SALON– The growing controversy over President Obama’s illegal waging of war in Libya got much bigger last night with Charlie Savage’s New York Times scoop.  He reveals that top administration lawyers —  Attorney General Eric Holder, OLC Chief Caroline Krass, and DoD General Counsel Jeh Johnson — all told Obama that his latest, widely panned excuse for waging war without Congressional approval (that it does not rise to the level of “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution (WPR)) was invalid and that such authorization was legally required after 60 days: itself a generous intepretation of the President’s war powers.  But Obama rejected those views and (with the support of administration lawyers in lesser positions:  his White House counsel and long-time political operative Robert Bauer and State Department “legal adviser” Harold Koh) publicly claimed that the WPR does not apply to Libya.

As Savage notes, it is, in particular, “extraordinarily rare” for a President “to override the legal conclusions of the Office of Legal Counsel and to act in a manner that is contrary to its advice.”  Just imagine if George Bush had waged a war that his own Attorney General, OLC Chief, and DoD General Counsel all insisted was illegal (and did so by pointing to the fact that his White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and a legal adviser at State agreed with him).  One need not imagine this, though, because there is very telling actual parallel to this lawless episode:

In 2007, former Bush Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee about an amazing event.  Bush’s then-Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, had blocked Comey from testifying for two years — once Democrats took over Congress, that obstruction was no longer possible — and it quickly became apparent why Gonzales was so desperate to suppress these events.

Comey explained that, in 2004, shortly after he became Deputy AG, he reviewed the NSA eavesdropping program Bush had ordered back in 2001 and concluded it was illegal.  Other top administration lawyers — including Attorney General John Ashcroft and OLC Chief Jack Goldsmith — agreed with Comey, and told the White House they would no longer certify the program’s legality.  It was then that Bush dispatched Gonzales and Andy Card to Ashcroft’s hospital room to try to extract an approval from the very sick Attorney General, but, from his sickbed, Ashcroft refused to overrule Comey.

Read full article about Obama Rejects Top Lawyers’ Legal Views on Libya.

Written by Glenn Greenwald

MEDIA ROOTS– For decades, propaganda has been increasingly used by government’s worldwide as a tool for manipulating the masses. Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s Nazism made extensive use of propaganda to retain control over their societies. However, it’s easy to overlook how major democracies routinely and habitually use propaganda for the same purposes as the aforementioned systems of governance.

Here in the United States, while the “War On Terror” and its accompanying “War On Truth” continues unabated, it is worth examining the US government’s extensive and shameless use of propaganda to rationalize its criminal acts and to control its citizenry.

Presently, the US government kidnaps people off streets worldwide and sends them to third world dictatorships to be tortured. This practice of kidnapping and exporting torture is ambiguously called “extraordinary rendition,” and all references to torture are downplayed as mere “harsh interrogations” or alternatively, “enhanced interrogations,” as if the person on the receiving end of torture were obtaining some sort of premium service.  

The US press has helped the indoctrination process by regurgitating these propaganda terms without question. The NY Times referred to waterboarding as “enhanced interrogation” as soon as the US government started torturing, while previously having called it “torture” when done by other regimes. Moreover, when President Obama entered office, his administration re-branded the “War on Terror” to a much more vague and open ended term: “overseas contingency operations.” The obsequious press then diligently followed suit, as they always do.

What sort of ludicrous terminology can we look forward to next in the US propaganda effort?

Maybe I can speed things along by suggesting some equally as absurd euphemisms. First, it’s time for some RE-re-branding. “Harsh interrogation technique,” which has become a bit stale, should now be referred to as “coercive physical contact”.  Also, the almost poetic term of “extraordinary rendition,” should be changed to a more explanatory term: “exceptional global removal.”

Even the name for the US government’s Department of Defense is Orwellian. The Department of Defense should really be called The Department of War and Imperialism, but the latter sounds so much more gentle.  After all, who would object to our brave soldiers defending our country against enemies of foreign lands?

Our leaders in Washington don’t lie to us about these wars, they merely present us with an “alternate version of historical events.”  President Obama has taken his assault on reality even further with his latest explanation of our Libyan engagement as–get this–“kinetic military actions.” Rather than describe the reality of the US military raining bombs on Libyan military positions, we are apparently using a “missile-based approach” to Libya instead.

One musn’t forget murder, which is something the US government does well and plenty of. Government propagandists could make the act so much more palatable by referring to murder as a “non-temporary incapacitation.” Just imagine:

“Your Honor, I did not MURDER those innocent men, women and children; in fact, I’m outraged by the accusation. I merely incapacitated them in a non-temporary manner!”

Perhaps the US government’s dictator allies around the world are not dictators after all.  Alternatively, they are “political authority figures who sometimes engage in exceptional global removal, coercive physical contact and non-temporary incapacitation.” It just rolls off the tongue so nicely, doesn’t it?

For their coup de grace, Washington’s propaganda machine could also change, er rather “re-describe,” the word propaganda itself to “augmented-reality statements'” made by politicians for “non-truthful purposes.”

You see, I’ve just accomplished something important here.  I’ve made heinous acts and other political crimes sound pleasant, uplifting almost– and dare I say it, downright presidential.

Written by Tom J. Wright

Photo by Flickr user Shannonyeh.photography

BLOOMBERG– The stars are aligned for Barack Obama’s re-election in November 2012. He won’t join Jimmy Carter to be the second Democrat in 120 years to lose a second term.

Five things are playing in Obama’s favor.

First, the Republicans — driven by their most conservative members in Congress — will face a primary with many candidates who will advance harsh ideological positions. Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Donald Trump and others might as well be on the Democratic National Committee payroll. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s reverse Robin Hood plan to cut more than $6 trillion in spending over a decade will provide the outrage, stoked by a sitting president possessed of verbal discipline.

The field of Republican weaklings is already getting smaller. This week, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour dropped out of the race for the presidency.

Second, the Republican governors’ attacks on unions are turning off the swing voters and Reagan Democrats in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Imagine the voter reaction if millions of workers lose their right to collective bargaining, and the impact that cuts in benefits and wages will have on their lives.

Democratic governors, such as Jerry Brown of California, Pat Quinn of Illinois and Andrew Cuomo of New York, are cutting — but not taking away — workers’ bargaining rights. This is a politically useful contrast for Obama. Reagan Democrats, who have won many elections for the Republicans, are a big plus for Obama in the contested states.

No Challenge

Third, no candidates are emerging to challenge Obama in the primaries. A discussion of Obama’s forgotten campaign promises and record would have public support among Democrats. Even so, the liberal base has nowhere to go to send a message about war, free-trade agreements, raising the minimum wage or union membership.

Nor does a third party or independent candidacy pose a threat, given the winner-take-all, two-party system.

Fourth, Obama has neutered much of the big corporate lobby’s zeal to defeat him. He decided from the beginning not to prosecute executives from Wall Street banking, brokerage and rating firms. Multinational companies are pleased with Obama’s position on trade, on not disturbing the many corporate subsidies, handouts and giveaways, such as the corn-ethanol subsidy.

Read the full article about Why Obama Will Get Second Term in White House: Ralph Nader.

© 2011 Bloomberg

Photo by Flickr user JHF

SALON.COM– As if we needed any more evidence that the United States is fast becoming a Corporate Police State (i.e., systematically deploying police power to protect narrow corporate interests), make sure to check out this jaw-dropping story that broke in Canada late Friday. It details how the British Columbia Supreme Court uncovered what it says is a massive collusion between computer giant Cisco and U.S. law enforcement — a collusion that seems designed to use criminal prosecution to stop a whistle-blower’s antitrust case against a powerful politically connected corporation.

The machinations in this case are complicated, but the basics go like this: Ex-Cisco exec Peter Alfred-Adekeye filed a whistle-blower suit against his former employer Cisco in civil court — a suit that could compel the company to pay millions in damages for allegedly “forcing customers to buy maintenance contracts,” according to the Vancouver Sun.

Cisco subsequently responded with two moves designed to intimidate Adekeye: First, the company filed a counter civil suit against him for allegedly “using a former colleague’s computer code to illicitly access Cisco services worth ‘more than $14,000.'” Then, the corporation had its allies in U.S. law enforcement cite the civil counter-suit to issue a whopping 97 criminal charges against Adekeye. In other words, instead of following Adekeye’s civil case with criminal antitrust charges against Cisco, U.S. authorities were convinced by the corporation to add criminal charges to Cisco’s counter civil suit against Adekeye (this move to add state-sanctioned criminal prosecution to a corporation’s civil action, of course, is a textbook definition of a Corporate Police State).

Read full article about Is American Law Enforcement Colluding with Cisco?

© 2011 Salon.com

Photo by flickr user monkeymanforever

Podcast Show #45 – The Boiling Frogs Presents Paul Craig Roberts

“Paul Craig Roberts joins us to discuss the September 11 terrorist attacks as the defining event of our time, which has launched our nation on interminable wars of aggression, a domestic police state where the American President is a Caesar and completely above the law. He describes the US corporate media’s role today, which is to serve the government and the interest groups that empower the government, their astonishing blackout on legitimate investigations regarding 9/11 such as the investigation results supported by more than 1500 architects, and how currently the majority of Americans are ruled by propaganda and with little regard for truth and little access to it. Mr. Roberts talks about the conflicting, ever-changing and in many ways dubious accounts of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, the Military Industrial Complex’ need for the next ‘black hat,’ the question of China, and more!

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/podpress_trac/web/3802/0/BF.0045.Roberts…

Paul Craig Roberts is a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He has been reporting on executive branch and cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. He has written or co-written eight books, contributed chapters to numerous books, and has published many articles in journals of scholarship. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has been released by Random House. Mr. Roberts has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy, and has been a critic of both Democratic and Republican administrations. His writings frequently appear on OpEdNews, Prisonplanet.com, Antiwar.com, Lew Rockwell’s web site, CounterPunch, and the American Free Press.”

Photo of Abby Martin in SD 9/11 Truth march, Balboa Park