Month: August 2013

Hassan Asadi Zeidabadi is a political prisoner in Iran, incarcerated since August 22, 2010, and has been sentenced to 5 years of imprisonment. He is a member of the Central Committee of the Organization of the University Educated of Iran (OUEI), a group of former university activists, many of whom, including its head Dr. Ahmad Zeidabadi, are currently in prison. Asadi Zeidabadi is in charge of human right division of OUEI. This article was originally published in Persian.

The slogan “Taxation without representation is tyranny” was the foundation of the broad-based opposition to the political and economic policies of the British Empire imposed on its North America colonists in the mid eighteenth century, an opposition that ultimately resulted in the independence of the United States from Great Britain in 1776. The Founding Fathers of America believed in their right to oppose a government that sought to generate revenues and more importantly govern from across the other side of the Atlantic Ocean by imposing taxes on stamps, tea, etc., for they were of the opinion that the "fundamental right to ownership of property" and its safeguarding were a manifestation of their "freedom," a value for which they had emigrated to the New World and were finally ready to fight for.

Today, two and a half centuries after American independence, the adoption of punitive policies and economic sanctions against Iran, this time by the same country that fought against the British tyranny, are threatening some of the fundamental rights of ordinary Iranian citizens, and more specifically violating their right to ownership of property. Despite being coined as "smart," such unilateral sanctions, which are illegal because they have not been approved by the United Nation Security Council] have, in reality, resulted in the deterioration of the lives of ordinary Iranians and a dramatic increase in socio/economic hardships. The adverse impact of unilateral sanctions on Iran’s domestic market and overall economy has been so severe that the mere mention of a new round of sanctions led to an overnight devaluation of the national currency and a 25% reduction in value of the capital and personal assets owned by Iranian citizens. It goes without saying that all citizens, regardless of their ideology, religious or political inclination are dependent on their national currency when "earning a living" in their domestic market. As a result, the devaluation of the national currency has a direct impact on the quality of the lives of ordinary citizens, and in particular their right to ownership of property. Much like the rejection of taxation from across the Atlantic by the British colonies in the 18^th century, who viewed such policies as tyrannical, the economic sanctions against Iran designed to pressure the Iranian government into shifting its policies have only led to the violation of the right to ownership of property by ordinary citizens, despite the fact that Iranian citizens have had no role in the political decisions made.

Continue reading “The Tyranny of the Sanctions Imposed on the Iranian People”

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, has spoken soberly about the dangers from any military strike on Syria, but press reports indicate President Obama is still set on launching cruise missiles in the coming days, an action that former U.S. intelligence professionals say should prompt Dempsey’s resignation.

MEMORANDUM FOR: General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
SUBJECT: Syria and Our Oath to Defend the Constitution

Dear Gen. Dempsey:

Summary: We refer to your acknowledgment, in your letter of July 19 to Sen. Carl Levin on Syria, that a “decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war.” It appears that the President may order such an act of war without proper Congressional authorization.

As seasoned intelligence and military professionals solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we have long been aware that – from private to general – it is one’s duty not to obey an illegal order. If such were given, the honorable thing would be to resign, rather than be complicit.

In responding to questions on military options voiced at your re-nomination hearing on July 18, your letter to the chair of the Committee on Armed Services reflects that you acknowledge Congress’s Constitutional role with respect to U.S. “acts of war.” Equally important, you addressed these words to Sen. Levin: “You deserve my best military advice on how military force could be used in order to decide whether it should be used.” (emphasis in your letter).

Continue reading “An Appeal to Gen. Dempsey on Syria”

It is official U.S. policy that offensive cyberwarfare is subject to international laws of war and, if perpetrated against the United States, may trigger a military response.

The Washington Post reported last year: “Cyberattacks can amount to armed attacks triggering the right of self-defense and are subject to international laws of war, the State Department’s top lawyer said Tuesday.”

In other news…

“The CIA and the NSA have begun aggressive new efforts to hack into foreign computer networks to steal information or sabotage enemy systems, embracing what the budget refers to as ‘offensive cyber operations,'” reports the Washington Post this week, based on documents they received from Edward Snowden.

The British Parliament’s rejection of an attack on Syria is a direct contrast – and implicit challenge – to the political war system of the United States.

"It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly," Prime Minister David Cameron said Thursday night. At least for now, Uncle Sam’s poodle is off the leash.

Now all eyes turn to Congress, where the bar has suddenly been raised. Can the House of Representatives measure up to the House of Commons?

It’s a crucial question – but President Obama intends to render it moot with unwavering contempt for the war authority of Congress. Like his predecessors.

Even with war votes on Capitol Hill, the charade quotient has been high. The Gulf War began in early 1991 after the Senate vote for war was close: 52 to 47. But, as the PBS "Frontline" program reported years later, President George H.W. Bush had a plan in place: if Congress voted against going to war, he’d ignore Congress.

Continue reading “While Cameron Defers to Parliament, Obama Locks into Warfare State of Mind”

As of this moment, Obama is lurching towards piously slaughtering Syrians. The Washington Post noted this morning that the administration “disdains Assad request on inspections.” In other words, it is important to start the killing before the evidence is in. Obama declared yesterday on the PBS Newshour that the evidence was definite linking the Assad regime to the chemical weapons attack. However, an Associated Press story this afternoon reveals that numerous U.S. intelligence officials declared that there is no “slam dunk” linking the regime to the attack.  But will the lack of evidence deter Obama from commencing to kill in the name of justice?

Here’s a piece I wrote for the Future of Freedom Foundation in April 2011 during the last time that Obama was blasting an Arab country into democracy and freedom. (The photo above is from the 2003 US attack on Baghdad.)

The Absurdity of Trusting Foreign Policymakers

by James Bovard

The United States is attacking Libya on the basis of vague hopes that peace will triumph after the Allied bombing ceases. There are plenty of reasons to doubt whether a few hundred cruise missiles will beget harmony in the Libyan desert. But one of the biggest mistakes would be to assume that U.S. government policymakers understand what they are doing.

The American media have already uncorked “surprises,” such as the facts that the Libyan opposition is more of a ragtag mob than an army and that Qaddafi’s opponents include some organizations officially labeled as terrorists by the U.S. government. One gets the impression that the Obama administration’s masterminds did not notice those details prior to charging into this civil war.

The latest follies are part of a long bipartisan tradition. In the decades since John F. Kennedy’s inauguration, foreign-policy makers have become Washington’s leading con men. Even though Whiz Kids and Dream Teams have dragged America into one debacle after another, the media and politicians still defer to the latest batch of “Best and Brightest” professors and appointees.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq was based on little more than a few phrases backed up by almost boundless ignorance. Paul Bremer, the chief of Iraq’s Coalition Provisional Authority, admitted in his memoirs “that he didn’t know anything about Iraq when stepping down from Kissinger Associates to become America’s proconsul,” Georgetown University professor Derek Leebaert observed in his new book, Magic and Mayhem. Adam Garfinkle, who worked as a speechwriter for both Secretary of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, said in 2007, “No one in a senior position in this administration seems to have the vaguest notion of modern Middle Eastern history.”

Continue reading “On Syria, Don’t Trust Our Warring Policymakers”