Why Did The US Just Bar a Former British Diplomat Craig Murray From Entering the Country?  The Real News Network, as usual, has an instructive video report:

 

Murray has been denied what is normally a routine visa waiver to come to Washington, DC, to be Master of Ceremonies of the Sam Adams Award for Integrity in Intelligence ceremony honoring former CIA officer and whistleblower John Kiriakou.  The award ceremony will be held at American University on September 25; Kiriakou is the 15th annual recipient.

 

Those interested in more information on SAAII and this year’s gathering can link to samadamsaward.ch, where former honorees are listed together with other background information.

 

Amb. Murray himself received the Sam Adams award in January 2006.  Since then he has been an outspoken advocate for and defender of subsequent awardees – like Julian Assange (2010), Edward Snowden (2013), and Chelsea Manning (2014).

 

There may be some clues in the award citations (pasted in below) for Julian Assange – and for Murray himself – as to why U.S. authorities want to keep Assange in Ecuadoran-embassy-captivity in London, and Murray out of the U.S.  At the end of a major press conference in London on October 23, 2010, Amb. Murray, together with Daniel Ellsberg, presented the award personally to Julian Assange with the following citation:

 

 

Screen Shot 2016-09-08 at 8.06.02 AM

 

Know all ye by these presents that Julian Assange is hereby awarded The Corner-Brightener Candlestick, presented by Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

 

It seems altogether fitting and proper that this year’s award be presented in London, where Edmund Burke coined the expression “Fourth Estate.” Comparing the function of the press to that of the three Houses then in Parliament, Burke said:

“…but in the Reporters Gallery yonder, there sits a Fourth Estate more important far then they all.”

 

The year was 1787—the year the U.S. Constitution was adopted. The First Amendment, approved four years later, aimed at ensuring that the press would be free of government interference. That was then.

 

With the Fourth Estate now on life support, there is a high premium on the fledgling Fifth Estate, which uses the ether and is not susceptible of government or corporation control. Small wonder that governments with lots to hide feel very threatened.

 

It has been said: “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” WikiLeaks is helping make that possible by publishing documents that do not lie.

Last spring, when we chose WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for this award, Julian said he would accept only “on behalf or our sources, without which WikiLeaks’ contributions are of no significance.”

 

We do not know if Pvt. Bradley Manning gave WikiLeaks the gun-barrel video of July 12, 2007 called “Collateral Murder.” Whoever did provide that graphic footage, showing the brutality of the celebrated “surge” in Iraq, was certainly far more a patriot than the “mainstream” journalist embedded in that same Army unit. He suppressed what happened in Baghdad that day, dismissed it as simply “one bad day in a surge that was filled with such days,” and then had the temerity to lavish praise on the unit in a book he called “The Good Soldiers.”

 

Julian is right to emphasize that the world is deeply indebted to patriotic truth-tellers like the sources who provided the gun-barrel footage and the many documents on Afghanistan and Iraq to WikiLeaks. We hope to have a chance to honor them in person in the future.

 

Today we honor WikiLeaks, and one of its leaders, Julian Assange, for their ingenuity in creating a new highway by which important documentary evidence can make its way, quickly and confidentially, through the ether and into our in-boxes. Long live the Fifth Estate!

 

Presented this 23rd day of October 2010 in London, England by admirers of the example set by former CIA analyst, Sam Adams.

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

And here is the citation that accompanied the award to Amb. Murray ten years ago:

 

Screen Shot 2016-09-08 at 8.06.20 AM

 

Know all ye by these presents that Craig Murray is hereby awarded The Corner-Brightener Candlestick, presented by Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence.

 

As UK ambassador to Uzbekistan from 2002 to 2004, Mr. Murray learned that the intelligence authorities of the UK and the US were receiving and using information extracted by the most sadistic methods of torture by Uzbek authorities. He protested strongly to London, to no avail.

 

Mr. Murray stands out as one who did not forfeit his moral compass to his government or to his career. When his government colleagues referred condescendingly to his “qualms of conscience,” he replied that he would not hide his shame “that I work in an organization where colleagues would resort to casuistry to justify torture.”

 

Mr. Murray recognized that civilized societies have long recognized torture as an intolerable affront to the inherent human right to physical integrity and personal dignity—and that this is precisely why there are so many laws against torture. He did all he could to persuade his government not to condone it. It is shameful that this strong moral stance should jeopardize his promising career. He was forced out of the British Foreign Office, but has no regrets. There are more important things than career.

 

Nor will he cease to call attention to torture. We look forward to early publication of his book, Murder in Samarkand, now banned in Britain.

 

Mr. Murray’s light has pierced a thick cloud of denial and deception. He has set a courageous example for those officials of the “Coalition of the Willing” who have first-hand knowledge of the inhuman practices involved in the so-called “war on terror” but who have not yet been able to find their voice.

 

Presented this 21st day of January 2006 in New York City by admirers of the example set by our former colleague, Sam Adams.

No sense anymore to talk about ending the occupation ‘for Israel’s sake’

By Larry Derfner

 

http://www.larryderfner.com/2016/09/04/no-sense-anymore-to-talk-about-ending-the-occupation-for-israels-sake/

 

Originally published September 1 on Haaretz.com as “All You Centrist, Liberal Zionists: Netanyahu’s Destroyed Your Case for Ending the Occupation.” 

 

This very sad set of circumstances, inevitably, will all come to what the Chinese call “a no-good end.”  Our founders had their flaws – big ones – but on foreign policy they had a lot of common sense from the outset, when a good dose of humility was a necessity and before our young country became “indispensable” and “exceptional.”

 

Here’s some of what our first President thought important to warn us about just before he left office.  The connections – or, better, the disconnect – between our judicious (and moral) foreign policy then, and what we are doing now in the Middle East – largely because of the U.S.’s “passionate attachment” to Israel – well, it’s a sad subject, and dangerous for both in the longer run.  Let’s recall what Washington wrote.  It’s in bold, because, well, it is bold.  We should listen carefully:

 

Washington’s Farewell Address 1796 (excerpts)

 

… Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all. … It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. …

 

Can it be that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. … nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. …

 

The government sometimes … makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

 

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity …

 

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion …

 

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. …

 

Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests. …

 

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it …

 

In offering to you, my countrymen, these counsels of an old and affectionate friend, I dare not hope they will make the strong and lasting impression I could wish; that they will control the usual current of the passions, or prevent our nation from running the course which has hitherto marked the destiny of nations. But, if I may even flatter myself that they may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good; that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism; this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare, by which they have been dictated. …

 

Geo. Washington.

Hawkish Hillary speech to American Legion on August 31 gives hypocrisy a bad name. The following day Ray dissects Hillary’s philippic with Brian Becker of Radio Sputnik’s Loud and Clear.

http://sputniknews.com/us/20160903/1044917369/clinton-hawkish-speech-hypocrisy.html

(17 minutes)

Sputnik’s short write-up is good. It does not include, though, an aside by Ray to show the depth of the neocons’ hatred for Julian Assange and his infuriating, magician-like wizardry in continuing to expose neocon antics via WikiLeaks – still orchestrating it all from the Ecuadorean embassy in London, right under the noses of the satraps of Washington’s favorite vassal state!

The subject is UKRAINE. Perhaps it is worth a more detailed refresher.

Ray refers to the WikiLeaks release (hat-tip to Chelsea Manning) of a cable from Embassy Moscow (08MOSCOW265), in which the Russians gave U.S. Ambassador William Burns a VERY LOUD NYET to any thought of Ukraine joining NATO. On February 1, 2008, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, explained to Burns precisely what the U.S. should expect from Russia were NATO to move to incorporate Ukraine. (To his credit, Burns played it straight, titling his cable “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES,” and sent it to Secretary Condoleezza Rice at the State Department with IMMEDIATE precedence. Here is Burns’s introductory summary of his discussion with Lavrov:

“Summary. Following a muted first reaction to Ukraine’s intent to seek a NATO membership action plan at the [upcoming] Bucharest summit, Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat. NATO enlargement, particularly to Ukraine, remains ‘an emotional and neuralgic’ issue for Russia, but strategic policy considerations also underlie strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.

“In Ukraine, these include fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” (emphasis added).

Ambassador Burns continued: “Russia has made it clear that it would have to ‘seriously review’ its entire relationship with Ukraine and Georgia in the event of NATO inviting them to join. This could include major impacts on energy, economic, and political-military engagement, with possible repercussions throughout the region and into Central and Western Europe.”

Burns closed with this comment: “Russia’s opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia is both emotional and based on perceived strategic concerns about the impact on Russia’s interest in the region. … While Russian opposition to the first round of NATO enlargement in the mid-1990s was strong, Russia now feels itself able to respond more forcefully to what it perceives as actions contrary to its national interests.”

Being Exceptional, Though …

But, alas, “indispensably exceptional” countries – and exceptionally tough guys – and tough women – like today’s Hillary Clinton and Dick-Cheney-protégé Victoria Nuland – need pay no heed to such warnings. And so, a NATO summit in Bucharest two months later declared (on April 3, 2008) that Ukraine (and Georgia) “will become members of NATO.” We are now living “the rest of the story.”

On January 23, 2008 – a week before Foreign Minister Lavrov read the riot act to Ambassador Burns in Moscow – former Sen. Bill Bradley voiced a truly sad cri de coeur regarding NATO expansion. Bradley, George Kennan (and virtually everyone else who knew anything about Russia) were voicing strong opposition, but the hacks brought in by Bush and Cheney, convinced of U.S. exceptionalism, knew better. They decided to follow not only the advice of neocon hacks, but also the example set by President Bill Clinton in “damning the torpedoes” and moving NATO east.

The thought was that it could be a cakewalk to get Ukraine into NATO; the West just had to get rid of the elected government by mounting a Putsch, which of course it did on February 22, 2014. Here’s Bradley speaking on the “blunder” of NATO expansion (the clip is well worth six and a half minutes).

 

No need to fudge how this all went down. Nuland discussed the planned coup, including the main players “approved” for the new government, with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt on an open telephone line just three weeks before the coup, and the U.S. extended formal recognition in what seemed to be record time. The remarkable Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation was posted on YouTube on February 4, 2014. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSxaa-67yGM

Sorry About Using the “F-Word”

Acknowledging the authenticity of the intercepted conversation, Nuland apologized quickly for her dismissive comment, “F— the EU,” but (surprise, surprise) not for orchestrating the Putsch. STRATFOR’s President George Friedman described it as “the most blatant coup in history.” But why did Nuland and her neocon friends see it as necessary? Because the duly elected Ukrainian government had turned down a U.S./EU-promoted austerity-laden deal that would have made the Ukraine an economic basket case – like Greece. The Russians had prevailed with Kiev by offering much more attractive terms.

Coups need to be well financed, of course. Nuland has bragged openly that this one, in effect, cost $5 billion. Here’s what she told the “U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference” at the State Department on December 13, 2012:

Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991, the United States has supported Ukrainians as they build democratic skills and institutions, as they promote civic participation and good governance, all of which are preconditions for Ukraine to achieve its European aspirations. We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm

Better late than never, Jesuit-run Georgetown University’s President John DiGioia has acknowledged that the school has “been able to hide from the truth” that it was built, literally, on the institution of slavery.

Georgetown University Plans Steps to Atone for Slave Past

(from the New York Times today, Friday, Sept. 2, 2016)

Decades ago, when a small group of us asked the Maryland Jesuits to confess openly those crimes of their predecessors; we were rebuffed (apparently out of financial liability concerns). We saw it as a moral issue, and saw scandal in the Jesuits’ refusal to show moral leadership before they were finally forced to. Jesuit alumnus Ray McGovern wrote about the backstory when the news first broke last spring: See:

The Shame of the Jesuits

Ray discusses former CIA deputy director Michael Morrell’s repeated suggestion, on the Charlie Rose show last month, that the US military should join with the U.S. intelligence-supported “moderate opposition” in Syria in state-sponsored terrorism … and also that scaring Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would be a piece of cake, since the U.S. Air Force could strike “in the middle of the night. Right.” (Morell)

http://scotthorton.org/interviews/2016/08/24/82416-ray-mcgovern/

(minute 1:00 to 28:00)

“In the middle of the night, right.” And this fellow Morell was acting CIA director? Twice?   Quick! Someone tell him to re-read the children’s book, “Things That Go Bump in the Night” and make sure he knows that such “things” are likely to include Russian air defense missiles in Syria – yes, even in the middle of the night.

But these would be teensy weensy strikes, says Morell, seemingly modeled after those blitz panty-raids at the University of Akron, back in the day. Morell is talking about:

“… very, very, very limited U.S. airstrikes against those assets that are extremely important to Assad personally. So, in the middle of the night you destroy one of his offices; … You take out his presidential aircraft, his presidential helicopters, in the middle of the night, right.”

All of this, as Charlie Rose looks on in rapt attention before Morell – one of his favorite interviewees. (It’s not clear how many get do-overs.) It was Morell’s August 5 NY Times op-ed bearing the title “I Ran the C.I.A. Now I’m Endorsing Hillary Clinton” that caught Charlie’s eye. He gave Morell an hour on August 8 – and then a do-over hour on August 17. The “middle-of-the-night” stratagem was highlighted both times. (Hopefully, neither the Syrians nor the Russians were watching.)

Scott Horton and Ray were probably a bit too jocular – given the seriousness of the subject and the risks involved in such harebrained schemes. Ray tried not to think of how Syrian and Russian defense officials might already be laying plans against the day that Morell succeeds in his transparent audition to join a very-tough-guy-very-tough-gal Hillary Clinton team next year.

The Real News Network interviews Ray on Syria, bomb-them-in-the-middle-of-the-night-very-tough-guy Michael Morell (a terrorist by definition), and one big widely ignored fly in the ointment on Syria – i. e., the preferred policy of Israel and Obama’s neocon advisers for “no outcome” in Syria.  

As one former senior Israeli put it, “As long as Sunni and Shia are killing each other off – not only in Syria, but in the region as a whole – Israel has nothing to fear from Syria.”

The New York Times piece referenced is “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” by Jodi Rudoren, September 6, 2013.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=17111

(13 minutes)