Add FreeTranslation buttons
to Internet Explorer 4.x / 5.x / 6.x for Windows®
June 9, 2004 8:28 p.m. PDT
Hello Dear Friends and White Knights,
Years ago when I was naïve, I didn't know the USA was attacking other countries without good reason because officials of the US federal government were in league with globalists running multi-national military industrial corporations. The globalists running big multi-national oil companies and mining companies have funded the campaigns of many of our federal politicians. Then when the politicians are sitting in Washington, DC, the globalists are repaid by politicians ordering US military actions to seize control of other countries so the globalist multi-national corporations can go into those countries and take over the natural resources of the countries - for free, without paying for the resources. This is exactly why the Bush regime has attacked Iraq and why Reagan attacked Nicaragua.
NESARA brings home the US military from around the world and removes corrupt US officials from office. NESARA ends the current US military actions around the world. It will be up to Americans to never let US officials attack other countries again. NESARA Now!
Blessings and Love,
Dove of Oneness
Worldwide NTAT Director
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/07/1927239
Monday, June 7th, 2004
PART TWO (Part One of this interview is included in the May 8, 2004 Dove Report.)
Noam Chomsky on Reagan's Legacy: Bush Has Resurrected "The Most Extremist, Arrogant, Violent and Dangerous Elements" of Reagan's White House
BY AMY GOODMAN of Democracy Now
AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, you have written about the U.S. as being only country in the world to be convicted in the World Court of terrorism. And this had to do with the bombing of the Nicaraguan harbor, which took place under Reagan. Can you talk about that?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yeah. That, too, is a little misleading. Nicaragua was hoping to end the confrontation through legal means, through diplomatic means.
AMY GOODMAN: I mean the mining of the harbor.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Yes, the mining of the harbors. They decided to -- they asked a legal team headed by a very distinguished American international lawyer, A. Chayes, professor of law at Harvard who had long government service, and that legal team decided to construct an extremely narrow case. So, they kept to matters that were totally uncontroversial, as the U.S. conceded like the mining of the harbors, but it was only a toothpick on a mountain. They picked the narrowest point in the hope that they could get a judgment from the World Court, which would lead the United States to back off from the whole international terrorist campaign, and they did win a judgment from the court, which ordered the U.S. to terminate any actions, any violent actions against Nicaragua, which went way beyond mining of the harbors. That was the least of it.
So, yes, that was the narrow content of the court decision, although, if you read the decision, the court decision that goes well beyond, they're all conscious of the much wider terrorist campaign, but the Harvard - the Chayes run legal team didn't bring it up for good reasons. Because they didn't want any controversy at the court hearings about the facts. There was no controversy about that, since it was conceded. However, it should be read as a much broader indictment, and a very important one. I mean, the term that was used by the court was "unlawful use of force," which is the technical term for the informal notion, international terrorism. There's no legal definition of international terrorism in the international domain. So I bet it was in effect a condemnation of international terrorism over a much broader domain.
However, we should bear in mind, it's important for us, that horrible as the Nicaragua war was, it wasn't the worst. Guatemala and El Salvador were worse. I suggest that in Nicaragua, the reason was that in Nicaragua, the population at least had an army to defend it. In El Salvador and Guatemala, the terrorist forces attacking the population were the army and the other security forces. There was no one to bring a case to the World Court that can be brought by governments, not by peasants being slaughtered....
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Chomsky, I wouldn't want to end this discussion without talking about the Reagan years and Africa, particularly southern Africa.
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the official policy was called "constructive engagement." I recall it during the 1980s, by then there was enormous pressure to end all support for the apartheid government. Congress passed legislation barring trade and aid. The Reagan administration found ways to evade the congressional legislation, and in fact trade with South Africa increased in the latter part of the decade. This is incidentally the period when Collin Powell moved to the position of national security adviser.
The U.S. was strongly supporting the apartheid regime directly and then indirectly through allies. Israel was helping get around the embargo. Rather as in Central America where the clandestine terror made use of other states that served as -- that helped the administration get around congressional legislation. In the case of South Africa, just look at the rough figures. In Angola and Mozambique, the neighboring countries, in those countries alone, the South African depredations killed about million-and-a-half people and led to some $60 billion in damage during the period of constructive engagement with the U.S. support. It was a horror story.
For more information on NESARA, go to www.nesara.us
