific evidence on the ways climate change can harm public health.

“The difference between what many of these companies say and what they actually do is quite stark,” said Gretchen Goldman, an analyst in the Scientific Integrity Program and a report contributor. “And because we know only limited amounts about their activities, it’s relatively simple for companies to show one face to the public and another to policymakers.”

The report found that companies also utilized their considerable financial resources to oppose climate policy. Lobbying expenditures for energy sector companies increased by 92 percent from 2007 to 2009, when climate change bills were actively debated in Congress. Meanwhile, Valero Energy Corporation donated more than $4 million to the Yes on Prop 23 campaign, which sought to undermine California’s climate change law, but was ultimately rejected by voters.

“The actions of many of these companies come right from the tobacco industry playbook, where the end goal is delaying sensible regulations that protect our health and safety,” said Grifo. “Companies generally find that complying with new rules is not as burdensome as they first imagined. But that doesn’t prevent them from obfuscating the science to create confusion and delay.”

Your number plate determines on which road you travel

Israel denies the proposition that it has become an apartheid State.    This map shows the road on which Israelis can travel as against those, very limited ones, on which Palestinians can.   Yes, your number plate determines on which one is permitted to travel.

Spending big-time to get votes

For any outsider, to see what American politicians, and now the Super PACS, spend on election-related matters is mind-boggling.

Politico reveals the sort of money the GOP, and its supporters, plan on throwing between now and November at the upcoming election .

"Republican super PACs and other outside groups shaped by a loose network of prominent conservatives – including Karl Rove, the Koch brothers and Tom Donohue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce – plan to spend roughly $1 billion on November’s elections for the White House and control of Congress, according to officials familiar with the groups’ internal operations.

That total includes previously undisclosed plans for newly aggressive spending by the Koch brothers, who are steering funding to build sophisticated, county-by-county operations in key states. POLITICO has learned that Koch-related organizations plan to spend about $400 million ahead of the 2012 elections - twice what they had been expected to commit.

Just the spending linked to the Koch network is more than the $370 million that John McCain raised for his entire presidential campaign four years ago. And the $1 billion total surpasses the $750 million that Barack Obama, one of the most prolific fundraisers ever, collected for his 2008 campaign."

A virus to fear

Cyberspace espionage has been ratcheted up by a significant notch if this piece, "Flame Thrower" on FP, is correct.    We should all be concerned as Governments around the world harness technology to snoop on what their citizens are talking about (via phone) or emailing (via their computer, tablet or smartphone).

"Welcome to the new frontier of cyber-espionage, and remember this name: "Flame" -- a mysterious new cyber spy tool that hit the headlines on Monday, May 28. Its code is 20 times larger than Stuxnet, the mysterious computer worm that temporarily crippled Iran's Siemens nuclear centrifuges, and it "might be the most sophisticated cyber weapon yet unleashed" according to Kaspersky Lab, a Russian-based cybersecurity firm. Kaspersky published the findings of its analysis on Monday in addition to the Iranian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) and Budapest University. Most of the infected systems are located in the Middle East, with Iran, Israel, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Lebanon, and Hungary topping the list. Flame stands out in the various ways through which it "exfiltrates" data, including surreptitiously recorded audio data captured by internal microphones. However, unlike Stuxnet, Flame was designed to spy -- not destroy.
 
The variety of spy tools that Flame employs is astonishing. According to Kaspersky, "of course, other malware exists which can record audio, but key here is Flame's completeness -- the ability to steal data in so many different ways." It also takes snapshots of instant messages and records a user's keystrokes. Flame is remotely controlled through a command and control server and it's highly dynamic. In other words, it has been updated remotely since it was first launched at least as early as March 2010 and its "creators are constantly introducing changes into different modules" which expand its functionality. Now that it has been detected, the Iranian CERT apparently offers infected users a removal tool.

According to the Washington Post, some analysts see the United States and Israel behind Flame. Kaspersky will only go so far as to say that it's likely the work of a nation-state rather than a private entity or hacking group because of the sophistication and the geographic location of the infected systems, For now, the perpetrator's identity remains unknown. Flame was designed to avoid being detected, hiding in large amounts of code and using a programming language unusual for malware. Victims include individuals, private companies, educational institutions, and state-related organizations. Other details are also unclear at this point, however, such as how Flame accesses a system in the first place. Kaspersky considers Flame an operation likely to have been run in tandem with Stuxnet."

Obama: The Big Decider.....of America's "kill list"

Yet another dimension to a lawyer and one-time law lecturer.....Obama, the US President, said to be a liberal and now the Big Decider of what people the US will assassinate.    More than breath-taking.    T

"Mr. Obama is the liberal law professor who campaigned against the Iraq war and torture, and then insisted on approving every new name on an expanding “kill list,” poring over terrorist suspects’ biographies on what one official calls the macabre “baseball cards” of an unconventional war. When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.

“He is determined that he will make these decisions about how far and wide these operations will go,” said Thomas E. Donilon, his national security adviser. “His view is that he’s responsible for the position of the United States in the world.” He added, “He’s determined to keep the tether pretty short.”

Nothing else in Mr. Obama’s first term has baffled liberal supporters and confounded conservative critics alike as his aggressive counterterrorism record. His actions have often remained inscrutable, obscured by awkward secrecy rules, polarized political commentary and the president’s own deep reserve.

In interviews with The New York Times, three dozen of his current and former advisers described Mr. Obama’s evolution since taking on the role, without precedent in presidential history, of personally overseeing the shadow war with Al Qaeda.

They describe a paradoxical leader who shunned the legislative deal-making required to close the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, but approves lethal action without hand-wringing. While he was adamant about narrowing the fight and improving relations with the Muslim world, he has followed the metastasizing enemy into new and dangerous lands. When he applies his lawyering skills to counterterrorism, it is usually to enable, not constrain, his ferocious campaign against Al Qaeda — even when it comes to killing an American cleric in Yemen, a decision that Mr. Obama told colleagues was “an easy one.”

Rupert picked over......

An interesting piece in The New York Review of Books on the Sun King, Rupert Murdoch.   Well worth reading an analysis of the man and the events which have led to the position in which he, his family and the companies publishing newspapers now find themselves.

"Much academic research has confirmed my own instinct that newspapers do not in fact decide the results of elections. But politicians believe they do, and that is what empowers Murdoch. Successive party leaders and prime ministers have thought that they could be elected, and then govern, only with his consent. A former Blair aide said that they always felt at Downing Street as though Murdoch were the invisible twenty-fifth presence at the Cabinet table; and the recent conduct of Cameron, Hague, Gove, and Hunt has conveyed the strong impression that Her Majesty’s Government is a subsidiary of News International.

Quite apart from the benefits to all newspapers of the Wapping putsch, “Murdochia” is not simply a monolithic evil empire. Even Fox Television gave us the glorious achievement that is The Simpsons and Sky Sports has no more devoted, or addicted, viewer than this writer, who was only one of several hundred million people from England to Brazil to China watching the climax to the English soccer season, with Manchester City winning the pennant in the dying seconds. The admirable Times Literary Supplement remains the piano player in Murdoch’s London bordello, while The Wall Street Journal has continued its tradition of scrupulously objective reporting (on its news pages, at least) while covering the News International story, and Sky News, the British channel, has been exemplary in reporting on Leveson.

There is a final defense of Murdoch: if he has enjoyed the kind of sway he has, then the blame lies not with him but with the democratically elected leaders who have truckled to him. Now they, even Cameron and his unimpressive entourage, must realize that the game is up for this extraordinary old man. Whatever happens to Brooks and the other defendants, or however long it takes the despondent investors of News Corp to be rid of the toxic London papers, the spell is broken. Rupert Murdoch has gone from Svengali to Tar Baby, sticky and tainting to the touch. Cameron thought he was going to profit from his closeness to the great magnate; it could yet finish his prime ministership, with “laugh out loud” as his political epitaph."

One misguided Congressman rooting for Israel

Now here is one US Congressman seemingly in thrall and in the pocket of AIPAC and singularly outrageous in his support of Israel.    Stand up Congressman Kirk.    And don't forget to read some of his utterly breathtaking quotes.

"Senator Mark Kirk (R, IL) has distinguished himself amongst his fellow Members of Congress by promoting the most extreme positions in opposition to Middle East peace. This may come as a shock to many of his constituents, who see him as a “moderate” Republican, occasionally breaking ranks with his party on some Senate votes.

A little closer look at his history, statements, and policies should set that illusion to rest. And it should raise fundamental questions about whether Senator Kirk represents the aspirations of his constituents or the narrow interests of a lobby that seeks to undermine a just and lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis.

Despite our nation’s dire economic situation, this lobby has obtained an unconditional commitment to $30 billion in military aid to Israel from 2009 to 2018. [1] This amounts to $1.5 billion from Illinois taxpayers over that 10-year period. [2]

According to former AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) staffer – now critic – MJ Rosenberg, Mark Kirk cultivated a relationship with AIPAC since he was a Congressional aide.  According to Rosenberg, between 2000 and 2010 – Representative Mark Kirk received $1,025,437 from “pro-Israel” PACs, making him #7 out of all members of Congress and #1 of all House members. [3]

According to Rosenberg: It is not because Kirk is pro-Israel. Virtually every member of the House and Senate supports our special relationship with and aid to Israel. It is because no one is more reliable than Mark Kirk when it comes to supporting the status quo. His idea of supporting Israel is simply to keep things just as they are, which, not coincidentally, is also the way the lobby sees it…

The lobby and its PACs will be going all out for Kirk this year [2010].  In fact, his election will surely be their #1 priority.  If he wins, the lobby will have a stalwart enforcer of the status quo who can be expected to pressure his colleagues to fall in line. [4]

During Israel’s attack on Gaza, Operation Cast Lead, in 2008 – 2009, almost 1400 Palestinians (mostly civilians) and 13 Israelis were killed [5]. At that time, then U.S. Representative Mark Kirk made the following public statement, “To misquote Shakespeare, something is rotten in Gaza and now it’s time to take out the trash.” [6]

Kirk’s cheerleading for the slaughter of hundreds of innocents and the destruction of vital water, medical, housing, and educational facilities has to earn him a special place on some “Wall of Shame.” Few supporters of Israel’s actions have so clearly enunciated disdain for the destruction of Palestinian life and vital human services – which are still, to this day, largely unrepaired because of the inhumane blockade of Gaza and U.S. support for it.

The horror of Houla....and tragedy of Syria

Yes, the image is confronting and when one realises that some 32 children were executed in Houla, the horror of what is going on in Syria only gets worse.

John Lee Anderson writing in The New Yorker:

"Sooner or later, every armed conflict in which victory is determined by control of the civilian population—as opposed to, say, physical territory—has its My Lai, its Srebrenica, its Sabra and Shatila. And Syria’s civil war (because that, in the end, is what it is) now has a hallmark bloodbath—its before-and-after moment. Saturday, in the small town of Houla, some hundred and eight civilians, including at least thirty-two children, were killed at the hands, apparently, of the Syrian army and the shabiha thugs who often do its dirty work. It’s not that there haven’t been previous atrocities in this fifteen-month-old conflict; there have been scores of them, each adding its quota of blood and agony and vengeance. Houla’s hundred-odd dead may offer a mere shiver of horror to deadened and bewildered onlookers, and statistically may represent only a fraction of the mounting casualties—Syria’s number of dead is calculated by the U.N. to be over ten thousand, but there may well be a thousand or so more, depending on who is doing the counting.

It’s been a month since the arrival in Syria of two hundred and seventy or so U.N. observers, the result of a partial agreement between President Assad and Kofi Annan. The observers have not stopped the killing, and have not reduced it, either, despite some initial wishful claims to the contrary. (Where have U.N. observers, or peacekeepers, for that matter, ever stopped anything?) The killings in Houla took place a mere fifteen miles from the U.N. observers posted in Homs. Unlike in an old Western, the cavalry never arrived. In this gruesome reality show that we all now inhabit, the U.N. men arrived afterwards, in time to film the bodies left behind by their killers, with the merit of at least having confirmed that an atrocity took place. In Houla, the videos show that some of the civilian victims—with pieces of their bodies missing—were probably nonspecific, by which I mean that, as in all wars, they were simply killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the men who pressed the “fire” buttons on the artillery piece, or on the tank that fired the shells that ripped them apart, meant them no specific harm, per se, as individuals. Others, though, seem to show the telltale traces of up-close murders—the result of guns pressed against people’s heads and fired, and of knives drawn deeply across throats.

These latter victims, who include some of Houla’s dead children, are the most troubling of the deaths that are occurring in Syria today. They raise the question of whether there is any kind of peace plan, at this point, that is viable, at least in the minds of the actors in the conflict. That is why Houla is such a watershed event (and why the regime is claiming it is a set-up, to make it look bad)."





****

"Ban Ki-moon has said that there is no U.N. “Plan B” in Syria.  Plan A, to sum it up roughly, relies upon goodwill and a change of heart on the part of the Assad regime and the rebels fighting it. The thing is: What does one do when men become capable of cutting the throat of a small child?"

Is $33 million enough for getting away with murder?

Not for the first time Robert Fisk, veteran journalist with The Independent, highlights the hypocrisy of the West.    On this occasion it's in relation to Pakistan.

"La Clinton hath spoken. Thirty-three million smackers lopped off Pakistan's aid budget because its spooks banged up poor old Dr Shakeel Afridi for 33 years after a secret trial. And, as the world knows, Dr Afridi's crime was to confirm the presence of that old has-been Osama bin Laden in his grotty Abbottabad villa.

Well, that will teach the Pakistanis to mess around with a brave doctor who is prepared to help the American institution that tortures and murders its enemies. Forget the CIA's black prisons and rendition and water-boarding, and the torture of the innocents in the jails of our friendly dictators. Dr Afridi was just doing the free world a favour. And WOW, Dr Afridi got shopped by Leon Pannetta when he was CIA boss, and now Barack Obama is accused of letting him down.

Well, I pause here. Dr Afridi was brought before a secret trial in the Khyber tribal area – no charge sheets, no lawyers, no statements from the defendant or the prosecution, just a measly accusation of conspiracy against the state of Pakistan and "high treason". I've never known the difference between "treason" and "high treason" but – since Pakistan's security apparatus is a mirror image of the British Empire – I assume it was invented by us. "High treason" means treason against the monarch. By fingering Bin Laden, after using a ruse about vaccinating his family against hepatitis B to gain access to him, Dr Afridi was committing treason against King Asif Ali Zardari, otherwise known as the President of Pakistan.

But hold on a moment. Let's suppose Vladimir Putin sent a KGB/FSB hit squad to Britain to murder a former agent called Alexander Litvinenko who had turned against his old spymasters. And let's suppose that the Russians murdered Litvinenko. Which – in real life – they did. And Litvinenko – in real life – was indeed a trusted agent of the Russians, just as Bin Laden was a much-admired servant of the CIA when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan."

Continue reading here.

The human, and financial, cost of the Iraq and Afghan wars

On a day when USA "celebrates" Memorial Day, a piece on AlterNet should give Americans considerable pause for thought.    The "cost" - in multiple ways - flowing from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is already huge and certainly going to increase for many, many years to come.

"According to a new report from the Associated Press, a record 45% of the 1.6 million veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are compensation for service-related injuries.

This is more than double the rate for Gulf War veterans. For all the publicity given to “Gulf War syndrome,” only an estimated 21% of the veterans of that conflict have filed disability claims.

The recent applicants are also citing a much larger number of ailments than veterans of previous wars — an average of eight or nine per person, which has shot up over the past year to 11 to 14. This compares to less than four for Vietnam War veterans who are currently receiving compensation, and just two for veterans of World War II and Korea.

The causes of the increase, and to what extent it simply reflects the poor economy, are not clear. “Government officials and some veterans’ advocates say that veterans who might have been able to work with certain disabilities may be more inclined to seek benefits now because they lost jobs or can’t find any,” the AP explains.

Much of the change, however, is clearly the legitimate result of more soldiers surving life-threatening injuries, along with an increased incidence of concussions and severe hearing loss resulting from IED blasts.

Even the heavy body armor that helps save lives can often leave soldiers with back, shoulder, and knee problems that sometimes require orthopedic surgery. In addition, 400,000 veterans have already been treated for mental health problems, most often post-traumatic stress disorder, and these have been exacerbated by multiple deployments.

Whatever the cause, the flood of applicants is putting strain on a system that is badly backlogged — as a result of 1.3 million claims in 2011 alone — and is still dealing largely with paper records. “We have 4.4 million case files sitting around 56 regional offices that we have to work with; that slows us down significantly,” Allison Hickey, the VA’s undersecretary for benefits, told the AP.

The real burden, however, may become apparent only 30 or 40 years from now, when the cost of caring for disabled veterans is multipled by the effects of old age. Harvard economist Linda Bilmes estimates that it will amount to $600 billion to $900 billion overall."

Arrogance of power and a reality check on Iran

Stephen Walt, writing his latest blog under the headline, "The arrogance of power" on FP, reflects on the ongoing issue of Iran acquiring a nuclear capacity.    He also suggests a reality check.....

"While we're being realistic, let's keep a few other bedrock realities in mind.

Right now, the United States has thousands of sophisticated nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Israel has a couple of hundred. Four other members of the P5+1 have nuclear weapons as well, and the fifth member -- Germany -- has had access to nuclear weapons through "dual key" arrangements with the United States.

Right now, the United States is far and away the world's greatest military power, with no enemies nearby. Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East. We spend close to a trillion dollars on various national security programs each year; Iran spends maybe $15 billion, tops. Iran is a minor military threat at best.

Right now, the United States and Israel are actively engaged in a variety of covert actions directed against Iran, and the United States still have military forces and bases all around that country. Top U.S. officials, Senators and Congressmen have openly called for "regime change" in Iran. And then we wonder why, oh why, Iran might be wary of us, and why some Iranians might think that having an effective deterrent to counter our vast military superiority might be a good idea.

Right now, the United States and its allies have imposed increasingly punishing economic sanctions against Iran. Iran has no way to retaliate in kind, no matter how its leaders may bluster about oil and gas embargoes."

****

"As I noted awhile back, the current impasse reflects a significant shift in our approach to arms control. In the past, we understood that arms control was a diplomatic process of mutual compromise, designed to produce a situation that was ultimately better for both sides. Arms control agreements didn't get the participants everything they might want, but they worked if each side understood that they'd be better off striking a reasonable deal. Today, "arms control" consists of our making unilateral demands, and insisting that other side give us what we want before we'll seriously consider what they want. It reflects what late Senator J. William Fulbright called the "arrogance of power," the tendency for powerful states to think they can dictate to others with near-impunity. This approach hasn't worked yet with Iran, and it's not likely to work in the future."

Fiddling while Rome (Syria) burns......

Credited to The Independent

Rear-end view of New Yorkers

Let it not be said that this isn't a novel approach......



"Australian photographer Bridget Fleming push-biked her way into New York's zeitgeist by snapping at its tail. Follow her cycle path in this cheeky video.

In the most photographed city in the world finding a new angle is quite a feat. But that's what Bridget Fleming has managed to pull off with her series Downtown From Behind.

After she posted the photographs online, a number of major media outlets, including The New York Times, published her novel images of artists, fashionistas and chefs riding their bikes on the city's streets. ''All of a sudden it went viral, globally,'' recounts 31-year-old Fleming."

Australia's shame

Australia, like many countries around the world, is confronted with so-called illegal immigrants seeking to enter the country.  Problem is that Australia deals with the issue in a harsh and inhumane way.    No less importantly, as the case detailed below so clearly shows, actions such as those of the Australian security agency, create an untenable and outrageous result - that is, the possible detention of a mother and child indefinitely without trial and their no knowing the basis for it.

"David Manne of the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre has launched a High Court action to break the impasse facing refugees who have been adversely assessed by ASIO.

His action is to be applauded. The problem, which currently affects 62 people in Australian detention centres, needs to be solved urgently.

The problem is exemplified by the case of Ranjini. Shortly before Mothers Day, Ranjini and her two children, aged 6 and 9 years, were removed from the community and placed in detention at Villawood.

They are refugees: that fact is accepted by the Government. They are in detention now because their protection visas have been cancelled.

Why? Because ASIO has assessed them adversely on security grounds. They will not tell her why. The best guess is that her husband, who is dead, may once have been a driver for Tamil separatists in Sri Lanka. Even if that is true, it does not involve the woman and her children in any sort of offence, and it says nothing about their character.

They may remain in detention for years, perhaps forever. How can that be, in a free democratic country like Australia? It is the result of two court decisions which most Australians have never heard of.

First, if a person is adversely assessed by ASIO, they are not told what facts ASIO took into account in forming its views, so it is virtually impossible to show that ASIO was wrong."

****

"This case, and the case of Ranjini and her children, raises three questions we should face squarely. The way we answer these questions will define what we are as a country:

Should any person be held in custody indefinitely, absent any allegation that they have broken the law?

Should any person be locked up indefinitely without being given a chance to challenge, in a meaningful way, the reason for their detention?

Should any child face the prospect of lifetime imprisonment?

At present, Australian law allows a child to be imprisoned (potentially for life) without having broken the law and without being able to challenge the reason for their imprisonment.

It is a scandal that our law allows this. Regardless of your views about refugees, I cannot think that many Australians would support such obvious injustice. Regardless of your views about refugees, we should all hope that this High Court challenge succeeds."

The motley Murdoch "crew" know no bounds

If this revelation as disclosed by The Independent is even half-true, then it confirms that the Murdochs, and their entire "operation", are rogues - it brings to mind the proposition put to James Murdoch at the Parliamentary Committee Inquiry of Mafia like conduct - who simply know no bounds, legal or otherwise.

"Detectives carrying out the multimillion-pound investigation into illegal newsgathering techniques at Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper group have been asked to investigate whether it attempted to blackmail politicians.

The alleged plot centres on News International's apparent efforts to warn off MPs on a parliamentary committee from disproving its discredited defence that phone hacking was the work of a single "rogue reporter".

According to the former senior News of the World journalist Neville Thurlbeck, News International ordered the Sunday paper's reporters to scour the private lives of MPs on the Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee in 2009. At the time, Mr Murdoch's company was mounting what it now admits was a mistakenly "aggressive" response to allegations that the interception of voicemail messages was rife at its headquarters in Wapping, east London. On the advice of the parliamentary authorities, the Labour MP Tom Watson has now asked the Metropolitan Police to investigate the allegation.

According to Mr Thurlbeck, reporters were told by those in "deepcarpetland" to obtain evidence of affairs or gay relationships. The aim, he claimed, was to "to find as much embarrassing sleaze on as many members as possible in order to blackmail them into backing off from its highly forensic inquiry into phone hacking". In a letter – a copy of which has been obtained by The Independent – to the Deputy Assistant Commissioner leading the Met's inquiries into News International, Sue Akers, Mr Watson wrote: "If these allegations are found to be true, it suggests there was a conspiracy to blackmail."

Syria: The world sits on its hands

Remember all the rhetoric before the Coalition of the Willing waged war on Iraq.  Not only did the Saddam regime have WMDs (which they didn't!) but Saddam was a dictator who had massacred his own people.     Same story about Gaddafi in Libya.    Now, the UN estimates that some 15,000 people have been killed by the Assad regime in Syria.   And what is the West doing?  Talking.....

The Independent editorialises:

"That something utterly appalling happened outside the Syrian city of Houla on Friday is beyond doubt. As the sickening pictures of murdered children showed – pictures rightly reprinted by several British newspapers, including our sister paper The Independent on Sunday – many victims were children, at least some of whom had had their throats cut. Even as the Syrian authorities denied responsibility, blaming Islamists and terrorists, they conceded that at least 90 people had been killed. Of these more than 30 were children, slaughtered, as the pictures attest, in cold blood. Opposition activists accused pro-regime gunmen of the massacre."

****

"At which point the argument becomes more complicated. For all the expressions of outrage from Western leaders and the calls for something to be done – an urgent meeting of the UN Security Council (Britain), a summons to the Friends of Syria group (France), "intensified pressure on Assad and his cronies" (the US) – direct military intervention, as hoped for by Syria's opposition, is unrealistic.

Syria is not Kosovo, nor is it Libya. It is a big country in a highly volatile neighbourhood and is slipping ever closer to all-out civil war. While there are entrenched areas of resistance, the opposition itself has been plagued by splits and by no means all Syrians are convinced of the need to remove the Assad clan. Any change of power needs to be supported and sustained by Syrians themselves."

****

"If any one country can wield influence in Syria, it is Russia. But its co-operation is also crucial if the international community is to show a united front, which is essential if anything is to change. In present circumstances, the temptation will be to write off the UN process and Kofi Annan's six-point plan. But it has not been exhausted. While there have been violations of the ceasefire aplenty, of which the Houla massacre is by far the most egregious, the ceasefire did bring some diminution of the violence and might have brought more, had there been more observers than the 260 now there. Massively beefing up this operation should be the priority."