Showing posts with label Nick_Ford. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nick_Ford. Show all posts

17 July 2015

America's reign of torture will backfire

The Blog


The use of obscene torture methods by American rulers increases global resentment toward this hypocritical regime and will cause violence against US interests.


This was the message in a recent Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) post attacking the flawed and naive analysis that informs the regime's rampant use of torture against detainees. In the post, antistatist commentator Nick Ford wrote:
A recent NDAA amendment passed in mid-June makes it a lot harder for the CIA to torture–a good step forward. But it’s also worth noting that torture isn’t “beneath us” as Oliver suggests. It’s never been “beneath” the US government to torture people, to wage unjust wars, to unjustly imprison millions of people for non-violent offenses, and so on. 
But it’s also not something that’s worked for the CIA. The alternative of rapport-building has been studied and found to be far more effective.
Ford predicts that the torture perpetrated by this criminal regime will be a key motivation in future acts of violence against Americans, noting that "the tortured are likely to hold resentments which may ultimately lead to the very acts the torture was trying to prevent. It also tarnishes America’s image abroad and creates distrust of Americans among foreign populations leading to the kind of blowback Americans suffered on 9/11."

The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

19 June 2015

US still bleeds lives and dollars in Iraq

The Blog


The US is still committing troops to war in Iraq despite having no clear goal and obviously being defeated in the country.


Noting that the US still has over 3000 troops in Iraq in an analysis for the Center for the Stateless Society (C4SS), antistatist writer Nick Ford had the following commentary:
Does it sound like war has ended in Iraq for the US military? Does it sound like the taxpayer is all of the sudden not going to have their money stolen to benefit the military-industrial complex? Does it sound like, in such a war torn country (thanks in no small part to the US), that these new 450 soldiers will really have much of a choice in whether they’re combat troops or not? 
I am also unsure how it could even be tracked whether these troops stay in their “adviser” role. Maybe some decide to go off and shoot some folks anyways. How would we know? Or maybe there will be some who are de facto turned into ground troops because of the unpredictability of war torn countries. There are many questions about unaccountability that need to be answered. 
To top it off, the National Journal points out that this announcement comes only two daysafter Obama admitted that he has no “complete strategy” for training Iraqi forces in fighting ISIS. So why are more troops being sent in?
To conclude, Ford also wrote, "Retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who is much more qualified than I, has also gone on record saying that there is “no clear U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria.” Which, again, begs the question, what does Obama think he’s accomplishing by sending even more people to Iraq."

The Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

14 April 2015

NSA claims to end spying are like satire

The Blog


Headlines saying the US National Security Agency (NSA) was going to stop spying on Americans before Snowden's leak sound like something from the Onion satirical paper, a C4SS analyst writes.


In an analysis of the reporting at The Week and the Associated Press, C4SS's Nick Ford wrote:
Most people’s reactions to this is to laugh. The idea that the NSA, an organization all but synonymous with spying on the American people, was going to self-regulate is worth a good chuckle indeed.
Workers lower in the NSA's hierarchy are likely to be more cognizant of the mass surveillance program's ineffectiveness than  higher ranking officials, Ford writes, but are afraid of being punished if they bring their grievances to their superiors. This also matches Edward Snowden's own account of why he chose to disclose the program's details to the public via anti-establishment journalists rather than going via Congressional options or the NSA's own internal system. It also refutes many of the arguments made against Snowden as a traitor by pointing to the "loyalty" of others in the NSA, who are really only held back by fear of punishment rather than sincere support for mass spying abuses.

Ford argues that the NSA's desperate media tactics are laughable and reveal the organization's incompetence and uselessness to the American people:
So here we have an incompetent but incredibly powerful organization saying, “oh yeah we would have stopped spying on everyone if you hadn’t exposed us!” 
Come on NSA, pull the other one.

The clubof.info Blog


Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

30 January 2015

#POTUS, Chelsea Manning Wants a Word

@nickfnord .


Above: a screen associated with the Collateral Murder video that US political prisoner Chelsea Manning has been detained, tortured and persecuted by regime security forces for disclosing

As usual, the State of the Union address was a top to bottom massacre of verbiage. Every year the English language struggles to survive an onslaught of what can only be described as total verbal hangover from a year of rhetorical binge drinking. Somehow, some way, one man manages to stand on a platform (while two other guys sit awkwardly behind him clapping every now and then) and sum up a bunch of nonsense over the course of an hour or more.


The results are never pretty and picking out something objectionable is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. But if I had to pick one of the most egregious quotes from Obama it’s this: “[W]e defend free speech, and advocate for political prisoners, and condemn the persecution of women, or religious minorities, or people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.”

Mr. President, do you know who Chelsea Manning is?


I mean, you seem to know who she is. You’ve said in the past that Manning is guilty of “breaking the law,” thus implying that she deserves her sentence of up to 35 years in prison. And you’ve also commented that the Pentagon assures you that her conditions are “appropriate and are meeting our basic standards” when she was put in solitary confinement.

This, despite the fact that, at the time, she was being “… confined for 23 hours a day to a single cell, measuring around 72 square feet, equipped only with a bed, toilet and sink.” And the fact that it was an illegally lengthy pretrial detention didn’t seem to matter much to Obama either, despite there being pretty good grounds for it being a human rights violation.

As the Center for a Stateless Society’s Nathan Goodman wrote, “UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Juan Mendez investigated the conditions under which Manning was held and concluded ‘that the 11 months under conditions of solitary confinement … constitutes at a minimum cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 16 of the convention against torture. If the effects in regards to pain and suffering inflicted on Manning were more severe, they could constitute torture.'”

Given this history of knowing ignorance, how could Obama not know about Chelsea Manning? Obama’s history of protecting other big political dissidents is also abysmal. Just ask Edward Snowden, who had to flee the country to make sure he wasn’t detained like Chelsea Manning, before he released information to the public that the government found embarrassing. Is that a sign of a free society?

I suspect Obama does know who Chelsea Manning is, but for some reason she doesn’t count as someone who has been persecuted for her struggles as someone who is transgender — despite the fact that during her pre-trial hearing Marine Corps Master Sgt. Craig Blenis defended the pretrial detention on the basis of Manning’s gender dysphoria because “that’s not normal, sir.”

So does persecution of transgender people only count when governments aren’t the persecutors? Is Chelsea Manning not a victim of persecution much like the inordinate number of other trans people locked in prison? And what is Manning if not a political prisoner who has been locked away for up to 35 years because she helped an undefined enemy in some nebulous and apparently impossible to argue for way?

At the heart of this is Obama’s ability to both recognize and obfuscate. Sure he knows about Chelsea Manning, but the question is whether or not he cares. With statements like the one he made in his address, we can see the answer before us quite clearly.


Nick Ford | More articles by Nick Ford



Enter your email address:


Delivered by FeedBurner
Read More »

Featured

Note to Rick Scott: Stop Tweeting and Cut Up That Government Credit Card

“Our national debt just hit 40 TRILLION DOLLARS!” some guy tweeted on August 19. “This is bad. Congress needs to get spending under control ...

Follow Me on Twitter