Washington, DC – On May 23, U.S. President Barack Obama delivered a speech at the National Defense University, supposedly outlining changes to the ‘counter-terrorism’ policy of the U.S. While the U.S. media hailed the speech as a significant change from the War on Terror policies of the Bush administration that carried into Obama’s first term, the president’s speech mostly doubled-down on the drone strikes and military actions that have brought death and destruction to people in the Middle East.

The Boston Marathon bombing last month, along with the Congressional Republicans’ probe into the U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya last year, almost certainly motivated the president’s speech. More pressing was the May 22 admission by Attorney General Eric Holder that drone strikes killed four U.S. citizens, including three civilians, since Obama took office in 2009.

Putting Obama’s speech in this context is important because it reveals an administration desperate to justify its violent military actions to the U.S. people, who overwhelmingly oppose the government’s policy of perpetual war and occupation. Despite saber-rattling against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and the Syrian Arab Republic, a New York Times/CBS poll found nearly 77% of people in the U.S. oppose U.S. military action against the DPRK and about 62% feel the U.S. should not intervene in Syria.

The Obama Doctrine

Obama’s speech included a full-throated defense of drone strikes. Disturbingly, the speech all but wrote off the hundreds – if not thousands – of civilians who died from U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and other nations. Obama claimed that as president, he “must weigh these heartbreaking tragedies [civilian causalities from drone strikes] against the alternatives.” He followed this assertion with the equally bizarre justification, “Let us remember that the terrorists we are after target civilians.” This is the Barack Doctrine: To save the civilians who would die in terrorist attacks, we need to kill them before the terrorists do.

Although the U.S. media already clamors over the very minor changes to the president’s drone program – the Los Angeles Times called it “throttling back on drones” – these changes will do little to nothing in reducing civilian casualties. The president calls for tougher standards when deciding to launch drone strikes. This requires “a near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured,” according to White House staff.

However, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) classifies all military-age male casualties of drone strikes as ‘militants’ unless they find evidence to the contrary after their death, according to a 2012 report by the Stanford International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic called Living With Drones. The Brookings Institution estimated in a 2009 report that drone strikes killed nearly ten civilians for every one militant, but the CIA’s deceptive method of reporting deaths masks the real horrors committed on everyday people in countries like Pakistan. By not acknowledging the full scope of civilian death or the bad reporting methods on drone casualties, Obama implies no reason to expect an end to the slaughter of innocent people.

For his part, Obama suggested a return to the pre-9/11 counter-terrorism policies that marked Bill Clinton’s administration. This should provide scant comfort for anyone who opposes the U.S. policy of war and occupation. President Clinton’s foreign policy was marked with the death of nearly a million Iraqi children as a result of the brutal sanctions infamously defended by then-Secretary of State Madeline Albright. Under Clinton, the U.S. launched military strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan and sent U.S. troops into Somalia. Clinton’s administration oversaw the dismemberment of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, culminating in the 1999 NATO bombing of Bosnia with civilian deaths mounting to 5700, according to Human Rights Watch. Clinton worked with the brutal monarchy in Saudi Arabia to place more military bases in the Persian Gulf and tighten the U.S. grip on the Middle East’s oil. Despite tactical differences, the Clinton and Bush presidencies oversaw the deaths of nearly a million Iraqis each.

Obama’s speech included support for the French invasion and occupation of Mali, but it made no mention of the U.S.-orchestrated NATO bombing of Libya in 2011. Facing continued investigation by the House Republicans for the U.S. Embassy attack in Benghazi, the president wants to avoid touting his full-fledged support for the so-called Libyan ‘rebellion,’ which was led largely by al-Qaeda affiliates who later carried out the embassy attack.

With the stroke of a speechwriter’s pen, the President revised history on national television with his claim, “unrest in the Arab World has also allowed extremists to gain a foothold in countries like Libya and Syria.” Of course, he avoids mentioning the most damning fact of all: the U.S. funded and armed this ‘unrest’ in Libya and continues supporting the ‘rebels’ in Syria, in alliance with the Israeli government and the Saudi monarchy.

Code Pink interrupts Obama’s speech

Near the end of his speech, the president attempted to blame Congress for his broken campaign promise to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. At this point, Medea Benjamin, the co-founder of the anti-war organization Code Pink, interrupted President Obama and pointed out his broken campaign promise to close Guantanamo Bay. Benjamin also criticized his administration’s use of drone strikes. The U.S. media lashed out at Benjamin for interrupting Obama and ignored the fact that her points were correct.

While Congress has blocked the president’s ability to transfer prisoners to the U.S. – a move that Obama supported by signing the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) – Obama has the ability to release the 86 prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, which effectively closes the facility. Of course, prior to the NDAA, Obama could have closed Guantanamo Bay like he pledged to do early in his first term. As Benjamin pointed out during her pointed exchange with the president, Obama has shown a willingness and enthusiasm for the indefinite detention policies of the Bush administration – the same policies he decried during his run for the White House in 2008.

After the speech, Benjamin said this in an interview with Common Dreams: “While I have received a deluge of support, there are others, including journalists, who have called me ‘rude.’ But terrorizing villages with Hellfire missiles that vaporize innocent people is rude.” She continued, “Violating the sovereignty of nations like Pakistan is rude. Keeping 86 prisoners in Guantanamo long after they have been cleared for release is rude. Shoving feeding tubes down prisoners' throats instead of giving them justice is certainly rude.” The latter is a reference to the Obama administration’s forced end to a hunger strike launched by Guantanamo Bay prisoners.

Plenty of commentators in the U.S. corporate media praised Obama’s speech and blasted Benjamin’s courageous stand against drone strikes. However, all of the president’s rhetoric does not change the fundamentally violent nature of the U.S. imperialist system. Well into his second term, Obama has no excuses remaining to explain his full-embrace of the Bush era policies, and the anti-war movement is beckoning for answers.

#WashingtonDC #AntiwarMovement #GuantanamoBay #WarOnTerrorism #drones #CodePink

###Ten years of the “war on terror”

Just days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, [President George W. Bush stated](http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2001/09/17/2001-09-17_a_fight_vs__evil__bush_and_c.html), “This crusade – this war on terrorism – is going to take a while, [...] And the American people must be patient. I'm going to be patient. But I can assure the American people I am determined.”

[A few days later](http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/20/gen.bush.transcript/), Bush said, “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

As Bush made clear ten years ago, this war would not be about ‘al Qaeda,’ but about a long war that would span the globe. And Bush was right about this. The ‘war on terror’ led to:

- The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, which has caused tens of thousands of civilian deaths and forced millions of people to leave their homes - The invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which the U.S. occupation was responsible for the deaths of over one million Iraqis and the total devastation of that country’s infrastructure - Cruise missile attacks and drone air strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia that have killed countless civilians - The establishment of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, the site of countless abuses of human rights and torture of hundreds of people - Even the killing of Osama Bin Laden is symbolic of the expansion of the ‘war on terrorism’: Bin Laden was reportedly killed deep within Pakistani territory in the city of Abbottabad, in violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

The headlines of all the major U.S. newspapers and TV outlets are crowing, “Osama Bin Laden is dead!” and some people apparently took to the streets in celebration in Washington, D.C.

But how can anyone find joy or cause for celebration in the death of one man who has been used as an excuse and justification for the deaths of so many hundreds of thousands of people, and the forced displacement of countless millions in the Middle East and Central Asia?

###‘War on terror’ and criminalizing national liberation movements abroad

One of the most far-reaching implications of the ‘war on terrorism’ is the criminalization of national liberation movements and labeling these movements and their supporters as ‘terrorists.’ From this angle, the ‘war on terrorism’ is nothing but a thin veneer over the U.S. drive to control resources and dominate territories across the globe.

Conveniently, the labeling of a movement or organization as ‘terrorist’ always aligns with the interests of U.S. foreign policy. As it just so happens, many of the organizations on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list are in resource-rich countries that receive millions of dollars in U.S. military aid. Movements that form in opposition to U.S.-backed dictatorships or repression in these countries – from Palestine, to Colombia, the Philippines, India and many others – are placed on the State Department’s the Foreign Terrorist Organization list, and their members and supporters are targeted for repression.

And what if circumstances change and the designation of a the Foreign Terrorist Organization becomes inconvenient to U.S. foreign policy? The U.S. simply chooses to ignore its own rules. We see this in Libya today, where the U.S. and NATO are supporting and possibly arming members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or in Iran, where prominent members of the U.S. political structure have met with and expressed their full support for the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK), a group which carried out numerous terrorist attacks in Iran. And we can’t forget [Luis Posada Carriles](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles), the self-confessed anti-Cuban terrorist who the U.S. refuses to extradite to Venezuela or Cuba so he can face justice for his bombings and attacks which killed dozens of civilians.

###Destroying civil liberties at home

Often we hear of the ‘erosion’ of our civil liberties in the wake of 9/11 and the PATRIOT Act that was passed, supposedly as a tool to help assist law enforcement with the ‘war on terror.’ But “erosion” is far too passive a word: it sounds like a gentle, natural process. What has taken place, and what continues today, is an all-out assault on the civil liberties granted by the Constitution, and the democratic rights to speech and assembly. The main effect is to strengthen the political and policing power of the ruling class and provide new tools for targeting domestic dissent.

The PATRIOT Act, the legal framework for the ‘war on terrorism,’ is still intact today, ten years after it was first passed as temporary measure. And thanks to this legal framework, the surveillance and spying apparatus of the U.S. has grown to enormous proportions – as the Washington Post series “Top Secret America” has reported, no one even knows how large, or how much money is spent on the domestic intelligence agencies.

What is known is that since Sept. 11, 2001, the FBI has stepped up its surveillance and harassment of Muslims in the United States – beginning with the rounding-up of thousands of American Muslims in the months after Sept. 11, 2001 for ‘voluntary interviews’ with the FBI. U.S. corporate media and right-wing politicians have encouraged people to view Muslims with suspicion. Islamophobia and hate crimes against Muslims are on the rise. Muslims who give money to charities that help people who suffer from the U.S. policies of war and occupation in Palestine are prosecuted under the ‘material support of terrorism’ statute. And the FBI increasingly dedicates its resources to entrapping Muslims in plots that the FBI has come up with; as was the case in Oregon where the FBI encouraged the ‘radicalization’ of a disaffected Muslim youth and provided him with the money, a fake bomb and encouragement to go through with an attack that was then ‘foiled’ by the FBI.

Then, six months ago, the expansion of the domestic ‘war on terrorism’ took a new turn as dozens of [FBI agents raided the homes of social justice activists in Chicago and Minneapolis](http://www.stopfbi.net), eventually issuing subpoenas to 23 people to a federal grand jury concerning an investigation into the ‘material support of terrorism.’ The raids came just months after the Supreme Court ruled in a controversial case, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, that free speech can be considered material support for terrorism if it is done in coordination with or under the direction of a foreign terrorist organization. The court did not define what “coordination with” or “under the direction of” means, leaving many wondering whether statements or organizing efforts against the disastrous and bloody interventions of the United States military in places like Colombia or Palestine will be in violation of the law.

###War of terror

Under the pretext of fighting terrorism, the U.S. has invaded and occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, and used air strikes and covert operations across the world. The ‘war on terrorism’ has caused over one million deaths and forced millions to flee their homes.

This is not justice for the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. The ‘war on terrorism’ only deepens the sadness and pain caused by those attacks ten years ago. It is well past time for Americans to understand that the path to justice and peace is through ending all U.S. military aid and military interventions around the world, dismantling the PATRIOT Act and reigning in the out-of-control domestic spying by the FBI and other agencies.

#UnitedStates #AntiwarMovement #WarOnTerrorism #September11 #OsamaBinLaden

Chicago, IL – On Nov. 9, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney from Georgia came to Chicago. Rep. McKinney had been one of the few in Congress to dare to speak the truth about George W. Bush’s so-called war on terrorism. For her courage in telling the truth, she was betrayed by the Democratic Party. Targeted by the pro-Israel lobby and the Republicans, she lost her re-election bid in the Democratic primary in August.

She was invited here by Ujima PAC, a local nationalist organization that had raised money and volunteers for McKinney when it became clear she was under attack this summer.

The most influential Zionist organization, the American Israeli Political Action Committee – AIPAC – came after the congresswoman because “she was critical of U.S. foreign policy in relation to the Middle East,” said Randy Evans, one of the organizers of the Nov. 9 event. “Rep. McKinney refused to vote for the resolution by AIPAC in April endorsing the Israelis’ actions in the invading the Palestinian areas of the West Bank and Gaza.”

McKinney had also earned the wrath of George W. Bush because she dared to question his actions in the investigation of September 11. Her question: what did he know and when did he know it? Plus, she pointed out that his family has investments in oil and weapons companies, so he personally benefits from the war in Afghanistan and the one he is threatening on Iraq.

These truths are such a threat to the powers-that-be in Washington that the Republicans urged their members in Georgia to cross over to the Democratic primary to vote for her opponent.

Rep. McKinney isn’t going away. She will be a speaker at the Jan. 18 anti-war march in Washington D.C. Further, as she said in her farewell speech to the Congressional Black Caucus, “I know that as we continue to speak out on behalf of the poor and the marginalized in this country, my supporters across the spectrum, and across America will be right there with me.”

#ChicagoIL #AntiwarMovement #CapitalismAndEconomy #News #AfricanAmerican #WarOnTerrorism #CynthiaMcKinney #RepMcKinney #proIsraelLobby #UjimaPAC #CongressionalBlackCaucus

Two Islamic resistance groups, Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, as well as the Marxist-Leninist group Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), have been added to the State Department's list of “terrorist” organizations. International law has affirmed that resistance to illegal occupation is not “terrorism,” and the Palestinian people have refused to cower in the face of U.S. and Israeli demands to give up their right to fight this oppression.

The real terrorism is Israel's policy in the occupied territories. Among the murdered Palestinians are over 60 political activists and leaders of the Intifada, assassinated by Israeli forces in a type of extra-judicial killing specifically banned by international law. Although Arafat agreed to arrest Palestinian leaders, and even authorized the suppression of a demonstration in Gaza that killed five Palestinians, he proved unable to slow down the resistance. The Israelis responded by bombing Arafat's personal and security offices, helicopters, and government apparatus.

Israel is trying to force the Palestinians to accede to their demands and negotiate a peace agreement on their terms. They refuse to acknowledge the legitimate representation of the Intifada on the street level, and have even stated that Arafat is no longer “relevant” to them. The U.S. has echoed these statements, sending a special envoy, Anthony Zinni, to the region to demand that the Palestinians stop their “violence” for a full week before peace talks could proceed.

But what about Israeli violence? Israel has imposed military checkpoints all over the West Bank and Gaza, cutting Palestinians off who try to travel to neighboring towns and villages, and keeping hundreds of thousands out of work. Unemployment has reached frightening levels, almost 50%, and most Palestinians cannot get basic necessities, like food, water, and medical supplies. Palestinian homes are demolished to make room for more illegal Jewish settlements.

50 years of terrorism

When the U.S. and its allies vowed to wage a war on “terrorism,” the countries that were accused of “harboring terrorists” included many from the Arab world. The definition of terrorism was not clarified by Bush, the media, or the “experts” we see flashed on the TV screens every day.

The Palestinian people have been fighting terrorism for over 50 years – since the establishment of the state of Israel caused the forced exile of 750,000 Palestinians. However, Israel has never been placed on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorists. Since September 2000, when the Intifada, or Uprising, began in Palestine, over 900 Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli military, and its campaign of murder and oppression has seen a frightening and drastic rise since the war in Afghanistan.

Although the occupation of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Jerusalem is illegal by UN Security Council Resolutions, Israel has not withdrawn its troops from these areas since 1967. Israel has also ignored the fourth Geneva Convention, of which it is a party, by transferring civilians into the occupied territories, stealing Palestinian land and building illegal Jewish-only settlements on that land. In 1993, the Oslo Accords prompted Israel to withdraw from a tiny percentage of the occupied territories, and the Palestinian Authority established limited sovereignty in those areas.

Afghanistan to Palestine

The U.S. is continuing its campaign in Afghanistan, destroying most of the country and imposing a government of its liking on the people. Israel continues to play an important strategic role in the Arab world for the U.S., acting as a proxy army for the U.S. to maintain stability among the Arab masses and Arab markets, especially for the oil industry. For this reason, it is in the best interests of the U.S. elites and Israel to seek an end to the Palestinian Intifada. It is the reason why the U.S. government militarily, financially, and politically supports the Israeli oppressors.

The Palestinians refuse to surrender their legitimate rights to their land. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinian Authority can suppress the Palestinians' need to be free from Israeli violence. No people feel more terrorized than the Palestinians do. Their families are being killed, leaders assassinated, homes destroyed, and land confiscated. They cannot return to the homes from which they were forced. Their resistance is not “terrorism,” but a legitimate struggle for national liberation.

#Palestine #Editorial #Afghanistan #Editorials #WarOnTerrorism #MiddleEast