US quick to react to Russian opposition murder ignores those in the Ukraine

Ron Paul points out the radical differences in the response from the U.S. government when a prominent opponent of the Russian government is murdered and when several members of the Ukrainian opposition meet the same fate.

+ Add Image

Ron Paul is a well-known former member of Congress who represented a Texas district in the U.S. House of Representatives. He retired in 2013. Wikipedia describes Paul: Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born August 20, 1935) is an American physician, author, and former Republican congressman, two-time Republican presidential candidate, and the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party in the 1988 U.S. Presidential Election.

Paul notes that in Ukraine two prominent opposition figures were shot and killed in broad daylight. Ten other prominent opposition figures in the Ukraine have either committed suicide in suspicious circumstances or been killed outright. All these figures were either associated with or friendly to the Yanukovych government ousted after huge demonstrations in Maidan, but Paul terms the overthrow of the government as a "US-backed coup." This is a bit simplistic as an explanation as it was the actions of then president Yanukovych and his security forces, and the demonstrations that led to the success of the coup, but the U.S. certainly helped the matter along and as the Nuland tapes show, the U.S, managed to get their man in power. Below is a tape of an interview with Stephen Cohen from New York University,an expert on Russia and US relations with Russia, who gives some of the background to the overthrow of the then president Yanukovych:

Just last week, three opposition figures were murdered. Two were pro-Russian journalists Oles Buzina and Serhiy Sukhobov, and a former politician Oleh Kalashnikov, all killed by unknown assailants. Ukrainian security chief Vasily Vovk in response to the murders is reported to have said on television: “I think that in our time, when there is practically a war going on, Ukrainophobes, if they don’t shut their mouths, should at least stop the rhetoric. I think that in the present situation, there shouldn’t be anyone stepping out directly against Ukraine and Ukrainianness,”As Paul notes, the US government has as yet said nothing, while EU has condemned the killings. EU spokesperson, Maja Kucijancic, said: "We condemn the recent killings of the journalists Oles Buzina,, and Serhiy Sukhobov, as well as of Oleh Kalashnikov, a former MP."

In contrast was the U.S. reaction to the murder of Boris Nemtsov, a member of a minor political party not even represented in the Russian parliament, but nevertheless a prominent critic of Putin. The U.S. immediately demanded Russia conduct a thorough investigation. As Paul points out, Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Ed Royce, a Republican representing California told U.S. media that "this shocking murder is the latest assault on those who dare to oppose the Putin regime."

An article in Politico, a scathing attack on Russian investigative powers when it comes to murders that might have connections to the Russian power structure, even suggests that it was up to a US investigation to find out the truth. The author of the Politico article is Bill Browder, the founder and CEO of Hermitage Capital Management said to be the largest foreign investor in Russia until 2005.

In contrast to these responses to the Nemtsov murder, Paul remarks: Neither Royce, nor Secretary of State John Kerry, nor President Obama, nor any US government figure has said a word about the series of apparently political murders in Ukraine.

Indeed, the U.S, is even sending in troops to help train Ukrainian armed forces, as Paul points out.

Ron Paul on CISPA bill

Earlier attempts to pass two bills SOPA and PIPA that would have enabled the U.S. Justice Dept. to shut down websites and/or search engines were shelved after public protests. The sites could have been shut down if they did not cooperate sufficiently with the war on terror or were accused of copyright infringements.

However, the U.S. government has not given up trying to control the Internet. The government wants government controls and filters on the flow of information. While Paul is correct, corporations also want to control communication and data flow as well under the rubric of intellectual property rights. In fact the government bills serve corporations and their profits as much as the government itself.

A new bill has the acronym CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). According to Paul it would allow both the government and private corporations to view supposedly private on line communications with no judicial oversight. Of course it must all be done for reasons of cybersecurity. The bill would allow the Department of Homeland Security access to an individuals' on line communications..The wording si so broad it could be used for purposes extending much beyond cyberterrorism.

As Paul points out the bill involves close collaboration between large corporations such as Google and Facebook and the government. The corporations will hand over information about you with no warrant or judicial review. Since the corporations may be breaking laws such as the Electronic Communications Privacy Act they are conveniently given immunity from lawsuits when they hand over the information. Obviously your rights can be violated by Google or Facebook but you have no recourse. It is just part of the price you pay for fighting terrorism or perhaps for living in a developing police state. For more see this article.

Ron Paul welcomed to liberal UC Berkeley

Berkeley must have changed from the time of Ronald Reagan who called the university:"a haven for communist sympathizers, protesters and sex deviants." It could be as a libertarian student says that the students are now more open to libertarianism. However it is more likely that the students support Paul's strong criticism of Obama's record as carrying on Bush war policy extending the U.S. empire's military reach even further and promoting drone attacks in many countries. Indeed the Obama administration may be plotting to paint Obama as a champion tough guy in the war on terror for the fall election.

Berkeley is probably still one of the more liberal U.S. universities but when many liberals seem content to busy themselves extolling the virtues of Obama and condemning the vices of Romney it is hardly surprising that some on the Berkeley left should make common cause with libertarians in welcoming Paul. Paul has been a consistent voice condemning Obama's violation of Americans' rights.

He may be Republican but he certainly is not welcomed by the Republican establishment. As a libertarian Paul also favors legalizing pot so he probably has support from all those aging pot-smoking hippies. Of course they all smoke it now for medical reasons! I have appended a video with Paul speaking. For more see this article at Russia Today. What! Russia Today. Maybe Paul is a secret commie ;)

Noam Chomsky: At least Obama is somewhere in the real world

There is an interview with the long time leftist analyst Noam Chomsky in the Digital Journal. There are several videos also with Chomsky. Chomsky notes "I'm not a great enthusiast for Obama, as you know, from way back, but at least he's somewhere in the real world." The Republican candidates for 2012 he says are: "Off the International Spectrum of Sane Behavior."

Along with many others Obama wishes there were another candidate to choose from. Even many Republicans seem to feel that way. Chomsky is aghast at the state of U.S. politics:"Politics in this country now is in a state that I think has no analogue in American history and maybe nowhere in the parliamentary system. It's astonishing."

He notes that major Republican candidates have denied climate but he notes sarcastically that Michelle Bachmann admitted it might be happening but that it was God's punishment for allowing gay marriage or something like that! Other countries wonder what is going in the U.S. He said:" I just came back from Europe, where people just can't believe what they're seeing here, what people are saying."

While lambasting most of the Republican candidates on every issue Chomsky nevertheless picks out Ron Paul as having some ideas that make good sense. However Chomsky says the Republican establishment will never allow him to be the candidate. For much more see this article.

Glenn Greenwald on Holder's defense of targeted killing of U.S. citizens

Writing in Salon Glenn Greenwald has a long article criticising Attorney General's Eric Holder defense of the practice of targeted killing used by the Obama administration.

As Greenwald points out a citizen (or anyone else) can be targeted to be wiped out by the CIA by drones, special forces or whatever means without being charged, notified of their status, or having any opportunity to do anything in their defense. Suspects are simply condemned to death. There is no transparency in the process or judicial oversight.

Critics note that Holder's speech contained no footnotes nor legal citations. Holder says that some people argue that the president should get permission from a court before they "take action" against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of Al Qeada or associated forces. Taking action is a euphemism for targeted killing however the more exact terminology is not allowed into Holder's speech. Holder wants the background frame to be that of a war. However in Obamatalk that terminology is banned as well even though war is the legal framework from which Holder argues. Holder argues that what the U.S. constitution guarantees is due process rather than legal process. Greenwald then goes on to spell out what this due process is in fact.

The phrase someone "who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or associated forces," means someone the President has accused and then decreed in secret to be a Terrorist without ever proving it with evidence.

U.S. citizens are placed on a kill or capture list by a panel of senior officials who are members of the White House National Security Council. The panel then informs the president of the names on the list. Decisions of the panel or any record of its operations are never made public. There is not even any law that establishes the panel or that sets out any rules for its operation. This is what Holder calls due process under the U.S. constitution. If a Bush official had spouted tripe such as this there would be a huge uproar.

The president makes the ultimate decision as to whether anyone on the list is killed or not killed. Greenwald gives a caustic summary of this so-called due process:"The President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he's accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you? ""

This is just a sample from Greenwald's long article. Greenwald points out that if justifications such as Holder gives were presented under the Bush administration every Liberal Democrat would be up in arms and outraged at the violation of the rights of U.S. citizens. But in an election year with Obama as president few liberals are speaking out. In fact the most caustic criticism of targeted killing of Americans has come from libertarians such as Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul. For more see the full article.

Ron Paul:U.S. "slipping into a fascist system"

No doubt the term "fascist" is used loosely but what Paul means is that the system is dominated by government and business at the expense of the liberties of citizens. Paul gave a fiery speech at Kansas City Union Station. A short distance away a Republican banquet was taking place.

Paul attracted several thousand cheering supporters while the party establishment supporters dined nearby at the Missouri GOP annual conference. Paul said:"We've slipped away from a true Republic,""Now we're slipping into a fascist system where it's a combination of government and big business and authoritarian rule and the suppression of the individual rights of each and every American citizen."

Although his aides were aware that Paul was in competition with a speech by Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnel who was speaking at the conference Paul himself said he was unaaware of the conflict. Some actually left the banquet to attend the Paul rally.

Among those leaving the banquet for the rally was Ralph Munyan who said he agreed with Paul's warnings. He also supported Paul's vow to end U.S. involvement in wars overseas and also opposed the war against drugs. For more see this article. There is little mainstream coverage of Paul's campaign. His anti-war message is anathema to establishment Republican hawks.

Brian Stewart on American prison nation

    Brian Stewart is a Fellow at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto. Stewart has a long history as a senior reporter covering conflicts around the globe for about four decades now. In a recent CBC article he discusses the high rates of incarceration in the U.S. Finally, he notes that the Canadian government with a Conservative majority under Stephen Harper is following a similar path.
     Stewart calls the mass incarceration of millions of Americans one of the greatest scandals of our times. Yet little attention seems to be paid to it. The deficit and jobs are major domestic problems in the U.S. but the fact that the U.S. jails people at a rate seven times that of other developed nations seems neither here nor there.
     The U.S. with less than five per cent of the global population has 23 per cent of the prison population. At present 2,284,000 Americans are in prison with millions more under correctional supervision. Ron Paul with his campaign that would decriminalize recreational drug use is one of the few candidates to give even much thought to the problem.
     While Newt Gingrich has in the past advocated prison reform he has been notably silent on prison issues during debates. A common problem about even talking about reform for any politician is that they will depicted as soft on crime. Many fear this label could lose them support.
    In Canada the conservative government of Stephen Harper seems to be following in the U.S. path by building more prisons,  increasing penalties, and jailing more people. This is happening even as crime rates have been in decline. Some in the U.S. claim that declining crime rates there are a result of harsher penalties and more imprisonment. However as Stewart points out the declines are similar in both states with harsh criminal laws and those with less harsh laws.  In fact many studies suggest that crime rates depend much more on other factors than the severity of punishment whether harsh or relatively mild.
  Often rates of certain crimes can be altered by methods that have nothing to do with punishment. For example decriminalization of marijuana use and possession would eliminate one whole class of crimes. The Manitoba Public Insurance Co  has mandated anti-theft devices for many vehicles that have lowered the rate of auto theft substantially in Manitoba.The company pays for the devices since they save far more money than it costs to install the devices.  The devices make stealing the vehicle exceedingly difficult and this results in far fewer thefts For much more see the entire article here.
   

Republican candidates for president all favor policies to increase inequality

  Tomorrow in Iowa the first primary to nominate the Republican presidential candidate takes place. Mitt Romney has been picked out as a candidate who represents the proverbial one per cent. But as the chart at the end of the article here shows all of the candidates support policies that favor the one per cent.
    All the candidates favor increasing tax breaks for the rich and for corporations as well. At the other end of the scale they all favor ending Medicare as it is at present. They also want cuts to Social Security to help lower the deficit.
   These policies will increase economic inequality. Cutbacks will decrease demand and no doubt decrease growth. Lack of growth will mean less revenue and a worse debt situation. Of course on other issues the candidates do differ. Ron Paul for example is a thorn in the side of Republican hawks and the Republican establishment generally. Nevertheless they all  opt for policies that will increase inequality.

Ron Paul speaks out against Obama's drone attacks

   Paul has been consistent in his attack on counter-terror methods which violate basic human rights. He has also taken a strong anti-war stance in the face of the fact that many Republicans are hawks.
    In a campaign speech in Iowa Paul noted that even Nazis after World War II got trials. Now even a U.S. citizen such as Anwar al-Awlaki can be assassinated  without any trial, or even being charged. Both Awlaki and also his son a 16 year old were both killed in Obama ordered drone strikes.
   Of course, the Obama defenders will simply say that there is a state of hostilities between Al Qaeda and related groups and the U.S. and just as in warfare one can target and kill the enemy without trial. At the same time the Obama administration does not even regard the term "war on terror" as politically correct while employing the notion of  hostilities as a means to place any suspected terrorist beyond the reach of any basic legal rights.

    Some in the crowd booed Paul as he brought up the drone issue without prompting. However, Paul's position on this matter has been consistent. Many in the American populace are fed up with politicians who pander to them and then go their own merry way after they are elected. Even if people do not like many of Paul's policies they realize that he is different and respect him for that. I have included  a You Tube video with Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks which shows even some liberals give him respect. For more this article..

Ron Paul criticizes Republicans for war support.

It is no wonder that Ron Paul has his avid loyal supporters. Here is a politician who always speaks his mind rather than says what he thinks everyone wants to hear. He represents principled conservatives of a libertarian type who refuse to applaud U.S. imperial foreign policy. This is in contrast to many on the liberal side of the political spectrum who speak softly almost in whispers when it comes to calling Obama out on his hawkish foreign policy. This is from Raw Story.

Ron Paul chastises at GOP conference: Conservatives ‘like the empire’

By Andrew McLemore

Texas Rep. Ron Paul proved once again Saturday that his politics continue to divide the Republican Party.

He was met with both disapproval and applause during the Southern Republican Leadership Conference for describing conservatives as hypocritical when they call for a return to Constitutional values while supporting foreign wars.

"The conservatives and the liberals, they both like to spend," Paul said, according to Think Progress. "Conservatives spend money on different things. They like embassies, and they like occupation. They like the empire. They like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases.

"Don’t you think it’s rather conservative to say, ‘Oh it’s good to follow the Constitution. Oh, except for war. Let the President go to war anytime they want.’ We can do better with peace than with war."

While most of the other speakers at the event used plenty of rhetoric for "easy applause," as Washington Post reporter David Weigel put it, Paul stuck to the outrage over American foreign policy that has defined his platform.