US President Barack Obama has put pen to paper on a $662 billion defense bill despite serious reservations from critics over the proposed handling of terror suspects. The bill also brought into effect a new round of strict sanctions against Iran.
Some provisions of the bill raise serious concerns among human rights advocates, who argue that they could allow indefinite detention and interrogation of any American citizen suspected to be linked to terrorism. They say it would deny US citizens legal rights protected by the Constitution.
After the bill was approved by Congress in December, Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch said: “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law.”
Indeed, President Obama himself has expressed worries about the very legislation he has signed, saying he does not agree with all of it.
“The fact that I support this bill as a whole does not mean I agree with everything in it,” he said in Hawaii, where he is spending his vacation. “I have signed this bill despite having serious reservations with certain provisions that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists.”
Initially the White House threatened to veto the legislation but then pulled back after Congress made last-minute revisions.
Supporters of the legislation have said it codifies current arrangements such as the indefinite detention of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Obama also brought into force the latest round of tough sanctions against Iran, targeting its Central Bank in an effort to block Tehran’s ability to fund its nuclear enrichment program.
The new sanctions could make it almost impossible for most refiners to buy crude from Iran, whose economy is mostly dependent on its oil exports.
Author and radio host Stephen Lendman told RT the move may lead to a US war against Iran.
“Obama is imperial. He is going for one county in the Middle East after another. His policy is ravaging the world,” he claimed.
Lendman says that should the war against Iran start, the entire region could be enflamed. “Russia and China have strategic interests in the region. They may get involved to protect them.”
He believes the real targets for the United States are Russia, because of its military strength, and China, because of its growing economic strength
“We are talking about the clash of the Titans. Sooner or later that clash is coming,” he concluded.
Posts
14 comments:
Equality has more than one face. There is a significant difference between equality in opportunity and equality of results.
In a game of basketball does anyone expect Danny Devito to be equal to Michael Jordon? In acting does anyone expect Michael Jordon to be equal to Danny Devito?
Another reason is the U.S. puts fluoride in the water and other countries do not. The fluoride makes Americans complacent and docile. It is not just all the distractions, it is we are medicated to the max!
yeah...but we're better at taking it up the ass here in the US. Americans bend over like no other species on the planet...and they love it!!
I'm getting into the ass-fucking business too!
Whoopee!!!
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh6PNhJQATbdH_0rgMLlA9GLHcN0T9AdmWFVqNQyA3fLs_n4asCFJnjulRmyQNaxfRrJcbmrnK0uAQBKDDBSaKtrPiok2RyvgRF4PDtOnAkGUKGvYjmh1PPzH00JprEolw8W1B4ilP2mXV-/s1600/v122+Brother+can+you+spare+a+dime.jpg
Immigration could be part of the cause. According to Wiki, “Since the liberalization of immigration policy in 1965, the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled, from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007.” A fair proportion of these will be relatively uneducated or poor for other reasons: Muslims, Mexicans, etc.
GW I am so glad you wrote on this subject. Your information matches the research I did yesterday, I was thinking of emailing Tyer to suggest the reasons for the collapse of the middle class in America as a subject matter.
I came across an excellent lecture done in 2005 by Elizabeth Warren presenting her research at UC Berkley, regarding the reasons (supported by best available data, it is cited) for the demise of the middle class in the US. It is a bit long but very insightful. Breaks down the factual cost centers so you can follow the money.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akVL7QY0S8A
Concentrated wealth destroys democracies.
We've been through this before. Apparently, we refuse to learn from history. The same measures we took back then will work this time around as well.
There was a time when one worker made enough to support his/her family. Now it takes two and even that is not enough. Take a look at the marginal tax rate history of the wealthy and it's correlation to how well the middle class was doing.
As Michael Hudson points out, the wealthy AND the middle class both did well when the tax rate was what appears to be very high.
"Equality has more than one face. There is a significant difference between equality in opportunity and equality of results."
Amply demonstrated by the first reply ... American's still believe the propaganda they've been told since birth. You know the bit about 'work hard and you'll succeed', all that 'land of opportunity' guff. Which in most other countries the people are smart enough to know is rubbish.
It's not just the inequality it's the level of the majority. The USA still has a middle class standard of living well beyond that of most of the non-western world.
The top 1% in the U.S. control essentially everything in this society. http://republicconstitution.blogspot.com/
This is the top site on wealth inequality:
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Hey GW. Don't know if you saw this.
http://911truthnews.com/civil-disobedience-at-the-white-house-for-911-justice-2/
I agree that the US is high up on inequality. But I'm not convinced that the Egyptians rose up spontaneously. It was ALLOWED. If this had been spontaneous or there was one main group behind it, the US would be demonizing the protesters. No. this in some way is a major move by the US/Israel (which includes the Brits). Notice that while all the ruckus has been going on Mubarak appoints what is sure to be his successor, Sullieman (or that is the intent). The Egyptians would then have an unelected leader (one that was most likely pre-approved by Washington, Tel Aviv and London.)
The only mass protests that will be allowed in the US (and most likely instigated) will begin by minorities.
These people in charge of the world are using all kinds of strategic planning models (even computer simulations) that simulate events before they are carried out. Its all controlled. One of these times it will backfire on them...We can only hope.
Sahara it appears you are correct. Inequality is not the real reason for the protests. It is far more likely that our gov't is simply replacing old puppets with new ones, and the "revolution" was manufactured via the CIA psyop WikiLeaks: http://www.facebook.com/notes/kenric-l-ashe/egypt/490713072410
It's important to understand that these protests aren't occuring solely because of inequality. More of the anger is due to the population having no voice politically.
Americans are more complacent about the inequality because we operate under the assumption that we have some say over the political process. Symbolically at least, we do. And that's enough for most people. But realistically, we have no say over any viable political candidate for high office - especially the presidency. Anyone not approved and endorsed by the corporate elites doesn't stand a chance. But we have freedom of speech, and we all get to vote, and the candiate with the most votes gets elected. But again, without the signoff of the corporate oligarchy, you can't even get on the ballot.
There is an important quote from Wikipedia which suggests, perhaps, why people In Egypt and Tunisia are rioting and we aren't (yet):
"If two countries have the same Gini coefficient but one is rich and the other is poor, it can be seen to measure two different things. In a poor country it measures the inequality in material life quality while in a rich country it measures the distribution of luxury beyond the basic necessities."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient
Post a Comment
→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).
→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).
→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:
-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over
-- Comments that explicitly call for violence
→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.