Rex Regnant Sed Non Gubernat

It's All About Israel What's behind the calls for the U.S. to bomb Iran?

by Justin Raimondo

I see that Zbigniew Brzezinski is stealing my ideas and not giving me credit, but, what the heck, I'm in a generous mood – and he puts his own gloss on it – so I don't mind (via Matthew Yglesias): "Zbigniew Brzezinski at the conference says the U.S. and Israel should try to put their demands for Iranian disarmament in the context of support for a regional nuclear-free zone (i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament). After all, he says, if we're supposed to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran's nuclear program, then it obviously isn't a very valuable asset." What good is the Israeli "deterrent" if it doesn't deter? A good question, perhaps answered by challenging the assumption that the nukes in the IDF's arsenal are at all defensive in nature or intent. The Israelis clearly intend to crouch behind their nuclear shield as they expand their sphere of influence, and this has been especially true since the implementation of the "Clean Break" scenario espoused by the Likudniks and their American co-thinkers. Growing Israeli influence in Kurdistan, recent incursions into Lebanon, and the purported ability of Israeli agents to penetrate Iran's borders attest to the success of their strategy. While American soldiers in Iraq take bullets from Sunni insurgents – and, increasingly, radical Shi'ite militias – the Israelis have been quietly (and not so quietly) taking the spoils of our Pyrrhic "victory." I'm kidding when I say that the former national security adviser and renowned foreign policy theoretician is "stealing" the idea that we ought not to support Israel's Near Eastern nuclear monopoly. It is a perfectly rational, logical argument, one that has long been advanced by the Syrians, the Arab League, and any number of commentators in the Arab-Muslim world(s). It is also radically heretical in the West, where discussion of Israel's unquestioned hegemony in the region – and in the politics of policy formulation in the U.S. and Western Europe – is prohibited. Which is why I've been practically alone, until recently, in challenging the prevailing orthodoxy. The concept of parity between the Israelis and their Arab-Muslim antagonists may soon be legitimized, in spite of the Western taboo against straight talk on this issue, when the regime of Gen. Pervez Musharraf expires and gives way to an openly Islamist government that possesses as many as 55 nukes. Then, perhaps, the idea of negotiating a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East won't seem so radical after all. By then, however, it may be too late. In the meantime, however, Israel's apologists are doing everything in their power to make sure that such heretical views don't even get a fair hearing. Surely this impulse to censor was what energized my critics during the recent debate over at Jewcy.com pitting me against Michael Freund – who wants the U.S. to bomb Iran because of the alleged threat its nuclear program poses to Israel. One such critic, Noah Pollak, wrote: "Far be it from me to take Mr. Raimondo seriously when he says such things – his contributions to last week's exchange were studded with so many hateful condemnations, bizarre declarations, and quarter-baked ideas that doing so would require me to empty my brain of everything I've learned about both the Middle East and foreign policy." What were these "hateful condemnations"? Pollak never tells us. What "bizarre declarations" is he talking about? The only sentence of mine he cites says that Iran has no intention of nuking Israel and couldn't reach the U.S. even if it wanted to – is this really so bizarre? As for those "quarter-baked ideas" – I guess he's referring to the nuclear-free Middle East concept that such rank amateurs as Brzezinski are now pushing. I have to say that Pollak's piece was published only after my "dialogue" with Freund was posted. Since I was clearly the winner of that initial facedown, I guess the editors of Jewcy.com thought they'd give the other side another shot – without informing me or soliciting my response. Aside from the issue of good manners, however, Pollak's polemic is typical of the War Party's style of argument in that it consists mostly of epithets. Once we get past Pollak's rhetorical flourishes, however, and the almost ritualistic terms of abuse, what we find is a rather weak argument in favor of maintaining what the author refers to as an "American-enforced security architecture" that "shows so much support for Israel that the Arab states would henceforth refuse to challenge it." Pollak avers: "Iran is indeed a threat to both the United States and to Israel – but the threat does not come in the cartoonish form of Mr. Raimondo's fevered imagination, with Iranian bombers nuking Tel Aviv and Iranian ICBM's rocketing their way toward New York. Those scenarios are red herrings intended to make Raimondo's task of turning America and Israel into the world's leading belligerents much easier." It's not very clever of Pollak to attribute to me arguments made by Freund: all the reader has to do is go back and look at the previous "dialogue" to see that it is Freund who makes the far-fetched claim that Iran is developing long-range missiles capable of striking American cities. I merely refuted him. Such "red herrings" are rampant these days, as the Bush administration recently made a similar argument, telling Vladimir Putin that missile-defense systems put in place in Poland and Czechoslovakia are meant to guard against the allegedly imminent threat of an Iranian attack. In any event, insofar as it is useful in this discussion to differentiate American from Israeli interests – and that, in essence, is the issue at hand – the idea that Iranian nukes would or could pose a threat to America cried out for a definitive debunking. The problem for Pollak is to erase all distinctions between these two nations' separate interests, which are sometimes complementary and yet increasingly at odds. His solution is to simply ignore diverging strategic imperatives and argue in favor of maintaining the status quo, which amounts to anointing the Israelis as the local satraps of the Empire and giving them unconditional support right down the line. In doing so, he makes some pretty counterintuitive arguments, such as the following: "The actual threat posed by a nuclear Iran involves the manner in which such a development would upset the balance of power in the Middle East, which no doubt for Mr. Raimondo is a boring subject as it does not provide ready opportunities for Israel Lobby hysteria and mushroom cloud fantasies. To understand the consequences of a nuclear Iran, we have to look to the recent history of Middle East power arrangements." What follows, then, is an account of recent Middle Eastern history studded with such stunners as: "American strategists decided to attempt to impose peace in the region by showing so much support for Israel that the Arab states would henceforth refuse to challenge it. And this strategy has been a resounding success: Since 1973 there have been no more wars between Israel and Arab countries." Hmm. I guess those two – count 'em, two – invasions of Lebanon don't count as wars, perhaps because Israel was twice beaten back, the second time decisively. In any case, Pollak's argument is that Iranian nukes will lead the Sunni nations to all want nukes, too, and this would "shatter the balance of power." Pollak's idea of a proper "balance of power" is that Israel alone will have the capacity to wipe out its neighbors with the press of a single button, the barking of a single command. In short, the only acceptable "balance" is Israeli military dominance. He does his bit to dress up this domination in the garb of an "American-enforced security architecture," but that, in essence, is what we are really talking about here: maintaining Israel's nuclear monopoly at all costs. It is okay, in Pollak's worldview, for the Israelis to possess this terrible power: they, after all, can be trusted with it, because, after all, they're just like us – aren't they? They wouldn't use nuclear weapons against, say, the Iranians, by launching a first strike that would wipe out Tehran. I wouldn't be so sure, and one can be certain that the Iranians – and the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and everyone else in the Middle East – aren't so sure, either. Which brings us to the question of why these folks didn't begin their arms race long ago – if only to deter a nuclear-armed Israel. If that didn't motivate them to develop The Bomb, then, I would argue, nothing will – including the nuclearization of Iran. If Pollak is going to decry the prospect of an arms race in the Middle East, then perhaps he should place the blame on those who started it – the Israelis. They were first to build a nuclear arsenal, and, unlike Iran, they refuse to this day to allow inspectors in and have steadfastly declined to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The present "American-enforced security architecture" is unsustainable, and must collapse due to its inherent unfairness. The Arab-Muslim nations of the Middle East cannot be expected to cower indefinitely under threat of attack from a nuclear-armed Israel or its American patron, meekly accepting foreign domination of their own region. Our posture is the main recruiting tool of the worldwide terrorist insurgency symbolized by Osama bin Laden, and it can only be maintained by sacrificing American interests on the altar of our "special relationship" with Israel. Our present policy is a gross distortion that desperately needs to be corrected before we can hope to eliminate the danger to our economic well-being and security posed by the rise of radical Islamism. The "clash of civilizations" is really a conflict generated by Western imperialism and colonialism; it is not at all inherent in the nature of either Islam or the West. The United States should apply the same standards to Israel as it does to Iran. If the Iranians must disarm, then so must the Israelis. If nukes in the hands of the mullahs are threatening, then they are no less so when wielded by ultra-nationalistic Zionists of the Likudnik persuasion. The current crisis provoked by the Iranian nuclear power program only highlights how utterly archaic our present policy in the region has become – and demonstrates that nuclear disarmament must be made a regional issue rather than a bludgeon with which to beat the Iranians. Anyone who could argue, as Pollak has, that an American attack on Iran would not produce regional chaos has got to be smoking some pretty strong stuff. Not once does he mention the probable fate of the 150,000 or so American soldiers in Iraq who would surely be the objects of Shi'ite rage in response to the killing of thousands of their Iranian co-religionists. Apparently the lives of so many Americans make no difference to him. So much for his pretense of upholding American interests in the region. This isn't about America, however, as Pollak makes all too clear. The current propaganda campaign on behalf of striking Iran – a campaign given a big boost by the Republican candidates for president, who, except for Ron Paul, favor hitting Iran with nukes – is all about Israel. It's as simple as that. The question before the house is this: should the United States exhaust itself militarily, economically, and psychologically in order to ensure indefinite Israeli domination of the Middle East? To the Israel Lobby, this is a no-brainer: of course it should. Anything less than unconditional support for Israel's strategic objectives would be anti-Semitic and "hateful." To which an increasing number of policy wonks, such as Brzezinski, and ordinary Americans, such as myself, answer: we won't be intimidated any longer. It's high time the central premise of American policy in the Middle East is challenged and the specialness of the "special relationship" is held up to scrutiny. This latest demand – that the U.S. expend its resources, including the lives of its young people, in yet another war on Israel's behalf – has nothing to do with defending the Jewish state against what Pollak admits is the canard of nuclear incineration at Iranian hands, and everything to do with keeping the Israeli boot firmly on Arab and Muslim necks. And that cause is not worth a single American life.

Imagine my surprise. A “guest scholar at the center-left Brookings Institution,” Benjamin Wittes, wants to gut the Second Amendment. Wittes told CNSNews “that rather than try to limit gun ownership through regulation that potentially violates the Second Amendment, opponents of gun ownership should set their sights on repealing the amendment altogether.”

Georgetown University law professor Randy Barnett, however, did not limit his comments to the Second Amendment, suggesting instead that much of the Bill of Rights has “no contemporary relevance.” As an example, Barnett cited the Fourth Amendment. “Sure it was fine that persons should be secure in their papers and effects back in the old days when there wasn’t a danger of terrorism and mass murder.” According to the professor, the Fourth Amendment is “archaic [and] we don’t need it anymore.”

Of course, this sort of authoritarian nonsense should be expected, as we have allowed the government to be hijacked by a gaggle of neocons and their neoliberal kissing cousins who favor the sort of government operating in China to a constitutionally limited republic of the sort we had until 1791 when the Federalist Alexander Hamilton set-up the first central bank in America modeled after the Bank of England. In essence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have languished ever since and the neocons are now simply doing away with all pretense, not that most Americans will notice—so long as they remain “free” to shop, consume, and watch American Idol.

Incidentally, it is amusing CNSNews characterizes the Brookings Institution as “center-left,” a designation deemed to give the impression the place is crawling with Democrats and fence-sitting “progressives.” Never mind such labels are worthless, as the transnational plutocrats and globalists in control of the horizontal and vertical consider such appellations of little use beyond hypnotizing the commoners.

In fact, Brookings is strictly a neocon “think tank,” connected at the hip with the American Enterprise Institute (where Bush gets his “minds,” that is to say psychopaths) and the Wharton Business School, allegedly fronted by the Tavistock Institute. In addition, Brookings hosts the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by Haim Saban, the billionaire former Israeli who proudly declares: “I’m a one-issue guy and my issue is Israel.” Saban is a Democrat—thus demonstrating you can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans without a scorecard.

Finally, it should come as no surprise neocons and neolibs want to do away with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, even though these founding documents are now little more than a historical facade, as the founding concepts enshrined in the documents were dismantled and floated down the river by bankers and the financial elite more than two centuries ago. Neocons have no use for the First, Second, Fourth or any other number of amendments, as they subscribe to the Führerprinzip, that is to say the leadership or Führer principle based on the Auctoritas of ancient Rome, as spelled out by Carl Schmitt, the Nazi jurist who elevated the concept of a dictatorial Reichspräsident, a concept embraced by neocons far and wide.

Thus it makes perfect sense the boy wonder of the neocons, Bill Kristol, would declare: “Maybe we should have Supreme Leader Bush. I kind of like the sound of that.”

American Community Survey Interrogation

Defective, dependent, or delinquent...

After being delayed several years due to budget shortfalls, one of the largest invasions of our privacy is now in full swing, compliments of the U.S. Census Bureau and a cadre of Department of Commerce corporate partners. In the past, the American people only had to put up with this unconstitutional nonsense once every ten years. A time frame frequent enough to be annoying but not frequent enough to evoke formal resistance. With the advent of the misnomered American Community Survey however, circumstance have changed dramatically. U.S. Census bureaucrats have somehow misinterpreted clear constitutional guidance regarding a simple head count once every 10 years for representation purposes as a mandate to invade America's privacy on a recurring monthly basis.

Below you will find a discussion of this unconstitutional program along with links to commentaries, news articles, corporate involvement, and government documentation that highlight this newest invasion of our homes and privacy along with general information regarding the decennial census.

---

250,000 homes are now being targeted every month by the Census Bureau and its corporate lackeys to comply, under threat of prosecution, with a survey demanding answers to over 70 privacy invading questions. Questions, that as Congressman Ron Paul and others have pointed out, are none of the government's business.

This new program will cost taxpayers well over $150,000,000 a year and is envisioned by Census Bureau personnel as a permanent fixture to the new American police state. It was developed and implemented by unelected career bureaucrats at the Department of Commerce in close consultation with other government interests including but not limited to the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services and Homeland Security. In addition, the Census Bureau relies heavily on strong support from corporate interests to collect, scan, archive, and conduct follow-up work related to surveys unwittingly filled out by individuals under the false pretense that their responses will be kept 'strictly confidential'.

Indeed, the Census Bureau and its contracted help will all tell you that your responses are protected by statute and any unauthorized disclosure is punishable by severe fines and prison time. What they don't tell you is that the number of 'authorized' disclosures is expansive and corporations and individuals working with the Census Bureau have unfettered access to your personal information while under contract with the Bureau. You also wont find a list of individuals or organizations that have been prosecuted or sanctioned by the federal government for disclosing your personal information. After all, when the chief executive officer of the country can thumb his nose at the Constitution and federal statutes with impunity in order to spy on American citizens, it's no great leap of logic to realize so-called census privacy protections are in reality non-existent.

Some of the commercial interests associated with this new attack on our privacy are highlighted below but the list is by no means exhaustive. A close look at several corporations such a Lockheed Martin and Evolver, Inc., shows a strong connection to other government agencies such as Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, and various Intelligence agencies. Additionally, Lockheed Martin has not only been a major player in previous decennial census efforts in the United States but has also been a major contractor for National Census efforts in other countries such as Canada and England. In the case of Canada, Lockheed's participation resulted in an uproar from the public that is still being heard today.

The malfeasance isn't limited to corporate involvement however. A GAO report from 2002 verifies that the majority of questions on the survey don't even originate in the Census Bureau but rather from other special interests within the federal government:

"The questions to be asked in the 2003 ACS reflect justifications - specific statutes, regulations, and court cases - provided to the Bureau by federal agencies." - GAO Report, p2

"The 20 questions justified by mandatory programs reflect the provisions of seven statutes: One statute justifies 13 questions for providing information to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (EEOC) to enforce the Federal Affirmative Action Plan. Another statute justifies 6 questions for providing information to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to enforce the Voting Rights Act. A Department of Commerce (DOC) statute justifies 1 question for providing information for legislative redistricting. The other statutes relate to programs of the Department of Agriculture (USDA), DOC, and HHS." - GAO Report, p16

What this means is that federal agencies are using the Census Bureau as their front for mandating responses to questions that individual agencies or departments aren't authorized to mandate from the general public on their own.

What's even more surprising however is a GAO finding that contrary to assurances given, the Census Bureau fully intends to provide federal agencies with DIRECT access to ACS data while working with these agencies to develop more targeted and specialized follow-up surveys based upon responses to the American Community Survey:

"In addition to providing federal agencies with DIRECT use of ACS data for program needs, the bureau has announced that it would conduct special surveys for them, based on ACS responses." - GAO Report, p16

The GAO found that the Census Bureau conveniently left these facts out of instructional materials provided to individuals contracted to conduct the survey:

"...we also did not find any mention of this notification in the information provided to the staff conducting the ACS testing." - GAO Report, p16

And if this wasn't enough, the Census Bureau has admitted to conducting experiments on the American people to test compliance and privacy attitudes with specially worded surveys to see how individuals would respond to different information demands:

"About 21,000 American households received a census form asking respondents for that all-important nine-digit number, in addition to the typical inquiries on race, gender and age. It was a little-noticed experiment conducted by the Census Bureau to see how Americans would respond to being asked for the figure..." - Sun Sentinel

"Voluntary materials and methods will be used for all phases of data collection....The overall objective of the test is to identify the effect of changing the survey from a mandatory one to a voluntary one on response rates, quality, and cost. A small control panel will receive materials by mail that retain the mandatory wording." - ACS Operations Plan, p. 51

While researching this issue, I wanted to find out exactly what authority the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Census Bureau thought they had to force sovereign individuals to lay bare their private lives to any federal bureaucrat or their contracted help with a clipboard and a badge (they haven't been issued guns...yet). What I found was more disturbing in some ways than the invasive questions on the survey itself.

It turns out the federal government considers all of us to be either defective, dependent or delinquent and Congress has specifically authorized the Department of Commerce to classify us accordingly. Don't believe me? Check out 13 U.S.C. 101:

13 USC 101 - Defective, dependent, and delinquent classes; crime:
(a) The Secretary may collect decennially statistics relating—

(1) to the defective, dependent, and delinquent classes; and
(2) to crime, including judicial statistics pertaining thereto.

(b) The statistics authorized by subsection (a) of this section shall include information upon the following questions, namely: age, sex, color, nativity, parentage, literacy by race, color, nativity, and parentage, and such other questions relating to such subjects as the Secretary deems proper.

(c) In addition to the decennial collections authorized by subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Secretary may compile and publish annually statistics relating to crime and to the defective, dependent, and delinquent classes.

In other words, all those invasive questions having nothing to do with a decennial enumeration for representation purposes are authorized by federal statute in order to determine what class of individual you are - defective, dependent, or delinquent.

Not a big deal you say? The government would never abuse this database or the information it unconstitutionally collects on its citizens. You may want to ask the Arab-American community whether or not it's a big deal or the millions of Americans who had their personal information disclosed to NASA by the Census Bureau regarding a program to assign terrorist threat levels to all individuals traveling in the United States. If this isn't enough for you then perhaps the story of hundreds of thousands of American citizens rounded up during World War II and placed in concentration camps by the federal government will be more persuasive. Individuals identified in part from the 1940 Census that they willingly filled out as part of their so-called 'civic duty'.

While all this sounds pretty daunting, there's a simple solution to this particular issue. We all know from Civics 101 that the federal government only has such lawful authority as is specifically granted to it under the Constitution. A quick reference to the 4th, 9th and 10th amendments should be all that's necessary to remind you that your right to privacy is still fully intact and nosy, snooping federal bureaucrats demanding access to the intimate details of your household and life are about as un-American and un-patriotic as it gets.

As such, the American people should heed the words of Congressman Ron Paul:

"The founders never authorized the federal government to continuously survey the American people. More importantly, they never envisioned a nation where the people would roll over and submit to every government demand. The American Community Survey is patently offensive to all Americans who still embody that fundamental American virtue, namely a healthy mistrust of government. The information demanded in the new survey is none of the government's business, and the American people should insist that Congress reject it now before it becomes entrenched."

As such, when the Census Bureau field rep. comes knocking on your door in order to invade your families privacy, you may want to gently remind him of the principles associated with private property ownership and point him in the direction of the shortest path OFF your property.

-Terry

By Noam Cohen
Sunday, June 3, 2007

NEW YORK: Any modern office worker quickly learns that professing complete inadequacy is usually the best move in the presence of someone from the tech support department. The same rules, however, do not apply in public life.

The latest example of the danger of revealing technological weakness was Judge Peter Openshaw of the High Court, Queen's Branch Division, in London. While presiding over the trial of three men charged under anti-terrorism laws, he was quoted by Reuters last month as saying in open court: "The trouble is, I don't understand the language. I don't really understand what a Web site is."

The pillorying - and Wikipedia entry - came nearly instantly (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Openshaw). Not since Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, referred to the Internet as "a bunch of tubes," or President George W. Bush spoke of the "Internets," had the Web grinned so wide.

The next day, the Judiciary of England and Wales issued an extraordinary statement asserting that Openshaw's comments had been taken out of context. (Reuters, while reporting on that statement, said it "stands by its story.")

"Trial judges always seek to ensure that everyone in court is able to follow all of the proceedings," the statement said, adding that Openshaw was acting not for himself but "on behalf of all those following a case, in the interests of justice."

In case anyone was curious, the statement concluded that "Mr. Justice Openshaw is entirely computer literate and indeed has taken notes on his own computer in court for many years."

Some in the British press parsed that official explanation, wondering why the judge hadn't said explicitly that he was asking on behalf of the jury, if that is what he meant. Others came to his defense.

Alex Carlile, a member of the House of Lords, wrote in The Independent that he could attest that Openshaw had a "sharp, incisive brain often well ahead of the barristers before him. He is at ease with a computer; I have seen him taking notes on it in court, as habitually he does."

When I spoke by phone with the judiciary's press office, I suggested that the judge e-mail me his thoughts on the controversy and let the medium be the message. A spokeswoman there cast doubt on that idea, saying that the judicial e-mail system only worked internally - but she said she would relay my request. (I suppose she may have sent him an electronic message with the details, but I'd like to think a clerk wrapped the note in a ribbon and rode by carriage to the courthouse.)

I never heard back, but I have not checked with Western Union for several days.

Such tales of technological cluelessness can act as entertainment, or even provide a common folklore for the online world. But surely there is also an aspect of marking turf against "the technologically ignorant masses."

Edward Felten , a professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton University, says it is hardly a coincidence that Internet commentators seize on slips by public officials.

"There is a widespread belief online that many politicians and policy makers don't understand the Internet well enough to regulate it," he said.

Stevens offered his description of the Internet last summer, as chairman of the committee responsible for telecommunications, commenting on the issue known as Net neutrality.

"The Internet," he said, "is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's, it's a series of tubes."

To the online activists who favor Net neutrality - the principle that high-speed Internet companies not be allowed to charge content providers for priority access - Stevens is the enemy, and an unworthy one at that. Hardly a day goes by on liberal sites like Daily Kos or Eschaton that "bunch of tubes" won't appear. On Thursday, it was prominently displayed on both.

Felten, using his authority as a computer expert, defended the senator.

"I felt the criticism had gone too far," he said, "had gone to the point of unfairness. It seemed to me that talking about the Internet as 'tubes' wasn't too far from what even some of the experts do - talking about 'pipes.' "

Felten describes himself on the Net neutrality issue as believing "there is a problem, but I don't think government can solve it." But he said his sympathy for the senator had nothing to do with a shared outlook.

Instead, he preached humility. "The Internet is pretty complicated," he said. "Nobody understands everything about how the Internet works." He then spoke about the complexity of "emergent behavior" and some other ideas I must admit I had not heard before.

When I told him that, of course the Internet was not a bunch of tubes, it was a "bunch of wires," he laughed. "Saying the Internet is a 'bunch of wires' is like saying your body is a bunch of meat."

Know-it-all.