What is Illegal?

Much has been made of the association of Obama with Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers was part of the Weather Underground, which was a lightweight terrorist organization back during the Vietnam war. We rightly call them lightweight because they called ahead of time to evacuate the buildings they set bombs in, and were more about raising awareness through extreme methods rather than killing. They were of greatest threat to themselves as a bomb creation mishap did kill several of the members of the Weather Underground. A detailed account of them can be seen at Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weatherman_(organization)

However, what is not discussed is what Ayers and the Weather Underground was protesting. They were protesting the Vietnam War. During the Vietnam War the US illegally bombed at least three countries (Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia), generally accepted estimates are that this lead to the death of 3.5 million people, the dissolution of civil society in Cambodia allowing the Khmer Rouge to come to power and other negative outcomes that have left these countries in an extremely bad state. This bad state extends to the present day, and will extend to the future. A huge amount of unexploded bombs has made amputees of many in the areas that were bombed. The invasion of Vietnam was illegal, as were the bombings of Laos and Cambodia. Strange it is that Bill Ayers, who killed no one, but was responsible for property damage is considered a terrorist by conservatives, yet one of the main architects of Vietnam and a person directly responsible for taking the bombing to Laos and Cambodia is considered a lauded specialist in international relations. That would be Henry Kissinger. This brings up the question of what really is illegal. Is something illegal if it is done by a powerful country against a weaker country? What Bill Ayers did could certainly be considered justified as a way of increasing the costs of the Vietnam War to America. What else were his options? In an only slightly democratic society (notice how long a majority of the population opposed the war and how long it continued) like the US, there is little but violent action that will change its course. This is the root of terrorism of the weak against the strong, an inability to change policy through rational and peaceful means. As much as large power centers complain about terrorism, they are really referring to the very minor terror of citizens against them The US had no excuse of self protection against the Vietnamese. There was no Soviet threat, and Vietnam posed zero risk to the US. There Vietnamese were not coming to invade Peoria. This was a colonial war prosecuted after the power vaccum left when the French, who had their own illegal Vietnam War with 40,000 casualties withdrew from the area. Furthermore there was no South Vietnam and elections in Vietnam were on course until the Kennedy Administration manipulated by the CIA decided to assasinate Diem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_and_assassination_of_Ngo_Dinh_Diem

The entire basis for the war, that the US was protecting South Vietnamese independence was pure fiction. (See below for support for these contentions. Its long, but worth it. If you respond to this post without watching this in its entirety, you won’t have a good basis for a response and I will delete the reply.)

US education and media has done its job, so not only do most Americans not know these facts, they can not interpret them properly when they are explained in even the most serene environment with all the facts place on the table. But their lack of acceptance does not change the illegality of the war. An objective view would certainly say that a war which killed 3.5 million people, which was not in any way defensive (in addition to other massive societal damage which is difficult to measure) is far more of a terrorist action. In fact it was infinitely more of a terrorist action than the Weather Underground’s activities. Kissinger, Nixon, Kennedy Johnson and the 1000s of Americans, both military and civilian, responsible for the hell on earth that was brought down upon the people of SouthEast Asia, and that continues to deeply hamper their development are the terrorists par excellance. Bill Ayers can’t be uttered in the same breath as them.

http://www.worldfreeinternet.net/news/nws125.htm

The Fake Debate on Clean Power

Most anyone reading this post is familiar with the debate over alternative fuels. The debate includes the usual suspects:

1. Hydro-electric
2. Solar
3. Hydrogen
4. Nuclear
5. Biofuels

The concept presented is that each power alternative is a viable option. We recently learned that most of these alternatives are not real alternatives. For instance, hydro-electric can only be a very minor contributor to overall power needs, further most of the rivers that could have been damned have been damed, to great environmental damage. Hydrogen is not a real alternative because using hydrogen breaks the 2nd law of thermodynamics, that is there is not much fuel (liquid hydrogen) and it takes more energy to break the bonds of hydrogen than can be recouped by combining the hydrogen with oxygen. Nuclear, is highly problematic and will also never be able to produce enough to be a major energy source. There would need to be 10,000 nuclear plants to power the US and you would eventually run out of the necessary Uranium 235. Biofuels provide low energy output considering the inputs of land, energy and conversion of biomass into biofuel. Again, it can never meet a significant source of the national energy needs.

The Solar Solution

Finally Solar, is far and away the most sustainable and best overall solution. For the US it is perfect, it has huge tracks of desert in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas which are very little used. It is estimated that a 100 x 100 square mile solar array would provide all the energy needs for the US. A landmass the size 1/2 of California would provide the energy need for the world. However while these facts are undisputed, solar is presented as just one of a number of equally possible alternatives. Our question here are

1. Why is a clearly superior solution is considered equally among other alternatives that are not real?
2. Why does solar energy get far less research budget than the ludicrous hydrogen research budget?

Do Companies With Current Investment Want an Alternative?

We consider it most likely that the present approach is design by the current energy power structure in order to confuse the issue. As long was we try to develop an energy future by co-opting and placating the current energy monopolists, its going to be a problem getting anywhere. The last thing the oil companies want is a legitimate alternative to arise so they will fight it tooth and nail. Most energy company innovation seems to go into more and more crafty ways to delude the public. See our post on Chevron:

http://onhumannature.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/is-chevron-an-environmental-company

References

Here is the DVD where the contention regarding the 100 mile x 100 mile solar grid power the US is made. As I said, I will stand on my head if you both watch this and don’t come away convinced solar is the answer and we should begin a massive government investment project into this.

http://www.amazon.com/Crude-Awakening-Oil-Crash/dp/B000PY52IG

BTW, netflix has this, which is where I rented it.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/solar-company-s.html

Also, this 100 square mile solar panel farm concept is supported by the Dept of Energy website:

Myth 1: Solar electricity cannot serve any significant fraction of U.S. or world electricity needs.

PV technology can meet electricity demand on any scale. The solar energy resource in a 100-mile-square area of Nevada could supply the United States with all its electricity (about 800 gigawatts) using modestly efficient (10%) commercial PV modules.

A more realistic scenario involves distributing these same PV systems throughout the 50 states. Currently available sites—such as vacant land, parking lots, and rooftops—could be used. The land requirement to produce 800 gigawatts would average out to be about 17 x 17 miles per state. Alternatively, PV systems built in the “brownfields”—the estimated 5 million acres of abandoned industrial sites in our nation’s cities—could supply 90% of America’s current electricity.

These hypothetical cases emphasize that PV is not “area-impaired” in delivering electricity. The critical point is that PV does not have to compete with baseload power. Its strength is in providing electricity when and where energy is most limited and most expensive. It does not simply replace some fraction of generation. Rather, it displaces the right portion of the load, shaving peak demand during periods when energy is most constrained and expensive.

In the long run, the U.S. PV Industry Roadmap does expect PV to provide a “significant fraction of U.S. electricity needs.” This adds up to at least 15% of new added electricity capacity in 2020, and then 10 years later, at least 10% of the nation’s total electricity (PDF 674 KB). Download Adobe Reader

Powered by ScribeFire.

WireTapping of ATT Internet Trunk Line by NSA

These links tell the story of the NSA illegal copying of all communications going through a major internet backbone. While the NSA is supposedly intercepting international communications, it along with the FBI has a history of surveillance of Americans in a highly indiscriminate manner.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132×2613420

Frontline on the NSA copying of data at the San Francisco ATT internet backbone.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/view/

Select the 2nd video

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/05/70908

The estimated surveillance impact of this site, another 15 to 20 sites wired by the NSA similarly means an interception of roughly 10% of all domestic internet traffic…and that is just at ATT. It is likely, though unproven, that the NSA has similar setups with other communication companies. Even after being made public by a whistleblower, these computer surveillance operations are still running.

Powered by ScribeFire.

FBI Conflict Resolution: The Incendiary Tear Canister

The nation remembers the Waco incident, where a cult lead by David Koresh, repelling an ATF team which had a illegal weapons warrant to seach their compound. This resulted in at first a gunfight, and then a standoff which went on for weeks. In the end the compound was burned to the ground. However, the origin of the fire was never explained. The FBI maintains (the FBI took over from the ATF which began the situation with their raid) that Branch Dravidians were a suicide cult, and that they started the fire, or at least a few of them started the fire that engulfed them.

The Evidence

There are several problems with this official FBI proposal. The first is the canisters the FBI threw into the compound were incendiaries. Secondly, the FBI lied about this fact. The FBI initially denied this claim, but years later were forced to admit it was true. Second, the compound had been filled for several hours by flammable tear gas and holes had been ripped into the compound (both of these things was done through the use of modified tanks). This increased the speed with which any fire would spread. Third, Waco was not the first FBI standoff that lead to a conflagration. Robert Mathews died in a similar standoff on Whidbey Island when incendiary tear gas canisters used by the FBI, burned down the cabin he was engaged in a stand-off with the FBI. The reasons for this extreme measure was not based upon any threat that Robert Mathews could have possessed vs. the FBI agents. (Various sources state numbers of law enforcement agents at Whidbey Island to be between 60 and 500) – Wikipedia

Zero Credibility

The FBI lied bout a number of things in Waco. They were repeatedly caught in these lies and then changed them or created new lies. Here is a brief list of their lies.

1. They said that the Branch Davidians shot themselves to death, even the ones that were found with 9 bullet holes. However, infrared cameras filming from helicopters show agents shooting bursts into the compound while it was burning to the ground.
2. The physical evidence (what was left of it) went missing in the FBI lab. The FBI was able to even “misplace” the doors where the initial assault occurred. The FBI maintained that the Branch Davidians shot at them through the doors, not the other way around. However, after taking this and other items into custody the FBI conveniently lost all the evidence.

The Cover Up

During the congressional investigation the Democrats and Republicans eventually closed ranks, neither of them wanting the truth about Waco to get out as it would undermine the confidence in the FBI, the ATF and law enforcement generally. Charles Schumer and Joseph Biden were critical in the coverup during the congressinal investigation. During the testimony the FBI agents made a number of nonsensical statements that “they stood between the bad guys and the rest of civilization.” They were caught in multiple inconsistencies during the hearings. The final declaration by Joseph Biden that the FBI acted appropriately is surreal.

The Most Likely Explanation

The most likely explanation is the one most difficult to accept. The FBI deliberately set fire to the compound and restricted the access of fire trucks until there was nothing left of it. Its important to consider how the FBI agents acted during the siege. Many of them appeared to be living out some type of action movie fantasy. Driving around in tanks, giving the Branch Davidians the finger and taunting them during the siege. When Koresh’s mother visited during the stand off agents were reported to have said

“say your goodbyes because he is not coming out alive.”

The FBI can add the Waco incident to the murder of Fred Hampton and the intimidation of Martin Luther King and John Lennon, their undermining of the civil rights movement. Its quite a resume of corruption and abuse of power.

Powered by ScribeFire.