Australians have been assured the US alliance "matters more today than ever before", as wargames simulating the invasion of the country from the north officially get underway.

Key points:

• "Talisman Sabre" is the biggest ever joint exercise between US and Australian personnel
• Admiral Harry Harris says the size of the deployment "sends a message to friends, allies, partners and potential adversaries"
• The commander of more than 80,00 US marines in the Pacific urges Australia to join operations against IS in Asia

Exercise "Talisman Sabre" has been formally launched off the coast of Sydney on board the Amphibious American Warship USS Bonhomme Richard.

Over the next month, more than 30,000 US and Australian personnel will conduct their biggest ever joint exercises off the coast of Queensland and the Northern Territory.

"Folks — the Australian-US alliance matters more today than ever before," said Admiral Harry Harris, the head of the US Pacific Command.

"It matters to our two great nations, it matters to the Indo Asia Pacific and it matters to the world."

read more:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-29/wargames-with-america-begin-with-a...

 

...

These reports destroyed the USA Government’s allegations, nonetheless faithfully reported and repeated ad nauseum by the mainstream media, that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons in general and sarin gas in particular, against its own people or anyone else.  It will come as no surprise that Postol’s reports have been completely ignored by the mainstream media.

The American investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has now published a new report on the Khan Shaykhun incident. Hersh’s career spans more than five decades, and includes such notable exposes as the My Lai massacres in Vietnam and the torture regime run by the Americans at Abu Graib prison in Iraq.

Hersh was for a long time published by the New Yorker magazine. His exposés of U.S. wrongdoing became too uncomfortable for them and he was forced to seek a publication outlet outside America. The prestigious London Review of Books (LRB) published a number of Hersh’s articles, including on the alleged killing of Osama bin Laden, the alleged Syrian government’s sarin attack in Ghouta in 2013, and the so-called “rat line” of Libyan weapons and terrorist personnel from Libya to Syria and elsewhere after the overthrow of Gaddafi.

But the LRB would not publish Hersh’s latest article on Khan Shaykhun and it was instead published in the Sunday edition (25/6/17) of the major German newspaper Di Welt.

Seymour Hersh''s new exposé: Trump ignored intelligence on the Khan Sheikhoun attack and attacked the Syrian gov https://t.co/BBgiogd8bz

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 25, 2017

In his latest article, Hersh confirms a number of key points:

1. The Americans allegedly knew in advance of the Khan Shaykhun attack, partly because of the "deconfliction agreement" between Russia and the U.S., and partly to give the Americans time to ensure that one of their intelligence assets that had penetrated ISIS, would not attend the meeting and thereby be killed.
    
2. That the Americans had absolutely no evidence that the Syrians either used a chemical weapon at Khan Shaykhun or had any stored at their air base at al-Shayrat.
    
3. That it was impossible for sarin to have been used at either location, because its properties are such that handling it without the proper protective gear would lead to instant death. The videos shown in the Western media with the persons on the scene having nothing more than face masks would be laughable if the media had bothered to do their job properly.
    
4. Trump''s intelligence advisers had told him that there was no evidence that the Syrians possessed, or had used, any form of chemical weapons, but he went ahead anyway with the cruise missile attack. Trump’s lack of knowledge of intelligence issues and even lesser interest in acquiring any such knowledge is one of the more alarming features of Hersh’s report.
    
5. The most likely cause of the toxic fumes and resultant deaths in the vicinity of the bombed building was the release of fumes from the chemicals stored in the building’s basement by ISIS.

There is much else in Hersh’s report and readers are advised to go to the now numerous websites where it is available — including, in English, the above quoted Die Welt site. Do not expect to read or hear about Hersh’s report, which heavily relies upon inside sources, in the Australian media. They, like much of the Western media, appear to have imposed a blanket silence upon a narrative that is clearly at odds with the preferred official version that Syria, Russia and Iran are the cause of all the ills of the region.

We are now told – and the mainstream media is happy to repeat – that the White House has evidence that “the Syrian government is preparing a chemical attack to kill innocent children.” 

A day after Seymour Hersh exposed US intel knew Syria didn't actually use chemical weapons, the White House claims a new "attack" is coming pic.twitter.com/KFDfIIairY

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 27, 2017

White House spokesman Sean Spicer, in a statement released on 27 June 2017 said that ''the activities were similar to preparations taken before an April 2017 attack'' (Khan Shaykhun) and warned that ''if Mr Assad conducts another mass murder attack using chemical weapons he and his military will pay a heavy price''.

This claim, which apparently came as a surprise to both the Department of Defence and the State Department, was, as is now usually the case, entirely free of any supporting evidence. It cannot be a coincidence that these claims are made within days of the publication of Hersh’s report. The use of the word “another” in the White House statement clearly demonstrates that the U.S. government, and its allies in Syria, including the UK and Australia, are impervious to any evidence that might deflect them from their overriding goal of the destruction of the Syrian state.

Other evidence to support that interpretation may be seen in the recent American and Israeli air attacks on Syrian Government positions, the aim of which was to support the ISIS forces fighting the Syrian Army. Such overt support reflects the fact that the Syrian Government forces and their allies are now winning the battle against ISIS.

The White House statement may be preparing the ground for another allegedly staged chemical attack (as allegedly Ghouta was in 2013) to justify an upsurge in American and Coalition military attacks. The Americans have even tried to establish a no-fly zone in southeastern Syria at the confluence of the Syria, Jordan and Iraq borders, thereby controlling the Damascus-Baghdad-Tehran logistics route.

That the policies being pursued by the Americans and their coalition allies in Syria, including Australia, will inevitably lead to a confrontation with the Russians appears not to have been factored into what can only be described as an insane policy.

The Australian public deserves to be fully informed about the dangers our present policies invite. One of the most disturbing aspects of these latest developments is that one cannot rely on the mainstream media to enable us to be so informed.  To repeat ad nauseum, as they do, the lies, half-truths and misinformation and suppress evidence provided by people such as Postol and Hersh is nothing short of disgraceful.

Seymour Hersh''s new piece states US intel believed Assad never used Sarin. It''s front page on major German paper, sure to be ignored in US. pic.twitter.com/y3ag98yHnD

— Paul Gottinger (@PaulGottinger) June 25, 2017

James O'Neill is a former academic and has practiced as a barrister since 1984. He writes on geopolitical issues, with a special emphasis on international law and human rights. He may be contacted at joneill@qldbar.asn.au.

read more:

https://independentaustralia.net/article-display/fresh-evidence-on-alleged-syrian-gas-attacks-concealed-from-australian-public,10454

 

see also: 

 

more lies from the white shithouse...

 

 

don't be a fool: a moderate with a gun is an extremist...

 

 

 

there's a bear in my soup .....

 

american psychos .....

 

 

 

 

The United States says its goal in Syria is to help its allies defeat the Islamic State, not to fight the government. But it’s getting increasingly harder.

On today’s episode:

• We talk with Helene Cooper, who covers the Pentagon, about the American military’s actions in Syria, and about how it may be sliding toward a far bigger role in the civil war than it intended.

• By assuming that conservatives and moderates would come together to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Senator Mitch McConnell seems to have miscalculated. Jennifer Steinhauer, our congressional correspondent, explains Mr. McConnell’s strategy.

Continue reading the main story

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Background reading:

• The United States recently shot down a Syrian warplane as well as two Iranian-made drones. Critics say the United States is “sleepwalking” into a wider role in Syria.

• Mr. McConnell’s reputation as a master tactician takes a hit.

Tune in, and tell us what you think. Email us at thedaily@nytimes.com. Tweet me at @mikiebarb

read more:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/podcasts/the-daily/the-daily-is-the-us-at-war-with-syria.html

 

The original goal of the USA has been to remove Assad, NOT FIGHT ISIS which to some extend the existence of which was facilitated by the US support to "rebels"...

The American UN envoy’s statement about ‘saving lives in Syria’ means claiming credit for the non-occurrence of an event that is unlikely to have occurred - a repeat of an earlier event that didn’t happen either, says former US diplomat, Jim Jatras.

After the US accused the Syrian government of planning a chemical weapon attack and warned it would "pay a heavy price" for such a move, Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said on Wednesday Washington's threat against Syria may have saved lives.

Haley: 'Our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out,' https://t.co/hVKLBMO8CP

— RT America (@RT_America) June 28, 2017

US Defense Secretary James Mattis echoed the idea telling reporters traveling with him for a meeting of NATO defense ministers: “It appears that they took the warning seriously. They didn't do it.”

However, Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov questioned the US accusation that the Syrian government was planning a chemical attack at a meeting with Germany's foreign minister.

RT: Nikki Haley said the lives of "many innocent men, women, and children" may have been saved by Donald Trump's warning against Syria. Is that true, do you think?

Jim Jatras: It is pretty bizarre. Let’s remember that the threat from Spicer, he said that they did ‘another attack’ referring to the attack in Idlib in April. Remember, this came just after the publication, a very detailed article by Seymour M. Hersh essentially debunking that attack, showing that there was no attack by the Syrian government. Now we have Mattis and Ambassador Nikki Haley essentially claiming credit for the non-occurrence of an event that was unlikely to have occurred in the first place, itself supposedly a repeat of an earlier event that didn’t happen either. It is very strange. It makes you wonder if this was some kind of a big, what we call a Kabuki dance, a big show to make them look tough and effective maybe in advance of Trump’s meeting with Putin at the G20.

read more:

https://www.rt.com/op-edge/394587-syria-mattis-haley-saving-lives/

 

From Nick Turse at the Intercept

 

Navy SEALs, Army Green Berets, Delta Force operators. You know them for night raids and assassinations and drone strikes. They’re the tip of the spear, the elite of the elite, shadow warriors fighting shadow wars from Somalia to Syria, Iraq to the Philippines.

U.S. Special Operations forces use special weapons and employ special tactics, of course. What you probably didn’t know is that they also employ a special version of the $25,000 Pyramid game show. And a special version of the game show Jeopardy. And before their actual secret missions, they may well have played a video game called “Secret Mission.” But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Let’s start at the start. U.S. Special Operations Command operates a school to teach courses that are germane to special operators. The self-professed mission of Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) at MacDill Air Force base in Florida is “to prepare Special Operations Forces (SOF) to shape the future strategic environment by providing specialized joint professional military education.”

To that end, JSOU offers courses like “Strategic Utility of Special Operations” and “Covert Action and SOF Sensitive Activities.” It also offers a course that is called “Introduction to Special Operations Forces.” Think of it as Special Ops 101. Its goal, Special Operations Command spokesman Ken McGraw told me, “is to educate the student about the core activities, primary functions, organizations, capabilities, and doctrinal employment of U.S. Special Operations forces along with key concepts and terms.” An online course, it runs continuously and, says McGraw, is geared toward those “who have been identified to serve on a joint special operations staff, staff members at U.S. Special Operations Command, its subordinate commands and theater special operations commands.”

“Introduction to Special Operations Forces” offers five interactive lessons that guide the student through the basics of special ops. Not, that is, the artful application of camo face paint or how to use an M-32 grenade launcher, but what sets commandos apart from conventional forces, the difference between “low visibility” and “clandestine” missions, and a discussion of the increased strategic, physical, and political risk of special ops missions. The course then moves to a more advanced curriculum with lessons on everything from the composition of SOF to the concept of “Special Operations Forces Peculiar” (their unusual gear). This curriculum includes a recycled interview of former SOCOM commander Admiral William McRaven by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, as well as a mind-paralyzing explanation of the funding mechanism that pays for all the command’s rifles, night vision goggles, and floppy emerald headgear.

In many ways, however, the introductory course is more shadowy than the Special Operations forces themselves. We know a great deal about where these forces are deployed around the world (138 nations in 2016), and where they’ve been involved in firefights this year (Somalia, for example), and where they prop up allies (thePhilippines, for one), and where they train and advise allies and proxies (like Syria). But it’s a mystery who dreamed up the idea of using game show knockoffs to instruct America’s elite warriors.

“We do not,” McGraw told me, “have the information about who created the course, when it was created, how much it cost, or how many have used it.”

The command might just want to forget the whole thing. The Intercept got its hands on a copy of Special Ops 101 through the Freedom of Information Act and its video games are lame — what you might expect from a low-bid government contract, except for the capstone tests. The video games are epic but not in a good way. Those of a certain age – the Reagan and Rubik’s Cube set — will remember PC games like this.

There’s a rudimentary quiz done up like the game show Jeopardy — “Humans are more important than hardware … What is one of the five SOF truths?” — right down to its earworm of a theme. There’s also, inexplicably, another Jeopardy clone with the (ironic?) title “Game Show Game.” Then there’s a special ops version of “$25,000 Pyramid” that looks like it cost 25 cents to program. Instead of Jamie Farr (of M*A*S*H fame) offering clues to get a contestant to say the words “things that are packed” (try “suitcase”), the Special Ops version just asks straightforward questions like: “What is the primary mission of the AC-130H Spectre and AC-130U Spooky airplanes?” In this version, you get a “Correct!” instead of $25,000 for the right answer.

Yes, this is some of the training for the most elite forces, from the most elite military school, run by the most elite command, in the “finest fighting force in the history of the world.” Sad but true, your grandmother probably wouldn’t deign to play these video games on her flip phone. Except maybe “Secret Mission” – a quiz game where you take on the role of a sapper (sort of) on a military base loaded with fighter jets, tanks, barracks and bombers (sort of). You’ll be asked: “What are actions taken directly against terrorist networks and indirectly to influence and render global and regional environments inhospitable to terrorist networks?”

If you answer B – counterterrorism – get ready for the fireworks (sort of).

read more:

https://theintercept.com/2017/07/02/how-the-pentagon-uses-jeopardy-to-tr...

 

 

A broad media brief at a time when most mediocre mass media de mierda have lost their compass:

 

A primary function of The Intercept is to insist upon and defend our press freedoms from those who wish to infringe them. We are determined to move forward with what we believe is essential reporting in the public interest and with a commitment to the ideal that a truly free and independent press is a vital component of any healthy democratic society.... Our focus in this very initial stage will be overwhelmingly on the NSA story. We will use all forms of digital media for our reporting. We will publish original source documents on which our reporting is based. We will have reporters in Washington covering reactions to these revelations and the ongoing reform efforts. We will provide commentary from our journalists, including the return of Glenn Greenwald's regular column. We will engage with our readers in the comment section. We will host outside experts to write op-eds and contribute news items.

Our longer-term mission is to provide aggressive and independent adversarial journalism across a wide range of issues, from secrecy, criminal and civil justice abuses and civil liberties violations to media conduct, societal inequality and all forms of financial and political corruption. The editorial independence of our journalists will be guaranteed, and they will be encouraged to pursue their journalistic passion, areas of interest, and unique voices.

We believe the prime value of journalism is that it imposes transparency, and thus accountability, on those who wield the greatest governmental and corporate power. Our journalists will be not only permitted, but encouraged, to pursue stories without regard to whom they might alienate.

read more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intercept

 

Accountability for War Crimes – USA vs ICC

James O’Neill

 

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is an international tribunal that sits in The Hague in the Netherlands. It began its jurisdictional life on 1 July 2002, the date when the Rome Statute (the ICC’s fundamental and governing document) came into force.

As of March 2019 there are 124 member States. They include all of South America, most of Europe, about half of Africa, and Oceania, including Australia and New Zealand. There are some notable non-members, including China, Israel, Russia and the United States.

The Rome Statute is an important element in the structure of international law given that it has the power to investigate and prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and breaches of the Geneva Conventions applicable to armed conflicts. It does not have the power to prosecute crimes of aggression.

A further limitation is that the courts will only prosecute an individual if the State of which he or she is a citizen is unable or unwilling to prosecute. Not being a member State does not exonerate that State from an obligation to cooperate with the ICC in some cases. For example, when the United Nations Security Council refers a case to the ICC, all UN member States are obliged to cooperate.

There are further obligations to cooperate under general principles of humanitarian law arising from the Geneva Conventions and Protocols.

A criticism of the ICC has been that it has been willing to investigate and prosecute individuals from poor countries, notably in Africa, while the misdeeds of individuals from more powerful countries have largely escaped investigation and prosecution. In recent years there has been some movement away from this emphasis on African dictators to encompass a broader range of countries.

Although as noted above there are some significant non-members, most maintain a low profile and have within their own jurisdictions significant legislation to punish people acting in violation of international legal principles. Very few countries have displayed the overt hostility to the ICC more than the United States.

In 2002 the US Congress passed the American Service Members Protection Act (ASPA). It has been nicknamed the “Hague Invasion Act” because it authorises the president of United States to use “all means necessary” to bring about the release of any “US or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the ICC.” “All means necessary” implies the use of military force.

That hostility was further exemplified by the United States national security adviser John Bolton, when on 10th of September 2018, in his first major address as national security adviser called the ICC “superfluous” and that the United States would do everything necessary to protect US servicemen, should the ICC attempt to prosecute US servicemen over the commission of war crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction pertaining to Afghanistan.

Afghanistan ratified its accession to the Rome Statute in 2003, which was after the October 2001 invasion and occupation of that country by the United States and its allies. That invasion was purportedly in response to the events of 11 September 2001, although it is now established that the decision to invade Afghanistan was taken in July of the year.

The ICC made its decision to investigate allegations of war crimes in 2017 and Bolton’s speech was in response to that decision. The ICC has in fact received over 1 million statements from Afghan citizens and organisations in the country, alleging the commission of war crimes. Those allegations were not confined to the actions of American citizens, but encompassed American allies, the Afghan government forces and the Taliban. No other group or country affected by the ICC decision to investigate has made a response similar to that of the Americans.

A separate investigation has been opened by the Australian Federal Police following receipt of allegations of war crimes involving Australian military personnel in June 2018. The details of that investigation have not been released, and there is a suspicion that at least part of the motivation was to demonstrate that Australia was “willing and able” to investigate alleged war crimes by its military personnel and therefore pre-empt any possible adverse finding by the ICC.

In March 2019 a former Australian military lawyer was charged with leaking documents to the ABC, which related to alleged war crimes committed by Australian Special Forces between 2009 and 2013. The AFP investigation is ongoing. The government’s prosecution of the alleged leaker of documents suggests a considerable sensitivity about the allegations.

There is little doubt that crimes within the ICC’s jurisdiction have been committed in Afghanistan. There is equally little doubt that all of the combatant forces have been responsible at one time or another for the commission of war crimes. That much is well documented.

What is notable is that the United States has again up the ante against the ICC for having the temerity to continue investigation, notwithstanding the ASPA and Bolton’s threats in September 2018.

In March 2019 United States Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the United States had imposed visa restrictions on ICC investigators preventing them from entering the United States. The visa restrictions were not the end of the matter. Pompeo said “we are prepared to take any additional steps, including economic sanctions, if the ICC does not change its course.”

Pompeo’s announcement has been widely criticized. The American Civil Liberties Union called it “an unprecedented attempt to skirt international accountability for well documented war crimes.” Amnesty International said that “impeding the work of ICC investigators disrupts its vital function … it risks setting a dangerous precedent.”

The director of the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI) said that Pompeo’s statement reflected the Trump administration’s view “that international law matters only when it is aligned with US national interests.”

The ICC itself issued a statement (as it had done the previous September reacting to Bolton’s threats) that “the ICC as a court of law, will continue to do its independent work, undeterred, in accordance with its mandate and the overarching principle of the rule of law.”

These quoted reactions are exactly on point. The United States is one of the loudest proclaimers of its self-appointed role as the upholder of the “rules based international order.” As the director of the OSJI noted however, the “rules” and the “order” purportedly upheld is when those rules and order are aligned with the US national interest. The hypocrisy of the US position is glaringly obvious.

The ICC, notwithstanding its imperfections, is accepted by the vast majority of the world’s nations as fulfilling an important role in holding accountable the perpetrators of the most serious violations of the standards of international law and decency.

If powerful nations are free to ignore the ICC’s work and the findings, to actively threaten them in the conduct of their investigations, and obstruct their capacity to do so, then any claim to be upholding legal principles and standards is no more than a hollow sham.

 

Read more:

https://off-guardian.org/2019/03/21/accountability-for-war-crimes-usa-vs...

 

Read from top.