So this American, Anwar al-Awlaki, had become convinced that the U.S. is doing evil in the Middle East and elsewhere and that this was a reason to fight against it. He never fought against the U.S. himself, but only said that there was reason to do that. I believe that to be right protected under the U.S. constitution as well as under international law.

The U.S. never showed any proof that he al Awlaki was guilty of something, never indicted him, never brought him to court.

But now the U.S. government intentionally killed him and those who were with him. That, to me, seems to be a pretty clear breach of the fifth amendment for someone who simply used his rights under the first amendment.

One wonders when whatever argument the administration will use to defend this murder will be used against more American people, and more, and more …

Remember:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – – because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak out for me.

It is beyond me to understand anyone who would defend this murder.

Every "western" media seems to find this story funny: Give 9/11 credit to us, al-Qaeda tells Ahmadinejad:

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has long annoyed the West with his claims that the United States government was behind the 9/11 attacks. But he’s also bruised egos at al-Qaeda, with the terrorist group now telling the Iranian president to stop with the “ridiculous” conspiracy theories and start giving them credit for pulling off such a great terrorist strike.

And every "western" media also gets the story wrong.

Yes, the writers of the Inspire (pdf) magazine claim that Iran has denied 9/11:

The Iranian government has professed on the tongue of its president Ahmadinejad that it does not believe that al Qaeda was behind 9/11 but rather, the U.S. government.

But that is clearly a lie, rather two lies.

Ahmedinejad explicitly claims that it was Osama Bin Laden who organized the 9/11 attacks. He never claimed that the U.S. government was behind it. 

What he says is that it is yet unknown, and should be investigated by an international fact-finding team, who was actually behind Bin Laden.

From his latest UN speech (pdf):

Instead of assigning a fact-finding team, they killed the main perpetrator and threw his body into the sea. Would it not have been reasonable to bring to justice and openly bring to trial the main perpetrator of the incident in order to identify the elements behind the safe space for the invading aircraft to attack the twin world trade towers? Why should it not have been allowed to bring him to trial to help recognize those who launched terrorist groups and brought wars and other miseries into the region?

The "main perpetrator" here is clearly al Qaeda leader Bin Laden. And "those" in the last quoted sentence is not pointing at the U.S. government, but to Israel as Ahmedinejad's following sentence about Zionism makes clear.

So the "Al Qaida" magazine Inspire makes false claims about what Ahmedinejad said and all the "western" media repeat it as true even when the public record shows that it is clearly not.

This just reinforces my believe that Inspire is a general disinformation tool of some "western" agency with the additional purpose to flash out some dumb folks who then can be made into "terrorists" though FBI sting operations.

The only reason why the story is funny is that The Onion, by far the best "western" political news magazine, already had it back in 2008: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

An Al Qaeda representative says that claims the U.S. government was behind the attacks on Sept. 11th are demeaning to Al Qaeda.

An op-ed by a U.S. special forces Major on Afghanistan in today’s New York Times is headlined: 

This War Can Still Be Won.

It asserts that:

“Winning” is a meaningless word in this type of war, …

Gareth Porter does not believe that the U.S. will put boots on the ground in Pakistan:

The U.S. threat last week that "all options" are on the table if the Pakistani military doesn't cut its ties with the Haqqani network of anti-U.S. insurgents created the appearance of a crisis involving potential U.S. military escalation in Pakistan.

But there is much less substance to the administration's threatening rhetoric than was apparent. In fact, it was primarily an exercise in domestic political damage control, although compounded by an emotional response to recent major attacks by the Haqqani group on U.S.-NATO targets, according to two sources familiar with the policymaking process on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On might think that this is right especially as some anonymous officials are now walking back Admiral Mullen's accusations that the Haqqani network is the prolonged arm of the Pakistani secret service ISI (which by the way the Taliban emphatically deny):

Adm. Mike Mullen’s assertion last week that an anti-American insurgent group in Afghanistan is a “veritable arm” of Pakistan’s spy service was overstated and contributed to overheated reactions in Pakistan and misperceptions in Washington, according to American officials involved in U.S. policy in the region.

The internal criticism by the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to challenge Mullen openly, reflects concern over the accuracy of Mullen’s characterizations at a time when Obama administration officials have been frustrated in their efforts to persuade Pakistan to break its ties to Afghan insurgent groups.

But the walking back may be temporary.

The Pakistani have reacted quite harsh to the recent accusations. They called back their Foreign Minister who was at the UN in New York. At a meeting with the Chinese minister for public security Pakistan's prime minister Gilani hailed the relation with China: "China’s enemy is our enemy, we will extend our full cooperation to China on security.” The Pakistani spy chief had an emergency meeting with his Saudi Arabian colleague. The ISI chief also told CIA head Petreaus that Pakistan would be forced to retaliate if American forces attempt to launch a unilateral strike on the country’s tribal belt. On can bet that China and Saudi Arabia will provide for Pakistan whatever Washington reduces in aid.

With its recent accusation, which do not seem to be based on real evidence anyway, the U.S. has lost all leverage it had with Pakistan. Having done so for mere domestic policy reason was another huge mistake by the Obama administration.

At least up the end of this year the U.S. military's logistics in Afghanistan still depend on Pakistan. The U.S. can not yet risk that line to be broken. But the point where the northern distribution network can take over the logistic burden is not far off.

The administration has now set itself a trap. With Republicans in the Senate already in "all options are on table" warmongering mode what will the administration do when (not if) the next highly visible attack by the Haqqani network occurs?

Will Obama just sit back and do nothing?

His priority is to get reelected and that is why he can't. Having accused Pakistan for direct influence on the Haqqani network the administration will have to again escalate after the next attack with a military strike now being the only option being left. This is now an automatism the Obama administration needlessly created in its attempts to overtake the Republicans on the right.

Live on BBC: “The Governments Don’t Rule The World, Goldman-Sachs rules the world.”

What’s really frightening is that the guy, even if he is a yes man, is right.

A combined military operation between Afghan National Security Forces and International Security Assistance Forces, launched July 12, secured Barge Matal, in eastern Nuristan province.
July 13, 2009

Senior military officials had hoped to be out of Barge Matal in about a week, but the deployment has stretched on for more than two months as U.S. and Afghan forces have battled Taliban insurgents.
September 21, 2009

The militants held the district center for a few days, but by early Tuesday it was again occupied by the Afghan commandos and the Americans, said Col. Shirzad, deputy chief for criminal investigations for Barg-e-Matal.
June 1, 2010

On July 25, Afghan commandos retook control of the Barg-e-Matal district center from the Taliban; just the day before, the Taliban had overrun the district center following a two-week-long siege.
…
Control of Barge-e-Matal has shifted back and forth between the Afghan government and the Taliban four times since the end of June.
July 25, 2010

Soldiers from 1st and 2nd Commando Kandaks and Special Operations Task Force – East made significant gains in the formerly insurgent-held Konar River Valley, Barg-e Matal district, Nuristan province, during a three-day combined clearing operation May 1-3.
May 4, 2011

Commandos killed an estimated 70 insurgents during clearing operations in Pol-e Rostam and Alwagal villages, Barg-e Matal district, Sept. 16.
…
The Commandos and coalition SOF team secured the district center after the operation.
September 17, 2011

To me this is a sign of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Why not try something new like leaving the town alone?

On page one of today's NYT Carlotta Gall writes a long story on Pakistanis Tied to 2007 Border Ambush on Americans.

During spring 2007 and after some clashes over a border post between Afghan and Pakistani troops near the town of Teri Mangal a meeting took place with Afghan, Pakistani and U.S. officials to find a solution.

When the Afghans and U.S. officials left a tribal soldier from the Pakistani Frontier Corps opened fire on them and killed an U.S. Army Major. It was one of the frequent green on blue/blue on green incidents by a rogue soldier.

What is astonishing about today's NYT piece is that there is nothing new in it. Zero, nada, zilch. It is just a warmed up mixture of well known facts mixed with quotes from some Afghan officials who blame Pakistan.

The whole story was already reported back in 2007:

The US serviceman died Monday in the north-western town of Teri Mangal as military officials from Pakistan, Afghanistan and the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) were fired upon after a trilateral meeting.

An ISAF statement said that following the meeting, an individual reported to be wearing a Pakistan Frontier Corps uniform, 'in a heinous and despicable act, fired as an assassin, into the group that had come with peaceful aims.'

The ISAF 'expects a full investigation of this incident by the Pakistani military', the statement said.

Administration officials in the Kurram Agency, where Teri Mangal is located, told Pakistan's Daily Times that the gunmen was a Pakistani trooper who was deployed for security.

'He shouted Allah-u-Akbar (God is great) and opened fire as he saw Americans,' an official told the newspaper on condition of anonymity. He was then shot dead in an exchange of fire with US forces.

The man came from the Bhittani tribe that inhabits areas flanking Pakistan's South Waziristan region, which has a long record of militancy, the official said.

Today's NYT piece asserts all along that there was something nefarious about the incident or something kept hidden by the Pakistanis.

Only down the 35th of 36 paragraphs, which hardly anyone will read, is it quoting high ranking U.S. officers who say there was nothing like that:

Both Generals Helmly and McNeill accept as plausible that a lone member of the Frontier Corps, whether connected to the militants or pressured by them, was responsible, but they also said it was possible that a larger group of soldiers was acting in concert. The two generals said there was no evidence that senior Pakistani officials had planned the attack.

So what please is the purpose of this piece but anti-Pakistani propaganda?

A four year old story of a tribal soldier who turned against some Americans rewarmed with some quotes but without any new facts. Why is this news on page one of the NYT? Who decided to re-issue this story? What is its function if not to prepare the public for the coming war on Pakistan?

Lewis-McChord soldier gets 7-year sentence for murder of Afghan

Pfc. Andrew Holmes on Friday received a seven-year sentence for the 2010 murder of a teenage villager in southern Afghanistan.
…
In the two-day court-martial, Holmes acknowledged shooting six to eight rounds from his automatic weapon at the 15-year-old villager — who was unarmed and, Holmes said, "stood like a deer in the headlights."

Ex-Army captain gets 10 years for taking $300K in bribes while stationed in Afghanistan

A decorated former Army captain has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for taking more than $300,000 in bribes from Afghan contractors.
…
According to federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., Handa was assigned to help coordinate reconstruction projects in Afghanistan. He solicited $1.3 million in bribes and received $315,000, which he split with an interpreter.

Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government, and our civil society.
Remarks on Internet Freedom – Hillary Rodham Clinton, January 21, 2010

On at least two occasions, Saturday September 17th and again on Thursday night, Twitter blocked #OccupyWallStreet from being featured as a top trending topic on their homepage. On both occasions, #OccupyWallStreet tweets were coming in more frequently than other top trending topics that they were featuring on their homepage.
#TwitterCensorship Blocks #OccupyWallStreet from Top Trending Topic Twice, September 23rd, 2011

Thinking about e-mailing your friends and neighbors about the protests against Wall Street happening right now? If you have a Yahoo e-mail account, think again. ThinkProgress has reviewed claims that Yahoo is censoring e-mails relating to the protest and found that after several attempts on multiple accounts, we too were prevented from sending messages about the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations.
Yahoo Appears To Be Censoring Email Messages About Wall Street Protests (Updated) , September 20, 2011

So what will Clinton do about the threat Twitter and Yahoo pose to the economy, government and civil society of the United States?

Ship there CEOs off to Guantanamo or shower them with laudations behind closed doors?

Sadly, that just a rhetoric question.

Currently developing and writing a critique of the military concept of Effects Based Operations (EBO) (one good short one by Robert Farley is here) I try to point out that it is based on a belief that complex dynamic systems, like societies, can be fully described and that their behavior can be predicted. Thus (military) "Operations" can be thought out that have the desired "Effects" on the described (enemy) system. Network Centric Warfare (NCW) and Counterinsurgency (COIN) are siblings of Effect Based Operations coming from the same (false) belief of predictability of systemic change.

The belief in mathematical predictability of complex dynamic systems is something that is underlying not only (failed) military concepts but also of two of the major ills of our time: the neo-conservative and the neo-liberal strands.

The neoconservatives developed historically from hard left Trotzkyism and have moved to the far right during the Cold War. Elitist revolutionaries, like the Jacobines, they deeply believe in the willful changeability, if needed by force, of societies.

One influential father of the neoconservatives was Albert Wohlstetter. He worked at RAND, the Air Force think-tank, on nuclear strategies and later taught at the University of Chicago. The Strategic Air Command developed and adopted, with Wohlstetter's help, Game Theory and other mathematical theories that are based on the ability to predict and change the assumed rational (system-)behavior of the enemy.

At the University Wohlstetter chaired the dissertation committees of the neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz and Zalmay Khalilzad while earlier Richard Perle dated his daughter. Under Wohlstetter theological like belief in technology marries revolutionary thought.

The University of Chicago was not only Wohlstetter's academic home but also the home of the neoliberal Chicago School and Friedrich Hayek, the godfather of neoliberal thought. Hayek asserts that within the system dynamics of economic activity efficient exchange and use of resources can be maintained only through the price mechanism in free markets. (Thus he ignores non rational human behavior and externalities.)

Looking for further relation between neo-conservatives and neo-liberals I came about a speech Albert Wohlstetter held at the American Enterprise Institute in 1992. The title RPM, or Revolutions by the Minute is already program. In the context of the "information revolution" he himself points to a sameness in his and Hayek's belief, which is also the underlying belief of the two ills, and the connection to Effect Based Operations.

Yet the less sudden continuing changes that make up the Information Revolution dwarf in significance these two spectacular leaps in nuclear technology. They transform military security, politics within and among nations, the costs and efficiency of market transactions and economic growth.
…
The F-117A attacked and hit targets in Baghdad at night that were more heavily defended and at greater range than the targets in the 1941 Offensive. That comparison suggests that the cumulative information revolution has had a greater effect on our ability to destroy a military target that we aim at than the fission and fusion revolutions combined.
…
For a democracy, however, the ability to apply military force selectively—and to hit only what one is aiming at and avoid hitting anything else—has an even larger political and strategic importance than an increase merely in destructive power. We can then preserve what we should want to preserve: Civilians that do us no harm, irreplaceable cultural monuments, and friendly forces.
…
The new technology fits well the view of economics typified by Friedrich Hayek, which sees economic activities as adjusting themselves by responses to signals sent by market clearing prices— without the need or possibility of a central plan. By improving the operation of dispersed markets, the new technologies improve the operation of the system as a whole.

Here Wohlstetter himself points out that the same belief, here in relation to the alleged "information revolution", in the predictability of the systems dynamics in a complex system which underlies the neoliberal and neoconservative thought.

That was one find of a connection of neo-liberal and neo-conservative thought. I am looking for further and possibly more direct connections. Any ideas where to look?

U.S. Starts Pakistan Attack

WASHINGTON–President Obama dramatically announced last night that American ground troops have attacked — at his order — a Taliban base extending 20 miles inside Pakistan.

Obama told a nationwide radio and television audience that he would stand by his order, certain to provoke controversy, even at the risk of becoming a one-term President.

"This is not an invasion of Pakistan," he asserted. 'The areas in which these attacks will be launched are completely occupied and controlled by Taliban forces. Our purpose is not to occupy the areas. Once enemy forces are driven out of these sanctuaries and their military supplies destroyed, we will withdraw."

The attack, commanded by American officers and augmented by units of the Afghan army, began about 7 p.m. EDT, about two hours before Obama address the nation and about one hour before he met with Democratic and Republican leaders of Congress to discuss his decision.

The above is not yet real, but a slightly modified version of a 41 year old piece (pdf) by the Cleveland Plain Dealer about Nixon's announcement of his invasion of Cambodia. The speech may become real though at around the end of this year.

Preparations to attack Pakistan started back in July:

U.S. turns to other routes to supply Afghan war as relations with Pakistan fray

The U.S. military is rapidly expanding its aerial and Central Asian supply routes to the war in Afghanistan, fearing that Pakistan could cut off the main means of providing American and NATO forces with fuel, food and equipment.
…
Today, almost 40 percent of surface cargo arrives in Afghanistan from the north, along a patchwork of Central Asian rail and road routes that the Pentagon calls the Northern Distribution Network. Military planners said they are pushing to raise the northern network’s share to as much as 75 percent by the end of this year.

It seems that those logistic preparations are going well as the U.S. is now starting the next phase, making a public case against Pakistan:

• ISI using Haqqanis for ‘proxy war’: US
• ISI urged attacks on US targets: Officials
• Mullen Asserts Pakistani Role in Attack on U.S. Embassy
• US makes 'all' Pakistan assistance subject to action against Haqqani Network
• U.S. sharpens warning to Pakistan

In what amounts to an ultimatum, administration officials have indicated that the United States will act unilaterally if Pakistan does not comply.

When the logistics are fixed and the public case has been made the invasion can proceed.

Just like today in Pakistan's tribal regions the U.S. was already bombing in Cambodia for quite some time before it invaded. Just like today in Pakistan U.S. special reconnaissance forces were operating in Cambodia months before the ground campaign. Just like today the U.S. was already pulling out soldiers from the primary war area when it invaded the neighboring country.

The invasion of Cambodia destabilized that country and eventually led it fall into the hands of the Khmer Rouge. Somethings comparable, but with nukes involved, could happen in Pakistan.

The headline BBC poll shows narrow support for Palestinian state seems to express that the poll found only a few more people supporting a Palestinian state than not supporting it. But already the second sentence in the article states:

Across the 19 countries surveyed, 49% supported the proposal while 21% said their government should oppose it.

And it later continues:

Even in countries where opposition was strongest, more people polled supported the resolution than were against it.

The United States and the Philippines both polled 36% against the resolution. But 45% of Americans and 56% of Filipinos backed recognition.

The lowest level of support was in India, with 32% in favour and 25% opposed, with many undecided.

Support was strongest in Egypt, where 90% were in favour and only 9% opposed.
…
Overall, 30% opted for not giving a definite answer as they thought their country should abstain, or "it depends", or they did not offer a view.

So we have in total 49% yes, 21% no and 30% abstained. That is a solid 70% of those answering for a Palestinian state with only 30% against it.

How did the BBC headline writer get from there to "narrow support"? What in the headline writers mind would constitute "broad support"? A totalitarian 98% yes vote?

While a big majority supports a Palestinian state, I doubt that many will do so in the form the current drive at the UN might achieve it.

The Palestinian Authority, which is the pseudo West Bank government of Mahmud Abbas and his Fatah party, plans to ask the United Nation's Security Council to get admitted as a sovereign nation.

Other Palestinian parties, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and well know Palestinians like Omar Barghouti, one of the leaders of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, have spoken out against this move. Indeed many Palestinian writers assert that this move will certainly have bad consequences for Palestinians.

Cont. reading: The BBC’s Understanding Of ‘Narrow Support’

An old relative of mine, not near but somewhat dear to me, died yesterday. I am therefore traveling and will be off the net for some wider family time. Posting, if any, will be light.

Please use as open thread.

The scum swamps Libya

Yemens's president Saleh survived the assassination attempt against him and after some time in a Saudi hospital he is now back on the political scene. Despite continuing protests against him Saleh still wants to stay in office. As Gregory Johnson wrote a few days ago:

Salih's strategy is working. He is dragging the hoped for transition out, and the creaky alliance of anti-Salih actors is starting to break-down. This is particularly true when it comes to the north-south division.

This is both sad and predictable. Salih has been doing this for the past 33 years, and while the alliance held for several months, it now looks, at least from the outside, as if there are serious fissures that Salih can easily exploit, even from medical exile in Saudi Arabia.

Yesterday Saleh again tried to avoid signing the GCC negotiated resignation and to thereby hand off power:

Cont. reading: Saudis To Join Yemen’s Cauldron?

Back in February this report from Turkey got me interested:

The suspicious deaths of four engineers who were declared to have committed suicide might have been murder, according to a new indictment into an espionage gang within the naval forces.

All four men worked for ASELSAN, a defense industry giant that produces technology for the Turkish military. The deaths are being investigated again as part of the ongoing probe into a gang that faces accusations of making use of prostitutes, blackmail and espionage. There are 56 suspects in the investigation, including military officers.

Recently, the İstanbul Police Department’s Anti-Organized Crime Unit requested the closed case files of Hüseyin Başbilen, Halim Ünsem Ünal and Evrim Yançeken — who were reported to have killed themselves between 2006 and 2007 — in order to re-launch an investigation. All three were assigned to encryption and decryption projects at ASELSAN and had worked on highly strategic projects in the past.

Was the police really interested in those suicides or was this one of those political investigations, not unheard of in Turkey, that are held simply to remove the suspects from their job?

Back in 2007 three suicides within six month were so suspicious that they led to an inquiry in the Turkish parliament. Nothing came out of it. Those engineers were allegedly working “a critical project that would have largely freed the Turkish defense industry from depending on foreign technology”, “the modernization of F-16 fighter jets” and on software for a new tank. Their families did not believe they committed suicide but suspected they were suicided. Who then would have interest to kill them and why?

While the fourth suicide and the investigation looked suspicious I did not find enough to understand the real story. There were lots of rumors about those suicides but few verifiable facts and no obvious motive for murder. This recent news item though may now explain the reason for their death:

Turkey’s Military Electronics Industry (ASELSAN) has produced a new identification friend or foe (IFF) system for Turkish jet fighters, warships and submarines and the new software, contrary to the older, US-made version, does not automatically identify Israeli planes and ships as friends, a news report said on Tuesday.

The new IFF has already been installed in Turkish F-16s and is expected to be installed in all Navy ships and submarines, the report, published in Turkish daily Star, said. It will be fully operational when it is installed in all military planes, warships and submarines.

The F-16 jet fighters, purchased from the US, came with pre-installed IFF software that automatically identifies Israeli fighters and warships as friends, disabling Turkish F-16s from targeting Israeli planes or ships. ASELSAN-made IFF will allow Turkish military commanders to identify friends and foes on the basis of national considerations.

Turkey was unable to make modifications to the friend or foe identification codes in US-made F-16s, while Israel was given a different version of the software allowing Israeli authorities to make modifications. Israel was also authorized to view the version given to Turkey, according to Star.

The killing of foreign engineers and scientists working on military or nuclear projects is a favorite pastime for the Israeli Mossad (see Iran, nuclear). But back in 2006 and 2007 when the first three engineers died Turkey – at least publicly – still had quite friendly relations with Israel. Then again, Israel does not really mind spying on its allies.

Turkey’s president Erdogan is arguing quite loud against Israeli misdeeds. That gets explained with the killing by Israel of nine Turks on the Gaza flotilla ship. But there may be more behind Erdogan’s turn from Israeli ally to foe. The sabotaging of an important Turkish military project through the killing of these engineers might well be another reason for the change in Turkish foreign policy.

A series of Taliban attacks are currently ongoing in Kabul including one on the ISAF headquarter and the U.S. and other embassies. Following the various Twitter feeds this sounds a bit like a mini version of a Tet offensive.

So much for the success of the night raids and the surge.

Update:

In comments Dan asks: "A microscopic Tet? Or just another bad day in an stalemated, interminable and grinding conflict."

This was of course no Tet offense in the sense of a huge countrywide surprise attack with many dead throughout the country. While the Mujaheddin attacks are now more frequent, more intense and more complex than ever they are not yet coordinated across the country.

But I am not looking at this from the sole military side, the number of people involved, killed or the damage done. Modern wars are won in the minds of the public. The Tet offensive convinced the U.S. public that there was nothing to win in Vietnam. It marked a turning point in the public mind.

Today saw coordinated attacks in the most guarded part of a secure Kabul defended by a ring of steel. It hit the U.S. embassy, the ISAF HQ, the NDS HQ, the border police HQ and other important places.

It will serve the same effect as the Tet offensive, which by the way ended in a military defeat for the Viet cong but was a success in the bigger sense.

A few days ago U.S. ambassador Crocker said the biggest problem Kabul has is the traffic. Today has shown that such is not really the case.

Today's NYT piece on the German chancellor Merkel is rather weird: German Leader Faces Key Choices on Rescuing Euro:

As Europe struggles to reverse a plunge in financial confidence, the world waits for Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, to make a fundamental choice.
…
Much hinges on getting all 17 nations in the euro zone to ratify the decisions of July 21, as the French Parliament has done, which includes an increase in the bailout fund and an expansion of its powers. Those decisions would already mark a shift in Germany’s harder-line positions on the euro.

An expanded European Financial Stability Facility would be able to act as a kind of bank, supported by all the members. It would be a significant step toward using Europe’s collective clout with debt markets to rescue countries with much weaker standing.
…
Eurobonds — issuing common European debt that any member of the currency zone could tap — is one popular solution among European Union officials in Brussels.

The article pretends that these "rescue" measures depend on Merkel's choice or ability.

That is nonsense.

An extended European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) in the planned form of a permanent European Stabilization Mechanism (ESM), as well as Eurobonds, are no longer a choice. The German constitutional court, while allowing current temporary measures, last week prohibited those permanent measures.

It essentially decided that:

1. The right to budget decisions (taxing and spending) is the fundamental rights of any democratically elected parliament. The right of future parliaments to make budget decisions shall not be undermined by unlimited, permanent transfer decisions taken by the sitting parliament. Allowing such unlimited transfer decisions would take away all meaning of future democratic elections.

2. Therefore the German government and parliament are not allowed to approve of treaties which might undermine that budget right for future German parliaments. No mechanisms are allowed “which result in an assumption of liability for other states’ voluntary decisions, especially if they have consequences whose impact is difficult to calculate.”

3. Any extended ESFS would need German parliamentary approval each time it demands additional transfers of money. It would have to give the German parliament detailed reviews leaving it in control. But such an ESFS would not be able to give assurances or guarantees to anyone else as it would always depend on the next German parliament's vote. It would be useless.

4. Eurobonds as planned would allow a majority of Eurozone countries to just out vote Germany and issue a lot more Eurobonds than the German parliament would like while at the same time make German taxpayers liable for those bonds. That would undermine the German democracy. Therefore Germany can not take part in the planned Eurobond scheme.

Any change in the above would need a change in the German constitution and a public referendum on those changes. With 75% of all Germans against bailouts that is not going to happen.

But the NYT piece does not even mention the court's decisions. It presents choices for Merkel to make that no longer exist.

What then is the purpose of that piece?

Through a recent blog post (in German) by Holger Schmidt, a German Public Radio journalist specialized on terrorism, we find this story which fits today’s 9/11 terror scaring.

There is now proof that the U.S./Israeli SITE Intelligence Group is active in creating groups who support terrorists.

Eight German and Turkish teens and tweens are accused of supporting a terrorist organization because they translated propaganda pamphlets and videos by Al-Qaeda’s media service Al-Sahab into German language and published them in a web-forum. Their organization was active since 2006, mostly in Germany and Austria, and is known as Global Islamic Media Front (GIMF).

During the current court procedures evidence was presented that these wannabe jihadists were supported by the SITE Intelligence Group, a very suspicious (probably Mossad) outlet run by Rita Katz an Israeli analyst and former soldier of the IDF.  SITE offers “breaking news, articles and analysis of the jihadist threat” and is famous of providing Al-Qaeda videos of dubious provenance.

During the investigation of GIMF the German FBI equivalent, the BKA, monitored the email account tavit201@yahoo.de through which a virtual personality named “Said ibn Abdullah al-Hanafi” and also one “Ahmet K” gave advise and help to the founder of the alleged German section of GIMF. The tavit201@yahoo.de persons provided a web server hosted in Malaysia for the group, bought and installed the forum software and gave tips on how to stay covered.

As a German BKA investigator noted during the case (my translation):

In total the conservation between [the accused] T. and “Ahmet K” leaves the impression that “Ahmet K” acts as intermediary between the international and German section of GIMF. Additionally “Ahmet K” provides important basic means for T, for example storage capacity on the internet, a domain name and software.

As Yahoo is a U.S. company the BKA asked the FBI to find out who is really behind tavit201@yahoo.de. The FBI found that the real person behind that account was one Joshua Devon (scroll down), a senior analyst and co-founder of the SITE Intelligence Group.

Questioned about this Devon told the FBI about “Ahmet K” (my translation):

Cont. reading: How SITE Creates Terrorist Supporters

The Arab Counterrevolution – NYRB

The Arab world’s immediate future will very likely unfold in a complex tussle between the army, remnants of old regimes, and the Islamists, all of them with roots, resources, as well as the ability and willpower to shape events. Regional parties will have influence and international powers will not refrain from involvement. There are many possible outcomes—from restoration of the old order to military takeover, from unruly fragmentation and civil war to creeping Islamization. But the result that many outsiders had hoped for—a victory by the original protesters—is almost certainly foreclosed.

Analysis / Crises with Turkey and Egypt represent a political tsunami for Israel – Aluf Ben/Haartez

Germany Said to Ready Plan to Help Banks If Greece Defaults, Greek Credit Swaps Surge to Record, Signal 91% Chance of Default – Bloomberg

Greece is broke and only needs to acknowledge it. Other countries will follow. This is good. The debt bubble that clogs the global economy can not be solved without forgiving debt. Greece will only be the starting point for that process.

On 9/11: Ten Lost Years – Jakob Augstein/Spiegel