"...This is America, baby! Shut up and swear allegiance to the Flag, the Dollar, the Corporatocracy, and to the Regime..."

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12015.htm

Check Your Conscience at the Door: We're Building an Empire

By Jason Miller

02/21/06 "ICH" -- -- Blaring its typical jarringly cacophonous morning radio jabber, the suddenly welcome sound of my alarm rescued me from the maelstrom of a nightmarish Neocon world spawned within my unconscious mind. As consciousness flooded my being, I had an epiphany. My breed of human being is a pariah in the American Empire. In the minds of the Regime's loyal foot soldiers (the Neo-Tories of the Twenty First Century) American society is waging a domestic war between those they define as liberals and those they qualify as conservatives. Since 9/11, Fox News and the Bush Regime have brain-washed them into believing that terrorists and their sympathizers are lurking around every corner, poised to infect them with a lethal virus, slice them with box cutters or obliterate them with a suicide bomb. In the black and white perspective of the Neo-Tories, you are with us or against us. If you do not fit into their narrow and misguided notion of conservatism, you must be a "liberal". The American media/propaganda machine (which the Empire's power moguls have brilliantly portrayed as "liberal" to obfuscate the fact that six corporate conglomerates own 90% of the mainstream media market) has sharply defined the “treasonous”, “ineffectual” nature of "liberals", portraying them as soft on crime, sympathetic to those demonic terrorists, Socialists and Communists, immoral, and militarily weak.

Masters of delusion

To their credit, Israel, AIPAC, the Bush Regime, powerful families (with names like Koch), the numerous multi-millionaires in Congress, powerful lobbyists, think tanks, major corporations, and the 1% of Americans who harbor 38% of the nation's wealth have done a phenomenal job of convincing a majority of the poor and working class that they are fortunate to have the privilege of fighting over the remaining crumbs of the economic pie after the ruling elite gorge themselves. Despite the 13% of Americans living in poverty, 46 million without health insurance, and approximately 3 million homeless wandering our streets, the gallimaufry ruling the United States according to the Golden Rule (he that hath the gold maketh the rules) has artfully convinced "Main Street" that it "doesn't get any better than this". The Empire's Neo-Tories boast that capitalism and the free market are "kicking ass" while Communism and Socialism have been relegated to the dustbin of history. (Obviously they have not been paying much attention to South America lately). With "free market" think tanks like Cato Institute (funded by “humanitarian-environmentalists” like Charles Koch) to provide the propaganda (sorry, I meant to say research), there is virtually no end to the "evidence" supporting the "benefits" of government deregulation of businesses and corporations.

Unfortunately, I was born with a social conscience and a powerful aversion to tyranny. My strong support of universal human rights and dignity, social justice, equality, peace, and protection of the environment has led me to dissent vehemently against the American Empire. My strenuous objections to the widening wealth gap, the state terrorism committed by the United States and Israel, corporate abuse of consumers, employees and the environment, egregious violation of international law by the US (including torture on a wide scale), obscene hypocrisy concerning nuclear capacities, rapidly diminishing civil liberties, insane expenditure of our tax dollars for military purposes, and the rapid consolidation of power into the Executive Branch have earned me the brand of "liberal".

Now is the time for the Neo-Tories to make the sign of the cross, reach for their garlic, brandish their vile of holy water, and invoke incantations from Ann Coulter. In so doing, they are certain to vanquish the lot of us weaklings who stand in the way of the true “progress” which will only occur once the Empire dedicates itself fully to the concept of survival of the fittest. Remember, Hitler eradicated the Socialist/Communist scourge as he rose to provide us with a viable sociopolitical model encompassing gross intolerance, cruel injustice, imperial conquest, genocide, and overt concentration of power in the hands of the elites.

In my poignant moment of clarity, I decided it was time for me (and others like me) to surrender our fatuous devotion to childish notions of fairness and equality. The Neocons and their Neo-Tory bootlicks possess an unwavering commitment to domination that will enable them to lead the American Empire (unfettered by weaknesses like compassion and empathy) to its true destiny: global hegemony. How could I have been so blind to the truth that the many must suffer so the few can prosper? It is an inescapable aspect of the human condition. Only 250,000 Iraqi civilian have died for the noble cause of spreading freedom and democracy (wink, wink; nudge, nudge). In the process, we have also taught those filthy Middle Easterners that we will not tolerate them selling their oil for Euros and we have established the 52nd state of the union (to complement the 51st state formed through the genocide of the Palestinians). Never mind that the Machiavellian and illegitimate Bush Regime has reduced the value of the Constitution to that of toilet paper (albeit it would probably be too rough even for that purpose).

Bury the efforts and sacrifices of Women's Suffragists, Populists, Progressives, organized labor and civil rights activists! Join the Neo-Tories in a Twenty First Century renewal of fealty to King George! William Kristol, Robert Kagan and the Empire-building signatories of the PNAC had the cajones to announce America's intentions to dominate the world. We owe it to them to make their wet dream a reality....

Imagine a nation unfettered by the silly constraints of conscience, the rule of law (over the whims of individual rulers), humanity, and justice! My mind is reeling in orgasmic delight at the virtually infinite array of possibilities. America has the potential to become an empire like no other. Envision endless hedonistic orgies, mountains of blood-drenched cash harvested from the Neo-colonies, uninhibited rape and plunder of the world’s resources, obscene exploitation of the billions of human beings not fortunate enough to inhabit the “Empire proper”, and military domination by air, sea, land and space. Sign me up to help make it happen!

In the wake of my startling realizations, I finally began seeing the light as I envisioned the American Empire as it should be. Thankfully, I have come to my senses and will cease my frivolous pursuit of inane ideals that don’t create wealth, advance technology, dominate other human beings, provide immediate gratification, or satiate carnal desires.

This is America, baby! Shut up and swear allegiance to the Flag, the Dollar, the Corporatocracy, and to the Regime.

Taking off the mask (and the gloves)

It has become too cumbersome to carry on the charade of democracy. Staging two consecutive fraudulent presidential elections, maintaining a Congress which has evolved into a rubber-stamp for the Regime, and giving the populace access to a court system packed with ideologues who eagerly await the opportunity to endorse the Empire's edicts have effectively enabled tyranny under the guise of democracy. However, these unnecessary hindrances have become obsolete. Besides, if we are to rescue Scott McClellan from eternity in Malebolge, it is time that the Bush Regime comes out of the closet and simply issues its own version of the Enabling Act.

As President-elect George Bush stated on 12/18/00:

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Let's not keep him waiting any longer! Stop haranguing him about wire-tapping without FISA approval. Implement Patriot Act II. Embrace torture as an acceptable and necessary means of expanding the Empire by breaking its alleged enemies and dissenters. Habeas corpus and Posse Comitatus are antiquated impediments to domestic tranquility. They must be eliminated.

One of my co-workers recently asserted that everyone who disagrees with the policies of the Regime needs to be rounded up and shot. I agree. We need to implement a nation-wide dragnet to capture subversives, dissidents, liberals, war protesters, and the remaining scum whose treasonous activities retard the Empire's progress. A bullet is a hell of a lot cheaper than a prison cell. We have plenty of bullets; let's put them to use.

The Business of America is Business

Calvin Coolidge, a visionary president who recognized the necessity of laissez-faire economic policies, knew what America was about. It is time we got back to our roots by removing quaint ethical, legal, and moral constraints on businesses. American society reached the peak of its evolution during the Gilded Age. Let's reclaim that glory.

Corporations and business magnates have been hamstrung by archaic laws long enough. Let's truly free the free market. Unshackle the movers and shakers of our capitalist economy and the American Empire will blow the doors off the rest of the world. We are only consuming 25% of the world's resources now. America needs to buckle down and significantly increase its share of the world's bounty. Since the other 97% of the world's population is comprised of terrorists, savages, Socialists, non-Christians, and non-Caucasians, they need to yield to the moral imperative of the Christian God and further enrich the American Empire.

Minimum wages, Child Labor Laws, mandatory extra pay for so-called "overtime", legislation prohibiting discriminatory hiring practices and sexual harassment, and ridiculous protections for the disabled need to go. Our children have too much free time on their hands; idle hands do the work of the devil. Blacks and other minorities need to buck up and deal with it if Whites feel uncomfortable hiring them. Women need to develop a thicker skin and realize that sometimes keeping their job requires a little "extra effort". If someone is blind or wheelchair-bound, we have no obligation to accommodate their weaknesses.

Clean air and water are luxuries Americans can no longer afford. Endangered species need to go the way of the Dodo if they can't hack it anymore. The Bible clearly defines man's dominion over this planet. If Mother Earth has a problem with the way we are treating her, she can take it up with the Man Upstairs.

End the Gravy Train

Entitlements are a waste of our precious resources. Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, food stamps and the rest of those nauseating Socialistic programs must go. If someone doesn't have money, it is time they got a job. Those of us who work and pay taxes owe the lazy and weak nothing. Can't find a job or the money you need for basic necessities? Tough. If God had intended for you to survive, he would have given you the attributes and resources to do so.

Shedding our puerile concerns for the plight of the poor, the elderly, and the disabled will enable us to focus more of our resources where they belong. The $600 billion a year we spend on defense represents a mere 60% of world military expenditures. What self-respecting imperial entity would settle for such a miniscule piece of the pie? Exempting the military, the Department of Homeland Security, and the other offices of the Executive Branch necessary to rule the Empire, it is time to follow Grover Norquist's brilliant advice and start running the bath water.

Like the one in Jericho, this wall must come down...

A crucial aspect the American Empire lacks is the marriage of church and state. A tyrannical Bush Regime wedded with the powerful elements of the Religious Right and Dominionists would empower the "iron men" to rid our society of harlots and sinners like Hester Prynne.

We are a Christian nation. Muslims, Hindus, Wiccans and other followers of unenlightened religions need to convert or face harsh consequences, including crucifixion, stoning, or if we are feeling lenient, simple expulsion from our nation. Homosexuality, prostitution, abortion, and atheism will be punishable by death. Blasphemy will result in surgical removal of the tongue. Adultery will be grounds for severe torture involving the genitals. Women and children will again subjugate themselves to the masters of our nation, their husbands and fathers.

Religion will return to the public square. Those who refuse to say Merry Christmas will be flogged until they lose consciousness. Prayer will be mandatory at all public events and non-participants will receive severe beatings. Failure to attend church on a consistent basis will result in assignment to re-education centers. A government entity analogous to the IRS will oversee the collection of mandatory tithes. Those caught cheating the Church will have their hands severed. A Ministry of Decency will monitor all forms of media and stage mass public bonfires to eliminate profane, pornographic, and blasphemous materials.

The Church of the Empire will be jointly administered by members of the Bush Regime and such Christian luminaries as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Tim LaHaye. To prevent the Empire's bounty from going to waste in a heavily tithed society with Puritanical laws, the segments of the populace comprising the ruling elite (including the Church leadership) will be exempt from their own edicts. "Do as I say and not as I do" will be the order of the day.

It is time for the "Culture of Life" to prevail in the United States.

Whoring girls and women who become pregnant out of wedlock deserve to be butchered at the hands of back-alley abortionists. And as for the abandoned or abused children arising from unwanted pregnancies, they will provide a ready supply of cheap labor once we eliminate those hopelessly idealistic Child Labor Laws.

Perpetual war to expand our sphere of influence is the only way to ensure American dominance over the rest of the world. To hell with concern for the murder of innocent civilians. Those individuals are merely "collateral damage" for which we cannot be held responsible. They just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Better luck next time. Besides, when we murder, we are morally and legally justified because our terrorism is committed in uniform and for the cause of “freedom”. Hopefully Hamas will not discover our secret and start putting uniforms on their freedom fighters.

The Empire's work in Iraq is only beginning. Permanent military base completion, generous dispensation of depleted uranium and white phosphorus, murder, mayhem, and environmental devastation will keep us busy for a few more years. Once we have secured Iraq and the precious oil, we can take a serious look at Iran. While there are several compelling reasons to refrain from attacking Iran today, once we bring the nation of Iraq to its knees (regardless of the cost), we can set our sights on another member of the Axis of Evil. In the interim, we will further solidify our strategic position in the Middle East through our unflinching support of Israeli genocide against the malevolent Palestinians. They made their bed by electing Hamas. Now they must lie in it. Unless Hamas quietly acquiesces to the ongoing rape of its people, we will teach them obedience. We will not rest until the vermin infesting the West Bank and Gaza are servile or dead.

We can stem the tide of the ongoing threat from our subhuman black population by stepping up implementation of the death penalty. Since public lynchings are no longer an option, state murders need to become public events once again. We know that black males in particular have natural criminal inclinations, so we need this powerful deterrent to keep their savage tendencies in check.

Embryonic stem cell research must not take place. Blastocysts are human lives, whether they have been implanted in a womb or not. We need to appropriate federal funding for funerals and proper burials for those tiny human beings discarded by fertility clinics. God mandates that we deter the murderers who want to use these precious little children for their evil scientific experiments.

Finally, to keep the citizens of the Empire complacent and fulfilled, we will continue to burnish unbridled consumption into their psyches. Alluring advertising from Madison Avenue, easy credit, and the commercialization of virtually every aspect of our culture (we will even have to desecrate our sacred Christianity a bit, but such is the nature of an imperial dynasty) will prompt consumers to power the engine of America's economy.

Mirroring our spiritual bankruptcy, our people and our government will revel in false riches derived from borrowed money we can never hope to repay. But who will challenge the most powerful nation on the planet? If China calls our notes due, we will simply incinerate them with the space weapons we will have developed.

You think the American Empire is hubristic, xenophobic, cruel, avaricious, and murderous? You're right. As Aldous Huxley wrote:

"The propagandist's purpose is to make one set of people forget that certain other sets of people are human."

Many Americans forgot that many other sets of people were human long ago. They checked their consciences at the door and are building an empire. Join me in letting go of the delusional belief that you can stop them. Resistance if futile. Accept your fate and surrender gracefully.

To the glory of Washington!

Excuse me now while I wretch and vomit profusely. Once I purge the toxins of imperial fantasy from my being, I will resume my dissent. In spite of my tenacious efforts, I was unable to divorce myself from my conscience. It looks like I won’t be swearing allegiance to the American Empire any time soon.


Jason Miller is a 39-year-old activist writer with a degree in liberal arts. When he is not spending time with his wife and three sons, researching, or writing, he is working as a loan counselor. He is a member of Amnesty International and an avid supporter of Oxfam International and Human Rights Watch. He welcomes responses at willpowerful@hotmail.com or comments on his blog, Thomas Paine's Corner.

"...What is wrong with you, Amerika? You’ve become fat, lazy, and complacent and act like pigs at the trough awaiting the next handout from your corporate feeder..."

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_523.shtml

Who will speak?

By Frank Pitz

Online Journal Contributing Writer

Feb 21, 2006, 15:48


Who will speak for the generations to come? Who shall act for those yet to be born? All I hear is silence. All I see is nothingness. No, let me rephrase that, I do see something; I do hear something.

What I hear are the rantings of a maniacal egotist, mouthing the regurgitated words of his Nazi masters. What I see are the jackboots of repression marching swiftly over the land, led by corporate fascists with a sword in one hand and the power of the press in the other.

Will they speak or act for the future generations? How can they when they care not one damn bit for the future? For the fascist, there is no future -- only the present. For the totalitarian, there is no future, there is only now, fueled by the aphrodisiac of unrestrained power.

The oppressor-to-be always speaks to the future (in terms of establishing thousand year Reichs), but the dictator never sees beyond the here, and now. If the corporate fascist does give thought to the future it is solely in the short term, i.e., ensuring there are enough young men and women to serve as cannon fodder for the endless war machine.

Look around you, Amerika, tell me what you see? Do you see a future bright with promise, or rather an imminent disaster? Do you see a future in which your children, and their children will be free from want? Or do you see a future where just surviving day to day --- on a poisoned Earth --becomes the rule?

Look around you, Amerika, tell me what you hear? Can you hear the warble of the birds, or is it the song of extinction? Can you hear the roar of the grizzly, or is it the whine of an emaciated, orphaned cub? Can you hear the bellow of the elk, or is it the gurgle of life’s blood flowing from the body? What can you hear, Amerika?

Of course, you cannot see that but what your masters wish you to see. You cannot hear that but what your masters wish you to hear. You cannot see the hungry child of the present and future. You cannot see the baby dying with a poisoned breath.

Will you awake, Amerika? Will you see, and hear again, Amerika? Or, is it too late? Have you been inoculated with just enough entertainment, creature comforts and lies to keep you desensitized enough -- stupid enough -- to allow the Nazis to complete their rape and pillage of Mother Earth? Of course you have.

Who will save you? Who will make you see and hear again? Will it be the “opposition party?” Will it be the so-called saviors of the left? Will it be the progressives? Perhaps the anarchists? Or will it be the revolutionaries?

Are there revolutionaries among us? Or is it just the armchair radicals masquerading as true patriots? It doesn’t take much money to wage a revolution, in spite of what the so-called influential, well clothed and coiffed among you might say.

A PayPal secure donation and petitioning your “representative” do not a revolution make. Change is not going to come about by meeting in Starbucks, or the Atlanta Bread Company, sipping latte and nibbling cheese. Change doesn’t happen in a rhetorical vacuum.

Look around you. Amerika. Look at what you have wrought in the name of progress: big screen entertainment, NFL football, NASCAR point standings, WWF Raw, big shopping malls; botox and the eternal quest for the youthful dream, Wal-Mart and all the other purveyors of low prices and global suffering. Yes, look around you, Amerika. What have you gained?

Look around you, Amerika. You grind your children into the dust; you murder your wives/husbands/children because you stress over not being able to buy a beer, or dope, or the newest toy. You give up your children to the global corporation, to wage war on the innocent and die in the name of oil, greed and Washington plutocrats.

What is wrong with you, Amerika? You’ve become fat, lazy, and complacent and act like pigs at the trough awaiting the next handout from your corporate feeder.

The fascists are dedicated to their goal. Why should we be any less dedicated to ours? What will it take before we rise up against the oligarchs? Will it happen when the entire so-called middle class finds themselves under a bridge? Will it happen when the bread lines stretch from sea to polluted sea? Will it happen when the oceans creep over your coastlines? Will it happen when the sun can no longer shine through the haze of filth spewing from the mouths of the corporate dictators? Will it ever happen, or do we just sink into the filthy slime of extinction?

“Tipping point” is a phrase much in use here in the 21st century -- well, Amerika, we’ve sure as hell reached that tipping point. And if we don’t all move to the other side of the balance beam, we’re through.


You can contact Frank Pitz at fpitz76@hotmail.com.

Note: Rant and rave and spew rhetoric all day long, but until we mobilize, etc. it doesn’t take a hell of a lot of money to wage a revolution, it just takes dedication to a cause. The fascists have that dedication, why don’t we?


Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal

A good article to pass on to relatives, friends and acquaintances who still believe the official tale. ~ EOTS

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_514.shtml

THERE IS NO WAR ON TERRORISM

By Jack Duggan

Feb 19, 2006, 16:45

All the stories we see in the TV news, print and Internet media today are like mice in a small room occupied by a grizzly bear. We can see the bear, hear him panting and growling as he attempts to stomp on us, but everyone pretends he's just not there, even though he's eating all the food and we mice are starving.

The bear is the U.S. government and media cover up of the 9/11 attacks. They never came close to proving that foreign "terrorists" were involved. Of all four missing planes' passenger manifests, not one Middle Easterner was on any of them. A jihadist who is bravely going to his death for the sake of his beliefs in Allah and Islam is a martyr and wants the whole world to know it. Martyrs' families receive reverential praise and support in their communities for decades. Yet not one of the "terrorists" the American government insists were on the aircraft used their real names or were listed on the passenger lists. At least seven of the 19 'hijackers' are still alive.

The 9/11 attacks were created for justification of U.S. covert plans to grab influence over oil politics in the Middle East and as an excuse to take away the rest of Americans' liberties through a manufactured threat-scenario called, "The War On Terror."

What good are all the thousands of articles about politics, global warming, education, scandals, religion, economics and how we must always go out and vote so that we can "make a difference?" If our votes really did make a difference, they'd be illegal.

Who cares about such articles when the cover-up of what really happened on 9/11 is hands-off, an untouchable leper? What good are they when in the name of a phony "terrorist attack," our way of life no longer exists except at the pleasure of corporate-driven federal socialists? We are being starved of our liberties by a ursus horribulus that stomps every mouse who dares get in his way or mentions that he's there.

I see a lot of authors write all around the grizzly bear, almost approaching the truth, but none seem to have the conviction to call for an open door to run the bear out of the house. Our Founding Fathers would have made a bearskin rug.

I will tell you here and tell you now with no equivocation: THE 9/11 ATTACKS WERE NOT DONE BY TERRORISTS.

There is absolutely no need for the USA PATRIOT Act, the FEMA Police, Homeland Security, airline and stadium searches and warrantless monitoring of every phone call and e-mail conversation we make.

In the name of a false threat that never existed, all of our rights and freedoms have been trivialized. Every branch of the federal government has been suborned, including the U.S. Supreme Court, whose judicial activists invent law and have recently canceled our rights to own property, in Kelo v. City of New London, making eminent-domain confiscations of our homes to increase politicians' tax profits 'constitutional.'

Central government today is 100 times worse than under George III, yet how many Americans can see this? Perhaps most don't want to see it, because it might compel them to drop their precious remote controls.

There Is No War on Terror

If there were, the whole nation would be told to take up arms. Everybody would be armed, even on aircraft. Inexpensive AK47s would be stored in every closet, much like arms are stored in homes all over Switzerland because the Swiss government has nothing to fear from its populace. There is only a war against our freedom in the name of a created threat that doesn't exist. We have been duped into surrendering our liberty in the false name of security by a government that sends us out into the "War On Terror" unarmed because we cannot be trusted with guns. The most basic of all rights is the right of self-defense against criminal attacks. A great equalizer between the weak and the strong, guns in the hands of women could reduce assaults upon them by stronger male attackers by 80 percent. How can it be said that women have equal rights if they cannot carry? Yet Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush all hide behind guns for their protection because they're much more important than our wives, sisters and daughters? Again, the only 'war' is on our freedoms.

People are so used to being indoctrinated by government that they have actually been convinced to ignore their own eyes. Everyone who saw the videos of the World Trade Center Towers saw them fall exactly like other high-rise buildings that were dropped by sequential demolition charges, at the speed of gravity because there was no structural resistance below to impede their collapse into their basement footprints. Yet almost every viewer has been convinced by the lapdog media that measly jet-fuel fires could melt the massive steel girders of both buildings, then make everything collapse. Just like a pilot's foot pedals could make a passenger jet burst into flames, then crash in Rockaway, NY. Apparently the federal government has learned that the public will buy any lie, no matter how absurd, if it's repeated often enough.

There were dozens and dozens of reports by rescue workers on the ground at the WTC complex that heard explosions over an hour after the planes crashed into the towers. They felt explosions under their feet that were so powerful that seismographs registered them at 2.1 and 2.3 on the Richter scale. Only explosions could have caused them.

The weekend before the 9/11 WTC demolition, all power was shut down to install "computer cables." No one was allowed inside and all security cameras and alarms had no power for 30 hours. Computer cables don't connect with building electricity, so the need to turn off and close both towers to do so is indicative of another motive, like planting charges without alarms and video surveillance. Marvin Bush, brother to President George and Jeb, was a principal in Securacom, which was in charge of security for the World Trade Center. Didn't hear that on the TV news, did you?

Suckers who still buy into the monumental lie that aircraft crashes caused the collapse of both WTC Towers, cannot explain how a steel beam weighing twice as much as a Boeing 767 flew from one WTC building over 390 feet to bury itself very deeply into the neighboring American Express building.

Even harder to explain is why WTC Building 7, a block away, collapsed "because of fire," when it received no damage from the Twin Towers' collapse. No other skyscraper in the world ever collapsed because of a fire of any type, including that from a B25 bomber crashing into the Empire State Building decades ago.

Of all the air crashes in the USA over the past three decades, how many ground crashes resulted in not recovering their black boxes, containing pilots' voices (CVR's) and aircraft telemetries (FDR's) before and during impact? Yet not one usable black box was ever recovered from any of the four planes that reputedly were hijacked on 9/11. Not one.

Flight 93 that contained the "Let's roll!" myth, where four passengers supposedly tried to overpower the hijackers, did not crash into one small area like it should have. It's debris was spread over eight miles, indicating that it was shot down by a military fighter jet, exploding in the sky and raining down debris over eight miles, "like confetti".

The WTC was the biggest crime, mass murder, 'hijackings' and air crashes in US history. Yet all the forensic evidence was immediately removed, buried or shipped to smelters, so that not one investigator from any agency could inspect it. Who has that kind of power?

President Bush and all his staff swore to God to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, then apparently went on to violate their oaths of office by completely ignoring the Constitution. Bush maintains that he can ignore the U.S. Constitution and tap into private computers, phone lines, medical records and any other private citizens' data whenever he wants, by his self-declared doctrine of "Unitary Executive.” He claims that as commander-in-chief, the president is the sole judge of the law, is unbound by the Geneva Conventions against torture and possesses inherent authority to subordinate the entire government to his rule -- including Congress and the courts.

Bush also originated "Extraordinary Rendition.” This program, also condoned by Vice President Dick Cheney, involves the clandestine transfer of suspected terrorists to countries ruled by regimes that torture and commit other forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Dr. William F. Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, referring to a set of CIA flight logs obtained by his organization, said the logs were “ . . . irrefutable proof that the United States is ‘disappearing’ people into secret facilities where they are held incommunicado without charge, trial, or access to the outside world.”

The American Reichstag Fire of the 9/11 "terrorist attacks" was created so that the American public would back the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran in the name of "The War On Terror," while stripping away the rights of the same American public. The results have been the same as in Nazi Germany, suspensions of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and private ownership of property. Citizens are forbidden to own the same weapons that their "servants," their police and military, carry to defend themselves. There is literally more freedom in most Third-World countries than now in the USA, which has 10 times the per-capita prison population than the People's Republic of China.

Alexis de Tocqueville wisely observed, “I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.”

The 'War On Terror' is a sham to enable U.S. power to confiscate, to torture, to imprison without due process and to invade any country that the military-industrial complex fancies. When God was kicked out of public life, we know who stepped in.

Where are the cries for impeachment?

Where are the defenders of liberty? None of them seem to work in the broadcast or print media.

When are citizens going to demand that the cover up of 9/11 be kicked out the door along with the people who invented it? When will the truth be told, that THERE IS NO WAR ON TERROR, but only on oil and on citizens' rights?

The bear is there, but where are the mice with the courage to force him out the door?


© 1999-2006 PRAVDA.Ru http://english.pravda.ru/

Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal http://onlinejournal.com/

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8578

(NUMEROUS Supporting Links at SOURCE URL Above; Far too many to duplicate here. ~ EOTS)

February 20, 2006

The Provocateurs

How to enrage Muslims worldwide

by Justin Raimondo

Somewhere, Osama bin Laden is smiling. He has good reason to be happy. In the last week or so, the West has given his program of a relentless jihad against America new credibility, and delivered thousands of new converts to his doorstep. The Muhammad cartoon controversy, new photos of the Abu Ghraib atrocities, and a video of Iraqi kids being brutally beaten by British soldiers after a protest demonstration have all provided similar – and, more importantly, very visual – confirmation of al-Qaeda's basic contention: that the U.S. and its Western allies are embarked on a crusade to humiliate and destroy the Muslim religion worldwide – and that nothing less than a merciless war against the infidels can stop them.

The visual element is key here: all three incidents bear the earmarks of classic propaganda techniques, which are meant to inflame and provoke a target population as a prelude to an armed struggle. Whether or not it was planned that way, this triad of outrages – with more, doubtless, to come – effectively serves as the means by which both sides in a looming world war prepare their people for the coming battle – and basically ensures that such a conflict is inevitable.

Consider how the origins of all three provocations are cloaked in murk and mystery. First of all, the cartoons: deliberately insulting and gratuitously obscene caricatures of the Prophet are published in a Danish newspaper of right-wing provenance and suddenly begin appearing all over Europe. The "explanation" offered up by the pro-war media is that this is all the result of a conspiracy hatched by "hidden masterminds," as the UK Telegraph put it. The assumption is that these "masterminds" were Danish imams and activists who conducted a protest campaign against the Jyllands-Posten newspaper for publishing the cartoons in the first place, but, as I pointed out here, this seems a dubious proposition at best. What Reason magazine, with predictable juvenility, calls the "Intoon-ifada," may indeed have been promoted by certain persons for reasons of their own: however, it is unlikely that the provocateurs are the same folks who are responding to the provocation.

The response was all too predictable: if Jyllands-Posten had been intent on bringing out all the feelings of resentment, persecution, and humiliation experienced by Muslims worldwide in recent years, the issue couldn't have been illustrated in starker terms. What's more, the controversy seems perfectly formed to dramatize for a global audience the more authoritarian, intolerant, and illiberal aspects of a faith that George W. Bush has called a "religion of peace." The authors of this outrage protest that this was not their intent, but whether by accident or design, the effect is the same.

The new Abu Ghraib images present another mystery in terms of their sudden appearance. Ever since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, the American Civil Liberties Union has been trying to wrest the unpublished material from the U.S. government. Although members of Congress were allowed to view them at their leisure, the hoi polloi were shielded from such an upsetting sight. So why, now, are we being treated to what seems like a controlled release of images that are sure to roil the Arab world and spark fresh protests against America? They appeared first on Australian television, but clearly other news outlets had them: where did they get them? Who is feeding us these horrific illustrations of the true meaning of Iraq's "liberation" – and why at this particular moment?

Raising further questions is the nature of the photos themselves: they are far more graphic than the ones released initially. They show what appear to be a number of corpses – almost as if they embody some sort of premonitory threat. As if to say to the Arab-Muslim world: this is what awaits you if you continue to resist. It is a classic fear technique, made all the more potent because we are dealing here with images that resemble a vision out of Hell – and, unlike the Muhammad caricatures, depict real events.

The message, so far, is this: your Prophet was a murderous madman, and we are going to leash you like dogs. With the addition of the Iraq beating video, this scenario is given a specific locale and context.

The provenance of the Iraq video is particularly suspicious: according to the Telegraph, "An unnamed whistleblower approached the News of the World wanting cash for a video." This hardly fits the classic profile of the noble "whistleblower": these types usually want to assuage their consciences, not their bank managers. Although self-aggrandizement is never absent from human motivation, the genuine whistleblower is usually less direct about cashing in.

What's interesting about the video itself is that the "narration," if you can call it that, is the voice of a British soldier clearly expressing approval of his comrades' actions: the video, then, was produced by the military itself, and – somehow – found its way into general circulation. How? Why? And, most important, why now?

The British investigation is ongoing, and we don't yet know how this material found its way into the public domain. What we do know is this: it couldn't have come at a worse moment for the U.S. and Britain as they try – in vain – to beat off a burgeoning Iraqi insurgency and face the rising tide of the worldwide Islamist insurgency of which it is a part.

The idea that some agency is orchestrating these events and pushing to exacerbate increased tensions between the West and the world of Islam cannot be dismissed out of hand entirely. Governments carry out covert propaganda operations in foreign countries all the time, and given the proximity of these supposedly disparate events, and the specific context in which they occurred, the possibility that these exposures of Western perfidy are being coordinated cannot be discounted. Yes, I know this is a "conspiracy theory," but that accusation has less resonance in the post-9/11 era. After all, how else but via a good old-fashioned conspiracy did a band of 19 hijackers carry out the worst terrorist attack in American history? How did the London bombers pull it off? Or the Madrid bombers? Yet al-Qaeda is not alone in wanting to accelerate the conflicting religious and political passions that seem to be coming to a head all at once.

Granted the possibility that we are being played like so many violins, we have to ask: who is the conductor? Who wrote the score? We have to ask, in short: Cui bono? Who benefits?

We know who doesn't benefit: America and Americans. All over the world, we are prime targets for every band of lowlife thugs suddenly imbued with a righteous zeal to avenge the honor of the Prophet. The Europeans, too, are put at risk: Muslim communities across the continent are in an uproar, and the prospect of a repeat of the French riots – this time on a much bigger scale – is quite real.

The Arab governments of the Middle East and the Iranians are similarly buffeted by these seismic effects: they may attempt to take advantage of the controversy in order to divert their peoples' attention away from their own grinding poverty and endemic repression, but dictators like Bashar Assad and Hosni Mubarak are basically concerned with reining the protests in and controlling them, and fear their destabilizing effects – much as China's authoritarian regime alternately encourages and seeks to rein in the nationalist fervor provoked by, say, Japanese textbooks that whitewash the crime of Nanking. Ultimately, these dictators stand in fear of their own people and are chiefly interested in tamping down rather than exacerbating their passions, especially political passions, because that kind of anger, once unleashed, can be turned on any target.

The chief beneficiaries are those who have profited most from the invasion and occupation of Iraq: first and foremost, al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies, especially in the Middle East. Hamas is reinforced, along with their more radical rivals, such as Islamic Jihad. This really marks the end of the secular resistance to Western colonialism and imperialism: the defeat and dissolution of the old Palestine Liberation Organization and the rise of Islamist currents throughout the region sound the death-knell of the old pan-Arabic nationalism embodied by a figure like Gamal Abdel Nasser.

Secondly, the Israelis, who have extended their influence into Kurdistan and cowed their Syrian adversaries, stand to gain the most from this new upsurge of Muslim radicalism. Once again, the lesson of 9/11 is reiterated: now you know what we have had to endure all these years at the hands of Muslims! Israel and the West are natural allies in a fight against the barbaric followers of a bloodthirsty Prophet – a Prophet of Global Terror. The idea that Islam poses a threat – military, as well as demographic – to Europe has gained new resonance. Israel's growing isolation is arrested and even reversed.

As to which of these two beneficiaries would be in a position to come into possession of such materials as videos and photographs formerly in the possession of the U.S. and British governments, kept under lock and key, I leave it to my readers to decide. And I ask them to consider further: how is it that these presumably closely held materials happened to be released, under mysterious circumstances, all in the same week as the Muhammad cartoons let loose Muslim rage from London to Damascus?

The "war of civilizations" touted by the neoconservatives as "World War IV" is darkening the horizon with frightening speed. One has to be forgiven for wondering if, perhaps, someone is quite interested in hurrying it along.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=8577

(NUMEROUS Supporting Links at SOURCE URL Above)

February 20, 2006

America and Iran: At the Brink of the Abyss

We can stop a "preemptive" nuclear strike

by Jorge Hirsch

Whether the U.S. will use nuclear weapons against Iran if a military confrontation erupts is in the hands of a single person, President Bush, as stated in NSC 30 from 1948: "the decision as to the employment of atomic weapons in the event of war is to be made by the Chief Executive when he considers such decision to be required." Bush will certainly not ask Congress nor the public permission once hostilities start. Whether or not tactical nuclear weapons should be deployed and used against Iran is a matter that needs to be faced by America right now!

So are U.S. tactical nuclear weapons deployed in the Persian Gulf, on hair-trigger alert, and ready to be launched against Iran at a moment's notice?

I posed the question in December, arguing that every other element needed for a nuclear strike on Iran was "deployed" and ready. On Feb. 3, 2006, an answer was kindly provided by the Chief of Naval Operations in the form of OPNAVINST 5721.1F [.pdf], which states:

"Military members and civilian employees of the Department of the Navy shall not reveal, purport to reveal, or cause to be revealed any information, rumor, or speculation with respect to the presence or absence of nuclear weapons or components on board any specific ship, station or aircraft, either on their own initiative or in response, direct or indirect, to any inquiry."

Oh well then, we don't know for sure, and there is no way to know. Really?

We do know. Because it would be inconsistent with every fiber of the current administration, and with all the circumstances surrounding the Iran scenario, if tactical nuclear weapons were not deployed in the Persian Gulf, following NSPD 35, on high alert and ready to be used in a confrontation with Iran. So we may safely assume they are deployed and they will be used, and make our choices accordingly. Once it happens, it cannot be undone.

The Impending Nuclear Attack

All the elements have been put in place carefully and methodically for the U.S. to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran in a way that will seem "acceptable" at first sight, as discussed in previous columns: the new nuclear doctrine, the nuclear hitmen, the weapons, the justification, the legal framework, and the public mindset. The IAEA resolution of Feb. 4 [.pdf] has paved a smooth road to confrontation, paralleling the events after the passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 of November 2002. The use of low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons will appear to be a military necessity, one that will save thousands of American and Israeli lives, deter an Iranian response, and achieve "rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms."

The public mindset has been thoroughly prepared for war by a barrage of untrue propaganda against Iran, extending over many years and gradually escalating in volume and tone. Iran has been demonized as the pure incarnation of evil: the foremost sponsor of terrorism, pursuing nuclear weapons, intent on harming America, harboring al-Qaeda, hiding arsenals of chemical and biological weapons and their means of delivery, oppressing its own people, intent on destroying Israel and the West. Max Boot just wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "In sum, a terrorist-sponsoring state led by an apocalyptic lunatic will soon have the ability to incinerate Tel Aviv or New York," which "leaves only one serious option – air strikes by Israel or the U.S." Niall Ferguson wrote a few days earlier in the same newspaper that a U.S. preemptive strike against Iran today would prevent an Iranian nuclear strike on Israel in 2007, ignoring among other things the reality that it is physically impossible for Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in a year. Nicholas Goldberg, who edits the Times' opinion page, studiously avoids publishing any alternative viewpoints. A similar approach is taken by the rest of the mainstream media in the U.S. and Western Europe. Is it surprising that a few days after these two opinion pieces were published the Los Angeles Times found that 57 percent of the U.S. public backs a military strike on Iran?

Whether Iran has nuclear weapons today, 10 years from today, or never is not the issue anymore. The U.S. has declared that Iran will not be allowed to have a "nuclear weapons capability." How? Perhaps the CIA will supply Iran with misleading documents indicating that E=m2c rather than E=mc2? Unlikely. The nuclear weapons "capability" will be defined as broadly as needed, no matter what Iran agrees to, to justify the military option, which has already been endorsed by senators on both sides of the aisle.

However, neither the media nor Congress are bringing up the inconvenient little fact that the military option will necessarily lead to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran. And they are unwilling to weigh the fact that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran will likely have disastrous consequences for the U.S. and the rest of the world.

The Fallacy of Nuclear "Deterrence"

We are told over and over that the sole purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons is to "deter" adversaries, which surely provides some comfort to otherwise moral people who devote their efforts to building up the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal. The argument made some sense before: an adversary like the Soviet Union could arguably be deterred by the U.S. nuclear arsenal from launching a nuclear attack against the U.S. or its allies, or even a massive conventional attack against Western Europe.

However, the "deterrent" role of U.S. nuclear weapons has recently been extended to deter WMD (e.g., chemical weapons) attacks, and the administration argues that "low-yield" nuclear weapons make deterrence more "credible" [.pdf], and low-yield earth penetrating weapons (B61-11) are already in the U.S. nuclear stockpile [.pdf]. Where does this lead?

As Keith Payne, a proponent of the current U.S. Nuclear Posture well puts it, "deterrence is inherently unreliable: prepare for its failure." This means that if an adversary undertakes an action that the U.S. nuclear threat was meant to deter, the U.S. will respond by making good on its threat and use its nuclear weapons. Couple this with the recently adopted preemptive National Security Strategy, and the fact that the U.S. accuses Iran of having chemical weapons and that it can "deploy chemical warheads on its long-range missiles," and you are led to the following scenario: If in response to an aerial attack on Iran's facilities, Iran fires or threatens to fire a single missile against Israel or against U.S. forces in Iraq, the U.S. will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons.

Why is this a realistic expectation? Because no matter what the political cost, it would support the much broader role desired for the U.S. nuclear arsenal in the "second nuclear age," which currently has no credibility. According to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review, the U.S. nuclear arsenal is now also supposed to "dissuade adversaries from undertaking military programs or operations that could threaten U.S. interests or those of allies and friends." Well, it has already failed in this regard. Iran is pursuing its nuclear program, undeterred by all overt and less overt U.S. threats. Once the U.S. makes good on its nuclear deterrence threat once and uses its nuclear weapons, the validity of the nuclear deterrence policy against any action opposed by the U.S. will be established for future contingencies. There is a good reason why U.S. documents emphasize that "there is no customary or conventional international law to prohibit nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict."

Tactical Nuclear Weapons Deployment

The Navy instruction OPNAVINST 5721.1F [.pdf] just released concerning "the release of information about nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities of U.S. forces" is an update of the earlier 1993 version [.pdf] with some changes. One is this added paragraph:

"The current NCND [neither confirming nor denying] policy mirrors the original policy taking into account employment and program policy changes. In general, it is U.S. policy not to deploy nuclear weapons aboard surface ships, naval aircraft, attack submarines, or guided missile submarines."

Note the "in general" wording, which clearly allows for exceptions. That phrasing was conspicuously absent in the 1993 version, which instead stated "It is general US policy not to deploy nuclear weapons…." Note also that the new statement explicitly mentions that it is issued in view of "employment and program policy changes," which presumably refers to the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and the associated "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," which envision the U.S. use of tactical nuclear weapons in vastly expanded circumstances.

The policy's purported rationale is that

"Uncertainty as to the location of nuclear weapons complicates an adversary's military planning and reduces his chances of successful attack thereby increasing the deterrent value of our forces and the security of the weapons."

Perhaps. But it also serves the clear function of allowing preparations for a tactical nuclear strike against Iran without raising public alarm. The same considerations that were being made back in 1948 – "The novel nature of atomic war nevertheless made it advisable to refrain from openly declaring an American atomic strategy, because that would alarm the American public, triggering a moral debate…" – apply today. Americans would vehemently oppose the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to be used against Iran if such action was publicly disclosed.

Blaming the Military

The principal responsibility for what is about to happen will be assigned to the military. Linton Brooks, the National Nuclear Security Administration director, stated that "recently funded research into earth-penetrating bombs came at the request of military leaders who have seen potential uses for them against rogue states that hide sensitive sites deep underground." The weapons that will be used are B61-11 nuclear earth penetrators, in the U.S. nuclear stockpile since 2001 [.pdf].

The Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" provides "guidance for the employment of U.S. nuclear forces" and states, "Geographic combatant commanders may request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons for a variety of conditions," then proceeds to list several conditions that will undoubtedly apply in a military confrontation with Iran:

"An adversary using or intending to use WMD against U.S., multinational, or alliance forces or civilian populations"

"Attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons"

"To counter potentially overwhelming adversary conventional forces"

"For rapid and favorable war termination on U.S. terms"

"To ensure success of U.S. and multinational operations"

"To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to deter adversary use of WMD."

Bush and Rumsfeld often emphasize that their decisions on military operations in Iraq rely on recommendations of military commanders on the ground. As Bush recently put it,

"The people don't want me making decisions based upon politics; they want me to make decisions based upon the recommendation from our generals on the ground. And that's exactly who I'll be listening to."

When Rumsfeld was accused of overruling advice from Gen. Tommy Franks on preparations for the war on Iraq, the BBC reported that he "flatly denied overriding military commanders," instead stating,

"You will find, if you ask anyone who has been involved in the process in the central command, that every single thing that they [military commanders] have requested has, in fact, happened."

This shameful approach of shifting responsibility from the policymakers to the commanders on the ground will be an essential element in the nuking of Iran. The motivation is transparent: the administration's hope that the strong American inclination to "support the troops" will blunt criticism of the political decision to nuke Iran.

The mere possibility that Iranian missiles targeting U.S. troops could carry chemical warheads, suggested by faulty or even true intelligence and already assumed by U.S. officials, could prompt a geographic commander to request authorization from the president to use low-yield nuclear weapons against Iran, particularly if such weapons are already deployed in the theater. Or such a request could be prompted by "intelligence" that chemical weapons hidden in underground facilities in Iran will be supplied to terrorists to be used against Americans, and can only be destroyed by nuclear bunker-busters. It is obviously unconscionable to demand that a military commander, whose prime concern is the safety of the troops under command, take into account the long-term consequences for America of crossing the nuclear threshold.

How will President Bush respond to such a request? Will he not authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons after the military commander has stated that thousands of soldiers under his/her command could be at risk? We're talking about the president whose "top priority is the safety and security of the American people" and who has proclaimed that "[t]he greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack." This is the same man who year after year has requested that Congress lift the ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons (he finally succeeded), who year after year asks Congress to fund new, more "usable" nuclear bunker-busters [.pdf], who has said that "[i]f America shows uncertainty and weakness in the decade, the world will drift toward tragedy. This will not happen on my watch."

A decision that will determine the future of humanity and its possible annihilation lies in the hands, mind and soul of a geographic combatant commander.

Make No Mistake About It: Nuking Iran Is Wrong

Attacking Iran with nuclear weapons, no matter how small, is evil for the following reasons:

It will not be the result of military necessity, but a premeditated act, the circumstances to make it possible having been methodically put in place by the United States over the course of many years.

Iran does not have ready-to-use chemical nor biological weapons, just like Iraq didn't in 2003, despite identical U.S. accusations, no matter what "intelligence" tells you. Iran is party to international treaties proscribing chemical and biological weapons and terrorism. Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons; it is pursuing a civilian nuclear program. Even if it wanted to, it is many years away from the ability to make nuclear weapons.

Iran advocates a political solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; it does not threaten the use of force against Israel. The U.S. may not agree with Iran's advocated political solution (elimination of the state of Israel), but that does not give the U.S. the right to attack Iran, just as the Spanish claim over Gibraltar does not entitle Britain to attack Spain. Iran has never attacked nor threatened to attack another state in modern times. Iran has no more connection to al-Qaeda than do the U.S., Spain, or Germany, and a lot less than the state of Florida.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon state, does not have nuclear weapons, and does not threaten to use them, unlike the U.S. Iran's missiles serve the purpose of deterring an Israeli attack (like the Israeli attack on Osirak), not an offensive purpose.

Iran's government was democratically elected and has popular support. Attacking Iran will not result in Iranians rebelling against their government, despite the LA Times' (here we go again, Nick) claim to the contrary.

The U.S. has just declared that it will defend Israel militarily against Iran if needed. Presumably this includes a scenario where Israel would initiate hostilities by unprovoked bombing of Iranian facilities, as it did with Iraq's Osirak, and Iran would respond with missiles targeting Israel. The U.S. intervention is likely to be further bombing of Iran's facilities, including underground installations that can only be destroyed with low-yield nuclear bunker-busters. Such nuclear weapons may cause low casualties, perhaps only in the hundreds [.pdf], but the nuclear threshold will have been crossed.

Iran's reaction to a U.S. attack with nuclear weapons, no matter how small, cannot be predicted with certainty. U.S. planners may hope that it will deter Iran from responding, thus saving lives. However, just as the U.S. forces in Iraq were not greeted with flowers, it is likely that such an attack would provoke a violent reaction from Iran and lead to the severe escalation of hostilities, which in turn would lead to the use of larger nuclear weapons by the U.S. and potential casualties in the hundreds of thousands. Witness the current uproar over cartoons and try to imagine the resulting upheaval in the Muslim world after the U.S. nukes Iran.

The Military's Moral Dilemma

Men and women in the military forces, including civilian employees, may be facing a difficult moral choice at this very moment and in the coming weeks, akin to the moral choices faced by Colin Powell and Dan Ellsberg. The paths these two men followed were radically different.

Colin Powell was an American hero, widely respected and admired at the time he was appointed secretary of state in 2001. In February 2003, he chose to follow orders despite his own serious misgivings, and delivered the pivotal UN address that paved the way for the U.S. invasion of Iraq the following month. Today, most Americans believe the Iraq invasion was wrong, and Colin Powell is disgraced, his future destroyed, and his great past achievements forgotten.

Daniel Ellsberg, a military analyst, played a significant role in ending the Vietnam War by leaking the Pentagon Papers. He knew that he would face prosecution for breaking the law, but was convinced it was the correct moral choice. His courageous and principled action earned him respect and gratitude.

The Navy has just reminded [.pdf] its members and civilian employees what the consequences are of violating provisions concerning the release of information about the nuclear capabilities of U.S. forces. Why right now, for the first time in 12 years? Because it is well aware of moral choices that its members may face, and it hopes to deter certain actions. But courageous men and women are not easily deterred.

To disobey orders and laws and to leak information are difficult actions that entail risks. Still, many principled individuals have done it in the past and will continue to do it in the future ( see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9].) Conscientious objection to the threat and use of nuclear weapons is a moral choice.

Once the American public becomes fully aware that military action against Iran will include the planned use of nuclear weapons, public support for military action will quickly disappear. Anything could get the ball rolling. A great catastrophe will have been averted.

Even U.S. military law recognizes that there is no requirement to obey orders that are unlawful. The use of nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country can be argued to be in violation of international law, the principle of just war, the principle of proportionality, common standards of morality ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), and customs that make up the law of armed conflict. Even if the nuclear weapons used are small, because they are likely to cause escalation of the conflict they violate the principle of proportionality and will cause unnecessary suffering.

The Nuremberg Tribunal, which the United States helped to create, established that "The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."

To follow orders or to disobey orders, to keep information secret or to leak it, are choices for each individual to make – extremely difficult choices that have consequences. But not choosing is not an option.

America's Collective Responsibility

Blaming the administration or the military for crossing the nuclear threshold is easy, but responsibility will be shared by all Americans.

All Americans knew, or should have known, that using nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear country like Iran was a possibility given the Bush administration's new policies. All Americans could have voiced their opposition to these policies and demand that they be reversed.

The media will carry a heavy burden of responsibility. The mainstream media could have effectively raised public awareness of the possibility that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons against Iran. So far, they have chosen to almost completely hide the issue, which is being increasingly addressed in non-mainstream media.

Members of Congress could have raised the question forcefully, calling for public hearings, demanding public discussion of the administration's plans, and passing new laws or resolutions. So far they have failed to do so and are derelict in their responsibility to their constituents. Letters to the president from some in Congress [1], [2] are a start, but are not likely to elicit a meaningful response or a change in plans and are a far cry from forceful action.

Scientific organizations and organizations dealing with arms control and nuclear weapons could have warned of the dangers associated with the Iran situation. So far, they have not done so ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]).

Scientists and engineers responsible for the development of nuclear weapons could have voiced concern [.pdf] when the new U.S. nuclear weapons policies became known, policies that directly involve the fruits of their labor. Their voices have not been heard.

Those who contribute their labor to the scientific and technical infrastructure that makes nuclear weapons and their means of delivery possible bear a particularly heavy burden of moral responsibility. Their voices have barely been heard.

The Nuclear Abyss

The United States is preparing to enter a new era: an era in which it will enforce nuclear nonproliferation by the threat and use of nuclear weapons. The use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran will usher in a new world order. The ultimate goal is that no nation other than the U.S. should have a nuclear weapons arsenal.

A telltale sign that this is the plan is the recent change in the stated mission of Los Alamos National Laboratory, where nuclear weapons are developed. The mission of LANL used to be described officially as "Los Alamos National Laboratory's central mission is to reduce the global nuclear danger" [1] [.pdf], [2] [.pdf], [3] [.pdf]. That will sound ridiculous once the U.S. starts throwing mini-nukes around. In anticipation of it, the Los Alamos mission statement has been recently changed to "prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction and to protect our homeland from terrorist attack." That is the present and future role of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, to be achieved through threat (deterrence) and use of nuclear weapons. References to the old mission are nowhere to be found in the current Los Alamos documents, indicating that the change was deliberate and thorough.

It is not impossible that the U.S. will succeed in its goal. But it is utterly improbable. This is a big world. Once the U.S. crosses the nuclear threshold against a non-nuclear country, many more countries will strive to acquire nuclear weapons, and many will succeed.

The nuclear abyss may turn out to be a steep precipice or a gentle slope. Either way, it will be a one-way downhill slide toward a bottomless pit. We will have entered a path of no return, leading in a few months or a few decades to global nuclear war and unimaginable destruction.

But there are still choices to be made. Up to the moment the first U.S. nuclear bomb explodes, the fall into the abyss can be averted by choices made by each and every one of us. We may never know which choices prevented it if it doesn't happen. But if we make the wrong choices, we will know what they were. And so will future generations, even in a world where wars are fought with sticks and stones.