ACLU– We called for your attention and you responded. Members of Congress are starting to pay attention, and many media outlets quickly followed your lead. But that wasn’t enough. We needed more attention brought to an upcoming House vote on a sleeper provision tucked deep inside the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would be a new law for this president and all his successors to wage an endless worldwide war without any further consent of Congress.

The very problematic provision in the NDAA will be considered on House floor as early as Tuesday or Wednesday of next week and it is starting to receive the attention it deserves. Academics as well as lawmakers, who despite coming from different places on the political spectrum find themselves in agreement in opposing worldwide war.

Today, The Detroit News ran an op-ed from freshman Republican Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who was endorsed by the Tea Party, that addresses and opposes the House provision for worldwide authorization of use of military force:

Our Armed Forces are stretched thin across three theaters and constrained by a record deficit in Washington. And while we enter our 10th year of sacrificing blood and treasure to build democracies, a home-grown democratic revolution in the Arab world has overturned several dictatorships, largely without America’s help.

There has been no better time to regain our Constitutional balance and check the president’s war powers. Congress is a co-equal branch — and it should start acting like it.

In addition, this week Northwestern University law professor Joseph Margulies wrote in the The New Republic:

[T]he proposed AUMF authorizes a substantially greater role for the U.S. military than it had even at the height of the cold war: the use of force against an enemy the Obama administration considers it “neither possible nor advisable” to describe, anywhere in the world, without regard to whether the proposed targets had anything to do with September 11 or whether they threaten “future acts” against the United States. There is no end in sight. Whatever else may be true, this is not what the founders intended, and not what the nation has practiced.

[N]early ten years after September 11, days after the death of Osama bin Laden, and in the absence of any imminent threat, Congress is poised to give President Obama and his successors substantially more authority to use force than it granted to President Bush only 72 hours after the attacks. It is an odd and distinctly un-American state of affairs when the clamor for war outpaces the war itself

We often hear that the attacks of September 11 “changed everything.” It would be sad indeed if, among the things that collapsed and changed that day, was the salutary idea that we might be “a humble nation,” determined to “project the power for good that America can represent,” as Bush and Gore put it back in the 2000 debate. For these are not merely platitudes to be trotted out days before an election. They are the ideals that sustain us through adversity.

Your efforts to engage members of the media, academics and, most importantly our congressional lawmakers, are beginning to gain momentum—and we are all grateful for the leadership of House members of both parties in stepping up their opposition to this dangerous proposal. But we can’t stop now. We must continue to take action to oppose endless worldwide war.

Follow ACLU on Twitter @ACLU

© 2011 ACLU

Photo by Flickr user kwerfeldein

RT– Several countries, including France and Italy, have already recognized the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council as the legitimate power in Libya, so it is just a matter of time before Washington follows.

So far the US has not granted full diplomatic recognition to the newly-formed council of the Libyan opposition, but described it as “legitimate and credible” – and it is no wonder, because the leader of Libya’s Transitional National Council is Washington’s perfect man in the country.

Mahmoud Jibril lived and studied in the US for years, and on his latest visit to Washington he did not fail to show how devoted he is to American values.

“We really believe and we really aspire that our message to the American people, we’re here to join hands to build a democratic dream on the Libyan soil,” Mahmoud Jibril proclaimed.

And Washington “joined hands” with those seeking to replace Gaddafi and assume power in Libya. To help prop them up, the US pledged to funnel billions of dollars of Gaddafi’s frozen assets to the Transitional National Council.

“I am currently drafting legislation at the request of the State Department and the Administration that we authorize the transfer of valuable cash assets to the [Libya’s Transitional National] Council,” announced US Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs’ Chairman John Kerry.

But the support from Washington comes not only in the form of money and Tomahawk missiles, but also in military command. One of the commanders of the Libyan rebel army is General Khalifa Hifter. A long-ago Gadaffi-defector, he lived in a Washington suburb for the last 20 years before he took off to Libya in March this year to command the rebel forces. Khalifa Hifter lived just minutes away from CIA headquarters, although any intelligence connections have never been officially confirmed.

Read full article about Washington Sends Forth Stooges to Replace Gaddafi

© 2011 RT

Photo by Flickr user giorgiocardellini

JERUSALEM POST– There is a increasing chance for war on multiple fronts in 2011, according to the IDF’s new multi-year plan, called Halamish, which is in the final stages of approval.

The plan outlines Israel’s current strategic standing in the Middle East amid the ongoing upheaval in the region and particularly the regime change in Egypt and the impact it will have on the IDF and its buildup.

The plan, which will cover at least five years, is not expected to include major changes due to the Egyptian developments.

Under the plan, Israel will increase the number of Arrow interceptors it currently has in its arsenal and begin to receive the first battery of David’s Sling – made to intercept medium-range missiles – by 2013.

The IDF is also working with Rafael about the possibility of moving up the planned delivery of a third battery of Iron Dome to the end of 2011. Another three will be delivered by the end of 2012.

The threats that Israel will face over the coming years are topped by Iran and followed by Hezbollah and Syria and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Read more about IDF: War Possible on Multiple Fronts

© 2011 Jerusalem Post

Photo by Flickr user farshadebrahimi

MEDIA ROOTS-  When it comes to foreign policy and trade, it’s common to see profits and revenue at the forefront of the discussion. For both Canada and the United States, the choice to put profit and revenue first is leaving people in developing countries with an increased chance of health risks.

The use of asbestos was common for many decades. It was regarded positively as a versatile product used for insulation and clothing material. Now, asbestos is recognized as the cause of major health problems like asbestosis and mesothelioma. The material was banned by the European Union, Japan, and Australia for any future construction projects after it was found to be connected to health risks. Now it can only be found in older buildings and structures.

Although asbestos isn’t used as a building material in most places anymore, both the United States and Canada continue to export it to developing countries such as India, which uses the material for construction purposes due to its low price. Canada is the fourth largest asbestos exporter behind, Russia, China, and Kazakhstan. Even though the US doesn’t mine and export this material directly the country does export and re-export asbestos fibers and asbestos based products. Throughout the past decade, the United States has sent hundreds of large vessels to India and other Asian countries to be scrapped. Most of these older vessels contain asbestos creating a high risk of exposure throughout Asian countries.

Certainly neither country should be sending asbestos out anywhere; they should instead be destroying these fibers, especially considering that both countries do not support use of asbestos within their own boarders. Many citizens of the US and Canada, as well as their medical communities, disagree with the exportation of this toxic material, yet businesses in both countries continue this unfortunate practice.

What makes this an extremely dangerous practice is that most of the countries that import asbestos are often poor, developing nations scattered throughout Asia and Africa. Given the correlation between asbestos and mesothelioma, the use of asbestos puts the people in these countries in risk of major health problems while they simultaneously lack the medical resources needed to treat such diseases. Without the type of medical care necessary for patients of these asbestos related diseases, the consequences in these countries could include people’s lives. The severe and low mesothelioma life expectancy proves further the danger facing these developing countries and their people.

It’s hypocritical that business leaders in the US and Canada export asbestos products to developing countries, while refusing their use for any domestic construction purposes due to health concerns. Both countries expend large amounts of resources every year through environmental initiatives aimed at removing asbestos from populated areas, yet promulgate its use elsewhere. It’s surely ridiculous that the product is seen as too dangerous to be used within the borders of either country, yet the threats it poses to developing countries are disregarded.

Canada, specifically, has come under extreme criticism for their practices involving asbestos. Awareness and disagreement are coming to the forefront through a number of media outlets. Hopefully this increased criticism will lead to changes regarding the hypocritical policy of exporting asbestos.

Written by Eric Stevenson

Photo by flickr user Marcin Wichary

WASHINGTON POST– Beneath its commitment to soft-spoken diplomacy and beyond the combat zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.

Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.

Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.

The surge in Special Operations deployments, along with intensified CIA drone attacks in western Pakistan, is the other side of the national security doctrine of global engagement and domestic values President Obama released last week.

One advantage of using “secret” forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.

Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed “things that the previous administration did not.”

Continue reading about the U.S. ‘secret war’ expanding globally as Special Operations forces take a larger role.

Photo by Flickr user DVIDSHUB

© COPYRIGHT WASHINGTON POST, 2011