If there is one quality that Latin American leaders share it’s paranoia. Unfortunately, their paranoia is justified by historical fact. For more than a century the United States has influenced Latin American governments, supported its wealthy elite, and exploited it while the majority of its inhabitants have endured severe economic hardships and, in many cases, abuse by regimes supported by the United States. In truth, there is a laundry list of precedents regarding US political interference in Latin America that, in many cases, resulted in not only the diminishment of freedoms, but the support of regimes responsible for mass killings.

While justified by many as Cold War necessity, US actions in Latin America have always been more about ensuring the survival of economic exploitation and the small influential blocks that locally benefit from it that thus work to ensure that Washington’s influence remains steadfast. Those that support American backed regimes are largely, if not entirely, represented by the wealthy, who commonly receive support from US organizations such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy to fund anti-government operations. Such was the case when an attempt was made to oust Hugo Chavez, and then again when pressure was brought to bear to hold a referendum on his Presidency. After winning it, and realizing that the forces arrayed against him were receiving support from the United States, he succumbed to the sort of paranoia shared by many Latin American leaders and began systematically dismantling those apparatuses used by his detractors. He also took steps to cripple the stranglehold of foreign corporations, such as nationalizing large swaths of Venezuela’s oil industry. He was, of course, condemned for such actions by the North American media and the US government, who, as is always the case, denied any involvement in aiding those looking to remove him.

Moving to Bolivia, where protests against the government of Evo Morales have been occurring, producing numerous deaths (and it should be noted that they were committed by those protesting), we find another very possible example of US interference, though the United States has, again, denied it.

The protests are occurring in five of Bolivia’s eastern provinces, which also happen to be home to Latin America’s second largest natural gas reserves. Those protesting are opposed to Morales’s plan to share natural gas revenues with the country’s remaining four poorer provinces, as well as the redistribution of land to some of the nation’s indigenous majority who largely live in poverty. Added to that, the province of Santa Cruz, one of the resource richest of the five eastern provinces, held a vote in May of this year in which 80% of its population backed a resolution aimed at giving the province more control over its resources. That said; considerable voting abstention was reported and the vote itself was organized by wealthy landowners in the region.

Bolivia is the poorest country in South America, with the majority of its wealth belonging to a small minority of land owners, many of whom have ties to US corporations. To dismiss, out of hand, the Bolivian government’s assertion that it possesses information regarding possible US interference is a stretch. If anything, it reads like as play out of a very storied playbook.

Was Morales justified in expelling US Ambassador Philip Goldberg? That depends on what Morales’s government knows, and they’re sure as hell not going to tip their hand by gifting details and thus allowing the US to spin it by employing some of the world’s most powerful media outlets.

In solidarity with Morales, the paranoia engrained in other Latin American leaders has led to the expulsion of the US ambassador to Venezuela and a refusal by the government of Honduras to accept the credentials of the new ambassador to that country.

As for US culpability in Bolivia, one need only examine their involvement in the two attempts to remove Chavez from power to determine whether or not Morales is acting out of turn.

Throwing around the word genocide is not a light matter. It is a word that should not be employed unless its existence, or planned existence, is proven beyond any doubt. Genocide is the premeditated, systematic destruction of a people, thus it is not a term that should be employed for the sake of shock value or political grandstanding.

Today, that is precisely what the President of Colombia has done. He has accused the government of Venezuela of aiding FARC rebels and plans to ask the International Criminal Court to bring charges of genocide against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, even though those suspect actions of FARC do not really constitute a systematic genocidal agenda. In fact, what the Colombian government has deemed genocide is, in comparison to Darfur, like a single drop of water in the ocean.

Now, that is not to say that the severity of murder should be viewed as excusable simply because of mathematics, but as I have said, there is a vast difference between the murderous actions of a militant group and genocide. Was, for example, 9/11 a genocidal act, or an act of terrorism?

That said, and not surprising in the least, the United States is backing Alvaro Uribe’s play, even though they themselves refuse to adhere to the authority of the ICC with regards to the conduct of their own military personnel – though their support shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise given US military training assistance to Colombia – and let us also not forget that the Colombian government is also complicit in tolerating what is known as “The Sixth Division”, which are Paramilitary groups that receive assistance from the Colombian military and have been equally responsible for human rights abuses.

I’m not going to defend FARC. Given their modern reliance on the cocaine trade and kidnapping to bolster financial sustenance it is impossible for me to view them, in their current form, as a legitimate populist movement that is seeking to overthrow what they view as a corrupted government greatly influenced by a foreign power. And while the Colombian government may be guilty on both charges, the use of such methods to fund a struggle against them is, to me, simply counter to any decent principles that such a group might profess to promote.

But are they guilty of genocide, and is the Venezuelan government complicit in aiding them to that end? Or is President Uribe’s threat one that was simply made to isolate Chavez by attaching to him the stigma that comes with the employment of the word itself? Thus, the possibility that a well-constructed psychological operation may have just been initiated cannot be overlooked. Evidence of that is present in the fact that, according to the Colombian government, the government of Ecuador is also complicit in aiding FARC, but no such statement regarding Rafael Correa has been made.

There are numerous things to touch on this morning. Here are some of the stories that I have been following…

Chavez Says He Will Step Down At End Of Term

After last week’s defeat of proposed constitutional reforms, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said that he will step down when is term is up in 2013. Chavez has vowed to keep fighting to have the reforms passed, requiring a petition of 15% of voters to secure the possibility of a new referendum.

Vancouver Airport Reforms Announced

The Vancouver International Airport will spend $1.4 million dollars a year to “improve service for international travelers”. The measures include the following…

Had such measures already been in place, Robert Dziekanski would still be alive today.

Canada Fourth Worst In Climate Change Performance

Based on emissions produced over the last year, climate change policies, and emission level reduction efforts, Canada has ranked fourth to last in the world behind Australia, the United States, and Saudi Arabia.

Canada is currently rated 53rd out of 56 countries, a drop from 51st place a year ago. Well done, Mr. Harper.

$1 Billion Worth Of Military Equipment Missing In Iraq

According to CBS News…

“Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit. Auditors for the Inspector General reviewed equipment contracts totaling $643 million but could only find an audit trail for $83 million.

The report details a massive failure in government procurement revealing little accountability for the billions of dollars spent purchasing military hardware for the Iraqi security forces. For example, according to the report, the military could not account for 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons, including pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns.”

I’d say something witty, but it depressingly doesn’t come as a surprise.

In a referendum held yesterday in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez’s proposed constitutional reforms were rejected. The measures were defeated by a narrow margin of 51% to 49%. It is believed that some 40% of Venezuelan’s didn’t vote, many of them Chavez supporters that disagreed with the reforms.

In truth, the result is a victory for Venezuelan democracy, though it should be noted that the result will most certainly create an atmosphere of possibility in Washington. US interference in Venezuelan affairs has been significant, and covert US support to those that oppose Chavez should not be overlooked, nor discounted, especially with regards to exploiting this event.

The real test of Chavez’s government will be how it handles this defeat. If he is the tyrant in the making that some believe him to be, he will obviously look for a way to subvert the result. He has already stated that he will not give up attempts to pass the reforms, but the real test will be how he goes about it – democratically or autocratically.

Obviously, those that oppose him were overjoyed at the outcome. Washington was also quick to respond, claiming it a sign that Venezuelans did “not want any further erosion in their democracy and their democratic institutions”. It’s a bold statement given the fact that the reforms only failed to pass by 2%. It is also a bold statement given the fact that a democratic referendum was actually held to decide the outcome. One would think that if Chavez were inclined to simply seize outright power he would not have left it in the hands of the people, even given the fact that his base represents the majority.

I’ll not disagree that many of the proposed reforms were extremely troublesome, but, for the time being at least, even the man that attempted to have them instituted seems to be willing to abide by the people’s resolution. And if that isn’t an example of the democratic principle then I have been adhering to an entirely different definition of the term for some time now.

All things considered, only time will tell.

John Pilger’s entry posted today on the The Guardian’s Comment Is Free blog entitled “The old Iran-Contra death squad gang is desperate to discredit Chavez” is an interesting read. In it, Pilger confronts some of Latin America’s harsh realities and, having also made a documentary entitled The War On Democracy, which “shows that the principles of democracy can be found more readily among the poorest people of Latin America than anywhere near the corridors of the White House. It features an exclusive interview with Hugo Chávez and Pilger also speaks to former US government officials who claim the CIA waged covert wars in Latin America”, his views on the subject carry some weight.

In the entry Pilger writes…

“In making my film The War on Democracy, I sought the help of Chileans like Roberto and his family, and Sara de Witt, who courageously returned with me to the torture chambers at Villa Grimaldi, which she somehow survived. Together with other Latin Americans who knew the tyrannies, they bear witness to the pattern and meaning of the propaganda and lies now aimed at undermining another epic bid to renew both democracy and freedom on the continent.

The disinformation that helped destroy Allende and give rise to Pinochet’s horrors worked the same in Nicaragua, where the Sandinistas had the temerity to implement modest, popular reforms. In both countries, the CIA funded the leading opposition media, although they need not have bothered. In Nicaragua, the fake martyrdom of La Prensa became a cause for North America’s leading liberal journalists, who seriously debated whether a poverty-stricken country of 3 million peasants posed a “threat” to the United States. Ronald Reagan agreed and declared a state of emergency to combat the monster at the gates. In Britain, whose Thatcher government “absolutely endorsed” US policy, the standard censorship by omission applied. In examining 500 articles that dealt with Nicaragua in the early 1980s, the historian Mark Curtis found an almost universal suppression of the achievements of the Sandinista government - “remarkable by any standards” - in favour of the falsehood of “the threat of a communist takeover”.

The similarities in the campaign against the phenomenal rise of popular democratic movements today are striking. Aimed principally at Venezuela, especially Chávez, the virulence of the attacks suggests that something exciting is taking place; and it is. Thousands of poor Venezuelans are seeing a doctor for the first time in their lives, having their children immunised and drinking clean water. New universities have opened their doors to the poor, breaking the privilege of competitive institutions effectively controlled by a “middle class” in a country where there is no middle. In barrio La Línea, Beatrice Balazo told me her children were the first generation of the poor to attend a full day’s school. “I have seen their confidence blossom like flowers,” she said. One night in barrio La Vega, in a bare room beneath a single lightbulb, I watched Mavis Mendez, aged 94, learn to write her own name for the first time.

More than 25,000 communal councils have been set up in parallel to the old, corrupt local bureaucracies. Many are spectacles of raw grassroots democracy. Spokespeople are elected, yet all decisions, ideas and spending have to be approved by a community assembly. In towns long controlled by oligarchs and their servile media, this explosion of popular power has begun to change lives in the way Beatrice described.

It is this new confidence of Venezuela’s “invisible people” that has so inflamed those who live in suburbs called country club. Behind their walls and dogs, they remind me of white South Africans. Venezuela’s wild west media is mostly theirs; 80% of broadcasting and almost all the 118 newspaper companies are privately owned. Until recently one television shock jock liked to call Chávez, who is mixed race, a “monkey”. Front pages depict the president as Hitler, or as Stalin (the connection being that both like babies). Among broadcasters crying censorship loudest are those bankrolled by the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA in spirit if not name. “We had a deadly weapon, the media,” said an admiral who was one of the coup plotters in 2002. The TV station, RCTV, never prosecuted for its part in the attempt to overthrow the elected government, lost only its terrestrial licence and is still broadcasting on satellite and cable.

Yet, as in Nicaragua, the “treatment” of RCTV is a cause celebre for those in Britain and the US affronted by the sheer audacity and popularity of Chávez, whom they smear as “power crazed” and a “tyrant”. That he is the authentic product of a popular awakening is suppressed. Even the description of him as a “radical socialist”, usually in the pejorative, wilfully ignores the fact that he is a nationalist and social democrat, a label many in Britain’s Labour party were once proud to wear.

In Washington, the old Iran-Contra death squad gang, back in power under Bush, fear the economic bridges Chávez is building in the region, such as the use of Venezuela’s oil revenue to end IMF slavery. That he maintains a neoliberal economy, described by the American Banker as “the envy of the banking world” is seldom raised as valid criticism of his limited reforms. These days, of course, any true reforms are exotic. And as liberal elites under Blair and Bush fail to defend their own basic liberties, they watch the very concept of democracy as a liberal preserve challenged on a continent about which Richard Nixon once said “people don’t give a shit”. However much they play the man, Chávez, their arrogance cannot accept that the seed of Rousseau’s idea of direct popular sovereignty may have been planted among the poorest, yet again, and “the hope of the human spirit”, ofwhich Roberto spoke in the stadium, has returned.”

It is often overlooked that the most powerful weapon in the world is, in fact, information. And given that, the use of highly developed counter-intelligence is therefore the pinnacle of power. The United States largely learned the art of counter-intelligence during the Second World War from the British, its undisputed historical masters, and, after the creation of the CIA, went on to perfect it during the Cold War, though credit must also be given the Soviets for their efforts as well. It has been used domestically, internationally, and has infiltrated every medium that is able to be influenced by it, from educational curriculums to newspapers to television. It can be used to discredit foreign leaders, political movements, distort economic realities, and justify military interventions. It can even scapegoat an entire religion for the sake of national hysteria based on the actions of a handful.

In the world of intelligence, it doesn’t get more dirty, nor secretive, than counter-intelligence. During the Cold War it was employed with perfection in such cases as the overthrow of Mosaddeq in Iran (a democratically elected leader), Allende in Chile (a democratically elected leader), and Árbenz in Guatemala (a democratically elected leader) - just not the right sort of democratically elected leaders.

In all three cases, the cause for their removal was purely economic, inferring that they were not in line with those who had benefited from lucratively established practices in their countries. In all three cases, they were painted as communist, or highly socialist, bringing into question the possibility that they might align themselves with the Soviets.

In all three cases it worked. In fact, it worked so well that the realities of their removal are usually dismissed in many curriculums at the post secondary level, some of which actually lean on the propaganda that was used in the counter-intelligence operations themselves. In such cases, operations such as AJAX and PBSUCCESS are explained away as Cold War necessities.

The point of counter-intelligence is not to spread false information. It is to spread confusion so that disinformation seems logical by comparison. The recreation of truth is not particularly the point, only the acceptance that wrongdoing is, in some way, afoot. Thus, portions of populations can be swayed to condemn governments, religious leaders, and even other ethnicities within their societies purely based on a lack of knowledge and the fear that that causes.

Also of importance is the fact that counter-intelligence is commonly double edged. While its use is employed in one fashion in a foreign locale, it is applied in a completely different fashion domestically. Thus, a divergence of realities is created that, domestically, causes public condemnation of those being targeted while, at the same time, creating the required confusion of those being manipulated abroad. In the context of a free society, such as the United States, it is important that this element exists, as it helps project legitimacy.

We are, like it or not, products of decades of counter-intelligence that has, in no small way, affected how we view others. This reality has only helped strengthen and diversify the power of counter-intelligence initiatives, and has most certainly been amplified in a domestic sense to an unprecedented level.

Last night, various major news agencies ran headlines that were shocking. They declared that Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, was attempting to alter the constitution of his country so that he could remain in power indefinitely. There was, at the time, no mention of the fact that the actual alteration being proposed would only allow Chavez to run for re-election without term limitations. Most of them had simply jumped the gun before bothering to read the details, having since amended their reports. This morning, there is barely a mention if it anywhere to be found on the front pages of major news websites.

After reading those initial reports, I wrote an entry yesterday that lambasted the move, exclaiming that there is no excuse for tolerating the diminishment of the people’s power in any nation, be it socialistically based or not. To my discredit, having read those initial reports, I reacted before waiting to read, in detail, what was being proposed.

When it comes to Hugo Chavez, there is, quite obviously, going to be heated debate. Some believe that he is a dictator in waiting, looking only to usurp Venezuelan democracy. Others argue that he is trying to ensure that external influencing does not lead to upheaval in Venezuela and that the landslide majority that he gained in the last federal election, which was overseen by international observers, speaks volumes about the democratic support that he enjoys from the populace. Then there is the matter of the closing of RCTV, a television station that was complicit in the coup that attempted to oust Chavez from power. Human Rights Watch called the closing of the station a blatant attack on freedom of speech and the press, while others pointed to the fact that were RCTV to exist in any Western democracy that it would have been shut down long before RCTV’s license expired given that it had acted in conjunction with those known to be supported by foreign interest groups seeking the deposition of Chavez.

The underlying reality here is that we are talking about a man, and a country, that has to deal with factors that most do not. When Canadians go to the polls they don’t have to wonder whether a certain party is being bankrolled by foreign interests whose goal is to secure a government friendly to their economic interests. In fact, were it discovered that a major Canadian political party were being covertly financed by, for example, the National Endowment For Democracy, the wrath of the Canadian media and people would be incendiary. It must also not be forgotten that if such a thing occurred, that party would be banned from the process and thoroughly investigated.

Like other Latin American statesmen in the past, there is no doubt that Chavez has become paranoid to some degree given the external forces arrayed against him. While it is vitally important that political opposition parties are allowed to freely exist and partake in the political process, there can be no excuse for accepting covert support from the likes of the United States to help them in their bid to oust another party from power. Because that is also entirely undemocratic and wholly abusive of the Venezuelan people’s trust and belief in the process itself.

But that is the reality of Venezuela, and there are precedents stretching back to the early 50’s that support the growing paranoia that is displayed by men like Chavez.

Guatemala, Cuba, El Salvador, Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Panama, Haiti, Nicaragua, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia – these are but a few examples of countries that have endured external foreign influencing. Some of them fought against it, others were led by individuals backed, and often put in power, by foreign powers, and others simply endured high crimes committed by groups covertly funded and armed by the likes of the CIA. Like it or not, that is the reality of 20th Century Latin American history.

When I think of the funding of Venezuelan opposition groups by organizations like the NED, the first word that comes to mind is ‘bananas’. The reason? Because if a democratically elected leader, in this case Jacobo Árbenz, can be removed from power and replaced by an American puppet and strongman (Carlos Armas) to protect the interests of a US fruit company (now Chiquita Brands International), then there is only one world that is applicable – and that’s ‘bananas’. (Investigate Operation PBSUCCESS for more information of the subject).

It is easy enough for us to paint the actions of Latin American leaders as suspect because we have never been in their shoes, nor had to deal with the ramifications of other nations seriously interfering with our political processes to such a degree that they would go so far as to train murderers to intimidate and kill innocents to preserve or strengthen their influence.

As for Chavez, Venezuelan oil, the belief that he wants to emulate Castro, the nationalization of various Venezuelan industries, changes to the constitution, the championing of the Bolivarian movement, and a whole host of other matters – ask yourself one simple question. Do you believe that it will lead to his government arming death squads to quell political opposition? Do you believe that Venezuela is on the brink of disaster, and that Chavez is a tyrant in disguise waiting only to paint the streets of Caracas red with the blood of his political adversaries? If that is the case, and you do believe that that is a possibility, place into context what took place in El Salvador at the hands of those backed and trained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Put into context the assassination of Monseñor Romero and others that dared to speak out against those that worked to secure the interests of a foreign power while selling their own people out.

Hugo Chavez’s government’s human rights record makes that of Saudi Arabia look demonic by comparison. In fact, the same goes for Castro’s Cuba. And yet nary is a word said about what transpires in Saudi Arabia. The United States is on the brink of gifting the Saudis, and several others in the region, some $20 billion dollars in military aid, and yet their human rights record is abysmal. In Venezuela, women can vote, hell, they can even drive cars. The same cannot be said of Saudi Arabia, where no one can vote. Venezuela does not represent a military threat to the United States, while the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudis, not to mention that the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.

In the last Venezuelan federal election, Chavez received 62.84% of the vote. His closest rival, Manuel Rosales, received 36.9%. In all, 75% of eligible voters participated in the election, which, by comparison, puts us to shame with regards to our own participation in the last federal election. And yet our outlook on what transpires in Venezuela is always suspect.

I’ll not sit here and say that Hugo Chavez is by any means perfect, or that democracy in his country needs to be safeguarded and transparent to ensure his legitimacy and the legitimacy of Venezuelan democracy itself. But that said, I will also not condemn the man out of hand given what he’s been made to deal with as it pertains to not only campaigning against political opposition that is bankrolled by a foreign power, but the very real breach of national security that such a reality represents.

As far as I am aware, and if you have information to the contrary please do feel free to provide it in the comments, no one in Venezuela is being dragged from their bed at night and ‘disappeared’. While there are real human rights concerns to consider, let us not forget to apply context to them with regards to our own actions, especially to do with the War On Terror. Unlike the United States, Venezuela does not run numerous facilities where individuals are held outside of the auspices of international law or tortured. They also are not guilty of rendering individuals to countries know for their use of torture and then lying about it. Unlike the United States, Venezuela is a signatory of the International Criminal Court’s Rome Statute, which was ratified while Chavez was in office.

The truth is that what is currently transpiring in Venezuela with regards to constitutional amendments is a slippery slope. Then again, it must not be overlooked that we adhere to a political system in which there are no term limits and that any person, even if they have already held the office of Prime Minister, has the right to run for, and hold, that office again. Obviously, Venezuela’s political construct differs from ours, and as I said yesterday, it would do Chavez a world of good to perhaps look at the reformation of Venezuela’s political system to better enact the changes that he is seeking rather than doing it in such a way that raises suspicions.

Dictator? Revolutionary? Neither? I found this article on the BBC’s website quite interesting. What are your views on Hugo Chavez, the RCTV shut down, and Venezuelan politics? Comment away.

I have never been fond of the term ‘The War On Terror’. The reason? It probably has to do with the fact that those who coined the phrase are the world’s foremost militarists, have aided in the survival or emplacement of a variety of despotic regimes over the last sixty some odd years, have played a significant role in undermining the integrity of the United Nations over the last six years, have scoffed at the Geneva Conventions and international law because they have more planes, ships, rockets and guns than everyone else and yes – even sponsored terrorists.

There are those that will defend such things as necessities of circumstance. I wonder why those same people don’t afford others the same disgusting accommodation.

Sponsor terrorists, you say? You surely jest Mr. Good.

I am, in fact, far from joking. One such terrorist, Luis Posada, was recently set at liberty in the United States, who have refused to consider extradition requests from both Cuba and Venezuela, the latter in which he was legally imprisoned for years before escaping – which in truth was engineered by the Cuban American National Foundation.

Posada was a CIA asset in Latin America in the 1960’s, and perhaps beyond, and has been linked to the bombing of a Cuban airliner in 1976 that killed 73 innocent people. And yet, Posada, one of the principals in Ollie North’s Nicaraguan adventures in the 80’s, is a free man. Meanwhile, hundreds of detainees are still being held captive at Guantanamo Bay beyond their rights under international and human rights laws.

They’re terrorists, though. Why in God’s name should they be afforded rights?

I have argued in the past that the demoralization of our principles with regards to our conduct in War 2.0 has stripped us of the moral high ground, if we ever held it in the first place. Again, there are those that disagree with that sentiment, most of whom don’t have to witness people being tortured. They can, quite comfortably, sit a world away and condone such actions and then, rather stunningly, claim that we should be ever vigilant of terrorist attacks on home soil.

And what, do you suppose, might inspire such attacks?

Certainly not our blatant hypocrisy. After all, we’re fighting monsters bent on global domination, the complete destruction of our way of life and the rest of that idiotic bather.

If you honestly believe that al-Qaeda has the power to undertake, or even influence, a ‘global uprising’ that would see us in chains, you are, no offense intended, delusional. Ironically, it’s not really your fault. Most of us have been so sold on the idea that it has almost become fact.

And God forbid any of us question that.

Turn on the news and the focus on the violence in Iraq is squarely placed on al-Qaeda’s shoulders, as if it represented the majority of the insurgency, as if were the United States to abandon Iraq it would somehow take power there. The truth, of course, is that it constitutes less than 7% of the insurgency, that it is disliked or disregarded by those that comprise its majority and were the United States to abandon Iraq, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia would be one of the first groups to be liquidated by far more predominant power blocks. It’s also important to remember that it didn’t even exist as an entity in Iraq prior to the Anglo-American invasion in 2003.

So where does this power come from? Where does the need to over emphasize their importance come from? In whose best interest is it in to ensure that they remain the focus, an ambiguous global boogey man, a group with which others can associate themselves, even if they have little to no connection with them in reality?

For all we know, when 9/11 was planned, Osama Bin Laden’s participation in the entire thing could have been nothing more than a nod of his head in agreement. Then again, he could have authored thousands of pages on how it was to be done. But the fact remains – who actually knows? Certainly not the likes of the CIA, that’s for certain. If that particular detail were a hard fact then you’d think they’d know enough to actually apprehend the man. Instead, he’s most likely somewhere in the mountains of Pakistan, protected by those loyal to him and, in all probability, the Pakistani ISI as well.

We can’t mess with Pakistan though, despite the fact that their intelligence apparatus operates without impunity or oversight, is beyond the control of the government, and despite the fact that its border with Afghanistan is dotted with radical religious schools that teach anything but the truth of Islam. We can’t mess with them because, unlike Saddam Hussein and the Taliban, they actually have the bomb. And that changes everything.

The bomb provides protection, and guess who solidified that reality?

The word terrorism is a façade. It is a façade that allows governments around the world to curtail social rights and freedoms, promote xenophobic attitudes and, above all else – justify militarization.

In the War 2.0 world there is no tank, no plane, no missile, nor any ship that can stop five determined madmen bent on blowing something up and killing people if they are determined to do so, no matter their religion, the colour of their skin, or their ideology. What is of importance in the War 2.0 world is how many planes, missiles, ships, tanks, and guns are we going to manufacture and convince ourselves we need to put into use before we figure that out? Because the truth is that twenty madmen bent on destruction can kill 3,000 people. But one madman with millions at his command can kill much more.

Zealotry knows no definitive boundaries, no matter how much we’d like to believe otherwise. And to say that any nation that possesses the military power and wherewithal to invade other nations at will based on lies, not to mention the nuclear capability to destroy it several times over, is beyond scrutiny only makes the cause of those who despise it all the more impassioned.

And so five men get together in some dark cave or on the banks of some remote river, and they plot. The question is, of the five, how many of their names do we already know?

Rosa Brooks On The Posada Hyporcisy

From today’s Los Angeles Times…

“LIKE PIRATES, terrorists are supposedly hostis humani generis — the “enemy of all mankind.” So why is the Bush administration letting one of the world’s most notorious terrorists stroll freely around the United States?

I’m talking about a man who was — until 9/11 — perhaps the most successful terrorist in the Western Hemisphere. He’s believed to have masterminded a 1976 plot to blow up a civilian airliner, killing all 73 people on board, including teenage members of Cuba’s national fencing team. He’s admitted to pulling off a series of 1997 bombings aimed at tourist hotels and nightspots. Today, he’s living illegally in the United States, but senior members of the Bush administration — the very guys who declared war on terror just a few short years ago — don’t seem terribly bothered.

I’m talking about Luis Posada Carriles. That’s not a household name for most U.S. citizens, but for many in Latin America, Posada is as reviled as Osama bin Laden is in the United States.

The Cuban-born Posada was trained by the CIA at the School of the Americas in 1961. From Venezuela, he later planned the successful 1976 bombing of a civilian Cuban jetliner (apparently with the knowledge of the CIA). He was arrested for the crime, but he escaped from a Venezuelan prison before standing trial.

Posada later aided Ollie North’s illegal efforts to get arms to the Nicaraguan Contras, tried repeatedly to assassinate Fidel Castro and was behind a 1997 string of Havana hotel bombings. Recently declassified U.S. government documents suggest that, throughout most of his career, Posada remained in close contact with the CIA.

Posada entered the U.S. illegally in 2005. Human rights groups and the Cuban and Venezuelan governments urged that he be tried or extradited for his terrorist activities, but for several months the Bush administration denied that Posada was even in the United States.

On May 17, 2005, the Miami Herald shamed the administration into action by publishing a front-page interview with Posada (who sipped his peach drink on his Florida balcony, described his leisure reading and commented cheerfully that at first he “thought the [U.S.] government was looking for me” but eventually realized that U.S. officials had no interest in finding him). Only then did the administration detain Posada — but on immigration charges, not terrorism-related charges.

Since 2005, the administration seems to have done everything in its power to botch the immigration case against Posada, mishandling it so blatantly that on Wednesday an exasperated federal judge declared herself “left with no choice” but to throw out the indictment. Although a different judge previously ordered Posada deported, Posada can’t legally be extradited to Venezuela because the court concluded that he might be tortured there.

So for now, Posada’s a free man — even though the administration has sufficient evidence to arrest him for his role in either the 1976 airliner bombing or the 1997 Havana bombings. For that matter, Posada easily could be detained under Section 412 of the Patriot Act, which calls for the mandatory detention of aliens suspected of terrorism.”

The Truth Shall Set You Free – As In ‘Unemployed’

From The Progressive’s Matthew Rothschild…

“Michael Baker worked for the Lincoln, Nebraska, public schools since 1981.

But after he showed the documentary “Baghdad ER” to his geography class on April 18, his career there was over.

Baker tells The Progressive that he cannot talk freely about what happened because he reached an agreement with the school district. Part of that agreement prohibits him from saying anything “disparaging” about it, he says.

But he does acknowledge this: “The morning after I showed the documentary ‘Baghdad ER’ was my last day in class.”

HBO, which aired “Baghdad ER,” describes it this way: “2-time Emmy® Award winner producer/director Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill capture the humanity, hardships and heroism of the US Military and medical personnel of the 86th Combat Support Hospital, the Army’s premier medical facility in Iraq. Sometimes graphic in its depiction of combat-related wounds, BAGHDAD ER offers an unflinching and honest account of the realities of war.”

Even the conservative magazine the National Review gave it a good review, calling it “refreshingly earnest.”

Baker waxes philosophical about his departure. “Teachers that teach against the grain often have difficulties with school systems,” he says. “What has happened to me is certainly not unusual.”

But his supporters are not so circumspect.

Michael Anderson taught with Baker at East High School for eight years. Now he’s the director of the school of education at the University of Wisconsin at Platteville.

“It’s outrageous,” Anderson says of Baker’s departure.

“I believe there were students who went home and were troubled about what they saw, and there were parental phone calls to the principal, and the next day she walked him out the door because she didn’t have the courage to stand up to the complainers,” he says. Anderson says Baker was first suspended for ten days with pay and then “got the lawyers involved.”

Anderson thinks that the administrators seized on this incident to get rid of Baker.

“What’s obvious is that the showing of ‘Baghdad ER’ was only an excuse to remove a progressive educator from the classroom,” Anderson charges.

Baker has clashed with administrators before. In 2005, they objected to his innovative approach to teaching history, which was to start at the present and work backwards, an approach he’d been using for four years.

But then, the school district forbade him from teaching that way any longer. The school’s consultant said it was “not logical, does not contribute to effective teaching or monitoring of progress, and puts students at a disadvantage” with newly instituted statewide tests, according to a paper on the subject by Professor Nancy Patterson of Bowling Green. Baker appealed but lost, and was eventually
“prohibited from teaching U.S. history,” Patterson writes.

“I think they wanted me to become so disenchanted that I would leave,” he told Patterson in an interview in December, according to her paper, entitled “History That Is Made in Our Time: The Backwards Tale of One History Teacher’s Experiences with Reverse Chronology.” He added in that interview: “They are trying to make my life miserable, and they are succeeding.”

Nancy Biggs, the assistant superintendent for human resources at Lincoln Public Schools, gives her account of why Baker no longer teaches there.

“He asked to retire, and we accepted his request to retire,” she tells The Progressive.

Was he suspended for ten days?

“I couldn’t comment on anything related to his employment status,” she says.

Was he disciplined for showing “Baghdad ER”?

“I can’t confirm that, but I have read that in the paper.”

Any other comments?

“I’m sorry, I’m not trying to be evasive, well, I am being evasive, and I need to be, so I don’t violate confidential personnel information.”

Baker’s departure has caused controversy in Lincoln. The Journal Star newspaper has posted at least 132 e-mail comments.

Most defended him.”

While my last entry regarding Paris Hilton seems to have fueled some anger, this is an entry which should not merely fuel anger, but dump kerosene on an already burning fire.

In 1976, Cubana Flight 455 was downed by two timed bombs. All seventy three people on board were killed. Cuban, Venezuelan, and American investigations traced the planting of the bombs to two Venezuelan passengers employed by Luis Posada’s private detective agency based in Venezuela, both of whom admitted to the crime. Following their admissions, Posada was arrested, charged with masterminding the bombing, and subsequently jailed. He was, at the time, a CIA asset.

In 1977 Posada escaped from jail and fled to Chile, from which he was immediately extradited. He would thus serve a further eight years before an operation financed by Jorge Mas Canosa helped him, once again, escape. Canosa was the then head of The Cuban-American National Foundation, which was created in 1981 as an initiative of the Reagan White House, and received US funding with the purpose of financing anti-Cuban terrorist initiatives.

After Posada’s second escape, he was relocated to El Salvador, where he was integrated into US operations there. He would go on to also operate along side another CIA asset, Félix Rodríguez, in coordinating support for the Contras under the direction U.S. Major General Richard Secord, who was assigned the task of directing such operations for Oliver North.

It should be noted that documents released yesterday by the National Security Archive substantiate Posada’s connection to the bombing of flight 455, which makes what I’m getting to all the more sickening and hypocritical.

In May of 2005, Posada was detained for entering the United States illegally. Released on bail last month, today a US judge dropped the immigration charges against Posada due to ‘illegally obtained statements made by Posada that were used against him’.

US authorities have said that they will not entertain extradition applications to have Posada transfered to Cuban or Venezuelan authorities despite requests from both nations that he be.