Tag: CIA
These critically acclaimed documentaries capture the systematic use of the American military industrial complex to unjustifiably cause somewhat irrevocable detriment to the world in the name of anti-terrorism, anti-communism, democracy, capitalism, globalization, pro-neoconservative,anti-islamic fascism since the 1950’s to present day. The first documentary called Taxi to the Dark Side is a 2007 Oscar award wining piece directed by American filmmaker Alex Gibney details the effects of torture as a means to retrieve classified information from supposedly terror suspects under the inept jurisdiction of national security during the Iraq and Afghanistan War disregarding Geneva Convention’s stipulations and rewriting laws to absolve the White House administration of any wrongdoing. Why We fight directed by Eugene Jarecki, is a 2005 documentary film that shows the subversive use of the ever expanding American military to shape foreign policy and dictate itself as the strongest geopolitical power despite the dire warnings of Dwight Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1951.
I still contemplate whether the safety net that precludes our current geopolitical hostile climate is strong by the actions of controversial and sometimes unjustifiable American foreign ideologue and its impact in the foreseeable future.
Diplomats from the inner UN veto-powered security council (United States, Germany, Russia, China, Great Britain) plus France and European Union made a landmark deal with the notoriously dissident Iran on nuclear power enrichment. This deal was highly facilitated by the relatively moderate of Hassan Rouhani; the new President-elect of Iran and surprising approval from the Ayotollah . America and Iran relationships has been marred by contentiousness starting with the:
- Successful CIA backing and plot of 1953 coup of progressive Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh giving power to the Western friendly Dictatorship monarch of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi.
- 1980-CIA backing of Iraq (Saddam Hussein) especially at the onset of Iran-Iraq War as a response to the 1979 Iranian Revolution that expelled the absolute monarchy of Reza Pahalvi for a Sharia government under Ayatollah Khomeini indirectly fearing that the revolution will spread and inspire Shite muslims to overthrow Saddam Hussein (Sunni Muslim).
- Iran Hostage crisis in US embassy in Tehran from 1979-1981.
- Iran Contra from 1984 to 1986 that was backed by Reagan administration, NSA and CIA ( I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT REAGAN himself was involved in signing off) which was against the Boleland act by the Congress.
- The controversial missile guided take-down of the 1988 Iran Airflight 655 that was later found to be harmless airplane instead of the assumed warplane.
- And the ever-growing sanctions that has destabilized the economy from the 1979 to present day.
The nuclear deal will inhibit nuclear enrichment and proliferation of Iran based on the contingency that Iran follows the steps stipulated by the deal which is followed by a “highly limited easement” of the sanction’s stronghold on the economy.This deal is a first step to a long world’s collaborative effort to fully destroy any nuclear capabilities in Iran. The premise of the interim deal is to freeze Iran’s nuclear program for six months, while offering the Iranians limited relief from crippling economic sanctions.If the above steps are followed with no “hitches”, the diplomats will negotiate final-stage agreements to fully destabilize the nuclear arms. Obama clearly stated that any failure to follow the steps on nuclear disarmament and control will irrevocably lead to much tougher sanctions than before the deal.
This deal has been discredited by Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as “giving too much to Iran” and fear of an unprovoked attack on them. Sunni-Saudi Arabia has threatened to align strongly with Pakistan (Nuclear arms holder) for protection against the Shite-Iran. Republicans and some Democrats are apprehensive to agreeing with a “deceitful” Iran.
There are legitimate concerns that been raised by political and public officials but i personally believe that the nuclear capabilities should be resolved diplomatically as well conducted by the diplomatic parties as done in the present. The use of sanctions and unforeseen military would seriously deter producing nuclear weapons but not sever it completely; the precedent careful deal will completely sever any nuclear opportunities and open growing diplomatic with Iran. I believe that Iran are not capable of building a nuclear weapon because most of their claims to nuclear fame has been propaganda driven rather than militarily contingent. They are certifiably a threat to Israel based on their relationship with Hezbollah and Syria but a lesser threat than North Korea based on an assumed nuclear totem pole.
On a side note, the addition of China and Russia to the collaborative effort on this deal, makes the deal much stronger and legitimate because they are allegedly known for undertaking in illegal nuclear material trades that their non-involvement could be be problematic in the deal’s credibility.
Media has put the a large expose on the scandals that oozes from the Obama administration. The advent of a second term is supposed to set in motion the “lasting legacy of the President” but the distractions from ferocious Republicans have clouded the political climate in the past few weeks. The scandals includes the IRS special scrutiny on conservative groups, alleged government cover-up on Benghazi incident and the Justice department’s seizure of journalists’ phone records.
IRS scandal
Since 2010, the IRS paid an unusual interest to “special interest groups” that filed for exemption from federal income taxes. Consequently, the IRS were vigilant of non-profit organizations that had “tea-party affiliations” or had “patriot and 9/12” as part of their name, opponents to Obamacare, overt concern of federal government procedures, electoral college overhaul and Bill of rights moniker. Unfortunately, the above attributes were associated with conservative groups themes rather than liberal ones thereby creating a non-partisan government agency that is supposed to be independent. The scrutiny disbarred most of the conservative from receiving the tax break. Early May 2013, the scandal was exposed when the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration released an audit report that showed the IRS unfair scrutiny on conservative groups. The White responded non involvement in the scandal and ordered immediate investigation. The House special committee on oversight thoroughly investigated the scandal that led to the resignation of the acting commissioner of IRS, Steven Miller and administrative leave of acting IRS tax-exempt chief-Lois Lerner. The scandal was met by embarrassment and protests from Conservative groups and republican congress. The Republicans were outspoken on firing all the people attached to the scandal despite the resignation of IRS commissioner . Republicans used the hearing to search for possible links between the the White House and IRS scandal. The fifth amendment clause on “self incrimination” was used a lot by Lois Lerner during the hearings.
AP phone records seizure
Two weeks, the Justice department allegedly seized the phone records of the Associated press within the authorization of a “criminal probe”. The details on the probe were not fully stipulated and the reach of search was over-reaching that certainly abuses the First Amendment . The seizure was rumored to be a consequence of a leak to the AP of information used in a May 7, 2012, story about a foiled terror plot, including details of a CIA operation in Yemen. AP had an internal source within the intelligence community that leaked the foiled plot from the CIA operation before the White House could release it to the public. The probe was used as a precautionary tool to avoid sensitive transmission of information from the intelligence groups to the press especially at the expense of CIA operatives. Eric holder, the Attorney general of the United States has called for a full investigation. There is a strong thread that binds the world of free press and national security which is the ideological patriotism to the American flag fabric. This fabric in some perspective is strong but is highly flawed by the principles of the First Amendment that strongly supports “free” press despite the expectation of trust between press and the federal government. The relationship between a source and reporter is scared similarly to the priest and practitioner relationship amid the threats of investigation and jail time. The White House responded with non-involvement on the AP scandal and created distance from the scandal because of exposure of ongoing CIA foreign activities. Upon further investigation, it was reported that the search probe was not directed towards the AP but the telephone companies. In the advent of the scandal, there was a journalistic and few republican outburst at the Obama’s administration invasion of privacy and free press. The scandal brought up the issue of the delayed 2009 bill on the “Report shield law” that protects the reporters from releasing their sources. The bill is currently supported the White House and Eric holder is filled with a gaping loophole that makes the law “weak” which is the broad exemption for “national security” issues and a various circumstances that allows prosecutors’ oversight. The bill is currently been drafted for introduction into Congress.
Bengahzi Incident
Last year’s Libyan embassy incident that led to the death of the US ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. The incident was finally reported to be a terrorist act by Islamic fundamentalists. Republicans were infuriated about the delayed response from the White House on calling it a terrorist act and downplaying a You tube video that attacked Islam. John McCain and Key republicans were face on further investigation of the incident and accused the White house of a “cover up”. The accusations were primarily made towards Hilary Clinton and or State department and secondarily to the White House. There was alleged emails showing the White House’s knowledge of a possible imminent attack by a particular fundamentalist group , knew immediately after the incident the responsible group and spread lies about the ties between the You tube video and the incident which was finally deemed false according to a Republican congressmen which was highly rebuked by the White House.
The scandals however big or small has highly inflamed by the conspiracy theorist agenda driven by the Republicans in response to the disappointing loss of Mitt Romney to President Obama in order to tarnish the legacy of Obama. The hate towards Obama is similar to President Clinton-Lewinsky scandal that was echoed by conservative Republicans still left him at 53% approval rating at his lowest. The polarization that has driven most Republicans people towards the right has grown stronger in the second term of Obama. CNN released a survey of 53% Obama approval and the scandals has no real effect on the rating. The scandals seems to be driven by bitter conservative congressmen of which public are aware but do not really care about. The ratings are driven by public approval of the resurgence of the American economy. Although the scandals have led to more distrust with the federal government from the public.
The nuclear arms race that started during the hey day of the Cold War has not quenched. Nations ranging from Russia, India, Pakistan, United States, Britain, China, France , North Korea and Israel are some of the countries that are still on the Nuclear arms race. The world woke up on Feb 12 2013 to hear the successful nuclear test by the North Koreans. Residing nations around North Korea speculate that it was a powerful earthquake before it was confirmed as a nuclear test. The test was highly criticized and condemned around the world including their strongest ally: China. The United Nations Security council held an emergency meeting to find appropriate measures to adjudicate the insubordination. North Korea boasted of the immense power of the nuclear test in comparison to earlier test conducted in 2006 and 2009.China, a stronger ally of North Korea were entirely embarrassed by the incident because of their position in the UN security council. The international community is keeping a keen eye on North Korea because of their growing nuclear threat. North Korea advocated the hostility that United States presents to them and promised less restrains in nuclear testing if United States does not change. The magnitude of the explosion was roughly twice that of the 2009 test, according to the Vienna-based Comprehensive Nuclear-Test Ban Treaty Organization. The U.S. Geological Survey said that a seismic event measuring 5.1 magnitude had occurred.According to US intelligence, North Korea is trying building an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of carrying a nuclear warhead that could hit the United States. North Korea rebutted saying the program is to launch satellites into space. Although their tests are getting irrevocably successful, their supposed goal of building the nuclear weapons is still classified as “unfeasible”.
North Korea, the only country that pulled out of the Nuclear Proliferation treaty(funny enough, it was singed in North Korea-1994) has reputably defiant in the global stage and part of the satirical “Axis of Evil”( Venezuela, Libya,Iran and Cuba). North Korea suffered strained relations from the promised humanitarian aid from South Korea incoming government and Chinese diplomatic relations. Obama’s second term administration are more inclined to imposing sanctions on North Korea than setting diplomatic talks and due to this recent incident, it really puts North Korea in a solitary position. President Obama has the objective of reducing the U.S nuclear arsenal but due the recent incident, it would be a difficult sell because of the growing nuclear threat.The U.N. resolution subsequently passed sanctions that targets North Korea’s ruling class by banning nations from exporting expensive jewelry, yachts, luxury automobiles, medical supplies and race cars to the North. It also imposes new travel sanctions that would require countries to expel agents working for certain North Korean companies. These sanction according to Susan Rice (US Ambassador to UN) will cripple the class structure of North Korea. Sanctions are imposed to attack the leadership of a nation but they always strongly hit the populace regrettably. The isolation of North Korea could backfire and make them more dangerous leading increasing frequency of nuclear tests and beginning of the the new world “arms race” or the premise of uneventful “World War 3”. The dire state of arms race puts the world on an unstable pedestal that any provocation could lead to nuclear attacks that spells doom for the world. The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty member’s goals should be taken seriously of disarmament not reduction of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, I feel that North Korea is building the nuclear power to gain political and global precedence in world affairs and put forth as a “super-power” but the idea of attacking United States is ludicrous. North Korea seems like a very erratic child who cries a lot that thrives for attention from people ( U.S,UN and other super-powers) and promises to keep quiet as long as a lollipop is equally provided. America should avoid the idea of strong sanctions because North Korea’s unquestionable self dependency and defiance but set a stage for diplomatic talks that could calm the nerves of North Korea. China growing resentment of North Korea would really put North Korea in isolation because of the strong economic ties and destabilize the already weak economy War is true harbinger of Death and should always be regarded the “last option” regarding diplomatic ties. So preventing a war is better than curing the effects of war.
The passing weeks have covered the selection of President Obama’s top cabinet in the media. Critics have characterized his picks as “over-reaching”, “lame”, “aggressive” or “irresponsible”. Critics have also attacked his picks with lack of racial and gender diversity. Are Obama’s picks really that bad….Lets take a look
Secretary of State: Senator John Kerry
The selection of Kerry was not too surprising to the media because of speculation that arose within days of President Obama’s reelection. Susan Rice was actually a top choice for the position (Ambassador to UN) was finally removed because of the highly criticized mismanagement of the Benghazi terror attack on the US embassy in Libya spearheaded by Senator John McCain . The transition from Hilary Clinton to John Kerry is sort of letdown even by own standards. The name “Clinton” resonates well with foreign diplomatic relations. Former president Bill Clinton has been successful in making headway to building relationships between countries. The media covered Hilary Clinton numerous trips to counties trying to repair broken bridges caused by the infamous former President Bush Foreign relations team. Lets face it, America was not held on high esteem due to the Iraq war, greed and bad foreign relations. Clinton had to make due haste in connecting America to the disappointed countries. President Kerry in my opinion comes off as a little lay-back which is not a good attribute to the Secretary of State position. Lets not forget during the Bush vs. Kerry election in 2003 where Kerry was too layback and lost the election. Bush was successful at antagonizing and creating a nickname for Kerry-flip flop. Kerry had all the right points to finish Bush but ended up being on the defensive side trying to establish his credibility. Kerry had to continually defend his stance on Vietnam war where he was clearly against it after volunteering and fighting in the war; funny enough Bush did not even serve in Vietnam and was rumored to have used his families’ political connections to avoid the war. This should have been a counter punch to Bush stating…..”I might I have been against Vietnam War but I fought, What about you George Bush”..Case and point would have clearly diminished Bush.
On the other hand, lets face it Kerry is a prestigious member of the Senate with years in Foreign intelligence and relations. Kerry is known to a believer of international cooperation in the face of terrorism and foreign relations. He also believed in bipartisanship on foreign policy and national security. Kerry is a big fan of Obama’s foreign policies and even spearheaded increased relations with Russia. Kerry is also a believer in the doctrine of diplomacy before war and war is the last resort in foreign policy but he is still an advoate for military action when neccessary. He is also in support of reduction of nuclear arms across the world and conflicts should be settled with conversation rather than military actions. His position does not deter him for military action but he wanted a more constructive engagement.
In my assessment, is he Clinton? No.but he beleives in the same doctrine as the Clinton’s did…Is he good for the position? I believe so because of his vast experience in Foreign policy.
Secretary of Defense: Former Senator Chuck Hagel
This pick was far the most controversial. Chuck Hagel has been known to have reservation against the State of Isreal and proponent of relaxed restriction on Iran sanctions. Chuck Hagel statements have not received well by some members of the Senate from both parties especially the republicans. Republicans state that Hagel is callous and could let Iran gain nuclear power. Hagel character has been the center-point of criticism from the Republican party. Hagel has defended the value of engagement for furthering U.S. interests, and supported engagement with Iran during his time in the Senate.
Regardless, Hagel has been a strong proponent of stronger foreign ties and even building bridges with acclaimed enemies of the US. He served in the Foreign relations committee just as Kerry did during his time in Senate. Hagel could prove to be an important proponent of reduced military spending at the Pentagon and is keen in finding wasteful spending in the military His stance against the military surge in Iraq and Afghanistan by Obama might help reduce military coverage in both countries. Hagel faces a tougher confirmation by the Senate than Kerry but He will still be appointed. He calls to careful military action against enemies rather than a spontaneous reaction. In retrospect, Isreal are sometimes over-shielded in their engagement with Palestine. Their approach in dealing with Palestine is sometimes frowned upon by countries because of their often unprovoked military action towards them. Hagel is somewhat accurate in making Isreal more accountable for his irate decisions.
In my opinion….I support the selction of HAGEL
Both candidates show Obama as definitively more aggressive despite criticism, pragmatic rather rather than overreaching.Surrounding himself with Hagel and Kerry could bring a less aggressive approach in military action than his previous term, more international approach on national security , avoidance of unnecessary conflicts and breaking down the barrier of Congressional politically driven tactics. His selection shows him picking more of his friends than a diverse and political agenda driven cabinet. This is his last term and he is looking for the best, experienced friends that could solidify his legacy. This term is based on building America in all aspects not playing politics(e.g remember trying to convince fellow democrats to supports extended Bush tax cuts and his continual agenda on trying to convince republicans to support Obamacare) . He is taking more of hardline and stronger hand in leading America out of disparity as evidenced in his stance on the eventful fiscal cliff that painted Republicans as stone-wallers of economic decisions and proponents of playing politics. He also appointed Jack Lew for Treseaury Secretary who was formerly his Chief of Staff. It is highly possible that some other cabinet seats would be filled by more diverse individuals with good credentials.
💡Cosmic Frame>>>∞ and beyond💡 