Octafish
Octafish's JournalThe Empire Strikes Out
From the "Flying while Brown" or the "We've Always Been at War with Bolivia Department*":
The Empire Strikes Out
Bolivian Plane (and Sovereignty) Grounded by US
by KEN KLIPPENSTEIN
CounterPunch JULY 03, 2013
EXCERPT...
Obama, assuming the annoyingly unflappable, measured persona he always does when addressing embarrassments to his administration, said that he’s “not going to be scrambling jets to get a 29-year old hacker.” Not scramble them—just force them to land. His earlier claim that he’s “following all the appropriate legal channels…to make sure that rule of law is observed” in apprehending Snowden is a statement that now reads like sarcasm. John Kerry’s lecturing admonition that “it’s important to uphold the rule of law and respect the relationship between two nations”, directed at Russia for its refusal to extradite Snowden, is similarly laughable.
SNIP...
The Bolivian Vice President put it well when he characterized the grounding of the Bolivian presidential plane as an “act of imperial arrogance.” Once again, imperial empires derive their power from control—economic, military and otherwise—over other countries. As Snowden’s list of countries that have not yet rejected his asylum bid dwindles, we see which countries are not truly satellites to U.S. power. One of these is Bolivia.
Whether or not Snowden was on the plane may not have even been relevant to U.S. officials. The grounding of the Bolivian presidential plane signifies a power even more awesome than the ability to capture whistleblowers: the ability to capture even potentially wayward heads of state—of which Bolivian President Morales is one, for merely considering Snowden’s asylum request. The same dynamic is at work when Latinos in Arizona are systematically stopped, searched and asked for their passports. The authorities don’t particularly care about illegal immigration (it offers cheap, non-union labor and is therefore favorable to big business); what they care about is that Latinos know who’s in charge.
This concept may seem nebulous to the privileged, but those inhabiting the less privileged levels of society are thoroughly familiar with the dynamic to which I’m referring. Totalitarian states like the U.S. depend, as the root word suggests, on total control. When someone like Morales even intimates that he’ll consider Snowden’s request for asylum, this diminishes the totality of U.S. power. And so he, like a Black man being racially profiled and searched for possession, will be grounded and searched for possession of a certain whistleblower.
SOURCE:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/07/03/bolivian-plane-and-sovereignty-grounded-by-us/
*Or is it Ecuador? Anyway, Morales was only allowed to leave after his plane was searched. The guy fit the profile.
A certain stench wafts across oceans of time and space...
Vielen dank, Her Flottz. Der big-vigs at BayerAG and a whole bunch more NAZI fiends were never held to account after the war, thanks to the American establishment types at their newly minted club CIA. Cough John McCloy.
I know you know this stuff. For those new to the subject:
Know your BFEE: Eugenics and the NAZIs - The California Connection
Know your BFEE: Nazis couldn t win WWII, so they backed Bushes
A fact curiously missing from American history and any mention of the Warren Commission
PS: Thanks for the heads-up on Corp Watch. Here's another antidote for Big Brother: LittleSis.org. They show Bayer connects to the anti-GMO labelling astroturfers.
Greenwald on N.S.A. crimes under Bush...
The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday’s hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is — how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country’s history.
http://www.salon.com/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/
That was 2007. Compare with Cass Sunstein, ca. 2008:
Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.
Details: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002797594
Which helps explain the present day.
It was GREENWALD who called out Bush and Cheney on ILLEGAL N.S.A. Spying back in 2007!
If the rest of the press had carried half as much water as Greenwald, these two would have long ago been in front of a Grand Jury.
Here's what Greenwald wrote on the subject of NSA abuse by them, when the story broke in 2007. In his story, Greenwald raised questions about the Comey visit to Ashcroft that have still to be answered -- six long warmongering profiteering years later:
Comey’s testimony raises new and vital questions about the NSA scandal
The testimony yesterday, while dramatic, underscores how severe a threat to the rule of law this administration poses.
BY GLENN GREENWALD
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 2007 06:16 AM EDT
The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday’s hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is — how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country’s history.
SNIP...
The key questions still demanding investigation and answers
But the more important issue here, by far, is that we should not have to speculate in this way about how the illegal eavesdropping powers were used. We enacted a law 30 years ago making it a felony for the government to eavesdrop on us without warrants, precisely because that power had been so severely and continuously abused. The President deliberately violated that law by eavesdropping in secret. Why don’t we know — a-year-a-half after this lawbreaking was revealed — whether these eavesdropping powers were abused for improper purposes? Is anyone in Congress investigating that question? Why don’t we know the answers to that?
Back in September, the then-ranking member (and current Chairman) of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, made clear how little even he knew about the answers to any of these questions in a letter he released:
For the past six months, I have been requesting without success specific details about the program, including: how many terrorists have been identified; how many arrested; how many convicted; and how many terrorists have been deported or killed as a direct result of information obtained through the warrantless wiretapping program.
[font size="6"][font color="red"]I can assure you, not one person in Congress has the answers to these and many other fundamental questions.[/font size][/font color]
CONTINUED...
http://www.salon.com/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/
Instead, six years and who-knows-how-many lives later, Bush and Cheney and the rest of their election thieving warmongering bankster oilmen posse continue merrily on their way, unpunished for lying America into war and making huge profits in the process.
Remember, it was Greenwald who stood up to Cheney and Bush. He covered the story and asked "Why?"
Bush cowed Corporate McPravda into silence, but not Greenwald.
Greenwald on Bush's NSA crimes:
The testimony yesterday from James Comey re-focuses attention on one of the long unresolved mysteries of the NSA scandal. And the new information Comey revealed, though not answering that question decisively, suggests some deeply troubling answers. Most of all, yesterday’s hearing underscores how unresolved the entire NSA matter is — how little we know (but ought to know) about what actually happened and how little accountability there has been for some of the most severe and blatant acts of presidential lawbreaking in the country’s history.
http://www.salon.com/2007/05/16/nsa_comey/
That was 2007. Compare with Cass Sunstein, ca. 2008:
Prosecuting government officials risks a “cycle” of criminalizing public service, argued, and Democrats should avoid replicating retributive efforts like the impeachment of President Clinton — or even the “slight appearance” of it.
Details: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002797594
They demonstrate how assassination is acceptable in certain quarters of the national security state.
As one who believes in democracy and that no one is above the law, I find government sanctioned assassination to be most disturbing and un-American.
Remember Operation PHOENIX? That killed thousands in cold blood. Yet, some think it's misunderstood.
Judi Barri was 'deemed' a 'terrorist' even though she was peaceful, law abiding citizen.
Yet, the FBI was OK with her getting framed as a terrorist and bombed.
Remember what happened to Ronni Moffitt? She just happened to be killed along with Orlando Letelier, the target of Operation CONDOR.
Poppy Bush's CIA was OK with it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2214484
So, the document shows the FBI knew a company discussed assassinating OWS leaders...
...privatized assassination, according to you. That still doesn't explain why I don't recall reading or hearing anywhere that the FBI arrested anyone who discussed assassinating OWS leaders.
That must explain why you wrote the "FBI doesn't murder protestors." Perhaps they outsource. Remember what FBI did to Judi Barri and Earth First! ?
http://www.judibari.org/
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 55,745
