Fear Dept. on the significance of Easter

Easter is one of history's great security, surveillance, torture and execution success stories. Today we need to reflect on that.
— Secretary of Fear (@SecFear) April 20, 2014

"Invisible Wounds"

Hell in Brussels – The NATO Spring

 

Dr. Strangelove

Excerpt from The War Diary of ISAF's Media Operations Centre NATO Headquarters Blvd Leopold III 1110 Brussels, Belgium. Thursday, April 17, 2014 9:30 AM Au Repos de la Montagne, Montagne de Saint-Job 39. Coffee en route to work. Urgent phone call from Chief.  It’s back!  The Chief is practically giddy.  Just when things were the pits for NATO, war is in the air.  Belgium is full of tulips and Ukraine is full of weapons. Urgent meeting in the wine cellar of Le Wine Bar du Sablon, Rue Haute 198.  11:00 AM in wine cellar. Just like the good old days. Property prices are up and flocks of military publicists are migrating to Brussels for the Cold Messaging War that is inevitable.  The Chief said as much to us in the morning briefing. “This is a proper war,” he said with relief through a fog of champagne and cigars.  “This is the war NATO was built for:  Steppes! Tanks! Enemies that wear uniforms!  Missiles!  Good Guys and Bad Guys!  Except for the Germans.  They seem unenthusiastic for some reason. But this time,” he continued, beaming at us, “new technology means we can shape public perception at light speed.”

 “Any thought at all to take Stalingrad?” somebody asked. 

“We’re looking forward not back,” said The Chief darkly.  “As you know, NATO’s position is that political problems can’t be solved by military means, but it's all we know so all options are on the table.” 

 “Where IS the table, Chief?”  

“It’s in a supersecret room at NATO HQ marked NATOPTABLE.” 

“And what options are on it now?” 

“All of them.” 

“Nukes?” 

“Look, I don’t want to get into specifics…” 

“What do we say when people ask us the question?” 

“Tell them you don’t want to get into specifics.” 

"Can we get a picture of the table?"

"NO!"

"You can redact the options."

"NO!" 

“What if they ask who’s making NATO policy?” 

"The North Atlantic Council." 

"Who are they?" 

"It's not clear."

4:00 PM The bar opened.

The CIA torture report

1. By this time, the whole world knows what Americans did to their prisoners in the "war on terror".
2. The treatment of these prisoners is, by any sensible definition, torture.
3. Regardless of the name, such treatment is criminal under Common Article 3 of the Geneva conventions of 1949, that the United States is a party to.
4. The torture has not produced any useful information, by any standard.
5. The dancing around publishing the report for "national security" reasons is bullshit:  the only reason to redact the report is to protect the people who did the torturing.
6. The Nuremberg Principles and the subsequent Statue of Rome (that the US has signed but not ratified) make clear that the responsibility for such crimes lies with the chain of command.

The following is from Canada's Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000):

ARTICLE 7
Crimes against humanity

• 1. For the purpose of this Statute, “crime against humanity” means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
  • (a) murder;
  • (b) extermination;
  • (c) enslavement;
  • (d) deportation or forcible transfer of population;
  • (e) imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
  • (f) torture;
  • (g) rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
  • (h) persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
  • (i) enforced disappearance of persons;
  • (j) the crime of apartheid;
  • (k) other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.

 ******

5. (1) A military commander commits an indictable offence if

• (a) the military commander
  • (i) fails to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 4, or
  • (ii) fails, after the coming into force of this section, to exercise control properly over a person under their effective command and control or effective authority and control, and as a result the person commits an offence under section 6;
• (b) the military commander knows, or is criminally negligent in failing to know, that the person is about to commit or is committing such an offence; and
• (c) the military commander subsequently
  • (i) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to prevent or repress the commission of the offence, or the further commission of offences under section 4 or 6, or
  • (ii) fails to take, as soon as practicable, all necessary and reasonable measures within their power to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.