Le site Bellaciao: coloré, multiple, ou le meilleur cotoie fort heureusement le pire, mélangé, bizarre, picabien et dadaîste, explorant toutes sortes de registres et de régimes rhétoriques, drole et polémiqueur, surréaliste: rencontre d'un parapluie et d'une machine à coudre sur une table de dissection, têtes de Lénine sur le clavier d'un piano Steinway ou Bosendorfer...
FR
ES
176401177 IP
200634087 pages
(since 02/10/2002)
136 connectés
Senal en Vivo
VIDEO
RADIO
FRIENDS SITES
with Bellaciao
Bellaciao hosted by
To rebel is right, to disobey is a duty, to act is necessary !
Bellaciao  mobile version   |   Home  |   About us   |   Donation  |   Links  |   Contact  |   Search
Who Are the War Criminals? Naming Names Behind every war criminal is a criminal idea

by : DUDLEY DORIGHT
Tuesday March 21, 2006 - 21:55
2 comments

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articlei... December 19, 2005 Who Are the War Criminals? Naming Names Behind every war criminal is a criminal idea by Justin Raimondo Editorial note: What follows is the text of a speech delivered on Dec. 16, in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at the 2005 Perdana Peace Forum.

The theme for this part of the program is "Crimes Against Peace, Crimes Against Humanity." We are discussing here the question of defining and dealing with war crimes. In any such discussion, however, we must start out by identifying who are the war criminals. We must, in short, name names.

I would remind you that only governments make war. Only governments have the resources to commit mass murder. Government is, by its very nature, a weapon of mass destruction. Governments from A to Z - from America to Zimbabwe - are potential instruments of brutal repression. Last night, as I surfed the Internet, I saw an aerial photo of a village that looked like the bombed-out remnants of a target in Iraq - it was, however, a photo of a village in Zimbabwe that had been bulldozed by the government that has displaced over 300,000 people. Let’s be clear: we are talking about government officials as the prime war criminals. So let’s start naming names.

Of course, everyone knows the name of the man most responsible for the invasion and conquest of Iraq, because he is the most powerful - and the most dangerous - man on earth. He is George W. Bush, commander in chief of America’s military forces, the man who is even now declaring his defiance of the American public and growing congressional opposition to the war by declaring that we won’t get out until "victory" - and I put that term in ironic quotes - is achieved.

Less known, but no less culpable, are the people who planned and agitated for this war over the course of a decade. In America, we have a name for these people: we call them neoconservatives. "Neocons" for short. This is to distinguish them from ordinary, run-of-the-mill conservatives - or libertarians, such as myself - who advocate limited government and are generally suspicious of if not downright opposed to such grandiose social-engineering projects as "nation-building." After the end of the Cold War, most conservatives moved to a position of opposing foreign meddling in most cases. It was the liberals who then became the big advocates of America pushing its weight around in the world, with the interventions in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the bombing of Iraq, which continued throughout President Bill Clinton’s reign.

When the Soviet empire imploded, most conservatives gave up the idea of America as the world’s policeman - but not the neoconservatives. They had originally come from the Left, and, having acquired the most authoritarian and elitist tendencies of the Right, the neocons retained the worst of the socialist movement’s messianic pretensions, especially in the realm of foreign policy. As for their extraordinary bloodthirstiness, a brief look at their history shows us it was always there. After all, the earliest of these refugees from the anti-Stalinist Left had huddled around the ruthless figure of Leon Trotsky, founder of the Red Army, later becoming the most relentless and militant opponents of the Kremlin. After some years, the second generation eventually found their way into the Democratic Party, where a good number of them - Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams - became aides to Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson, Democrat of Washington state. In Washington, D.C., these guys were known as the most radical advocates of a massive arms buildup and a strategy of rollback against the Soviet Union.

The war in Vietnam was their Thermopylae, in which they tried to hold off the gathered legions of the burgeoning antiwar movement - but without success. Outnumbered, and defeated at the polls, the neocons left the Democratic Party when George McGovern and his antiwar followers took the helm. They soon found a new home in the Republican Party, however, where they continued their long march to power.

Neoconservatism, which has been called a "persuasion" and not an ideology by Irving Kristol - one of the chief architects of the movement - has always stood for two major principles, and that is the rule by elites at home, and a foreign policy of perpetual intervention and conflict abroad. Over time, this "persuasion" - which started out as a primitive anti-Stalinism - became more elaborate, taking on the elitism and philosophical nihilism of the philosopher Leo Strauss - the philosopher of the so-called noble lie - as well as an enthusiasm for the state of Israel, and the U.S.-Israeli alliance, that often borders on the very edge of propriety, and sometimes crosses the line.

For example, in 1978, according to Stephen Green, a researcher very familiar with this subject, Wolfowitz was investigated for passing a classified document - on the proposed sale of U.S. weapons to an Arab government - to an official of the Israeli government. This was done through an intermediary who worked for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington. The investigation into the matter was eventually dropped, however, and Wolfowitz continued to work at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency - where he opposed every effort at arms control and disarmament. Perle and Feith ran into similar problems, with similarly inconclusive results, and the neocons continued their quest for upward mobility in Washington’s corridors of power.

This kind of activity continues to characterize the behavior of the neocons in government right up to the present day, with one difference: this time, the investigation was not dropped, as in the case of Larry Franklin, the top Iran specialist in the Pentagon, who was recently indicted for spying on behalf of Israel. He was caught red-handed turning over sensitive documents and other classified information to two officials of AIPAC, who then passed it on to the Israelis. Franklin and his co-conspirators are scheduled to stand trial in 2006.

With this exotic mix of ideological positions - pro-war, pro-Israel, and dedicated to the tradition of Strauss and Machiavelli, which holds that only a few men of unscrupulous methods and natural genius have the natural right to rule - the neocons worked their way into the Republican Party, infiltrated the U.S. government, and finally penetrated the top echelons of the foreign-policy establishment during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, when they captured the National Endowment for Democracy and the mid-to-lower reaches of the national security bureaucracy. By the time Reagan’s second term rolled around, they had already established a significant beachhead - and assured themselves of a semi-permanent foothold in official Washington.

When the Cold War ended and their influence in government waned, they didn’t disappear, but instead retrenched, setting up a network of think tanks, magazines, foundations, and political front groups, seizing effective control of the conservative movement in America. This was done by exercising a decisive influence over how that movement was funded - the big conservative foundations, which funded various projects, funneled many millions of dollars into their ventures, subsidized their followers, and pushed their ideas relentlessly, freezing out all opponents in the process. The result was a movement transformed, one that soon threw over its guiding principles - limited government, economic and personal liberty, and a foreign policy that puts America first - in favor of the neoconservative credo of big government at home and unrestrained militarism around the world.

They started so many magazines that whole forests of trees are now regularly sacrificed so that the Weekly Standard, the National Interest, First Things, National Review, the Claremont Review of Books, Commentary magazine, and the Murdoch chain of newspapers can agitate for war, a policy of relentless American expansionism, and "regime change" from sea to shining sea. The number of neocon thinktanks is staggering: the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, and at least half a dozen or so with the word "Democracy" figuring prominently in their names: the list goes on and on. Together they employ a veritable army of policy analysts, publicists, and propagandists who churn out a steady stream of arguments for increased arms expenditures and endless war - especially directed against Arab and Muslim peoples.

The neoconservatives languished during the post-Cold War era, all but running out of steam: in America, the appetite for foreign intervention was practically nil, and the Republicans, the neocons’ chosen host of the moment, were reverting back to their traditional stance of a skeptical attitude toward foreign intervention. The neocons made limited headway during this period, at least on the surface: they did, however, begin to agitate for U.S. military action against Iraq, and in 1997 set up the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), headed by Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, which announced its goal to be the promotion of "American global leadership." In 1998, a letter sponsored by PNAC and signed by Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, among others, called on then-President Bill Clinton to attack Iraq.

A series of similar letters, newspaper advertisements, and public statements followed, all in the same vein: the U.S., they demanded, must invade Iraq. The neocons also called, from the beginning, for a major U.S. military buildup, what they termed a "transformation" of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force, effectively doubling present expenditures. As they sadly noted in a September 2000, policy paper, however, that probably wasn’t going to happen quickly enough to suit them, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

A year later, they had their "catalyzing event" - and the neoconservatives were suddenly at the pinnacle of a wave that has begun to crest only recently. Their war agenda was ready and waiting for the panic, the irrationality, the blind anger that infused the American public in the wake of the biggest terrorist attack in our history - and the neocons moved quickly to take full advantage of their golden opportunity.

They had argued long and hard that the Middle East had to be transformed into a series of pliable "democracies," all essentially run from the U.S., in order to make life easier for Israel. Indeed, a group of neoconservatives, including Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, and David Wurmser, among others, authored a policy paper in 1996 for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which called for regime change in Iraq as a way to humble the frontline state of Syria. The "democratic" transformation of the region was seen by these writers as a way for Israel to get out of its predicament and break through to becoming the dominant power in the region, free from any military or demographic threat.

In short, the plan to invade and conquer Iraq was already in place. After 9/11, the authors of this plan were free to start implementing it - and the neocons were well-placed to do it. Dick Cheney, a PNAC alumni, was vice president. His chief of staff was I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, another signer of the 1998 PNAC letter. Wolfowitz was installed at the Department of Defense, along with Feith. Wurmser was in government, ending up in the office of the vice president. John R. Bolton, now our ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, currently the U.S. ambassador to Iraq: the list of strategically -placed members of PNAC holding high positions in the Bush administration is impressive.

What has happened to America since 9/11? This question is now being asked by the world’s peoples, who fear the spectacle of the American giant going on an international rampage. A pretty good answer was given by the journalist Seymour Hersh, speaking at a conference of the American Civil Liberties Union, held on July 7 of this year:

"Okay, so here’s what happens: a bunch of guys, eight or nine neoconservatives, cultists - not Charles Manson cultists, but cultists - get in.

"And it’s not, with all due respect to Michael Moore, (his movie’s fine) but it’s not about oil, it’s even not about Israel, it’s about a utopia they have. It’s about an idea they have. Not only about that democracy can be spread. In a sense I would say Paul Wolfowitz is the greatest Trotskyite of our times. He believes in permanent revolution. And in the Middle East, to begin with, needless to say.

"And so you have a bunch of people who have been, for 10 or 12 years, fantasizing, since the 1991 Gulf war, on the way to resolve problems. And of course there’ll be beneficiaries, Israel would be a beneficiary, etc., etc., but the world in their eyes, this is a utopia.

"And so they got together this small group of cultists. And how did they do it? They did do it. They’ve taken the government over.

"And what’s amazing to me - and what really is troubling - is how fragile our democracy is. Look what happened to us... They took the edge off the press, they also muzzled the bureaucracy, they muzzled the military, they muzzled the Congress. And it’s an amazing feat. We’re supposed to be a democratic society. And all those areas of our democracy bowed and scraped to this group of neocons."

Hersh is right: after 9/11, the neocons pulled off what was, in effect, a coup d’etat. Already implanted deep inside the U.S. government, they emerged, at this crucial moment, like the pod people in the movie Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and took over their host, commandeering American foreign policy and bypassing the traditional safeguards built into the system. They bypassed the generals, they bypassed the intelligence community, they lied to Congress, and they ginned up a war that had been in the making for a decade.

But Hersh is wrong about the supposed fragility of the American system of constitutional government: it isn’t all that fragile, as it turns out. It’s just very flexible. It has been bent very far in one direction, and is now in the process of returning to its original position. Today, the war is very obviously a gigantic and quite embarrassing failure. The neocons are in retreat. And not only are they in retreat, but they - or at least some of them - will likely wind up in jail.

On Oct. 28 of this year, Patrick J. Fitzgerald. the special counsel appointed by the U.S. Justice Department, announced the indictment of I. Lewis Libby on five charges: one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and two counts of making false statements. I won’t go into all the specifics of the case here: suffice to say that the vice president’s chief of staff faces as much as 30 years in jail. The cabal that lied America into war is facing not only exposure, but also legal prosecution, because they broke several laws in the process of luring us into the Iraqi quagmire - not the least of which was planting bogus "intelligence" about alleged "weapons of mass destruction," then retaliating against anyone in the government who dared dispute their dubious assertions.

If we look at the neoconservatives as a parasitic infestation, we can see that the American body politic is reacting as any healthy organism would: it is rejecting the invaders and expelling them. The American people now realize the war against Iraq was started under false pretenses, and they are wondering when we are going to get out. The president and his cronies have launched a propaganda counteroffensive, trying to convince people that all is well and that we ought to "stay the course" - to no effect. Americans have made up their minds, and the question now isn’t will we withdraw, it is how and when we do it.

The war criminals have committed crimes against the Iraqi people and against other peoples of the Middle East, but they have also committed crimes against Americans - and that is what tripped them up in the end. The indictment of Libby is only the beginning: prosecutor Fitzgerald is already looking into other crimes committed by other top Bush administration officials. There are even rumors that Vice President Dick Cheney is in Fitzgerald’s sights.

Crime, as a popular American saying goes, does not pay. The criminals are eventually caught, exposed - and made to pay the price. The only question is how much damage they can do in the interim.

The damage to Iraq, and to the volatile situation in the Middle East, is considerable. We won’t know for many years how many Iraqis died - the United States military, while it keeps a count of its own war dead, doesn’t bother counting dead Iraqis. We don’t know the extent of the bombing - except that it is being kept a secret. In Vietnam, they used to announce the number of bombing sorties every day: in Iraq, they don’t talk about these bombing raids. As Seymour Hersh has reported, however, the air war is going to be increased in intensity, as American troops retreat to safer ground: that will increase the number of Iraqi casualties exponentially. We can count on two, three, many Fallujahs.

What we are facing is a conspiracy against humanity, a cabal motivated by an idea that is criminal in itself, and which consists of the assertion that the United States must run the world - for "our own good," of course. But that is what every tyrant and would-be conqueror has asserted in the past: that they and only they have the answer to the world’s problems. The Soviets believed that, and so did the British, the Germans, and the French - from Napoleon to Paul Wolfowitz, the rationale is always the same. And it always ends in disaster.

http://www.perdana4peace.org/ http://www.counterpunch.org/green02... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intel... http://www.newamericancentury.org/i... http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0049366/ http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach... http://www.newyorker.com/printables... http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10524570/



Leave a comment
Print this article


Commentaires de l'article
 

> Who Are the War Criminals? Naming Names Behind every war criminal is a criminal idea
Tuesday March 21 - 22:10 - Posted by f20c6ed043e8d9ac...

http://www.theinsider.org/news/arti... US government set Osama bin Laden free!

A new study of the war on Afghanistan, which documents statements from key US military personnel, reveals that the US government caught Osama bin Laden but then set him free.[1,2]

If Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, and assuming that he was no longer working for the CIA, why did the US military deliberately release him? The official cover-story is that the US army wanted more of their advanced hardware to be used first!

The US government now claims to have caught the "mastermind" who "planned" the 11 September attacks.[3-5] Although the US government claims that the CIA was involved, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was in fact captured in Pakistan by a top-secret Pakistani intelligence operation. Pakistani officials handed Khalid over to CIA agents, but since then nobody knows where the terrorist is. According to a spokesman for the Pakistan government, Rashid Qureshi:

"We have finally apprehended Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
It was the work of Pakistani intelligence agencies... It
is a big achievement. He is the kingpin of al-Qa’ida."[6]

If the attacks against America September 11th were "masterminded" and "planned" by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, as the US government states, then what exactly was Osama bin Laden’s role in 9/11 and why did the US government invade Afghanistan?

The official reason for the US government’s war against Afghanistan was to destroy Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda terrorist network, but this did not succeed. Many people suspect that the true motive was a major American oil pipeline, which is now being constructed through the region.[7]

SOURCES:

[1] Robin Moore, 2004, "The Hunt for Bin Laden: Task Force Dagger", Macmillan (US), Random House (UK).
[ http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A... ]

[2] Mail on Sunday (UK), "The SAS trapped Bin Laden and were set for the kill... But American generals let him escape., pp 54055, 2 March 2003.
[ http://www.dailymail.co.uk ]

[3] BBC News (UK), "Al-Qaeda suspect ’under interrogation’", 2 March 2003.
[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/so... ]

[4] New York Times (USA), "Pakistanis Arrest Qaeda Figure Seen as Planner of 9/11", front-page, 2 March 2003.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/02/i... ]

[5] New York Times, "Qaeda Suspect Sound Asleep at Trail’s End", front-page, 3 March 2003.
[ http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/03/i... ]

[6] The Independent (UK), "9/11 ’mastermind’ arrested", front-page, 2 March 2003.
[ http://news.independent.co.uk/world... ]

[7] The Debate, "Was oil the motive for the war on Afghanistan?".
[ http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/... ]

FURTHER READING:

"The Debate" - War on Iraq
[ http://www.thedebate.org ]




> Who Are the War Criminals? Naming Names Behind every war criminal is a criminal idea
Wednesday March 22 - 00:11 - Posted by af62e6912a956fa9...

The Greeks use economy in their speches. What happened here, or is economy not one of the hallmarks of America? Look to the US Government for war criminals. Most of them are in positions of power in Washington. The remainder are among those who voted for Bush, and the 33 % who still back him are mostl certainly suspects. . Stalin, Hitler, Togo, and assorted others must be laughing and applauding the efforts of the Americans now.







Exposed: horrendous pro-Zionist, Zionist and Apartheid Israeli child abuse
Monday 21 - 15:42
by Dr Gideon Polya
JUDGE ROSEMARY COLLYER: SOCIOPATH AND MURDERER
Monday 21 - 13:00
by David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
Much more better than the molotov coktail: the money off cocktail!
Monday 21 - 10:07
by Yann Bourhis
Launch of the ABUJNA Abu Jihad Palestinian News Agency
Saturday 19 - 02:39
by News Palestine
SURROUND THE EUROPEAN BUSINESS SUMMIT!
Friday 18 - 12:15
"Renewable ethanol" is utterly false Lobbyocracy and Corporatocracy greenwash
Friday 18 - 09:44
by Dr Gideon Polya
1 comment
Survival Is the Saudi Key Word
Friday 18 - 08:46
by Nicola Nasser
THE SECOND MYSTERY AROUND MALAYSIA AIRLINES FLIGHT MH370
Thursday 17 - 17:45
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Judge Asked To Recuse Himself In EU Human Rights Case
Thursday 17 - 13:41
by WireNews+Co
Thursday April the 17th is the Palestinian Prisoners Day
Wednesday 16 - 10:20
Disaster Draws Nigh : A Great Choice Beckons
Tuesday 15 - 11:55
by SON OF A BUSH
A Cacaphony of Paltry Frogs : It’s all over but the shooting
Monday 14 - 22:40
by Daniel Patrick Welch
HURTLING INTO DARKNESS: AMERICA’S GREAT LEAP TOWARDS GLOBAL TYRANNY
Monday 14 - 19:16
by JOHN CHUCKMAN
Voices of Ukraine: ’Kiev, People Are Not Cattle!’
Saturday 12 - 03:10
by Johnny Canuck
Nuclear Dangers in Ukraine Crisis
Thursday 10 - 09:30
Fifty years after the overthrow, in Brazil, of democratically elected president Joao Goulart, Washington’s support to the coup must not be forgotten
Thursday 10 - 08:52
by TOUSSAINT Eric
The Red Line and the Rat Line
Thursday 10 - 08:44
by Seymour M. Hersh
Assad Is There to Stay
Wednesday 9 - 11:33
by Nicola Nasser
THE LIMP LEFT CLING TO REL-LIE ABLE OBAMA
Monday 7 - 18:55
by Son OF A BUSH
Putin Flushes the US Dollar: Russia’s Gold Ruble Payments System Delinked from Dollar?
Monday 7 - 09:46
by Umberto Pascali
South Sudan Facing Famine Crisis
Sunday 6 - 05:51
by Brian McAfee
Climate inaction from explict denialism and effective climate change denialism
Saturday 5 - 17:42
by Dr Gideon Polya
Tératologie paraphysique
Saturday 5 - 10:40
by
moderated
Drugs and politics: how Rafael Louzán played his opponent
Friday 4 - 19:19
by libertavigo
AMERICA: THE MOST CORRUPT DEMOCRACY MONEY CAN BUY
Friday 4 - 03:44
by David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
Current Philippine Government And Military Using ongoing Extra-Judicial
Wednesday 2 - 01:29
by Brian McAfee
letter of april to Obama.
Tuesday 1 - 19:19
by kakine
Western hypocrisy re Crimea-Russia re-union versus Israeli Occupation & genocide
Tuesday 1 - 05:12
by Dr Gideon Polya
Rafael Louzán and Hermelino Alonso: opening the doors for drugs
Monday 31 - 11:24
Tens of Thousands First Nations Children Died in Canada’s Residential Schools
Sunday 30 - 10:59
by Johnny Canuck
UKRAINIANS SOON TO SCREAM : " I M F ’ D "
Sunday 30 - 04:15
by SON OF A BUSH
Japan Stops Treating Radioactive Water
Friday 28 - 22:34
by Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner
Casablanca-Morocco: Stop union-busting at Total Call.
Wednesday 26 - 19:30
by U.M.T.
Confirming the Tony Benn commemoration
Wednesday 26 - 10:48
by Stop the War Coalition
Time to grab guns and kill damn Russians – Tymoshenko in leaked tape
Tuesday 25 - 11:37
We should find better heroes than Meir Har-Zion
Monday 24 - 11:15
by Yossi Sarid
OBAMA IS A PEACH : VERY IMPEACHABLE
Saturday 22 - 19:35
by SON OF A BUSH
Ukraine - Who Will Benefit From An IMF Bailout?
Saturday 22 - 04:37
by Johnny Canuck
American Republic Manifestum Treatise is free to download
Friday 21 - 19:26
by Willam Morgan
1 comment
Michelle Bachelet Returns To Her Old Job, Being President Of Chile
Wednesday 19 - 23:27
by Brian McAfee

home | webmaster



Follow-up of the site's activity
RSS Bellaciao En


rss FR / rss IT / rss ES



Bellaciao hosted by DRI

Organize, agitate, educate, must be our war cry. Susan B. Anthony
Facebook Twitter Google+
DAZIBAO
Neo-Nazis and far-right protesters in Ukraine 3 live-stream
Friday 24 January
2 comments
The far-right in Ukraine are acting as the vanguard of a protest movement that is being reported as pro-democracy. The situation on the ground is not as simple as pro-EU and trade versus pro-Putin and Russian hegemony in the region. When US Senator John McCain dined with Ukraine’s opposition leaders in December, he shared a table and later a stage with the leader of the extreme far-right Svoboda party Oleh Tyahnybok. This is Oleh Tyahnybok, he has claimed a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" (...)
read more...
Hugo Chavez is dead (video live)
Wednesday 6 March
by : Collective BELLACIAO
President Hugo Chavez companeros venezueliano died after a long battle with cancer.
read more...
International initiative to stop the war in Syria Yes to democracy, no to foreign intervention!
Thursday 13 December
Your support here: http://www.peaceinsyria.org/support.php We, the undersigned, who are part of an international civil society increasingly worried about the awful bloodshed of the Syrian people, are supporting a political initiative based on the results of a fact-finding mission which some of our colleagues undertook to Beirut and Damascus in September 2012. This initiative consists in calling for a delegation of highranking personalities and public figures to go to Syria in order to (...)
read more...
THE KU KLUX KLAN ONCE AGAIN CONTROLS INDIANA
Monday 12 November
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
7 comments
At first glance, the results of America’s 2012 election appear to be a triumph for social, racial, and economic justice and progress in the United States: California voters passed a proposition requiring the rich to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden; Two states, Colorado and Washington, legalized the recreational use of marijuana, while Massachusetts approved the use of marijuana for medical purposes; Washington and two other states, Maine and Maryland, legalized same-sex (...)
read more...
I’VE DECIDED TO "WASTE" MY VOTE
Sunday 28 October
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
In a 2004 episode of Comedy Central’s animated series South Park, an election was held to determine whether the new mascot for the town’s elementary school would be a “giant douche” or a “turd sandwich.” Confronted with these two equally unpalatable choices, one child, Stan Marsh, refused to vote at all, which resulted in his ostracization and subsequent banishment from the town. Although this satirical vulgarity was intended as a commentary on the two (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART IV
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
1 comment
PART I PART II PART III If there is one major inconsistency in life, it is that young people who know little more than family, friends and school are suddenly, at the age of eighteen, supposed to decide what they want to do for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, because of their limited life experiences, the illusions they have about certain occupations do not always comport to the realities. I discovered this the first time I went to college. About a year into my studies, I (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART III
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART II PART IV Disillusioned with the machinations of so-called “traditional” colleges, I became an adjunct instructor at several “for-profit” colleges. Thanks largely to the power and pervasiveness of the Internet, “for-profit” colleges (hereinafter for-profits) have become a growing phenomenon in America. They have also been the subject of much political debate and the focus of a Frontline special entitled College Inc. Unlike traditional (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART II
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART I PART III PART IV Several years ago, a young lady came into the college where I was teaching to inquire about a full-time instructor’s position in the sociology department. She was advised that only adjunct positions were available. Her response was, “No thanks. Once an adjunct, always an adjunct.” Her words still echo in my mind. Even as colleges and universities raise their tuition costs, they are relying more and more on adjunct instructors. Adjuncts are (...)
read more...
HIGHER EDUCATION IN AMERICA: DREAM OR NIGHTMARE? PART I
Friday 28 September
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
PART II PART III PART IV When The Bill of Rights was added to the United States Constitution over two hundred years ago, Americans were blessed with many rights considered to be “fundamental.” One conspicuously missing, however, was the right to an education. This was not surprising given the tenor of the times. America was primarily an agrarian culture, and education, especially higher education, was viewed as a privilege reserved for the children of the rich and (...)
read more...
ONE SOLITARY LIFE, PART TWO
Monday 30 July
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
3 comments
If there is one universal question that haunts all human beings at some point in their lives, it is, “Why do we die?” Death, after all, is the great illogic. It ultimately claims all, the rich and the poor, the mighty and the small, the good and the evil. Death also has the capability to make most human pursuits—such as the quest for wealth, fame and power—vacuous and fleeting. Given this reality, I have often wondered why so many people are still willing to (...)
read more...
HOW MUCH CORRUPTION CAN DEMOCRACY ENDURE?
Thursday 28 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
6 comments
How much corruption can a “democracy” endure before it ceases to be a democracy? If five venal, mendacious, duplicitous, amoral, biased and (dare I say it) satanic Supreme Court “justices”—John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy—have their way, America will soon find out. In several previous articles for Pravda.Ru, I have consistently warned how the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision is one of the (...)
read more...
DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF IDIOTS, PART TWO
Tuesday 12 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
1 comment
Imagine, if you will, that the United States government passes a law banning advertisers from sponsoring commercials on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show or Rupert Murdoch’s Fox (Faux) “News” Network. On one hand, there would be two decided advantages to this ban: The National IQ would undoubtedly increase several percentage points, and manipulative pseudo-journalists would no longer be able to appeal to the basest instincts in human nature for ratings and profit while (...)
read more...
DEMOCRACY IN THE HANDS OF IDIOTS
Thursday 7 June
by : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
4 comments
LIVE, from the State that brought you Senator Joseph McCarthy, Wisconsin voters now proudly present, fresh from his recall election victory, Governor Scott Walker! At first glance, it is almost unfathomable that anyone with a modicum of intelligence would have voted to retain Scott Walker as Wisconsin’s governor. This, after all, is a man who openly declared he is trying to destroy the rights of workers through a “divide and conquer” strategy; who received 61% of the (...)
read more...
PEOPLE WITHOUT SOULS
Tuesday 13 March
by : David R. Hoffman, Legal Editor of Pravda.Ru
2 comments
A question I’ve frequently been asked since I began writing for Pravda.Ru in 2003 is, “Why did you become disillusioned with the practice of law?” This question is understandable, particularly since, in most people’s minds, being an attorney is synonymous with wealth and political power. I’ve always been reluctant to answer this question for fear it will discourage conscientious and ethical people from pursuing careers in the legal profession—a (...)
read more...
MAY GOD DAMN WALL STREET, THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND THE SUPREME COURT
Monday 13 February
by : David R. Hoffman, Pravda.Ru Legal Editor
3 comments
Don’t say I didn’t warn you. In my article The Greatest Threat to America, I stated that the five so-called “conservative” members of the United States Supreme Court—Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy—“have destroyed American democracy and its fundamental freedoms more ruthlessly and effectively than any terrorist group in the world” (Pravda.Ru 01/27/2010). They accomplished this in the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal (...)
read more...