Stephen Lendman

Annually, the State Department publishes human rights reports for over 190 countries. Its latest April 8, 2011 Israel assessment noted serious human rights abuses, including:

(1) numerous NGO complaints about torture and other abuses in Gaza and the West Bank.
(2) Israel's High Court of Justice (HCJ) ruling against painful shackling. At issue is tightening restraints to inflict pain.

In Public Committee Against Torture in Israel v. Prime Minister, former HCJ President Aaron Barak said:

"A reasonable interrogation is an interrogation without torture, without cruel or inhuman treatment of the interrogee, and without a humiliating attitude thereto."

"It is forbidden to use brutal and inhuman measures during the course of the interrogation."

"Painful cuffing is a prohibited action. Moreover: other means exist to prevent escape from lawful custody or to protect the interrogators which do not involve pain and suffering to the interrogee."

(3) the UN fact finding commission finding that Israeli security forces "arbitrarily" killed nine Mavi Marmara humanitarian activists.
(4) targeted assassinations.
(5) whitewashed investigations, unaccountability, and few prosecutions of Israelis involved in killings and other human rights abuses.
(6) "unnatural deaths" in prisons.
(7) prison "deficiencies," including sub-standard isolation cells.
(8) detentions without charge up to six months, "renewable indefinitely."
(9) arrests for "security reasons," "even when the accused posed no clear danger."
(10) "denial of fair public trial(s)."
(11) "arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home or correspondence."
(12) free expression and press restrictions, including prohibiting journalists from entering Gaza; requiring media organizations "submit to military censors any material relating to specific military issues" or strategic ones; impeding free assembly, association, and movement; as well as other civil liberty violations.
(13) discrimination against citizens and residents of Arab origin.
(14) human rights violations against refugees and asylum seekers with regard to status, social rights, safety, and "hot return" policy.

Stephen Lendman

Compared to a rogue's gallery of Republican aspirants, supporters claim Paul looks good by comparison. Look again and think carefully about America in his hands.

True enough, he wants the Federal Reserve abolished. He calls it "dishonest, immoral, unconstitutional," and America's "great(est) threat to....security and prosperity."

"Out-of-control (and) secretive, (it) pumps money into the economy whenever it chooses and makes secret deals with Wall Street executives, foreign central banks, and other politically-connected insiders without any significant oversight from Congress."

Several times in Congress he introduced the Federal Reserve Abolition Act. Without co-sponsors, no further action followed.

Yet, restoring sound money and producing growth requires Fed abolition. Money power in private hands is scandalous. Returning it to public hands where it belongs is essential; namely, the US Treasury as the Constitution's Article I, Section 8 mandates.

Wanting America's wealth used for productive growth, Paul opposes squandering it on imperial wars. At the same time, his hard-right world view stops short of criticizing US imperialism and endorsing peace, despite saying:

"We can no longer afford to police the world, in terms of both dollars and American lives. We will destroy ourselves if we do not stop, build a strong national defense at home, and focus on commerce with the world instead of empire."

Nonetheless, he backed attacking Afghanistan, no matter its illegality. However, he strongly opposed war on Libya, saying:

"The current situation may be a short-term victory for empire, but it is a loss for our American Republic."

He also called Washington's involvement "unconstitutional," but stopped short of including all US post-WW II wars. Only Congress, not presidents, can declare war under UN Charter provisions. None were since December 8, 1941.

Peter Symonds

In this photo, Iranian Navy personnel take part in their naval maneuvers dubbed Velayat 90 on the Sea of Oman, Iran, on Wednesday, Dec. 28, 2011. An Iranian surveillance plane has recorded video and photographed a U.S. aircraft carrier during Iran's ongoing navy drill near a strategic waterway in the Persian Gulf, the official IRNA news agency reported on Thursday. (AP Photo/Xinhua, Ali Mohammadi)

The Obama administration has issued what amounts to a threat of war against Iran following comments by senior Iranian officials that Tehran would close the Strait of Hormuz in response to an embargo on its oil exports. To reinforce the point, the US navy sent two of its warships—the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis and the guided-missile destroyer USS Mobile Bay—on a “routine transit” through the strategic waterway where the Iranian navy is currently holding exercises.

The growing tensions in the Persian Gulf are the result of provocative steps by the US and its European allies towards blocking Iranian oil exports. President Obama is about to sign a measure into law that would freeze the US assets of foreign financial institutions doing business with Iran’s central bank—moves that would seriously impede Iranian oil exports. At the same time, Britain and France are pressing the European Union to adopt an embargo on the import of Iranian oil.

Any restriction on Iran’s energy exports would seriously damage the country’s economy, which is already under pressure from previous sanctions imposed both unilaterally by the US and its allies and by the UN Security Council.