Archiv: Clinton Administration 1993-2001


24.10.2023 - 22:04 [ United Nations / Secretary General ]

Secretary-General‘s remarks to the Security Council – on the Middle East [as delivered]

I have condemned unequivocally the horrifying and unprecedented 7 October acts of terror by Hamas in Israel.

Nothing can justify the deliberate killing, injuring and kidnapping of civilians – or the launching of rockets against civilian targets.

All hostages must be treated humanely and released immediately and without conditions. I respectfully note the presence among us of members of their families.

Excellencies,

It is important to also recognize the attacks by Hamas did not happen in a vacuum.

The Palestinian people have been subjected to 56 years of suffocating occupation.

They have seen their land steadily devoured by settlements and plagued by violence; their economy stifled; their people displaced and their homes demolished. Their hopes for a political solution to their plight have been vanishing.

But the grievances of the Palestinian people cannot justify the appalling attacks by Hamas. And those appalling attacks cannot justify the collective punishment of the Palestinian people.

24.10.2023 - 21:55 [ Times of Israel ]

Israel livid after UN chief says Hamas attacks ‘did not occur in vacuum’

Israeli officials railed at UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres Tuesday after he appeared to suggest the impetus for the Hamas terror group’s devastating October 7 attack on Israel was the Jewish state’s continued control of Palestinian territories.

13.09.2023 - 18:10 [ Jerusalem Post ]

On This Day: Israel, Palestinians sign Oslo I Accord 30 years ago

The agreement was signed by then-Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres, Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)‘s Mahmoud Abbas and then US secretary of state Warren Christopher, and was later followed up with a public signing ceremony in September.

The accord was the result of secret negotiations facilitated by then-US president Bill Clinton, and later followed up in 1995 by the Oslo II Accord.

11.09.2023 - 23:04 [ Federation of American Scientists - fas.org ]

CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS: PROTECTING AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURES – The Report of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection

(13.10.1997)

Existing Information Sharing Efforts

(…) We also found a great deal of information sharing already underway. Trade associations, consortia, and other groups exchange information among their members and, in some cases, directly with government. Many federal, state and local government agencies have existing relationships with infrastructure owners and operators. Within all the infrastructure sectors, at least some portions are subject to regulatory control by government agencies, and information is shared, albeit sometimes within carefully defined constraints. Several federal agencies provide information to infrastructure owners and operators. The FBI’s Awareness of National Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) program gives over 25,000 industry members information that provides threat and vulnerability insights. More narrowly focused programs are the Department of Transportation’s terrorist threat notification to the civil aviation industry and the National Security Agency’s INFOSEC Vulnerability Assessment Program, which provides information systems-related data to private sector partners. The Comptroller of the Currency operates another system providing advisories on information integrity and security risks to financial institutions.

(…)

The third and least predictable threat to the infrastructure comes from deliberate attack. Depending on their objectives, attackers may seek to steal, modify, or destroy data stored in information systems or moving over networks, or to degrade the operation of the systems and net-works themselves, denying service to their users. Attackers include national intelligence organizations, information warriors, terrorists, criminals, industrial competitors, hackers, and aggrieved or disloyal insiders. While insiders constitute the single largest known security threat to information and information systems, controlled testing indicates that large numbers of computer based attacks go undetected, and that the unknown component of the threat may exceed the known component by orders of magnitude.

(…)

The air traffic control system of the FAA is based on decades old technology. The replacement system, while doubtless more efficient, will be more vulnerable unless special security measures are incorporated.

(…)

The Commission recommends the Secretary of Transportation:

1) Fully evaluate actual and potential sources of interference to, and vulnerabilities of, GPS before a final decision is reached to eliminate all other radiovnavigation and aircraft landing guidance systems.

2) Sponsor a risk assessment for GPS-based systems used by the civilian sector, projected from now through the year 2010.

3) Base decisions regarding the proper federal navigation systems mix and the final architecture of the NAS on the results of that assessment. The DOT and FAA must develop a better understanding of interference and other vulnerabilities of GPS before a final decision is reached concerning the status of all other radionavigation and landing guidance systems. A federally sponsored thorough, integrated risk assessment would lay a sound foundation for decisions on future courses of action.

The National Airspace System

The Commission recommends the FAA act immediately to develop, establish, fund, and implement a comprehensive National Airspace System Security Program to protect the modernized NAS from information-based and other disruptions, intrusions and attack. Program implementation should be guided by the recommendations found in the Vulnerability Assessment of the NAS Architecture, prepared for the Commission. The Vulnerability Assessment included the following recommendations: (…)

3) The FAA should consider the implementation of full “trusted” hardware and software security capabilities for only the FAA’s most vulnerable future subsystems, since the software cost for embedded applications, together with full audit, tracking, and monitoring, may be too great if applied to all subsystems. Relaxation of the full capabilities, such as less rapid revalidation (e.g., a slower fifteen minutes down time) and less constant vigilance of data integrity, should be considered on a case-by-case basis for less critical subsystems, particularly in situations where existing air traffic control recovery procedures exist.

4) The FAA should conduct a comprehensive investment analysis of NAS INFOSEC in order to determine the degree of security protection that is needed

(…)

Transportation: A critical infrastructure characterized by the physical distribution system critical to supporting the national security and economic well-being of this nation, including the national airspace system, airlines and aircraft, and airports; roads and highways,trucking and personal vehicles; ports and waterways and the vessels operating thereon; mass transit, both rail and bus; pipelines, including natural gas, petroleum, and other hazardous materials; freight and long haul passenger rail; and delivery services.

15.07.2023 - 08:20 [ Patriotic Millionaires ]

It’s the inequality, stupid

(June 15, 2023)

Economic inequality has exploded in the US since Bill Clinton took office. (It started to tick up after Clinton’s predecessor Ronald Reagan came on the scene, but Clinton’s tenure witnessed a continuation of this trend.) Today, there are 735 billionaires in the US, three of whom – Elon Musk, Larry Ellison, and Jeff Bezos – hold wealth more than 1 million times (!) the median American household wealth. Meanwhile, nearly 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, 1/3 of workers make less than $15 an hour, and roughly 38 million Americans live below the poverty line.

11.02.2023 - 05:32 [ Wall Street Journal ]

Biden Turns the U.S. Into a Shadow Member of OPEC

(13.12.2022)

President Biden has urged the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production of oil and criticized the cartel harshly when it declines to do so—most recently on Dec. 4. But actions speak louder than words. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has been acting as shadow member of the cartel.

30.12.2022 - 19:24 [ Wall Street Journal ]

Biden Turns the U.S. Into a Shadow Member of OPEC

(13.12.2022)

President Biden has urged the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries to increase production of oil and criticized the cartel harshly when it declines to do so—most recently on Dec. 4. But actions speak louder than words. Under the Biden administration, the U.S. has been acting as shadow member of the cartel.

08.12.2022 - 21:27 [ QZ.com ]

How the US Congress could defang OPEC and keep gas prices low in one stroke

(30.11.2022)

The idea was first put forth back in 2000, when antitrust lawyer Seth Bloom wrote the NOPEC Act. It stands for No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels. The law would explicitly permit the US government to pursue price-fixing claims against oil-producing countries.

03.12.2022 - 18:41 [ jewishinsider.com ]

Biden’s Saudi recalibration a potential setback to prospects for Saudi-Israel normalization

(October 21, 2022)

Schneider is a co-chair of the Abraham Accords Caucus, as well as a lead sponsor of the DEFEND Act, which seeks to promote the creation of an integrated Middle East air-defense infrastructure, potentially including both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA), also an Abraham Accords Caucus co-chair and lead DEFEND Act sponsor, raised concerns that the White House was “disrupting… momentum” toward integrated air defense by postponing a United States-Gulf Coordination Council meeting focused on the issue following the oil production cut announcement.

03.12.2022 - 18:35 [ QZ.com ]

How the US Congress could defang OPEC and keep gas prices low in one stroke

(30.11.2022)

The idea was first put forth back in 2000, when antitrust lawyer Seth Bloom wrote the NOPEC Act. It stands for No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels. The law would explicitly permit the US government to pursue price-fixing claims against oil-producing countries.

22.11.2022 - 20:37 [ @PeaceBelgium / Twitter ]

The last time the NOPEC bill came this close to passing was in 2007, when it got approved by the House of Reps in a 345-72 vote and the Senate by 70-23, only to die after George W. Bush threatened a veto. (good relations between George W. & the Kingdom in the aftermath of 9/11)

(17.10.2022)

22.11.2022 - 20:25 [ Reuters ]

Explainer: What is NOPEC, the U.S. bill to pressure the OPEC+ oil group?

(05.10.2022)

But several attempts to pass NOPEC over more than two decades have long worried OPEC‘s de facto leader Saudi Arabia, leading Riyadh to lobby hard every time a version of the bill has come up.

With the Senate Judiciary Committee passing the bill in May, it needs to pass the full Senate and House and be signed by the president to become law.

11.11.2022 - 08:18 [ Worldwide Exchange / Nitter ]

„The chances of getting NOPEC passed are actually declining,“ says @rbccm Global Head of Commodity Strategy @CroftHelima. „Democrats were really driving for this. I don‘t really sense a lot of Republican enthusiasm.“ #Election2022 #Midterms2022 #OPEC

11.11.2022 - 08:09 [ Reuters ]

Explainer: What is NOPEC, the U.S. bill to pressure the OPEC+ oil group?

(05.10.2022)

But several attempts to pass NOPEC over more than two decades have long worried OPEC‘s de facto leader Saudi Arabia, leading Riyadh to lobby hard every time a version of the bill has come up.

With the Senate Judiciary Committee passing the bill in May, it needs to pass the full Senate and House and be signed by the president to become law.

01.11.2022 - 10:13 [ Reuters ]

Explainer: What is NOPEC, the U.S. bill to pressure the OPEC+ oil group?

(05.10.2022)

But several attempts to pass NOPEC over more than two decades have long worried OPEC‘s de facto leader Saudi Arabia, leading Riyadh to lobby hard every time a version of the bill has come up.

With the Senate Judiciary Committee passing the bill in May, it needs to pass the full Senate and House and be signed by the president to become law.

28.10.2022 - 17:07 [ Rep. Susan Wild, Abgeordnete im US Repräsentantenhaus / Twitter ]

OPEC‘s decision to slash oil production is a slap in the face to American interests. It‘s time we restore the balance in this relationship. Today, @RepCindyAxne and I urged congressional leadership to bring up the NOPEC Act to crack down on the autocrats driving up PA gas prices.

(20.10.2022)

25.10.2022 - 09:59 [ New York Times ]

Why OPEC Is Cutting Oil Production (and Why There’s Not Much the U.S. Can Do About It)

(Oct. 24, 2022)

If the United States follows through on its threats, the Biden administration would be a true maverick in Middle East policy, because no other administration — Republican or Democratic — has ever retaliated against Saudi Arabia in any serious manner for its oil policies.

25.10.2022 - 09:51 [ @PeaceBelgium / Twitter ]

The last time the NOPEC bill came this close to passing was in 2007, when it got approved by the House of Reps in a 345-72 vote and the Senate by 70-23, only to die after George W. Bush threatened a veto. (good relations between George W. & the Kingdom in the aftermath of 9/11)

(17.10.2022)

19.10.2022 - 15:02 [ @PeaceBelgium / Twitter ]

The last time the NOPEC bill came this close to passing was in 2007, when it got approved by the House of Reps in a 345-72 vote and the Senate by 70-23, only to die after George W. Bush threatened a veto. (good relations between George W. & the Kingdom in the aftermath of 9/11)

19.10.2022 - 14:15 [ Reuters ]

Explainer: What is NOPEC, the U.S. bill to pressure the OPEC+ oil group?

(05.10.2022)

But several attempts to pass NOPEC over more than two decades have long worried OPEC‘s de facto leader Saudi Arabia, leading Riyadh to lobby hard every time a version of the bill has come up.

With the Senate Judiciary Committee passing the bill in May, it needs to pass the full Senate and House and be signed by the president to become law.

16.10.2022 - 18:34 [ MorningConsult.com ]

After OPEC+ Cuts Oil Supplies, Nearly Half of U.S. Voters Support ‘NOPEC’ Bill

(October 12, 2022)

There appears to be plenty of room for persuasion on the issue: Over a third of voters said they didn’t know or had no opinion on the topic.

16.10.2022 - 18:20 [ @JavierBlas / Nitter ]

US politicians are at it again: trying to pass the „No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels“ or NOPEC Act. But let me show you a piece of history: 21 years ago, then Senator Biden (with the late Senator Specter) wrote to President Clinton urging the White House to sue OPEC

(17 Nov 2021)

The Biden-Spetcer letter explored two ways in which the two senators thought the US government could sue the cartel, one in US federal court and another one in, be prepared for it, the International Court of Justice at the Hague. The record is here:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2000-03-30/pdf/CREC-2000-03-30.pdf

Another piece of trivia-history. In 2007, then Senator Biden was a ‚co-sponsor‘ of NOPEC legislation in the Senate (via an amendment). Despite co-sponsoring the amendment, Biden later „did not vote“ for it (abstention). The record is here:
https://www.congress.gov/110/crec/2007/06/14/CREC-2007-06-14.pdf

16.05.2022 - 19:24 [ New York Times ]

Biden Approves Plan to Redeploy Several Hundred Ground Forces Into Somalia

Together, the decisions by Mr. Biden, described by the officials on the condition of anonymity, will revive an open-ended American counterterrorism operation that has amounted to a slow-burn war through three administrations. The move stands in contrast to his decision last year to pull American forces from Afghanistan, saying that “it is time to end the forever war.”

12.03.2022 - 16:59 [ WDR / Youtube ]

Kosovokrieg: Die Lügen der NATO (1999) | WDR

(May 17, 2015)

Es war ein sogenannter „humanitärer Kriegseinsatz“, das Eingreifen der NATO in den Kosovo-Krieg. MONITOR zeigte, dass die US-Luftwaffe dabei wohl Splitterbomben eingesetzt hat. Bomben, die auch Zivilisten trafen. Humanitär geht anders!

12.03.2022 - 16:43 [ Researchgate.net ]

Democracy and propaganda – NATO‘s war in Kosovo

(June 2008)

Although democratic theorists recognize an independent media as central to the proper functioning of democratic institutions, democratic governments often exploit their citizens‘ faith in that independence to generate popular support or at least acquiescence for government policies. This article uses the examples of Operation Horseshoe and the fighting at Račak and Rugovo during the Kosovo conflict of 1998 and 1999 to illustrate how democratic governments in the US and Germany attempted to manipulate public perceptions of the Kosovo conflict to justify the 1999 war. The study reviews over 100 newspaper articles, found in the Lexis-Nexis database, and numerous scholarly articles to trace the development of these specific narratives. The article shows the construction of two illusions: the illusion of multiple sources and the illusion of independent confirmation. In the end, these `truths‘ and frameworks filter into scholarship, as many scholars begin to base their interpretations on these `facts‘.

20.01.2022 - 08:21 [ Werner Rügemer / Nachdenkseiten ]

Impfwahn – wie die Bevölkerung noch kränker wird

1984 ernannte Reagan Dr. Anthony Fauci zum Direktor des NIAID. Seitdem ohne Unterbrechung bis heute nimmt Fauci diese Stellung ein. Mithilfe der Pharma-Konzerne, der Elite-Universitäten und später der privaten Stiftungen wie der Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) und mithilfe aller Regierungen – ob Reagan, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden – baute der oberste Staats- und Konzernvirologe der USA ein weltweites Netzwerk aus. Es wurde führend bei der Pandemie-Politik des Westens.

11.09.2021 - 16:15 [ Federation of American Scientists - fas.org ]

CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS: PROTECTING AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURES – The Report of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection

(13.10.1997)

Existing Information Sharing Efforts

(…) We also found a great deal of information sharing already underway. Trade associations, consortia, and other groups exchange information among their members and, in some cases, directly with government. Many federal, state and local government agencies have existing relationships with infrastructure owners and operators. Within all the infrastructure sectors, at least some portions are subject to regulatory control by government agencies, and information is shared, albeit sometimes within carefully defined constraints. Several federal agencies provide information to infrastructure owners and operators. The FBI’s Awareness of National Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) program gives over 25,000 industry members information that provides threat and vulnerability insights. More narrowly focused programs are the Department of Transportation’s terrorist threat notification to the civil aviation industry and the National Security Agency’s INFOSEC Vulnerability Assessment Program, which provides information systems-related data to private sector partners. The Comptroller of the Currency operates another system providing advisories on information integrity and security risks to financial institutions.

(…)

The third and least predictable threat to the infrastructure comes from deliberate attack. Depending on their objectives, attackers may seek to steal, modify, or destroy data stored in information systems or moving over networks, or to degrade the operation of the systems and net-works themselves, denying service to their users. Attackers include national intelligence organizations, information warriors, terrorists, criminals, industrial competitors, hackers, and aggrieved or disloyal insiders. While insiders constitute the single largest known security threat to information and information systems, controlled testing indicates that large numbers of computer based attacks go undetected, and that the unknown component of the threat may exceed the known component by orders of magnitude.

(…)

The air traffic control system of the FAA is based on decades old technology. The replacement system, while doubtless more efficient, will be more vulnerable unless special security measures are incorporated.

(…)

The Commission recommends the Secretary of Transportation:

1) Fully evaluate actual and potential sources of interference to, and vulnerabilities of, GPS before a final decision is reached to eliminate all other radiovnavigation and aircraft landing guidance systems.

2) Sponsor a risk assessment for GPS-based systems used by the civilian sector, projected from now through the year 2010.

3) Base decisions regarding the proper federal navigation systems mix and the final architecture of the NAS on the results of that assessment. The DOT and FAA must develop a better understanding of interference and other vulnerabilities of GPS before a final decision is reached concerning the status of all other radionavigation and landing guidance systems. A federally sponsored thorough, integrated risk assessment would lay a sound foundation for decisions on future courses of action.

The National Airspace System

The Commission recommends the FAA act immediately to develop, establish, fund, and implement a comprehensive National Airspace System Security Program to protect the modernized NAS from information-based and other disruptions, intrusions and attack. Program implementation should be guided by the recommendations found in the Vulnerability Assessment of the NAS Architecture, prepared for the Commission. The Vulnerability Assessment included the following recommendations: (…)

3) The FAA should consider the implementation of full “trusted” hardware and software security capabilities for only the FAA’s most vulnerable future subsystems, since the software cost for embedded applications, together with full audit, tracking, and monitoring, may be too great if applied to all subsystems. Relaxation of the full capabilities, such as less rapid revalidation (e.g., a slower fifteen minutes down time) and less constant vigilance of data integrity, should be considered on a case-by-case basis for less critical subsystems, particularly in situations where existing air traffic control recovery procedures exist.

4) The FAA should conduct a comprehensive investment analysis of NAS INFOSEC in order to determine the degree of security protection that is needed

(…)

Transportation: A critical infrastructure characterized by the physical distribution system critical to supporting the national security and economic well-being of this nation, including the national airspace system, airlines and aircraft, and airports; roads and highways,trucking and personal vehicles; ports and waterways and the vessels operating thereon; mass transit, both rail and bus; pipelines, including natural gas, petroleum, and other hazardous materials; freight and long haul passenger rail; and delivery services.

01.08.2021 - 08:26 [ Ynetnews.com ]

Netanyahu in 1993: Iran will have bomb by 1999

(04.03.2015)

The prime minister has been warning for over 20 years that Tehran is close to achieving its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

23.11.2020 - 11:22 [ theGrayzone.com ]

VIDEO: Top Biden advisors Flournoy and Blinken promise smarter, more secretive permanent war policy

Since the 1990s, Flournoy and Blinken have steadily risen through the ranks of the military-industrial complex, shuffling back and forth between the Pentagon and hawkish think-tanks funded by the U.S. government, weapons companies, and oil giants.

Under Bill Clinton, Flournoy was the principal author of the 1996 Quadrinellial Defense Review, the document that outlined the U.S. military’s doctrine of permanent war – what it called “full spectrum dominance.”

11.09.2020 - 13:34 [ Federation of American Scientists - fas.org ]

CRITICAL FOUNDATIONS: PROTECTING AMERICA’S INFRASTRUCTURES – The Report of the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection

(13.10.1997)

Existing Information Sharing Efforts

(…) We also found a great deal of information sharing already underway. Trade associations, consortia, and other groups exchange information among their members and, in some cases, directly with government. Many federal, state and local government agencies have existing relationships with infrastructure owners and operators. Within all the infrastructure sectors, at least some portions are subject to regulatory control by government agencies, and information is shared, albeit sometimes within carefully defined constraints. Several federal agencies provide information to infrastructure owners and operators. The FBI’s Awareness of National Security Issues and Response (ANSIR) program gives over 25,000 industry members information that provides threat and vulnerability insights. More narrowly focused programs are the Department of Transportation’s terrorist threat notification to the civil aviation industry and the National Security Agency’s INFOSEC Vulnerability Assessment Program, which provides information systems-related data to private sector partners. The Comptroller of the Currency operates another system providing advisories on information integrity and security risks to financial institutions.

(…)

The third and least predictable threat to the infrastructure comes from deliberate attack. Depending on their objectives, attackers may seek to steal, modify, or destroy data stored in information systems or moving over networks, or to degrade the operation of the systems and net-works themselves, denying service to their users. Attackers include national intelligence organizations, information warriors, terrorists, criminals, industrial competitors, hackers, and aggrieved or disloyal insiders. While insiders constitute the single largest known security threat to information and information systems, controlled testing indicates that large numbers of computer based attacks go undetected, and that the unknown component of the threat may exceed the known component by orders of magnitude.

(…)

The air traffic control system of the FAA is based on decades old technology. The replacement system, while doubtless more efficient, will be more vulnerable unless special security measures are incorporated.

(…)

The Commission recommends the Secretary of Transportation:

1) Fully evaluate actual and potential sources of interference to, and vulnerabilities of, GPS before a final decision is reached to eliminate all other radiovnavigation and aircraft landing guidance systems.

2) Sponsor a risk assessment for GPS-based systems used by the civilian sector, projected from now through the year 2010.

3) Base decisions regarding the proper federal navigation systems mix and the final architecture of the NAS on the results of that assessment. The DOT and FAA must develop a better understanding of interference and other vulnerabilities of GPS before a final decision is reached concerning the status of all other radionavigation and landing guidance systems. A federally sponsored thorough, integrated risk assessment would lay a sound foundation for decisions on future courses of action.

The National Airspace System

The Commission recommends the FAA act immediately to develop, establish, fund, and implement a comprehensive National Airspace System Security Program to protect the modernized NAS from information-based and other disruptions, intrusions and attack. Program implementation should be guided by the recommendations found in the Vulnerability Assessment of the NAS Architecture, prepared for the Commission. The Vulnerability Assessment included the following recommendations: (…)

3) The FAA should consider the implementation of full “trusted” hardware and software security capabilities for only the FAA’s most vulnerable future subsystems, since the software cost for embedded applications, together with full audit, tracking, and monitoring, may be too great if applied to all subsystems. Relaxation of the full capabilities, such as less rapid revalidation (e.g., a slower fifteen minutes down time) and less constant vigilance of data integrity, should be considered on a case-by-case basis for less critical subsystems, particularly in situations where existing air traffic control recovery procedures exist.

4) The FAA should conduct a comprehensive investment analysis of NAS INFOSEC in order to determine the degree of security protection that is needed

(…)

Transportation: A critical infrastructure characterized by the physical distribution system critical to supporting the national security and economic well-being of this nation, including the national airspace system, airlines and aircraft, and airports; roads and highways,trucking and personal vehicles; ports and waterways and the vessels operating thereon; mass transit, both rail and bus; pipelines, including natural gas, petroleum, and other hazardous materials; freight and long haul passenger rail; and delivery services.

13.05.2020 - 14:26 [ MediaMonitors.net ]

Sorting Through the Lies of the Racak Massacre and other Myths of Kosovo

(February 15, 2001)

There was the ethnic cleansing. The atrocities. The refugees chased out of Kosovo by the Serb army. The mass graves. The heaps of bodies tossed into vats of sulphuric acid at the Trepca mines.

NATO spokesman Jamie Shea said there were 100,000 Kosovars unaccounted for.

Remember?

If you’re like most people, you have at least a vague recollection of something that seemed to approach a modern-day Holocaust.

Problem is, none of it happened.

13.05.2020 - 14:20 [ WSWS.org ]

What really has happened in Kosovo

(14 May 1999)

In the US-NATO assault on Yugoslavia, accusations of genocide in Kosovo play the same role in the propaganda war as cruise missiles and cluster bombs in the air war. The claims that Serbian troops and paramilitary forces are slaughtering thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of Kosovar Albanians, the comparisons of Slobodan Milosevic to Adolf Hitler, the invocation of the Holocaust–all these serve as weapons, if not to convince, at least to intimidate public opinion.

The purpose of this propaganda, whose tone has been set by the White House, is to block any critical thought or even serious reflection on the part of the American people about the mushrooming conflict in the Balkans.

13.05.2020 - 14:06 [ Historic.ly / Twitter ]

Who remembers Joe Biden wanting to bomb Serbia?

13.05.2020 - 14:03 [ Glenn Greenwald / Twitter ]

Monumental stupidity of online smear artists in action: Last night I RT‘d a simple tweet with a 2-minute video of Biden angrily demanding massive bombing of Belgrade: seems relevant to know for a presidential candidate. ?‍♂️ Now I‘m a Milosevic apologist, war crimes denier, etc.

28.03.2020 - 08:55 [ Radio Utopie ]

„Executive Order“: Geheime Macht einer imperialen Präsidentschaft

(1. September 2014)

Das „Signing Statement“: Eine Aufhebung der Gewaltenteilung

Die Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten nehmen sich nicht nur die Jahrhunderte lang unhinterfragte Macht der Gewohnheit in Form von „Executive Orders“ in all ihren Varianten heraus, sondern auch noch das virtuelle Recht, vom Kongress beschlossene Gesetze ganz oder teilweise faktisch zu ignorieren, ohne ihr (verfassungsmäßiges) Veto einzulegen.

Dazu benutzen die Präsidenten seit Ronald Reagan eine bis dahin für zeremonielle Zwecke benutzte Prozedur, das „Signing Statement“, eine Erklärung des Präsidenten bei der Unterschrift von Gesetzen.

Laut Artikel 1 Sektion 7 der Constitution muss der verfassungsmäßige Gesetzgeber, der Kongress, jedes seiner Gesetze zuerst dem Präsidenten vorlegen. Dieser kann es dann entweder unterschreiben und so in Kraft setzen, oder es ablehnen zu unterschreiben (sein „Veto“ einlegen“) und an den Kongress zurückverweisen.

In diesem Falle aber hat der Kongress und seine beiden Kammern, Repräsentantenhaus und Senat, die Möglichkeit, das gleiche Gesetz noch einmal mit Zweidrittelmehrheit zu beschließen und es ohne Unterschrift des Präsidenten sofort in Kraft zu setzen, also den Präsidenten zu überstimmen. Im Falle des Falles für jede Demokratie eine wichtige Option.

Die nun seit der Reagan-Präsidentschaft – mit ex-C.I.A.-Direktor George Bush Senior als Vizepräsidenten, sowie einer ganzen Reihe von aufgestiegenen Neocons und „demokratischen Revolutionären“ (Michael Ledeen) in der Präsidialverwaltung des Weißen Hauses und seinen Behörden – von allen Präsidenten angewandte Taktik mit „Signing Statements“ unliebsame Gesetze vollständig lahmzulegen und zu sabotieren, funktioniert nun wie folgt:

Der Präsident unterschreibt zwar das Gesetz, erklärt aber gleichzeitig in einem „Signing Statement“, wie, ob und welche Teile des Gesetzes er durch seine ausführenden Behörden, also die Exekutive, umzusetzen gedenke; und dies obwohl eine teilweise Inkraftsetzung von Gesetzen bereits 1998 durch den Obersten Gerichtshof für verfassungswidrig erklärt wurde.

Durch diese perfide Taktik nimmt der Präsident zudem dem Kongress die Möglichkeit das Gesetz mit Zweidrittelmehrheit zu beschließen und so den Präsidenten verfassungsgemäß zu umgehen.

Am 24. Juni 2006 schließlich stellte eine Arbeitsgruppe der American Bar Association, in der fast die Hälfte aller Rechtsanwälte in den U.S.A. Mitglied sind, in einer Erklärung fest, dass „Signing Statements“ des Präsidenten in der Verfassung nicht einmal erwähnt werden und dass

„Präsident Bushs Signing Statements in Verletzung der wichtigen Doktrin der Teilung von Macht erfolgen und diese unterminieren.“

Des Weiteren erklärte die Arbeitsgruppe der American Bar Association, dass ihre Erläuterungen

„die Bedeutung der Doktrin der Teilung von Macht unterstreichen sollen und daher einen Aufruf an den Präsidenten und all seine Nachfolger repräsentieren, die Rechtstaatlichkeit („rule of law“) und unser Verfassungssystem der Teilung von Macht und Gewaltenteilung („checks and balances“) vollständig zu respektieren.“

Natürlich folgten weder der Präsident George Bush Junior, noch der Präsident Barack Obama irgendeinem „Aufruf“. Alles ging munter weiter wie bisher, bis heute.

Nur die Zahl der „Signing Statements“ schrumpfte unter der Obama-Präsidentschaft ein wenig. Was für ein gütiger Cäsar.

28.03.2020 - 08:41 [ Wikipedia ]

Signing statement

The Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the limits of signing statements.

23.03.2020 - 09:47 [ Radio Utopie ]

DER 11. SEPTEMBER: Langer Marsch eines Molochs

(10. September 2014)

Am 21 Oktober 1998 erlässt Bill Clinton „Presidential Decision Directive“ (PDD) 67. Sie bleibt bis heute geheim. Laut öffentlich vorliegenden Informtionen gibt der Präsidentenbefehl u.a. Anweisungen zur Gewährleistung der „Kontinuität der Regierung“ („Continuity of Government“) in Ausnahmesituationen, also z.B. im Falle von Katastrophen, Krieg und / oder Attentaten.

Im März 2002 berichtet die „Washington Post“ von einer „Schattenregierung von hundert hochrangigen zivilen Managern“, die unmittelbar nach 9/11 aktiviert worden sei und unter Leitung von Vizepräsident Dick Cheney außerhalb der Hauptstadt an einem geheimen Ort tage. Aktiviert worden sei ein „Plan zur Kontinuität von Operationen“ („Continuity of Operations Plan“), zuvor „Continuity of Government“, der sich auf eine in Kraft befindliche „Direktive“ berufe, die Bush von vorhergehenden Präsidenten „geerbt“ habe.

Die Zeitung erwähnt diesbezüglich oben beschriebene Executive Order 12472 von Ronald Reagan aus 1984, sowie weitere EOs von Ronald Reagan. Sie erwähnt nicht Bill Clintons PDD 67.

Wie die „Washington Post“ selbst schreibt, hatte sich die Zeitung im Vorfeld des Berichts mit der Bush-Regierung darauf geeinigt, weder den Aufenthaltsort der „Untergrundregierung“, noch die Namen von dessen „zivilen Kadern“ zu vermelden, von der die Zeitung schreibt dass diese ausschließlich die Exekutive repräsentieren, nicht Justiz oder Kongress. Die Zeitung erwähnt die Ausführung des „Plans“ als eine Erklärung, warum Cheney zu diesem Zeitpunkt (März 2002) seit 5 Monaten fast vollständig aus Washington abgetaucht ist.

Damals öffentlich dargestellte Rechtfertigung der Vorgänge: die angebliche Gefahr, „Al Kaida“ könnte ein tragbare Atombombe in Washington zünden. Daher müsse die Regierung – unter Anleitung von Dick Cheney – dafür Sorge tragen, dass im Falle des Falles eine „Backup-Regierung“ die Arbeit weiter führen könne.

Heute sind u.a. Executive Order 12472 (3. April 1984, Ronald Reagan) und PDD 67 (21. Oktober 1998, Bill Clinton) als Grundlage für das am 11. September 2001 aktivierte Programm „Continuity of Government“ bwz „Continuity of Operations“ benannt (der Unterschied wird erst viel später definiert).

Auffällig: bei der öffentlichen Umschreibung der ablaufenden Mechanismen, z.B. in der faktisch von der Bush Regierung selbst veranlassten Öffentlichmachung der „Washington Post“ im März 2002, oder in Wikipedia, wird meist der Begriff „Programm“ vermieden.

In Pro-Regierungs-Kontinuität

Die am 11. September unter „Continuity of Government“ bwz „Continuity of Operations“ aktivierten Mechanismen bzw Programme wurde bis heute nie abgeschaltet. Im Gegenteil.

Am 9. Mai 2007 veröffentlichte das Weiße Haus, ohne jeden weiteren Mucks in der Öffentlichkeit, auf seiner Webseite den Abschnitt einer neuen Präsidenten-Direktive mit der Kennzeichnung NSPD 51.

Diese hob die geheime „Continuity of Government“ betreffende PDD 67 von Bill Clinton aus 1998 auf.

Nicht nur war dies das erste Mal in der Geschichte der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, dass ein Befehl des Präsidenten (Executive Order, Direktive, Memorandum, ect) nur teilweise bekannt gemacht wurde (zuvor war er entweder öffentlich oder geheim). NSPD 51 verkündete, dass Er, Le Mois, das Ich, der Staat, Le President, das Recht habe effektiv die Gewaltenteilung auszuknipsen und Parlament und Justiz zu „koordinieren“, wenn sich ein „katastrophaler Notfall / Notstand“ („catastrophic emergency“) ereigne.

NSPD 51 defininierte denn auch gleich den bis dahin unbekannten Terminus „catastrophic emergency“ als

„jede Art von Ereignis, ungeachtet des Ortes, welches auf außerordentlicher Ebene massenhaft Opfer, Schaden, oder die US-Bevölkerung, Infrastruktur, Umwelt, Wirtschaft oder Regierungsfunktionen ernsthaft in Mitleidenschaft ziehende Störungen verursacht.“

Diese zynischerweise als „kontinuierliche verfassungsmäßige Regierung“ („Enduring Constitutional Government“) definierte Notstandsregierung wurde als neuer Rechtsbegriff definiert. Von diesem wird gleich noch die Rede sein.

Damit nicht genug. Der öffentlich gemachte Teil von Präsidentenbefehl NSPD 51 sagte nichts darüber aus, wer den „katastrophalen Notfall“ denn nun überhaupt ausrufen und wie er einmal aufgehoben werden könne. Auch verwies er auf die berühmten „anwendbaren Gesetze“ (s.o.), ohne ein einziges zu erwähnen. Des Weiteren definierte NSPD 51 einerseits „Continuity of Government“ und „Continuity of Operations“ mit abermals neuen Rechtsbegriffen wie „National Essential Functions“ und „Primary Mission-Essential Functions“.

Der vollständige Inhalt von Präsidentenbefehl NSPD 51 ist bis heute geheim.

07.01.2020 - 19:06 [ Ilhan Omar, Abgeordnete im US Repräsentantenhaus / Twitter ]

It’s no laughing matter ?

(05.01.2020)

30.05.2019 - 10:09 [ nspm.rs ]

The Balkans XX years after NATO aggression: the case of the Republic of Srpska – past, present and future

(16.04.2019)

Serbs have never in their history attacked or otherwise imperiled any NATO member country – nor did the Republic of Srpska present any threat to world peace and safety as it has been presented by Western media and self-proclaimed experts at the time i.e. in decades of satanization of Serbs as a people.The real explanation is that after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Warsaw pact NATO set its new goal i.e., to spread to the East. This is how NATO transformed itself into a political expansionist organization.