lewrockwell--2020-01-08--Beware the Vaping Fearmongers

Beware the Vaping Fearmongers

Ewan Fisher , a teenager from Nottingham , UK , hit the headlines last month .
It emerged that two years ago , when he was 17 , he had suffered lung failure caused by an e-cigarette he had been using to quit smoking .
This was yet another bad news story for the vaping industry , after reports emerged in September of people dying in the US from vaping-related conditions .
Dame Sally Davies , the UK ’ s departing chief medical officer , certainly wasted little time in ramping up public fears over vaping , calling it a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that she needed to make much of an effort .
Public-health officials have long been busy portraying vaping as a public-health threat , with ‘ no vaping ’ signs now adorning many shops , restaurants , buses and train carriages .
Little wonder the journal Addiction found that roughly 22 per cent of respondents believed that vaping is as bad for your health as smoking .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.64 Buy New $ 8.00 But how dangerous really is vaping ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Vaping is a relatively recent phenomenon , so longitudinal studies on the dangers of using e-cigarettes are hard to come by .
But , so far at least , there appears to be very little evidence that using an e-cigarette significantly raises your chances of developing serious lung diseases , or any other long-term chronic illnesses .
In fact , according to NICE and Cancer Research UK , using e-cigarettes is at least 95 per cent less harmful to your health than tobacco smoking .
Furthermore , in 2018 there were approximately @ @ @ @ @ @ @ smoking .
None was attributable to vaping .
In fact , vaping has actually helped between 50,000 and 70,000 people quit smoking .
It has therefore potentially saved people ’ s lives .

Ewan Fisher, a teenager from Nottingham, UK, hit the headlines last month. It emerged that two years ago, when he was 17, he had suffered lung failure caused by an e-cigarette he had been using to quit smoking.
This was yet another bad news story for the vaping industry, after reports emerged in September of people dying in the US from vaping-related conditions.
Dame Sally Davies, the UK’s departing chief medical officer, certainly wasted little time in ramping up public fears over vaping, calling it a ‘ticking time bomb’. Not that she needed to make much of an effort. Public-health officials have long been busy portraying vaping as a public-health threat, with ‘no vaping’ signs now adorning many shops, restaurants, buses and train carriages. Little wonder the journal Addiction found that roughly 22 per cent of respondents believed that vaping is as bad for your health as smoking. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
But how dangerous really is vaping?
Before answering, a caveat is necessary. Vaping is a relatively recent phenomenon, so longitudinal studies on the dangers of using e-cigarettes are hard to come by. But, so far at least, there appears to be very little evidence that using an e-cigarette significantly raises your chances of developing serious lung diseases, or any other long-term chronic illnesses.
In fact, according to NICE and Cancer Research UK, using e-cigarettes is at least 95 per cent less harmful to your health than tobacco smoking.
Furthermore, in 2018 there were approximately 78,000 deaths in the UK attributable to smoking. None was attributable to vaping.
In fact, vaping has actually helped between 50,000 and 70,000 people quit smoking. It has therefore potentially saved people’s lives.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-08--Some Other People Do Some Other Things

Some Other People Do Some Other Things

An almighty bafflement befogs the nation as the first full business week of 2020 commences and events pile up like smashed vehicles on a weather-blinded highway .
Before we even smoked that Iranian bird on the Baghdad airport tarmac , something ominous was tingling away in the financial markets , in fact , has been since way back in September .
Perhaps one-in-100,000 Americans has the dimmest clue as to what the repo mechanism stands for in banking circles , but it has been flashing red for months , with klaxons blaring for those who maybe missed the red flashes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars in overnight lending in which bonds ( or other “ assets ” ) are used as collateral for ultra-short-term loans between large banks .
Theoretically , this flow of supposedly secured lending acts as mere background lubricant for the engine of finance , like the motor oil circulating in your Ford F-150 .
You don ’ t notice it until it ’ s not there , and then all of a sudden you ’ re throwing rods and sucking valves , and the darn vehicle is a smoldering goner in the breakdown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ repo scene suggests that some big banks are in big trouble , and probably because the “ innovative investments ” they ’ ve engineered — as a substitute for the true purposes of capital , such as enabling production of real goods at a profit — are proving once again to be little more than swindles and frauds , like last time .
Things like interest rate swaps and credit default “ insurance.
” Have your eyes glazed over yet ?
The bottom line is an impressive potential for losses to go critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and then start wrecking real things — like the supply lines to your supermarket .
Living in the Long Eme ... James Howard Kunstler Buy New $ 24.95 When you cut through all the esoteric crap , what ’ s likely behind all that is the dynamic of a failing affordable global energy supply .
Yes , really .
It ’ s not working to run the global economy anymore , so we resort to swindles and frauds instead .
That must seem crazy to Americans especially , who look at our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million barrels-a-day now and behold the blue sky of “ energy independence ” as far as the eye can see .
The trouble is , it ’ s a hologram of a mirage of a Ponzi scheme .
Suffice it to say that shale oil just doesn ’ t make any money and all the other regular oil around the world is harder and harder to get to .
A lot of that other oil is in the Middle East .
So , a lot depends on what happens in the Middle East @ @ @ @ @ @ @ confused region in the world — though central Africa may have it beat for sheer horrifying chaos .
In general , we tolerate all that confusion as long as the oil keeps flowing to world markets , enabling the flows of everything else .
But any hint of an interruption sends humanity and all its signaling systems — such as financial markets — into a psychotic fugue .
Which is what we ’ re approaching now .
The financial markets know that a lot less new investment will flow into shale oil from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lousy investment the past ten years , despite all the admirable techno-virtuosity behind it , and that before long the mighty shale oil bell curve will turn down , and everything economic with it .
Folks who make foreign policy and military plans may sense this too , perhaps dimly .
But then they confront the additional mystifying calculus of all those moiling parties in the Middle East jockeying for position and advantage as the oil-hungry big dogs of the world desperately try to figure how to keep those oil flows going their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than later — the mighty flows of everything in the global economy have to neck down , and the process will probably consist of sharp political and economic shocks rather than simple deceleration .
Just such a shock was the assassination of General Qassim Suleimani .
His multifarious activities all around the Middle East were in themselves a symptom of the instability dogging Iran as its economy wobbles .
Much of that is due to the squeeze that the USA put on Iran in the way of trade sanctions and currency movements .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ over forty years ago when the mullahs ran the shah out of town and took the American embassy staff hostage for well over a year .
The enmity on both sides runs wide and deep .
A Christmas Orphan : a ... james howard kunstler Best Price : $ 8.73 Buy New $ 7.50 Iran ’ s neighbor , Iraq , is quite a prize oil-wise , and Iran has made significant inroads attempting to gain control of that broken country , even while the USA retains its garrisons there .
The region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is overwhelmingly Shia , like Iran , and produces a lot of Iraq ’ s oil .
Baghdad is not so hot to give it up .
Remember , the two countries slugged it out through the entire 1980s .
About a quarter-million people died in that war .
It is surely a high priority for the USA to not let that Iraqi oil slip into Iran ’ s hands .
It ’ s a zero-sum game , of course , because even Iraq ’ s copious oil reserves will not save @ @ @ @ @ @ @ let alone Iran ’ s economy .
Nobody knows what happens next .
The Iranians are pissed off to beat the band .
They ’ ve pulled many a prank the past couple of years , like attacking a major Saudi Arabian oil terminal , capturing American sailors , shooting down American drones , seizing tankers in the Persian Gulf and suchlike capers — all with no response from their foes , including us , until last week .
And , of course , there is the question of all the other monkey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Syria , Lebanon and even faraway Libya , which is where General Suleimani came in .
Serious people wonder : is Iran crazy enough now to try to shut down the Straits of Hormuz ?
Or attack the Ras Tanura complex ?
For the moment , impeachment is on the back burner .
We ’ re in for a double-feature this first month of the rollicking 20s : financial carnage and something that looks like war .
It will make for quite the attitude-adjustment here .
The Best of James Howard Kunstler

An almighty bafflement befogs the nation as the first full business week of 2020 commences and events pile up like smashed vehicles on a weather-blinded highway. Before we even smoked that Iranian bird on the Baghdad airport tarmac, something ominous was tingling away in the financial markets, in fact, has been since way back in September. Perhaps one-in-100,000 Americans has the dimmest clue as to what the repo mechanism stands for in banking circles, but it has been flashing red for months, with klaxons blaring for those who maybe missed the red flashes.
The repo market represents trillions of dollars in overnight lending in which bonds (or other “assets”) are used as collateral for ultra-short-term loans between large banks. Theoretically, this flow of supposedly secured lending acts as mere background lubricant for the engine of finance, like the motor oil circulating in your Ford F-150. You don’t notice it until it’s not there, and then all of a sudden you’re throwing rods and sucking valves, and the darn vehicle is a smoldering goner in the breakdown lane.
The strange action on the repo scene suggests that some big banks are in big trouble, and probably because the “innovative investments” they’ve engineered — as a substitute for the true purposes of capital, such as enabling production of real goods at a profit — are proving once again to be little more than swindles and frauds, like last time. Things like interest rate swaps and credit default “insurance.” Have your eyes glazed over yet? The bottom line is an impressive potential for losses to go critical, multiply daisy-chain style, cascade wildly, and then start wrecking real things — like the supply lines to your supermarket. Living in the Long Eme... James Howard Kunstler Buy New $24.95 (as of 10:56 UTC - Details)
When you cut through all the esoteric crap, what’s likely behind all that is the dynamic of a failing affordable global energy supply. Yes, really. It’s not working to run the global economy anymore, so we resort to swindles and frauds instead. That must seem crazy to Americans especially, who look at our all-time record oil production of nearly 13 million barrels-a-day now and behold the blue sky of “energy independence” as far as the eye can see. The trouble is, it’s a hologram of a mirage of a Ponzi scheme. Suffice it to say that shale oil just doesn’t make any money and all the other regular oil around the world is harder and harder to get to. A lot of that other oil is in the Middle East.
So, a lot depends on what happens in the Middle East, easily the most politically mixed-up and confused region in the world — though central Africa may have it beat for sheer horrifying chaos. In general, we tolerate all that confusion as long as the oil keeps flowing to world markets, enabling the flows of everything else. But any hint of an interruption sends humanity and all its signaling systems — such as financial markets — into a psychotic fugue. Which is what we’re approaching now.
The financial markets know that a lot less new investment will flow into shale oil from now on, since it was a lousy investment the past ten years, despite all the admirable techno-virtuosity behind it, and that before long the mighty shale oil bell curve will turn down, and everything economic with it. Folks who make foreign policy and military plans may sense this too, perhaps dimly. But then they confront the additional mystifying calculus of all those moiling parties in the Middle East jockeying for position and advantage as the oil-hungry big dogs of the world desperately try to figure how to keep those oil flows going their way.
Eventually — and sooner rather than later — the mighty flows of everything in the global economy have to neck down, and the process will probably consist of sharp political and economic shocks rather than simple deceleration. Just such a shock was the assassination of General Qassim Suleimani. His multifarious activities all around the Middle East were in themselves a symptom of the instability dogging Iran as its economy wobbles. Much of that is due to the squeeze that the USA put on Iran in the way of trade sanctions and currency movements. And much of that stems from events over forty years ago when the mullahs ran the shah out of town and took the American embassy staff hostage for well over a year. The enmity on both sides runs wide and deep. A Christmas Orphan: a ... james howard kunstler Best Price: $8.73 Buy New $7.50 (as of 10:56 UTC - Details)
Iran’s neighbor, Iraq, is quite a prize oil-wise, and Iran has made significant inroads attempting to gain control of that broken country, even while the USA retains its garrisons there. The region of Iraq closest to Iran, Basra, is overwhelmingly Shia, like Iran, and produces a lot of Iraq’s oil. Baghdad is not so hot to give it up. Remember, the two countries slugged it out through the entire 1980s. About a quarter-million people died in that war. It is surely a high priority for the USA to not let that Iraqi oil slip into Iran’s hands. It’s a zero-sum game, of course, because even Iraq’s copious oil reserves will not save the global economy’s ass, let alone Iran’s economy.
Nobody knows what happens next. The Iranians are pissed off to beat the band. They’ve pulled many a prank the past couple of years, like attacking a major Saudi Arabian oil terminal, capturing American sailors, shooting down American drones, seizing tankers in the Persian Gulf and suchlike capers — all with no response from their foes, including us, until last week. And, of course, there is the question of all the other monkey business they’ve engaged in around Syria, Lebanon and even faraway Libya, which is where General Suleimani came in. Serious people wonder: is Iran crazy enough now to try to shut down the Straits of Hormuz? Or attack the Ras Tanura complex?
For the moment, impeachment is on the back burner. We’re in for a double-feature this first month of the rollicking 20s: financial carnage and something that looks like war. It will make for quite the attitude-adjustment here.
Reprinted with permission from Kunstler.com.
The Best of James Howard Kunstler


lewrockwell--2020-01-08--Is This ‘The Top’?

Is This ‘The Top’?

Parabolic moves end when the confidence that the parabolic move can ’ t end becomes the consensus .
The consensus seems to be that the stock market is on its way to much higher levels , and soon .
The near-term targets for the S & P 500 ( SPX , currently around 3,235 ) range from 3,500 to 4,000 , with longer-term targets reaching “ the sky ’ s the limit.
” The consensus reasoning goes like this : Will You Be Richer or ... Charles Hugh Smith Best Price : $ 12.82 Buy New $ 11.84 The history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple cause-effect , and so just about everyone is on the same side of the boat , the “ don ’ t fight the Fed ” side of ever-higher stock multiples and ever-higher prices .
Simply put : sales and profits no longer matter , the only thing that matters is whether central banks are printing more money .
And since we all know they ’ ll have to print more money to keep the flying pig ( the stock market ) aloft , then it follows as night follows day that stocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the consensus has settled complacently on one side of the boat , contrarians take notice as history has a perverse habit of foiling any overwhelmingly complacent consensus .
The contrarian asks : what if this is “ The Top ” ?
Not just the top of the current rally , but The Top of the Bull Market that ignited in March 2009 ?
Impossible , say the Bulls ; there ’ s cash on the sidelines , Uber/Lyft drivers aren ’ t yet touting obscure stocks , i.e .
“ everybody ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ central banks haven ’ t even warmed up their digital printing presses , corporations are flush with cash/credit to continue their decade-long gorging on stock buy-backs and the global economy is back on track for another decade or three of tepid “ growth.
” Maybe this is all true , maybe not .
Maybe Uber/Lyft drivers are too broke to care about the stock market .
Maybe “ cash on the sidelines ” isn ’ t interested in gambling in the equity-bubble casino .
Maybe corporate credit dries up .
Maybe stock buy-backs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ higher by 30 % to 100 % every year .
Maybe there are limits on the effectiveness of central bank stimulus .
Maybe the false dawn of global growth is fading .
Maybe diminishing returns ( including but not limited to diminishing marginal returns ) are setting in and all these bullish dynamics are running on fumes .
The Best of Charles Hugh Smith

Parabolic moves end when the confidence that the parabolic move can’t end becomes the consensus.
The consensus seems to be that the stock market is on its way to much higher levels, and soon. The near-term targets for the S&P 500 (SPX, currently around 3,235) range from 3,500 to 4,000, with longer-term targets reaching “the sky’s the limit.”
The consensus reasoning goes like this:
— Central banks can print a lot more money
— Stocks rise when central banks print more money.
Will You Be Richer or ... Smith, Charles Hugh Best Price: $10.99 Buy New $11.55 (as of 05:55 UTC - Details) The history of the 2009-2019 era strongly supports this simple cause-effect, and so just about everyone is on the same side of the boat, the “don’t fight the Fed” side of ever-higher stock multiples and ever-higher prices.
Simply put: sales and profits no longer matter, the only thing that matters is whether central banks are printing more money. And since we all know they’ll have to print more money to keep the flying pig (the stock market) aloft, then it follows as night follows day that stocks will rise essentially forever.
As soon as the consensus has settled complacently on one side of the boat, contrarians take notice as history has a perverse habit of foiling any overwhelmingly complacent consensus.
The contrarian asks: what if this is “The Top”? Not just the top of the current rally, but The Top of the Bull Market that ignited in March 2009? Impossible, say the Bulls; there’s cash on the sidelines, Uber/Lyft drivers aren’t yet touting obscure stocks, i.e. “everybody” is not yet in the market, central banks haven’t even warmed up their digital printing presses, corporations are flush with cash/credit to continue their decade-long gorging on stock buy-backs and the global economy is back on track for another decade or three of tepid “growth.”
Maybe this is all true, maybe not. Maybe Uber/Lyft drivers are too broke to care about the stock market. Maybe “cash on the sidelines” isn’t interested in gambling in the equity-bubble casino. Maybe corporate credit dries up. Maybe stock buy-backs are no longer sufficient to push stocks higher by 30% to 100% every year. Maybe there are limits on the effectiveness of central bank stimulus. Maybe the false dawn of global growth is fading.
Maybe diminishing returns (including but not limited to diminishing marginal returns) are setting in and all these bullish dynamics are running on fumes.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Charles Hugh Smith


lewrockwell--2020-01-08--VIPS MEMO: Doubling Down Into Yet Another ‘March of Folly’

“ We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid doubling down on catastrophe , ” VIPS tells Donald Trump in its latest memo to the president .
SUBJECT : Doubling Down Into Another “ March of Folly ” ?
The drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914 , which led to World War I. Iran ’ s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of “ severe revenge.
” That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility , particularly given the multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in nearby waters .
War is a Racket : The A ... Smedley Darlington Butler Best Price : $ 6.45 Buy New $ 3.79 What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated .
Quite the contrary .
One short week ago , for example , Iran launched its first joint naval exercises with Russia and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. in the region .
It is time to call a spade a spade .
The country expecting to benefit most from hostilities between Iran and the U.S. is Israel ( with Saudi Arabia in second place ) .
As you no doubt are aware , Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life .
He continues to await from you the kind of gift that keeps giving .
Likewise , it appears that you , your son-in-law , and other myopic pro-Israel advisers are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prime ministers as was former President George W. Bush .
Some commentators are citing your taking personal responsibility for providing Iran with a casus belli as unfathomable .
Looking back just a decade or so , we see a readily distinguishable pattern .
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon payed a huge role in getting George W. Bush to destroy Saddam Hussein ’ s Iraq .
Usually taciturn , Gen. Brent Scowcroft , national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W .
Bush , warned in August 2002 that “ U.S @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the whole region into a cauldron.
” Bush paid no heed , prompting Scowcroft to explain in Oct. 2004 to The Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “ mesmerized ” ; that Sharon has him “ wrapped around his little finger.
” ( Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President ’ s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board . )
In Sept. 2002 , well before the attack on Iraq , Philip Zelikow , who was Executive Secretary of the 9/11 Commission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unusual candor , “ The ‘ real threat ’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States .
The unstated threat was the threat against Israel.
” Zelikow did not explain how Iraq ( or Iran ) , with zero nuclear weapons , would not be deterred from attacking Israel , which had a couple of hundred such weapons .
When a docile , Peter-principle , “ we-are-still-winning-in-Afghanistan ” U.S. military leadership sends more troops ( mostly from a poverty draft ) to be wounded and killed in hostilities with Iran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to look beneath the equally docile media for answers as to why .
Was it for Netanyahu and the oppressive regime in Israel ?
Many Americans will wake up , and serious backlash is likely .
Events might bring a rise in the kind of anti-Semitism already responsible for domestic terrorist attacks .
And when bodybags arrive from abroad , there may be for families and for thinking Americans , a limit to how much longer the pro-Israel mainstream media will be able to pull the wool over their eyes .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Scowcroft got up on the wrong side of the bed on Oct. 13 , 2004 , the day he gave the interview to The Financial Times may profit from words straight from Netanyahu ’ s mouth .
On Aug. 3 , 2010 , in a formal VIPS Memorandum for your predecessor , we provided some “ Netanyahu in his own words.
” We include an excerpt here for historical context : Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards , largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Obama ’ s ] reluctance even to mention controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship .
During election years in the U.S. ( including mid-terms ) , Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene .
Netanyahu ’ s attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV , in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accords when he was actually destroying them .
The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward — and wonderment at — an America so easily influenced by Israel .
Netanyahu says : “ America is something that can be easily moved .
Moved in the right direction .
… They won ’ t get in our way … Eighty percent of the Americans support us .
It ’ s absurd.
” Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be “ a con artist … who thinks that Washington is in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wool over its eyes , ” adding that such behavior “ does not change over the years.
” We ended VIPS ’ first Memorandum For the President ( George W. Bush ) with this critique of Secretary of State Colin Powell ’ s address at the UN earlier that day : “ No one has a corner on the truth ; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “ irrefutable or undeniable ” [ as Powell claimed his was ] .
But after watching Secretary Powell today , we are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.
” We are all in a liminal moment .
We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid doubling down on catastrophe .
A Peace to End All Pea ... David Fromkin Best Price : $ 4.63 Buy New $ 15.26 For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity : Marshall Carter-Tripp , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research ( ret . )
Mike Gravel , former Adjutant , top secret control officer , Communications Intelligence Service ; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator John Kiriakou , former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator , Senate Foreign Relations Committee Karen Kwiatkowski , Lt. Col. , US Air Force ( ret . )
, at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq , 2001-2003 Elizabeth Murray , former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ret . )
Robert Wing , former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer ( Associate VIPS )

“We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid doubling down on catastrophe,” VIPS tells Donald Trump in its latest memo to the president.
January 3, 2020
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Doubling Down Into Another “March of Folly”?
The drone assassination in Iraq of Iranian Quds Force commander General Qassem Soleimani evokes memory of the assassination of Austrian Archduke Ferdinand in June 1914, which led to World War I. Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quick to warn of “severe revenge.” That Iran will retaliate at a time and place of its choosing is a near certainty. And escalation into World War III is no longer just a remote possibility, particularly given the multitude of vulnerable targets offered by our large military footprint in the region and in nearby waters. War is a Racket: The A... Smedley Darlington Butler Best Price: $6.45 Buy New $3.79 (as of 03:45 UTC - Details)
What your advisers may have avoided telling you is that Iran has not been isolated. Quite the contrary. One short week ago, for example, Iran launched its first joint naval exercises with Russia and China in the Gulf of Oman, in an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. in the region.
Cui Bono?
It is time to call a spade a spade. The country expecting to benefit most from hostilities between Iran and the U.S. is Israel (with Saudi Arabia in second place). As you no doubt are aware, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is fighting for his political life. He continues to await from you the kind of gift that keeps giving. Likewise, it appears that you, your son-in-law, and other myopic pro-Israel advisers are as susceptible to the influence of Israeli prime ministers as was former President George W. Bush. Some commentators are citing your taking personal responsibility for providing Iran with a casus belli as unfathomable. Looking back just a decade or so, we see a readily distinguishable pattern.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon payed a huge role in getting George W. Bush to destroy Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Usually taciturn, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, national security adviser to Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush, warned in August 2002 that “U.S. action against Iraq … could turn the whole region into a cauldron.” Bush paid no heed, prompting Scowcroft to explain in Oct. 2004 to The Financial Times that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had George W. Bush “mesmerized”; that Sharon has him “wrapped around his little finger.” (Scowcroft was promptly relieved of his duties as chair of the prestigious President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.)
In Sept. 2002, well before the attack on Iraq, Philip Zelikow, who was Executive Secretary of the 9/11 Commission, stated publicly in a moment of unusual candor, “The ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel.” Zelikow did not explain how Iraq (or Iran), with zero nuclear weapons, would not be deterred from attacking Israel, which had a couple of hundred such weapons.
Zombie Generals
When a docile, Peter-principle, “we-are-still-winning-in-Afghanistan” U.S. military leadership sends more troops (mostly from a poverty draft) to be wounded and killed in hostilities with Iran, Americans are likely, this time, to look beneath the equally docile media for answers as to why. Was it for Netanyahu and the oppressive regime in Israel? Many Americans will wake up, and serious backlash is likely.
Events might bring a rise in the kind of anti-Semitism already responsible for domestic terrorist attacks. And when bodybags arrive from abroad, there may be for families and for thinking Americans, a limit to how much longer the pro-Israel mainstream media will be able to pull the wool over their eyes.
Those who may prefer to think that Gen. Scowcroft got up on the wrong side of the bed on Oct. 13, 2004, the day he gave the interview to The Financial Times may profit from words straight from Netanyahu’s mouth. On Aug. 3, 2010, in a formal VIPS Memorandum for your predecessor, we provided some “Netanyahu in his own words.” We include an excerpt here for historical context:
“Netanyahu’s Calculations Netanyahu believes he holds the high cards, largely because of the strong support he enjoys in our Congress and our strongly pro-Israel media. He reads your [Obama’s] reluctance even to mention controversial bilateral issues publicly during his recent visit as affirmation that he is in the catbird seat in the relationship. During election years in the U.S. (including mid-terms), Israeli leaders are particularly confident of the power they and the Likud Lobby enjoy on the American political scene. Netanyahu’s attitude comes through in a video taped nine years ago and shown on Israeli TV, in which he bragged about how he deceived President Clinton into believing he (Netanyahu) was helping implement the Oslo accords when he was actually destroying them. The tape displays a contemptuous attitude toward — and wonderment at — an America so easily influenced by Israel. Netanyahu says: “America is something that can be easily moved. Moved in the right direction. … They won’t get in our way … Eighty percent of the Americans support us. It’s absurd.” Israeli columnist Gideon Levy wrote that the video shows Netanyahu to be “a con artist … who thinks that Washington is in his pocket and that he can pull the wool over its eyes,” adding that such behavior “does not change over the years.”
Recommendation
We ended VIPS’ first Memorandum For the President (George W. Bush) with this critique of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address at the UN earlier that day:
“No one has a corner on the truth; nor do we harbor illusions that our analysis is “irrefutable or undeniable” [as Powell claimed his was]. But after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”
We are all in a liminal moment. We write with a sense of urgency suggesting you avoid doubling down on catastrophe. A Peace to End All Pea... Fromkin, David Best Price: $4.51 Buy New $14.19 (as of 11:15 UTC - Details)
For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity:
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer and Division Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (ret.)
Daniel Ellsberg, (Associate VIPS)
Graham Fuller, former vice-chairman, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Robert Furukawa, Capt, Civil Engineer Corps, USN-R, (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former Adjutant, top secret control officer, Communications Intelligence Service; special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps and former United States Senator
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC Iraq; Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Michael S. Kearns, Captain, USAF (ret.); ex-Master SERE Instructor for Strategic Reconnaissance Operations (NSA/DIA) and Special Mission Units (JSOC)
John Kiriakou, former CIA Counterterrorism Officer and former Senior Investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col., US Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist and Technical Director (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA presidential briefer (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East & CIA political analyst (ret.)
Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former MAJ., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)
Sarah Wilton, Commander, U.S. Naval Reserve (ret.) and Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)
Robert Wing, former U.S. Department of State Foreign Service Officer (Associate VIPS)
This originally appeared on Consortiumnews.com.


lewrockwell--2020-01-08--Lies, the Bethlehem Doctrine, and the Illegal Murder of Soleimani

In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani , Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “ Imminent attacks ” on US citizens .
It is a careful choice of word .
Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence .
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu ’ s government and then Blair ’ s , the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “ pre-emptive self-defence ” against “ imminent ” attack .
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law experts and judges , would accept .
Including me .
What very few people , and almost no international lawyers , accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “ Imminent ” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “ soon ” or “ about to happen ” .
An attack may be deemed “ imminent ” , according to the Bethlehem Doctrine , even if you know no details of it or when it might occur @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “ intelligence ” you are engaged in a plot , when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur .
Or even more tenuous , because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before , so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again .
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine .
It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US and UK governments for a decade .
Here it is in academic paper form , published by Bethlehem after he left government service ( the form in which it is adopted by the US , UK and Israeli Governments is classified information ) .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.64 Buy New $ 8.00 So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “ imminent ” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or when these “ imminent ” attacks were planned to be .
He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something .
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you , but you do not know when , where or how , can be justified as self-defence , has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO ’ s Chief Legal Adviser , brought in by Jack Straw , precisely because every single one of the FCO ’ s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal .
In 2004 , when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq , Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong , a defence which has seldom succeeded in court .
In the absence of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ kind of tosh , Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser , the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel ’ s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam ’ s “ imminent threat ” to the UK , which proved to be non-existent .
It says everything about Bethlehem ’ s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War , and he still gave not one second ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the “ imminent threat ” can be wrong .
Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine .
The bloodlust is strong in this one .
There are literally scores of academic articles , in every respected journal of international law , taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading .
My favourite is this one by Bethlehem ’ s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser , Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky ‘ s essay “ On the Responsibility of Intellectuals ” In the UK recently , the Attorney General gave a speech in defence of the UK ’ s drone policy , the assassination of people – including British nationals – abroad .
This execution without a hearing is based on several criteria , he reassured us .
His speech was repeated slavishly in the British media .
In fact , the Guardian newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely verbatim , and stuck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top .
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process by which the British government regularly executes without trial .
Yet in fact it is extremely interesting .
The genesis of the policy lay in the appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ’ s Chief Legal Adviser .
Jack Straw made the appointment , and for the first time ever it was external , and not from the Foreign Office ’ s own large team of world-renowned international lawyers .
The reason for that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the FCO ’ s legal advisers had advised that the invasion of Iraq was illegal , and Straw wished to find a new head of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view .
Straw went to extremes .
He appointed Daniel Bethlehem , the legal ‘ expert ’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the ‘ legality ’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away from their land and water resources .
Bethlehem was an enthusiastic proponent of the invasion of Iraq .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the world of drone strikes .
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes which is , to say the least , controversial .
To give one example , Bethlehem accepts that established principles of international law dictate that lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘ imminent ’ .
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘ imminent ’ does not require it to be ‘ soon ’ .
Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘ imminent attack ’ even if you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it will be .
You can instead rely on your target ’ s ‘ pattern of behaviour ’ ; that is , if he has attacked before , it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is ‘ imminent ’ .
There is a much deeper problem : that the evidence against the target is often extremely dubious .
Yet even allowing the evidence to be perfect , it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances without it being considered a death penalty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than to frustrate another ‘ imminent ’ one .
You would think that background would make an interesting story .
Yet the entire ‘ serious ’ British media published the government line , without a single journalist , not one , writing about the fact that Bethlehem ’ s proposed definition of ‘ imminent ’ has been widely rejected by the international law community .
The public knows none of this .
They just ‘ know ’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by terrorists , because the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attempted to give them other information So that is lie one .
When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “ imminent ” attacks , he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “ imminent ” means neither “ soon ” nor “ definitely going to happen ” .
To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie .
To do so to justify killing people is obscene .
That is why , if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell , the worst thing about the experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let us now move on to the next lie , which is being widely repeated , this time originated by Donald Trump , that Soleimani was responsible for the “ deaths of hundreds , if not thousands , of Americans ” .
This lie has been parroted by everybody , Republicans and Democrats alike .
Really ?
Who were they ?
When and where ?
While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone , sometime , but you don ’ t know who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when .
American Raj : America ... Eric Margolis Best Price : $ 9.95 The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11 , in the resultant Middle East related wars , conflicts and terrorist acts , well over 90 % of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites , and less than 10 % @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Shia Muslims tied to Iran .
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which , regardless of party , are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money .
It is , the USA affirms , the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy .
Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni , every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself , including 9/11 , has been exclusively Sunni , the Benghazi attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Al Nusra are Sunni , the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis .
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which Soleimani was responsible ?
Is there a list ?
It is of course a simple lie .
Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon ’ s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself , 83 % of US troop deaths were at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance , that is 603 troops .
All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani , remarkably .
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion .
The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion .
The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible .
Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “ responsible for hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the justification for his murder , to give the impression he was involved in terrorism , not legitimate combat against invading forces .
The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war .
As I understand it , there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion , and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supervised every combat success , these were legitimate acts of war .
You can not simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you , years after you invade .
The final , and perhaps silliest lie , is Vice President Mike Pence ’ s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11 .
There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11 , and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 ( and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan .
But there is zero evidence , as the 9/11 report specifically stated , that the Iranians knew what they were planning , or that Soleimani personally was involved .
This is total bullshit .
9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led , nothing to do with Iran .
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 ( the Taliban were his enemies too , the shia Tajiks being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Northern Alliance ) .
He was in Iraq to fight ISIL .
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises .
The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “ non-state actors ” .
Unlike all of the foregoing , this next is speculation , but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq , where the Shia militias have a semi-official status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government , to which the US government is allied .
This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further .
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media , that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is .
It was an act of state terrorism by the USA , pure and simple .

In one of the series of blatant lies the USA has told to justify the assassination of Soleimani, Mike Pompeo said that Soleimani was killed because he was planning “Imminent attacks” on US citizens. It is a careful choice of word. Pompeo is specifically referring to the Bethlehem Doctrine of Pre-Emptive Self Defence.
Developed by Daniel Bethlehem when Legal Adviser to first Netanyahu’s government and then Blair’s, the Bethlehem Doctrine is that states have a right of “pre-emptive self-defence” against “imminent” attack. That is something most people, and most international law experts and judges, would accept. Including me.
What very few people, and almost no international lawyers, accept is the key to the Bethlehem Doctrine – that here “Imminent” – the word used so carefully by Pompeo – does not need to have its normal meanings of either “soon” or “about to happen”. An attack may be deemed “imminent”, according to the Bethlehem Doctrine, even if you know no details of it or when it might occur. So you may be assassinated by a drone or bomb strike – and the doctrine was specifically developed to justify such strikes – because of “intelligence” you are engaged in a plot, when that intelligence neither says what the plot is nor when it might occur. Or even more tenuous, because there is intelligence you have engaged in a plot before, so it is reasonable to kill you in case you do so again.
I am not inventing the Bethlehem Doctrine. It has been the formal legal justification for drone strikes and targeted assassinations by the Israeli, US and UK governments for a decade. Here it is in academic paper form, published by Bethlehem after he left government service (the form in which it is adopted by the US, UK and Israeli Governments is classified information). Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
So when Pompeo says attacks by Soleimani were “imminent” he is not using the word in the normal sense in the English language. It is no use asking him what, where or when these “imminent” attacks were planned to be. He is referencing the Bethlehem Doctrine under which you can kill people on the basis of a feeling that they may have been about to do something.
The idea that killing an individual who you have received information is going to attack you, but you do not know when, where or how, can be justified as self-defence, has not gained widespread acceptance – or indeed virtually any acceptance – in legal circles outside the ranks of the most extreme devoted neo-conservatives and zionists. Daniel Bethlehem became the FCO’s Chief Legal Adviser, brought in by Jack Straw, precisely because every single one of the FCO’s existing Legal Advisers believed the Iraq War to be illegal. In 2004, when the House of Commons was considering the legality of the war on Iraq, Bethlehem produced a remarkable paper for consideration which said that it was legal because the courts and existing law were wrong, a defence which has seldom succeeded in court.
(b)
following this line, I am also of the view that the wider principles of the law on self-defence also require closer scrutiny. I am not persuaded that the approach of doctrinal purity reflected in the Judgments of the International Court of Justice in this area provide a helpful edifice on which a coherent legal regime, able to address the exigencies of contemporary international life and discourage resort to unilateral action, is easily crafted;
In the absence of a respectable international lawyer willing to argue this kind of tosh, Blair brought in Bethlehem as Chief Legal Adviser, the man who advised Netanyahu on Israel’s security wall and who was willing to say that attacking Iraq was legal on the basis of Saddam’s “imminent threat” to the UK, which proved to be non-existent. It says everything about Bethlehem’s eagerness for killing that the formulation of the Bethlehem Doctrine on extrajudicial execution by drone came after the Iraq War, and he still gave not one second’s thought to the fact that the intelligence on the “imminent threat” can be wrong. Assassinating people on the basis of faulty intelligence is not addressed by Bethlehem in setting out his doctrine. The bloodlust is strong in this one.
There are literally scores of academic articles, in every respected journal of international law, taking down the Bethlehem Doctrine for its obvious absurdities and revolting special pleading. My favourite is this one by Bethlehem’s predecessor as the FCO Chief Legal Adviser, Sir Michael Wood and his ex-Deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst.
I addressed the Bethlehem Doctrine as part of my contribution to a book reflecting on Chomsky‘s essay “On the Responsibility of Intellectuals”
In the UK recently, the Attorney
General gave a speech in defence of the UK’s drone policy, the assassination
of people – including British nationals – abroad. This execution
without a hearing is based on several criteria, he reassured us. His
speech was repeated slavishly in the British media. In fact, the Guardian
newspaper simply republished the government press release absolutely
verbatim, and stuck a reporter’s byline at the top.
The media have no interest in a critical appraisal of the process
by which the British government regularly executes without trial. Yet
in fact it is extremely interesting. The genesis of the policy lay in the
appointment of Daniel Bethlehem as the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office’s Chief Legal Adviser. Jack Straw made the appointment, and for
the first time ever it was external, and not from the Foreign Office’s own
large team of world-renowned international lawyers. The reason for that
is not in dispute. Every single one of the FCO’s legal advisers had advised
that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, and Straw wished to find a new head
of the department more in tune with the neo-conservative world view.
Straw went to extremes. He appointed Daniel Bethlehem, the legal
‘expert’ who provided the legal advice to Benjamin Netanyahu on the
‘legality’ of building the great wall hemming in the Palestinians away
from their land and water resources. Bethlehem was an enthusiastic
proponent of the invasion of Iraq. He was also the most enthusiastic
proponent in the world of drone strikes.
Bethlehem provided an opinion on the legality of drone strikes
which is, to say the least, controversial. To give one example, Bethlehem
accepts that established principles of international law dictate that
lethal force may be used only to prevent an attack which is ‘imminent’.
Bethlehem argues that for an attack to be ‘imminent’ does not require it
to be ‘soon’. Indeed you can kill to avert an ‘imminent attack’ even if you
have no information on when and where it will be. You can instead rely
on your target’s ‘pattern of behaviour’; that is, if he has attacked before,
it is reasonable to assume he will attack again and that such an attack is
‘imminent’.
There is a much deeper problem: that the evidence against the
target is often extremely dubious. Yet even allowing the evidence to
be perfect, it is beyond me that the state can kill in such circumstances
without it being considered a death penalty imposed without trial for
past crimes, rather than to frustrate another ‘imminent’ one.
You would think that background would make an interesting
story. Yet the entire ‘serious’ British media published the government
line, without a single journalist, not one, writing about the fact that
Bethlehem’s proposed definition of ‘imminent’ has been widely rejected
by the international law community. The public knows none of this. They
just ‘know’ that drone strikes are keeping us safe from deadly attack by
terrorists, because the government says so, and nobody has attempted to
give them other information
So that is lie one. When Pompeo says Soleimani was planning “imminent” attacks, he is using the Bethlehem definition under which “imminent” means neither “soon” nor “definitely going to happen”. To twist a word that far from its normal English usage is to lie. To do so to justify killing people is obscene. That is why, if I finish up in the bottom-most pit of hell, the worst thing about the experience will be the company of Daniel Bethlehem.
Let us now move on to the next lie, which is being widely repeated, this time originated by Donald Trump, that Soleimani was responsible for the “deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans”. This lie has been parroted by everybody, Republicans and Democrats alike.
Really? Who were they? When and where? While the Bethlehem Doctrine allows you to kill somebody because they might be going to attack someone, sometime, but you don’t know who or when, there is a reasonable expectation that if you are claiming people have already been killed you should be able to say who and when. American Raj: America ... Eric Margolis Best Price: $9.95 (as of 06:15 UTC - Details)
The truth of the matter is that if you take every American killed including and since 9/11, in the resultant Middle East related wars, conflicts and terrorist acts, well over 90% of them have been killed by Sunni Muslims financed and supported out of Saudi Arabia and its gulf satellites, and less than 10% of those Americans have been killed by Shia Muslims tied to Iran.
This is a horribly inconvenient fact for US administrations which, regardless of party, are beholden to Saudi Arabia and its money. It is, the USA affirms, the Sunnis who are the allies and the Shias who are the enemy. Yet every journalist or aid worker hostage who has been horribly beheaded or otherwise executed has been murdered by a Sunni, every jihadist terrorist attack in the USA itself, including 9/11, has been exclusively Sunni, the Benghazi attack was by Sunnis, Isil are Sunni, Al Nusra are Sunni, the Taliban are Sunni and the vast majority of US troops killed in the region are killed by Sunnis.
Precisely which are these hundreds of deaths for which Soleimani was responsible? Is there a list? It is of course a simple lie. Its tenuous connection with truth relates to the Pentagon’s estimate – suspiciously upped repeatedly since Iran became the designated enemy – that back during the invasion of Iraq itself, 83% of US troop deaths were at the hands of Sunni resistance and 17% of of US troop deaths were at the hands of Shia resistance, that is 603 troops. All the latter are now lain at the door of Soleimani, remarkably.
Those were US troops killed in combat during an invasion. The Iraqi Shia militias – whether Iran backed or not – had every legal right to fight the US invasion. The idea that the killing of invading American troops was somehow illegal or illegitimate is risible. Plainly the US propaganda that Soleimani was “responsible for hundreds of American deaths” is intended, as part of the justification for his murder, to give the impression he was involved in terrorism, not legitimate combat against invading forces. The idea that the US has the right to execute those who fight it when it invades is an absolutely stinking abnegation of the laws of war.
As I understand it, there is very little evidence that Soleimani had active operational command of Shia militias during the invasion, and in any case to credit him personally with every American soldier killed is plainly a nonsense. But even if Soleimani had personally supervised every combat success, these were legitimate acts of war. You cannot simply assassinate opposing generals who fought you, years after you invade.
The final, and perhaps silliest lie, is Vice President Mike Pence’s attempt to link Soleimani to 9/11. There is absolutely no link between Soleimani and 9/11, and the most strenuous efforts by the Bush regime to find evidence that would link either Iran or Iraq to 9/11 (and thus take the heat off their pals the al-Saud who were actually responsible) failed. Yes, it is true that some of the hijackers at one point transited Iran to Afghanistan. But there is zero evidence, as the 9/11 report specifically stated, that the Iranians knew what they were planning, or that Soleimani personally was involved. This is total bullshit. 9/11 was Sunni and Saudi led, nothing to do with Iran.
Soleimani actually was involved in intelligence and logistical cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan post 9/11 (the Taliban were his enemies too, the shia Tajiks being a key part of the US aligned Northern Alliance). He was in Iraq to fight ISIL.
The final aggravating factor in the Soleimani murder is that he was an accredited combatant general of a foreign state which the world – including the USA – recognises. The Bethlehem Doctrine specifically applies to “non-state actors”. Unlike all of the foregoing, this next is speculation, but I suspect that the legal argument in the Pentagon ran that Soleimani is a non-state actor when in Iraq, where the Shia militias have a semi-official status.
But that does not wash. Soleimani is a high official in Iran who was present in Iraq as a guest of the Iraqi government, to which the US government is allied. This greatly exacerbates the illegality of his assassination still further.
The political world in the UK is so cowed by the power of the neo-conservative Establishment and media, that the assassination of Soleimani is not being called out for the act of blatant illegality that it is. It was an act of state terrorism by the USA, pure and simple.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.


lewrockwell--2020-01-08--The Trouble With Nature

The Trouble With Nature

Nature , which we are taught to revere and which in Europe is relatively benign , can nevertheless sometimes be a bit of a nuisance .
For example , when I returned to my house in the country after an absence of a few months , I found that the flies had taken up residence between one shutter and a window , and the ladybirds—thousands of them—behind another .
There are few sensations more unpleasant than being swarmed by flies on opening a window , unless it be the cold , slimy , squishy sensation of slugs that have taken @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wood-burning stoves , or of dead mice ( one of them fairly recently deceased , to judge by its consistency ) in the middle of the pile of tea towels .
George Orwell once wrote of his time working in a secondhand bookshop that bluebottles choose the top of old books on which to breathe their last , but our mice choose tea towels and give off an odor that even joss sticks can not disguise .
Compared with this , gall wasps that construct their odorless cocoons of mud and bodily secretions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minor inconvenience and are easily cleared .
Then the rains came .
The river at the bottom of our garden burst its banks , but fortunately our house is at a sufficient elevation that even Greta Thunberg might have thought us safe for the time being from the rising waters .
However , the drains along our winding and ascending drive were another thing .
They had not been cleared and were full of leaves , pine cones and needles , twigs , etc.
, with the result that the water threatened to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for it but to take to the spade .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 I don ’ t mind physical work—for about a quarter of an hour .
Thereafter it bores me .
I am very grateful that in my life I have had to do very little of it .
Such physical exertion as I indulged in has been for the pleasure of it , and divorced utterly from any utilitarian end .
I date this aversion to physical labor from my childhood , when my father , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ love affairs was gardening , made me accompany him and perform tasks such as sweeping the leaves , removing stones , saving worms , etc .
How I longed for a deluge , or for the sun to go down , so as to be relieved of this corvée—which , as I now realize , was hardly very onerous .
But young minds have no standard of comparison , and believe their own sufferings to be the worst imaginable .
It is only fair to mention that my father was an excellent gardener @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not his neighbor , as himself , and had an almost mystical attachment to them .
I think he may even have talked to them , as many good gardeners do .
I am as susceptible to the beauties of Nature as the next man , in some cases more so .
For example , unlike many , I find individual flies to be creatures of great beauty , the more beautiful the more closely you observe them .
It is in the mass that they revolt me ( I will draw no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But at the same time , while I stand amazed at the metamorphosis of the maggot into the fly , as almost at a miracle , I can not but be repelled by the maggot .
In other words , my response to Nature is aesthetic , more often positive than negative but not invariably so .
The Best of Theodore Dalrymple

Nature, which we are taught to revere and which in Europe is relatively benign, can nevertheless sometimes be a bit of a nuisance. For example, when I returned to my house in the country after an absence of a few months, I found that the flies had taken up residence between one shutter and a window, and the ladybirds—thousands of them—behind another. There are few sensations more unpleasant than being swarmed by flies on opening a window, unless it be the cold, slimy, squishy sensation of slugs that have taken up their residence under logs for the wood-burning stoves, or of dead mice (one of them fairly recently deceased, to judge by its consistency) in the middle of the pile of tea towels. George Orwell once wrote of his time working in a secondhand bookshop that bluebottles choose the top of old books on which to breathe their last, but our mice choose tea towels and give off an odor that even joss sticks cannot disguise. Compared with this, gall wasps that construct their odorless cocoons of mud and bodily secretions in the folds of curtains are a minor inconvenience and are easily cleared.
Then the rains came. The river at the bottom of our garden burst its banks, but fortunately our house is at a sufficient elevation that even Greta Thunberg might have thought us safe for the time being from the rising waters. However, the drains along our winding and ascending drive were another thing. They had not been cleared and were full of leaves, pine cones and needles, twigs, etc., with the result that the water threatened to erode the drive. There was nothing for it but to take to the spade. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details)
I don’t mind physical work—for about a quarter of an hour. Thereafter it bores me. I am very grateful that in my life I have had to do very little of it. Such physical exertion as I indulged in has been for the pleasure of it, and divorced utterly from any utilitarian end. I date this aversion to physical labor from my childhood, when my father, whose main interest other than business and love affairs was gardening, made me accompany him and perform tasks such as sweeping the leaves, removing stones, saving worms, etc. How I longed for a deluge, or for the sun to go down, so as to be relieved of this corvée—which, as I now realize, was hardly very onerous. But young minds have no standard of comparison, and believe their own sufferings to be the worst imaginable. It is only fair to mention that my father was an excellent gardener, who loved his plants, if not his neighbor, as himself, and had an almost mystical attachment to them. I think he may even have talked to them, as many good gardeners do.
I am as susceptible to the beauties of Nature as the next man, in some cases more so. For example, unlike many, I find individual flies to be creatures of great beauty, the more beautiful the more closely you observe them. It is in the mass that they revolt me (I will draw no cheap and false analogy with humanity). But at the same time, while I stand amazed at the metamorphosis of the maggot into the fly, as almost at a miracle, I cannot but be repelled by the maggot. In other words, my response to Nature is aesthetic, more often positive than negative but not invariably so.
Read the Whole Article
The Best of Theodore Dalrymple


lewrockwell--2020-01-09--A Lawless Political Assassination

A Lawless Political Assassination

“ America … goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.
” — President John Quincy Adams ( 1767-1848 ) Last week , President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade a then-friendly country without the knowledge or consent of its government and assassinate a visiting foreign government official .
The victim was the head of Iran ’ s military and intelligence .
The formerly friendly country is Iraq .
The killing of the general and his companions was carried out by the use of an unmanned drone .
The general was not engaged in an act of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , nor were any of his companions .
They were driving on a public highway in a van .
The president ’ s supporters have argued that the general ’ s death was revenge for Americans and others killed by the general ’ s troops and surrogates .
Trump has argued , more importantly , that he ordered the general ’ s death because of what evil the general might order his own troops and surrogates to do in the future .
Can the president legally kill a person not engaged in an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person might do in the future ?
In a word : No .
Suicide Pact : The Radi ... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price : $ 0.25 Buy New $ 3.29 Here is the backstory .
The president has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution .
The Constitution provides only two means for the federal government to kill a human being .
The first is pursuant to a declaration of war , which only Congress can do .
That permits the president to use the military to kill the troops of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been declared .
Congress has not declared war on Iran .
The second way that the Constitution permits federal government killings is pursuant to due process .
That means that the person to be killed is lawfully in custody , has been properly charged , lawfully tried and fairly convicted of a capital crime , and the conviction has been upheld on appeal .
Can the president kill foreign military personnel and claim the justification of self-defense ?
The laws of war permit him to do that , but self-defense — actually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comes into play when the foreign military personnel are physically engaged in killing Americans or are certainly about to do so .
That justification only applies — the law here is 600 years old and has been consistently applied — when force is imminent and certain .
Were imminence and certainty not the requirement , then nothing would prevent a president from slaying any monster he chose simply based on a fear that the monster might someday strike .
Such a state of affairs is contrary to two presidential executive orders , one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other by President Ronald Reagan , and neither negated by Trump .
Such a territorial invasion and killing also violate the United Nations Charter — a treaty that prohibits unlawful invasions and killings of member nations ’ territories and officials outside of a lawful and U.N. approved declaration of war .
Roaming the world looking for monsters to slay not only violates long-standing principles of American domestic and international law , but also it violates basic Judeo-Christian moral principles , which teach that the end does not justify the means and might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
If the American president can kill an Iranian government official in Iraq because of fear of what he might do — without a declaration of war or any legal process — can the Chinese president kill a Mexican government official visiting in Texas or an American intelligence agent encouraging revolution in Venezuela for fear of what they might do ?
This is not a fanciful or academic argument .
It not only goes to the fidelity to the rule of law that we require of our leaders in order to maintain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also goes to our safety .
We have laws to prevent wanton killings , lest killers turn on us .
Theodore and Woodrow : ... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price : $ 1.99 Buy New $ 9.25 In Robert Bolt ’ s play “ A Man for All Seasons , ” Sir Thomas More argues with his son-in-law , William Roper , about the extent of the law ’ s protections of those universally recognized as evil .
Roper says that he would cut down all the laws in England to get rid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even the Devil is entitled to the benefits of the law .
Then he hurls this zinger : “ And , when the last law was down , and the Devil turned round on you ?
— ?
where would you hide , Roper , the laws all being flat ?
This country ’ s planted thick with laws from coast to coast ?
— ?
man ’ s laws , not God ’ s ?
— ?
and , if you cut them down ?
— ?
and you ’ re just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
d ’ you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then ?
Yes , I ’ d give the Devil benefit of law , for my own safety ’ s sake.
” More crystalized the dangers of those who — like Trump — take the law into their own hands for the sake of expedience or to rid the world of a monster .
Without law , how does one decide what monsters should go and what monsters may stay ?
When President Obama used drones to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate Donald Trump condemned that behavior .
He offered that as president , he would bring the troops home , stop the nation building , quit being the world ’ s police force and end the endless wars .
Instead , his act of state terrorism has succeeded in doing what the general he killed could never do while alive .
Trump has united the Iranian people behind their fanatical government , and he caused the Iraqi government to kick out all American troops — troops that had no lawful or moral basis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and whose numbers have only increased .
Trump cut down the laws to get to the Devil .
Whom will he kill next ?
The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano

Shop all books by Judge Napolitano
“America … goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” — President John Quincy Adams (1767-1848)
Last week, President Donald Trump ordered the U.S. military to invade a then-friendly country without the knowledge or consent of its government and assassinate a visiting foreign government official. The victim was the head of Iran’s military and intelligence. The formerly friendly country is Iraq. The killing of the general and his companions was carried out by the use of an unmanned drone. The general was not engaged in an act of violence at the time he was killed, nor were any of his companions. They were driving on a public highway in a van.
The president’s supporters have argued that the general’s death was revenge for Americans and others killed by the general’s troops and surrogates. Trump has argued, more importantly, that he ordered the general’s death because of what evil the general might order his own troops and surrogates to do in the future.
Can the president legally kill a person not engaged in an act of violence because of what the person might do in the future? In a word: No. Suicide Pact: The Radi... Napolitano, Andrew P. Best Price: $0.25 Buy New $2.84 (as of 04:15 UTC - Details)
Here is the backstory.
The president has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution provides only two means for the federal government to kill a human being. The first is pursuant to a declaration of war, which only Congress can do. That permits the president to use the military to kill the troops of the government of the country against which war has been declared. Congress has not declared war on Iran.
The second way that the Constitution permits federal government killings is pursuant to due process. That means that the person to be killed is lawfully in custody, has been properly charged, lawfully tried and fairly convicted of a capital crime, and the conviction has been upheld on appeal.
Can the president kill foreign military personnel and claim the justification of self-defense? The laws of war permit him to do that, but self-defense — actually, defense of the country — only comes into play when the foreign military personnel are physically engaged in killing Americans or are certainly about to do so. That justification only applies — the law here is 600 years old and has been consistently applied — when force is imminent and certain.
Were imminence and certainty not the requirement, then nothing would prevent a president from slaying any monster he chose simply based on a fear that the monster might someday strike. Such a state of affairs is contrary to two presidential executive orders, one issued by President Gerald R. Ford and the other by President Ronald Reagan, and neither negated by Trump. Such a territorial invasion and killing also violate the United Nations Charter — a treaty that prohibits unlawful invasions and killings of member nations’ territories and officials outside of a lawful and U.N. approved declaration of war.
Roaming the world looking for monsters to slay not only violates long-standing principles of American domestic and international law, but also it violates basic Judeo-Christian moral principles, which teach that the end does not justify the means and might does not make right.
Think about it. If the American president can kill an Iranian government official in Iraq because of fear of what he might do — without a declaration of war or any legal process — can the Chinese president kill a Mexican government official visiting in Texas or an American intelligence agent encouraging revolution in Venezuela for fear of what they might do?
This is not a fanciful or academic argument. It not only goes to the fidelity to the rule of law that we require of our leaders in order to maintain personal liberty and limited government, it also goes to our safety. We have laws to prevent wanton killings, lest killers turn on us.
Theodore and Woodrow: ... Andrew P. Napolitano Best Price: $2.00 Buy New $9.25 (as of 12:15 UTC - Details) In Robert Bolt’s play “A Man for All Seasons,” Sir Thomas More argues with his son-in-law, William Roper, about the extent of the law’s protections of those universally recognized as evil. Roper says that he would cut down all the laws in England to get rid of the Devil.
More counters that even the Devil is entitled to the benefits of the law. Then he hurls this zinger: “And, when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you?—?where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast?—?man’s laws, not God’s?—?and, if you cut them down?—?and you’re just the man to do it?—?d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
More crystalized the dangers of those who — like Trump — take the law into their own hands for the sake of expedience or to rid the world of a monster. Without law, how does one decide what monsters should go and what monsters may stay?
When President Obama used drones to kill peaceful uncharged Americans in Yemen, candidate Donald Trump condemned that behavior. He offered that as president, he would bring the troops home, stop the nation building, quit being the world’s police force and end the endless wars. Instead, his act of state terrorism has succeeded in doing what the general he killed could never do while alive. Trump has united the Iranian people behind their fanatical government, and he caused the Iraqi government to kick out all American troops — troops that had no lawful or moral basis for being there in the first place and whose numbers have only increased.
Trump cut down the laws to get to the Devil. Whom will he kill next?
Reprinted with the author’s permission.
The Best of Andrew P. Napolitano