Revolutionary News

Obama, Bush, Blair must be put on trial at ICC: Chomsky

Renowned American academic, Noam Chomsky, says US President Barack Obama, his predecessor George W. Bush, along with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should face trial for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the ensuing turmoil in the Arab state.

“Bush and Blair ought to be up there [at the International Criminal Court]. There is no recent crime worse than the invasion of Iraq. Obama’s got to be there for the terror war,” Chomsky told Russia Today on Thursday.

In 2003, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in a blatant violation of international law and under the pretext of finding weapons of mass destruction. But no such weapons were ever found in Iraq.

More than one million Iraqis were killed as the result of the US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of the country, according to the California-based investigative organization, Project Censored.

Chomsky, a prominent critic of the US foreign policy, said the invasion of Iraq is a “supreme international crime,” adding that the US and its allies were responsible for bomb attacks across the Arab country.

“The US and British invasion of Iraq was a textbook example of aggression, no questions about it. Which means that we were responsible for all the evil that follows like the bombings. Serious conflict arose, [and] it spread all over the region. In fact the region is being torn to shreds by this conflict. That is part of the evil that follows,” Chomsky stated.

He went on to slam Washington for its growing use of killer drones in a number of countries including Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen and Somalia, describing it as a “massive terror campaign.”

“A drone strike was a terror weapon; we do not talk about it that way. It is; just imagine you are walking down the street and you do not know whether in five minutes there is going to be an explosion across the street from some place up in the sky that you cannot see,” said Chomsky.

“Somebody will be killed, and whoever is around will be killed, maybe you will be injured if you are there. That is a terror weapon. It terrorizes villages, regions, huge areas. In fact it’s the most massive terror campaign going on by a long shot,” he added.

Washington uses killer drones in several countries, claiming that they target “terrorists.” According to witnesses, however, the attacks have mostly led to massive civilian casualties.

MAM/KA/SS

Americans troubled more by governmental abuse than terrorism

New polling numbers suggest that United States citizens are on average more afraid of their own government then the threat of another terrorist attack.
Even after a pair of bombings in Boston two weeks ago injured hundreds, more Americans say they are unwilling to sacrifice constitutional liberties for security than those who are.
A handful of polls conducted in the days after the Boston Marathon bombings show that US citizens are responding much differently than in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that killed roughly 3,000 people. Not only are Americans more opposed now to giving up personal freedoms for the sake of security than they were after 9/11, but other statistics show that distrust against the federal government continues to climb.
Just one day after the April 15 Boston Marathon bombing, pollsters with Fox News asked a sample of Americans, “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?” Forty-three percent of the respondents said they would, while 45 percent said no. Comparatively, 71 percent of Americans asked a similar question in October 2001 said they’d be willing to give up personal freedoms, while only 20 percent opposed at the time.
In the dozen years since 9/11, frequent polling conducted by Fox has suggests that the majority of Americans have all the while said they’d give up their freedoms for the sake of security. Only with the latest inquiry though are those answers reversed: the last time a majority of Americans opposed giving up privacy for security was May 2001.
“Whether or not the government overreacted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 (and, given the information available at the time, reasonable people can disagree), Americans then broadly supported a vigorous domestic counterterrorism policy,” Alan Rozenshtein writes for Lawfare Blog. “This time around, a rights-restrictive approach might not garner the same public support — if indeed that’s the road the government intends to go down.”
Indeed, a number of cities across the country have already asked for more surveillance cameras and other tactics that could be used to allegedly prevent acts of terror in the wake of the Boston bombing, but lawmakers in Washington have yet to impose the sort of restrictions on constitutional liberties that came in the aftermath of 9/11 — named the PATROIT Act and the establishment of the US Department of Homeland Security and other agencies, including the Transportation Security Administration.
A separate poll conducted by the Washington Post just three days after the Boston Marathon bombing reveals that nearly half of those surveyed say that the government will go too far in trying to prevent future acts of terrorism. The Post asked a random national sample of 588 adults, “Which worries you more: that the government (will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights), or that it (will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism)?” Days after the Boston bombing, 41 percent of respondents said the government will not go far enough, compared to 48 percent saying they’ll go too far. When similar questions were asked in 2006 and 2010, 44 percent and 27 percent said the government will go too far, respectively, signaling that for the first time in years Americans are overly concerned about a misuse of power on the part of Washington.
That isn’t to say that the Boston attack is necessarily inspiring Americans to question authority, though. Two months before Tsarnaev brothers allegedly detonated a pair of explosives near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, 53 percent of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center said the federal government is threatening their personal rights and freedoms. In November 2011, that statistic was only 30 percent.

Student jailed for three weeks awaiting trial over Facebook posts

A Boston-area teenager remains in custody on $1 million bond nearly one month after being arrested over what he said on the Internet.
Eighteen-year-old Cameron B. D’Ambrosio of Methuen, Massachusetts was arrested on May 1 after police were alerted to “disturbing verbiage” on his personal Facebook page discovered by a fellow student at Methuen High School. D’Ambrosio allegedly posted original rap lyrics that prompted authorities to charge him with terrorism, and now he faces a potential 20 years in prison.
“He posted a threat in the form of rap where he mentioned the White House, the Boston Marathon bombing and said, ‘everybody you will see what I am going to do, kill people,” Methuen Police Chief Joe Solomon told the Valley Patriot earlier this month.
Three weeks after being surprised by police at his Methuen home, D’Ambrosio remains locked up.
“A kid is in prison. Away from his family. All for something he posted on Facebook” reads a support page for the high school student established this week by the Center for Rights and Fight for the Future. In 48 hours, the website received more than 500,000 views, and on Thursday the administrators said 1.2 million people had visited the page by the time D’Ambrosio went before a judge that morning for a scheduled bail hearing. The justice differed deciding at this time if D’Ambrosio should be released from custody.
“Cam's attorney made arguments that he should be released to his family and that all evidence (including testimony from the police) suggested that he was not a threat to anyone. He also noted that Cam was two weeks away from graduation, and Methuen High School had decided to grant him a diploma,” Fight for the Future wrote early Thursday. “We expect a decision within a few days and sincerely hope that Cam will be home safe with is family soon.”
Meanwhile, though, D’Ambrosio remains locked up if and until a judge decides he isn’t a hazard to the community.
At the time of his arrest, school officials and law enforcement alike applauded the speedy response and celebrate D’Ambrosio’s arrest as a victory against terrorism only a few days — and a few miles — from where two brothers allegedly detonated explosives at the Boston Marathon, killing three in the biggest act of terror in years on American soil.  But nearly one month after being detained, authorities have not announced any proof that D’Ambrosio intended to act out the lyrics he left on his Facebook page.
“A search of Cam's house found no explosives, weapons, or ANY evidence that he was planning anything other than becoming the next Eminem,” his supporters write.
Among the Facebook content that alerted authorities was a song that was considered a warning of things to come.
“So when u see me (expletive) go insane and make the news, the paper, and the (expletive) federal house of horror known as the white house, Don’t (expletive) cry or be worried because all YOU people (expletive) caused this (expletive),” reads a redacted version of one post made available to the Boston Herald.
Fox News quoted another song, in which the amateur rapper wrote "(expletive) the Boston bombing, wait til you see what I do. I'm going to be famous."
On his support page, it’s noted that a key word was dropped from the line when it was reported by Fox. In actuality, D’Ambrosio wrote, “I’ma be famous rapping.”
“Suddenly something that sounds like a threat of violence is clearly just bragging about how good Cammy Dee is going to be in the rap game. Last we checked, teenage dreams of grandeur were not a crime,” the website claims.

Revolutionary Discipline: Got the Hollow Points for the Snitches!

Excerpted from: Fire to the Prisons #4.  Intended for an Anarchist audience, its lessons and message are obviously relevant for all anti-capitalist Revolutionaries worldwide.
Snitch culture: historical examples and current proposals
“Homeboy was talking to the po-po, we had to let everybody that was a no-no, he thought he was on the low low, and was surprised when I hit him with the fou(4)-fou(4)” -Uncle Murda, “Bullet, Bullet”
With the growing wave of repression by the state towards direct action oriented struggles, radicals have been bombarded with the shameful concern of snitches and informants. In a struggle which is purely of choice and individual realization, as opposed to a rich cultural or family heritage, a valor dedication to one’s community has been shamefully neglected by some. The following article provides a brief look into how radical communities of the past have approached traitors to the community, while at the same time proposing how more unique struggles can learn from it. It is an excerpt from the zine; “Got the Hollow Points for the Snitches”.
To order a copy of this pamphlet, you can contact the email below: thegreenscare@gmail.com
As Anarchists, we fight in the face of what appears to be insurmountable odds; our project of liberation is the natural enemy of the culture of authority and capitalism we now live under. Considering that our revolt against the institutions of domination are not isolated pockets of resistance, and that we do not live separately from the rest of society, our communities are inevitably affected –and perhaps infected– by the culture we are aiming to destroy.
Snitch Culture is not exclusive to Communities in Resistance, but is one thread of control in the larger social fabric of America. Those in power want people to snitch on each other– especially those from communities that are targeted in particular by the government and are therefore more vulnerable to Snitch Culture– because snitching works to create a climate of fear and mistrust that can fragment the populations that threaten the structures of power.
For example, in the war against the poor and people of color –those that fill the prisons of America– the State promotes snitching as a means to perpetuate crime by creating a ‘revolving door’ in which low-level drug dealers, addicts, and other petty offenders are arrested and released with orders to provide more information in order to create more arrests in order to fill more prisons. The effects of this cycle of snitch-and-prison are that entire communities are torn apart, families broken up, and the United States has the largest prison population in the world.
In Anarchist circles everyone knows that Snitch Culture breaks solidarity among activists and paralyzes our ability to wage effective resistance. Though there is much complaining and handwringing about the divisive role snitches play in our communities, we have engaged in very little constructive action about this serious and persistent problem. This zine is an attempt to educate and foster dialogue in our communities in order to develop effective strategies for dealing with snitches and to forge a resistance that can withstand the attacks of power.
To start, we must realize that Snitch Culture is not a new phenomenon or only particular to Anarchists, and that many Communities of Resistance in North America and Europe have come up with a number of different ways -some more effective than others–to deal with Snitch Culture while maintaining their core values.
There are three components –perhaps of unequal importance– that resistance groups and others have traditionally used to determine their response to snitches: practicality, the agreeability to the core values of the group, and tactical benefit.
The ultra-militant Red Army Faction (RAF) in West Germany tried to use something called “Revolutionary Discipline” to respond to a growing number of snitches. This discipline drew heavily on the promise of immediate personal reprisals for snitching. Snitches both in jail and out were subject to vicious beatings and in one case, a snitch was blinded. This type of response was practical for the RAF because they had a number of supporters both inside and outside of jail. Most snitches could be easily located and jumped by supporters or actual RAF members. It was agreeable to the RAF because it fit in with their concepts of both Revolutionary Discipline and a glorification of violence. However, it did not prove to be an effective tactic for reducing the impact of snitches. By the end of the RAF’s existence, snitches were an important part of the State’s efforts to not only disrupt, but to arrest numerous members of the RAF– including its leadership.
The tactics they employed did not seem to reduce Snitch Culture within their own ranks or of other contemporary militant radical organizations in West Germany. The Weather Underground (WU) also had an extreme but somewhat different strategy when confronting the problem of snitches. The WU used terror as a way to stop the effectiveness of snitches. They required all members to give the names and addresses of close friends and family and were explicitly warned –sometimes while on psychedelic drugs– that if they snitched, they and their family would be subject to violent reprisals. In one rambling message from the WU –written after an AIM snitch took the stand against former comrades– published in radical periodicals at the time and believed to have been written by Bernadine Dorn, stated that the WU was not afraid to support the “[Charlie] Manson approach” when it came to “bringing hell on Earth for pig-snitches.” It went into detail about how violently the WU would deal with snitches and their friends and family. This approach ended up being completely impractical for the WU because they had neither the members nor the support to pull off such grandiose plans. By the nature of being underground, they were marginalized and had little ability to strike out at snitches in any way. In fact, there is no evidence that any snitch on the WU was ever even bothered by the group. Whether this approach of terror was agreeable to the core values of the WU is hard to say since the WU position on violence and acceptable violence seemed to change constantly. It was however, consistent with the ultra-violent streak in the core leadership of the group. As a tactic is was counter-productive– it caused considerable debate in radical circles and most of it was negative. The cops also had little trouble turning folks associated with the WU, and a number of the most rhetorically violent members of the leadership either turned themselves in, or cut deals.
No resistance group in recent times can compare to the Black Panther Party (BPP) –and its factions– in terms of being completely infiltrated by snitches as well as law enforcement! The BPP, in the popular mind, is associated with violence and ultra-militancy. The image of a tough leather-clad Black Panther carrying a shotgun is an ever present part of the iconography of the radical left. One would think that the BPP’s approach to snitches would be similar to the RAF and the WU; however, they took a completely different approach and relied on community shame as a mechanism for dealing with snitches.
This was a somewhat practical approach because they had a number of widely circulating publications and outlets to get information about snitches out. They also were followed closely by the radical left and had access to a staggering number of mediums to report to the broader cultures of resistance. It was certainly agreeable to the ideals of the BPP, which claimed to be the voice of specific communities and saw itself as a community-based organization. Tactically, the record speaks for itself. There were a large number of snitches, many who were not named until well after the fall of the BPP, and the government –which was particularly brutal and repressive in dealing with the BPP– never had trouble turning members affiliated with the BPP against the organization. In Chicago, for example, the number of snitches was nearly epidemic.
While the above examples are not particularly positive, they illustrate some of the difficulties we face in dealing with snitches today in our own communities –and thus the need for dialogue. However, groups like the Irish Republican Army (IRA), the Basque Separatists (ETA), and namely the WWII French Resistance Fighters (The Maquis), are positive examples of Communities in Resistance that dealt successfully with Snitch Culture. The Maquis, according to Gestapo/Vichy records, show that less than 5% of all detainees were “cooperative”. William Volman, in his book, Rising Up and Rising Down, says that the Spanish –and French– governments have “never been successful in creating a culture of informants”. The key is to learn from the mistakes of the past and forge our own response to snitches that is practical, agreeable to our core values, and tactically beneficial.
To understand why these groups –IRA, ETA and the Maquis– were successful, we have to look not only at their formal and informal policies regarding snitches, but at the movements as a whole. There is precious little written in English about ETA, but from the few sources available, Clean Hands, Dirty Wars, it seems that ETA has been able to avoid widespread Snitch Culture by the very nature of its resistance. It is heavily family- and community-based; nearly everyone knows everyone else and every Basque community has been affected by the draconian repression of the Madrid- State. Since most Basque are deeply attached to their homeland, even the non-nationalists, the idea of snitching on neighbors and comrades is wrought with practical difficulties. Raising the stakes for squealing, neighbors, co-workers and friends would react negatively to the appearance of a snitch, and so anyone caught snitching would not only have to create a new social circle, but relocate.
The IRA put a tremendous amount of energy into prisoner support. In fact it was estimated by Gerald O’Mann that nearly a 1/3 of all money raised by the IRA was spent directly on prisoner support. The Irish nationalist concept of prison support is more extensive than ours and includes family support, the glorification of prisoners, treating ex-prisoners like returning veterans, as well as in-jail support. An IRA prisoner was even elected to parliament while still in jail! This support seriously diluted the benefits of snitching and the consequences (often violent reprisals) greatly outweighed the benefits. The IRA, more than any other group, was successful in reducing the punitive nature of incarceration.
The Maquis used a combination of violent attacks on snitches as well as “reframing” propaganda. There is much written about the beatings and shootings carried out by Maquis, but the historic record actually shows that the Maquis ability to carry out such attacks was extremely limited. They made use of very public reprisals, in no doubt due to the monopoly on news by the occupiers, which, in turn, increased their effectiveness. However, the use of violence can only be seen as a partial explanation for the success of the Maquis in resisting Snitch Culture. The Maquis used an effective propaganda that was based on the idea that they soon would be victorious, which made less attractive the cooperation with illegitimate authorities that would soon be removed. What is surprising when one reads the memoirs of resistance fighters and the historical accounts of everyday French living under occupation is their firm and unshakeable belief that they would be liberated. In fact, most French not only believed they would be liberated, but liberated by the combined French Resistance forces. This belief gave legitimacy to the Maquis and made crossing them a more consequential prospect, since they believed they would come to power– which in fact many did.
In our own present Communities of Resistance there seems to be no clear theory or discipline regarding the issue of snitches, however, as Anarchists, our inherent critique of authority and power, knowledge of security culture, and decentralized style of organizing are certainly beneficial in fighting Snitch Culture. That said, the few approaches we have used in dealing directly with snitches have not been very successful. We seem to mainly operate under some loose code somewhat akin to the “Revolutionary Discipline” of the RAF. The idea that ‘Snitches get Stitches’ is prevalent and agreeable to our politics, however it is impractical in that we lack the sheer numbers — both inside and outside of the jails– to make this a reality. ‘Snitches get Stitches’ functions more like the WU idea of terror and with the exact same results in preventing Snitch Culture: absolutely none. Knowing this, communities have also tried the BPP model of shame, but with the recent evidence of government infiltration of radical groups and organizations, former comrades turning into collaborators with wiretaps, and friends arrested or under Grand Jury subpoenas naming names and cooperating with authorities, there is ample evidence that this too is ineffective and unlikely to stem the continuing tide of snitches.
It is easy to look at all of this and grow desperate. Snitch Culture is not a problem that can be easily solved and the very issues at the core of it run right through the heart of everything we are attempting. And perhaps that is the question and answer to this issue: what are we attempting? Why are some groups, like ETA, the IRA, or The Maquis able to successfully deny attempts by those in power to fracture and break their cultures of resistance? Why do Anarchists, with the goals of destroying power and creating a new world of freedom and mutual aid, turn into ‘cooperating witnesses’ and sacrifice not just their own dreams but those of the communities they belong to?
These are the questions we must ask ourselves if we want to build Communities of Resistance that will hopefully, one day, win. We must think of ways to strengthen our communities of autonomous individuals and build a resistance that is effective and sustainable in the long-term, instead of the current haphazard and reactive scrambling to each and every blow of government repression.
What we can learn from the Communities of Resistance that were successful in defeating Snitch Culture is that they believed wholeheartedly in their struggle. Those that were actively fighting, as well as those who supported them, did not see any choice but to liberate themselves from illegitimate authority and therefore saw themselves individually as part of something larger. This should not be read as a call for individuals to sacrifice themselves on the altar of the collective, but to illustrate that people who believe in what they are fighting for, and identify themselves personally with the success or failure of that fight, are less likely to betray that struggle because that struggle IS them.
However, it must be said that it is probably easier for people to identify intimately with national liberation struggles that have –in a sense– simpler goals, than with something as complex and far-reaching as Anarchy. The Maquis wanted to overthrow the Nazi-collaborator Vichy government and to oust the German occupiers from France. The IRA wants to kick the English out of Ulster. ETA wants autonomy from Spain and France and to preserve the Basque language and culture. These groups are fighting against one particular source of power, whereas Anarchists are struggling to destroy all power.
Considering the fact that Anarchy is more than just the liberation from one particular illegitimate authority and there are as many battlefields as there are stars in the sky, it can become easy to feel disillusioned or ineffective. After all, authority and capitalism still exist and we are drowned in the propaganda that we have reached the End of History; that the Way Things Are will continue unabated, forever. Snitches in Communities of Resistance are often people whose identity with the struggle for total liberation has become fractured, or those who, in the face of the repressive power of the state, betray their communities because they feel there is little chance those communities can win.
If we are to defeat Snitch Culture in our Communities of Resistance, we must refute the propaganda of those in power. It means tearing up the history books because the end is not predetermined by anyone but us. The ways and means of building a resistance that can refute their history and can engage in a sustainable and long-term struggle for freedom, are the same ones needed to give Snitch Culture the final blow. Clearly, the solution is not as simple as the suggestion ‘Snitches get Stitches,’ but is complex and takes us in many directions.
As detailed earlier, there have been plenty of failed experiments in dealing with the issue of snitches and the current epidemic of snitching cannot be stopped through random beatings or through empty threats. While violence against snitches or collaborators may be necessary (for example, the very public targeting of snitches utilized by the Maquis could prove useful) it is often harmful or useless in ending Snitch Culture. Not only can the State outmatch us in terms of the violence it can expend, rendering moot a wholesale campaign of violent reprisals –as in the case of the RAF– it also seems counter to our politics of freedom to use the idea of terror to coerce people into line and could put off sympathetic or interested individuals –much like the WU did. This should not be read as a dismissal of the tactic of violence in our resistance, but as strong critique of violence as a useful tool in combating Snitch Culture.
What has the greatest possibility of working –although it is currently not practiced to the extent that it needs to be– is community shame coupled with prisoner support. Community shame has the benefit of not being irrevocable –how can you make amends for shooting or beating someone terribly if it turns out they were wrongly accused?– as well as providing a powerful disincentive for snitches by denying them friendship and support. Prisoner support is obviously positive in that it helps remove the power of violence that the State holds over people. Prisoners who feel supported and know they will be cared for have less reason to abandon their principles and betray their friends. Coupled together, a strategy of strong communities of autonomous individuals that will not allow collaborators back in, along with a prisoner support in which the benefits of not snitching far outweigh any measure put forth by the State, seems to be the best course of action. Presently, however, these tactics have proved ineffective in the prevention of Snitch Culture. Snitches know that they will be reviled by some, but they can remain in our communities by moving to where they may be anonymous or because there are people who will not ostracize them and allow them to return. And even though our prisoner support is one of our strongest attributes, it fails to be the linchpin that prevents Snitch Culture, mainly because it is limited in scope.
What this leads us back to is the idea of building stronger communities capable of long-term resistance to the powers of the State. Community shame and prisoner support lack their necessary bite precisely because our Communities of Resistance are fractured, with no real communication or trust amongst groups. In tightly-knit societies like the Basque, snitches have nowhere to go because word will travel and they would face social isolation wherever they go.
Shame only works when communities can communicate in a way that is informative and trustworthy. Without information about snitches, communities cannot take steps to isolate or shame that person; and without trust, communities have no idea if the information is reliable or that others will also take steps to ostracize a snitch.
In terms of prisoner support, our current Communities of Resistance offer a heartfelt support; however, due to our lack of infrastructure and support outside of traditional Anarchist circles, we cannot provide the all encompassing prisoner support of the IRA. For instance, in most cases, we cannot offer jobs, money to families, or pay for legal representation. Most prisoners are shunted from public view and only a few are known on a national or international basis. On the contrary, IRA prisoners were glorified and at the height of the Troubles, the majority of the murals in IRA neighborhoods were dedicated to celebrating prisoners and their deeds. The culture of prisoner support in the IRA fostered an environment that made it desirable to not snitch, a desire based on a total community support for the prisoner and family. With some exceptions, this is something that we cannot currently provide. Where this leaves us is on the brink of a solution. While we do seem to utilize the effective tactics in combating Snitch Culture –prisoner support and community shame– they are not actually effective in stopping it. Snitch Culture is not an isolated problem, as mentioned earlier, but an interrelated issue with other problems facing our Communities of Resistance. It comes as no shock to hear that our communities are fragmented and that there is little communication or mutual aid between them. The same also goes for the lack of infrastructure or support of people not traditionally identified with Anarchists or other radical groups. We must seriously and critically examine our communities and search for ways that we can do things better, not just to defeat Snitch Culture, but to win!
The way to strengthen our communities and increase our resistance to Snitch Culture would begin by practicing real mutual aid. Very few groups actually work together in a way that is interrelated and that would actually help build our counter-infrastructure. For instance, people in cities who want to grow their own food and those who already live on farms could participate in projects like the Victory Gardens in Athens, Maine, which helps disenfranchised people in both urban and rural communities develop their own sources of organic food; groups in different cities could pool money and have benefits to pay for the legal costs of prisoners in other places; and those choosing not to work could help provide daycare for working people who have to. The ways in which we can work together and support each other are limitless, and working together on projects and actions is a simple but unrivaled way to build trustworthy lines of communication based on experience– as well as creating networks of autonomous communities that support each other and would not tolerate a snitch among them.
Infrastructure is important if we are to provide support for people in prison that would actually function as a deterrent to snitching. For instance, we cannot always give people jobs –if they want them– when they are out, or provide for people’s families if they are put away. The counter-infrastructure we do have is largely based on entertainment, and while this is a positive thing in our communities, we must move beyond this into other territory. For many obvious reasons, creating an infrastructure that does not rely on capitalism, but is our very own, is absolutely vital to our ability to wage effective resistance. We must also address the lack of support for our resistance in communities outside of Anarchist circles. One way other Communities of Resistance have been effective is that they had a large network of support in larger society. Besides the obvious, this larger support functioned as a way to propel resistance and created a climate of hope –a climate that Snitch Culture does not function very well in. This lack of support may be due to the fact that our definition of Anarchist culture is rather narrow. Although not true in the least, the image of Anarchists as young black-clad punks certainly does persist and is to an extent perpetuated by Anarchist culture. Anarchists should proudly proclaim themselves, but should also move beyond the stereotype and show our many faces: young and old, queer and straight, crusty and freshly-showered.
And obviously, our current prisoner support must continue –and increase– while working on the long-term projects of building infrastructure and widening our circles of support. Prisoner support needs to become something that everyone in our community is working on. Comrades must have the full support of their communities when facing down the courts, the jails, and the prison terms of the State. We need to make prisoner support public and visible, and we need to show comrades on the other side of the wall that they are not forgotten. Murals, benefits, sending letters and birthday cards, attending court dates, and solidarity events are all easy ways to show that we celebrate and stand behind those from our communities who are behind bars. We need to make good on the saying: they are in there for us, so we are out here for them!
It should be clear that there is no simple solution to the persistence of Snitch Culture in our Communities of Resistance. This zine set out to begin a dialog on how we can destroy Snitch Culture once and for all. As we have seen, we may currently be unable to prevent snitches in our fight for liberation because we lack the community support and infrastructure we need. This does not mean that we should ever, ever condone snitching. Snitching represents the most vile betrayal of one’s self and one’s community and although we may not be able to prevent Snitch Culture now, this does not mean that we should not continue in the active removal of snitches from our communities at present and withdraw support from all collaborators immediately. But now we know that this is not enough. To eradicate Snitch Culture we must set ourselves upon the task of building a long-term resistance that can withstand the attacks of power, and that will take time and a lot of hard work. We must create strategies that look beyond today and will allow us to proactively deal with State repression, not only to defeat Snitch Culture, but to create a world made of our desires.

Syria resolute to fight terrorists, find political solution: Assad

Youth gang riots have rocked the Swedish capital Stockholm for four straight nights. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years.
On the fourth night of violence, youths torched over 30 cars in 15 neighborhoods along with a restaurant in Skogas, south of Stockholm. Three law enforcement officers were injured, police spokesperson Kjell Lindgren reported.
Stockholm firefighters were busy throughout the night, saying they had “never before seen so many fires raging at the same time.” Some 90 blazes were reported in total, most of them reportedly caused by the rioters. Still, the fourth night of violence was relatively quiet compared to the previous three, RT's Peter Oliver reported from Stockholm.
Leaders of immigrant communities were out on the streets in a bid to stop young people from rioting. Despite their efforts, as soon as the night fell, groups of arsonists took to the streets to set cars on fire. RT's Peter Oliver witnessed rioters throwing stones at police and journalists alike.

RT's Peter Oliver. Screenshot from RT video.

Civil disorder in Stockholm started on Sunday, when police shot and killed a 69-old-man in his apartment after he confronted officers with a machete; the unrest has since continued throughout week.
Community leaders insist that a main reason for the violence is the high rate of unemployment in immigrant communities, particularly in the suburb of Husby near central Stockholm, one of the worst affected by the nighttime violence, Peter Oliver reported.
Although Sweden’s unemployment rate is below the EU average, joblessness among those under 25 has reached nearly 25 percent. The RT crew in Stockholm noted that a majority of those taking part in the violence are young.
Parents of the rampaging teenagers and community religious leaders are now spending sleepless nights on the street in an effort to prevent their children from wreaking havoc.

Firemen extinguish a burning car in Kista after youths rioted in few differant suburbs around Stockholm on May 21, 2013.(AFP Photo / Jonathan Nackstrand)

Meanwhile, the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt blamed the violence on “hooligans” and said they did not represent the majority in the rioting neighborhoods.
“I think it’s dangerous to draw a picture of Sweden with a capital separated from its suburbs. I don’t think that’s true. I think the dividing line runs straight through Husby, with a majority population and then a small group of troublemakers,” Reinfeldt said.
But the Husby youth taking part in riots told Reuters they are indeed divided from the rest of Stockholm, struggling to find a full-time job with their Husby address. Most of the interviewed rioters were reportedly unemployed.
The claims of social exclusion in immigrant-dominated suburbs have been partly conceded by Sweden’s Integration Minister Erik Ullenhag, who said the ministry is aware of
“discrimination in these areas.” But the riots
“don’t improve the image of these areas, where there is a lot of positive stuff going on,” he added.

A car set on fire burns, following riots in the Stockholm suburb of Kista late May 21, 2013.(Reuters / Fredrik Sandberg)

For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.
“The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”
“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added.
“The police could do so much, [instead] they have told the public that they mean to do as little as possible. But they could go there and use water cannons, they could not let people out onto the streets at night. There are so many things they could do within the law – but they don’t do it,” she said.

Firefighters extinguish a burning car, following riots in the Stockholm suburb of Kista late May 21, 2013.(Reuters / Fredrik Sandberg)

Young Muslims who enjoy tolerance, social institutions and welfare while living in Sweden nevertheless refuse to integrate into the West, Gerolf Annemans told RT. Annemans is the parliamentary leader of Vlaams Belang (‘Flemish Interest’), a Belgian far-right nationalist political party.
“They [Muslim youths] have always sought excuse to show that they are not agreeing with the basic values of Western society,” Annemans said, pointing to the recent cases of the Boston Marathon bombing in the US and yesterday’s beheading of a British soldier in the UK.
“It’s always the same problem. There is a massive refusal by Muslim youngsters of the basics of Western society...  and they take any excuse whatsoever to show that with violence – that is where the problem is,” he said.

‘They don’t want to integrate’: Fourth night of youth rioting rocks Stockholm

Youth gang riots have rocked the Swedish capital Stockholm for four straight nights. Hundreds of mostly immigrant teenagers tore through the suburbs, smashing windows and burning cars in the country’s worst outbreak of violence in years.
On the fourth night of violence, youths torched over 30 cars in 15 neighborhoods along with a restaurant in Skogas, south of Stockholm. Three law enforcement officers were injured, police spokesperson Kjell Lindgren reported.
Stockholm firefighters were busy throughout the night, saying they had “never before seen so many fires raging at the same time.” Some 90 blazes were reported in total, most of them reportedly caused by the rioters. Still, the fourth night of violence was relatively quiet compared to the previous three, RT's Peter Oliver reported from Stockholm.
Leaders of immigrant communities were out on the streets in a bid to stop young people from rioting. Despite their efforts, as soon as the night fell, groups of arsonists took to the streets to set cars on fire. RT's Peter Oliver witnessed rioters throwing stones at police and journalists alike.

RT's Peter Oliver. Screenshot from RT video.

Civil disorder in Stockholm started on Sunday, when police shot and killed a 69-old-man in his apartment after he confronted officers with a machete; the unrest has since continued throughout week.
Community leaders insist that a main reason for the violence is the high rate of unemployment in immigrant communities, particularly in the suburb of Husby near central Stockholm, one of the worst affected by the nighttime violence, Peter Oliver reported.
Although Sweden’s unemployment rate is below the EU average, joblessness among those under 25 has reached nearly 25 percent. The RT crew in Stockholm noted that a majority of those taking part in the violence are young.
Parents of the rampaging teenagers and community religious leaders are now spending sleepless nights on the street in an effort to prevent their children from wreaking havoc.

Firemen extinguish a burning car in Kista after youths rioted in few differant suburbs around Stockholm on May 21, 2013.(AFP Photo / Jonathan Nackstrand)

Meanwhile, the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt blamed the violence on “hooligans” and said they did not represent the majority in the rioting neighborhoods.
“I think it’s dangerous to draw a picture of Sweden with a capital separated from its suburbs. I don’t think that’s true. I think the dividing line runs straight through Husby, with a majority population and then a small group of troublemakers,” Reinfeldt said.
But the Husby youth taking part in riots told Reuters they are indeed divided from the rest of Stockholm, struggling to find a full-time job with their Husby address. Most of the interviewed rioters were reportedly unemployed.
The claims of social exclusion in immigrant-dominated suburbs have been partly conceded by Sweden’s Integration Minister Erik Ullenhag, who said the ministry is aware of
“discrimination in these areas.” But the riots
“don’t improve the image of these areas, where there is a lot of positive stuff going on,” he added.

A car set on fire burns, following riots in the Stockholm suburb of Kista late May 21, 2013.(Reuters / Fredrik Sandberg)

For years, Sweden – one of Europe’s most tranquil countries, famous for its attractive immigration policies and generous welfare system – has been accepting an influx of immigrants, which now make up about 15 per cent of its population. These migrants have failed to integrate into Swedish society, and are only in the country to enjoy the country’s social benefits system, Swedish journalist Ingrid Carlqvist told RT.
“The problem is not from the Swedish government or from the Swedish people,” the editor in chief of Dispatch International said. “The last 20 years or so, we have seen so many immigrants coming to Sweden that really don’t like Sweden. They do not want to integrate, they do not want to live in [Swedish] society: Working, paying taxes and so on.”
“The people come here now because they know that Sweden will give them money for nothing. They don’t have to work, they don’t have to pay taxes – they can just stay here and get a lot of money. That is really a problem,” Carlqvist added.
“The police could do so much, [instead] they have told the public that they mean to do as little as possible. But they could go there and use water cannons, they could not let people out onto the streets at night. There are so many things they could do within the law – but they don’t do it,” she said.

Firefighters extinguish a burning car, following riots in the Stockholm suburb of Kista late May 21, 2013.(Reuters / Fredrik Sandberg)

Young Muslims who enjoy tolerance, social institutions and welfare while living in Sweden nevertheless refuse to integrate into the West, Gerolf Annemans told RT. Annemans is the parliamentary leader of Vlaams Belang (‘Flemish Interest’), a Belgian far-right nationalist political party.
“They [Muslim youths] have always sought excuse to show that they are not agreeing with the basic values of Western society,” Annemans said, pointing to the recent cases of the Boston Marathon bombing in the US and yesterday’s beheading of a British soldier in the UK.
“It’s always the same problem. There is a massive refusal by Muslim youngsters of the basics of Western society...  and they take any excuse whatsoever to show that with violence – that is where the problem is,” he said.

Amnesty report blasts US for Gitmo, drone strikes, ‘absence of accountability’

Amnesty International listed US indefinite detention of 166 prisoners at Guantanamo as the country’s primary human rights concern in its latest annual report. The paper also denounced drone strikes and uninvestigated deaths from secret CIA detentions.
Guantanamo, where more than 100 inmates have been on hunger strike since February, is listed first among Amnesty International’s human rights concerns in the US chapter of its annual report, which covers the year 2012. It states that the majority of Gitmo’s 166 detainees were kept at the facility without charge or criminal trial, “nearly three years after President Obama’s deadline for closure of the Guantanamo detention facility.”
A source at Amnesty told RT that the only solution to the current hunger strike at Guantanamo is its closure and that they had no information on the current conditions of detainees at the camp.
“We have asked for access to Guantanamo, but we have been denied that.”
The source added that they are doing a lot of campaigning on Guantanamo and that last week Amnesty International USA held a big event in order to increase pressure on the US government to close the facility.
“We have written a lot of letters to the US government. The last time was at the end of March, we addressed our letter to Hagel the secretary of defense asking him for the closure of Guantanamo and a fair trial for the people who are held there,” he said.

Amnesty International’s 2012 annual report is a survey on human rights in 159 countries. The organization, founded in 1961, claims it does not accept funding from governments. It draws information on human rights abuses from its 3 million members and supporters around the world.

The human rights group also keeps count of the death toll at Guantanamo: “Adnan Farhan Abdul Latif, a Yemeni national who repeatedly expressed distress at his indefinite detention without charge or trial, died during the year, bringing to nine the number of detainees known to have died at Guantanamo since January 2002 ,” the report said.
Latif was one of the first Gitmo prisoners, taken into US custody in 2001. He was ordered to be released from prison by the US District Court in Washington in July 2010, but the decision was overruled a year later on the grounds that Latif was an Al-Qaeda combatant.
The Amnesty International report recounts the 2012 trials – or rather, “attempts at trials” – for the Gitmo detainees. Five Gitmo prisoners accused of involvement in the 9/11 attacks were arraigned for a capital trial last year that did not take place.

US Military guards walk inside Camp Delta 05 at the US Naval Base in Guantanamo.(AFP Photo / Paul J. Richards)

The report states that before being sent to Guantanamo, those five and another detainee “had been held incommunicado for up to four years in secret US custody, during which time at least two of them had been tortured.”
Another detainee who was allegedly tortured, Pakistani national Majid Khan, pleaded guilty in December 2012. He became the seventh prisoner convicted by a military commission at Guantanamo, and one of the five who had pleaded guilty in return for the possibility of early release from US custody.
The report also raised the issue of the 600 detainees in US custody at the US Military base in Afghanistan’s Bagram. Fifty of the inmates are non-Afghan nationals, some also held without charge or trial.

Drones: ‘A violation of international law’
The ongoing US program of targeted killings of suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen –as well as the questionable legal grounds of the practice – was the basis of another lengthy entry.

“Available information, limited by secrecy, indicated the US policy permitted extrajudicial executions in violation of international human rights law under the USA’s theory of a ‘global war’ against Al-Qaeda and associated groups,” the report said.

Drone strikes have increased sevenfold under Obama, Bloomberg reported in April. The US covert program to target and kill Al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders saw 35 strikes in Pakistan in 2008, the last year President Bush was in office, the Long War Journal reported. That figure grew in the following years, reaching a peak of 117 attacks in 2010. Last year, 46 US drones strikes took place in Pakistan.

A high court in Pakistan recently ruled that US drone strikes in the country should be considered war crimes. It also recommended that the Pakistani government address the issue in the United Nations, saying the strikes violated the organization’s charter and the country’s laws, but the growing uproar in Pakistan has done little to change Washington’s drone war.

A demonstrator holds up a burning US flag during a protest against drone attacks in Pakistan's tribal region, in Multan.(AFP Photo / S.S Mirza)

"Our researchers, when talking to people in Pakistan, find that the people are living in constant fear in very remote areas. You really cannot figure out, at the end of the day, who has been injured or killed in a drone attack," Amnesty International Secretary General Salil Shetty said, according to AP.

The London-based group’s report was issued on Wednesday, the same day Washington admitted to killing four US citizens with drones.

In a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney-General Eric Holder revealed that Anwar Awlaki was the only US citizen specifically targeted by a drone, while three others – Abdulrahman Awlaki, Samir Khan and Jude Kenan Mohammed – were also casualties in the drone war.
Amnesty told RT that they have asked for transparency on how many people have been killed in drone attacks, or whether intelligence provided for an attack was reliable or not.
“We don’t have these details. We have been demanding that the US government is more transparent in everything that has to do with drone attacks. But so far we don’t have any information on what the US government’s position is on this,” an Amnesty spokesman told RT.
He added that Amnesty hoped that the situation would be clarified in Obama’s speech Thursday about counter terrorist issues.

Bush administration still unaccountable for secret detention deaths
The CIA’s program of secret detention is mentioned among other US human rights violations. Amnesty International is concerned that no one was held accountable for the deaths of two people, who are believed to have perished in US custody abroad.

“On 30 August, the US Attorney General announced the closure of criminal investigations into the death of two individuals in US custody outside the USA. He stated that no one would face criminal charges in relation to the deaths, believed to have occurred in Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003,” the report said.

The report described the deaths as “crimes under international law committed under the administration of President George W. Bush.”

Tasers: ‘Excessive use of force’
Forty-two people died in the US in 2012 after tasers were used against them by police, according to Amnesty International. “Most of those who died after being struck with a Taser were not armed and did not appear to pose a serious threat when the Taser was deployed,” the report said. 

Taser.(AFP Photo / Ethan Miller)

According to Amnesty International’s report, taser use has caused 540 deaths since 2001. The report cites the American Heart Association, which conducted a study on the use of Tasers that concluded they can “cause cardiac arrest and death.”
The potential risks of tasers – electroshock pistol-like weapons capable of jolting the target with 50,000 volts of electricity – have long been a source of public concern.  
“We don’t know what their mortal capacity is, so they shouldn’t be used until there is more evidence that they don’t kill people,” a spokesman told RT.
A recent high-profile case of alleged Taser-induced death involved
Richard Metcalf
, a 35-year-old from western New York. Metcalf died in November after suffering a massive heart attack while in the custody of the Erie County Sheriff's Office.
Amnesty is campaigning for their use to be suspended.

Hague stresses UK, allies intention of toppling Syrian president

Britain and its allies in the so-called ‘Friends of Syria’ grouping have revealed their real intention behind convening meetings and discussions, which is to oust President Bashar al-Assad.

The fact was exposed before a meeting of the grouping in Jordan, where British Foreign Secretary William Hague moaned that “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad cannot be part of a solution to the Syrian crisis”.

"We want a solution without Assad. We do not accept the stay of Assad," Hague said ahead of the meeting in Amman.

William Hague said the UK government will renew its attempts to seek to lift an embargo against foreign-backed terrorists in Syria in a fresh bid to provide them heavy weapons.

Hague made the threatening remarks at a joint press conference with Jordan's Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh.

"The UK and France seek to end the ban on arming Syrian rebels. Any decision to be taken will be discussed with the Syrian National Coalition and in cooperation with other entities", he said.

The grouping includes Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, the United States, Britain, France, Turkey, Germany and Italy.

This comes as a U.S. Senate panel has already endorsed plans to give Syrian terrorists lethal arms.

The developments come as the Syrian Army continues to advance deeper into the strategic town of Qusayr, an area which has been the focal point of clashes between government forces and terrorists for weeks.

The army forces have managed to restore security and stability to Al-Akari and Tal Sar villages and hunted down rebels in the town of al-Hamidieh on the outskirts of al-Qusayr, state-run SANA news agency said Wednesday.

The army pushed its way into al-Qusayr city early Sunday after taking control of its surburb after 46 days of battling.

MOL/MOS/HE

US Senate betrays US Constitution for Israel

In a stunning betrayal of the Constitution of the United States, which obligates the United States to conform to the UN Charter and international law, the US Senate has before it a resolution that commits the nation to support Israel militarily, diplomatically, and economically should it decide to attack Iran “in its legitimate self-defense”, where every action Israel has ever taken-from the Six-Day War to its incursions into Lebanon-has been deemed by the American government to be “in its legitimate self-defense”.

The resolution states, “If the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.”

As M.J. Rosenberg has observed, the “self-defense” limitation is no limitation at all. The United States has deemed all major Israeli military actions as “self-defense” (most recently two Gaza wars) with the oft-repeated statement that the United States is “fully supportive of Israel’s right to defend itself.”

Couple that with President Obama’s language ruling out containment of a nuclear Iran, and it’s pretty clear that any attack by Israel on Iran will be deemed self-defense by the United States.

Rand Paul (R-KY) has been doing what he can to tone down the resolution, but whether he can prevail is yet to be seen. While this is a non-binding resolution that does not have the force of law in committing the nation to support Israel under these circumstances, it does express “the sense of the Senate.”

While the President is obligated by the Constitution to seek its “advice and consent”, this commitment violates international law and the UN Charter and therefore the Constitution itself.

At the very least, AIPAC should be required to register as a “foreign agent”. Its virtually complete domination of American foreign policy has led wits to describe the US as “the United States of Israel”.

The problem is that this is not a joke, where “our gallant ally” is drawing us deeper and deeper into a conflict which has enormous potential to precipitate World War III.

It is a positive sign that Russia has intervened in Syria. It will not stand idly by while Israel and the United States attack Iran.

Iran poses no imminent treat to the US or to Israel, where the stunning stupidity of the Senate resolution emerges from the reflection that (1) Iran has no nuclear weapons program, much less any nukes; (2) that the casualties from an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities would be catastrophic; and (3) that Israel is not an ally of the United States, but is committed to advancing its own interests, regardless of the consequences for the US or, indeed, for the world at large.

(1) Iran has no nuclear weapons program

Iran not only has no nuclear weapons program, but is a peaceful nation that has not attacked any other country for more than 300 years. Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has declared “nuclear energy for all, nuclear weapons for none.”

Iran has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has allowed in inspectors. All 16 US intelligence agencies concluded in 2007 that Iran was not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, a conclusion reaffirmed in 2011.

Israel, by contrast, has more than 200 and as many as 600 of these little beauties. It has never signed the NPT and will not allow inspectors.

The War on Terror was an Israeli contrivance to set the United States on a course to dismantle the sophisticated Arab states and leave Israel with uncontested domination of the Middle East.

Upon his return from serving as Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Europe, Gen. Wesley Clark was presented with a plan to dismantle seven Arab nations in the next five years. Syria and Iran are the final stages of this Israeli plan.

(2) The civilian casualties would be catastrophic

Estimates have it that an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities would bring about an estimated 1 million Iranian deaths outright and another 35,000,000 premature deaths as the cloud of pollution swept across Afghanistan, Pakistan and India.

Even if there were proof of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, what could possibly justify an atrocity of this magnitude? Yet the US Senate would have our nation become complicit in one of the greatest atrocities of human history?

For the sake of comparison, according to the “official account”, some 6,000,000 Jews died during the Holocaust. Set aside that the International Committee of the Red Cross maintained detailed records that support perhaps 600,000 deaths of Jews, gypsies and the mentally and physically impaired, Benjamin Netanyahu is willing to sacrifice six times the number of deaths alleged to have taken place during the Holocaust to promote Israel’s political domination of the Middle East.

(3) Israel is not an ally of the United States

The recent attack on Syria by Israel, which appears to have been intended to destroy a shipment of missiles and to take out a chemical supply depot, has had the unintended consequence of providing Russia with an excuse to speed up its delivery of its advanced S-300 missiles, which can be used for anti-aircraft and anti-ship defense and has greatly strengthened the ability of Syria to withstand attacks.

Indeed, there is every reason to believe that Russia is committed to standing fast with Syria.

Throughout this conflict, Obama’s actions have been disgraceful, where he (a) has supported Israel in taking such actions as it may deem appropriate (without adding, “provided they are in accordance with international law”), (b) is providing Netanyahu with refueling tankers and radar-suppressing aircraft to attack Iran (which I compare to placing a pedophile in charge of a day care center) and (c) continues to use drones in Pakistan (another violation of another nation’s sovereignty).

What this means is that the President of the United States, by encouraging Israel to violate the sovereignty of Syria and of Pakistan and to attack Iran, which poses no “imminent treat” to any other nation, especially to Israel with its vast stock of nuclear weapons, has become an accessory to the violation of international law and to the commission of war crimes.

If Israel should launch an attack on Iran because it believes the US will support it, the stain on our history will be permanent.

It is all the more surprising that the US Senate remains so enthusiastic about its unqualified support for Israel, since we now have multiple confirmed reports of Israeli snipers having taken out more than 400 US troops in Iraq.

This is just about as disgusting as it gets and reveals decisively that Israel has only its own interests at heart and is willing to sacrifice even the welfare of American troops in combat to promote it, not to mention 36,000,000 innocents to advance its political agenda.

JF/KA

Body of tortured Afghan unearthed near former US Special Forces base - report

Afghan officials have reportedly found the footless body of a local man who went missing a half-year ago. The corpse was unearthed near the former A-Team US Special Forces base – where detainees were tortured and killed, locals claim.
Authorities alleged that the grisly discovery is directly connected to Zakaria Kandahari, a notorious wartime collaborator who Afghan officials believe has US citizenship.
Kandahari reportedly led a death squad that terrorized locals in Wardak Province, using the A-Team base in Nerkh District, a one-hour drive from Kabul, as a permanent residence.
The mutilated body was discovered by ditch diggers about 200 yards from the perimeter of Nerkh base in Wardak Province, the New York Times reported. The base was previously occupied by the A-Team US Special Forces unit, which withdrew in March. Rhe Nerkh base compound is currently occupied by Afghan Special Forces.
According to district governor Mohammad Hanif Hanafi, the corpse was found packed in a military-style black body bag. The victim was identified as Sayid Mohammad, a local resident who was allegedly seen being taken to an US base in November 2012.
This is not the first time that the partial remains and clothing of a missing person have been found near Nerkh base, Afghan officials said. A dismembered body was previously found in a garbage container just outside the US base.
An anonymous Afghan investigator for the Defense Ministry told the NYT that he has a list of names of 17 people who went missing in Nerkh District in Wardak Province between November and December 2012, when Kandahari’s squad conducted operations such as detaining suspects and bringing them to the US Special Forces base.
The seized persons were reportedly never seen alive again. Nine of their bodies, including that of Sayid Mohammad, were found; the other eight remain missing.

The torture squad
The recently unearthed victim was the same man previously seen in a classified video recording made last year. US officials familiar with the matter said it depicts Mohammad being repeatedly kicked by the chief interpreter at the Nerkh base – Kandahari.
Kandahari is on Afghanistan’s most-wanted list for prisoner abuse, torture and murder. Kabul claimed the US sheltered Kandahari; the US Army has denied the accusations.
The US Army has not denied that Kandahari was previously on their payroll, but maintains that the torture video was made after he parted with the A-Team to operate a rogue Afghan unit, and that he is not a US citizen. The US Military described Kandahari as a “freelance interpreter” who joined the American Special Forces voluntarily and lived at their base out of gratitude.
Over the past year, Kandahari and his henchmen have been seen throughout Wardak Province wearing NATO uniforms while riding on quad bikes in search of alleged insurgents.

Precious hangman
Last March, hundreds of Afghans – watched by a considerable number of armed riot police – marched to parliament in Kabul, demanding the withdrawal of US Special Forces from Wardak Province. The demonstrators were infuriated by reports of civilians being tortured and killed; Kandahari’s name first went public amid these demonstrations.

APTN video still

Following the protests, Afghan authorities demanded the US deliver the alleged criminal to Kabul. The US refused to turn over Kandahari to Afghan authorities.
US Military authorities claimed that Kandahari had escaped, and that they knew nothing about his whereabouts. In response, an infuriated President Hamid Karzai demanded that the US Special Operations forces leave Wardak. A compromise was later reached, and only the infamous A-Team base was removed.
An unidentified Afghan investigator told the New York Times that “there is no question” that Kandahari was directly involved in torture and murder, but asks, “Who recruited him, gave him his salary, his weapons? Who kept him under their protection?”
The official also expressed doubts that Kandahari could have left the base on his own, since “He was such a criminal that he could not stay one hour outside the base by himself.”
US Military officials reported that they conducted thorough investigations into the disappearances and murders “of at least 15 people” in Wardak Province, none of which revealed evidence that American soldiers were involved in such crimes. However, the results of these investigations have not been made public.
The treatment of Afghans by US troops and their collaborators has been a perpetual stumbling block for US-Afghan relations; the ‘steal and kill’ case of Kandahari could well be the final straw in the 11-plus years of the Afghan War.

Pages