Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
WillyT
WillyT's Journal
WillyT's Journal
September 1, 2013
Obama is asking a jury of safe spectators to press the yes or no button for military strikes. Will they vote for an end to empire?
Jonathan Steele - The Guardian
Sunday 1 September 2013 13.15 EDT
<snip>
...
...
...
It is a case of breathtaking arrogance, a call for recognition that the US is not only the world's policeman but the world's enforcer. Obama said he was asking "every member of the global community" to consider what message impotence and inaction in the face of the use of chemical weapons would send to dictators everywhere. With a half-sentence that brushed the United Nations weapons inspectors aside and dismissed the security council for being "completely paralysed", Obama was saying in effect: "We are the empire. Accept us."
The difference between the rival motions that David Cameron and Ed Miliband put to the House of Commons and the one that Obama's people have drafted for Congress is instructive. In Britain the tone was more good Samaritan than good cop, highlighting protection over punishment. Both motions in parliament talked of alleviating the suffering of Syrian civilians and emphasised the principle of humanitarian intervention. Although Cameron and Miliband used dubious legal grounds to try to justify bypassing a veto in the UN security council by saying western military strikes were needed to protect Syrians, Obama's draft resolution only talks of "protecting the United States and its allies and partners", as though there is suddenly a new threat to the wider world.
The president's promise that military strikes on Syria would be limited and narrow is of course welcome. There will be no Baghdad-style shock and awe. For that we can be grateful. But war is still war, and the dangers of unintended consequences, mission creep and cracking on for the sake of cracking on lurk behind every sandhill.
Obama's draft resolution has a short paragraph on the need for a political settlement in Syria and even calls on the Geneva talks process to be resumed urgently. Is it cynical or just naive? Syrian rebels' intransigence and their unwillingness to attend without preconditions are the main reason for the failure of Geneva so far. US military strikes will only embolden them to delay further. The hope of a ceasefire – by far the most reliable and principled mechanism to protect Syrian lives – will recede again.
The best hope lies with the American public. It is not just the futility of eight years of fighting in Iraq, frustration in Afghanistan, the loss of thousands of soldiers' lives and the maiming of tens of thousands more that are causing so much doubt over a US attack on Syria now. Nor is it only the financial cost of war in an era of austerity. There is a growing sense that the problem goes beyond imperial overstretch. The very concept of empire is under scrutiny. Twenty years ago, Americans were proud to be the world's hyper-power. They felt they had won a great victory in the cold war. Now they see the pit into which that end-of-history triumphalism has led them. The US military-industrial complex and the power elite in Washington are feeling unusually uncomfortable. Even as pilotless drones and missiles have the potential to usher in an age of US casualty-free interventions, Obama is trying to summon Americans to take up a punitive role yet again. The next few days of national debate will be crucial, and in a week's time we will see which button they press.
<snip>
More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/us-public-doubts-attacking-syria
Syria: The US Public Faces A Grim Reality TV Choice - GuardianUK
Syria: the US public faces a grim reality TV choiceObama is asking a jury of safe spectators to press the yes or no button for military strikes. Will they vote for an end to empire?
Jonathan Steele - The Guardian
Sunday 1 September 2013 13.15 EDT
<snip>
...
...
...
It is a case of breathtaking arrogance, a call for recognition that the US is not only the world's policeman but the world's enforcer. Obama said he was asking "every member of the global community" to consider what message impotence and inaction in the face of the use of chemical weapons would send to dictators everywhere. With a half-sentence that brushed the United Nations weapons inspectors aside and dismissed the security council for being "completely paralysed", Obama was saying in effect: "We are the empire. Accept us."
The difference between the rival motions that David Cameron and Ed Miliband put to the House of Commons and the one that Obama's people have drafted for Congress is instructive. In Britain the tone was more good Samaritan than good cop, highlighting protection over punishment. Both motions in parliament talked of alleviating the suffering of Syrian civilians and emphasised the principle of humanitarian intervention. Although Cameron and Miliband used dubious legal grounds to try to justify bypassing a veto in the UN security council by saying western military strikes were needed to protect Syrians, Obama's draft resolution only talks of "protecting the United States and its allies and partners", as though there is suddenly a new threat to the wider world.
The president's promise that military strikes on Syria would be limited and narrow is of course welcome. There will be no Baghdad-style shock and awe. For that we can be grateful. But war is still war, and the dangers of unintended consequences, mission creep and cracking on for the sake of cracking on lurk behind every sandhill.
Obama's draft resolution has a short paragraph on the need for a political settlement in Syria and even calls on the Geneva talks process to be resumed urgently. Is it cynical or just naive? Syrian rebels' intransigence and their unwillingness to attend without preconditions are the main reason for the failure of Geneva so far. US military strikes will only embolden them to delay further. The hope of a ceasefire – by far the most reliable and principled mechanism to protect Syrian lives – will recede again.
The best hope lies with the American public. It is not just the futility of eight years of fighting in Iraq, frustration in Afghanistan, the loss of thousands of soldiers' lives and the maiming of tens of thousands more that are causing so much doubt over a US attack on Syria now. Nor is it only the financial cost of war in an era of austerity. There is a growing sense that the problem goes beyond imperial overstretch. The very concept of empire is under scrutiny. Twenty years ago, Americans were proud to be the world's hyper-power. They felt they had won a great victory in the cold war. Now they see the pit into which that end-of-history triumphalism has led them. The US military-industrial complex and the power elite in Washington are feeling unusually uncomfortable. Even as pilotless drones and missiles have the potential to usher in an age of US casualty-free interventions, Obama is trying to summon Americans to take up a punitive role yet again. The next few days of national debate will be crucial, and in a week's time we will see which button they press.
<snip>
More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/01/us-public-doubts-attacking-syria
September 1, 2013
Fukushima showed us the intolerable costs of nuclear power. The citizens of Vermont show us the benefits of shutting it down
Amy Goodman - theguardian.com
Thursday 29 August 2013 10.30 EDT
<snip>
Welcome to the nuclear renaissance.
Entergy Corp, one of the largest nuclear-power producers in the US, issued a surprise press release Tuesday, saying it plans "to close and decommission its Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, Vermont. The station is expected to cease power production after its current fuel cycle and move to safe shutdown in the fourth quarter of 2014." Although the press release came from the corporation, it was years of people's protests and state legislative action that forced its closure. At the same time that activists celebrate this key defeat of nuclear power, officials in Japan admitted that radioactive leaks from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe are far worse than previously acknowledged.
"It took three years, but it was citizen pressure that got the state Senate to such a position", nuclear-energy consultant Arnie Gundersen told me of Entergy's announcement. He has coordinated projects at 70 nuclear plants around the country and now provides independent testimony on nuclear and radiation issues. He explained how the state of Vermont, in the first such action in the country, had banned the plant from operating beyond its original 40-year permit. Entergy was seeking a 20-year extension.
Despite prevailing in the courts, Entergy bowed to public pressure.
Back in 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, who called Entergy "a company that we found we can't trust", said on "Democracy Now!":
The nuclear-power industry is at a critical crossroads....
<snip>
More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/nuclear-power-dangers-fukushima-vermont
Just Say No To Nuclear Power – From Fukushima To Vermont - Amy Goodman/Guardian UK
Just say no to nuclear power – from Fukushima to VermontFukushima showed us the intolerable costs of nuclear power. The citizens of Vermont show us the benefits of shutting it down
Amy Goodman - theguardian.com
Thursday 29 August 2013 10.30 EDT
<snip>
Welcome to the nuclear renaissance.
Entergy Corp, one of the largest nuclear-power producers in the US, issued a surprise press release Tuesday, saying it plans "to close and decommission its Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station in Vernon, Vermont. The station is expected to cease power production after its current fuel cycle and move to safe shutdown in the fourth quarter of 2014." Although the press release came from the corporation, it was years of people's protests and state legislative action that forced its closure. At the same time that activists celebrate this key defeat of nuclear power, officials in Japan admitted that radioactive leaks from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear catastrophe are far worse than previously acknowledged.
"It took three years, but it was citizen pressure that got the state Senate to such a position", nuclear-energy consultant Arnie Gundersen told me of Entergy's announcement. He has coordinated projects at 70 nuclear plants around the country and now provides independent testimony on nuclear and radiation issues. He explained how the state of Vermont, in the first such action in the country, had banned the plant from operating beyond its original 40-year permit. Entergy was seeking a 20-year extension.
The legislature, in that 26-to-4 vote, said: 'No, we're not going to allow you to reapply. It's over. You know, a deal's a deal. We had a 40-year deal.' Well, Entergy went to first the federal court here in Vermont and won, and then went to an appeals court in New York City and won again on the issue, as they framed it, that states have no authority to regulate safety.
Despite prevailing in the courts, Entergy bowed to public pressure.
Back in 2011, Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin, who called Entergy "a company that we found we can't trust", said on "Democracy Now!":
We're the only state in the country that's taken power into our own hands and said that, without an affirmative vote from the state legislature, the public service board cannot issue a certificate of public good to legally operate a plant for another 20 years. Now, the Senate has spoken ... saying no, it's not in Vermont's best interest to run an aging, leaking nuclear-power plant. And we expect that our decision will be respected.
The nuclear-power industry is at a critical crossroads....
<snip>
More: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/29/nuclear-power-dangers-fukushima-vermont
September 1, 2013
Anybody Else Here Sick To Your Stomach Depressed About The Syria Situation ???
Man... I haven't felt this way in a long time.
September 1, 2013
By Jim Axelrod - CBSNews
8/31/13
<snip>
(CBS News) This past week marked the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and one of the most important speeches in the history of this country. But more than one man articulated a dream that day -- even if the power of Martin Luther King overshadowed him.
It was the toughest time slot of the day. Never mind having to follow Mahalia Jackson -- the "Queen of Gospel".
"I wish I could sing," Rabbi Joachim Prinz told the audience fifty years ago at the podium on the day of the March on Washington. He was the last man up before Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I was the rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime," he continued.
The horrors this rabbi witnessed in Nazi Germany in the '30s compelled him to challenge America in the '60s.
"Bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problems," he said in his speech. "The most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence!"
<smip>
More: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57600884/a-rabbis-moment-at-the-march-on-washington/
A Rabbi's Moment At The March On Washington - CBSNews
A rabbi's moment at the March on WashingtonBy Jim Axelrod - CBSNews
8/31/13
<snip>
(CBS News) This past week marked the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and one of the most important speeches in the history of this country. But more than one man articulated a dream that day -- even if the power of Martin Luther King overshadowed him.
It was the toughest time slot of the day. Never mind having to follow Mahalia Jackson -- the "Queen of Gospel".
"I wish I could sing," Rabbi Joachim Prinz told the audience fifty years ago at the podium on the day of the March on Washington. He was the last man up before Martin Luther King, Jr.
"I was the rabbi of the Jewish community in Berlin under the Hitler regime," he continued.
The horrors this rabbi witnessed in Nazi Germany in the '30s compelled him to challenge America in the '60s.
"Bigotry and hatred are not the most urgent problems," he said in his speech. "The most shameful and the most tragic problem is silence!"
<smip>
More: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57600884/a-rabbis-moment-at-the-march-on-washington/
August 31, 2013
Ryan Grim - HuffPo
Posted: 08/31/2013 6:14 pm EDT | Updated: 08/31/2013 6:19 pm EDT
<snip>
WASHINGTON -- Liberals who are often critical of President Barack Obama's foreign policy are hailing his decision to seek authorization from Congress to strike Syria, even as many continue to oppose the military action itself. It is being seen as a step back from an increasingly imperial presidency in the post 9/11 era, on issues including indefinite detention, surveillance or global drone and cruise missile strikes.
Obama's move is also considered a rare act of genuine political courage. A congressional rejection would damage him politically, but he's pursuing it regardless in pursuit of a broader principle.
"It's great news that President Obama is seeking congressional approval for military action, an important precedent for all future presidents," said Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, generally a critic of the president. "After years of societal and international norms being thrown out the door -- and things like torture, violations of civil liberties, and war becoming normalized -- today's announcement is an important down payment on proper norms and regular order being restored."
Congress is granted power in the United States Constitution to declare war, but modern presidents have routinely marginalized the legislative body. Obama said during his Rose Garden address Saturday that he believed he had the authority to strike on his own, but was choosing to bring in Congress.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said. "I'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Stephen Miles, of Win Without War, a coalition of antiwar groups, said the group is "proud to see President Obama is doing the right thing and that Congress will indeed get a vote. Now it is up to each and every American to call their member of Congress and let their voice be heard on this important issue."
<snip>
More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/31/us-attack-syria_n_3849748.html
Obama Decision On U.S. Syria Attack Wins Applause From Skeptical Liberals - HuffPo
Obama Decision On U.S. Syria Attack Wins Applause From Skeptical LiberalsRyan Grim - HuffPo
Posted: 08/31/2013 6:14 pm EDT | Updated: 08/31/2013 6:19 pm EDT
<snip>
WASHINGTON -- Liberals who are often critical of President Barack Obama's foreign policy are hailing his decision to seek authorization from Congress to strike Syria, even as many continue to oppose the military action itself. It is being seen as a step back from an increasingly imperial presidency in the post 9/11 era, on issues including indefinite detention, surveillance or global drone and cruise missile strikes.
Obama's move is also considered a rare act of genuine political courage. A congressional rejection would damage him politically, but he's pursuing it regardless in pursuit of a broader principle.
"It's great news that President Obama is seeking congressional approval for military action, an important precedent for all future presidents," said Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, generally a critic of the president. "After years of societal and international norms being thrown out the door -- and things like torture, violations of civil liberties, and war becoming normalized -- today's announcement is an important down payment on proper norms and regular order being restored."
Congress is granted power in the United States Constitution to declare war, but modern presidents have routinely marginalized the legislative body. Obama said during his Rose Garden address Saturday that he believed he had the authority to strike on his own, but was choosing to bring in Congress.
"While I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective," he said. "I'm the president of the world's oldest constitutional democracy. I've long believed that our power is rooted not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Stephen Miles, of Win Without War, a coalition of antiwar groups, said the group is "proud to see President Obama is doing the right thing and that Congress will indeed get a vote. Now it is up to each and every American to call their member of Congress and let their voice be heard on this important issue."
<snip>
More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/31/us-attack-syria_n_3849748.html
August 31, 2013
By Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent
8/31/13
<snip>
A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News.
Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action. But only hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "a thug and a murderer" and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said.
Returning from that walk, the president called his advisers in the early evening to inform them of his new decision. The plan was immediately met with robust resistance from a whiplashed Obama team who had listened to Kerry lay out the administration's strongest case yet for action against Assad. "My friends, it matters here if nothing is done," Kerry had argued. "It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens."
Obama's National Security Council had believed since last weekend that requiring a vote was not even on the table and that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention.
Officials said that after the president met with national security advisers on Aug. 24, they determined the evidence showed Syria’s Assad regime had used chemical weapons in an attack earlier this month. At that time, the president indicated he was leaning toward a strike.
But a growing number of Congressional members were beginning to question the administration’s strategy by the end of the week. And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.
Officials said Obama also was influenced by Thursday’s lively debate in the House of Commons, where Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament to authorize participation in an allied strike against Syria. Cameron had been a staunch advocate of military action but was chastened in the wake of the vote. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Cameron said. “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”
While Obama's advisers argued Friday night in private...
<snip>
More: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273128-the-white-house-walk-and-talk-that-changed-obamas-mind-on-syria?lite
The White House Walk-And-Talk That Changed Obama's Mind On Syria - MSNBC
The White House Walk-And-Talk That Changed Obama's Mind On SyriaBy Chuck Todd, NBC News Chief White House Correspondent
8/31/13
<snip>
A stroll around the White House grounds with his top adviser on Friday evening changed President Barack Obama’s mind about getting Congress to sign off on a military strike in Syria, senior White House officials told NBC News.
Obama had been leaning toward attacking Syria without a congressional vote for the past week, the officials said. Obama was convinced he had the evidence to back up a strike and as a result dispatched Secretary of State John Kerry to make a passionate case for U.S. action. But only hours after Kerry called Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "a thug and a murderer" and accused his regime of using chemical weapons to kill 1,429 people, Obama changed his mind as he walked across the South Lawn with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough, the officials said.
Returning from that walk, the president called his advisers in the early evening to inform them of his new decision. The plan was immediately met with robust resistance from a whiplashed Obama team who had listened to Kerry lay out the administration's strongest case yet for action against Assad. "My friends, it matters here if nothing is done," Kerry had argued. "It matters if the world speaks out in condemnation and then nothing happens."
Obama's National Security Council had believed since last weekend that requiring a vote was not even on the table and that “consultation” in the form of congressional briefings and behind-the-scenes conversation was all that would be needed before a strike. One senior official noted that no key leaders in Congress had specifically requested a vote on military intervention.
Officials said that after the president met with national security advisers on Aug. 24, they determined the evidence showed Syria’s Assad regime had used chemical weapons in an attack earlier this month. At that time, the president indicated he was leaning toward a strike.
But a growing number of Congressional members were beginning to question the administration’s strategy by the end of the week. And an NBC News poll released Friday morning showed that nearly 80 percent of Americans agreed that the president should seek approval in advance of taking military action.
Officials said Obama also was influenced by Thursday’s lively debate in the House of Commons, where Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote in Parliament to authorize participation in an allied strike against Syria. Cameron had been a staunch advocate of military action but was chastened in the wake of the vote. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action,” Cameron said. “I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”
While Obama's advisers argued Friday night in private...
<snip>
More: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/31/20273128-the-white-house-walk-and-talk-that-changed-obamas-mind-on-syria?lite
August 31, 2013
A Break... For Nature's Beauty...
&width=900
Finnish photographer Thomas Kast shares this view of a twisting auroral display. "This photo is taken near a lake shore, you can see the reflection of the twilight," he wrote on Facebook on Aug. 28. "The best part of this 'twirl' lasted about five minutes before it got weaker."
More: http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20262211-glowing-reports-are-coming-in-from-the-aurora-zone?lite
August 30, 2013
Dylan Love - BusinessInsider
8/30/13
<snip>
Tor, the anonymous network for browsing the Internet, has seen a huge resurgence in use ever since the news broke about the NSA's domestic spying program, PRISM.
The Tor network operates by rerouting your Web traffic around the world before delivering it to you. Doing this prevents your identity from ever being attached to your browsing history, so it's easy to see why it became a popular choice in browser after the PRISM news.
Here's a chart from the Tor Metrics Portal that shows an insane jump in daily users beginning in the middle of this month. The user base regularly flirts with the 600,000 mark before rocketing to over 1.2 million.
<snip>
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-tor-and-prism-2013-8
CHART: More Than 1.2 Million People Are Now Using The Web Browser That Lets You Evade NSA Snooping
CHART OF THE DAY: More Than 1.2 Million People Are Now Using The Web Browser That Lets You Evade NSA SnoopingDylan Love - BusinessInsider
8/30/13
<snip>
Tor, the anonymous network for browsing the Internet, has seen a huge resurgence in use ever since the news broke about the NSA's domestic spying program, PRISM.
The Tor network operates by rerouting your Web traffic around the world before delivering it to you. Doing this prevents your identity from ever being attached to your browsing history, so it's easy to see why it became a popular choice in browser after the PRISM news.
Here's a chart from the Tor Metrics Portal that shows an insane jump in daily users beginning in the middle of this month. The user base regularly flirts with the 600,000 mark before rocketing to over 1.2 million.
<snip>
Link: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-tor-and-prism-2013-8
August 30, 2013
Catherine Thompson - TPM
2:48 PM EDT, Friday August 30, 2013
<snip>
The British government approached the New York Times about destroying documents it obtained pertaining to the National Security Agency's British intelligence partner Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which were leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Reuters reported Friday.
People familiar with the matter told Reuters that Times executive editor Jill Abramson stonewalled the request from a senior official at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. British officials never followed up on the request, the sources said.
A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington told Reuters that the British government would not "get into the specifics about our efforts but it should come as no surprise if we approach a person who is in possession of some or all of this material."
"We have presented a witness statement to the court in Britain which explains why we are trying to secure copies of over 58,000 stolen intelligence documents - to protect public safety and our national security," the spokesman added.
A spokeswoman for the Times declined to comment.
<snip>
Link: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/british-govt-approached-new-york-times-about-destroying
British Govt. Approached New York Times About Destroying NSA Docs - TPM
British Govt. Approached New York Times About Destroying NSA DocsCatherine Thompson - TPM
2:48 PM EDT, Friday August 30, 2013
<snip>
The British government approached the New York Times about destroying documents it obtained pertaining to the National Security Agency's British intelligence partner Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), which were leaked by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden, Reuters reported Friday.
People familiar with the matter told Reuters that Times executive editor Jill Abramson stonewalled the request from a senior official at the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. British officials never followed up on the request, the sources said.
A spokesman for the British Embassy in Washington told Reuters that the British government would not "get into the specifics about our efforts but it should come as no surprise if we approach a person who is in possession of some or all of this material."
"We have presented a witness statement to the court in Britain which explains why we are trying to secure copies of over 58,000 stolen intelligence documents - to protect public safety and our national security," the spokesman added.
A spokeswoman for the Times declined to comment.
<snip>
Link: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/british-govt-approached-new-york-times-about-destroying
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 72,631
