Obama Administration Approves Killing Americans Abroad

by Noel Brinkerhoff
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obama_Administration_Approves_Killing_Americans_Abroad_100205
Friday, February 05, 2010
Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives overseas if the individual is working with terrorists and planning to attack fellow Americans. This policy was acknowledged by Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair while testifying on Wednesday before the House Intelligence Committee.   Blair tried to reassure lawmakers that the government would be careful before making the decision to kill Americans. “I just don’t want Americans who are watching this to think that we are careless about endangering—in fact, we’re not careless about endangering American lives as we try to carry out the policies to protect most of the country,” Blair said   One of the Americans most likely to be targeted is U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi, now living in Yemen. Born in New Mexico, al-Aulaki earned a B.S. in Civil Engineering at Colorado State University and an M.A. in Education Leadership at San Diego State University. He has has been linked to the Fort Hood shooter, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan, and to Abdul Farouk Umar Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of attempting to blow up a Northwest Airlines plane on Christmas Day.   Apparently the U.S. did try to kill al-Aulaki in an air strike in Yemen the day before Abdulmutallab’s attempted plane bombing, but it would appear that he is still alive. -Noel Brinkerhoff   Intelligence Chief Acknowledges U.S. May Target Americans Involved in Terrorism (by Ellen Nakashima, Washington Post) US May Kill American Extremists Abroad (Agence France-Presse) Imam Says Fort Hood Killer Asked about Killing GIs a Year Ago.
Advertisements

China suspends US talks over Taiwan arms deal – Shanghai Daily

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and President Hu Jintao in June 2009

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and President Hu Jintao in June 2009

Full Article

China announced yesterday it will postpone bilateral military programs and security talks and impose sanctions against companies in response to the US government’s planned US$6.4 billion arms deal with Taiwan.

A Foreign Ministry announcement said China had decided to partially halt exchange programs between the two countries’ military forces, as well as vice-ministerial talks on strategic security, arms control and anti-proliferation, scheduled to be held soon.

China will also impose sanctions on US companies involved in the arms deal to Taiwan, the press statement said.

The Obama administration advised US Congress on Friday of the proposed sale to Taiwan, a potential US$6.4 billion package including Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot “Advanced Capability-3” anti-missile missiles, and two refurbished Osprey-class mine-hunting ships.

The Chinese Defence Ministry also lodged a stern protest yesterday afternoon.

Qian Lihua, the Defence Ministry’s Foreign Affairs Office director, summoned the defence attache of the US Embassy in Beijing to lodge the protest, according to a press statement.

In a similar warning lodged with the US ambassador to China, Jon Huntsman, Chinese Vice Foreign Minister, He Yafei, said the country was “strongly indignant” about the proposed sale of weapons.

The US decision “constitutes a gross intervention into China’s internal affairs, seriously endangers China’s national security and harms China’s peaceful reunification efforts,” He was quoted saying in a Foreign Ministry statement.

“The US plan will definitely undermine China-US relations and bring about serious negative impact on exchanges and cooperation in major areas between the two countries, and lead to an aftermath both sides would not prefer,” He said.

He urged the US side to “fully recognize the gravity of the issue, revoke the erroneous decision on arms sales to Taiwan and stop selling weapons to Taiwan.”

The sale is viewed as a serious contravention of three joint communiques between China and the United States, especially the “August 17” communique agreed on in 1982.

The United States said in the 1982 agreement that “it does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan” and “intends to reduce gradually its sales of arms to Taiwan, leading over a period of time to a final resolution.”

In 2008, China curtailed military exchanges with the United States after the Bush administration approved a US$6.5 billion Taiwan arms deal, including 30 Apache attack helicopters and 330 Patriot missiles.

Read more: http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=427454#ixzz0e9FTdAO1

State Council: U.S. planned arms sale to Taiwan runs counter to sound development of cross-Strait relations

English.news.cn

BEIJING, Jan. 30 (Xinhua) — The Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council said Saturday that U.S. planned arms sale to Taiwan was in violation of its commitment to supporting the peaceful development of the cross-Strait relations.

The move ran counter both to the sound development of the cross-Strait relations and to the fundamental interests of the Taiwan people in the long run, said a spokesperson for the office.

The official said the fact that the U.S. side announced plans to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan in disregard of strong opposition from China would only instigate the pro-independence forces in the island and hamper the peaceful development of the cross-Strait relations.

The spokesperson also said the improved cross-Strait relations were in the common aspiration of the people on both sides of the Strait and had won support from the international community.

The current situation did not come easy, and therefore should be cherished, the spokesperson added.

THE ATLANTIC: The Quiet Coup

FACTSNEWS- MUST READ! Lengthly, we will only post the first paragraph.

Full Article

The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time.

ONE THING YOU learn rather quickly when working at the International Monetary Fund is that no one is ever very happy to see you. Typically, your “clients” come in only after private capital has abandoned them, after regional trading-bloc partners have been unable to throw a strong enough lifeline, after last-ditch attempts to borrow from powerful friends like China or the European Union have fallen through. You’re never at the top of anyone’s dance card.

The reason, of course, is that the IMF specializes in telling its clients what they don’t want to hear. I should know; I pressed painful changes on many foreign officials during my time there as chief economist in 2007 and 2008. And I felt the effects of IMF pressure, at least indirectly, when I worked with governments in Eastern Europe as they struggled after 1989, and with the private sector in Asia and Latin America during the crises of the late 1990s and early 2000s. Over that time, from every vantage point, I saw firsthand the steady flow of officials—from Ukraine, Russia, Thailand, Indonesia, South Korea, and elsewhere—trudging to the fund when circumstances were dire and all else had failed.

Every crisis is different, of course. Ukraine faced hyperinflation in 1994; Russia desperately needed help when its short-term-debt rollover scheme exploded in the summer of 1998; the Indonesian rupiah plunged in 1997, nearly leveling the corporate economy; that same year, South Korea’s 30-year economic miracle ground to a halt when foreign banks suddenly refused to extend new credit.

But I must tell you, to IMF officials, all of these crises looked depressingly similar. Each country, of course, needed a loan, but more than that, each needed to make big changes so that the loan could really work. Almost always, countries in crisis need to learn to live within their means after a period of excess—exports must be increased, and imports cut—and the goal is to do this without the most horrible of recessions. Naturally, the fund’s economists spend time figuring out the policies—budget, money supply, and the like—that make sense in this context. Yet the economic solution is seldom very hard to work out.

No, the real concern of the fund’s senior staff, and the biggest obstacle to recovery, is almost invariably the politics of countries in crisis.

Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason—the powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit—and, most of the time, genteel—oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are the controlling shareholders. When a country like Indonesia or South Korea or Russia grows, so do the ambitions of its captains of industry. As masters of their mini-universe, these people make some investments that clearly benefit the broader economy, but they also start making bigger and riskier bets. They reckon—correctly, in most cases—that their political connections will allow them to push onto the government any substantial problems that arise.

In Russia, for instance, the private sector is now in serious trouble because, over the past five years or so, it borrowed at least $490 billion from global banks and investors on the assumption that the country’s energy sector could support a permanent increase in consumption throughout the economy. As Russia’s oligarchs spent this capital, acquiring other companies and embarking on ambitious investment plans that generated jobs, their importance to the political elite increased. Growing political support meant better access to lucrative contracts, tax breaks, and subsidies. And foreign investors could not have been more pleased; all other things being equal, they prefer to lend money to people who have the implicit backing of their national governments, even if that backing gives off the faint whiff of corruption.

But inevitably, emerging-market oligarchs get carried away; they waste money and build massive business empires on a mountain of debt. Local banks, sometimes pressured by the government, become too willing to extend credit to the elite and to those who depend on them. Overborrowing always ends badly, whether for an individual, a company, or a country. Sooner or later, credit conditions become tighter and no one will lend you money on anything close to affordable terms. Full Article

Remind all your elected servants that ….

they are bound by the Government Code of Ethics….

Code of Ethics for Government Service

House Document 103, 86th Congress, 1st Session – Passed by the Congress of the United States on July 11, 1958.

ANY PERSON IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE SHOULD:

I. Put loyalty to the highest moral principles above loyalty to persons, party, or Government department.

II. Uphold the Constitution, laws, and legal regulations of the United States and of all governments therein and never be a party to their evasion.

III. Give a full day’s labor for a full day’s pay; giving to the performance of his duties his earnest effort and best thought.

IV. Seek to find and employ more efficient and economical ways of getting tasks accomplished.

V. Never discriminate unfairly by the dispensing of special favors or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not; and never accept, for himself or his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the performance of his governmental duties.

VI. Make no private promises of any kind binding upon the duties of office, since the Government employee has no private word which can be binding on public duty.

VII. Engage in no business with the Government, either directly or indirectly, which is inconsistent with the conscientious performance of his governmental duties.

VIII. Never use any information coming to him confidentially in the performance of governmental duties as a means for making private profit.

IX. Expose corruption wherever discovered.

X. Uphold these principles, ever conscious that public office is a public trust.

More on ethics including instructions for display of the above, at the Defense Systems Information Agency (DISA) site at the Department of Defense.

Kissinger Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails

Infowars
June 21, 2009

It is sincerely creepy to watch master globalist criminal Henry Kissinger call for an invasion of Iran in this BBC new clip. Herr Kissinger says that if the color revolution fails — and it is now obvious the protests in Iran are orchestrated by the CIA and the usual “democracy” NGO suspects — an outside alternative will have to be used in the name of “regime change,” in other words shock and awe à la Baghdad.

It is significant Kissinger went on television and said this — it means flattening Iranian cities and killing babies is more than likely the position of the globalists if the “green revolution” currently underway fails. Kissinger is a big muckamuck Bilderberger and David Rockefeller minion.

Attacking Iran, as the neocons have long called for, will prove to be disastrous. The Iranians will shut down the Strait of Hormuz where around 60% of the world’s oil passes if they are attacked by the United States. This will take down the world economy overnight.

But then the globalists and banksters want to take down the world economy so they can impose their globalist banking and control structure. Attacking Iran and killing thousands will kill two birds with one stone.

Americas Third World War

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

How 6 Million People Were Killed In CIA Secret Wars Against Third World Countries

See below THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA:

John Stockwell, former CIA Station Chief in Angola in 1976, working for then Director of the CIA, George Bush.  He spent 13 years in the agency.  He gives a short history of CIA covert operations.  He is a very compelling speaker and the highest level CIA officer to testify to the Congress about his actions.  He estimates that over 6 million people have died in CIA covert actions, and this was in the late 1980’s.