Sunday, February 28, 2010
EU tobacco subsidies
Friday, February 26, 2010
Israel's goods produced in the OPT not Israeli
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Saudia Arabia pressures Pakistan to collaborate with US
Indefinite detention at Gitmo
The decisions bring to 11 the number of such cases that the government has won. In 32 other cases, judges have ruled that the Pentagon did not have sufficient evidence to hold the prisoners and have ordered that the detainees be released. Four of those are still at Guantanamo.
CIA raids inside Pakistan
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Jundallah
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Yoo and Bybee
And here a good summary piece.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
CIA drugs Peru
Iraq unions
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Juan Cole on neo cons and Israel and Middle East
Militarization of aid in Afghanistan
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
World Arms trade
In particular:
the Obama administration’s new 2010/2011 budget allocates $6 billion in weaponry for Afghan Security Forces. The Afghans will actually get those weapons for free, but U.S. weapons makers will make real money delivering them at taxpayers’ expense.
A more detailed report is available here.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
British intelligence complicit in torture
I remember very well when I was held – not just in Guantánamo, but also in Bagram and Kandahar – that British intelligence services were present at every leg of that journey. I knew one of them from the UK because he'd visited my house in Birmingham, so we already knew each other when I saw him again at Kandahar and Bagram. It's well-known, especially to all the Guantánamo prisoners, that the British intelligence services were present. The evidence is well-corroborated.
Binyam Mohamed
Also, Obama is continuing to fight lawsuits questionoing wiretapping.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Taliban opposed bin Laden pre 9-11
Obama to increase funding for nuclear weapons
Indeed on February 1, the Obama administration delivered a budget request calling for a full 10% increase in nuclear weapons spending next year, to be followed by further increases in subsequent years. These increases, if enacted, would bring the recent six-year period of flat and declining nuclear weapons budgets to an abrupt end. Not since 2005 has Congress approved such a large nuclear weapons budget.
The request proposes major upgrades to certain bombs as well as the design, and ultimately production, of a new ballistic missile warhead. Warhead programs are increased almost across the board, with the notable exception of dismantlement, which is set to decline dramatically. A continued scientific push to develop simulations and experiments to partially replace nuclear testing is evident.
All these initiatives and others are embedded in an overall military budget bigger than any since the 1940s that includes renewed funding for the development of advanced delivery vehicles, cruise missiles, and plenty of money for nuclear deployments.
Compared with the forces deployed as of 2009, the effect of the START follow-on appears to be a reduction of Russian deployed strategic warheads by approximately 40 percent, and a U.S. reduction of roughly 24 percent. The estimated effect on the total stockpile of either country is more modest: 14 percent fewer warheads for Russia and 10 percent for the United States. But that assumes the warheads cut by the START follow-on treaty would be retired rather than placed in the reserve, something the agreement does not require. The treaty itself requires no change in the size of the total stockpiles.
The reduction to 500-1,100 strategic delivery vehicles represents a significant reduction from the START ceiling of 1,600, at least on paper. In reality, however, the upper limit exceeds what either country currently deploys, and the lower level exceeds what Russia is expected to deploy by 2017 anyway. Therefore, a 500-1,100 limit doesn’t force either country to make changes to its nuclear structure but essentially follows current deployment plans.
The United States currently deploys approximately 798 strategic delivery vehicles; Russia approximately 620. But many of the Russian systems are being retired and not being replaced on a one-for-one basis so the entire force could shrink to less than 400 strategic delivery vehicles by 2016. To put in perspective; that would be less than the United States deploys in its ICBM force alone.
Bottom line:
Even when the new treaty has been implemented in seven years, the two countries will still possess more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, each with over 20 times more weapons than the next-largest nuclear power: China.
Afghan impunity law
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Binyam Mohamed
There has been previous discoveries of British intelligence involvement in torture/rendition.
An interesting article giving historical legal context is here.
And one from Counterpunch.
Iran nuclear and Israel trade
This article also says similar things.
And Israel buys some pistachios from Iran through Turkey.
The Obama administration (Treasury Dept) has also enacted additional sanctions on Iran.
And a piece about Iran and the SCO saying that Russia would like to see Iran join the SCO but China is reluctant because it doesn't want to antagonize the West.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
400 foreign bases in Afghanistan, 700 in total
"Currently we have over $3 billion worth of work going on in Afghanistan," says Col. Wilson, "and probably by the summer, when the dust settles from all the uplift, we’ll have about $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion worth of that [in the South]." By comparison, between 2002 and 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers spent more than $4.5 billion on construction projects, most of it base-building, in Afghanistan.
As of August 2009 there were about 300 US bases in Iraq.
Counting the remaining bases in Iraq – as many as 50 are slated to be operating after President Barack Obama’s Aug. 31, 2010, deadline to remove all U.S. "combat troops" from the country – and those in Afghanistan, as well as black sites like al-Udeid, the total number of U.S. bases overseas now must significantly exceed 1,000. Just exactly how many U.S. military bases (and allied facilities used by U.S. forces) are scattered across the globe may never be publicly known. What we do know – from the experience of bases in Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea – is that, once built, they have a tendency toward permanency that a cessation of hostilities, or even outright peace, has a way of not altering.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Guantanamo recidivism
Fro example, Feinstein said that 28 released Yemenis returned to the fight in Yemen--but in fact only 16 Yemeni prisoners were released from Guantánamo between 2004 and November 2009, and only one of these men allegedly became involved in terrorism.
Seton Hall has conducted analyses debunking those claims.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Iran nuclear
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Afghanistan drugs
An important precursor, acetic anhydride, is brought in from Iran and Pakistan, a US ally.
Iran elections poll
PIPA says that their survey of polls of Iranian opinion does not indicate that Iranians see Ahmadinejad as illegitimate, and that Iranians are not significantly feeling ready for revolution, among other things.
The full report is here.
See also more details (datasets) here.
Japan stops assistance to Afghan mission
Women Afghanistan
Also:
When two brave women activists, risking their lives, filmed Zarmina’s execution at Kabul’s stadium, no US channel was ready to show this footage. The footage showing a burqa-clad Zarmina, squatting in the middle of the stadium, while being fired at point-blank by a Talib, was considered too shocking to be aired to the US public. However, it was only after September 11 that the Revolutionary Afghan Women Association (RAWA) — whose members had filmed this horrible incident to alarm the world regarding Afghan women’s plight — started getting telephone calls from US channels. Every channel now wanted to show Zarmina’s execution. Ahead of the US invasion, it was no longer too ugly to air for a sensitive US audience.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Honduras and Haiti
He talks about their importance to US foreign policy and the demonstration effect:
In October of 1970, President Richard Nixon was cursing in the Oval Office about the Social Democratic President of Chile, Salvador Allende. "That son of a bitch!" said Richard Nixon on October 15, 1970. "That son of a bitch Allende – we're going to smash him." A few weeks later he explained why:
“The main concern in Chile is that [Allende] can consolidate himself, and the picture projected to the world will be his success .... If we let the potential leaders in South America think they can move like Chile and have it both ways, we will be in trouble ...”