Tuesday, September 25, 2012

SOURCES: SLAIN U.S. AMBASSADOR RECRUITED JIHADISTS


Christopher Stevens, the U.S. ambassador murdered in Libya, played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials speaking to WND.
Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.
The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.
Stevens and three other American diplomats were killed on Sept. 11 in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi blamed on Islamists.
One witness to the mob scene in Libya said some of the gunmen attacking the U.S. installation had identified themselves as members of Ansar al-Shariah, which represents al-Qaida in Yemen and Libya.
The al-Qaida offshoot released a statement denying its members were behind the deadly attack, but a man identified as a leader of the Ansar brigade told Al Jazeera the group indeed took part in the Benghazi attack.
Al-Qaida among U.S.-supported rebels
As WND reported last week, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.
Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army.
During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”
In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assad’s regime.
Al-Qaida among U.S.-supported rebels?
However, questions remain about the nature of U.S. support for the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, including reports the U.S.-aided rebels that toppled Muammar Gadhafi’s regime in Libya consisted of al-Qaida and jihad groups. The U.S. provided direct assistance, including weapons and finances, to the Libyan rebels.
Similarly, the Obama administration is currently aiding the rebels fighting Assad’s regime in Syria amid widespread reports that al-Qaida jihadists are included in the ranks of the Free Syrian Army.
During the revolution against Gadhafi’s regime, the U.S. admitted to directly arming the rebel groups.
At the time, rebel leader Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi admitted in an interview that a significant number of the Libyan rebels were al-Qaida fighters, many of whom had fought U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He insisted his fighters “are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists,” but he added that the “members of al-Qaida are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader.”
Adm. James Stavridis, NATO supreme commander for Europe, admitted Libya’s rebel force may include al-Qaida: “We have seen flickers in the intelligence of potential al-Qaida, Hezbollah.”
Former CIA officer Bruce Riedel went even further, telling the Hindustan Times: “There is no question that al-Qaida’s Libyan franchise, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, is a part of the opposition. It has always been Gadhafi’s biggest enemy and its stronghold is Benghazi. What is unclear is how much of the opposition is al-Qaida/Libyan Islamic Fighting Group – 2 percent or 80 percent.”
In Syria, meanwhile, the U.S. may be currently supporting al-Qaida and other jihadists fighting with the rebels targeting Assad’s regime.
Last month, WND quoted a senior Syrian source claiming at lease 500 hardcore mujahedeen from Afghanistan, many of whom were spearheading efforts to fight the U.S. there, were killed in clashes with Syrian forces last month.
Also last month, WND reported Jihadiya Salafia in the Gaza Strip, a group that represents al-Qaida in the coastal territory, had declared three days of mourning for its own jihadists who died in Syria in recent weeks.
There have been widespread reports of al-Qaida among the Syrian rebels, including in reports by Reuters and the New York Times.
WND reported in May there was growing collaboration between the Syrian opposition and al-Qaida as well as evidence the opposition is sending weapons to jihadists in Iraq, according to an Egyptian security official.
The military official told WND that Egypt has reports of collaboration between the Syrian opposition and three al-Qaida arms, including one the operates in Libya:
  • Jund al-Sham, which is made up of al-Qaida militants who are Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese;
  • Jund al-Islam, which in recent years merged with Ansar al-Islam, an extremist group of Sunni Iraqis operating under the al-Qaida banner and operating in Yemen and Libya;
  • Jund Ansar al-Allah, an al-Qaida group based in Gaza linked to Palestinian camps in Lebanon and Syria.
U.S. officials have stated the White House is providing nonlethal aid to the Syrian rebels while widespread reports have claimed the U.S. has been working with Arab countries to ensure the opposition in Syria is well armed.

Progressive Insurance. Who are they?


Progressive Insurance. Who are they?


PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE is owned by Peter Lewis: Who is he? Read this...
You've seen and probably smiled at the clever Progressive Insurance TV commercials.
Well, as Paul Harvey would say, "You're about to learn the rest of the story".

PROGRESSIVE AUTO INSURANCE

You know their TV commercials, the ones featuring the ditsy actress all dressed in white.
What you might not know is that the Chairman of Progressive is Peter Lewis,
one of the major funders of leftist causes in America .

Between 2001 and 2003, Lewis funneled $15 million to the ACLU,
the group most responsible for destroying what's left of Americas Judeo-Christian heritage.

Lewis also gave $12.5 million to MoveOn.org and America Coming Together, two key propaganda arms of the socialist left.

His funding for these groups was conditional on matching contributions from George Soros, the America-hating socialist who is the chief financier of the Obama political machine.

Lewis made a fortune as a result of capitalism, but now finances a progressive movement that threatens to destroy the American free enterprise system that is targeting television shows on Fox News.

Peter Lewis is making a fortune off of conservative Americans (who buy his auto insurance) that he then applies to dismantle the very system that made him wealthy. He's banking on no one finding out who he is,so STOP buying Progressive Insurance and pass this information on to all your friends.
Chairman Lewis' gift helps the ACLU promote their anti-Christmas agenda such as:
· Removing nativity scenes from public property
· Banning songs such as Silent Night from schools
· Refusing to allow students to write about the Christian aspect of Christmas in school projects
· Renaming Christmas break Winter break
· Refusing to allow a city sponsored Christmas parade to be called a Christmas parade
· Not allowing a Christmas tree in a public school
· Renaming a Christmas tree displayed on public property a Holiday tree
In addition to their war on Christmas, the ACLU uses gifts like that from Chairman Lewis to:
· Sue states to force them to legalize homosexual marriage
· Force libraries to remove porn filters from their computers
· Sue the Boy Scouts to force them to accept homosexuals as scout leaders
· Help legalize child pornography
· Legalize live sex acts in bars in Oregon
· Protect the North American Man Boy Love Association whose motto is "sex by eight or it is too late"
· Censor student led prayer at graduation
· Remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance
· Remove "In God We Trust" on our currency
All of a sudden I don't care for their "funny commercials".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PS: IGNORANCE CAN BE TERMINAL,
SO SHARE THIS MAIL WITH OTHERS!

Proof Smart Meters Are Being Used to Spy On Us


Proof Smart Meters Are Being Used to Spy On Us

By Andrew Puhanic
theintelhub.com
September 24, 2012
IF you have ever wondered if your smart meter is being used to spy on you, well now there is proof that governments and private organisations are using data collected from smart meters to spy on you.
Information about power usage, which can be used to identify when a home is being occupied, is being shared with third parties of which includes government agencies, private organisations and off-shore data processing centres.
This unethical breach of privacy was discovered on the website of one of Australia’s largest electricity retailer, Origin Energy.
Electricity customers, who sign up for an online service that provides the account holder with detailed information about their electricity usage, are unwillingly agreeing to share their private information with third parties.
A 496 word Privacy/Consent policy form explicitly states that customers who wish to sign up for the service that provides them with information about their electricity usage, must agree that the following organisations have access to their private data:
  • Government authorities
  • Electricity installers
  • Mail houses
  • Data processing analysts
  • IT service providers
  • Smart energy technology providers
  • Debt collection agencies
  • Credit reporting agencies
A spokesperson for the electricity company (Origin Energy) responsible for this revelation was recently quoted as saying “the additional information requested about each household adds to the richness of the Origin Smart experience” (Source: The Age).
One private organisation that is being given personal information of Origin Energy customers is Tendril, a self-described consumer engagement application and services provider and an organisation that believes smart grids can help fight climate change.
Alarmingly, Tendril’s own website doesn’t explicitly state how it uses data gathered by its clients and for what purposes the data can and cannot be used for.
What implication this has for Australian residents is unknown.
There has been an overwhelming opposition to the roll-out and installation of smart meters around the world.
Smart Meter opt-out coalitions are present in almost all major municipalities that have smart meters present. Unfortunately, in many municipalities an opt-put option is not available.
The author (Andrew Puhanic) was forced to have a smart meter installed on his property, with the only notice given about the installation being a letter informing the ‘month’ that the smart meter would be installed.
The greatest concern with smart meter data being shared with third parties is the fact that the third-party organisation could easily identify (over time) a pattern of when you do and do not use electricity.
This information could fall into the wrong hands and could be used to determine when your home is un-occupied.
In Australia, the erosion of privacy was escalated further by a new proposal to force internet and telephone companies to retain customer records for more than two years. For more information about this proposal, click here.
Households that are forced to have smart meters installed must be assured that the information their electricity company collects is not shared with third parties.
Ultimately, smart meters are designed to collect information about household electricity usage and now there is proof that electricity companies are openly sharing information collected by smart meters.
So what happens when a tyrannical government or criminal has access to your electricity usage records?
This article originally appeared on the Globalist Report
Follow TheIntelHub on Twitter For Exclusive News and Commentary

Appeals Court Rules Drivers Can be Detained Indefinitely for Paying Tolls with Large Denomination Bills


Appeals Court Rules Drivers Can be Detained Indefinitely for Paying Tolls with Large Denomination Bills

By Madison Ruppert
theintelhub.com
September 24, 2012
In one of the more insane rulings recently – the appeals court decision to block the judge’s ruling on the unconstitutionality of the Obama administration’s indefinite detention notwithstanding – a federal appeals court ruled that motorists can, essentially, be held indefinitely at toll booths if they pay the toll with a large denomination bill.
The ruling (PDF courtesy of The Newspaper) came down in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, on September 19, 2012 in the case of Chandler v. FDOT (Florida Department of Transportation).
The chandler family, consisting of Joel Deborah and Robert Chandler, filed the lawsuit last year in which they argue that they were “effectively being held hostage by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the private contractor in charge of the state’s toll road, Faneuil, Inc.”
The FDOT policies at the time dictated that any driver who paid with a $50 bill, or, as The Newspaper reports, “occasionally even $5 bills,” was not to be given permission to proceed until the toll collector completed a so-called “Bill Detection Report.”
These reports include data about the driver’s vehicle and details obtained from their driver’s license as well.
Obviously these reports completely nullify the privacy protection offered by opting to pay with cash instead of installing a “SunPass” transponder on their vehicle which records their travels for later retrieval.
Indeed, detailed papers have been written in an effort to preserve driver privacy when using these toll collection technologies in order “to resolve the tension between the desire for sophisticated road pricing schemes and drivers’ interest in maintaining the privacy of their driving patterns.”
“Many of those who chose to pay cash did so to avoid the privacy implications of installing a SunPass transponder that recorded their driving habits,” reports The Newspaper.
It is hardly surprising to learn that these same drivers who opted to use cash for privacy reasons were unwilling to provide their personal information to the toll collector.
The drivers were then essentially forced to give the toll collector their private information because the barrier in the toll booth would not be raised until the driver complied with the Bill Detection Report.
The drivers would then be in quite a pickle since FDOT policy does not allow anyone to exit the vehicle. Similarly, backing up is illegal and usually a physical impossibility due to the presence of other vehicles.
Thankfully, the FDOT reportedly dropped the Bill Detection Reports in 2010 but nothing is stopping them from reinstating it, especially after this supportive court decision.
The Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ three-judge panel determined that these clear detentions of motorists was not significant enough to be considered a constitutional violation, which is hardly surprising given that the U.S. Attorney General himself considers secret reviews of classified evidence due process.
When the judicial system’s top figures are this clearly warped and divorced from the reality of the impact of their unconstitutional decisions, I am in no way astounded to see lower courts acting in similarly insane ways.
“The fact that a person is not free to leave on his own terms at a given moment, however, does not, by itself, mean that the person has been ‘seized’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment,” wrote the court in their ruling.
“In Florida, a person’s right and liberty to use a highway is not absolute; it may be regulated in the public interest through reasonable and reasonably executed regulations,” they added.
This ruling is much more insidious than it seems at first glance since the court is not only saying you have no absolute right to use what was once public property, but they are also saying that a private corporation can set regulations for the use of the road.
“The judges found it was reasonable for Faneuil to set regulations for use of the road — including the types of acceptable payment,” The Newspaper reported.
The court ruled that drivers were beholden to the company’s seemingly arbitrary regulations since they implicitly agreed to them when they chose to use the toll road in the first place.
Florida seems to be on the forefront of toll road privatization with one completed, eleven underway and one underway which is shared with another state (according to a 2009 report).
While some private toll roads are constructed as such, others are privatized “through long-term highway lease agreements on existing highways,” according to the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) Education Fund’s 2009 report linked above.
This factor was completely ignored by the court which chose to focus on the Chandlers and their supposed culpability for using bills with large denominations.
“The Chandlers have not alleged that they were forced to pay their tolls with large-denomination bills, thereby subjecting themselves to whatever delay was caused by completion of the Bill Detection Report,” the ruling stated.
“They chose to pay their toll with large-denomination bills. Nor have they alleged that they asked to withdraw the large report-triggering bill in favor of a smaller delay-free bill and were denied that opportunity.”
The court threw out the lawsuit entirely and in doing so established what, in my opinion, is a quite dangerous precedent.

ACLU Sues CIA Over Drone Killings


ACLU Sues CIA Over Drone Killings

By Stephen LendmanContributor
theintelhub.com
September 24, 2012
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been around since the Vietnam era. They were used as reconnaissance platforms. In the 1980s, Harpy air defense suppression system radar killer drones were employed. In the Gulf War, unmanned combat air systems (UCAS) and X-45 air vehicles were used.
Others were deployed in Bosnia in 1995 and against Serbia in 1999. America’s new weapon of choice is now commonplace in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, elsewhere abroad, and domestically for law enforcement and surveillance. Escalated domestic and foreign use is planned.
A previous article called drone warfare remote control killing like sport. From distant or nearby command centers, operators wage virtual war.
They dismissively ignore human carnage. It shows up as computer screen blips. They look no different from video game images. The difference, of course, is people die.
They’re mostly noncombatants. Studies show militants are successfully hit about 2% of the time. Others are wrongly targeted or happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
On January 13, 2010, the ACLU petitioned Washington under the Freedom of Information ACT (FOIA). It requested legal justification claimed for conducting predator drone targeted killings abroad.
In March 2010, the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. As part of its challenge, it collected about 200 on-and-off the record public statements. Former and current US officials made them.
It “demand(ed) that the government disclose the legal basis for its use of unmanned drones to conduct targeted killings overseas.”
“In particular, the lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, the number and rate of civilian casualties and the other basis information essential for assessing the wisdom and legality of using armed drones to conduct targeted killings.”
In court briefs, Justice Department lawyers claimed revealing sensitive documents would compromise national security. How many times before have we heard that? It doesn’t wash.
The same excuse is given in political prosecution cases. Secret evidence is used to convict. Defense attorneys and defendants can’t contest it. Who knows if it exists?
On September 13, ProPublica.org headlined “How the Gov’t Talks About a Drone Program it Won’t Acknowledge Exists,” saying:
Drones are Washington’s weapon of choice. They’re used for targeted assassinations. No one anyway is safe. Eye in the sky predator drones spot victims, aim, fire and kill.
Administration officials claim drone warfare works. It does so sans details, often staying anonymous, yet claiming “tacit credit” at the same time.
“A White House spokesman declined to comment to ProPublica on the FOIA suit or on the CIA’s drone program.” Silence is official policy on what’s widely acknowledged.
Vagueness substitutes for specifics. For example, in October 2011, former CIA director/current Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said:
“I have a hell of a lot more weapons available to me in this job than I had at the CIA, although the Predators aren’t bad.” Did he acknowledge predator drone killings or their use to surveil and gather intelligence?
Months earlier he said Pakistan-based Al Qaeda elements were beaten back in part from “the most aggressive operation the CIA had been involved in in our history.” Did he mean by drones or other means?
At the same time, The New York Times reported in May that the CIA considers all military-aged males killed combatants. Targeting them is fair game. Rule of law principles don’t apply. Killers and higher-up superiors aren’t prosecuted.
In his book titled “The ‘Good Soldier’ On Trial: A Sociological Study of Misconduct by the US Military Pertaining to Operation Iron Triangle, Iraq,” Professor Stjepan Mestrovic discussed violations of US and international law.
He documented “hundreds of instances” of lawless and other “dubious behavior on the part the government.”
US brigade commander Col. Michael Steele was one of many examples. He ordered every military-aged Iraqi killed on sight. Doing so also violates the US Army Field Manual (FM) 27-10.
Paragraph 498 says any person, military or civilian, who commits a crime under international law is responsible for it and may be punished.
Paragraph 499 defines a war crime. Paragraph 500 refers to a conspiracy, attempts to commit it, and complicity with respect to international crimes.
Paragraph 509 denies the defense of superior orders in the commission of a crime, and paragraph 510 denies the defense of an “act of state” to absolve them.
These provisions apply to all US military and civilian personnel. They include top commanders, the Secretary of Defense, his subordinates, CIA and other intelligence officials, as well as the president and vice president of the United States.
In other words, no one is exempt on this or other fundamental rule of law principles. Target killings are lawless. Habeas and due process still apply. Exemptions are prohibited.
The ACLU sued the Defense, State, and Justice Departments. They stonewalled information requests. “(N)or have they given any reason for withholding documents. The CIA answered the ACLU’s request by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any relevant documents.”
At the time, the CIA wasn’t sued. At first, the ACLU appealed its non-response to the Agency Release Panel. In June 2010, it filed suit. It argued that CIA’s response wasn’t lawful “because the CIA Director and other officials….publicly acknowledged the existence of” the Agency’s drone program.
After the lower court ruled for CIA, the ACLU appealed to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments were scheduled for September 20, 2012. The DC Circuit is notoriously conservative.
Expect ACLU lawyers to face stiff headwinds. Supreme Court justices are no better. Like political Washington, federal courts represent absolute power corrupting absolutely. Don’t bet on ACLU prevailing against odds that long.
On September 18, a press release headlined “ACLU in Appeals Court Thursday Arguing Against CIA’s Secrecy Claim on Targeted Killing Documents.”
The Agency refused to respond to FOIA requests. Its killer drones operate daily in numerous countries. It makes public statements about its program.
Former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US drones kill Americans. He added that targeted killing “is the only game in town.” It reminded him of body counts in Vietnam.
At the same time, few details about the drone program are discussed. Comments are made in broad terms. Necessity and legality are claimed. “Military operations” outside “hot” battlefields are acknowledged.
Government and CIA officials don’t formally admit the Agency’s involvement, let alone details.
Obama prioritizes drone killing. They’re the “one tool we use,” he said. He usurped the power of life and death, including over US citizens. He’s got final “kill list” authority. He can order drone or other attacks to kill anyone, anyway, based on his say alone.
ACLU wants information on “when, where and against whom drone strikes can be authorized, and how the US ensures compliance with international laws relating to extrajudicial killings.”
According to ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer:
“The notion that the CIA’s targeted killing program is a secret is nothing short of absurd.” Everyone paying attention knows it exists.”
“For more than two years, senior officials have been making claims about the program both on the record and off. They’ve claimed that the program is effective, lawful and closely supervised.”
“If they can make these claims, there is no reason why they should not be required to respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act.”
On June 13, 2012, ACLU v. CIA requested a DC Circuit expedited hearing. “This case concerns (CIA’s) refusal….to confirm or deny the existence of records responsive Plaintiff’s (FOIA) request (concerning) the CIA’s use of drones to conduct targeted killings.”
“Plaintiffs filed their FOIA request on January 13, 2010 and commenced this suit on March 16, 2010. After the district court (Collyer, J.) granted summary judgment to the CIA on September 9, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a timely appeal.”
“The only issue on appeal is whether the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the drone program….is lawful given that senior government officials have repeatedly discussed (it publicly).”
“Plaintiffs have argued that government officials have officially acknowledged the program in those contexts and that the CIA’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of the program here is unlawful.”
Expedited resolution was requested because of “immense public interest – namely, the lawfulness, effectiveness, strategic wisdom, and morality of the CIA’s use of drones” to kill.
The entire ACLU document can be read through the above link.
A Final Comment
Last July, America’s “newspaper of record” moralized drone use. Its article headlined “The Moral Case for Drones,” saying:
“….moral philosophers, political scientists and weapons specialists believe armed, unmanned aircraft offer marked moral advantages over almost any other tool of warfare.”
The article stands in stark contrast to a May one titled “Secret ‘Kill List’ Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will,” saying:
Obama “placed himself at the helm of a top secret ‘nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical.”
In other words, he appointed himself judge, jury and executioner. Despot authority is official administration policy. Diktats decide who lives or dies.
Anyone called Al Qaeda or accused of terrorist connections gets marked for death.
What “moral and legal conundrum” could he face, asked The Times? None whatever. On day one in office, he spurned rule of law principles. It’s been downhill ever since.
The New York Times and other media scoundrels march in lockstep. They’re comfortable with imperial lawlessness.
Killing by any means has no moral basis whatever. Claiming it makes supporters complicit. Because of its global reach and influence, NYT bosses, editors, and contributors have the greatest cross to bear. Expect no mea culpas or apologies.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.netHis new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.
http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/

Stealing Palestinian Resources


Stealing Palestinian Resources

By Stephen LendmanContributor
theintelhub.com
September 24, 2012
Israel wants it all. For decades, it’s been systematically stealing Palestinian land and resources.
Al Haq’s new report provides more evidence. Titled “Pillage of the Dead Sea: Israel’s Unlawful Exploitation of Natural Resources in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” it details grand theft and war crimes. They benefit Jews by harming Palestinians. More on it below.
Yesh Din defends Palestinian human rights. It exposes Israeli abuses. It champions long denied accountability.
In March 2009, it petitioned Israel’s High Court of Justice (HCJ). It wants lawless West Bank mining operations stopped. Israel and 11 Israeli corporations steal Palestinian resources rightfully theirs. It demanded all quarrying and mining activities cease.
It argued that Israeli companies pillage Palestinian resources for profit and Israel’s benefit. Doing so also violates fundamental international law. As an occupying power, Israel is obligated to protect, not exploit, Palestinian rights.
On December 26, 2011, the HCJ rejected Yesh Din’s petition. It sanctioned lawless pillage. On January 10, 2012, Yesh Din requested another hearing before a broader panel of judges.
Seven distinguished Israeli legal experts stood with Yesh Din. They took issue with the Court’s ruling. Their collective opinion matters. It provides greater impact.
On July 25, 2012, the HCJ spurned Yesh Din again. In his decision, retired Deputy President Judge Eliezer Rivlin said the December 2011 ruling rejected Yesh Din’s petition mainly because Israel and the Palestinian Authority addressed the issue earlier. They agreed to an interim 1995 deal.
He failed to explain its terms. It explicitly said “quarries must be transferred to the Palestinian side within 18 months.” Israel still controls them. The Court’s ruling OK’d its right to steal.
Seven leading international law experts disagree. They unequivocally call Israel’s mining operations lawless. In their judgment, the Court’s ruling was troublesome. Judge Rivlin addressed their opinion, saying:
“I did not ignore the opinion of the experts on international law submitted in support of the petitioner’s argument. The learned opinion raises important questions and analyzes them most skillfully and eruditely.”
“However, in the concrete circumstances of this case, since no precedent was set in the decision that would justify a further hearing, there is no need to discuss them at this stage.”
In response, Yesh Din attorney Shlomy Zachary said:
“This decision by the High Court of Justice recognizes the serious flaws of the court’s decision on the original petition, and mutes its conclusions.”
“The court is also aware that the decision’s determinations must be decided in the future, and therefore the decision on the concrete matter cannot serve as a binding precedent.”
“The opinion of the leading experts from Israel’s universities, submitted as part of this case, added another level that reinforced the need to minimize the determinations about this matter, and we welcome that.”
Israel’s High Court tried having it both ways. In initially rejecting Yesh Din’s petition, HCJ President Dorit Beinisch said:
“The belligerent occupation of Israel in the area has some unique characteristics, primarily the duration of the occupation period that requires the adjustment of the law to the reality on the ground, which imposes a duty upon Israel to ensure normal life for a period, which…is certainly long-term.”
At the same time, the Court spurned international law. It also dismissed the opinion of seven distinguished Israeli legal experts.
Their judgment is indisputable. Rule of law principles back it. It carries weight. It concluded saying “the license granted to Israeli corporations to mine exhaustible natural minerals in territory under belligerent occupation is illegal.”
High Court judges know it but ignored them and fundamental international law anyway. Their ruling was not only dishonest, it was convoluted.
Outrageously, the Court said militarized occupation and Israeli Civil Administration operations benefit Palestinians. In other words, controlling them at the point of a gun and pillaging their resources helps. How, the Court didn’t explain. It merely said:
“Royalties paid to the Civil Administration by the operators of the quarries are used to finance the operations of the military administration, which promotes various kinds of projects aimed to benefit the interests of the area.”
Stealing what’s theirs doesn’t help. Military occupation spurns their rights. Employment for small numbers of Palestinians at slave wages neither benefits them or the collective population.
Virtually all resources mined help Israel and its settlements. Mining fees, levies, and royalties flow straight to Israeli state coffers. Palestinians are denied what’s rightfully theirs.
Al Haq’s report offers more proof. Black’s Law Dictionary calls pillage “the forcible taking of private property by an invading or conquering army from the enemy’s subjects.”
The 1907 Hague Regulations, Fourth Geneva, and other international laws prohibit doing so under all circumstances. The Statute of International Criminal Court calls “pillaging a town or place, even when taken by assault,” a war crime.
Various military manuals prohibit pillage/plunder. The UN and other international organizations condemn it. Looting is absolutely forbidden. It’s punishable under international, military, and general statute laws.
Israel spurns rule of law principles in all forms. Al Haq calls exploiting West Bank resources “the war crime of pillage.” Its report examines Israeli Dead Sea area operations.
It’s “prohibited from exploiting them in a way that undermines their capital and results in economic benefits for Israeli citizens, including settlers, or for its national economy.”
The Dead Sea borders Jordan and Israel to the east and the West Bank to the west. It’s in the Jordan Rift Valley. It lies over 400 meters below sea level.
It’s 67 km long, 377 meters deep, and 18 km across at its widest point. With 33.7% salinity, it’s one of the world’s saltiest water bodies.
In 1967, Israel seized control. Jordan previously controlled the area. Oslo granted Israel military and administrative control. Vast land areas became closed military zones. Palestinians are denied entry to land rightfully theirs.
Since 1967, pillage accompanied occupation. Palestinians were dispossessed from their own land and resources. Israel stole and exploited the Dead Sea and surrounding areas by declaring them “State land.” No legal basis whatever permits doing so.
Numerous military orders violate international law. It’s been twisted, inverted, manipulated, distorted, undermined, and spurned to justify the unjustifiable.
Israel invents its own version of reality. Orwellian doublespeak defines it. Fundamental occupying power obligations are violated. State authorities and settlers reap benefits.
At the same time, unsustainable water extraction and mining methods let water levels decrease significantly.
Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories was licensed to steal. It mines Dead Sea mud. It’s used for company products. Al Haq’s General Director, Shawan Jabarin, said:
“The Israeli authorities are denying Palestinians access to their natural resources all across the OPT, but this practice is particularly evident in the occupied Dead Sea area. This also clearly demonstrates how Israel is benefiting economically from the occupation.”
“Given that the settlers in the area and Ahava Dead Sea Laboratories directly profit from the appropriation of the Dead Sea natural resources and from the trade of the products extracted and processed in this region, they should be considered as primary perpetrators of the war crime of pillage.”
Consumers have a right to know that Ahava operates illegally. Its products use stolen Palestinian resources. Doing so costs them nearly $150 million annually.
Ahava’s based in Mitzpe Shalem settlement. It lies on the Dead Sea’s western shore. It’s Israel’s only company licensed to mine area mud, silt, sand, gravel, and other minerals.
It operates subsidiaries in America, Britain and Germany. Its products have unique cosmetic qualities. They’re used for various skin disorders. Exports provide about 60% of its revenue. The remaining 40% comes from Israel and tourism.
The Dead Sea has unique geographical, mineral, climatic, and archeological features. Its natural resource riches include ground and surface water, springs, and minerals. It’s a potential world heritage site.
Its landscapes are stunning. Its climate is mild. Its potential for economic development is significant. Its tourism, industry, and agriculture thrive.
Israeli development plans include hotels, water parks, shopping malls, and urban facilities. Enhanced mineral and water extraction are also planned. Palestinians are entirely deprived of what’s rightfully theirs.
The area is also environmentally vulnerable. Its ecosystem is endangered. At issue is over-extraction and other abuses. The Jordan River Basin’s water system is affected. Large sinkholes emerged. As many as 3,000 exist. Dead Sea shrinkage is worrisome. It’s divided into two lakes.
Upstream water diversion projects and southern Dead Sea mining caused serious sea level erosion. Over-exploitation is destroying the area. Domestic, agricultural, and industrial wastewater flows directly into the Dead Sea. Surrounding land areas are affected.
In 2004, Ahava got illegal mining rights. Authority granting them must cease and desist. Third-party states must demand it. Pressuring Israel to stop violating international law is vital. Aiding and abetting lawlessness can’t be tolerated.
Relations with Ahava and other Israeli companies profiteering from pillage must cease. Importing their products is illegal. Everything originating from settlements should be barred. Failure to do so constitutes complicity with grand theft and war crimes. Israel is a serial abuser.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.netHis new book is titled How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion and Class War
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Charles Halt, Former Air Force Colonel, Accuses U.S. Of UFO Cover-Up


Charles Halt, Former Air Force Colonel, Accuses U.S. Of UFO Cover-Up

Huff Post - Lee Speigel, 9/24/12
Panel members at the "Military UFOs: Secrets Revealed" lecture held at the Smithsonian-affiliated National Atomic Testing Museum on Sept. 22, 2012.

LAS VEGAS -- Former Air Force Col. Charles Halt accused the federal government of a UFO cover-up that involves a secret agency to deal with what might be extraterrestrial visitations.

"I'm firmly convinced there's an agency, and there is an effort to suppress," Halt told an audience of 200 people Saturday night at the Smithsonian-affiliated National Atomic Testing Museum.
To read the rest of this story, visit HuffingtonPost.com.