WHY RUSSIAN'S ARE NOT FIT TO BE PART OF THE HUMAN RACE

As Peace Talks Approach, Rebels Humiliate Prisoners In Ukraine

 

 This Blond Piece of Shit is a Russian Whore

 

On the sidewalk of a busy street beside a checkpoint, a bearded gunman wrapped a woman in a Ukrainian flag and forced her to stand, sobbing in terror, holding a sign identifying her as a spotter for Ukrainian artillery. 

“She kills our children,” it read.

Because the woman was a spy, said the gunman, a pro-Russian militant, everything that would happen to her would be well-deserved.

Passers-by stopped their cars to get out and spit, slap her face and throw tomatoes at her.

Her knees buckled.

She struggled to mumble in protest of her innocence and to shake her head in denial. 

This theatrical scene of abuse unfolded a day after the rebel movement had paraded Ukrainian prisoners of war down a main thoroughfare here at bayonet point, then dramatically washed the pavement behind them.

The public humiliation of prisoners came as the presidents of Russia and Ukraine prepared to meet for peace talks in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, on Tuesday.

The taunting and provocation appeared to be aimed at dissuading the Ukrainian government from accepting a settlement that might forestall a broader Russian intervention, a development that separatists here are banking on as their military fortunes wane.

Further muddying the prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough, Ukraine accused Russia on Monday of opening a new front in the war by sending an armored column across the border from Russia south of the Ukrainian lines that surround the rebel capital, Donetsk.

The Russian government dismissed the accusation and the foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, speaking in Moscow, said that Western governments should not expect Russia to make all the concessions in a settlement and that Ukraine, too, would have to compromise.

The Ukrainian military said 10 tanks and two armored infantry vehicles manned by Russian soldiers disguised as separatist fighters had crossed the border near the town of Novoazovsk and engaged in combat with Ukrainian border guards.

The claim could not be independently confirmed.

Also on Monday, Russia announced it would send a second convoy of humanitarian aid to eastern Ukraine across a border area controlled by pro-Russian separatists; Ukrainian officials say the movement of goods is calculated to undermine the country’s sovereignty.

The drama that played out on the streets of Donetsk Monday seemed sure to ratchet up tensions.

A military unit of Russian nationals from the region of North Ossetia, in southern Russia, held the woman at a checkpoint in a roundabout in Donetsk known as “the Motel,” for a nearby hotel.

The men, smiling and gesturing toward the woman, waved over cars for drivers to observe or take part.

“We should hang you on the square,” one woman in the crowd yelled, then walked up and spat in the face of the victim, then kicked her in a thigh, causing the woman accused of spying to stagger back.

The gunmen looked on.

At times, the pro-Russian soldiers posed beside the crying woman to take selfies on their smartphones, or playfully twirl her hair with their fingers.

At one point, a fighter walked a few paces back, crouched in the street and aimed a Kalashnikov rifle at the woman in a mock execution.

The woman shut her eyes.

“Open your eyes, stand up straight!” another of the gunmen yelled.

A call placed by The New York Times to an aide for a senior separatist commander informing him of the abuse resulted in the rebel soldiers at the checkpoint briefly detaining the journalists.

The aide, who uses only the nickname The Georgian, sent a car with gunmen to extricate the suspected spy and journalists from the Motel.

The two groups of gunmen agreed to release the journalists, but were not able to agree on handing over the woman.

After the discussion, the captors drove her away to an unknown location.

The man known as The Georgian, who is a member of the Vostok Battalion, which consists of mostly local Ukrainians, said the Ossetian volunteers at the Motel checkpoint do not report to Ukrainian commanders, so nothing further could be done.

He said he condemned the abuse.

At the peace talks in Minsk, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine will be joined by representatives of the European Union and the Russia-led Customs Union, including the presidents of Kazakhstan and Belarus.

Although the talks offer some hope for a negotiated settlement to the conflict, both Putin and Mr. Poroshenko are under strong pressure from nationalists at home to press on militarily.

Oleh Voloshyn, a former Ukrainian diplomat, said in a telephone interview from Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, that Mr. Poroshenko will use the summit meeting to ask Putin to halt the flow of Russian volunteers and military hardware across the border and may offer, perhaps in private talks or via subordinates on the sidelines, autonomous status for portions of eastern Ukraine in exchange.

The Ukrainian government, however, will not accept any legitimization of the main rebel group here, the Donetsk People’s Republic, Mr. Voloshyn said, particularly after the public abuse of prisoners.

“After yesterday’s parade of prisoners of war, the sympathy toward the people of the Donbass is low in other regions in Ukraine,” he said, making it politically difficult for Mr. Poroshenko to negotiate, something that factions in the separatist movement intent on drawing in Russian peacekeepers want, Mr. Voloshyn said.

“Most Ukrainians want peace. But if it comes to a choice between total humiliation and war, they will choose war.”

In Moscow, Lavrov, the foreign minister, was questioned about the parade held Sunday in which prisoners of war from the Ukrainian Army were displayed.

Researchers with Human Rights Watch said the parade violated Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, which prohibits “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment against prisoners of war.”

Lavrov said the parade did not appear to meet that standard.

“I saw a picture of this parade,” he said.

“I did not see anything close to abuse.”

Russia Claims Soldiers Captured By Ukraine Crossed Border By Accident

The Russian government claims that a group of soldiers captured in eastern Ukraine had crossed the border by accident.

pro-Russian missile launcher as it drives in the town of Krasnodon.

Ukraine announced Tuesday that it had captured ten soldiers in the area of Amvrosiivka, near the Russian border in the Donetsk region.

The region has been torn apart by fighting between government troops and pro-Russian separatists who declared independence in the region in April.

The Facebook page for the anti-rebel operation -- which includes the military, the national guard and Interior Ministry forces -- said the soldiers are from a Russian paratrooper division.

The posting did not give details of how the capture took place.

Footage of five of the captives was also posted on the page and showed men dressed in camouflage fatigues.

One of the soldiers said they had been told they were being mobilized to take part in military exercises, The Associated Press reports.

Another soldier, who identified himself as Ivan Melchyakov, listed his personal details, including the name of the paratroop regiment he said is based in the Russian town of Kostroma, located on the Volga River northeast of Moscow.

"I did not see where we crossed the border," he said, according to Sky News.

"They just told us we were going on a 70-kilometer (43-mile) march over three days. 

"Everything is different here, not like they show it on television," Melchyakov continues.

"We've come as cannon fodder."

The BBC reported that another captive, who gives his name as Sgt. Andrei Generalov, said "Stop sending in our boys. Why? This is not our war. And if we weren't here, none of this would have happened."

Ukraine's Defense Minister seized on the capture, the first such event claimed by authorities, as proof that Russian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine alongside the separatists.

"Officially they are at exercises in various corners of Russia," Valeriy Geletey said, according to Sky News.

"In reality, they are participating in military aggression against Ukraine and their families know nothing about their true fate... I am addressing the relatives of Russian servicemen. Find out immediately where your loved ones are. Take them out of Ukraine, where they are being forced to die."

The Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted an unnamed source in the Russian Defense Ministry as saying the soldiers were patrolling the border area and probably crossed the border inadvertently.

The confrontation came to light hours before talks between Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko were due to begin in Minsk, Belarus.

The news is likely to add more tension to an encounter that was already highly unlikely to succeed in bringing an end to the conflict.

The United Nations has estimated that more than 2,000 people have died since the conflict began, while 330,000 are believed to have fled the area.

NATO has claimed that Russia has tens of thousands of troops positioned in areas near the Ukrainian border, leading to persistent concerns that Russia could be preparing an invasion.

Russia has denied that it has any intention of invading eastern Ukraine, and has also pushed back against accusations from Ukraine and Western nations that it has provided military support and training to the separatists or fired artillery into Ukraine itself.

Meanwhile, towering columns of smoke rose Tuesday from outside a city in Ukraine's far southeast after what residents said was a heavy artillery barrage.

It was the second straight day that attacks were reported in the vicinity of Novoazovsk, which is in eastern Ukraine's separatist Donetsk region but previously had seen little fighting between Ukrainian forces and pro-Russian rebels.

Local residents, some hastily packing up in order to flee, told The Associated Press it was not clear what direction the firing had come from.

Ukrainian officials on Monday said artillery was fired from the Russian side of the border.

A Ukrainian soldier who declined to give his name suggested that Tuesday's shelling could have come from rebels aiming to take out a Ukrainian rocket launcher.

Before Peace Talks, Ukraine Says It Holds Russian Troops

Ukraine released video footage Tuesday of what it said were 10 captured Russian soldiers, raising tensions as President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia arrived in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, for talks later in the day with his Ukrainian counterpart, President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine.

Captured Russian soldiers in Ukraine.

Russia has consistently denied supporting pro-Moscow separatists in eastern Ukraine, and the video will step up pressure on the Kremlin to clarify its role in the fighting there.

In earlier peace talks between lower-ranking officials, Moscow’s position has prevented discussion of what Ukraine regards as the key to stopping the conflict — a Russian willingness to acknowledge, and halt, its support for rebels holed up in the eastern cities of Luhansk and Donetsk.

“It makes it very difficult to negotiate anything when Putin says he is not involved,” Michael A. McFaul, a former United States ambassador to Moscow and now a professor at Stanford University, said in a telephone interview.

Ukrainian forces have made steady progress in recent weeks against the rebels, driving them from a number of towns and villages, but the government says the advance has been slowed by an accelerating flow of arms and fighters from Russia to support the rebels.

After repeated accusations of Russian involvement that were not backed by any solid evidence, Ukraine on Tuesday released videos of men who, under interrogation, identified themselves as Russian soldiers captured on Ukrainian territory.

The men, who gave their names and military serial numbers, said they had been sent to Ukraine by their superiors after initially being told they were going on a training exercise. 

The videos surfaced on the Facebook page of Ukraine’s so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation, just hours before Putin was due to meet Mr. Poroshenko and senior officials of the European Union in Minsk.

The meeting between the two presidents, the first since a brief encounter in June, would not end the conflict in eastern Ukraine, analysts said, but should at least open the way for future talks.

Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who visited Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, over the weekend, dampened expectations for the Minsk meeting.

It “certainly won’t result in the breakthrough” that Germany and others were hoping for, she told a German newspaper.

The videos released by Ukraine may make it more difficult for the Kremlin to stick to its approach of simply denying that it has any hand in the fighting.

“Everything was a lie. There were no drills here,” one of the captured Russians, who identified himself as Sergey A. Smirnov, told a Ukrainian interrogator.

He said he and other Russians from an airborne unit in Kostroma, in central Russia, had been sent on what was described initially as a military training exercise but later turned into a mission into Ukraine.

After having their cellphones and identity documents taken away, they were sent into Ukraine on vehicles stripped of all markings, Smirnov said. 

RIA Novosti, a state-controlled Russian news agency, quoted an unnamed source from Russia’s defense ministry as saying the men had crossed into Ukraine by accident.

“The soldiers really did participate in a patrol of a section of the Russian-Ukrainian border, crossed it by accident on an unmarked section, and as far as we understand showed no resistance to the armed forces of Ukraine when they were detained,” the source said.

A spokesman for the Ukrainian military, Colonel Andriy Lysenko, disputed that account and accused Russia of sending the soldiers across the border on a “special mission,” Reuters reported.

Dmitri Trenin, an expert on Russian foreign policy and the director of the Carnegie Moscow Center, predicted that Russia would persist with its denials but might be willing to quietly abandon its support over time as it shifted to other ways to pressure Kiev.

“There is no solution to the Ukraine issue any time soon,” Mr. Trenin said in a telephone interview from Moscow.

Russia has already cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, complaining that it has not been paid for previous deliveries, and energy shortages will grow increasingly painful for Ukraine as winter approaches.

Moscow’s long-term goal, Mr. Trenin said, is not to force Ukraine to recognize the rebels’ self-declared states but to ensure that Ukraine never joins NATO or allows Western troops on Ukrainian territory.

That goal could be accomplished, he said, by forcing Ukraine to make constitutional changes that would give eastern regions an effective veto over key decisions by the government in Kiev.

“We are still at the early stages of this monumental struggle,” he said.

“The eastern rebels may lose their battle and Putin may be willing to accept this as a tactical move. But he is not ready to accept defeat of Russia’s policy in Ukraine.” 

Time for Obama to get some balls, become a REAL President and a World Leader

As Ukraine's standoff with Russia over its support of pro-Russian separatists escalates, President Obama must decide how the USA can prevent the conflict from spinning out of control.

 

While Obama has been quietly letting Germany take the lead on the diplomatic front up until now, what he and his deputies communicate at talks Tuesday between Ukraine, Russia and European leaders in Belarus could play a pivotal role in whether Russia succeeds in disabling Ukraine's economic recovery and permanently destabilizing Europe's second-largest country.

 

Phillip Karber, who has briefed the White House and Congress on the Ukrainian military's needs in its fight against separatists, says the USA should provide Ukraine with Predator drones to help stem the flow of armored reinforcements that have crossed from Russia.

 

"For every battalion of combat material or troops the Russians send into Ukraine, the U.S. should send a team with a MQ-9 Predator," said Karber, who is president of the Potomac Foundation, a think tank. "(The Predator) is not only very effective against dispersed armored vehicles, but greatly reduces collateral damage that comes from ground-attack aircraft."

 

On Friday, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Moscow has sent Russian-manned artillery units into Ukraine in recent days and was using them to shell Ukrainian forces as part of a "major escalation" of Russian involvement in the disputed region.

 

Russia continues to deny that it is supplying weapons and other military aid to the separatists in Ukraine, with the Russian foreign ministry calling Rasmussen's statement "another lie" on Saturday, Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported.

 

Other analysts warn dramatically increasing military aid to Ukraine risks a rapid Russian escalation that the USA could not match.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin — who has at least 10,000 troops on Ukraine's border, according to NATO — "can escalate more with less cost" than the USA can, says Bruce Jones, director of the Project on International Order and Strategy at the Brookings Institution in Washington. That "could create a much more intensive war with high costs for Ukraine."

 

Instead, Obama has taken a measured approach that includes providing Ukraine with U.S. intelligence support, military training and advice while gradually imposing sanctions that hurt the Russian economy without causing it to collapse, Jones said.

 

However, Jones says the president hasn't done a good job of explaining that approach to the American public and the international community.

 

"Obama hasn't made it clear he's willing to escalate if Putin does," Jones said. "That lack of certainty Putin can exploit. If he's not certain we will escalate, for him the risk of escalating is less."

 

The USA needs to make clear that it will do whatever it takes to help Ukraine regain control of its territory in the east, says Janusz Bugajski, a senior fellow at the Center for European Policy Analysis, a Washington think tank.

 

"We don't want another divided state in Europe in which Russia can pull the strings and keep it unstable," Bugajski said. "If it's come to the point the Ukrainians can't take back their territory … then I think it's time to help the Ukrainians regain the initiative."

 

That should also guide whether the USA continues to let Germany take the lead in negotiations after Tuesday's talks, Bugajski said.

 

"The bad outcome is if the Germans and Europeans with Russia somehow push Kiev to accept a peace deal or cease-fire that acknowledges the existence of this rebel enclave, then it's time for the United States to step in because that would be the worst-case scenario."

 

German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for a cease-fire during her visit Saturday to Kiev, where she met with Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.

 

"The significance of my visit is that the German government (believes) that the territorial integrity and well-being of Ukraine is essential," Merkel said, according to German newspaper Deutsche Welle.

 

Poroshenko pledged that Ukraine "will do everything for this to happen but not at the expense of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of Ukraine."

 

Tuesday's talks follow the entrance and exit of a Russian aid convoy into Ukraine, a move that drew international condemnation and a threat by the White House to increase sanctions if the trucks did not leave immediately.

Just Like Putin, Another Mad Russian - Zhirinovsky: Baltic States and Poland will be wiped out

The politician, who is often dubbed the Kremlin's mouthpiece, threatens Poland and the Baltic States with carpet bombings.

According to him, whatever plans NATO and Brussels have and whatever directives Barack Obama signs, they won't have any power. “All questions of war and peace in general and in particular those relating to Ukraine will be solved by one person, the head of the Russian Federation,” he said.

He made the statement on the air of Russia 24 Tv channel. The vice speaker of the Russian Duma, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, commended on tensions between Russia and the West and began to threaten the neighbouring countries.

Zhirinovsky promised carpet bombings and complete destruction of Poland and the Baltic States.

“The Baltic States and Poland are doomed,” he said. “They will be wiped out. Nothing will remain there. The heads of these dwarf states should think who they are. Of course, nothing threatens America, because it is far, but Eastern European countries risk to be destroyed completely. This is their fault, because we cannot accept planes and missiles to be launched to Russia from their territories. We need to destroy them 30 minutes before the launch.”

Obama's intervention: Iraq is not Syria

The limited use of military force announced by President Obama was likely prompted by concern at the success of ISIS's latest offensives across Syria and Iraq. The jihadist group has recently redoubled its efforts in Raqqa, Syria, in an effort to take the remaining pockets of Syrian Government-held territory in the province. At the same time, ISIS's performance against Kurdish forces would have raised concern in Washington and Baghdad, and led to a re-assessment of  some overly optimistic judgments about Kurdish capabilities.

 

The situation facing the Yazidis and the Christians is of grave humanitarian concern. The fact that the refugees are geographically concentrated would have made air support an attractive option for the president. Add to this the fact that the sovereign Iraqi Government invited the intervention, and the stage was set for a dual humanitarian/limited direct military intervention operation to which Obama could agree.

 

There will of course be accusations that Obama is a hypocrite for intervening in Iraq but not Syria. That argument is simplistic and wrong. If the US is obliged to intervene militarily everywhere there is a humanitarian need, it would never stop intervening. Obama said as much in his speech. He is one of the few US leaders to understand the limits of American power. 

 

Moreover, the situation in Syria is far more complex. To have assisted one side would have meant breaching a nation's sovereignty (no big deal) and potentially assisting the very Islamist forces that pose a security threat to the region and the West (a very big deal). The intervention in Iraq requires Obama to do neither of those things, so the calculus is completely different.

 

In his speech, Obama was careful to emphasise the need for an Iraqi political solution to the crisis engulfing the country. As long as Maliki remains prime minister, there will be little appetite for substantive US air support. The intriguing question is whether a more politically inclusive Iraqi prime minister might prompt a more robust US response in terms of air support and stand-off weapons.

Obama: Russia is 'on the wrong side of history' in Ukraine

The world believes Russia's operations on Ukraine's territory violate international law, U.S. President Barack Obama said.

"The world is largely united in recognizing that the steps Russia has taken are a violation of Ukraine's sovereignty, their territorial integrity – that they're a violation of international law," Obama said at the White House on Monday.

The U.S. President stressed that Russia is 'on the wrong side of history' in Ukraine.

Obama called on U.S. Congress to adopt an assistance package to the Ukrainian government as a 'first order of business.'

Moscow fires warning shot across bow of US naval-based ABM

The guided missile cruiser USS Lake Champlain

A top Russian official says a US missile defense system near Russia’s border is strategically destabilizing and may prompt an arms race.

Speaking to SW on the threat of mobile naval-based elements of the US missile defense system  “suddenly appearing” on Russia’s coastline, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin said such an event would trigger “the harshest reaction from Russia."

"We must consider the effective protection of our strategic nuclear forces," Rogozin said in an interview with the magazine Voyenny Parade (‘Military Parade’).

Rogozin, while not elaborating on what Russia’s response would be, noted that Russia is taking definite steps to counter American ships “equipped with the Aegis integrated naval weapons system.”

Russia has warned its US and NATO partners on numerous occasions that unless the two sides can reach an acceptable agreement over NATO plans to unilaterally build a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, another arms race is inevitable.

Ironically, it was US President Barack Obama – the same American leader who pushed for a “reset” with Moscow – who introduced the current missile defense plans that may include stationing Aegis missiles aboard US warships in the Black Sea.

Washington says the missile defense system, which is capable of intercepting short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, is vital for protecting Eastern Europe from “rogue states,” like Iran and North Korea. At the same time, however, the western military alliance ignores Moscow’s concern the strategic balance may be upset. In fact, NATO even refuses to provide Moscow with written, legal guarantees that the system will not in the future target Russian territory.

Judging by Rogozin’s strong words, it seems that another arms race has already begun.

"U.S. missile defense in its current form is obviously destabilizing and prompting an arms race between Russia and the U.S. and NATO," Rogozin noted.

Russia is considering ways of “suppressing and penetrating” the missile defense system in ways that will guarantee “unacceptable damage to any aggressor, and force it to resist the temptation to test Russia's strength,” the Deputy Prime Minister added.

Rogozin, who served in a previous capacity as Russia’s NATO envoy, explained his use of blunt language.

"We must be frank about this. I was the Russian envoy to NATO for four years and I know what language they understand best of all," he said.

US missile defense: ‘global, mobile and threatening’ - Russia

NATO’s missile defense system presents a threat to Russia’s national security and may trigger the militarization of Europe, Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin told a NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegation on Thursday.

"This missile defense concept is global and mobile, and it creates unpredictability,” Rogozin said at a meeting with NATO officials at the Federation Council. “That is the real Figaro; Figaro here and Figaro there."

Rogozin said Moscow is “awaiting explanations from NATO and Washington concerning the real purpose [of the system],” he stressed.

The Deputy Prime Minister remarked on the military defense components “that are being deployed around Norway, the bases in Romania,” which are aimed at intercepting “strategic rockets according to speed, range and altitude characteristics."

Rogozin then mentioned the US naval group – the core of European missile defense – which “may be deployed in European ports rather far from the Russian territory (such as a base in Spain).”

However, "the same fleet will invariably appear in our northern seas under particular circumstances."

"The radius of use of these weapons makes them a real threat to us,” Rogozin noted. “The strategic potential of Russia is a guarantee of its sovereignty and independence."

The US missile defense system, first shelved then repackaged under the Obama administration, has been a thorn in the side of the Russia-US reset. Indeed, Russia has warned that the issue has all the potential to escalate into another arms race.

If new threats to Russia's strategic potential appear, Russia will simply have to consider the threatening prospect of a militarized Europe.

Rogozin implored the NATO delegation not to push Russia into a position where it will be forced to respond.

"We request you don’t do that,” he stressed. “The Russian response has a…political and diplomatic nature at the moment, but you will not like the technical response we may have to pursue under certain circumstances."

Although the Vice Premier said Russia has no reason to fear for the security of its western borders, he acknowledged there are threats that both Russia and the European Union share alike.

"We see new threats arising in Russia and European countries and…these threats are practically identical to both you and us," Rogozin told the NATO delegation. "Russia is no an exporter of such threats to NATO states, and we can hardly reproach NATO for the presence of such threats."

Russia regards the European Union as its unconditional strategic partner and Moscow is not interested in any conflicts or controversies disrupting the bilateral partnership, he stressed.

“The 21st century should…represent the revival of Russia's full-scale presence in Europe's common political affairs, which would be of much benefit both for Russia and Europe,” he declared.

White House demands military prisons for Americans under NDAA

The White House has asked the US Second Circuit Court of Appeals to place an emergency stay on a ruling made last week by a federal judge so that the president’s power to indefinitely detain Americans without charge is reaffirmed immediately.

On Wednesday, September 12, US District Court Judge Katherine Forrest made permanent a temporary injunction she issued in May that bars the federal government from abiding by the indefinite detention provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, or NDAA. Judge Forrest ruled that a clause that gives the government the power to arrest US citizens suspected of maintaining alliances with terrorists and hold them without due process violated the Constitution and that the White House would be stripped of that ability immediately.

Only hours after Judge Forrest issued last week’s ruling, the Obama administration threatened to appeal the decision, and on Monday morning they followed through.

At around 9 a.m. Monday, September 17, the White House filed an emergency stay in federal appeals court in an effort to have the Second Circuit strip away Judge Forrest’s ruling from the week earlier.

“Almost immediately after Judge Forrest ruled, the Obama administration challenged the decision,” writes Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist that is listed as the lead plaintiff in the case. According to Hedges, the government called Judge Forrest’s most recent ruling an “extraordinary injunction of worldwide scope,” and Executive Branch attorneys worked into the weekend to find a way to file their stay.

“The Justice Department sent a letter to Forrest and the Second Circuit late Friday night informing them that at 9 a.m. Monday the Obama administration would ask the Second Circuit for an emergency stay that would lift Forrest’s injunction,” Hedges writes. “This would allow Obama to continue to operate with indefinite detention authority until a formal appeal was heard. The government’s decision has triggered a constitutional showdown between the president and the judiciary.”

Attorney Carl Mayer, a counsel for Hedges and his co-plaintiffs, confirmed to RT early Monday that the stay was in fact filed with the Second Circuit.

“This may be the most significant constitutional standoff since the Pentagon Papers case,” Carl Mayer says in a separate statement posted on Mr. Hedge’s blog.

Bruce Afran, who serves as co-lead counsel along with Mayer, tells Hedges that the White House could be waging a war against the injunction to ensure that the Obama administration has ample time to turn the NDAA against any protesters participating in domestic demonstrations.

“A Department of Homeland Security bulletin was issued Friday claiming that the riots [in the Middle East] are likely to come to the US and saying that DHS is looking for the Islamic leaders of these likely riots,” Afran tells Hedges. “It is my view that this is why the government wants to reopen the NDAA — so it has a tool to round up would-be Islamic protesters before they can launch any protest, violent or otherwise. Right now there are no legal tools to arrest would-be protesters. The NDAA would give the government such power. Since the request to vacate the injunction only comes about on the day of the riots, and following the DHS bulletin, it seems to me that the two are connected. The government wants to reopen the NDAA injunction so that they can use it to block protests.”

Hedges, who has previously reported for papers including the New York Times and the Christian Science Monitor, argued that his job as a journalist requires him to routinely interact and converse with persons that may be considered terrorists in the eyes of the US government.

Under the NDAA, Americans “who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" can be held in prison cells “until the end of hostilities,” vague verbiage that essentially allows for those suspect of such associations to be decided under the discretion of US President Barack Obama or any federal agent underneath him.

“Because the language is so vague in this law,” Mr. Mayer explains to RT, “if any journalist or activist is seen as reporting or offering opinions about groups that could somehow be linked not just to al-Qaeda but to any opponent of the United States or even opponents of our allies”

“I spent many years in countries where the military had the power to arrest and detain citizens without charge,” Hedges wrote when he first filed his suit in January. “I have been in some of these jails. I have friends and colleagues who have ‘disappeared’ into military gulags. I know the consequences of granting sweeping and unrestricted policing power to the armed forces of any nation. And while my battle may be quixotic, it is one that has to be fought if we are to have any hope of pulling this country back from corporate fascism.”

Monday morning, Hedges once more responded to the White House’s relentless attempts to reauthorize powers granted under the NDAA, asking, “If the administration is this anxious to restore this section of the NDAA, is it because the Obama government has already used it? Or does it have plans to use the section in the immediate future?”

“The decision to vigorously fight Forrest’s ruling is a further example of the Obama White House’s steady and relentless assault against civil liberties, an assault that is more severe than that carried out by George W. Bush,” writes Hedges. “Obama has refused to restore habeas corpus. He supports the FISA Amendment Act, which retroactively makes legal what under our Constitution has traditionally been illegal — warrantless wire tapping, eavesdropping and monitoring directed against US citizens. He has used the Espionage Act six times against whistle-blowers who have exposed government crimes, including war crimes, to the public. He interprets the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force Act as giving him the authority to assassinate US citizens, as he did the cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. And now he wants the right to use the armed forces to throw U.S. citizens into military prisons, where they will have no right to a trial and no defined length of detention.”

In his latest blog post, Hedges acknowledges, “The government has now lost four times in a litigation that has gone on almost nine months.”

'Strike on Iran unlikely, would not have US support'

Washington is hoping and waiting for a positive outcome for its sanctions against Iran, and will not go along with Israel’s demands to attack the country, Iranian political scientist and professor Nasser Nadian-Jazy said in an interview with Russian Media.

Nadian-Jazy believes that if President Obama is re-elected, he will be more willing to take a risk on diplomacy with Tehran and work out a plan to resolve tensions in a way that will be mutually beneficial for both America and Iran.

RM: Iran has just hosted a huge international event – the Non-Aligned Movement summit. There were 120 countries present, regardless of the US and Israel's warnings not to do so. What message exactly is Iran sending out there?

Nasser Nadian-Jazy: Basically, Iran attempted to say that we’re not isolated the way the West attempted. Thus, the principal message for Iran was convincing the international community, particularly the West, that Iran is not isolated, let’s resolve our issues on the basis of negotiation rather than sanctions, political pressure and isolation.

RM: One could call it probably diplomatic power – you had 120 countries coming to you – regardless of America saying ‘don’t go.’ Does this immunize you from a possible strike [on Iran]?

NNJ: Of course not. Although, I’m not all that convinced that the Israelis would attack Iran, because that does not serve their interests. That would not help them to achieve their objectives. It would be costly for them, too. They can begin the strike, the war, but they are not sure how and when Iran is going to respond. In fact, no one can predict it.

RM: Do you have a guess how much the war with Iran would cost to the world economy?

NNJ: No doubt that as the first planes and missiles are flying over Iran, the price of oil is going to jump up – at least for a while. Considering the current economic problems now, I doubt it would be very helpful to the global economy.

RM: Since we’ve started talking about this possible strike, the US and Israel have different views on whether this strike should take place or not. What will happen, in your opinion, after the US presidential election?

NNJ: My guess is that if President Obama is re-elected, he would attempt to somehow work out a plan that would be beneficial for both America and Iran. Up to this point, America should basically consider the pressure. They cannot dismiss the presidential elections, they cannot dismiss the pressure from Israel. But after that, President Obama will be more willing to take risks with diplomatic efforts.

RM: You mentioned you don’t actually think that Israel would go ahead with the strike. But does it actually have the capability to fight the war?

NNJ: Up to this moment I’m almost convinced – though not totally convinced – that Israelis are putting pressure on the international community, particularly America with its presidential election. They want to get more; they want to make America accept their red line, which is zero [uranium] enrichment for Iran. They feel this is the best time to pressure America to accept that red line. America has not accepted that red line. For America, the red line is Iran having actual [nuclear] weapons.

But in case they decide to attack, they will not achieve their objectives. They do not have the capability to attack Iran. At most they can attack a few places by missiles and war planes. That would not convince Iran not to pursue its nuclear program.

If effectively put that way, it can bring out the radicals of Iran – those who are arguing for nuclear weapons. An Israeli attack is the best-case scenario for them. Basically, Israelis would strengthen the [Iranian] radicals who want them out. But the absolute majority of Iranian pundits and elites and officials – they don’t want this [nuclear] weapons. What they want is the capability [to make them]. I’ve been arguing that since 2003, Iran does not want [nuclear] weapons, Iran wants the capability

RM: What is your personal take on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that he wants Israel to be wiped off the face of Earth?

NNJ: To me it is mostly a wish rather than a plan.

RM: But it is something a president of a country comes out and says to the world media.

NNJ: That is very unfortunate that the president of the country would say that, but I’m not convinced at all or rather convinced the opposite, that there is no plan for wiping Israel off the map.

RM: The world is still not convinced that Iran doesn't want to make a nuclear bomb. What other cards does Iran have to prevent a war?

NNJ: I’m not sure about the rest of the world, you can say a few countries.

RM: A few countries that really call the shots, let’s put it that way.

NNJ: Exactly, I fully agree on that. Yes, they are not convinced that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful. They might decide to attack and wage war on Iran. But what can we do to prevent a war is to convince the international community, particularly the IAEA, that our program is peaceful. We also can bring influential figures of the world to Iran, presenting our case to them and convincing them there is no reason for Iran to have [nuclear] weapons.

A number of important international relation theoreticians have argued [with me] that, considering the situation, Iran should have nuclear weapons. I provided a number of reasons why Iran is not pursuing and does not want to have nuclear weapons. The reason is that they do not enhance security in the region. That would be very stupid of Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.

RM: Let’s talk about sanctions. Iran’s oil revenues have declined since the Western sanctions went in place. Iran’s government said it has not really affected anything, but these sanctions really eaten into Iranian economy, haven’t they?

NNJ: Of course, sanctions have an impact on Iran, but are they enough to convince Iran not to have the enrichment? No, they are not. In the long term, sanctions are going to hurt Iran very much and that is why I’ve been arguing all along that in fact the current situation is very good for the Americans. Why should they change course? That is why they are arguing with Israel “we can achieve our objectives in long term, don’t push it.”

This is an excellent and very low-risk plan for the Americans. They have cornered Iran, put a lot of pressure on it and they say “let’s wait and see what will happen.”

For Iran the situation is not good. Iran should change that element of strategic calculus, so that the Americans think it is not going to be the same. The introduction of a new element – like a military option – would change the entire strategic landscape. That’s why Americans are pressuring Israelis not to take any action.

RM: Another topic the US and Iran disagree on is Syria, and whether [President Bashar] Assad should stay or leave. How long does Iran want the current government in Syria to hold on, and if Assad is ousted, would Iran feel vulnerable?

NNJ: Unfortunately, due to particularly Saudi Arabia and Qatar and to a lesser extent Turkey, the situation in Syria is bad, many people are being killed. I doubt that with Assad leaving things are going to be resolved there for at least next decade. Syria is not going to be the same because so many parties are engaged.

RM: What does it mean for Iran, especially if Assad goes? He will probably go sooner or later.

NNJ: It depends. For Iran the best scenario is preserve the regime – at least the state – but let Assad go. To come up with a resolution so that a sort of national unity government can be formed in the same state, but without Assad. Otherwise, it is going to be chaos for years to come. And it is not going to be contained within Syria. Iraq and Lebanon are going to be influenced, and once they’re influenced, Yemen will follow. Saudi Arabia won’t be immune from the situation, or Iran and Turkey. The whole region is going to be impacted if the conflict is not contained within Syria.