Annie Leibovitz remembered and so do I. The mind is a powerful thing. And it helps to know what is in the hearts and minds of your “friends” and your enemies. Thank the Creator for art…it’s where our innermost truths get unmasked.
The American Anthropological Association put together a website intended to demonstrate the unity of the human family with respect to the question of race. One of the segments of the website reads as follows:
Why do some people have light skin and others have dark skin? How do scientists explain the broad spectrum of human skin color around the globe?
Skin color, one of our most visible physical features, has long been used to divide people into racial categories. Anthropologist Nina Jablonski, Ph.D. theorizes that variations in human skin are adaptive traits that correlate closely to geography and the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, not race.
“Over the course of evolution, human ancestors became bigger and more active as they moved into hot, open environments in search of food and water. In these places, one big challenge was keeping cool. The adaptation they made was to increase the number of sweat glands on their skin while at the same time reducing the amount of their body hair,” explains Jablonski. With less hair, perspiration could evaporate more easily and cool the body more efficiently. “But this less-hairy skin was a problem because it was exposed to a very strong sun, especially in lands near the equator.” Strong sun exposure damages the body. “The solution was to evolve skin that was permanently dark so as to protect against the sun’s more damaging rays.”
Now that’s just bizarre.
The man who just singlehandedly committed the United States to war against Libya, President Barack Obama, told the Boston Globe in 2007:
The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
Time for Some Action
The contest of wills between the United States of America and the sovereign nation of Libya go back to a time before Libya was a sovereign nation. Of course, prior to 1951, it had been hundreds of years since Libya was sovereign. Before the various Back when Libya was a colony of the Italians in the 1930’s and 1940’s, Americans had a cozy relationship with these new Romans in North Africa.
When the new Romans were deposed by the new Arabs in North Africa, the United States established a cozy relationship with the al-Senussi family. The cozy relationship included a military base which served various purposes from training to facilitating regional operations. The cozy relationship also included an economic side when Esso (aka Exxon) found oil in the deserts of Western Libya.
The monarch leading Libya in the 1950’s and 1960’s did not believe in “spreading the wealth.” Like his European benefactors and protectors, he concentrated the wealth in the hands of the few and sowed the seeds of discontent at home. The monarch eventually became ill and sought medical attention in Greece. While he was away in 1969, the man who has come to be known as the world’s bloodiest, meanest, cruelest, evilest-est dictator since Donald Rumsfeld’s drinking buddy Saddam Hussein, led a bloodless coup replacing the monarch.
According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.
Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of “Unholy Babylon,” said the move was done “with full knowledge of the CIA,” and that Saddam’s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish’s account.
Darwish said that Saddam’s paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.
The assassination was set for Oct. 7, 1959, but it was completely botched. Accounts differ. One former CIA official said that the 22-year-old Saddam lost his nerve and began firing too soon, killing Qasim’s driver and only wounding Qasim in the shoulder and arm. Darwish told UPI that one of the assassins had bullets that did not fit his gun and that another had a hand grenade that got stuck in the lining of his coat.
Just a Fraction of Friction
Colonel Muammar Gaddafi did two things that made him an enemy of the West — and neither of those things involved violence or murder. First, he demanded that the United States surrender the military base it held. He didn’t demand an immediate surrender. A negotiated time table was set, and unlike Guantanamo Bay, the United States ceded this sovereign territory to the nation to whom it rightfully belonged. (They would come back later to bomb the base, but that’s another story.) Second, he nationalized businesses industries in which Western firms sought to extract enormous profits at the expense of the indigenous population. Oil was nationalized in 1973. And, he threatened to do so again in 2009.
For these actions, the United States and the UK commissioned a small group of soldiers under the leadership of a 6’6″ Scottish soldier to assassinate Muammar Gaddafi. Stirling’s legacy, apart from the unsuccessful assassination attempt, was creating small tactical groups that conducted covert, quick and decisive raids on targets (personnel, installations, military units, etc.) that resulted in devastating impacts. Stirling’s attempt on Gaddafi was more than a decade before the bombing of the Berlin disco. It was almost two decades before the bombing of Flight 103 in Lockerbie, Scotland – the ancestral home of David Stirling, the man who plotted to kill the colonel in 1970.
As oil revenues accrued to Libya, much of that revenue was funneled into national development projects and the establishment of a stronger military apparatus. With the US giving $% billion per year to Israel and a comparable sum to the authoritarian regime of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Libya sought to ensure the stability and security of its interests within its borders.
In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed “close ties” with Qasim’s ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party “as its instrument.”
Moreover, Libya sought the assistance of the former Soviet Union in achieving these aims. Gaddafi is no Communist. Never has been. The Soviets had technology that met the needs of the Libyans; and the United States government (working at the behest of firms like Exxon and others) sought only to subvert the regime and restore the appropriations relationship over Libyan resources which obtained since 1911.
Libya, like the United States, UK, and Israel, engaged in proxy fights in Europe and elsewhere intended to influence the land crisis in Palestine. Western and Israeli forces typically relied on mercenary forces trained in covert operations. Libyan and pro-Palestinian supporters typically relied on urban and infrastructure attacks in Western cities. Neither “side” was able to significantly impact the resolution of the land question in Palestine. It remains as intractable as ever, however, Gaddafi’s engagement on the question permitted him to be branded by Western media as an enemy.
Conquerors with Long Memories and Short Sticks
In order to grant some moral cover to the unified actions of the United States, the UK and France, some external non-European support was required. The African Union was of no use. That group voted against approving a no-fly zone over Libya. Only the so-called Arab League (or more properly, the League of Arab States) endorsed such an action. It is somewhat paradoxical that this entity, of whom its four largest member states are all in Africa (Egypt, Sudan, Algeria, Morocco) would vote against other independent African nations and with the West. The 22-member League is a curious collection of states that have only once selected a non-Egyptian to serve as Secretary General. The Egyptians, of course, have had a long-standing relationship with the West, particularly the US and the UK.
(More to follow)
Lebensraum: A Tale of Two Gulfs
“I didn’t have to blast him, but I did anyway!
Ha! Ha! Punk had to pay.
So I just killed a man.”
– Cypress Hill, “How I Could Just Kill a Man” (1991)
In 1973, before the Libyan leader had been labeled as a sponsor of international terrorism, he sought to extend the international recognition of the territorial waters to the 300-mile expanse of the Gulf of Sidra. Libya’s claim did not meet the established international standard of the time and was rejected by the US. It is worth noting, however, given the US’ use of international power, if the situations and contexts were reversed, the US would have disregarded this provision as well. The unique boundaries of Western European states (not to mention their proximity) and the historical maturation of the United States suggest the international accord around territorial limits is indeed subjective.
In 1981, Ronald Reagan put the Sixth Fleet on maneuvers in the Gulf of Sidra to close the question of territorial access within the Gulf of Sidra. The question was closed, at least until 1989, when Libyan fighter jets were downed over the Gulf (with no reported loss of life). The waters remained open for international shipping and the Colonel’s “line of death” became nothing more than an artifact of history.
From the Wikipedia entry on territorial waters:
From the eighteenth century until the mid twentieth century, the territorial waters of the British Empire, the United States, France and many other nations were three nautical miles (5.6 km) wide. Originally, this was the length of a cannon shot, hence the portion of an ocean that a sovereign state could defend from shore. However, Iceland claimed two nautical miles (3.7 km), Norway and Sweden claimed four nautical miles (7.4 km), and Spain claimed 6 nautical miles (11 km; 6.9 mi) during this period. During incidents such as nuclear weapons testing and fisheries disputes some nations arbitrarily extended their maritime claims to as much as fifty or even two hundred nautical miles. Since the late 20th century the “12 mile limit” has become almost universally accepted. The United Kingdom extended its territorial waters from three to twelve nautical miles (22 km) in 1987.
In 1999, under President Bill Clinton, the United States claimed an additional 12 mile contiguous zone. Vice-President Al Gore issued the following statement, excerpted here:
Under international law, a nation can claim a territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from its coast, and a contiguous zone extending an additional 12 miles. Within the contiguous zone, a nation can act to prevent violations of its environmental, customs, fiscal, or immigration laws, or to apprehend vessels suspected of violating them.
Within the extended contiguous zone, the Coast Guard may now board and search a foreign vessel suspected of smuggling drugs, carrying illegal immigrants, polluting the ocean, or tampering with sunken ships or other underwater artifacts, without first obtaining permission from the country where the vessel is registered. Previously, such action could be taken only within 12 miles of the coast.
“With this new enforcement tool, we can better protect America’s working families against drug trafficking, illegal immigration, and threats to our ocean environment,” the Vice President said. “We are putting would-be smugglers and polluters on notice that we will do everything in our power to protect our waters and our shores.”
Clinton sought to protect American interests in and around the Gulf of Mexico. Libra, presently, claims no contiguous zones extending beyond its territorial waters.
Berlin Smoke Screen
On 5 April 1986, a woman delivered an explosive device to a night club in Berlin. The bomb killed three US soldiers. Immediately, the US charged the Libyan government with the bombing. Ten days later, the US bombed the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi. The two-year old adopted daughter of Colonel Gaddafi was killed during this American attack. Back in Berlin, an arrest from far from imminent. Swift and certain retribution came in 10 days. Justice would wait for 10 years; no one was arrested until 1996. Among those arrested were two Libyan nationals, a Palestinian man, and a Lebanese man and his German wife. The United States did not seek sanctions from Germany or extract concessions from Germany based on the complicity of their nationals.
In an odd twist, only the German woman, Verena Chanaa, was convicted of murder. You’ll have to pardon the BBC for making it look as if the Arabs did it. And, perhaps you could even forgive the US secret service and the German secret service for failing to support the investigation…after all, soldiers are expendable and their deaths were not in vain. The judge did not see it that way:
The judge said prosecutors had failed to prove that the attack was planned on the personal orders of Colonel Gaddafi, partly because of the lack of co-operation from Western secret services.
But he said the bombing had been planned by members of the Libyan secret service and workers at the Libyan embassy in East Berlin.
The judge criticised the “limited willingness” of German and US secret services to provide evidence.
It was one of the “disappointments” of the trial, he said.
The United States government has been accused by its own citizens of orchestrating the demolition of the World Trade Center facility and attacking the Pentagon. These allegations will persist until such time as there is full disclosure. So it is in Berlin. The American corporate media closed the case, as did much of the public. However, the court record remains, as do these questions.
- Why were the governments of the United States and Germany uncooperative?
- Why were neither of these governments, with all of their police and investigative resources, unable to return a verdict of murder against four Arabs?
- Why did the national and international media hide the photograph of Verena Chanaa? Why is she not the face of international terrorism?
- What was the role of the US’ Central Intelligence Agency in the bombing?
- What was the role of Mossad, the Israeli espionage agency?
- Were the Libyans on the payroll of the CIA?
- Was their charge to obtain evidence of authorization from Colonel Gaddafi?
- Were they authorized by the CIA to proceed with the hopes of obtaining corroboration after the fact?
Answers to these fundamental questions should be a prerequisite for a war declaration or a unilateral attack by a hawkish president with a nice jump shot. What are the facts on the ground and what is the evidence. When the United States bombed Benghazi and Tripoli in 1986, killing the Colonel’s daughter, they had yet to build a compelling case for their naked aggression. They did, however, establish a pretext.
From The Scotsman in 2005:
A FORMER Scottish police chief has given lawyers a signed statement claiming that key evidence in the Lockerbie bombing trial was fabricated.
The retired officer – of assistant chief constable rank or higher – has testified that the CIA planted the tiny fragment of circuit board crucial in convicting a Libyan for the 1989 mass murder of 270 people.
The officer, who was a member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland, is supporting earlier claims by a former CIA agent that his bosses “wrote the script” to incriminate Libya…
Last night, George Esson, who was Chief Constable of Dumfries and Galloway when Megrahi was indicted for mass murder, confirmed he was aware of the development.
But Esson, who retired in 1994, questioned the officer’s motives. He said: “Any police officer who believed they had knowledge of any element of fabrication in any criminal case would have a duty to act on that. Failure to do so would call into question their integrity, and I can’t help but question their motive for raising the matter now.”
Other important questions remain unanswered, such as how the officer learned of the alleged conspiracy and whether he was directly involved in the inquiry. But sources close to Megrahi’s legal team believe they may have finally discovered the evidence that could demolish the case against him.
An insider told Scotland on Sunday that the retired officer approached them after Megrahi’s appeal – before a bench of five Scottish judges – was dismissed in 2002.
The insider said: “He said he believed he had crucial information. A meeting was set up and he gave a statement that supported the long-standing rumours that the key piece of evidence, a fragment of circuit board from a timing device that implicated Libya, had been planted by US agents…
The vital evidence that linked the bombing of Pan Am 103 to Megrahi was a tiny fragment of circuit board which investigators found in a wooded area many miles from Lockerbie months after the atrocity.
The fragment was later identified by the FBI’s Thomas Thurman as being part of a sophisticated timer device used to detonate explosives, and manufactured by the Swiss firm Mebo, which supplied it only to Libya and the East German Stasi.
At one time, Megrahi, a Libyan intelligence agent, was such a regular visitor to Mebo that he had his own office in the firm’s headquarters.
The fragment of circuit board therefore enabled Libya – and Megrahi – to be placed at the heart of the investigation. However, Thurman was later unmasked as a fraud who had given false evidence in American murder trials, and it emerged that he had little in the way of scientific qualifications.
Then, in 2003, a retired CIA officer gave a statement to Megrahi’s lawyers in which he alleged evidence had been planted.
Friends, Enemies, and Money
Time, Newsweek and the New York Times may have railed against the Colonel, but not everyone was mad at him. Halliburton engaged the Libyan government in 1984 on a construction contract to build aquifers delivering water from the Libyan desert to the coast. The contract was valued at $25 billion and was fulfilled through a foreign subsidiary due to sanctions imposed by the US government on Libya.
If you’re keeping score, it’s US 5, Libya 2. The actions of the United States and its paid operatives include Stirling’s assassination attempt in 1970; the 1986 disco bombing in Berlin by a non-Arab German woman; the explosion of the flight over Scotland and the planting of evidence by an agent of the FBI; and, the “retaliatory” bombing in 1986 in Libya, which killed 15 people including the adopted two-year daughter of Colonel Gaddafi. In addition to these actions, the United States twice
Libya’s actions, as recorded by Western
Libya initiated, prior to the demise of the former Soviet Union, a program to obtain nuclear energy and weapons. twice initiated conflicts in the Gulf of Sidra (1981 and 1989),
Increase opium production? Check.
Increase international heroin sales? Check.
Kill civilians to keep sharp? Check.
Carry out mission with impunity? Check.
Carry out mission without scrutiny? Check.
Some folks are begging for an ass-kicking. Do not complain when it comes to a subway station or bus stop near you.
Be as quiet as you are – right now.
In U.S. poll, 60 percent back Libya military action http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-libya-usa-poll-idUSTRE72N1JN20110324
Americans have really taken to the whole “regime change” thing, How do you spent all day, every day watching Charlie Sheen, Oprah Winfrey, and other mindless nonsense, then spin around and weigh in on who is fit or unfit to rule another nation?
Americans are relying on British nannies (on television) and Caribbean nannies (in reality) to rule their HOMES, but remain possessed of the brass, chutzpah, stones y cahones to talk smack about names and places they can neither spell nor pronounce.
Is that an unfair generalization? Perhaps, but it is no prejudicial than the self-righteous characterizations of “those” people in “those” countries. Americans are not served by their inability to have powerfully informed conversations about foreign affairs.
Instead, Americans continue to write blank checks for their own voracious war machine.
Gates, Buffett in India to persuade rich to give to charity http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/us-india-gates-idUSTRE72N2LG20110324
Strikes on Libya set to slow, stalemate feared http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110322
The media has begun to say that Libya is in the midst of a civil war. What degree of military engagement by the reactionary right in the US would be required to attain that designation?
Only one in three Britons support Libya action: poll http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-libya-britain-poll-idUSTRE72L0JD20110322
Radiation anxiety grows in disaster-struck Japan http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-japan-quake-idUSTRE72A0SS20110322
Excerpted from The Final Call:
When the western media began reporting on Libya, Feb. 15, it seemed as if it was a foregone conclusion that Col. Muammar Gadhafi would be ousted in the country he has led for over 42 years. Now, nearly a month later, he remains in power.
On Mar. 12, the Arab League agreed on asking the United Nations to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, days earlier, the African Union voted against it.
Al-Arabiya reported March 14 U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton arrived in Paris to sit down with Foreign Ministers from Russian, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan. A no-fly zone plan is reportedly being presented to NATO on Mar. 15, according to Secy. Clinton.
It is no secret that the Nation of Islam and Minister Farrakhan have enjoyed a mutually beneficial relationship with the Libyan leader for decades. The United States has long opposed Col. Gadhafi and attempted to force him out of office even bombing his country during the Reagan administration, Min. Farrakhan noted.
The Minister blasted President Obama and Secy. Clinton for their arrogance in meddling in another sovereign nation’s affairs and publicly recommending regime change.
Min. Farrakhan instructed Americans to look beneath the surface to see who stands to benefit from the unrest, and warned Pres. Obama to be careful of the words coming from advisors lobbying him to move in with military forces to depose Col. Gadhafi.
“Well, today our dear brother (Obama) has to be very, very careful in this decision that he and his Secretary of State, and [French President Nicolas] Sarkozy and [British] Prime Minister [David] Cameron and others are planning. They would love to go into Libya and kill Brother Gadhafi, and kill his children as they did with Saddam Hussein and his sons, Qusay and Uday. You must remember, dear people of America, that whenever government wants you to think and act in a certain way that would bring justification to an action that they are already planning to make, they must make the person that they hate a ‘boogey man,’ ” he said. Col. Gadhafi, who led a bloodless coup against a U.S. ally over 40 years ago, has seen constant negative publicity and was once called the “Mad Dog of the Middle East” by American leaders and analysts.
People unhappy with government are not solely in Libya, he pointed out. Many are unhappy with Mr. Obama, he said.
The U.S. government has a long history of deposing leaders of other nations in order to get natural resources, more specifically—oil, he continued, saying the imperialistic forces are not interested in saving those being killed, it is just a “noble motive to hide your (the U.S. government’s) wicked agenda!”
“When George W. Bush was president, he said they wanted regime change in Iran, in (North) Korea regime change—how do you get regime change America? How do you do that? Congress, the Congress of the United States, voted to spend $150 million to replace the government in Iran that America doesn’t like, so they send their agents in to work among the dissatisfied. So when they had this election, and the people in Iran rose up, they have legitimate grievances, all right—but stimulated from the outside,” Minister Farrakhan continued. “Well, what about Libya? How much money is being spent to arm the so-called rebels? They’re dissatisfied! Well, what is their dissatisfaction about? Do they (Libyans) have jobs? Yes. Do they have food? Yes. Has Gadhafi used the oil money to build Libya? Yes. Did Gadhafi use oil money and discover water under the Sahara Desert, and brought that water to the surface; and brought water from Benghazi all the way to the border almost of Tunisia? Did he impose farming in the desert so that they could feed their own people? Yes. Are there billions of dollars that he’s spending building homes, building apartments for his people? Yes. So something is under this!” said Min. Farrakhan.
“Is it that you’re (U.S. officials) so concerned over the blood that is being shed in Libya, when you looked the other way when the Israeli Defense Force was bombing the innocent people of Gaza, unarmed men, women and children? … You looked the other way when the Israeli Defense Force went into Lebanon thinking that they were going to have an easy victory, then you had to come out with your tail between your legs?”
Min. Farrakhan said Col. Gadhafi has been investing money in Africa, enjoys international friendship, and should not be killed simply because he is not America’s friend.
“Now, I want to warn you, in the Name of Allah, that this is more complex than what you think! Go into Libya if you want to. The Libyans do not want foreign occupation on their land. And when you make that kind of move, if you’re not careful, you’ll unite the Libyan people against you!”
Inside America members of the Branch Davidian religious sect were killed in 1993 in Waco, Texas, by federal law enforcement, while men, women and children of the MOVE organization were killed when police bombed their home during a 1985 standoff in Philadelphia, he said. Current American outrage is nothing but hypocrisy, the Minister said.
To President Obama, Minister Farrakhan delivered a pointed warning: “Don’t let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the world. They don’t like the way you handled (former Egyptian President Hosni) Mubarak! They don’t like the way you’re handling the situation in the Arab world! So I would advise you to be careful—and move with wisdom and skill.
And then, Min. Farrakhan offered Pres. Obama some divine advice.
“Why don’t you organize a group of respected Americans, and ask for a meeting with Gadhafi? You can’t order him to step down, and get out—who the hell do you think you are, that you can talk to a man that built a country over 42 years, and ask him step down and get out? Can anybody ask you? Well, well there’s a lot, now, [that are] going to ask you to step out of the White House, because they don’t want a Black face in the White House,” said Min. Farrakhan.
“Be careful, brother, how you handle this situation because it is coming to America! It has already started. Look in Wisconsin! Look in Ohio! Look at what’s going on in your country! And remember your words because the American people are rising against their own government: It’s not Muslims; it’s not Black people! It’s White militias that are angry with their government, and they are well armed. Are you going to tell them—‘Put your arms down, and let’s talk it over peacefully?’ I hope so. But if not, America will be bathed in blood, not because Farrakhan said so, but because the dissatisfaction in America has reached the boiling point. Be careful how you manipulate the dissatisfaction in Libya and other parts of the Muslim world,” he warned.
Here are some other maps that illuminate the intentions of the United States and Western nations like France, the U.K., Belgium and the firms whose interests they serve.
The people who hired Barack Obama to administer the executive apparatus of the United States government have obvious intentions in Africa and in energy-rich nations. Some may mistaken his hesitancy to establish a no-fly zone as an act of empathy with the current regime. Far from it.
The United States’ stalling tactics compelled other European nations to step forward, again, in their economic interests. The US, then, has the “moral luxury” of following rather than explicitly leading. In the end, the French, the British and the Belgians cannot hope to forestall the advances of the US.
That work will fall to the Libyan people — and it is unclear whether or not that work will continue as it has with Col. Muammar Gadafi at the helm.