canadaeast.com - TT International Business
Venezuela takes control of oil fields
Business Briefcase
ARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - Venezuela's state oil company said yesterday it has successfully signed agreements to bring all 32 privately operated oil fields under government control after reaching a deal with Spanish-Argentine oil company Repsol YPF.
The Venezuelan government had set a Dec. 31 deadline for all private companies holding contracts to independently pump oil to agree to new joint ventures that will be majority-owned by the state oil company.
The 15,000 barrel-a-day Quiamare-La Ceiba oil field, however, was the only one not to have submitted to the contract changes due to objections by Exxon Mobil Corp., which jointly operates the field with Repsol.
Repsol has acquired Exxon's 25 per cent stake in the field and agreed to convert its operating agreement into a joint venture, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A., or PDVSA, said in a statement. The company did not provide a cash value for the deal.
The government had threatened to reclaim oil fields from companies that refused to sign the so-called transitional joint-venture agreements, which will later be converted into permanent agreements with PDVSA.
Of 22 companies that held operating agreements, Chevron Corp., BP PLC, Royal Dutch Shell PLC and Brazil's state oil company Petrobras S.A. were among those that signed earlier.
The state could take as much as a 90 per cent stake in the new ventures. The amount the private companies have invested in the fields will determine the amount of control they have, Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez has said. The contract changes are part of a wider strategy by President Hugo Chavez's administration to exert more control over the oil industry. In less than four years, his government has sharply raised taxes and royalties charged to foreign oil companies and demanded $3 billion US in unpaid taxes.
Pizza magnate donates $20M
TORONTO (CP) - The founder of the Pizza Pizza restaurant chain has quietly given $20 million to charity, delivering the news in a year-end filing that showed the donation knocked his private company into a net loss.
Michael Overs set up the Tesari Charitable Foundation in September but there was no announcement because the 66-year-old Toronto resident is "a very private person," Curt Feltner, chief financial officer of Pizza Pizza Ltd., said yesterday in explaining the unusual earnings statement.
"He just does not like to make major announcements about his personal givings."
Feltner added that Pizza Pizza Ltd. didn't have staff to deal with a crush of calls from worthy causes clamouring for a slice of the foundation's funds. "The foundation is in the gift-giving phase now, but selectively," Feltner said, adding that it will concentrate on the health and vocational training fields.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Boost for our Troops -Canucks other NATO Soldiers ready to take over fight in Afghanistan
http://ottsun.canoe.ca/News/National/2005/12/31/pf-1374088.html
Boost for our troops
Canucks other NATO Soldiers ready to take over fight in Afghanistan
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- A U.S. commander is "very confident" Canadian and other NATO-led troops will aggressively keep up the fight against insurgents when they take over control of southern Afghanistan from his troops in the spring.
NATO foreign ministers approved plans earlier this month to send up to 6,000 mostly European and Canadian soldiers into volatile southern Afghanistan, while about 10,000 NATO troops continue to watch over the north and west.
The plans give the NATO troops a stronger self-defence mandate, guarantee support from U.S. troops if they face a serious attack and set rules for handling detainees.
Canadian Col. S.J. Bowes said his force, which will assume responsibility for Kandahar, is prepared to extend the offensive nature of the operation.
"It's clear that this is not a peacekeeping mission," he said.
DEADLIEST YEAR
Maj.-Gen. Jason Kamiya and Bowes, the U.S.-led coalition's operational commander, says NATO troops will be aggressive in the fight against insurgents.
"I feel very, very confident ... that each nation understands what the conditions are here," Kamiya said yesterday during a visit by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, who is making a six-country tour to rally his troops during the holidays.
This year has been the deadliest in Afghanistan since a U.S.-led offensive ousted the Taliban regime in late 2001 for harbouring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida training camps. More than 1,500 people have been killed as militants loyal to the Taliban, al-Qaida and other groups have stepped up attacks.
Two suspected Taliban suicide bombers died Thursday when explosives they were strapping to their bodies exploded prematurely.
The blast followed a string of suicide attacks and came days after a top rebel commander said more than 200 insurgents are willing to kill themselves in assaults on U.S. troops and their allies.
Kamiya dismissed the claim by Mullah Dadullah as propaganda but acknowledged such attacks are on the rise.
"Suicide bombers were almost non-existent when we came here in March. What we did notice though is that the rise in suicide bombings began in June," he said.
CANADIAN INJURED
"The enemy began to realize that every time he came at us directly he would always lose great numbers of fighters and insurgents. So, this caused him to adapt his tactics."
There have been about a dozen such attacks the last few months.
A suicide bomber also set off explosives near a U.S. and Afghan military convoy in Kandahar Dec. 11, killing himself and wounding three civilians. A week earlier, a suicide bomber killed a civilian and wounded a Canadian soldier.
Boost for our troops
Canucks other NATO Soldiers ready to take over fight in Afghanistan
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan -- A U.S. commander is "very confident" Canadian and other NATO-led troops will aggressively keep up the fight against insurgents when they take over control of southern Afghanistan from his troops in the spring.
NATO foreign ministers approved plans earlier this month to send up to 6,000 mostly European and Canadian soldiers into volatile southern Afghanistan, while about 10,000 NATO troops continue to watch over the north and west.
The plans give the NATO troops a stronger self-defence mandate, guarantee support from U.S. troops if they face a serious attack and set rules for handling detainees.
Canadian Col. S.J. Bowes said his force, which will assume responsibility for Kandahar, is prepared to extend the offensive nature of the operation.
"It's clear that this is not a peacekeeping mission," he said.
DEADLIEST YEAR
Maj.-Gen. Jason Kamiya and Bowes, the U.S.-led coalition's operational commander, says NATO troops will be aggressive in the fight against insurgents.
"I feel very, very confident ... that each nation understands what the conditions are here," Kamiya said yesterday during a visit by Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, who is making a six-country tour to rally his troops during the holidays.
This year has been the deadliest in Afghanistan since a U.S.-led offensive ousted the Taliban regime in late 2001 for harbouring Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida training camps. More than 1,500 people have been killed as militants loyal to the Taliban, al-Qaida and other groups have stepped up attacks.
Two suspected Taliban suicide bombers died Thursday when explosives they were strapping to their bodies exploded prematurely.
The blast followed a string of suicide attacks and came days after a top rebel commander said more than 200 insurgents are willing to kill themselves in assaults on U.S. troops and their allies.
Kamiya dismissed the claim by Mullah Dadullah as propaganda but acknowledged such attacks are on the rise.
"Suicide bombers were almost non-existent when we came here in March. What we did notice though is that the rise in suicide bombings began in June," he said.
CANADIAN INJURED
"The enemy began to realize that every time he came at us directly he would always lose great numbers of fighters and insurgents. So, this caused him to adapt his tactics."
There have been about a dozen such attacks the last few months.
A suicide bomber also set off explosives near a U.S. and Afghan military convoy in Kandahar Dec. 11, killing himself and wounding three civilians. A week earlier, a suicide bomber killed a civilian and wounded a Canadian soldier.
Top Ten Dumbest Things Said in 2005
The Dumbest Things President Bush Said in 2005
10) "It's totally wiped out. ... It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the ground." --turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane Katrina flood damage from Air Force One, Aug. 31, 2005
9) "I'm occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." --Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005
8) "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." --Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
7) "I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me." --Washington D.C., April 14, 2005
6) "Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled." --explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005
5) "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" --in a note to to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a U.N. Security Council meeting, September 14, 2005
4) "We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." --touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005
3) "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
2) "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005
1) "You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
10) "It's totally wiped out. ... It's devastating, it's got to be doubly devastating on the ground." --turning to his aides while surveying Hurricane Katrina flood damage from Air Force One, Aug. 31, 2005
9) "I'm occasionally reading, I want you to know, in the second term." --Washington, D.C., March 16, 2005
8) "This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table." --Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
7) "I'm going to spend a lot of time on Social Security. I enjoy it. I enjoy taking on the issue. I guess, it's the mother in me." --Washington D.C., April 14, 2005
6) "Because the — all which is on the table begins to address the big cost drivers. For example, how benefits are calculate, for example, is on the table; whether or not benefits rise based upon wage increases or price increases. There's a series of parts of the formula that are being considered. And when you couple that, those different cost drivers, affecting those — changing those with personal accounts, the idea is to get what has been promised more likely to be — or closer delivered to what has been promised. Does that make any sense to you? It's kind of muddled." --explaining his plan to save Social Security, Tampa, Fla., Feb. 4, 2005
5) "I think I may need a bathroom break. Is this possible?" --in a note to to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a U.N. Security Council meeting, September 14, 2005
4) "We've got a lot of rebuilding to do. First, we're going to save lives and stabilize the situation. And then we're going to help these communities rebuild. The good news is -- and it's hard for some to see it now -- that out of this chaos is going to come a fantastic Gulf Coast, like it was before. Out of the rubbles of Trent Lott's house -- he's lost his entire house -- there's going to be a fantastic house. And I'm looking forward to sitting on the porch." --touring hurricane damage, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005
3) "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." --Greece, N.Y., May 24, 2005
2) "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." --to FEMA director Michael Brown, who resigned 10 days later amid criticism over his handling of the Hurricane Katrina debacle, Mobile, Ala., Sept. 2, 2005
1) "You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." --to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005
Journalists Should Expose Secrets, Not Keep Them
Journalists Should Expose Secrets, Not Keep Them
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 28 December 2005
Journalists should be in the business of providing timely information to the public. But some - notably at the top rungs of the profession - have become players in the power games of the nation's capital. And more than a few seem glad to imitate the officeholders who want to decide what the public shouldn't know.
When the New York Times front page broke the story of the National Security Agency's domestic spying, the newspaper's editors had good reason to feel proud. Or so it seemed. But there was a troubling back-story: the Times had kept the scoop under wraps for a long time.
The White House did what it could - including, as a last-ditch move, an early-December presidential meeting that brought Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office - in its efforts to persuade the Times not to report the story. The good news is that those efforts ultimately failed. The bad news is that they were successful for more than a year.
"The decision to hold the story last year was mine," Keller said, according to a Washington Post article that appeared 10 days after the Times's blockbuster December 16 story. He added: "The decision to run the story last week was mine. I'm comfortable with both decisions. Beyond that, there's just no way to have a full discussion of the internal procedural twists that media writers find so fascinating without talking about what we knew, when, and how - and that I can't do."
By all indications, the Times had the basic story in hand before the election in November 2004, when Bush defeated challenger John Kerry. In other words, if those running the New York Times had behaved like journalists instead of political players - if they had exposed this momentous secret instead of keeping it - there are good reasons to believe the outcome of the presidential election might have been different.
Chiseled into the stone facades of some courthouses is the credo "Justice delayed is justice denied." The same might be said of journalism, which derives much of its power from timeliness. When egregiously delayed, journalism is denied - or at least severely diminished.
Yet quite a few prominent journalists have expressed a strange kind of media solidarity with the Times's delay of the NSA story for so long.
Consider how the Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest, for instance, responded to a request for "your opinion on the NY Times holding the domestic spying story for a year," during a December 22 online chat. "Well, first: I don't have a clue why they did so," Priest replied. "But I would give them the benefit of the doubt that it was for a good reason and, as their story said, they do more reporting within that year to satisfy themselves about certain things. Having read the story and the follow-ups, it's unclear why this would damage a valuable capability. Again, if the government doesn't think the bad guys believe their phones are tapped, they underestimate the enemy!"
Also opting to "give them the benefit of the doubt," some usually insightful media critics have gone out of their way to voice support for the Times's news management.
Deferring to the judgment of the executive editor of the New York Times may be akin to deferring to the judgment of the chief executive of the United States government. And as it happens, in this case, the avowed foreign policy goals of each do not appear to be in fundamental conflict - on the meaning of the Iraq war or the wisdom of enshrining a warfare state. Pretenses aside, the operative judgments from the New York Times's executive editor go way beyond the purely journalistic.
"So far, the passion to investigate the integrity of American intelligence-gathering belongs mostly to the doves, whose motives are subject to suspicion and who, in any case, do not set the agenda," Bill Keller wrote in an essay that appeared in the Times on June 14, 2003, shortly before he became executive editor. And Keller concluded: "The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face."
(By the way, Keller's phrase "the war we won" referred to the Iraq war.)
The story of the NSA's illicit domestic spying is not over. More holes are appearing in the Bush administration's damage-control claims. Media critics who affirm how important the story is - but make excuses for the long delay in breaking it - are part of a rationalizing process that has no end.
"The domestic spying controversy is a story of immense importance," Sydney Schanberg writes in the current Village Voice. The long delay before the Times published this "story of immense importance" does not seem to bother him much. "The paper had held the story for a year at the administration's pleading, but decided, after second thoughts and more reporting, that its importance required publication." Such wording should look at least a bit weird to journalistic eyes, but Schanberg doesn't muster any criticism, merely commenting: "From where I stand (I'm a Times alumnus), the paper should get credit for digging it out and publishing it."
Professional loyalties can't explain the extent of such uncritical media criticism from journalists. Many, like Schanberg, want to concentrate on the villainy of the Bush administration - as if it hasn't been aided and abetted by the New York Times's delay. Leading off his December 24 column with a blast at George W. Bush for "asserting the divine right of presidents," the Los Angeles Times media critic Tim Rutten proceeded with an essay that came close to asserting the divine right of executive editors to hold back vital stories for a very long time. Dismissing substantive criticism as the work of "paranoids," Rutten gave only laurels to the sovereign: "The New York Times deserves thanks and admiration for the service it has done the nation."
A cogent rebuttal to such testimonials came on December 26 from Miami Herald columnist Edward Wasserman, who wrote: "One of the more durable fallacies of ethical thought in journalism is the notion that doing right means holding back, that wrong is averted by leaving things out, reporting less or reporting nothing. When in doubt, kill the quote, hold the story - that's the ethical choice. But silence isn't innocent. It has consequences. In this case, it protected those within the government who believe that the law is a nuisance, that they don't have to play by the rules, by any rules, even their own."
While many journalists seem eager to downplay the importance of the Times's refusal to publish what it knew without long delay, Wasserman offers clarity: "Didn't the delay do harm? We know that thousands of people were subject to governmental intrusion that officials thought couldn't be justified even under a highly permissive set of laws. We also know that because knowledge of this illegality was kept confined to a small circle of initiates, the political system's response was postponed more than a year, and its ability to correct a serious abuse of power was thwarted. I don't know what the Times's brass was thinking. Maybe they just lost their nerve. Maybe they didn't want to tangle with a fiercely combative White House right before an election. But I do believe that withholding accurate information of great public importance is the most serious action any news organization can take. The reproach: 'You knew and you didn't tell us?' - reflects a fundamental professional betrayal."
Perhaps in 2007 we will learn that the New York Times had an explosive story about other ongoing government violations of civil liberties or some other crucial issue, but held it until after the November 2006 congressional elections. In that case, quite a few media critics and other journalists could recycle their pieces about giving the Times the benefit of the doubt and appreciating the quality of the crucial story that finally appeared.
--------
Norman Solomon's latest book is War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com.
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Thursday 28 December 2005
Journalists should be in the business of providing timely information to the public. But some - notably at the top rungs of the profession - have become players in the power games of the nation's capital. And more than a few seem glad to imitate the officeholders who want to decide what the public shouldn't know.
When the New York Times front page broke the story of the National Security Agency's domestic spying, the newspaper's editors had good reason to feel proud. Or so it seemed. But there was a troubling back-story: the Times had kept the scoop under wraps for a long time.
The White House did what it could - including, as a last-ditch move, an early-December presidential meeting that brought Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office - in its efforts to persuade the Times not to report the story. The good news is that those efforts ultimately failed. The bad news is that they were successful for more than a year.
"The decision to hold the story last year was mine," Keller said, according to a Washington Post article that appeared 10 days after the Times's blockbuster December 16 story. He added: "The decision to run the story last week was mine. I'm comfortable with both decisions. Beyond that, there's just no way to have a full discussion of the internal procedural twists that media writers find so fascinating without talking about what we knew, when, and how - and that I can't do."
By all indications, the Times had the basic story in hand before the election in November 2004, when Bush defeated challenger John Kerry. In other words, if those running the New York Times had behaved like journalists instead of political players - if they had exposed this momentous secret instead of keeping it - there are good reasons to believe the outcome of the presidential election might have been different.
Chiseled into the stone facades of some courthouses is the credo "Justice delayed is justice denied." The same might be said of journalism, which derives much of its power from timeliness. When egregiously delayed, journalism is denied - or at least severely diminished.
Yet quite a few prominent journalists have expressed a strange kind of media solidarity with the Times's delay of the NSA story for so long.
Consider how the Washington Post intelligence reporter Dana Priest, for instance, responded to a request for "your opinion on the NY Times holding the domestic spying story for a year," during a December 22 online chat. "Well, first: I don't have a clue why they did so," Priest replied. "But I would give them the benefit of the doubt that it was for a good reason and, as their story said, they do more reporting within that year to satisfy themselves about certain things. Having read the story and the follow-ups, it's unclear why this would damage a valuable capability. Again, if the government doesn't think the bad guys believe their phones are tapped, they underestimate the enemy!"
Also opting to "give them the benefit of the doubt," some usually insightful media critics have gone out of their way to voice support for the Times's news management.
Deferring to the judgment of the executive editor of the New York Times may be akin to deferring to the judgment of the chief executive of the United States government. And as it happens, in this case, the avowed foreign policy goals of each do not appear to be in fundamental conflict - on the meaning of the Iraq war or the wisdom of enshrining a warfare state. Pretenses aside, the operative judgments from the New York Times's executive editor go way beyond the purely journalistic.
"So far, the passion to investigate the integrity of American intelligence-gathering belongs mostly to the doves, whose motives are subject to suspicion and who, in any case, do not set the agenda," Bill Keller wrote in an essay that appeared in the Times on June 14, 2003, shortly before he became executive editor. And Keller concluded: "The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted. To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face."
(By the way, Keller's phrase "the war we won" referred to the Iraq war.)
The story of the NSA's illicit domestic spying is not over. More holes are appearing in the Bush administration's damage-control claims. Media critics who affirm how important the story is - but make excuses for the long delay in breaking it - are part of a rationalizing process that has no end.
"The domestic spying controversy is a story of immense importance," Sydney Schanberg writes in the current Village Voice. The long delay before the Times published this "story of immense importance" does not seem to bother him much. "The paper had held the story for a year at the administration's pleading, but decided, after second thoughts and more reporting, that its importance required publication." Such wording should look at least a bit weird to journalistic eyes, but Schanberg doesn't muster any criticism, merely commenting: "From where I stand (I'm a Times alumnus), the paper should get credit for digging it out and publishing it."
Professional loyalties can't explain the extent of such uncritical media criticism from journalists. Many, like Schanberg, want to concentrate on the villainy of the Bush administration - as if it hasn't been aided and abetted by the New York Times's delay. Leading off his December 24 column with a blast at George W. Bush for "asserting the divine right of presidents," the Los Angeles Times media critic Tim Rutten proceeded with an essay that came close to asserting the divine right of executive editors to hold back vital stories for a very long time. Dismissing substantive criticism as the work of "paranoids," Rutten gave only laurels to the sovereign: "The New York Times deserves thanks and admiration for the service it has done the nation."
A cogent rebuttal to such testimonials came on December 26 from Miami Herald columnist Edward Wasserman, who wrote: "One of the more durable fallacies of ethical thought in journalism is the notion that doing right means holding back, that wrong is averted by leaving things out, reporting less or reporting nothing. When in doubt, kill the quote, hold the story - that's the ethical choice. But silence isn't innocent. It has consequences. In this case, it protected those within the government who believe that the law is a nuisance, that they don't have to play by the rules, by any rules, even their own."
While many journalists seem eager to downplay the importance of the Times's refusal to publish what it knew without long delay, Wasserman offers clarity: "Didn't the delay do harm? We know that thousands of people were subject to governmental intrusion that officials thought couldn't be justified even under a highly permissive set of laws. We also know that because knowledge of this illegality was kept confined to a small circle of initiates, the political system's response was postponed more than a year, and its ability to correct a serious abuse of power was thwarted. I don't know what the Times's brass was thinking. Maybe they just lost their nerve. Maybe they didn't want to tangle with a fiercely combative White House right before an election. But I do believe that withholding accurate information of great public importance is the most serious action any news organization can take. The reproach: 'You knew and you didn't tell us?' - reflects a fundamental professional betrayal."
Perhaps in 2007 we will learn that the New York Times had an explosive story about other ongoing government violations of civil liberties or some other crucial issue, but held it until after the November 2006 congressional elections. In that case, quite a few media critics and other journalists could recycle their pieces about giving the Times the benefit of the doubt and appreciating the quality of the crucial story that finally appeared.
--------
Norman Solomon's latest book is War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com.
French Engineer Abducted by Fake Iraqi Terrorists
French Engineer Abducted by Fake Iraqi Terrorists
We are expected to believe the Iraqi resistance is not only vicious, but also uninterested in repairing the damage inflicted on its country by the neocon invasion. It runs around abducting Christian peace activists, western journalists, Sudanese and Moroccan embassy employees, and people from countries that opposed Bush’s invasion. On December 5, Bernard Planche, an engineer working for the “little known non-governmental group” AACCESS, was abducted. Planche worked at the Rusafa water treatment plant in eastern Baghdad. It should be noted that AACCESS is involved in “two small rehabilitation projects” financed by the United States Army, according to the New York Times. In short, on the surface, it would appear Planche’s abducting is legitimate, considering Planche worked indirectly for the U.S. Army and the United Nations.
Once again, however, this latest kidnapping was apparently carried out by a “previously unknown armed group,” according to the BBC, sporting yet another absurd name—Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade. It is curious how the larger, more well-know Iraqi resistance groups such as the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, the National Front for the Liberation of Iraq, and the Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front do not engage in kidnapping but rather military operations aimed at occupation forces and their Iraqi allies (even the United Nations accepts that people under occupation have a right to resist).
If we are to believe the corporate media, at least some of these kidnappings from ostensibly ad hoc terrorist groups are related to the Iraqi High Tribunal hearing of Saddam Hussein. However, kidnapping and possibly executing foreign workers and peace activists will not sway hand-picked judges in their ultimate decision to lynch Saddam, who after all cooperated with the United States for years, that is until he fell out of favor as client dictators often do.
Obviously, kidnapping and possibly killing innocent journalists, peace activists, and water engineers has a more practical goal—to make the resistance out to be blood-thirsty savages, demented Islamic fanatics determined to kill as many people as possible, both Iraqi and Sudanese, Moroccan, French, British, and assorted others. It makes no sense for the improbably named Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade to kidnap Bernard Planche, even if he is tenuously linked to the U.S. Army. In Bushzarro world, where Pentagon black ops are conducted in the name of the Iraqi resistance, it makes perfect sense to abduct and threaten to kill an engineer who worked to bring clean water to the Iraqi people.
"
We are expected to believe the Iraqi resistance is not only vicious, but also uninterested in repairing the damage inflicted on its country by the neocon invasion. It runs around abducting Christian peace activists, western journalists, Sudanese and Moroccan embassy employees, and people from countries that opposed Bush’s invasion. On December 5, Bernard Planche, an engineer working for the “little known non-governmental group” AACCESS, was abducted. Planche worked at the Rusafa water treatment plant in eastern Baghdad. It should be noted that AACCESS is involved in “two small rehabilitation projects” financed by the United States Army, according to the New York Times. In short, on the surface, it would appear Planche’s abducting is legitimate, considering Planche worked indirectly for the U.S. Army and the United Nations.
Once again, however, this latest kidnapping was apparently carried out by a “previously unknown armed group,” according to the BBC, sporting yet another absurd name—Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade. It is curious how the larger, more well-know Iraqi resistance groups such as the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, the National Front for the Liberation of Iraq, and the Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front do not engage in kidnapping but rather military operations aimed at occupation forces and their Iraqi allies (even the United Nations accepts that people under occupation have a right to resist).
If we are to believe the corporate media, at least some of these kidnappings from ostensibly ad hoc terrorist groups are related to the Iraqi High Tribunal hearing of Saddam Hussein. However, kidnapping and possibly executing foreign workers and peace activists will not sway hand-picked judges in their ultimate decision to lynch Saddam, who after all cooperated with the United States for years, that is until he fell out of favor as client dictators often do.
Obviously, kidnapping and possibly killing innocent journalists, peace activists, and water engineers has a more practical goal—to make the resistance out to be blood-thirsty savages, demented Islamic fanatics determined to kill as many people as possible, both Iraqi and Sudanese, Moroccan, French, British, and assorted others. It makes no sense for the improbably named Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade to kidnap Bernard Planche, even if he is tenuously linked to the U.S. Army. In Bushzarro world, where Pentagon black ops are conducted in the name of the Iraqi resistance, it makes perfect sense to abduct and threaten to kill an engineer who worked to bring clean water to the Iraqi people.
"
British, US Spying Draws Us Closer to Orwell's Big Brother
British, US Spying Draws Us Closer to Orwell's Big Brother
by T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, San Jose.
San Jose Mercury News (California)
December 29, 2005
My waking thought on Christmas Day was that George Orwell's vision of Big Brother was no longer a hypothetical possibility but an actual near-term threat. That realization was synthesized from two news events, one here and one in Britain.
In Britain, the government recently decided to deploy global positioning system (GPS) technology to track every vehicle in the U.K. every minute of the day. Just as GPS sensors are mandated for use in every cell phone in the near future in the United States (for our safety, of course), Britain will mandate the use of a GPS sensor in every car. "Has Reginald White arrived at the grocery store yet?" will become a question answerable by the security division of Britain's DMV.
The British government promises safeguards to prevent spying on ordinary citizens, but who will follow up on those promises?
In the United States, President Bush is acting under apparently self-granted powers to "authorize" the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans -- of course, only on Americans threatening terrorist acts.
In an act of high integrity, one of the judges of the secret court that grants Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act search warrants resigned, citing the fact that Bush was now bypassing even that minimal civil rights guarantee by directly authorizing NSA spying on U.S. citizens. One can only imagine that this troublesome judge will be replaced with one more friendly to the administration.
With only the need to combine two real-world technologies for spying and tracking, the vision of 1984 -- once just a dark philosophical concept -- becomes an engineering project.
The president and those to whom he delegates his authority can now authorize government spooks to listen to us in our homes and on our cell phones. When we are not home, they can track us in our automobiles. The system could be airtight and could be used to control our actions.
It's simple enough for most Silicon Valley companies to create a chip to detect a valid GPS signal and disable an automobile's ignition system to prevent citizens from the "unauthorized use" of their own vehicles.
The final move into the totality of 1984 requires only a bit of philosophical drift, as exemplified by J. Edgar Hoover's directive to spy on the Rev. Martin Luther King because he was a subversive. If Bush's latest acts are left unchallenged, the government will become bolder at spying on whomever it wants and secretly jailing those it deems a threat to national security -- all with no troublesome warrants or messy public trials.
In this environment, acts other than terrorism will certainly be put on the subversive activities list, all in the name of protecting our freedom.
Why should law-abiding citizens fear these trends? Because the government cannot be trusted. I don't trust President Bush to honor my rights, nor did I trust President Clinton, who was caught with secret FBI files on his political enemies.
It's not that I'm unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government -- either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That's why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government -- by demanding, for example, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech."
Our property is also protected from illegal search and seizure, and we are not to be put in jail without knowing the charges against us or having the right to confront our accusers in a public trial. Secret courts are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, the defining document of American freedom.
What's the worst thing that Al-Qaida can do to America? We have probably already seen it. Of course, the government can talk about bigger things, like the use of weapons of mass destruction, to justify its use of totalitarian tactics.
I would much rather live as a free man under the highly improbable threat of another significant Al-Qaida attack than I would as a serf, spied on by an oppressive government that can jail me secretly, without charges. If the Patriot Act defines the term "patriot," then I am certainly not one.
By far, our own government is a bigger threat to our freedom than any possible menace posed by Al-Qaida.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1229-35.htm
by T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, San Jose.
San Jose Mercury News (California)
December 29, 2005
My waking thought on Christmas Day was that George Orwell's vision of Big Brother was no longer a hypothetical possibility but an actual near-term threat. That realization was synthesized from two news events, one here and one in Britain.
In Britain, the government recently decided to deploy global positioning system (GPS) technology to track every vehicle in the U.K. every minute of the day. Just as GPS sensors are mandated for use in every cell phone in the near future in the United States (for our safety, of course), Britain will mandate the use of a GPS sensor in every car. "Has Reginald White arrived at the grocery store yet?" will become a question answerable by the security division of Britain's DMV.
The British government promises safeguards to prevent spying on ordinary citizens, but who will follow up on those promises?
In the United States, President Bush is acting under apparently self-granted powers to "authorize" the National Security Agency (NSA) to spy on Americans -- of course, only on Americans threatening terrorist acts.
In an act of high integrity, one of the judges of the secret court that grants Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act search warrants resigned, citing the fact that Bush was now bypassing even that minimal civil rights guarantee by directly authorizing NSA spying on U.S. citizens. One can only imagine that this troublesome judge will be replaced with one more friendly to the administration.
With only the need to combine two real-world technologies for spying and tracking, the vision of 1984 -- once just a dark philosophical concept -- becomes an engineering project.
The president and those to whom he delegates his authority can now authorize government spooks to listen to us in our homes and on our cell phones. When we are not home, they can track us in our automobiles. The system could be airtight and could be used to control our actions.
It's simple enough for most Silicon Valley companies to create a chip to detect a valid GPS signal and disable an automobile's ignition system to prevent citizens from the "unauthorized use" of their own vehicles.
The final move into the totality of 1984 requires only a bit of philosophical drift, as exemplified by J. Edgar Hoover's directive to spy on the Rev. Martin Luther King because he was a subversive. If Bush's latest acts are left unchallenged, the government will become bolder at spying on whomever it wants and secretly jailing those it deems a threat to national security -- all with no troublesome warrants or messy public trials.
In this environment, acts other than terrorism will certainly be put on the subversive activities list, all in the name of protecting our freedom.
Why should law-abiding citizens fear these trends? Because the government cannot be trusted. I don't trust President Bush to honor my rights, nor did I trust President Clinton, who was caught with secret FBI files on his political enemies.
It's not that I'm unpatriotic. The founders of our country did not trust any government -- either that of George III or an uncontrolled democracy. That's why we have the Bill of Rights to protect American citizens from their own government -- by demanding, for example, that "Congress shall make no law abridging the right of free speech."
Our property is also protected from illegal search and seizure, and we are not to be put in jail without knowing the charges against us or having the right to confront our accusers in a public trial. Secret courts are inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, the defining document of American freedom.
What's the worst thing that Al-Qaida can do to America? We have probably already seen it. Of course, the government can talk about bigger things, like the use of weapons of mass destruction, to justify its use of totalitarian tactics.
I would much rather live as a free man under the highly improbable threat of another significant Al-Qaida attack than I would as a serf, spied on by an oppressive government that can jail me secretly, without charges. If the Patriot Act defines the term "patriot," then I am certainly not one.
By far, our own government is a bigger threat to our freedom than any possible menace posed by Al-Qaida.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1229-35.htm
U.S. Base in Germany Closes After 60 years- ABC News
U.S. Base in Germany Closes After 60 Years
Air Force Hands Over the Keys to Rhein-Main Air Base in Frankfurt; Hosted U.S. Forces for 60 Years
The Associated Press
FRANKFURT, Germany - The U.S. Air Force on Friday handed over the keys to Rhein-Main Air Base to the operator of Frankfurt International Airport in a final act of closure for the base, which for 60 years hosted American forces.
The 120 buildings on the base are to be bulldozed to make way for a third terminal for Frankfurt's sprawling civilian airport continental Europe's busiest. It officially becomes German property on Saturday.
The ceremony, at which Brig. Gen. Mike Snodgrass gave the keys of the base's buildings and main gate to Manfred Schoelch of airport operator Fraport AG, followed Rhein-Main's formal closing in October.
"It's bittersweet after 60 years of partnership, to see it come to an end," said Capt. Jonathan Friedman, a U.S. Air Force spokesman.
The airport plans to use the additional space as it prepares to house a new maintenance and supply facility for the new Airbus super-jumbo A380, the world's largest passenger jet. Construction began earlier this year for a hangar.
Rhein-Main was once a hub of activity for American forces facing Soviet bloc forces and tensions in the Middle East. It saw a steady stream of planes fly supplies to West Berliners in the late 1940s during the Soviet blockade of the city.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
Air Force Hands Over the Keys to Rhein-Main Air Base in Frankfurt; Hosted U.S. Forces for 60 Years
The Associated Press
FRANKFURT, Germany - The U.S. Air Force on Friday handed over the keys to Rhein-Main Air Base to the operator of Frankfurt International Airport in a final act of closure for the base, which for 60 years hosted American forces.
The 120 buildings on the base are to be bulldozed to make way for a third terminal for Frankfurt's sprawling civilian airport continental Europe's busiest. It officially becomes German property on Saturday.
The ceremony, at which Brig. Gen. Mike Snodgrass gave the keys of the base's buildings and main gate to Manfred Schoelch of airport operator Fraport AG, followed Rhein-Main's formal closing in October.
"It's bittersweet after 60 years of partnership, to see it come to an end," said Capt. Jonathan Friedman, a U.S. Air Force spokesman.
The airport plans to use the additional space as it prepares to house a new maintenance and supply facility for the new Airbus super-jumbo A380, the world's largest passenger jet. Construction began earlier this year for a hangar.
Rhein-Main was once a hub of activity for American forces facing Soviet bloc forces and tensions in the Middle East. It saw a steady stream of planes fly supplies to West Berliners in the late 1940s during the Soviet blockade of the city.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
New Bolivian President Vows to Take Action Against US
New Bolivian President Vows to Take Action Against US
by Jim Kouri
Dec 28, 2005
It didn't take long for the newly elected Bolivian President to intensify
his verbal attacks against the United States. But the new Bolivian leader,
an avowed Socialist and friend of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and
Fidel Castro of Cuba, is going even further than rhetoric. He's threatening
to take action against the US.
President Evo Morales, according to a news story in the Washington Times,
leveled allegations at the United States that its advisors secretly removed
Chinese-made anti-aircraft missiles from Bolivia. US military and law
enforcement personnel serve as advisors to the Bolivians in their drug
control activities and counterterrorism training.
Morales, an Indian and former coca farmer, has pledged to end United States
drug eradication programs in the country. The US had been invited to help
Bolivian authorities by the previous administration which was more centrist
than the incoming neo-Marxists. A Morales campaign promise to legalize coca
plant cultivation is expected to increase cocaine production in the region.
Bolivia's new President is leader of the Movement to Socialism (MAS). He was
quoted in press reports this week as saying he would evict US military
advisers from Bolivia and punish those responsible for the removal from the
country this year of 28 HN-SA hand-held surface-to-air missiles (SAM).
The missiles are similar to the U.S. "Stinger" missiles used by Afghan
insurgents with devastating effectiveness against low-flying Russian
aircraft during the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the
1980s.
"I will press for a full investigation to establish responsibilities. We
cannot tolerate international intervention," Mr. Morales was quoted as
saying of the missile incident.
However, a leaked intelligence report that was presented to the Bolivian
legislature actually accuses Bolivia's military of permitting the United
States to secrete the missiles out of the country when it was clear the
Socialists would take control of the government.
by Jim Kouri
Dec 28, 2005
It didn't take long for the newly elected Bolivian President to intensify
his verbal attacks against the United States. But the new Bolivian leader,
an avowed Socialist and friend of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and
Fidel Castro of Cuba, is going even further than rhetoric. He's threatening
to take action against the US.
President Evo Morales, according to a news story in the Washington Times,
leveled allegations at the United States that its advisors secretly removed
Chinese-made anti-aircraft missiles from Bolivia. US military and law
enforcement personnel serve as advisors to the Bolivians in their drug
control activities and counterterrorism training.
Morales, an Indian and former coca farmer, has pledged to end United States
drug eradication programs in the country. The US had been invited to help
Bolivian authorities by the previous administration which was more centrist
than the incoming neo-Marxists. A Morales campaign promise to legalize coca
plant cultivation is expected to increase cocaine production in the region.
Bolivia's new President is leader of the Movement to Socialism (MAS). He was
quoted in press reports this week as saying he would evict US military
advisers from Bolivia and punish those responsible for the removal from the
country this year of 28 HN-SA hand-held surface-to-air missiles (SAM).
The missiles are similar to the U.S. "Stinger" missiles used by Afghan
insurgents with devastating effectiveness against low-flying Russian
aircraft during the Russian invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the
1980s.
"I will press for a full investigation to establish responsibilities. We
cannot tolerate international intervention," Mr. Morales was quoted as
saying of the missile incident.
However, a leaked intelligence report that was presented to the Bolivian
legislature actually accuses Bolivia's military of permitting the United
States to secrete the missiles out of the country when it was clear the
Socialists would take control of the government.
The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01
The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.
During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money's origins.
Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).
The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.
A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents.
Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million -- a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group -- the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.
Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim.
In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners -- with Abramoff's help -- solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.
A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.
The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay's activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.
After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service that its goal was to advocate policies favorable for "economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and the general well-being of the United States." DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group "a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control" by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support.
But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.
There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.
Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."
DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee.
They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back.
'Red Flags' on Tax Returns
Nine months before the June 25, 1998, payment of $1 million by the London law firm James & Sarch Co., as recorded in the tax forms, Buckham and DeLay were the dinner guests in Moscow of Marina Nevskaya and Alexander Koulakovsky of the oil firm Naftasib, which in promotional literature counted as its principal clients the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior.
Buckham, a graduate of the University of Tennessee, had worked for DeLay since 1995, after serving in other congressional offices and then as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative House members.
Their other dining companions were Abramoff and Washington lawyer Julius "Jay" Kaplan, whose lobbying firms collected $440,000 in 1997 and 1998 from an obscure Bahamian firm that helped organize and indirectly pay for the DeLay trip, in conjunction with the Russians. In disclosure forms, the stated purpose of the lobbying was to promote the policies of the Russian government.
Kaplan and British lawyer David Sarch had worked together previously. (Sarch died a month before the $1 million was paid.) Buckham's trip with DeLay was his second to Moscow that year for meetings with Nevskaya and Koulakovsky; on the earlier one, the DeLay aide attracted media attention by returning through Paris aboard the Concorde, a $5,500 flight.
Former Abramoff associates and documents in the hands of federal prosecutors state that Nevskaya and Koulakovsky sought Abramoff's help at the time in securing various favors from the U.S. government, including congressional earmarks or federal grants for their modular-home construction firm near Moscow and the construction of a fossil-fuel plant in Israel. None appears to have been obtained by their firm.
Former DeLay employees say Koulakovsky and Nevskaya met with him on multiple occasions. The Russians also frequently used Abramoff's skyboxes at local sports stadiums -- as did Kaplan, according to sources and a 2001 e-mail Abramoff wrote to another client.
Three sources familiar with Abramoff's activities on their behalf say that the two Russians -- who knew the head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom and had invested heavily in that firm -- partly wanted just to be seen with a prominent American politician as a way of bolstering their credibility with the Russian government and their safety on Moscow's streets. The Russian oil and gas business at the time had a Wild West character, and its executives worried about extortion and kidnapping threats. The anxieties of Nevskaya and Koulakovsky were not hidden; like many other business people, they traveled in Moscow with guards armed with machine guns.
During the DeLays' visit on Aug. 5 to 11, 1997, the congressman met with Nevskaya and was escorted around Moscow by Koulakovsky, Naftasib's general manager. DeLay told the House clerk that the trip's sponsor was the National Center for Public Policy Research, but multiple sources told The Post that his expenses were indirectly reimbursed by the Russian-connected Bahamian company.
DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the principal reason for his Moscow trip was "to meet with religious leaders there." Nevskaya, in a letter this spring, said Naftasib's involvement in such trips was meant "to foster better understanding between our country and the United States" and denied that the firm was seeking protection through its U.S. contacts.
Nevskaya added in an e-mail yesterday that Naftasib and its officials were not representing the ministries of defense and interior or any other government agencies "in connection with meetings or other lobbying activities in Washington D.C. or Moscow."
A former Abramoff associate said the two executives "wanted to contribute to DeLay" and clearly had the resources to do it. At one point, Koulakovsky asked during a dinner in Moscow "what would happen if the DeLays woke up one morning" and found a luxury car in their front driveway, the former associate said. They were told the DeLays "would go to jail and you would go to jail."
The tax form states that the $1 million came by check on June 25, 1998, from "Nations Corp, James & Sarch co." The Washington Post checked with the listed executives of Texas and Florida firms that have names similar to Nations Corp, and they said they had no connection to any such payment.
James & Sarch Co. was dissolved in May 2000, but two former partners said they recalled hearing the names of the Russians at their office. Asked if the firm represented them, former partner Philip McGuirk at first said "it may ring a bell," but later he faxed a statement that he could say no more because confidentiality practices prevent him "from disclosing any information regarding the affairs of a client (or former client)."
Nevskaya said in the e-mail yesterday, however, that "neither Naftasib nor the principals you mentioned have ever been represented by a London law firm that you name as James & Sarch Co." She also said that Naftasib and its principals did not pay $1 million to the firm, and denied knowing about the transaction.
Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.
One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network's director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay's vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.
"Ed told me, 'This is the way things work in Washington,' " Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group's fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.
The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 -- just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm -- that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.
House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.
On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on "Fox News Sunday" on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds "unfortunate" because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. "They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That's just outrageous," DeLay said.
In the end, the Russian legislature refused to raise taxes, the IMF agreed to lend the money anyway, and DeLay voted on Sept. 17, 1998, for a foreign aid bill containing new funds to replenish the IMF account. DeLay's spokesman said the lawmaker "makes decisions and sets legislative priorities based on good policy and what is best for his constituents and the country." He added: "Mr. DeLay has very firm beliefs, and he fights very hard for them."
Kaplan did not respond to repeated messages, and through a spokesman for lawyer Abbe Lowell, Abramoff declined to comment.
No legal bar exists to a $1 million donation by a foreign entity to a group such as the U.S. Family Network, according to Marcus Owens, a Washington lawyer who directed the IRS's office of tax-exempt organizations from 1990 to 2000 and who reviewed, at The Post's request, the tax returns filed by the U.S. Family Network.
But "a million dollars is a staggering amount of money to come from a foreign source" because such a donor would not be entitled to claim the tax deduction allowed for U.S. citizens, Owens said. "Giving large donations to an organization whose purposes are as ambiguous as these . . . is extraordinary. I haven't seen that before. It suggests something else is going on.
"There are any number of red flags on these returns."
Hailing Indian Tribe's Hiring of Lobbyists
Buckham and Tony Rudy were the first DeLay staff members to visit the Choctaw Reservation near Meridian, Miss., where the tribe built a 500-room hotel and a 90,000-square-foot gambling casino. Their trip from March 25 to 27, 1997, cost the Choctaws $3,000, according to statements filed with the House clerk.
DeLay, his wife and Susan Hirschman -- Buckham's successor in 1998 as chief of staff -- were the next to go. Their trip from July 31 to Aug. 2, 1998, was described on House disclosure forms as a "site review and reservation tour for charitable event," and the forms said it cost the Choctaws $6,935.
Buckham, who was then a lobbyist, arranged DeLay's trip, which included a visit to the tribe's golf course to assess it as a possible location for the lawmaker's annual charity tournament, according to a tribal source. Abramoff told the tribe he could not accompany DeLay because of a prior commitment, the source said.
One day after the DeLays departed for Washington, the U.S. Family Network registered an initial $150,000 payment made by the Choctaws, according to its tax return. The tribe made additional payments to the group totaling $100,000 on "various" dates the following year, the returns state. The Choctaws separately paid Abramoff $4.5 million for his lobbying work on their behalf in 1998 and 1999. Abramoff and his wife contributed $22,000 to DeLay's political campaigns from 1997 to 2000, according to public records.
A former Abramoff associate who is aware of the payments, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his clients, said the tribe made contributions to entities associated with DeLay because DeLay was crucial to the tribe's continuing fight against legislation to allow the taxation of Indians' gambling revenue.
An attorney for the tribe, Bryant Rogers, said the funds were meant not only to "get the message out" about the adverse tax law proposals but also to finance a campaign by Buckham's group within "the conservative base" against legislation to strip tribes of their control over Indian adoptions. "This was a group connected to the right-wing Christian movement," Rogers said. "This is Ed Buckham's connection."
In March 1999, after the tribe had paid a substantial sum directly to the U.S. Family Network, Buckham expressed his general gratitude to Abramoff in an e-mail. "I really appreciate you going to bat for us. Remember it is the first bit of money that is always the hardest, but means the most," Buckham said, according to a copy. He added: "Pray for God's wisdom. I really believe this is supposed to be what we are doing to save our team."
During this period, a fundraising letter on the U.S. Family Network stationery was sent to residents of Alabama, announcing a petition drive to promote a cause of interest to Abramoff's Indian gambling clients in Mississippi and Louisiana, including the Choctaw casino that drew many customers from Alabama: the blocking of a rival casino proposed by the Poarch Creek Indians on their land in Alabama.
"The American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and one of the least talked about but equally as destructive -- gambling," said the group's letter, which was signed by then-Rep. Bob Riley (R), now the Alabama governor. "We need your help today . . . to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in Alabama."
Asked about the letter, Rogers said "none of us have seen" it and "the tribe's contributions have nothing to do with it." A spokesman for Riley said that he could not recall the circumstances behind the letter, but that he has long opposed any expansion of gambling in Alabama.
DeLay, meanwhile, saluted Choctaw chief Philip Martin in the Congressional Record on Jan. 3, 2001, citing "all he has done to further the cause of freedom." DeLay also attached to his remarks an editorial that hailed the tribe's gambling income and its "hiring [of] quality lobbyists."
Throughout this period, the U.S. Family Network was paying a monthly fee of at least $10,000 to Buckham and Alexander Strategy Group for general "consulting," according to a former Buckham associate and a copy of the contract. While DeLay's wife drew a monthly salary from the lobbying firm, she did not work at its offices in the townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to former Buckham associates.
Neither the House nor the Federal Election Commission bars the payment of corporate funds to spouses through consulting firms or political action committees, but the spouses must perform real work for reasonable wages.
"Anytime you [as a congressman] hire your child or spouse, it raises questions as to whether this is a throwback to the time when people used campaigns and government jobs to enrich their families," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group, and a former general counsel of the FEC.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford; researchers Alice Crites, Madonna Lebling, Karl Evanzz and Meg Smith; and research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report.
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01
The U.S. Family Network, a public advocacy group that operated in the 1990s with close ties to Rep. Tom DeLay and claimed to be a nationwide grass-roots organization, was funded almost entirely by corporations linked to embattled lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to tax records and former associates of the group.
During its five-year existence, the U.S. Family Network raised $2.5 million but kept its donor list secret. The list, obtained by The Washington Post, shows that $1 million of its revenue came in a single 1998 check from a now-defunct London law firm whose former partners would not identify the money's origins.
Two former associates of Edwin A. Buckham, the congressman's former chief of staff and the organizer of the U.S. Family Network, said Buckham told them the funds came from Russian oil and gas executives. Abramoff had been working closely with two such Russian energy executives on their Washington agenda, and the lobbyist and Buckham had helped organize a 1997 Moscow visit by DeLay (R-Tex.).
The former president of the U.S. Family Network said Buckham told him that Russians contributed $1 million to the group in 1998 specifically to influence DeLay's vote on legislation the International Monetary Fund needed to finance a bailout of the collapsing Russian economy.
A spokesman for DeLay, who is fighting in a Texas state court unrelated charges of illegal fundraising, denied that the contributions influenced the former House majority leader's political activities. The Russian energy executives who worked with Abramoff denied yesterday knowing anything about the million-dollar London transaction described in tax documents.
Whatever the real motive for the contribution of $1 million -- a sum not prohibited by law but extraordinary for a small, nonprofit group -- the steady stream of corporate payments detailed on the donor list makes it clear that Abramoff's long-standing alliance with DeLay was sealed by a much more extensive web of financial ties than previously known.
Records and interviews also illuminate the mixture of influence and illusion that surrounded the U.S. Family Network. Despite the group's avowed purpose, records show it did little to promote conservative ideas through grass-roots advocacy. The money it raised came from businesses with no demonstrated interest in the conservative "moral fitness" agenda that was the group's professed aim.
In addition to the million-dollar payment involving the London law firm, for example, half a million dollars was donated to the U.S. Family Network by the owners of textile companies in the Mariana Islands in the Pacific, according to the tax records. The textile owners -- with Abramoff's help -- solicited and received DeLay's public commitment to block legislation that would boost their labor costs, according to Abramoff associates, one of the owners and a DeLay speech in 1997.
A quarter of a million dollars was donated over two years by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Abramoff's largest lobbying client, which counted DeLay as an ally in fighting legislation allowing the taxation of its gambling revenue.
The records, other documents and interviews call into question the very purpose of the U.S. Family Network, which functioned mostly by collecting funds from domestic and foreign businesses whose interests coincided with DeLay's activities while he was serving as House majority whip from 1995 to 2002, and as majority leader from 2002 until the end of September.
After the group was formed in 1996, its director told the Internal Revenue Service that its goal was to advocate policies favorable for "economic growth and prosperity, social improvement, moral fitness, and the general well-being of the United States." DeLay, in a 1999 fundraising letter, called the group "a powerful nationwide organization dedicated to restoring our government to citizen control" by mobilizing grass-roots citizen support.
But the records show that the tiny U.S. Family Network, which never had more than one full-time staff member, spent comparatively little money on public advocacy or education projects. Although established as a nonprofit organization, it paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees to Buckham and his lobbying firm, Alexander Strategy Group.
There is no evidence DeLay received a direct financial benefit, but Buckham's firm employed DeLay's wife, Christine, and paid her a salary of at least $3,200 each month for three of the years the group existed. Richard Cullen, DeLay's attorney, has said that the pay was compensation for lists Christine DeLay supplied to Buckham of lawmakers' favorite charities, and that it was appropriate under House rules and election law.
Some of the U.S. Family Network's revenue was used to pay for radio ads attacking vulnerable Democratic lawmakers in 1999; other funds were used to finance the cash purchase of a townhouse three blocks from DeLay's congressional office. DeLay's associates at the time called it "the Safe House."
DeLay made his own fundraising telephone pitches from the townhouse's second-floor master suite every few weeks, according to two former associates. Other rooms in the townhouse were used by Alexander Strategy Group, Buckham's newly formed lobbying firm, and Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC), DeLay's leadership committee.
They paid modest rent to the U.S. Family Network, which occupied a single small room in the back.
'Red Flags' on Tax Returns
Nine months before the June 25, 1998, payment of $1 million by the London law firm James & Sarch Co., as recorded in the tax forms, Buckham and DeLay were the dinner guests in Moscow of Marina Nevskaya and Alexander Koulakovsky of the oil firm Naftasib, which in promotional literature counted as its principal clients the Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Interior.
Buckham, a graduate of the University of Tennessee, had worked for DeLay since 1995, after serving in other congressional offices and then as executive director of the Republican Study Committee, a group of fiscally conservative House members.
Their other dining companions were Abramoff and Washington lawyer Julius "Jay" Kaplan, whose lobbying firms collected $440,000 in 1997 and 1998 from an obscure Bahamian firm that helped organize and indirectly pay for the DeLay trip, in conjunction with the Russians. In disclosure forms, the stated purpose of the lobbying was to promote the policies of the Russian government.
Kaplan and British lawyer David Sarch had worked together previously. (Sarch died a month before the $1 million was paid.) Buckham's trip with DeLay was his second to Moscow that year for meetings with Nevskaya and Koulakovsky; on the earlier one, the DeLay aide attracted media attention by returning through Paris aboard the Concorde, a $5,500 flight.
Former Abramoff associates and documents in the hands of federal prosecutors state that Nevskaya and Koulakovsky sought Abramoff's help at the time in securing various favors from the U.S. government, including congressional earmarks or federal grants for their modular-home construction firm near Moscow and the construction of a fossil-fuel plant in Israel. None appears to have been obtained by their firm.
Former DeLay employees say Koulakovsky and Nevskaya met with him on multiple occasions. The Russians also frequently used Abramoff's skyboxes at local sports stadiums -- as did Kaplan, according to sources and a 2001 e-mail Abramoff wrote to another client.
Three sources familiar with Abramoff's activities on their behalf say that the two Russians -- who knew the head of the Russian energy giant Gazprom and had invested heavily in that firm -- partly wanted just to be seen with a prominent American politician as a way of bolstering their credibility with the Russian government and their safety on Moscow's streets. The Russian oil and gas business at the time had a Wild West character, and its executives worried about extortion and kidnapping threats. The anxieties of Nevskaya and Koulakovsky were not hidden; like many other business people, they traveled in Moscow with guards armed with machine guns.
During the DeLays' visit on Aug. 5 to 11, 1997, the congressman met with Nevskaya and was escorted around Moscow by Koulakovsky, Naftasib's general manager. DeLay told the House clerk that the trip's sponsor was the National Center for Public Policy Research, but multiple sources told The Post that his expenses were indirectly reimbursed by the Russian-connected Bahamian company.
DeLay spokesman Kevin Madden said the principal reason for his Moscow trip was "to meet with religious leaders there." Nevskaya, in a letter this spring, said Naftasib's involvement in such trips was meant "to foster better understanding between our country and the United States" and denied that the firm was seeking protection through its U.S. contacts.
Nevskaya added in an e-mail yesterday that Naftasib and its officials were not representing the ministries of defense and interior or any other government agencies "in connection with meetings or other lobbying activities in Washington D.C. or Moscow."
A former Abramoff associate said the two executives "wanted to contribute to DeLay" and clearly had the resources to do it. At one point, Koulakovsky asked during a dinner in Moscow "what would happen if the DeLays woke up one morning" and found a luxury car in their front driveway, the former associate said. They were told the DeLays "would go to jail and you would go to jail."
The tax form states that the $1 million came by check on June 25, 1998, from "Nations Corp, James & Sarch co." The Washington Post checked with the listed executives of Texas and Florida firms that have names similar to Nations Corp, and they said they had no connection to any such payment.
James & Sarch Co. was dissolved in May 2000, but two former partners said they recalled hearing the names of the Russians at their office. Asked if the firm represented them, former partner Philip McGuirk at first said "it may ring a bell," but later he faxed a statement that he could say no more because confidentiality practices prevent him "from disclosing any information regarding the affairs of a client (or former client)."
Nevskaya said in the e-mail yesterday, however, that "neither Naftasib nor the principals you mentioned have ever been represented by a London law firm that you name as James & Sarch Co." She also said that Naftasib and its principals did not pay $1 million to the firm, and denied knowing about the transaction.
Two former Buckham associates said that he told them years ago not only that the $1 million donation was solicited from Russian oil and gas executives, but also that the initial plan was for the donation to be made via a delivery of cash to be picked up at a Washington area airport.
One of the former associates, a Frederick, Md., pastor named Christopher Geeslin who served as the U.S. Family Network's director or president from 1998 to 2001, said Buckham further told him in 1999 that the payment was meant to influence DeLay's vote in 1998 on legislation that helped make it possible for the IMF to bail out the faltering Russian economy and the wealthy investors there.
"Ed told me, 'This is the way things work in Washington,' " Geeslin said. "He said the Russians wanted to give the money first in cash." Buckham, he said, orchestrated all the group's fundraising and spending and rarely informed the board about the details. Buckham and his attorney, Laura Miller, did not reply to repeated requests for comment on this article.
The IMF funding legislation was a contentious issue in 1998. The Russian stock market fell steeply in April and May, and the government in Moscow announced on June 18 -- just a week before the $1 million check was sent by the London law firm -- that it needed $10 billion to $15 billion in new international loans.
House Republican leaders had expressed opposition through that spring to giving the IMF the money it could use for new bailouts, decrying what they described as previous destabilizing loans to other countries. The IMF and its Western funders, meanwhile, were pressing Moscow, as a condition of any loan, to increase taxes on major domestic oil companies such as Gazprom, which had earlier defaulted on billions of dollars in tax payments.
On Aug. 18, 1998, the Russian government devalued the ruble and defaulted on its treasury bills. But DeLay, appearing on "Fox News Sunday" on Aug. 30 of that year, criticized the IMF financing bill, calling the replenishment of its funds "unfortunate" because the IMF was wrongly insisting on a Russian tax increase. "They are trying to force Russia to raise taxes at a time when they ought to be cutting taxes in order to get a loan from the IMF. That's just outrageous," DeLay said.
In the end, the Russian legislature refused to raise taxes, the IMF agreed to lend the money anyway, and DeLay voted on Sept. 17, 1998, for a foreign aid bill containing new funds to replenish the IMF account. DeLay's spokesman said the lawmaker "makes decisions and sets legislative priorities based on good policy and what is best for his constituents and the country." He added: "Mr. DeLay has very firm beliefs, and he fights very hard for them."
Kaplan did not respond to repeated messages, and through a spokesman for lawyer Abbe Lowell, Abramoff declined to comment.
No legal bar exists to a $1 million donation by a foreign entity to a group such as the U.S. Family Network, according to Marcus Owens, a Washington lawyer who directed the IRS's office of tax-exempt organizations from 1990 to 2000 and who reviewed, at The Post's request, the tax returns filed by the U.S. Family Network.
But "a million dollars is a staggering amount of money to come from a foreign source" because such a donor would not be entitled to claim the tax deduction allowed for U.S. citizens, Owens said. "Giving large donations to an organization whose purposes are as ambiguous as these . . . is extraordinary. I haven't seen that before. It suggests something else is going on.
"There are any number of red flags on these returns."
Hailing Indian Tribe's Hiring of Lobbyists
Buckham and Tony Rudy were the first DeLay staff members to visit the Choctaw Reservation near Meridian, Miss., where the tribe built a 500-room hotel and a 90,000-square-foot gambling casino. Their trip from March 25 to 27, 1997, cost the Choctaws $3,000, according to statements filed with the House clerk.
DeLay, his wife and Susan Hirschman -- Buckham's successor in 1998 as chief of staff -- were the next to go. Their trip from July 31 to Aug. 2, 1998, was described on House disclosure forms as a "site review and reservation tour for charitable event," and the forms said it cost the Choctaws $6,935.
Buckham, who was then a lobbyist, arranged DeLay's trip, which included a visit to the tribe's golf course to assess it as a possible location for the lawmaker's annual charity tournament, according to a tribal source. Abramoff told the tribe he could not accompany DeLay because of a prior commitment, the source said.
One day after the DeLays departed for Washington, the U.S. Family Network registered an initial $150,000 payment made by the Choctaws, according to its tax return. The tribe made additional payments to the group totaling $100,000 on "various" dates the following year, the returns state. The Choctaws separately paid Abramoff $4.5 million for his lobbying work on their behalf in 1998 and 1999. Abramoff and his wife contributed $22,000 to DeLay's political campaigns from 1997 to 2000, according to public records.
A former Abramoff associate who is aware of the payments, and who spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect his clients, said the tribe made contributions to entities associated with DeLay because DeLay was crucial to the tribe's continuing fight against legislation to allow the taxation of Indians' gambling revenue.
An attorney for the tribe, Bryant Rogers, said the funds were meant not only to "get the message out" about the adverse tax law proposals but also to finance a campaign by Buckham's group within "the conservative base" against legislation to strip tribes of their control over Indian adoptions. "This was a group connected to the right-wing Christian movement," Rogers said. "This is Ed Buckham's connection."
In March 1999, after the tribe had paid a substantial sum directly to the U.S. Family Network, Buckham expressed his general gratitude to Abramoff in an e-mail. "I really appreciate you going to bat for us. Remember it is the first bit of money that is always the hardest, but means the most," Buckham said, according to a copy. He added: "Pray for God's wisdom. I really believe this is supposed to be what we are doing to save our team."
During this period, a fundraising letter on the U.S. Family Network stationery was sent to residents of Alabama, announcing a petition drive to promote a cause of interest to Abramoff's Indian gambling clients in Mississippi and Louisiana, including the Choctaw casino that drew many customers from Alabama: the blocking of a rival casino proposed by the Poarch Creek Indians on their land in Alabama.
"The American family is under attack from all sides: crime, drugs, pornography, and one of the least talked about but equally as destructive -- gambling," said the group's letter, which was signed by then-Rep. Bob Riley (R), now the Alabama governor. "We need your help today . . . to prevent the Poarch Creek Indians from building casinos in Alabama."
Asked about the letter, Rogers said "none of us have seen" it and "the tribe's contributions have nothing to do with it." A spokesman for Riley said that he could not recall the circumstances behind the letter, but that he has long opposed any expansion of gambling in Alabama.
DeLay, meanwhile, saluted Choctaw chief Philip Martin in the Congressional Record on Jan. 3, 2001, citing "all he has done to further the cause of freedom." DeLay also attached to his remarks an editorial that hailed the tribe's gambling income and its "hiring [of] quality lobbyists."
Throughout this period, the U.S. Family Network was paying a monthly fee of at least $10,000 to Buckham and Alexander Strategy Group for general "consulting," according to a former Buckham associate and a copy of the contract. While DeLay's wife drew a monthly salary from the lobbying firm, she did not work at its offices in the townhouse on Capitol Hill, according to former Buckham associates.
Neither the House nor the Federal Election Commission bars the payment of corporate funds to spouses through consulting firms or political action committees, but the spouses must perform real work for reasonable wages.
"Anytime you [as a congressman] hire your child or spouse, it raises questions as to whether this is a throwback to the time when people used campaigns and government jobs to enrich their families," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group, and a former general counsel of the FEC.
Research editor Lucy Shackelford; researchers Alice Crites, Madonna Lebling, Karl Evanzz and Meg Smith; and research database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report.
Padilla's Lawyers Oppose Transfer
Padilla's Lawyers Oppose Transfer: "Padilla's Lawyers Oppose Transfer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A04
Attorneys for 'enemy combatant' Jose Padilla yesterday opposed his immediate transfer out of military custody and asked the Supreme Court to consider the matter next month.
The Justice Department had urged the court to let prosecutors take custody of Padilla and bring him before a federal judge in Miami, where he is facing terrorism charges. Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002, was initially accused of plotting to detonate a radiological 'dirty bomb' and was held for more than three years by the military before being indicted last month in Miami.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit refused last week to allow prosecutors to take custody of Padilla from the military and rebuked the Bush administration for its handling of the high-profile case. Prosecutors on Wednesday appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which is already considering whether to take up the merits of Padilla's detention by the military.
-- Jerry Markon"
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A04
Attorneys for 'enemy combatant' Jose Padilla yesterday opposed his immediate transfer out of military custody and asked the Supreme Court to consider the matter next month.
The Justice Department had urged the court to let prosecutors take custody of Padilla and bring him before a federal judge in Miami, where he is facing terrorism charges. Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002, was initially accused of plotting to detonate a radiological 'dirty bomb' and was held for more than three years by the military before being indicted last month in Miami.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit refused last week to allow prosecutors to take custody of Padilla from the military and rebuked the Bush administration for its handling of the high-profile case. Prosecutors on Wednesday appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which is already considering whether to take up the merits of Padilla's detention by the military.
-- Jerry Markon"
Conspiring Against the Voters - New York Times
Conspiring Against the Voters - New York Times: "Conspiring Against the Voters
President Bush has announced four nominees for the Federal Election Commission, moving to keep the policing of campaign abuses firmly in the hands of party wheel horses. The timing of the announcement - the president waited until the Senate had gone home - is likely to allow the nominees to avoid the full hearing and confirmation process needed to evaluate them properly.
The most objectionable nominee is Hans von Spakovsky, a former Republican county chairman in Georgia and a political appointee at the Justice Department. He is reported to have been involved in the maneuvering to overrule the career specialists who warned that the Texas gerrymandering orchestrated by Representative Tom DeLay violated minority voting rights. Senators need the opportunity to delve into that, as well as reports of Mr. von Spakovsky's involvement in such voting rights abuses as the purging of voter rolls in Florida in the 2000 elections.
The need for a clean broom at the six-member election panel becomes clearer with each new round of decisions favoring big-money politics over the voters. But the newly nominated majority promises no improvement. In fact, the slate would mean an end to the service of Scott Thomas, the one incumbent praised for his independence by Senator John McCain, who has campaigned for a clean, hack-free Federal Election Commission.
Both parties suggested candidates; the Democrats include a union lawyer and a trusted political associate of the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid. By endorsing them, the president has finally shown his commitment to bipartisanship in the worst of ways: by installing another undistinguished group of factotums to referee the democratic process.
"
President Bush has announced four nominees for the Federal Election Commission, moving to keep the policing of campaign abuses firmly in the hands of party wheel horses. The timing of the announcement - the president waited until the Senate had gone home - is likely to allow the nominees to avoid the full hearing and confirmation process needed to evaluate them properly.
The most objectionable nominee is Hans von Spakovsky, a former Republican county chairman in Georgia and a political appointee at the Justice Department. He is reported to have been involved in the maneuvering to overrule the career specialists who warned that the Texas gerrymandering orchestrated by Representative Tom DeLay violated minority voting rights. Senators need the opportunity to delve into that, as well as reports of Mr. von Spakovsky's involvement in such voting rights abuses as the purging of voter rolls in Florida in the 2000 elections.
The need for a clean broom at the six-member election panel becomes clearer with each new round of decisions favoring big-money politics over the voters. But the newly nominated majority promises no improvement. In fact, the slate would mean an end to the service of Scott Thomas, the one incumbent praised for his independence by Senator John McCain, who has campaigned for a clean, hack-free Federal Election Commission.
Both parties suggested candidates; the Democrats include a union lawyer and a trusted political associate of the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid. By endorsing them, the president has finally shown his commitment to bipartisanship in the worst of ways: by installing another undistinguished group of factotums to referee the democratic process.
"
Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?
SPIEGEL ONLINE - December 30, 2005, 03:38 PM
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,392783,00.html
The US and Iran
Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?
Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israel statements, reports are increasing that Washington may be preparing its allies for a military strike against Iran.
REUTERS
Following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israel statements, reports are increasing that Washington may be preparing its allies for a military strike against Iran.
It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.
German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.
The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.
According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.
NEWSLETTER>
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In-Box everyday.
DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.
In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.
Links to al-Qaida?
Members of the People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan (ARGK) who are the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in mountain hideout in northern Iraq near the Turkish border.
AP
Members of the People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan (ARGK) who are the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in mountain hideout in northern Iraq near the Turkish border.
According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.
The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map") have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.
The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."
Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets.
At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war."
How great is the threat?
So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE.
CIA Director Porter Goss.
AP
CIA Director Porter Goss.
But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.
Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.
Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike.
Skepticism in Ankara
US Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld talks to the media during his visit to the Incirlik Air Base, southern Turkey, on Monday, 04 June 2001.
EPA/DPA
US Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld talks to the media during his visit to the Incirlik Air Base, southern Turkey, on Monday, 04 June 2001.
Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing.
Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself.
At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe.
Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from heart surgery. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task.
The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner.
It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region.
URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,392783,00.html
The US and Iran
Is Washington Planning a Military Strike?
Recent reports in the German media suggest that the United States may be preparing its allies for an imminent military strike against facilities that are part of Iran's suspected clandestine nuclear weapons program.
Following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israel statements, reports are increasing that Washington may be preparing its allies for a military strike against Iran.
REUTERS
Following Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israel statements, reports are increasing that Washington may be preparing its allies for a military strike against Iran.
It's hardly news that US President George Bush refuses to rule out possible military action against Iran if Tehran continues to pursue its controversial nuclear ambitions. But in Germany, speculation is mounting that Washington is preparing to carry out air strikes against suspected Iranian nuclear sites perhaps even as soon as early 2006.
German diplomats began speaking of the prospect two years ago -- long before the Bush administration decided to give the European Union more time to convince Iran to abandon its ambitions, or at the very least put its civilian nuclear program under international controls. But the growing likelihood of the military option is back in the headlines in Germany thanks to a slew of stories that have run in the national media here over the holidays.
The most talked about story is a Dec. 23 piece by the German news agency DDP from journalist and intelligence expert Udo Ulfkotte. The story has generated controversy not only because of its material, but also because of the reporter's past. Critics allege that Ulfkotte in his previous reporting got too close to sources at Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND. But Ulfkotte has himself noted that he has been under investigation by the government in the past (indeed, his home and offices have been searched multiple times) for allegations that he published state secrets -- a charge that he claims would underscore rather than undermine the veracity of his work.
According to Ulfkotte's report, "western security sources" claim that during CIA Director Porter Goss' Dec. 12 visit to Ankara, he asked Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan to provide support for a possibile 2006 air strike against Iranian nuclear and military facilities. More specifically, Goss is said to have asked Turkey to provide unfettered exchange of intelligence that could help with a mission.
NEWSLETTER>
Sign up for Spiegel Online's daily newsletter and get the best of Der Spiegel's and Spiegel Online's international coverage in your In-Box everyday.
DDP also reported that the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Oman and Pakistan have been informed in recent weeks of Washington's military plans. The countries, apparently, were told that air strikes were a "possible option," but they were given no specific timeframe for the operations.
In a report published on Wednesday, the Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel also cited NATO intelligence sources claiming that Washington's western allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. Of course, Bush has publicly stated for months that he would not take the possibility of a military strike off the table. What's new here, however, is that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year.
Links to al-Qaida?
Members of the People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan (ARGK) who are the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in mountain hideout in northern Iraq near the Turkish border.
AP
Members of the People's Liberation Army of Kurdistan (ARGK) who are the military wing of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) in mountain hideout in northern Iraq near the Turkish border.
According to DDP, during his trip to Turkey, CIA chief Goss reportedly handed over three dossiers to Turkish security officials that purportedly contained evidence that Tehran is cooperating with Islamic terror network al-Qaida. A further dossier is said to contain information about the current status of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program. Sources in German security circles told the DDP reporter that Goss had ensured Ankara that the Turkish government would be informed of any possible air strikes against Iran a few hours before they happened. The Turkish government has also been given the "green light" to strike camps of the separatist Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) in Iran on the day in question.
The DDP report attributes the possible escalation to the recent anti-Semitic rants by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose belligerent verbal attacks on Israel (he described the Holocaust as a "myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map") have strengthened the view of the American government that, in the case of the nuclear dispute, there's little likelihood Tehran will back down and that the mullahs are just attempting to buy time by continuing talks with the Europeans.
The German wire service also quotes a high-ranking German military official saying: "I would be very surprised if the Americans, in the mid-term, didn't take advantage of the opportunity delivered by Tehran. The Americans have to attack Iran before the country can develop nuclear weapons. After that would be too late."
Despite the wave of recent reports, it's naturally difficult to assess whether the United States has any concrete plans to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. In a January 2005 report in the New Yorker, US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh claimed that clandestine American commando groups had already infiltrated Iran in order to mark potential military targets.
At the time, the Bush administration did not dispute Hersh's reporting -- it merely sought to minimize its impact. In Washington, word circulated that the article was filled with "inaccurate statements." But no one rejected the core reporting behind the article. Bush himself explicitly stated he would not rule out the "option of war."
How great is the threat?
So is the region now on the verge of a military strike or even a war? In Berlin, the issue is largely being played down. During his inaugural visit with US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in Washington last week, the possibility of a US air strike against Iran "hadn't been an issue," for new German Defense Minister Franz Josef Jung, a Defense Ministry spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE.
CIA Director Porter Goss.
AP
CIA Director Porter Goss.
But the string of visits by high-profile US politicians to Turkey and surrounding reports are drawing new attention to the issue. In recent weeks, the number of American and NATO security officials heading to Ankara has increased dramatically. Within a matter of only days, the FBI chief, then the CIA chief and, most recently, NATO General Secretary Jaap De Hoop Scheffer visited the Turkish capital. During her visit to Europe earlier this month, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also traveled to Turkey after a stopover in Berlin.
Leading the chorus of speculation are Turkish newspapers, which have also sought to connect these visits to plans for an attack on Iran. But so far none of the speculation has been based on hard facts. Writing about the meeting between Porter Goss and Tayyip Erdogan, the left-nationalist newspaper Cumhuriyet wrote: "Now It's Iran's Turn." But the paper didn't offer any evidence to corroborate the claims.
Instead, the paper noted that the meeting between the CIA chief and Erdogan lasted longer than an hour -- an unusual amount of time, especially considering Goss had previously met with the head of Turkey's intelligence service, the MIT. The Turkish media concluded that the meetings must have dealt with a very serious matter -- but they failed to uncover exactly what it was. Most media speculated that Erdogan and Goss might have discussed a common initiative against the PKK in northern Iraq. It's possible that Goss demanded secret Turkish intelligence on Iran in exchange. Regardless what the prospects are for a strike, there's little chance a US air strike against Iran would be launched from its military base in the Turkish city of Incirlik, but it is conceivable that the United States would inform Turkey prior to any strike.
Skepticism in Ankara
US Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld talks to the media during his visit to the Incirlik Air Base, southern Turkey, on Monday, 04 June 2001.
EPA/DPA
US Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld talks to the media during his visit to the Incirlik Air Base, southern Turkey, on Monday, 04 June 2001.
Until now the government in Ankara has viewed US military activities in the region at best with skepticism and at worst with open condemnation. At the beginning of 2003, Ankara even attempted to prevent an American ground offensive in northern Iraq against the Saddam regime. A still-irritated Donald Rumsfeld has repeatedly blamed military problems in Iraq on the fact that this second front was missing.
Two weeks ago, Yasar Buyukanit, the commander of the Turkish army and probable future chief of staff of the country's armed forces, flew to Washington. After the visit he made a statement that relations between the Turkish army and the American army were once again on an excellent footing. Buyukanit's warm and fuzzy words, contrasted greatly with his past statements that if the United States and the Kurds in northern Iraq proved incapable of containing the PKK in the Kurd-dominated northern part of the country and preventing it from attacking Turkey, Buyukanit would march into northern Iraq himself.
At the same time, Ankara has little incentive to show a friendly face to Tehran -- Turkish-Iranian relations have long been icy. For years now, Tehran has criticized Turkey for maintaining good relations with Israel and even cooperating with the Israeli army. Yet despite those ties to Israel, Ahmadinejad's recent anti-Israeli outbursts were reported far less extensively in Turkey than in Europe.
Still, Erdogan has been demonstrably friendly towards Israel recently -- as evidenced by Erdogan's recent phone call to Ariel Sharon, congratulating the prime minister on his recent recovery from heart surgery. In the past, relations between Erdogan and Sharon have been reserved, but recently the two have grown closer. Nevertheless, Turkey's government has distanced itself from Sharon's threats to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon on his own if nobody else steps up to the task.
The Turkish government has also repeatedly stated that it opposes military action against both Iran and Syria. The key political motivation here is that -- at least when it comes to the Kurdish question -- Turkey, Syria and Iran all agree on one thing: they are opposed to the creation of an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq. But if the United States moves forward with an attack against Iran, Turkey will have no choice but to jump on board -- either as an active or passive partner.
It's a scenario that has Erdogan and his military in a state of deep unease. After all, even experts in the West are skeptical of whether a military intervention against nuclear installations in Iran could succeed. The more likely scenario is that an attack aiming to stop Iran's nuclear program could instead simply bolster support for Ahmadinejad in the region.
A Chorus of Hoover Critics
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hoover31dec31,0,2759770.story?track=tottext
Times Staff Writer
December 31, 2005
WASHINGTON — Every year for the last three years, Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, has introduced a bill to strip J. Edgar Hoover's name from the FBI's headquarters — an initiative that has been largely ignored.
Now, however, amid headlines about possibly illegal government surveillance of Americans inside the United States, the effort to rename the Hoover building is starting to attract more supporters, most recently U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Republican who was a leader of the presidentially appointed commission on pre-Iraq-war intelligence.
"This country — and the bureau — would be well served if his name were removed from the bureau's building," Silberman, a Reagan appointee, told the 1st Circuit Judicial Conference in June. "It is as if the Defense Department were named for Aaron Burr."
Across Washington, the names of major figures adorn scores of government buildings and federal headquarters, but few have experienced the reputation erosion that has befallen Hoover since his death in 1972.
Once widely admired for founding the modern-day FBI on principles of strict probity, Hoover later became identified with invasive eavesdropping and bureau efforts to discredit the likes of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at the height of the civil rights movement. Hoover also has been accused of having used explosive gossip collected by his agents to intimidate political leaders, including presidents.
So as the names of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush join the federal landscape, some are wondering why Hoover's is still there.
"Symbolism matters in the United States, and it is wrong to honor a man who frequently manipulated the law to achieve his personal goals," Burton said after his Government Reform Committee held hearings in 2002 on FBI abuses.
Burton was outraged by the case of Joseph Salvati, who served 30 years in prison for a 1968 contract murder in Boston that later evidence suggested was committed by an FBI informant. "There is no reason we should honor a man who threw everything out the window, including the lives of innocent men, in order to get what he wanted," Burton said.
The renewal of conservative outrage about Hoover — columnist Robert Novak recently urged that Hoover's name be dropped from the building, calling the FBI's first director "a rogue and a lawbreaker" — is finding an unusual partnership with liberals who blame Hoover for wiretapping King and quashing the FBI investigation of the 1963 Birmingham, Ala., church bombing that killed four black girls.
Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney (D-Ga.), who is working to get intelligence files on King released, has introduced legislation to name the FBI Building for Frank Church, the late Democratic senator from Idaho whose select committee held scorching hearings on U.S. intelligence gathering and FBI abuses under Hoover.
"It's a reflection of her concern that the building should not be named after the person who was responsible for the excesses," McKinney aide John Judge said Friday. "It should be for the person who stood up to them."
Before Burton's efforts, the last time the issue came to Congress was in 1998, when senators were debating a bill that would name Washington National Airport for President Reagan. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada — now minority leader — offered an amendment to strip Hoover's name from the FBI Building.
"J. Edgar Hoover stands for what is bad about this country," Reid said. "This small man violated the rights of hundreds, if not thousands, of people — famous and not so famous."
The Senate voted 62 to 36 against removing Hoover's name.
Silberman said Friday that two senators were considering offering the proposal again.
"People are shocked that the FBI was so heavily engaged in espionage," he said. "Liberals and conservatives should unite on this."
It is not clear whether they will.
For one thing, the Society for Former Special Agents of the FBI has been vigilant in arguing to keep the name of the man who reigned over the FBI from 1924 until his death. For another, many still credit Hoover with turning a backwater unit into a professional investigative agency with up-to-date technology and crime-fighting skills.
"We feel that the legacy and image of Hoover is indirectly but successfully blocking the bill," said Stephen Schatz, Burton's press secretary.
Hoover came to power as a reformer and tirelessly promoted the bureau's image in print, movies and radio dramas. But over time, he became a law unto himself. He ruled the FBI with an iron hand, sometimes exiling agents to remote field offices and blighting their careers for minor infractions of rules that included how agents had to dress and act.
For many years, critics said, he refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat posed by organized crime, concentrating instead on crimes such as bank robbery and interstate car theft because doing so burnished the bureau's success rates. Another serious complaint was that Hoover collected scurrilous information on public figures that he used to protect and enhance his own power.
"As far as the building goes, I have mixed feelings," said Curt Gentry, author of "J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets." "Maybe we should leave it up to remind us of that monster."
Gentry said that directors who succeeded Hoover, such as former federal judge William Webster, "did quite a bit to change the old bureau from its ways."
Some changes enacted after the Church committee hearings were lifted after Sept. 11, 2001, when law enforcement and other officials complained that a failure to communicate — and to spy — had thwarted counterintelligence. Now, some think a new backlash against what some see as invasions of privacy and domestic spying by executive order might put the renaming of the FBI Building back on the table.
From the Los Angeles Times
THE NATION
A Chorus of Hoover Critics
More conservatives join the call to take his name off the FBI Building.
By Johanna NeumanTimes Staff Writer
December 31, 2005
WASHINGTON — Every year for the last three years, Rep. Dan Burton, a Republican from Indiana, has introduced a bill to strip J. Edgar Hoover's name from the FBI's headquarters — an initiative that has been largely ignored.
Now, however, amid headlines about possibly illegal government surveillance of Americans inside the United States, the effort to rename the Hoover building is starting to attract more supporters, most recently U.S. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman, a Republican who was a leader of the presidentially appointed commission on pre-Iraq-war intelligence.
"This country — and the bureau — would be well served if his name were removed from the bureau's building," Silberman, a Reagan appointee, told the 1st Circuit Judicial Conference in June. "It is as if the Defense Department were named for Aaron Burr."
Across Washington, the names of major figures adorn scores of government buildings and federal headquarters, but few have experienced the reputation erosion that has befallen Hoover since his death in 1972.
Once widely admired for founding the modern-day FBI on principles of strict probity, Hoover later became identified with invasive eavesdropping and bureau efforts to discredit the likes of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. at the height of the civil rights movement. Hoover also has been accused of having used explosive gossip collected by his agents to intimidate political leaders, including presidents.
So as the names of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush join the federal landscape, some are wondering why Hoover's is still there.
"Symbolism matters in the United States, and it is wrong to honor a man who frequently manipulated the law to achieve his personal goals," Burton said after his Government Reform Committee held hearings in 2002 on FBI abuses.
Burton was outraged by the case of Joseph Salvati, who served 30 years in prison for a 1968 contract murder in Boston that later evidence suggested was committed by an FBI informant. "There is no reason we should honor a man who threw everything out the window, including the lives of innocent men, in order to get what he wanted," Burton said.
The renewal of conservative outrage about Hoover — columnist Robert Novak recently urged that Hoover's name be dropped from the building, calling the FBI's first director "a rogue and a lawbreaker" — is finding an unusual partnership with liberals who blame Hoover for wiretapping King and quashing the FBI investigation of the 1963 Birmingham, Ala., church bombing that killed four black girls.
Rep. Cynthia A. McKinney (D-Ga.), who is working to get intelligence files on King released, has introduced legislation to name the FBI Building for Frank Church, the late Democratic senator from Idaho whose select committee held scorching hearings on U.S. intelligence gathering and FBI abuses under Hoover.
"It's a reflection of her concern that the building should not be named after the person who was responsible for the excesses," McKinney aide John Judge said Friday. "It should be for the person who stood up to them."
Before Burton's efforts, the last time the issue came to Congress was in 1998, when senators were debating a bill that would name Washington National Airport for President Reagan. Democratic Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada — now minority leader — offered an amendment to strip Hoover's name from the FBI Building.
"J. Edgar Hoover stands for what is bad about this country," Reid said. "This small man violated the rights of hundreds, if not thousands, of people — famous and not so famous."
The Senate voted 62 to 36 against removing Hoover's name.
Silberman said Friday that two senators were considering offering the proposal again.
"People are shocked that the FBI was so heavily engaged in espionage," he said. "Liberals and conservatives should unite on this."
It is not clear whether they will.
For one thing, the Society for Former Special Agents of the FBI has been vigilant in arguing to keep the name of the man who reigned over the FBI from 1924 until his death. For another, many still credit Hoover with turning a backwater unit into a professional investigative agency with up-to-date technology and crime-fighting skills.
"We feel that the legacy and image of Hoover is indirectly but successfully blocking the bill," said Stephen Schatz, Burton's press secretary.
Hoover came to power as a reformer and tirelessly promoted the bureau's image in print, movies and radio dramas. But over time, he became a law unto himself. He ruled the FBI with an iron hand, sometimes exiling agents to remote field offices and blighting their careers for minor infractions of rules that included how agents had to dress and act.
For many years, critics said, he refused to acknowledge the seriousness of the threat posed by organized crime, concentrating instead on crimes such as bank robbery and interstate car theft because doing so burnished the bureau's success rates. Another serious complaint was that Hoover collected scurrilous information on public figures that he used to protect and enhance his own power.
"As far as the building goes, I have mixed feelings," said Curt Gentry, author of "J. Edgar Hoover: The Man and the Secrets." "Maybe we should leave it up to remind us of that monster."
Gentry said that directors who succeeded Hoover, such as former federal judge William Webster, "did quite a bit to change the old bureau from its ways."
Some changes enacted after the Church committee hearings were lifted after Sept. 11, 2001, when law enforcement and other officials complained that a failure to communicate — and to spy — had thwarted counterintelligence. Now, some think a new backlash against what some see as invasions of privacy and domestic spying by executive order might put the renaming of the FBI Building back on the table.
Friday, December 30, 2005
The ultimate quagmire
THE ROVING EYE
The ultimate quagmire
By Pepe Escobar
Iraq is a giant, messy albatross hanging from President George W Bush's neck. The faith-based American president believes "we are winning the war in Iraq". The reality-based global public opinion - not to mention 59% of Americans, and counting - know this is not true.
Bush felt that "God put me here" so he could conduct a "war on terror". Somebody up there must have a tremendous sense of humor - once again manifested in the way He allotted winners and losers in Iraq's December 15 parliamentary elections.
United we stand
The Shi'ite religious parties in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) were the big winners - from 70% to 95% of the vote in the impoverished southern provinces; 59% in Baghdad; and nationally, well over 40% of the total (they've won in nine of Iraq's 18 provinces plus the capital). It's a relatively unexpected success considering the dreadful record of Ibrahim Jaafari's Shi'ite-dominated government.
All those intimately allied with the US invasion and occupation were big losers. The Iraqi National List of US intelligence asset and former prime minister Iyad Allawi, also known as "Saddam without a moustache", the man who endorsed the Pentagon bombing of the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf and Sunni Arab Fallujah - got a pitiful 14%.
Convicted fraudster and former Pentagon ally Ahmad Chalabi received less than 1% in Baghdad. The neo-conservatives of the American Enterprise Institute were predicting 5% for Chalabi (their overwhelming favorite) and 20% for Allawi; that's proof enough they have no clue about what's going on in Iraq.
Bush's new Iraq is pro-Iran. It will not recognize Israel. And it wants the Americans out; one of the first measures of an emerging, powerful parliamentary alliance between roughly 38 Sadrists of Shi'ite nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and roughly 50 Sunni Arabs will be to call for an immediate end of the occupation.
The details to be ironed out hinge on whether the UIA majority aligns itself with the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds, or with both in a government of "national unity" - as it is being called by the current vice president Abdel Mahdi (a free marketer) as well as current president Jalal Talabani, a Kurd.
"National unity" is improbable; the Shi'ites simply won't forgo their majority. The Kurds for their part know it will be a foolish move to try to break their strategic alliance with the UIA. Sunni Arab votes were split between the neo-Ba'athist National Dialogue Council of Salih Mutlak and the Islamist, Sunni National Accord Front of Adnan Dulaimi. But what matters is that they are both part of the Sunni Arab resistance. Their common line is that their presence in parliament develops a new political front - what we have called the Sinn Fein component of the Sunni Arab resistance.
It never happened
The big problem is that once again in Iraq Shi'ites voted for Shi'ites, Sunnis for Sunnis (they won in four provinces, Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, but got only 20% in Baghdad) and Kurds for Kurds (they also won in four provinces, including Kirkuk). Liberal democrats who were dreaming of a democratic, federal, anti-sectarian Iraq have been totally sidelined. Arguably no politician in Iraq is thinking about the future of the country as a whole. No national projects are being discussed.
The constitutional vote in October had already institutionalized the sectarian division - 80% of the Sunni Arabs in the four main Sunni provinces voted against what they saw as an American-designed charter. Washington believed the vote would undermine the resistance. The exact opposite happened. The December elections now paint a vivid picture of a country fractured on sectarian lines. But this is what the Americans wanted in the first place.
Elections or no elections, Iraq enters 2006 mired in the same, usual, gruesome rituals. The Pentagon believes it can subdue the Sunni Arab resistance by bombing them to death while the resistance keeps bombing, suicide bombing and assassinating en masse.
So the endless, gory stream will continue, not even making headlines - explosions at police stations, assassinations of "Baghdad officials", executions of collaborators, mortars over the Green Zone, scores of innocent civilian victims of car bombings, Marines killed in the Sunni triangle, Shi'ite death squads, Turkmen fighting Kurd for Kirkuk ...
Playwright Harold Pinter pulled a Beckett at his Nobel lecture. He offered to be Bush's speechwriter. Then Pinter impersonated classic Bush: "My God is good. [Osama] bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam Hussein's God was bad except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians." And this was even before Bush mixed up Saddam with bin Laden in a "we're winning in Iraq" speech.
Pinter observed, "The United States supported and in many cases engendered every rightwing military dictatorship in the world after the end of World War II." He gave a lot of examples. But then, with devastating irony (a concept seemingly absent from the White House/Pentagon axis), he said: "It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."
Just like the suffering of Iraqis never happened. Robert Fisk, in his masterful The Great War for Civilization (Fourth Estate, London) remarks, "The sanctions that smothered Iraq for almost 13 years have largely dropped from the story of our Middle East adventures ... When the Anglo-American occupiers settled into their palaces in Baghdad, they would blame the collapse of electrical power, water-pumping stations, factories and commercial life on Saddam Hussein, as if he alone had engineered the impoverishment of Iraq. Sanctions were never mentioned. They were 'ghosted' out of the story. First there had been Saddam, and then there was freedom'."
But Iraqis as a whole have not forgotten the sanctions - imposed by the US, carried out by the "international community" and responsible for the death of thousands of children. As much as the Shi'ites have not forgotten their betrayal by George Bush senior, who called for a Shi'ite uprising in early 1991 and then left thousands of men, women and children to be massacred by Saddam's gunships. There's no way these impoverished masses can trust anything related to American promises of "freedom".
How Bush is winning
There's some evidence that the murderous chaos unleashed by Shi'ite death squads may not be "an accident" but part of a carefully crafted American strategy, as the Bush administration has constantly added fire to the ethnic furnace as the best diversion to not address Iraq's tremendous social tensions.
An atomized and terrorized society is much easier to manipulate, while at the same time the non-stop bloodshed is the perfect justification for "staying the course". The incessant chatter in the US about a partial "withdrawal" is just chatter.
Already in June 2003, proconsul L Paul Bremer's coalition hands were hiring Saddam's Mukhabarat pals for "special ops" against the Sunni Arab resistance, while "torture central", Abu Ghraib, was again operating in full force under American management.
In the Shi'ite south, the Badr Organization - the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq's (SCIRI's) militia - as well as Muqtadar's Mahdi Army were gaining ground. The Badr was finally formally incorporated into the Interior Ministry, where Sunni units had also been carving up their own turf (under the protection of Allawi).
The former Ba'athist Sunnis - and later the Shi'ites - benefited from the invaluable knowledge of American "counter-insurgency" experts who organized death squads in Colombia and El Salvador, as well as retired American Special Forces soldiers. Commandos operating in the "Salvador option" manner have been very much in the cards from the beginning, responding to a sophisticated, state-of-the-art command, control and communications center even while the majority of the Iraqi population had no electricity, no fuel and no medicine.
The pattern was and remains the same; people "disappearing" after they are accosted by groups of men armed to the teeth, in police commando uniforms, with high-tech radios and driving Toyota Land Cruisers with police license plates. Needless to say, the resulting murders are almost never investigated.
The objectives, from the point of view of the Bush administration, also remain the same; keep the Pentagon and its military bases inside an Iraq mired in sectarian bloodshed and with a weak central government.
The "follow the money" trail leads to an array of profitable privatizations, and the upcoming sale of Iraq's fabulous oil reserves to a few, select foreign investors. Abdel Mahdi of SCIRI, one year ago in Washington, had already laid down the script. He is a key player to watch.
No wonder that the real composition of the next Iraqi government will not be determined by the polls - at least not exclusively. The real kingmaker is the US ambassador, the White House pet, Afghan Zalmay Khalilzad.
The Bush administration will pull no punches to safeguard its "follow the money" interests, as well as its precious military bases. Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Baghdad on December 18, only three days after the election. He didn't even bother to tell Jaafari that he was in the country. First Cheney talked to Khalilzad and assorted American generals, and only then were Jaafari and President Talabani summoned to his presence.
How Bush lost it
The uprising of Muqtadar's Mahdi Army in 2004 was the definitive nail in the coffin of the Bush administration's dream of ruling Iraq. At the time the Pentagon repeatedly said it wanted to "kill or capture him". It did neither.
Muqtada became the man to watch much earlier than his newfound - by American corporate media - prominent role in post-election Iraq. After the bombing of Najaf, the Bush administration completely lost the plot. Then, after the January 2005 elections, the new Jaafari government quickly embraced Iran, received a pledge of $1 billion in aid, the use of Iranian port facilities, and help with refining Iraqi oil.
Sunni Arab regimes like Jordan and Saudi Arabia started to be haunted by the specter of a "Shi'ite crescent". A neo-conservative Iraq as a base to launch an attack on Iran disappeared as a mirage in the desert. As the US has to fight a relentless Sunni Arab guerrilla war, it cannot possibly risk alienating the Iraqi Shi'ite masses (more than they already are) with an attack on Iran.
No wonder military historian Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the only non-American author on the Pentagon's list of required reading for officers, called for Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".
Bush and his faithful ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been playing the same scratched CD track: "We're better off now without Saddam." That is not true. The fall of Saddam led to the rise of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers; and even Allawi admitted that human rights in Iraq now are no better than under Saddam. Not to mention that there is no reconstruction, unemployment is at 70%, and a country which in the late 1980s had one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world has been razed to a sub-Saharan level.
Whatever the Americans do - with "Iraqification" doomed to failure, as much as "Vietnamization" - the war in Iraq now is a rampaging beast that threatens to spill all over the Middle East.
"Bring 'em on," said Bush, and they did; the result is a new, deadly generation of global jihadis. Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism will spill over to oil-rich Sunni Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) with huge but heavily marginalized Shi'ite populations. Kurdish separatist dreams have tremendous implications for Turkey, Syria and Iran, especially if Iraq, through civil war, finally disintegrates.
So the most probable scenario for 2006 and beyond is a fragile central government in Baghdad bombarded by an intractable guerrilla movement - a chaotic and sectarian hornets' nest breeding one, 10, 100 mini (or maxi) al-Qaeda leaders able to convulse the Middle East. Maybe this is what the neo-cons meant by "creative destruction".
Al-Qaeda has a masterplan for the Middle East, and the next stages - apart from the Gulf emirates - are to be played in vulnerable Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and even Israel. As for the air war against the Sunni Arab resistance, it may buy a few votes at home but will do absolutely nothing to improve America's dreadful image in the Middle East - especially because civilian "collateral damage" will be enormous.
That bearded, vociferous guy
Saddam's trial - the outcome of which is already determined - will proceed as a purely sectarian propaganda coup. If this were a real trial, Saddam would be in The Hague in front of an international panel of respected judges, experts in human rights law.
Or the United Nations would have been commissioned to organize a special tribunal in a neutral country like Switzerland. Saddam's secrets, though, are so vast - and so extremely embarrassing for the US - that he cannot possibly leave the Green Zone, where he will certainly be executed. Saddam's trial will become the sorry mirror image of the sectarian politics let loose in Iraq at large.
Bush has opened a Pandora's box with his shock and awe tactics. The ultimate quagmire will keep mutating and unleashing its deadly new powers for years on end. And there is nothing anyone - not even the "indispensable nation" - can do about it. We have all been, and will remain, shocked and awed.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)
The ultimate quagmire
By Pepe Escobar
Iraq is a giant, messy albatross hanging from President George W Bush's neck. The faith-based American president believes "we are winning the war in Iraq". The reality-based global public opinion - not to mention 59% of Americans, and counting - know this is not true.
Bush felt that "God put me here" so he could conduct a "war on terror". Somebody up there must have a tremendous sense of humor - once again manifested in the way He allotted winners and losers in Iraq's December 15 parliamentary elections.
United we stand
The Shi'ite religious parties in the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) were the big winners - from 70% to 95% of the vote in the impoverished southern provinces; 59% in Baghdad; and nationally, well over 40% of the total (they've won in nine of Iraq's 18 provinces plus the capital). It's a relatively unexpected success considering the dreadful record of Ibrahim Jaafari's Shi'ite-dominated government.
All those intimately allied with the US invasion and occupation were big losers. The Iraqi National List of US intelligence asset and former prime minister Iyad Allawi, also known as "Saddam without a moustache", the man who endorsed the Pentagon bombing of the Shi'ite holy city of Najaf and Sunni Arab Fallujah - got a pitiful 14%.
Convicted fraudster and former Pentagon ally Ahmad Chalabi received less than 1% in Baghdad. The neo-conservatives of the American Enterprise Institute were predicting 5% for Chalabi (their overwhelming favorite) and 20% for Allawi; that's proof enough they have no clue about what's going on in Iraq.
Bush's new Iraq is pro-Iran. It will not recognize Israel. And it wants the Americans out; one of the first measures of an emerging, powerful parliamentary alliance between roughly 38 Sadrists of Shi'ite nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and roughly 50 Sunni Arabs will be to call for an immediate end of the occupation.
The details to be ironed out hinge on whether the UIA majority aligns itself with the Sunni Arabs, the Kurds, or with both in a government of "national unity" - as it is being called by the current vice president Abdel Mahdi (a free marketer) as well as current president Jalal Talabani, a Kurd.
"National unity" is improbable; the Shi'ites simply won't forgo their majority. The Kurds for their part know it will be a foolish move to try to break their strategic alliance with the UIA. Sunni Arab votes were split between the neo-Ba'athist National Dialogue Council of Salih Mutlak and the Islamist, Sunni National Accord Front of Adnan Dulaimi. But what matters is that they are both part of the Sunni Arab resistance. Their common line is that their presence in parliament develops a new political front - what we have called the Sinn Fein component of the Sunni Arab resistance.
It never happened
The big problem is that once again in Iraq Shi'ites voted for Shi'ites, Sunnis for Sunnis (they won in four provinces, Anbar, Salahuddin, Nineveh and Diyala, but got only 20% in Baghdad) and Kurds for Kurds (they also won in four provinces, including Kirkuk). Liberal democrats who were dreaming of a democratic, federal, anti-sectarian Iraq have been totally sidelined. Arguably no politician in Iraq is thinking about the future of the country as a whole. No national projects are being discussed.
The constitutional vote in October had already institutionalized the sectarian division - 80% of the Sunni Arabs in the four main Sunni provinces voted against what they saw as an American-designed charter. Washington believed the vote would undermine the resistance. The exact opposite happened. The December elections now paint a vivid picture of a country fractured on sectarian lines. But this is what the Americans wanted in the first place.
Elections or no elections, Iraq enters 2006 mired in the same, usual, gruesome rituals. The Pentagon believes it can subdue the Sunni Arab resistance by bombing them to death while the resistance keeps bombing, suicide bombing and assassinating en masse.
So the endless, gory stream will continue, not even making headlines - explosions at police stations, assassinations of "Baghdad officials", executions of collaborators, mortars over the Green Zone, scores of innocent civilian victims of car bombings, Marines killed in the Sunni triangle, Shi'ite death squads, Turkmen fighting Kurd for Kirkuk ...
Playwright Harold Pinter pulled a Beckett at his Nobel lecture. He offered to be Bush's speechwriter. Then Pinter impersonated classic Bush: "My God is good. [Osama] bin Laden's God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam Hussein's God was bad except he didn't have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians." And this was even before Bush mixed up Saddam with bin Laden in a "we're winning in Iraq" speech.
Pinter observed, "The United States supported and in many cases engendered every rightwing military dictatorship in the world after the end of World War II." He gave a lot of examples. But then, with devastating irony (a concept seemingly absent from the White House/Pentagon axis), he said: "It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening, it wasn't happening. It didn't matter. It was of no interest."
Just like the suffering of Iraqis never happened. Robert Fisk, in his masterful The Great War for Civilization (Fourth Estate, London) remarks, "The sanctions that smothered Iraq for almost 13 years have largely dropped from the story of our Middle East adventures ... When the Anglo-American occupiers settled into their palaces in Baghdad, they would blame the collapse of electrical power, water-pumping stations, factories and commercial life on Saddam Hussein, as if he alone had engineered the impoverishment of Iraq. Sanctions were never mentioned. They were 'ghosted' out of the story. First there had been Saddam, and then there was freedom'."
But Iraqis as a whole have not forgotten the sanctions - imposed by the US, carried out by the "international community" and responsible for the death of thousands of children. As much as the Shi'ites have not forgotten their betrayal by George Bush senior, who called for a Shi'ite uprising in early 1991 and then left thousands of men, women and children to be massacred by Saddam's gunships. There's no way these impoverished masses can trust anything related to American promises of "freedom".
How Bush is winning
There's some evidence that the murderous chaos unleashed by Shi'ite death squads may not be "an accident" but part of a carefully crafted American strategy, as the Bush administration has constantly added fire to the ethnic furnace as the best diversion to not address Iraq's tremendous social tensions.
An atomized and terrorized society is much easier to manipulate, while at the same time the non-stop bloodshed is the perfect justification for "staying the course". The incessant chatter in the US about a partial "withdrawal" is just chatter.
Already in June 2003, proconsul L Paul Bremer's coalition hands were hiring Saddam's Mukhabarat pals for "special ops" against the Sunni Arab resistance, while "torture central", Abu Ghraib, was again operating in full force under American management.
In the Shi'ite south, the Badr Organization - the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq's (SCIRI's) militia - as well as Muqtadar's Mahdi Army were gaining ground. The Badr was finally formally incorporated into the Interior Ministry, where Sunni units had also been carving up their own turf (under the protection of Allawi).
The former Ba'athist Sunnis - and later the Shi'ites - benefited from the invaluable knowledge of American "counter-insurgency" experts who organized death squads in Colombia and El Salvador, as well as retired American Special Forces soldiers. Commandos operating in the "Salvador option" manner have been very much in the cards from the beginning, responding to a sophisticated, state-of-the-art command, control and communications center even while the majority of the Iraqi population had no electricity, no fuel and no medicine.
The pattern was and remains the same; people "disappearing" after they are accosted by groups of men armed to the teeth, in police commando uniforms, with high-tech radios and driving Toyota Land Cruisers with police license plates. Needless to say, the resulting murders are almost never investigated.
The objectives, from the point of view of the Bush administration, also remain the same; keep the Pentagon and its military bases inside an Iraq mired in sectarian bloodshed and with a weak central government.
The "follow the money" trail leads to an array of profitable privatizations, and the upcoming sale of Iraq's fabulous oil reserves to a few, select foreign investors. Abdel Mahdi of SCIRI, one year ago in Washington, had already laid down the script. He is a key player to watch.
No wonder that the real composition of the next Iraqi government will not be determined by the polls - at least not exclusively. The real kingmaker is the US ambassador, the White House pet, Afghan Zalmay Khalilzad.
The Bush administration will pull no punches to safeguard its "follow the money" interests, as well as its precious military bases. Vice President Dick Cheney arrived in Baghdad on December 18, only three days after the election. He didn't even bother to tell Jaafari that he was in the country. First Cheney talked to Khalilzad and assorted American generals, and only then were Jaafari and President Talabani summoned to his presence.
How Bush lost it
The uprising of Muqtadar's Mahdi Army in 2004 was the definitive nail in the coffin of the Bush administration's dream of ruling Iraq. At the time the Pentagon repeatedly said it wanted to "kill or capture him". It did neither.
Muqtada became the man to watch much earlier than his newfound - by American corporate media - prominent role in post-election Iraq. After the bombing of Najaf, the Bush administration completely lost the plot. Then, after the January 2005 elections, the new Jaafari government quickly embraced Iran, received a pledge of $1 billion in aid, the use of Iranian port facilities, and help with refining Iraqi oil.
Sunni Arab regimes like Jordan and Saudi Arabia started to be haunted by the specter of a "Shi'ite crescent". A neo-conservative Iraq as a base to launch an attack on Iran disappeared as a mirage in the desert. As the US has to fight a relentless Sunni Arab guerrilla war, it cannot possibly risk alienating the Iraqi Shi'ite masses (more than they already are) with an attack on Iran.
No wonder military historian Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the only non-American author on the Pentagon's list of required reading for officers, called for Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them".
Bush and his faithful ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, have been playing the same scratched CD track: "We're better off now without Saddam." That is not true. The fall of Saddam led to the rise of al-Qaeda in the Land of the Two Rivers; and even Allawi admitted that human rights in Iraq now are no better than under Saddam. Not to mention that there is no reconstruction, unemployment is at 70%, and a country which in the late 1980s had one of the highest standards of living in the Arab world has been razed to a sub-Saharan level.
Whatever the Americans do - with "Iraqification" doomed to failure, as much as "Vietnamization" - the war in Iraq now is a rampaging beast that threatens to spill all over the Middle East.
"Bring 'em on," said Bush, and they did; the result is a new, deadly generation of global jihadis. Sunni-Shi'ite antagonism will spill over to oil-rich Sunni Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) with huge but heavily marginalized Shi'ite populations. Kurdish separatist dreams have tremendous implications for Turkey, Syria and Iran, especially if Iraq, through civil war, finally disintegrates.
So the most probable scenario for 2006 and beyond is a fragile central government in Baghdad bombarded by an intractable guerrilla movement - a chaotic and sectarian hornets' nest breeding one, 10, 100 mini (or maxi) al-Qaeda leaders able to convulse the Middle East. Maybe this is what the neo-cons meant by "creative destruction".
Al-Qaeda has a masterplan for the Middle East, and the next stages - apart from the Gulf emirates - are to be played in vulnerable Jordan, Turkey, Egypt and even Israel. As for the air war against the Sunni Arab resistance, it may buy a few votes at home but will do absolutely nothing to improve America's dreadful image in the Middle East - especially because civilian "collateral damage" will be enormous.
That bearded, vociferous guy
Saddam's trial - the outcome of which is already determined - will proceed as a purely sectarian propaganda coup. If this were a real trial, Saddam would be in The Hague in front of an international panel of respected judges, experts in human rights law.
Or the United Nations would have been commissioned to organize a special tribunal in a neutral country like Switzerland. Saddam's secrets, though, are so vast - and so extremely embarrassing for the US - that he cannot possibly leave the Green Zone, where he will certainly be executed. Saddam's trial will become the sorry mirror image of the sectarian politics let loose in Iraq at large.
Bush has opened a Pandora's box with his shock and awe tactics. The ultimate quagmire will keep mutating and unleashing its deadly new powers for years on end. And there is nothing anyone - not even the "indispensable nation" - can do about it. We have all been, and will remain, shocked and awed.
(Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing .)
Pentagon Outsources Fake News to Lincoln Group
Pentagon Outsources Fake News to Lincoln Group
by URI DOWBENKO
The Pentagon has awarded the shadowy Washington, DC based Lincoln Group a psychological warfare operations (PsyOps) a/k/a propaganda contract worth $100 million to plant fake news in Iraqi newspapers -- even though the principals of the company have no experience in public relations or marketing.
The principal of Lincoln Group, Christian Bailey, is a 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no public relations experience. "Christian Bailey may not be his real name: a number of student associates said at some point during his four years that he changed his name from Yusefovich - an unlikely surname for someone called Christian," reports the UK Independent.
(http://news.independent.co.uk
Is this another fake news payoff, like the gay hooker/ journalist "Jeff Gannon" for "services rendered" to the Republican elite?
From all accounts Bailey moved to the United States in the late 1990s,working in hedge funds in San Francisco and New York.
More importantly Bailey was the co-chairman of the New York chapter of Lead21, a networking group for young Republicans.
"How and when did Bailey make the switch from hedge funds to private intelligence and PR? One clue is provided by the Alternative Investment News newsletter of 1 March 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. It reported Bailey's hedge fund, Lincoln Asset Management Group, had launched a buyout fund to start buying companies in the defence and security industries. Bailey said he had obtained commitments of $100m from six institutional investors, whom he declined to name," reports th Independewnt.
Bailey then formed a subsidiary of Lincoln called Iraqex, which formed a partnership with the notorious Rendon Group, which promoted the Iraqi conman Ahmed Chalabi and his front group called the Iraqi National Congress.
The UK Independent reports "At some point Bailey also went into business with Paige Craig, 31, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and elsewhere.
"[Bailey and Craig are flatmates in a fashionable part of Washington, close to U Street. The flat is just yards away from Café Saint- Ex, popular with young professionals.]"
(Young Queer Republicans? Log Cabin Boys watch out...)
The Independent makes no mention, however, of a gay Republican call boy network -- the next logical move for entrpreneurial young Republican scammers like Bailey and Craig.
Iraqex then was granted a $6 million Pentagon contract for "an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the Coalition's goals and gain their support."
Bailey's company, having again changed its name to the Lincoln Group, then received a $100 million contract for Psychological Operations, or PsyOps i.e. placing fake news stories in some of the 200 Iraqi-owned newspapers.
"According to reports from former Lincoln employees, their main task was to take news dispatches, called storyboards, which had been written by specially trained psy-ops troops, have them translated into Arabic and then distribute them to the newspapers. They would also deal directly with members of the Iraqi media through something called the Baghdad Press Club, a group of journalists who were paid to write and publish positive stories. Typically, Lincoln paid newspapers between $40 and $2,000 to run the articles as either news or adverts," the UK Independent wrote.
(It's not as lucrative as Hollywood but what the hell... When you're an (alleged) Republican whore like Christian Bailey, who's counting?)
The Lincoln Group even lies in its own press release, saying "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq. We counter the lies, intimidation, and pure evil of terror with factual stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for freedom and security."
"Pure evil of terror"? That sounds like the Pentagon itself.
Hyperbole then must be perfectly acceptable -- especially when you're working for that bastion of peace and love called the Pentagon.
* URI DOWBENKO is the author of "Bushwhacked: Inside Stories of True Conspiracy" and "Hoodwinked: Watching Movies with Eyes Wide Open." He can be reached at u.dowbenko@lycos.com His website is UriDowbenko.Com For more information on Dowbenko's articles and samples of chapters from his books Bushwhacked & Hoodwinked"
Big Brother Bush
Big Brother Bush
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on December 29, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/30175/
The first time as tragedy, the second time as farce. Thirty-five years ago, Richard Milhous Nixon, who was crazy as a bullbat, and J. Edgar Hoover, who wore women's underwear, decided some Americans had unacceptable political opinions. So they set our government to spying on its own citizens, basically those who were deemed insufficiently like Crazy Richard Milhous.
For those of you who have forgotten just what a stonewall paranoid Nixon was, the poor man used to stalk around the White House demanding that his political enemies be killed. Many still believe there was a certain Richard III grandeur to Nixon's collapse because he was also a man of notable talents. There is neither grandeur nor tragedy in watching this president, the Testy Kid, violate his oath to uphold the laws and Constitution of our country.
The Testy Kid wants to do what he wants to do when he wants to do it because he is the president, and he considers that sufficient justification for whatever he wants. He even finds lawyers like John Yoo, who tell him that whatever he wants to do is legal.
The creepy part is the overlap. Damned if they aren't still here, after all these years, the old Nixon hands -- Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the whole gang whose yearning for authoritarian government rose like a stink over the Nixon years. Imperial executive. Bring back those special White House guard uniforms. Cheney, like some malignancy that cannot be killed off, back at the same old stand, pushing the same old crap. Of course, they tell us we have to be spied on for our own safety, so they can catch the terrorists who threaten us all. Thirty-five years ago, they nabbed a film star named Jean Seberg and a bunch of people running a free breakfast program for poor kids in Chicago. This time, they're onto the Quakers. We are not safer.
We would be safer, as the 9-11 commission has so recently reminded us, if some obvious and necessary precautions were taken at both nuclear and chemical plants -- but that is not happening because those industries contribute to Republican candidates. Republicans do not ask their contributors to spend a lot of money on obvious and necessary steps to protect public safety. They wiretap, instead. You will be unsurprised to learn that, first, they lied. They didn't do it. Well, OK, they did it, but not very much at all. Well, OK, more than that. A lot more than that. OK, millions of private e-mail and telephone calls every hour, and all medical and financial records.
You may recall in 2002 it was revealed that the Pentagon had started a giant data-mining program called Total Information Awareness (TIA), intended to search through vast databases "to increase information coverage by an order of magnitude."
From credit cards to vet reports, Big Brother would be watching us. This dandy program was under the control of Adm. John Poindexter, convicted of five felonies during Iran-Contra, all overturned on a technicality. This administration really knows where to go for good help -- it ought to bring back Brownie.
Everybody decided that TIA was a terrible idea, and the program was theoretically shut down. As often happens with this administration, it turned out they just changed the name and made the program less visible. Data-mining was a popular buzzword at the time, and the administration was obviously hot to have it. Bush established a secret program under which the National Security Agency could bypass the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court and begin eavesdropping on Americans without warrants.
As many have patiently pointed out, the entire program was unnecessary, since the FISA court is both prompt and accommodating. There is virtually no possible scenario that would make it difficult or impossible to get a FISA warrant -- it has granted 19,000 warrants and rejected only a handful.
I don't like to play scary games where we all stay awake late at night, telling each other scary stories -- but there's a reason we have never given our government this kind of power. As the late Sen. Frank Church said, "That capability could at any time be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capacity to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide."
And if a dictator took over, the NSA "could enable it to impose total tyranny." Then we always get that dreadful goody-two-shoes response, "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about, do you?"
Folks, we KNOW this program is being and will be misused. We know it from the past record and current reporting. The program has already targeted vegans and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- and, boy, if those aren't outposts of al-Qaida, what is? Could this be more pathetic?
This could scarcely be clearer. Either the president of the United States is going to have to understand and admit he has done something very wrong, or he will have to be impeached. The first time this happened, the institutional response was magnificent. The courts, the press, the Congress all functioned superbly. Anyone think we're up to that again? Then whom do we blame when we lose the republic?
Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
2006: The Year of Revelation?
2006: The Year of Revelation?
2005 was a year of indictments – now, let the trials begin!
Justin Raimondo
December 30, 2005
2005 was a year of indictments – now, let the trials begin!
Justin Raimondo
December 30, 2005
In last year's New Year's column, I wrote:
"If 2003 was the year of the liar, and 2004 the year of the war criminal, then let 2005 be the year of justice. That is not a prediction, but only a hope."
It is a hope that, if not yet fulfilled, is at least now well within sight: the indictment [.pdf] of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, signals a sea change in the political atmosphere in this country, one that has put the War Party on the defensive, albeit not yet thrown them into total retreat.
The gang that lied us into war is getting its comeuppance, and all I can say to that is: how sweet it is! Day after day, in the prelude to war with Iraq, they invented lies of exponentially increasing brazenness. They told us Saddam was an agent of al-Qaeda. They were certain that "weapons of mass destruction" were buried beneath Saddam's many palaces, or hidden in an underground labyrinth beneath ancient Babylon. Saddam, they averred, had been behind the first attack on the World Trade Center, in 1993 – and ranted that he was behind the Oklahoma City federal building bombing, too. They told us he had nukes, or was within a few months of acquiring them, and was readying a first strike against America. Deploying the key argument of the War Party, Condoleezza Rice infamously warned:
"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Today, the smoking gun we're looking for is one connecting this administration to any number of crimes committed by public officials as they dragged us down the road to war. And the problem of uncertainty, which the Bush administration sought to solve by asking us to place our collective fate in their hands, is now hanging over the heads of Washington officialdom. It isn't only Scooter Libby: his case is merely the dorsal fin of the whale, most of which is still lurking just beneath the surface.
How the tables have turned – and all in a single year! A fleeting instant in the mind of History, the mere blink of an eye, can turn the fate of nations – as long as it takes to file an indictment against one of the most powerful men in Washington.
"Bulldog" Fitzgerald has his jaws firmly clamped on a large and very tasty bone, and shows no signs of letting go. With Scooter already nailed, he is looking for more morsels torn from the flesh of Team Bush, starting with Karl Rove, the Republican Rasputin, whose counsels have – until very recently – kept the opposition in a state of panicky, cowardly retreat. Yet he has met, in Mr. Fitzgerald, an opponent who, far from running, has been the aggressor, relentlessly pursuing his target like a veritable Nemesis.
Such are the wages of hubris, a cardinal sin to the ancient Greeks, but the favored vice of the New Rome. What the last year has shown is that Washington, D.C., the epicenter of the new Imperial decadence, is bursting at the seams with corruption, like a corpse wriggling with maggots. In 2006, the whole unsightly spectacle will be exposed to the full light of day.
There are so many investigations currently roiling the political waters that keeping track of them is becoming an increasingly difficult task. Let's see, there's the Abramoff scandal, the Lincoln Group brouhaha, the Randy Cunningham affair, the FISA flap, Chalabi-gate, the Niger uranium investigation, "Phase II" of the Senate Intelligence Committee's probe of prewar intelligence, and, last but not least, the AIPAC espionage case, in which two high-ranking AIPAC lobbyists and a key Pentagon analyst are charged [.pdf] with passing vital U.S. secrets to top Israeli embassy officials.
Okay, so I've left some real stinkers out, but before you write reminding me that I haven't mentioned the torture scandal, the renditions, the secret U.S.-run gulags in Eastern Europe, and any number of other outrages now coming to light – relax. Sure, I remember all that stuff, but more important than merely listing these matters is looking at what they portend.
Once again, I make no predictions, because we must live with uncertainty: it is part – perhaps the essence – of the human condition. Unlike the U.S. government, I'm not asking my readers to take my word for anything in the spirit of blind faith or "patriotic" loyalty to some cause. Certainly I have no illusions about the ability of mortal beings to delude themselves into believing anything: in the end, we have only our hopes and our fears. Last year, I feared for the worst and hoped for the best. In both cases, I was not disappointed.
I have to say that, even in my most pessimistic moments, when my opinion of this administration was at its lowest, and my suspicion of their motives and methods was at its highest, not even then did I ever imagine the sheer scale of the corruption that had eaten away at the very vitals of our republic. Not even Imperial Rome, at its most decadent and depraved, exhibited the kind of voracious greed – for money, for power, for glory – that has infected our ruling elite like some airborne spore. The resulting plague of scandal descending on official Washington has the whole place on a permanent death-watch: who has fallen, and who is likely to fall next? The world capital of a burgeoning Empire is abuzz with rumors of a new wave of indictments.
We spent the greater part of 2005 anticipating the consequences of the Fitzgerald investigation, hoping that justice would finally be done. In the final months, it began to look very much like the War Party is in for more than a little payback – and it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch. If 2003 was the year of the liar, 2004 the year of the war criminal, and 2005 the year of justice no longer deferred, then 2006 holds out the promise of being the year of revelation, when the dark truth about how and why we were lied into war finally comes out in full view of the American public.
The thing about indictments is their succinctness: they are, ideally, models of briskly laconic and fact-oriented description, just-the-facts-please and no frills, only pure reportage. After the indictments, however, come the trials – and that's when we get to see the bare-bones indictments fleshed out, as the crimes of our rulers are painfully and publicly reconstructed in front of a jury – and judged in the court of public opinion.
The War Party is furiously trying to spin all this as a gigantic conspiracy on the part of the "liberal" media to undermine a war effort that is really going splendidly – and they are stepping on the accelerator in their efforts to gin up yet another war in the Middle East, escalating the rhetoric aimed at Iran and openly threatening Syria with "regime change."
There are indications, too, that the neocons are simply becoming unhinged. Those "weapons of mass destruction" that somehow went missing in Iraq, are, you see, carefully hidden away in Damascus and/or Tehran. Or at least that's the latest War Party line in the Bizarro World fantasy-land of the neoconservatives. Melanie Morgan, a San Francisco radio host and one of the chief movers behind Move America Forward, which is running TV ads in favor of the war, is "baffled that the White House no longer makes the case that Mr. Hussein had WMDs," reports the Wall Street Journal.
Ms. Morgan has drunk so much of the neocon Kool-Aid that she can no longer distinguish ideological hallucinations from reality. Indeed, the partisans of this administration eschew vulgar empiricism and openly disdain the concept of objective reality. Reality? Who gives a sh*t? As one administration official put it:
"That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors – and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."
This year, "history's actors" are going to be put on trial – while prosecutors and juries study what they have done. As the curtain rises on a new year, the whole history of their crimes stands to be revealed. There is a hush in the theater in the moment before the first act of this long-anticipated drama. If, by the end of it, the principals still believe they can create their own reality, they will likely get the chance to prove their point in prison – where the experimental conditions for a flight into complete fantasy are optimal.
"We're an empire now" – but is the transition complete? Methinks that anonymous neocon spoke too soon, mistaking a wish for a fact – a typical failing of the species, by the way. There is yet time to prevent the slide into imperial decadence. We have not yet slid all the way down the slippery slope that separates a "liberator" from a conqueror. The Libby indictment and all the other investigations, probes, and official inquiries into government misconduct stemming from the Iraq war are part of a general counter-attack by the forces of republicanism (small-r) against the partisans of empire. The American body politic, in its fundamentals, is still quite healthy: prosecutor Fitzgerald might be likened to a T-cell, defending against the onslaught of a microbial invasion. His tenacious example is mobilizing the other T-cells – in the Justice Department, in the media, in and around government and official Washington – in a last-ditch attempt to save our old Republic from the incursions of alien intruders, a small but well-placed cabal of warmongers and foreign agents. The AIDS-like infection of the neoconservative "persuasion," which had rendered the body politic's defenses inoperative, is being challenged by a promising but still experimental medicine, which exhibits the potential to not only wipe out these viral invaders, but also holds out the promise of a vaccine. After a year of revelation, in which the dirty secrets of the War Party are flushed out into the open, the disgust of the American people is likely to inoculate them against the fever of war hysteria for a long time to come.
A vet speaks out about Bush
The Rant
A vet speaks out about Bush
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 30, 2005, 06:34
Tim Abbott is a Vietnam veteran who lives in the Southwestern Virginia town of Hillsville, a conservative, blue-collar community that tends to vote Republican and bleed red, white and blue.
But, like an increasing number of veterans, Abbott is fed up with President George W. Bush.
“Bush talks a lot about freedom, courage, transparent government and the rule of law. He talks,” Abbott says. “His speeches are carefully choreographed before audiences of his faithful -- often Christian fundamentalists or, to paraphrase Bush, Christian-fascists -- and they must sign loyalty oaths to Bush. He speaks before audience after audience of soldiers and sailors who cannot speak except as directed by the White House.”
Normally, such comments would be risky in a mountain town where Patriotism rules supreme but Abbott expressed his views this week in an op ed article for The Roanoke Times and found many people agreeing with him.
“When I think of Bush, I do not think of liberty and courage, compassion and justice. No, I think of arrogance, greed and lies,” Abbott wrote. “He is a thug, a buffoon and a coward. Not only is he incompetent, he is corrupt.”
In normal times, these would be fighting words and Abbott would do well to avoid lunch at the Hillsville Diner, the Main Street eatery where the locals gather to discuss politics. But George W. Bush’s times are not normal times and Abbott is greeted warmly on the streets of Hillsville.
“In his Mission Accomplished foray, (Bush) wore a military uniform, something no president has done since Washington, and Washington only wore the uniform to quell a rebellion,” Abbott says. “Around the world he has replaced the Soviet Gulag with the Bush Gulag, where men may be tortured.”
Abbott’s comments come when this web site revealed that the Pentagon has ordered soldiers home from Iraq for holiday leave to give pro-war interviews to their hometown newspapers and television station. This does not surprise a veteran who learned about military duplicity in Vietnam.
“Others before whom he speaks may ask no questions. He runs from journalists, as we have seen in China, even on those rare occasions that he speaks before them,” Abbott says of Bush. “Even worse, he has paid journalists to say good things about him and his policies. He also produces propaganda from government offices that he offers as news reports. And any protests against his policies are diverted well away from his sight and hearing.”
In recent weeks, I’ve spoken with dozens of vets of Vietnam, Desert Storm and the present invasion of Iraq and most speak with anger towards Bush and his policies.
Soldiers serve under a code of honor, something they say Bush lacks.
“Bush is of a kind with the dictators; a strutting, sanctimonious buffoon who talks democracy but acts like Saddam Hussein,” Abbott says. “Bush might differ in degree from Hussein, not having been in power as long, but in behavior, with torture and the corruption of government, they are of a kind.
“While al-Qaida is an enemy of the values and principles of the United States and Western civilization and must be confronted, it can do no more than kill people and destroy property.
“Bush can subvert our principles and institutions. He is the greater enemy.”
Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor
Covert CIA Program Withstands New Furor
Anti-Terror Effort Continues to Grow
Anti-Terror Effort Continues to Grow
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 30, 2005; A01
The effort President Bush authorized shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, to fight al Qaeda has grown into the largest CIA covert action program since the height of the Cold War, expanding in size and ambition despite a growing outcry at home and abroad over its clandestine tactics, according to former and current intelligence officials and congressional and administration sources.
The broad-based effort, known within the agency by the initials GST, is compartmentalized into dozens of highly classified individual programs, details of which are known mainly to those directly involved.
GST includes programs allowing the CIA to capture al Qaeda suspects with help from foreign intelligence services, to maintain secret prisons abroad, to use interrogation techniques that some lawyers say violate international treaties, and to maintain a fleet of aircraft to move detainees around the globe. Other compartments within GST give the CIA enhanced ability to mine international financial records and eavesdrop on suspects anywhere in the world.
Over the past two years, as aspects of this umbrella effort have burst into public view, the revelations have prompted protests and official investigations in countries that work with the United States, as well as condemnation by international human rights activists and criticism by members of Congress.
Still, virtually all the programs continue to operate largely as they were set up, according to current and former officials. These sources say Bush's personal commitment to maintaining the GST program and his belief in its legality have been key to resisting any pressure to change course.
"In the past, presidents set up buffers to distance themselves from covert action," said A. John Radsan, assistant general counsel at the CIA from 2002 to 2004. "But this president, who is breaking down the boundaries between covert action and conventional war, seems to relish the secret findings and the dirty details of operations."
The administration's decisions to rely on a small circle of lawyers for legal interpretations that justify the CIA's covert programs and not to consult widely with Congress on them have also helped insulate the efforts from the growing furor, said several sources who have been involved.
Bush has never publicly confirmed the existence of a covert program, but he was recently forced to defend the approach in general terms, citing his wartime responsibilities to protect the nation. In November, responding to questions about the CIA's clandestine prisons, he said the nation must defend against an enemy that "lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again."
This month he went into more detail, defending the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping within the United States. That program is separate from the GST program, but three lawyers involved said the legal rationale for the NSA program is essentially the same one used to support GST, which is an abbreviation of a classified code name for the umbrella covert action program.
The administration contends it is still acting in self-defense after the Sept. 11 attacks, that the battlefield is worldwide, and that everything it has approved is consistent with the demands made by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, when it passed a resolution authorizing "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks."
"Everything is done in the name of self-defense, so they can do anything because nothing is forbidden in the war powers act," said one official who was briefed on the CIA's original cover program and who is skeptical of its legal underpinnings. "It's an amazing legal justification that allows them to do anything," said the official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues.
The interpretation undergirds the administration's determination not to waver under public protests or the threat of legislative action. For example, after The Washington Post disclosed the existence of secret prisons in several Eastern European democracies, the CIA closed them down because of an uproar in Europe. But the detainees were moved elsewhere to similar CIA prisons, referred to as "black sites" in classified documents.
The CIA has stuck with its overall approaches, defending and in some cases refining them. The agency is working to establish procedures in the event a prisoner dies in custody. One proposal circulating among mid-level officers calls for rushing in a CIA pathologist to perform an autopsy and then quickly burning the body, according to two sources.
In June, the CIA temporarily suspended its interrogation program after a controversy over the disclosure of an Aug. 1, 2002, memorandum from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel that defined torture in an unconventional way. The White House withdrew and replaced the memo. But the hold on the CIA's interrogation activities was eventually removed, several intelligence officials said.
The authorized techniques include "waterboarding" and "water dousing," both meant to make prisoners think they are drowning; hard slapping; isolation; sleep deprivation; liquid diets; and stress positions -- often used, intelligence officials say, in combination to enhance the effect.
Behind the scenes, CIA Director Porter J. Goss -- until last year the Republican chairman of the House intelligence committee -- has gathered ammunition to defend the program.
After a CIA inspector general's report in the spring of 2004 stated that some authorized interrogation techniques violated international law, Goss asked two national security experts to study the program's effectiveness.
Gardner Peckham, an adviser to then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), concluded that the interrogation techniques had been effective, said an intelligence official familiar with the result. John J. Hamre, deputy defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, offered a more ambiguous conclusion. Both declined to comment.
The only apparent roadblock that could yet prompt significant change in the CIA's approach is a law passed this month prohibiting torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody, including in CIA hands.
It is still unclear how the law, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), will be implemented. But two intelligence experts said the CIA will be required to draw up clear guidelines and to get all special interrogation techniques approved by a wider range of government lawyers who hold a more conventional interpretation of international treaty obligations.
"The executive branch will not pull back unless it has to," said a former Justice Department lawyer involved in the initial discussions on executive power. "Because if it pulls back unilaterally and another attack occurs, it will get blamed."
The OriginsThe top-secret presidential finding Bush signed six days after the Sept. 11 attacks empowered the intelligence agencies in a way not seen since World War II, and it ordered them to create what would become the GST program.
Written findings are required by the National Security Act of 1947 before the CIA can undertake a covert action. A covert action may not violate the Constitution or any U.S. law. But such actions can, and often do, violate laws of the foreign countries in which they take place, said intelligence experts.
The CIA faced the day after the 2001 attacks with few al Qaeda informants, a tiny paramilitary division and no interrogators, much less a system for transporting terrorism suspects and keeping them hidden for interrogation.
Besides fighting the war in Afghanistan, the agency set about to put in place an intelligence-gathering network that relies heavily on foreign security services and their deeper knowledge of local terrorist groups. With billions of dollars appropriated each year by Congress, the CIA has established joint counterterrorism intelligence centers in more than two dozen countries, and it has enlisted at least eight countries, including several in Eastern Europe, to allow secret prisons on their soil.
Working behind the scenes, the CIA has gained approval from foreign governments to whisk terrorism suspects off the streets or out of police custody into a clandestine prison system that includes the CIA's black sites and facilities run by intelligence agencies in other countries.
The presidential finding also permitted the CIA to create paramilitary teams to hunt and kill designated individuals anywhere in the world, according to a dozen current and former intelligence officials and congressional and executive branch sources.
In four years, the GST has become larger than the CIA's covert action programs in Afghanistan and Central America in the 1980s, according to current and former intelligence officials. Indeed, the CIA, working with foreign counterparts, has been responsible for virtually all of the success the United States has had in capturing or killing al Qaeda leaders since Sept. 11, 2001.
Bush delegated much of the day-to-day decision-making and the creation of individual components to then-CIA Director George J. Tenet, according to congressional and intelligence officials who were briefed on the finding at the time.
"George could decide, even on killings," one of these officials said, referring to Tenet. "That was pushed down to him. George had the authority on who was going to get it."
The LawyersTenet, according to half a dozen former intelligence officials, delegated most of the decision making on lethal action to the CIA's Counterterrorist Center. Killing an al Qaeda leader with a Hellfire missile fired from a remote-controlled drone might have been considered assassination in a prior era and therefore banned by law.
But after Sept. 11, four former government lawyers said, it was classified as an act of self-defense and therefore was not an assassination. "If it was an al Qaeda person, it wouldn't be an assassination," said one lawyer involved.
This month, Pakistani intelligence sources said, Hamza Rabia, a top operational planner for al Qaeda, was killed along with four others by a missile fired by U.S. operatives using an unmanned Predator drone, although there were conflicting reports on whether a missile was used. In May, another al Qaeda member, Haitham Yemeni, was reported killed by a Predator drone missile in northwest Pakistan.
Refining what constitutes an assassination was just one of many legal interpretations made by Bush administration lawyers. Time and again, the administration asked government lawyers to draw up new rules and reinterpret old ones to approve activities once banned or discouraged under the congressional reforms beginning in the 1970s, according to these officials and seven lawyers who once worked on these matters.
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, deputy director of national intelligence, has described the administration's philosophy in public and private meetings, including a session with human rights groups.
"We're going to live on the edge," Hayden told the groups, according to notes taken by Human Rights Watch and confirmed by Hayden's office. "My spikes will have chalk on them. . . . We're pretty aggressive within the law. As a professional, I'm troubled if I'm not using the full authority allowed by law."
Not stopping another attack not only will be a professional failure, he argued, but also "will move the line" again on acceptable legal limits to counterterrorism.
When the CIA wanted new rules for interrogating important terrorism suspects the White House gave the task to a small group of lawyers within the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel who believed in an aggressive interpretation of presidential power.
The White House tightened the circle of participants involved in these most sensitive new areas. It initially cut out the State Department's general counsel, most of the judge advocates general of the military services and the Justice Department's criminal division, which traditionally dealt with international terrorism.
"The Bush administration did not seek a broad debate on whether commander-in-chief powers can trump international conventions and domestic statutes in our struggle against terrorism," said Radsan, the former CIA lawyer, who is a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn. "They could have separated the big question from classified details to operations and had an open debate. Instead, an inner circle of lawyers and advisers worked around the dissenters in the administration and one-upped each other with extreme arguments."
At the CIA, the White House allowed the general counsel's job, traditionally filled from outside the CIA by someone who functioned in a sort of oversight role, to be held by John Rizzo, a career CIA lawyer with a fondness for flashy suits and ties who worked for years in the Directorate of Operations, or D.O.
"John Rizzo is a classic D.O. lawyer. He understands the culture, the intelligence business," Radsan said. "He admires the case officers. And they trust him to work out tough issues in the gray with them. He is like a corporate lawyer who knows how to make the deal happen."
These lawyers have written legal justifications for holding suspects picked up outside Afghanistan without a court order, without granting traditional legal rights and without giving them access to the International Committee of the Red Cross.
CIA and Office of Legal Counsel lawyers also determined that it was legal for suspects to be secretly detained in one country and transferred to another for the purposes of interrogation and detention -- a process known as "rendition."
Lawyers involved in the decision making acknowledge the uncharted nature of their work. "I did what I thought the best reading of the law was," one lawyer said. "These lines are not obvious. It was a judgment."
Credit and BlameOne way the White House limited debate over its program was to virtually shut out Congress during the early years. Congress, for its part, raised only weak and sporadic protests. The administration sometimes refused to give the committees charged with overseeing intelligence agencies the details they requested. It also cut the number of members of Congress routinely briefed on these matters, usually to four members -- the chairmen and ranking Democratic members of the House and Senate intelligence panels.
John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.), ranking Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, complained in a 2003 letter to Vice President Cheney that his briefing on the NSA eavesdropping was unsatisfactory. "Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities," he wrote.
Rockefeller made similar complaints about the CIA's refusal to allow the full committee to see the backup material supporting a skeptical report by the CIA inspector general in 2004 on detentions and interrogations that questioned the legal basis for renditions.
Some former CIA officers now worry that the agency alone will be held responsible for actions authorized by Bush and approved by the White House's lawyers.
Attacking the CIA is common when covert programs are exposed and controversial, said Gerald Haines, a former CIA historian who is a scholar in residence at the University of Virginia. "It seems to me the agency is taking the brunt of all the recent criticism."
Duane R. "Dewey" Clarridge, who directed the CIA's covert efforts to support the Nicaraguan contras in the 1980s, said the nature of CIA work overseas is, and should be, risky and sometimes ugly. "You have a spy agency because the spy agency is going to break laws overseas. If you don't want it to do those dastardly things, don't have it. You can have the State Department."
But a former CIA officer said the agency "lost its way" after Sept. 11, rarely refusing or questioning an administration request. The unorthodox measures "have got to be flushed out of the system," the former officer said. "That's how it works in this country."
Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Congress Is Asked to Raise Debt Limit
Congress Is Asked to Raise Debt Limit
Associated Press
Friday, December 30, 2005; A11
Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said yesterday that the United States could be unable to pay its bills in early 2006 unless Congress raises the government's borrowing authority, which is now capped at $8.18 trillion.
Snow, in a letter to lawmakers, estimated that the government is expected to bump into the statutory debt limit around the middle of February.
"At that time, unless the debt limit is raised or the Treasury Department takes authorized extraordinary actions, we will be unable to continue to finance government operations," Snow wrote.
If the department were to carry out various accounting maneuvers -- as it has done in the past to avoid breaching the limit -- that would free up finances and allow the government to keep paying its bills "no longer than mid-March," Snow wrote.
Boosting the debt limit is more a matter of politics than economics.
Economists doubt Congress will refuse to raise the limit. A federal default is considered unimaginable because it would rattle bond markets, force interest rates higher and shake the economy.
The last time Congress agreed to boost the debt limit was in November 2004 -- from $7.38 trillion to the current $8.18 trillion. The government's statutory borrowing authority was also pushed up in 2002 and 2003.
Snow's letter did not say how much of a boost to the current debt limit the department would like to see this time.
Instead, Snow implored, "I am writing to request that Congress raise the statutory debt limit as soon as possible."
Anti-Imperialists Beware - Bush Is Reading Again
Published on Thursday, December 29, 2005 by Inter Press Service |
| Anti-Imperialists Beware - Bush Is Reading Again |
The Reader-in-Chief is at it again, and anti-imperialists around the world have reason to be concerned.
| by Jim Lobe |
| WASHINGTON - According to the White House, U.S. President George W. Bush has taken two books with him to Texas for his holiday reading, which he will presumably indulge between his favorite ranch pursuits -- clearing brush and biking. The first is about his most admired role model, Theodore Roosevelt, the other on the wonders being achieved by U.S. soldiers around the world. The choices are not unimportant. Indeed, Bush is known to read so little -- both for official business and for diversion -- and to be so impressed by the few books he does read that it is imperative for people who are paid to know what's happening in Washington to find out what's on the president's nightstand when he turns out the light. As the U.S. was gearing up for war in Iraq in the summer of 2002, for example, reporters noticed that Bush had tucked under his arm a rather scholarly -- and hence unlikely -- book, "Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen and Leadership in Wartime", a book by Elliot Cohen, a neo-conservative military historian and friend of then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz The book argued that great civilian leaders, including Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill and Georges Clemenceau, made far better commanders than the generals who demanded that they be given a free hand in conducting the war. It was perfectly timed for persuading Bush to stand up to the recommendations of the top brass that he deploy far more troops to invade and occupy Iraq than what Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld and prominent neo-conservatives were calling for. Similarly, Bush was given a copy of right-wing Israeli politician and former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky's "The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror" immediately after its publication in late 2004, and was so impressed by its argument for an aggressive pro-democracy policy in the Arab world that the White House asked the author to interrupt a book tour for a personal visit. "I'm already halfway through your book," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly told Sharansky when he showed up the next day. "Do you know why I'm reading it? I'm reading it because the president is reading it, and it's my job to know what the president is thinking." Passages in the book were subsequently incorporated into Bush's 2004 inaugural address. It is in this context that Bush's latest selections should be analyzed. The first, "When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House", concerns his favorite presidential antecedent, whose famous or infamous 1904 Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine shortly after the Spanish-American War heralded Washington's claim to great-power status and its right to intervene unilaterally anywhere in the Americas against "chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a general loosening of the ties of civilized society". The choice may suggest that Bush, who clearly subscribes to the "great man" theory of history that was the rage in Roosevelt's time, is contemplating a very active retirement. If it doesn't take him on safari in Africa or on scientific expeditions to the Amazon (unlikely pastimes for a man who by all accounts is an unenthusiastic and incurious traveler), it could make him a permanent force in the Republican Party and for the kind of aggressive nationalism that Roosevelt espoused through much of his career. The second book on Bush's reading list, "Imperial Grunts: The American Military on the Ground" by Robert Kaplan is far more worrisome in its implications, at least for the remaining three years of his presidency. Kaplan, who began his career as a self-described "travel writer" in the 1980s, has evolved into a political thinker whose outlook is explicitly imperialist -- a term that he has used and re-used in recent years with unabashed approval -- and, in the words of one conservative reviewer and retired Army colonel, Andrew Bacevich, "reactionary". In his view (and one that would be shockingly familiar to Roosevelt in his "Rough Riding" days in Cuba more than 100 years ago), the "war on terror" and associated conflicts is simply a repeat of the U.S. Army's Indian Wars, but on a nearly planetary scale. Instead of the Great Plains and western reaches of the 19th century U.S., however, today's "Injun Country", as Kaplan calls it, consists of the entire Islamic world, from the southern Philippines to Mauritania, as well as other un-governed or misgoverned areas in desperate need of order and civilization. And who best to civilize these places and their inhabitants than the U.S. military, specifically the "imperial grunts" with whom Kaplan embedded himself -- no doubt with the enthusiastic support of the Pentagon and probably Rumsfeld himself -- for weeks at a time in various parts of the world on three continents, and who, not incidentally, bear a striking resemblance to Bush's own self-image? In contrast to the "elites" and "global cosmopolitans" who dominate the media, the State Department, Washington think tanks and academia, and the Democratic Party, these soldiers are "people who hunted, drove pickups, employed profanities as a matter of dialect, and yet had a literal, demonstrable belief in the Almighty", according to Kaplan. He offers remarkable praise for the war-fighting traditions of "the gleaming officers corps of the Confederacy" -- that is, the military arm of the slave-owning southern states, including Bush's Texas, during the Civil War -- and for the present-day "martial evangelicalism of the South". In a "Hobbesian world" where U.S. military commands and deployments span every continent, U.S. imperialism is not a choice, but rather a necessity, just as it was for the British in the late 19th century, according to Kaplan, who argues that Washington's "righteous responsibility (is) to advance the boundaries of free society and good government into zones of sheer chaos". In one telling piece of analysis, he describes the presumed thoughts of a Filipino in Zamboanga, presumably a descendant of Moro who resisted, at the cost of tens of thousands of their lives, U.S. imperialism 100 years ago: "His smiling, naïve eyes cried out for what we in the West call colonialism." With a message like that, it's not difficult to imagine Bush, who has met with Kaplan at least once before in the White House, requesting a return visit, in which case it may be useful to review the kinds of policy recommendations he is likely to make. A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq now, Kaplan has predicted, would result in a "real bloodbath" and a reversal of liberalization in the Arab world, including the reconstitution of Lebanon by the Syrians "in their own totalitarian image". He has also cautioned against China's growing political and economic clout in the world. "Unless we begin military cooperation with Indonesia, for instance, at some point the Indonesian military will be captured by the Chinese in some form." |
The Freest Press Money Can Buy?
Published on Thursday, December 29, 2005 by Inter Press Service |
| The Freest Press Money Can Buy? |
| by William Fisher |
| NEW YORK - Amid undenied charges that the Pentagon is paying Iraqi journalists to write "good news" stories about the country's progress, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced a new international exchange programme for journalists named for famed broadcaster Edward R. Murrow and emphasising "the democratic principles that guided Mr. Murrow's practice of his craft -- integrity and ethics and courage and social responsibility". "We all know that the bedrock pillar of a free society is a free press and that it is crucial for the foundation of any democracy," Rice said. |
Thursday, December 29, 2005
Military lose place in Pentagon line of succession to civilians
Military lose place in Pentagon line of succession to civilians
Updated at 18:13 on December 28, 2005, EST.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The three U.S. military service chiefs have been dropped in the doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle.
A little-noticed, holiday-week executive order from President George W. Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defence but that position currently is vacant. The army chief, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.
The changes, announced last week, are the second in six months and mirror the administration's new emphasis on intelligence-gathering versus combat in 21st-century warfare.
Technically, the line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the individuals holding those jobs.
But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and previously worked for Vice-President Dick Cheney when he was defence secretary.
The changes were recommended, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, because the three undersecretaries have 'a broad knowledge and perspective of overall Defence Department operations.'
The service leaders are more focused on training, equipping and leading a particular military service, said Whitman.
Thomas Donnelly, a defence expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions.
'It continues to devalue the services as institutions,' said Donnelly, adding it will centralize power and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise and interest.
Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot while former ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary; and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions.
The first to succeed Rumsfeld remains the job of the deputy secretary, a position currently vacant because the Senate has not confirmed Bush's nominee - Navy Secretary Gordon England.
Senators have already approved Donald Winter to be England's replacement as navy chief and it is expected Bush will eventually move England into the No. 2 Pentagon job without congressional approval through what is known as a recess appointment.
Bush tinkered with the succession line last June, temporarily making England, as navy secretary, the No. 2 in the succession hierarchy until the deputy's job was filled. Last week, Bush changed that, ordering the acting deputy secretary - also England - would succeed Rumsfeld, until a deputy is appointed.
The new succession order bumps the navy secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession - eighth behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the army and air force secretaries.
The army secretary historically has been third in line, right behind the deputy secretary.
As a precursor to the Defence Department, the army was once considered the backbone of the military. The Department of War was the country's military agency from 1789 to 1949, when it became the Department of Defence. At that time, the War Office was renamed as the army, which became a component of the Defence Department.
Since the terrorist attacks, intelligence-gathering has taken centre stage. Earlier this year, Bush named former ambassador John Negroponte as the country's first director of national intelligence, charged with overseeing the government's 15 highly competitive spy agencies.
And in the spring of 2003, Rumsfeld installed Cambone - one of his closest aides - in the new job of intelligence undersecretary.
The Canadian Press, 2005"
Updated at 18:13 on December 28, 2005, EST.
WASHINGTON (AP) - The three U.S. military service chiefs have been dropped in the doomsday line of Pentagon succession, pushed beneath three civilian undersecretaries in Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's inner circle.
A little-noticed, holiday-week executive order from President George W. Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defence but that position currently is vacant. The army chief, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.
The changes, announced last week, are the second in six months and mirror the administration's new emphasis on intelligence-gathering versus combat in 21st-century warfare.
Technically, the line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the individuals holding those jobs.
But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and previously worked for Vice-President Dick Cheney when he was defence secretary.
The changes were recommended, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, because the three undersecretaries have 'a broad knowledge and perspective of overall Defence Department operations.'
The service leaders are more focused on training, equipping and leading a particular military service, said Whitman.
Thomas Donnelly, a defence expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions.
'It continues to devalue the services as institutions,' said Donnelly, adding it will centralize power and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise and interest.
Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot while former ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary; and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions.
The first to succeed Rumsfeld remains the job of the deputy secretary, a position currently vacant because the Senate has not confirmed Bush's nominee - Navy Secretary Gordon England.
Senators have already approved Donald Winter to be England's replacement as navy chief and it is expected Bush will eventually move England into the No. 2 Pentagon job without congressional approval through what is known as a recess appointment.
Bush tinkered with the succession line last June, temporarily making England, as navy secretary, the No. 2 in the succession hierarchy until the deputy's job was filled. Last week, Bush changed that, ordering the acting deputy secretary - also England - would succeed Rumsfeld, until a deputy is appointed.
The new succession order bumps the navy secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession - eighth behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the army and air force secretaries.
The army secretary historically has been third in line, right behind the deputy secretary.
As a precursor to the Defence Department, the army was once considered the backbone of the military. The Department of War was the country's military agency from 1789 to 1949, when it became the Department of Defence. At that time, the War Office was renamed as the army, which became a component of the Defence Department.
Since the terrorist attacks, intelligence-gathering has taken centre stage. Earlier this year, Bush named former ambassador John Negroponte as the country's first director of national intelligence, charged with overseeing the government's 15 highly competitive spy agencies.
And in the spring of 2003, Rumsfeld installed Cambone - one of his closest aides - in the new job of intelligence undersecretary.
The Canadian Press, 2005"
DoD News: Contracts for December 28, 2005
DoD News: Contracts for December 28, 2005
On the Web:
http://www.dod.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi?http://www.dod.mil/contracts/2005/ct20051228-12231.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711
FOR RELEASE AT No. 1330-05
5 p.m. ET December 28, 2005
CONTRACTS
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solutions of Gaithersburg, Md. is being issued a cost-plus-award fee modification to HQ0006-02-9-0002 to extend the period of performance and increase the agreement value by $307,995,315. This modification is for the development, integration, and installation of the command, control, battle management and communications capability for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This work is central to the integration of formerly stand-alone system elements into an effective, layered BMDS, and the interoperability of missile defense command and control operations, at the various combatant commanders' sites. The current effort is expected to be completed December 31, 2005. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contracting activity is the Missile Defense Agency, 7100 Defense Pentagon,Washington, DC 20301-7100. The work under this modification will be funded using Fiscal Years 2006, 2007 and 2008 funds (HQ0006-02-9-0002).
AIR FORCE
Raytheon Aircraft Co., Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $268,994,493.60 commercial firm-fixed price contract modification. This action provides for Lot 13 option exercise, JPATS T-6A production aircraft Lot 13 (54 aircraft) for FY06, and Retrofit Material Kit B option exercise. At this time $485,541.60 has been obligated. This work will be complete by February 2009. The Headquarters Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (F33657-01-C-0022/P00109).
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $99,700,000 (not to exceed) firm fixed price & time and materials contract. This procurement of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) F-16C/D new aircraft for the Peace Xenia IV (Greece) program for F-16 Block 52 aircraft. The procurement of 20 operational single place F-16C Block 52 aircraft and 10 operational to place F-16D Block 52 aircraft will be accomplished under the firm fixed portion of the contract. At this time $29,160,000 has been obligated. This work will be complete by March 2010. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (FA8615-06-C-6003).
Raytheon Co. Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $50,739,270 firm fixed price contract modification to provide for 102 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile Air Vehicles under the foreign military sales program for the following countries: Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Malaysia, and Canada. Total funds have been obligated. This work will be complete in July 2008. Headquarters Medium Range Missile Systems Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. , is the contracting activity (FA8675-05-C-0070/P00016).
The Boeing Co., Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $30,000,000 time and materials firm fixed price contract modification. This action provides for B-52 fleet support. At this time $1,301,048 has been obligated. This work will be complete by December 2006. The Headquarters Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., is the contracting activity. (F34601-99-C-0006-P00207)
Northrop Grumman Corp., Integrated Systems-Western Region, El Segundo, Calif., is being awarded a $17,064,878 cost reimbursement with award fee contract modification. This contract action consists of Global Hawk radar development activities which includes the following: updates to the system requirements, delivery of logistics/technical manual source data, delivery of an Electronic Target Simulator/Radar Range Repeater Support Vehicle, Engineering and management support for Working Groups and safety meetings, supports to the MP-RTIP Government Program Office for the Global Hawk, Design Readiness Review (DDR). At this time no funds have been obligated. This work will be complete by October 2008. The Headquarters Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., is the contracting activity. (F19628-00-C-0100/P00087)
American Superconductor Corp., Westborough, Mass., is being awarded a $13,557,500 cost reimbursement with cost share contract modification. This is for planned production scale-up activities to meet the Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide (YBCO) program's goal to establish a US-based commercial production facility for 2nd generation High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) material. At this time $578,000 has been obligated. This work will be complete by June 2008. The Headquarters Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (F33615-03-C-5504-P00006).
Superpower Inc., Schenectady, N.Y., is being awarded a $10,697,440 cost reimbursement with cost share contract modification. This is for planned production scale-up activities to meet the Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide (YBCO) program's goal to establish a U.S.-based commercial production facility for 2nd generation High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) material. At this time $1,800,000 have been obligated. This work will be complete by June 2008. The Headquarters Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (F33615-03-C-5508-P00008).
Raytheon Co. Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $7,978,661 cost plus fix fee contract modification to provide for the development of the Common Munitions Bit/Reprogramming Equipment PLUS in support of the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile AIM-120D missile. At this time, $4,824,435 has been obligated. This work will be complete in April 2008. Headquarters Medium Range Missile Systems Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. , is the contracting activity (FA8675-04-C-0001/P00024).
Boeing Co., Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $5,072,946 time and material/firm fixed price/cost reimbursable contract modification. The supplies and services to be procured consist of technical writing, illustrating, research analysis of modification of data, evaluation of Air Force publication change request requirements and evaluation of wiring diagram data necessary to develop, change, or revise technical orders to support B-52 aircraft, aircraft engines, or mobile training sets. At this time, $3,253,010 has been obligated. This work will be complete in December 2007. Headquarters Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., is the contracting activity (F34601-03-D-0066/P00009).
McDonnell Douglas Corp., Huntington Beach, Calif., is being awarded a $UNPRICED CHANGE ORDER firm fixed fee contract. The unpriced change order against the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, other transaction agreement for pre/post mission engineering and critical components under the assured access to space program. McDonnell Douglas will perform supply chain management and technological improvement tasks to minimize the risk of launch failure for the Delta IV Rocket on the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (EELV) under the Space launch and Range System Program Office. No funds have been obligated. This work will be complete by June 2006. The Headquarters Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is the contracting activity. (F04701-98-9-0005-0072)
NAVY
Southwestern Dakotah, Inc.*, Tucson, Ariz.; Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc.*, San Bernardino, Calif.; DWG and Associates, Inc.*, Lompoc, Calif.; Webco*, Ventura, Calif.; Pulliam Construction*, Twentynine Palms, Calif.; and Dimensions Construction, Inc.*, Imperial Beach, Calif.; are each being awarded a guaranteed minimum of $5,000 (base period), firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract for interior, exterior painting, coating, and waterproofing. The total amount for all contracts combined is not to exceed $25,000,000 (base period and four option years). Work will be performed at various locations within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of responsibility, including but not limited to, San Diego County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Ventura County, Imperial County, Inyo Kern County in California (80 percent) and Yuma County in Arizona (20 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of December 2006 (December 2010 with options). Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was issued as a 100% set aside for HUBZone and Service Disabled Veteran small businesses on the NAVFAC e-solicitation website with eight proposals received. These six contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif. , is the contracting activity (contract numbers N62473-06-D-1013/1014/1015/1016/1017/1018).
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $10,784,294 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-03-C-0001) for one lot of Special Tooling/Special Test Equipment ? New and one lot Special Tooling/Special Test Equipment ? Sustaining for the Fiscal Year 2006 AGM-154C Joint Stand-Off Weapon Full Rate Production II Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., and is expected to be completed in February 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command is the contracting activity.
Head, Inc.*, Columbus, Ohio, is being awarded a $9,215,618 firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction/repair of Runway 14L/32R and Centerline Lighting at Naval Air Station Oceana. Work will be performed in Virginia Beach, Va., and is expected to be completed by September 2006. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the NAVFAC e-solicitation website with two offers received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va. , is the contracting activity (N40085-06-C-6001).
* Small Business
http://www.dod.mil/contracts/2005/ct20051228-12231.html
On the Web:
http://www.dod.mil/cgi-bin/dlprint.cgi?http://www.dod.mil/contracts/2005/ct20051228-12231.html
Media contact: +1 (703) 697-5131 Public contact:
http://www.dod.mil/faq/comment.html
or +1 (703) 428-0711
FOR RELEASE AT No. 1330-05
5 p.m. ET December 28, 2005
CONTRACTS
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems and Solutions of Gaithersburg, Md. is being issued a cost-plus-award fee modification to HQ0006-02-9-0002 to extend the period of performance and increase the agreement value by $307,995,315. This modification is for the development, integration, and installation of the command, control, battle management and communications capability for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This work is central to the integration of formerly stand-alone system elements into an effective, layered BMDS, and the interoperability of missile defense command and control operations, at the various combatant commanders' sites. The current effort is expected to be completed December 31, 2005. Funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The contracting activity is the Missile Defense Agency, 7100 Defense Pentagon,Washington, DC 20301-7100. The work under this modification will be funded using Fiscal Years 2006, 2007 and 2008 funds (HQ0006-02-9-0002).
AIR FORCE
Raytheon Aircraft Co., Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $268,994,493.60 commercial firm-fixed price contract modification. This action provides for Lot 13 option exercise, JPATS T-6A production aircraft Lot 13 (54 aircraft) for FY06, and Retrofit Material Kit B option exercise. At this time $485,541.60 has been obligated. This work will be complete by February 2009. The Headquarters Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (F33657-01-C-0022/P00109).
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co., Ft Worth, Texas, is being awarded a $99,700,000 (not to exceed) firm fixed price & time and materials contract. This procurement of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) F-16C/D new aircraft for the Peace Xenia IV (Greece) program for F-16 Block 52 aircraft. The procurement of 20 operational single place F-16C Block 52 aircraft and 10 operational to place F-16D Block 52 aircraft will be accomplished under the firm fixed portion of the contract. At this time $29,160,000 has been obligated. This work will be complete by March 2010. The Headquarters Aeronautical Systems Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (FA8615-06-C-6003).
Raytheon Co. Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $50,739,270 firm fixed price contract modification to provide for 102 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile Air Vehicles under the foreign military sales program for the following countries: Czech Republic, Hungary, Jordan, Malaysia, and Canada. Total funds have been obligated. This work will be complete in July 2008. Headquarters Medium Range Missile Systems Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. , is the contracting activity (FA8675-05-C-0070/P00016).
The Boeing Co., Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $30,000,000 time and materials firm fixed price contract modification. This action provides for B-52 fleet support. At this time $1,301,048 has been obligated. This work will be complete by December 2006. The Headquarters Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., is the contracting activity. (F34601-99-C-0006-P00207)
Northrop Grumman Corp., Integrated Systems-Western Region, El Segundo, Calif., is being awarded a $17,064,878 cost reimbursement with award fee contract modification. This contract action consists of Global Hawk radar development activities which includes the following: updates to the system requirements, delivery of logistics/technical manual source data, delivery of an Electronic Target Simulator/Radar Range Repeater Support Vehicle, Engineering and management support for Working Groups and safety meetings, supports to the MP-RTIP Government Program Office for the Global Hawk, Design Readiness Review (DDR). At this time no funds have been obligated. This work will be complete by October 2008. The Headquarters Electronic Systems Center, Hanscom Air Force Base, Mass., is the contracting activity. (F19628-00-C-0100/P00087)
American Superconductor Corp., Westborough, Mass., is being awarded a $13,557,500 cost reimbursement with cost share contract modification. This is for planned production scale-up activities to meet the Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide (YBCO) program's goal to establish a US-based commercial production facility for 2nd generation High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) material. At this time $578,000 has been obligated. This work will be complete by June 2008. The Headquarters Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (F33615-03-C-5504-P00006).
Superpower Inc., Schenectady, N.Y., is being awarded a $10,697,440 cost reimbursement with cost share contract modification. This is for planned production scale-up activities to meet the Yttrium Barium Copper Oxide (YBCO) program's goal to establish a U.S.-based commercial production facility for 2nd generation High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) material. At this time $1,800,000 have been obligated. This work will be complete by June 2008. The Headquarters Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, is the contracting activity. (F33615-03-C-5508-P00008).
Raytheon Co. Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $7,978,661 cost plus fix fee contract modification to provide for the development of the Common Munitions Bit/Reprogramming Equipment PLUS in support of the Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile AIM-120D missile. At this time, $4,824,435 has been obligated. This work will be complete in April 2008. Headquarters Medium Range Missile Systems Group, Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. , is the contracting activity (FA8675-04-C-0001/P00024).
Boeing Co., Boeing Integrated Defense Systems, Wichita, Kan., is being awarded a $5,072,946 time and material/firm fixed price/cost reimbursable contract modification. The supplies and services to be procured consist of technical writing, illustrating, research analysis of modification of data, evaluation of Air Force publication change request requirements and evaluation of wiring diagram data necessary to develop, change, or revise technical orders to support B-52 aircraft, aircraft engines, or mobile training sets. At this time, $3,253,010 has been obligated. This work will be complete in December 2007. Headquarters Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Tinker Air Force Base, Okla., is the contracting activity (F34601-03-D-0066/P00009).
McDonnell Douglas Corp., Huntington Beach, Calif., is being awarded a $UNPRICED CHANGE ORDER firm fixed fee contract. The unpriced change order against the McDonnell Douglas Corporation, other transaction agreement for pre/post mission engineering and critical components under the assured access to space program. McDonnell Douglas will perform supply chain management and technological improvement tasks to minimize the risk of launch failure for the Delta IV Rocket on the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle Program (EELV) under the Space launch and Range System Program Office. No funds have been obligated. This work will be complete by June 2006. The Headquarters Space and Missile Systems Center, Los Angeles Air Force Base, Calif., is the contracting activity. (F04701-98-9-0005-0072)
NAVY
Southwestern Dakotah, Inc.*, Tucson, Ariz.; Allen Engineering Contractor, Inc.*, San Bernardino, Calif.; DWG and Associates, Inc.*, Lompoc, Calif.; Webco*, Ventura, Calif.; Pulliam Construction*, Twentynine Palms, Calif.; and Dimensions Construction, Inc.*, Imperial Beach, Calif.; are each being awarded a guaranteed minimum of $5,000 (base period), firm-fixed price, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity multiple award construction contract for interior, exterior painting, coating, and waterproofing. The total amount for all contracts combined is not to exceed $25,000,000 (base period and four option years). Work will be performed at various locations within the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) Southwest area of responsibility, including but not limited to, San Diego County, Los Angeles County, Orange County, Ventura County, Imperial County, Inyo Kern County in California (80 percent) and Yuma County in Arizona (20 percent). The term of the contract is not to exceed 60 months, with an expected completion date of December 2006 (December 2010 with options). Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was issued as a 100% set aside for HUBZone and Service Disabled Veteran small businesses on the NAVFAC e-solicitation website with eight proposals received. These six contractors may compete for task orders under the terms and conditions of the awarded contract. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Southwest, San Diego, Calif. , is the contracting activity (contract numbers N62473-06-D-1013/1014/1015/1016/1017/1018).
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Ariz., is being awarded a $10,784,294 modification to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-03-C-0001) for one lot of Special Tooling/Special Test Equipment ? New and one lot Special Tooling/Special Test Equipment ? Sustaining for the Fiscal Year 2006 AGM-154C Joint Stand-Off Weapon Full Rate Production II Program. Work will be performed in Tucson, Ariz., and is expected to be completed in February 2008. Contract funds will not expire at the end of the current fiscal year. The Naval Air Systems Command is the contracting activity.
Head, Inc.*, Columbus, Ohio, is being awarded a $9,215,618 firm-fixed-price contract for design and construction/repair of Runway 14L/32R and Centerline Lighting at Naval Air Station Oceana. Work will be performed in Virginia Beach, Va., and is expected to be completed by September 2006. Contract funds will expire at the end of the current fiscal year. This contract was competitively procured via the NAVFAC e-solicitation website with two offers received. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Mid-Atlantic, Norfolk, Va. , is the contracting activity (N40085-06-C-6001).
* Small Business
http://www.dod.mil/contracts/2005/ct20051228-12231.html
U.S. Defends Conduct in Padilla Case
U.S. Defends Conduct in Padilla Case
Supreme Court Asked To Overrule 4th Circuit
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A04
A federal appeals court infringed on President Bush's authority to run the war on terror when it refused to let prosecutors take custody of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the Justice Department said yesterday, as it urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
The sharply worded Justice Department filing was the latest salvo in an increasingly contentious battle over Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and initially accused of plotting to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." Padilla was held for more than three years by the military before he was indicted last month in Miami on separate criminal terrorism charges.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit refused last week to allow prosecutors to take custody of Padilla from the military and rebuked the Bush administration for its handling of the high-profile case. The Bush administration took strong issue yesterday with the Richmond-based court's decision and appealed it to the Supreme Court.
It was another remarkable turn in Padilla's case, which has evolved into a legal spat between the executive and judicial branches of government. The dispute is especially unusual because it involves the 4th Circuit, which has been the administration's venue of choice for high-profile terrorism cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 4th Circuit has given the government extraordinary latitude on national security matters, ruling for prosecutors in the cases of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi and Padilla are the two U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants as part of the government's campaign against terror since Sept. 11.
The Justice Department brief said the 4th Circuit had mischaracterized the events of Padilla's incarceration and engaged in "an unwarranted attack on the exercise of Executive discretion." Prosecutors accused the court of going so far as to "usurp" Bush's authority as the nation's commander-in-chief and his government's "prosecutorial discretion."
In Padilla's case, the same three-judge panel that is now drawing the government's ire strongly backed the president's authority to hold Padilla without charges or trial in an earlier ruling. That decision, like the one refusing to authorize Padilla's transfer, was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was a contender to be nominated by Bush to the Supreme Court this year.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts is the Supreme Court justice who oversees cases from the 4th Circuit, but it was unclear yesterday whether Roberts would rule himself on the government's request for Padilla's transfer. The full court is considering whether to take up the merits of Padilla's detention by the military.
Padilla, a former gang member, was arrested at O'Hare International Airport in May 2002 and declared an enemy combatant by Bush a month later. Padilla has been held in a U.S. Navy brig, without charges or trial, ever since.
Attorneys for Padilla and civil liberties organizations took up his cause, saying the government could not indefinitely detain U.S. citizens captured on American soil. But the 4th Circuit ruled in September that Bush had the authority to detain Padilla and that such power is essential to preventing terrorist strikes.
In its ruling last week, the 4th Circuit questioned the government's changing rationale for Padilla's detention since the September decision, because the criminal charges do not mention a dirty bomb plot or any attack inside the United States. The court said prosecutors had left the appearance that they were trying to avoid Supreme Court review of Padilla's case and suggested that Padilla might have been "held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake."
The charges in Miami accuse Padilla of being part of a violent terrorism conspiracy rooted in North America but directed at sending money and recruits overseas to "murder, kidnap and maim." If convicted, he faces up to life in prison.
Yesterday, prosecutors denied any attempt to avoid the Supreme Court and said they had narrowed the charges against Padilla because elaborating on the original allegations would compromise intelligence "sources or methods."
"There is nothing remotely sinister about the government's effort to pursue criminal charges that minimize evidentiary complications," the brief said, adding that "there is no basis for questioning the good faith of the government in moving forward with the indictment."
Supreme Court Asked To Overrule 4th Circuit
By Jerry Markon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 29, 2005; A04
A federal appeals court infringed on President Bush's authority to run the war on terror when it refused to let prosecutors take custody of "enemy combatant" Jose Padilla, the Justice Department said yesterday, as it urged the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene.
The sharply worded Justice Department filing was the latest salvo in an increasingly contentious battle over Padilla, a U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and initially accused of plotting to detonate a radiological "dirty bomb." Padilla was held for more than three years by the military before he was indicted last month in Miami on separate criminal terrorism charges.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit refused last week to allow prosecutors to take custody of Padilla from the military and rebuked the Bush administration for its handling of the high-profile case. The Bush administration took strong issue yesterday with the Richmond-based court's decision and appealed it to the Supreme Court.
It was another remarkable turn in Padilla's case, which has evolved into a legal spat between the executive and judicial branches of government. The dispute is especially unusual because it involves the 4th Circuit, which has been the administration's venue of choice for high-profile terrorism cases since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The 4th Circuit has given the government extraordinary latitude on national security matters, ruling for prosecutors in the cases of Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and Yaser Esam Hamdi. Hamdi and Padilla are the two U.S. citizens held as enemy combatants as part of the government's campaign against terror since Sept. 11.
The Justice Department brief said the 4th Circuit had mischaracterized the events of Padilla's incarceration and engaged in "an unwarranted attack on the exercise of Executive discretion." Prosecutors accused the court of going so far as to "usurp" Bush's authority as the nation's commander-in-chief and his government's "prosecutorial discretion."
In Padilla's case, the same three-judge panel that is now drawing the government's ire strongly backed the president's authority to hold Padilla without charges or trial in an earlier ruling. That decision, like the one refusing to authorize Padilla's transfer, was written by Judge J. Michael Luttig, who was a contender to be nominated by Bush to the Supreme Court this year.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts is the Supreme Court justice who oversees cases from the 4th Circuit, but it was unclear yesterday whether Roberts would rule himself on the government's request for Padilla's transfer. The full court is considering whether to take up the merits of Padilla's detention by the military.
Padilla, a former gang member, was arrested at O'Hare International Airport in May 2002 and declared an enemy combatant by Bush a month later. Padilla has been held in a U.S. Navy brig, without charges or trial, ever since.
Attorneys for Padilla and civil liberties organizations took up his cause, saying the government could not indefinitely detain U.S. citizens captured on American soil. But the 4th Circuit ruled in September that Bush had the authority to detain Padilla and that such power is essential to preventing terrorist strikes.
In its ruling last week, the 4th Circuit questioned the government's changing rationale for Padilla's detention since the September decision, because the criminal charges do not mention a dirty bomb plot or any attack inside the United States. The court said prosecutors had left the appearance that they were trying to avoid Supreme Court review of Padilla's case and suggested that Padilla might have been "held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake."
The charges in Miami accuse Padilla of being part of a violent terrorism conspiracy rooted in North America but directed at sending money and recruits overseas to "murder, kidnap and maim." If convicted, he faces up to life in prison.
Yesterday, prosecutors denied any attempt to avoid the Supreme Court and said they had narrowed the charges against Padilla because elaborating on the original allegations would compromise intelligence "sources or methods."
"There is nothing remotely sinister about the government's effort to pursue criminal charges that minimize evidentiary complications," the brief said, adding that "there is no basis for questioning the good faith of the government in moving forward with the indictment."
Pentagon propaganda program orders soldiers to promote Iraq war while home on leave
From Capitol Hill Blue
CHB Investigates. . .
Pentagon propaganda program orders soldiers to promote Iraq war while home on leave
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Dec 29, 2005, 05:44
Good soldiers follow orders and hundreds of American military men and women returned to the United States on holiday leave this month with orders to sell the Iraq war to a skeptical public.
The program, coordinated through a Pentagon operation dubbed ?Operation Homefront,? ordered military personnel to give interviews to their hometown newspapers, television stations and other media outlets and praise the American war effort in Iraq.
Initial reports back to the Pentagon deem the operation a success with dozens of front page stories in daily and weekly newspapers around the country along with upbeat reports on local television stations.
?We've learned as a military how to do this better,? Captain David Diaz, a military reservist, told his hometown paper, The Roanoke (VA) Times. ?My worry is that we have the right military strategy and political strategies now but the patience of the American public is wearing thin.?
When pressed by the paper on whether or not his commanding officers told him to talk to the press, Diaz admitted he was ?encouraged? to do so. So reporter Duncan Adams asked:
?Did Diaz return to the U.S. on emergency leave with an agenda -- to offer a positive spin that could help counter growing concerns among Americans about the U.S. exit strategy? How do we know that's not his strategy, especially after he discloses that superior officers encouraged him to talk about his experiences in Iraq??
Replied Diaz:
?You don't. I can tell you that the direction we've gotten from on high is that there is a concern about public opinion out there and they want to set the record straight.?
Diaz, an intelligence officer, knows how to avoid a direct answer. Other military personnel, however, tell Capitol Hill Blue privately that the pressure to ?sell the war? back home is enormous.
?I?ve been promised an early release if I do a good job promoting the war,? says one reservist who asked not to be identified.
In interviews with a number of reservists home for the holidays, a pattern emerges on the Pentagon?s propaganda effort. Soldiers are encouraged to contact their local news media outlets to offer interviews about the war. A detailed set of talking points encourages them to:
--Admit initial doubts about the war but claim conversion to a belief in the American mission;
--Praise military leadership in Iraq and throw in a few words of support for the Bush administration;
--Claim the mission to turn security of the country over to the Iraqis is working;
--Reiterate that America must not abandon its mission and must stay until the ?job is finished.?
--Talk about how ?things are better? now in Iraq.
?My worry is that we have the right military strategy and political strategies now but the patience of the American public is wearing thin,? Diaz told The Roanoke Times.
?It?s way better now (in Iraq). People are friendlier. They seem more relaxed, and they say, ?Thank you, mister,?? Sgt. Christopher Desierto told his hometown paper, The Maui News.
But soldiers who are home and don?t have to return to Iraq tell a different story.
?I've just been focused on trying to get the rest of these guys home,? says Sgt. Major Floyd Dubose of Jackson, MS, who returned home after 11 months in Iraq with the Mississippi Army National Guard's 155th Combat Brigade.
And the Army is cracking down on soldiers who go on the record opposing the war.
Specialist Leonard Clark, a National Guardsman, was demoted to private and fined $1,640 for posting anti-war statements on an Internet blog. Clark wrote entries describing the company's commander as a "glory seeker" and the battalion sergeant major an "inhuman monster". His last entry before the blog was shut down told how his fellow soldiers were becoming increasingly opposed to the US operation in Iraq.
?The message is clear,? says one reservist who is home for the holidays but has to return and asked not to be identified. ?If you want to get out of this man?s Army with an honorable (discharge) and full benefits you better not tell the truth about what is happening in-country.?
But Sgt. Johnathan Wilson, a reservist, got his honorable discharge after he returned home earlier this month and he?s not afraid to talk on the record.
?Iraq is a classic FUBAR,? he says. ?The country is out of control and we can?t stop it. Anybody who tries to sell a good news story about the war is blowing it out his ass. We don?t win and eventually we will leave the country in a worse shape than it was when we invaded.?
CHB Investigates. . .
Pentagon propaganda program orders soldiers to promote Iraq war while home on leave
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Dec 29, 2005, 05:44
Good soldiers follow orders and hundreds of American military men and women returned to the United States on holiday leave this month with orders to sell the Iraq war to a skeptical public.
The program, coordinated through a Pentagon operation dubbed ?Operation Homefront,? ordered military personnel to give interviews to their hometown newspapers, television stations and other media outlets and praise the American war effort in Iraq.
Initial reports back to the Pentagon deem the operation a success with dozens of front page stories in daily and weekly newspapers around the country along with upbeat reports on local television stations.
?We've learned as a military how to do this better,? Captain David Diaz, a military reservist, told his hometown paper, The Roanoke (VA) Times. ?My worry is that we have the right military strategy and political strategies now but the patience of the American public is wearing thin.?
When pressed by the paper on whether or not his commanding officers told him to talk to the press, Diaz admitted he was ?encouraged? to do so. So reporter Duncan Adams asked:
?Did Diaz return to the U.S. on emergency leave with an agenda -- to offer a positive spin that could help counter growing concerns among Americans about the U.S. exit strategy? How do we know that's not his strategy, especially after he discloses that superior officers encouraged him to talk about his experiences in Iraq??
Replied Diaz:
?You don't. I can tell you that the direction we've gotten from on high is that there is a concern about public opinion out there and they want to set the record straight.?
Diaz, an intelligence officer, knows how to avoid a direct answer. Other military personnel, however, tell Capitol Hill Blue privately that the pressure to ?sell the war? back home is enormous.
?I?ve been promised an early release if I do a good job promoting the war,? says one reservist who asked not to be identified.
In interviews with a number of reservists home for the holidays, a pattern emerges on the Pentagon?s propaganda effort. Soldiers are encouraged to contact their local news media outlets to offer interviews about the war. A detailed set of talking points encourages them to:
--Admit initial doubts about the war but claim conversion to a belief in the American mission;
--Praise military leadership in Iraq and throw in a few words of support for the Bush administration;
--Claim the mission to turn security of the country over to the Iraqis is working;
--Reiterate that America must not abandon its mission and must stay until the ?job is finished.?
--Talk about how ?things are better? now in Iraq.
?My worry is that we have the right military strategy and political strategies now but the patience of the American public is wearing thin,? Diaz told The Roanoke Times.
?It?s way better now (in Iraq). People are friendlier. They seem more relaxed, and they say, ?Thank you, mister,?? Sgt. Christopher Desierto told his hometown paper, The Maui News.
But soldiers who are home and don?t have to return to Iraq tell a different story.
?I've just been focused on trying to get the rest of these guys home,? says Sgt. Major Floyd Dubose of Jackson, MS, who returned home after 11 months in Iraq with the Mississippi Army National Guard's 155th Combat Brigade.
And the Army is cracking down on soldiers who go on the record opposing the war.
Specialist Leonard Clark, a National Guardsman, was demoted to private and fined $1,640 for posting anti-war statements on an Internet blog. Clark wrote entries describing the company's commander as a "glory seeker" and the battalion sergeant major an "inhuman monster". His last entry before the blog was shut down told how his fellow soldiers were becoming increasingly opposed to the US operation in Iraq.
?The message is clear,? says one reservist who is home for the holidays but has to return and asked not to be identified. ?If you want to get out of this man?s Army with an honorable (discharge) and full benefits you better not tell the truth about what is happening in-country.?
But Sgt. Johnathan Wilson, a reservist, got his honorable discharge after he returned home earlier this month and he?s not afraid to talk on the record.
?Iraq is a classic FUBAR,? he says. ?The country is out of control and we can?t stop it. Anybody who tries to sell a good news story about the war is blowing it out his ass. We don?t win and eventually we will leave the country in a worse shape than it was when we invaded.?
Billions in 9/11 loans went to businesses not hurt by attacks
From Capitol Hill Blue
FUBAR
Billions in 9/11 loans went to businesses not hurt by attacks
By LARRY MARGASAK
Dec 29, 2005, 04:45
Most companies interviewed about the government-backed Sept. 11 loans they received have told investigators they weren't hurt by the suicide attacks and didn't know they were getting terrorism assistance, an internal government investigation found.
The Small Business Administration's inspector general also reported Wednesday that lenders who doled out billions of dollars in such loans failed -- 85 percent of the time -- to document that recipients were actually hurt by the terrorism attacks and therefore eligible for the federal aid.
The IG, the agency's internal watchdog, concluded only nine loan recipients in the 59 cases sampled appeared to be qualified for the special disaster loans. The report said SBA officials told lenders they would not be questioned on how they gave out money.
"We believe these communications were intended to, and did, send a message to lenders that the agency would not question lender eligibility determinations," the inspector general reported.
The investigative report substantiates key findings of an Associated Press story in September that found similar problems with the SBA's Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief (STAR) program.
The AP found that terrorism recovery loans went to businesses including a South Dakota radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique, and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops in various locations.
Meanwhile, small businesses near Ground Zero in New York couldn't get the assistance they desperately sought.
SBA Administrator Hector Barreto put the best face on the findings, saying the audit did not find that loan recipients were unqualified for the program, although he did note that lender documentation could have been better.
His statement, however, was contradicted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees the Small Business Administration.
"These initial findings are troubling and the committee ... will continue with its own investigation of the STAR program to get at the truth and inform Congress for the future," she said.
Snowe, who heads the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, said if abuses are discovered, "many questions must be answered by the parties involved, beginning with: How and why was this allowed to happen?"
The IG's report found:
* Only 2 of 42 borrowers interviewed were aware they had obtained a STAR loan.
* In cases where eligibility could not be established, 25 of 34 borrowers interviewed said they were not adversely affected by the terrorist attacks.
* Thirty-six of 42 borrowers questioned said they were not asked, or could not recall if they were asked, about the impact of the attacks on their businesses.
The report said IG investigators were told by lenders that their participation originally was low because of unclear requirements.
SBA officials then embarked on a vigorous marketing campaign, and lenders interpreted their remarks to mean "that every small business could claim it was somehow impacted by the attacks, and therefore, eligible to receive a STAR loan," the report said.
FUBAR
Billions in 9/11 loans went to businesses not hurt by attacks
By LARRY MARGASAK
Dec 29, 2005, 04:45
Most companies interviewed about the government-backed Sept. 11 loans they received have told investigators they weren't hurt by the suicide attacks and didn't know they were getting terrorism assistance, an internal government investigation found.
The Small Business Administration's inspector general also reported Wednesday that lenders who doled out billions of dollars in such loans failed -- 85 percent of the time -- to document that recipients were actually hurt by the terrorism attacks and therefore eligible for the federal aid.
The IG, the agency's internal watchdog, concluded only nine loan recipients in the 59 cases sampled appeared to be qualified for the special disaster loans. The report said SBA officials told lenders they would not be questioned on how they gave out money.
"We believe these communications were intended to, and did, send a message to lenders that the agency would not question lender eligibility determinations," the inspector general reported.
The investigative report substantiates key findings of an Associated Press story in September that found similar problems with the SBA's Supplementary Terrorist Activity Relief (STAR) program.
The AP found that terrorism recovery loans went to businesses including a South Dakota radio station, a Virgin Islands perfume shop, a Utah dog boutique, and more than 100 Dunkin' Donuts and Subway sandwich shops in various locations.
Meanwhile, small businesses near Ground Zero in New York couldn't get the assistance they desperately sought.
SBA Administrator Hector Barreto put the best face on the findings, saying the audit did not find that loan recipients were unqualified for the program, although he did note that lender documentation could have been better.
His statement, however, was contradicted by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, chairwoman of the Senate committee that oversees the Small Business Administration.
"These initial findings are troubling and the committee ... will continue with its own investigation of the STAR program to get at the truth and inform Congress for the future," she said.
Snowe, who heads the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, said if abuses are discovered, "many questions must be answered by the parties involved, beginning with: How and why was this allowed to happen?"
The IG's report found:
* Only 2 of 42 borrowers interviewed were aware they had obtained a STAR loan.
* In cases where eligibility could not be established, 25 of 34 borrowers interviewed said they were not adversely affected by the terrorist attacks.
* Thirty-six of 42 borrowers questioned said they were not asked, or could not recall if they were asked, about the impact of the attacks on their businesses.
The report said IG investigators were told by lenders that their participation originally was low because of unclear requirements.
SBA officials then embarked on a vigorous marketing campaign, and lenders interpreted their remarks to mean "that every small business could claim it was somehow impacted by the attacks, and therefore, eligible to receive a STAR loan," the report said.
The Bigger Cover-up--The Mounting Powers of Secrecy
Editorial - NY Times
The Mounting Powers of Secrecy
* Printer-Friendly
Published: December 29, 2005
The open government law that guaranteed greater freedom of information to the public will soon be 40 years old and desperately in need of legislative overhaul, thanks to the Bush administration. The White House's sweeping enlargement of agency powers has already nearly doubled the rate of newly classified documents to 15 million a year. At the same time, the administration has choked back the annual volume of documents declassified for public access, from 200 million in 1998 to 44 million lately.
At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's "presumption of disclosure" when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy.
Innocuous White House press pool reports are now subject to classification, while historians complain of yearlong delays before academic requests are even acknowledged, never mind fulfilled. Environmentalists can't see routine dam and river drainage maps in the name of homeland security. Attempts by firearm agents to keep data on illegal gun traffic from those filing public lawsuits have now been ruled improper twice by the courts.
A turnaround is urgently needed, including penalties for delays, which now can run into years, and an independent watchdog working for the public. Bipartisan interest in reform is stirring, and in an attempt to head off Congressional involvement, President Bush recently ordered better information access at federal agencies. But his order's details are pro forma public relations, at best, and no match for legislation proposed by Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and Senators John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. They would push the disclosure pendulum back toward center and put muscle back in the law for the public.
The Mounting Powers of Secrecy
* Printer-Friendly
Published: December 29, 2005
The open government law that guaranteed greater freedom of information to the public will soon be 40 years old and desperately in need of legislative overhaul, thanks to the Bush administration. The White House's sweeping enlargement of agency powers has already nearly doubled the rate of newly classified documents to 15 million a year. At the same time, the administration has choked back the annual volume of documents declassified for public access, from 200 million in 1998 to 44 million lately.
At the heart of this thickening veil are direct presidential orders and former Attorney General John Ashcroft's blanket assurance of legal defense to any agency erring on the side of secrecy in sealing off documents. This reversed the Clinton administration's "presumption of disclosure" when it came to public requests. The 9/11 commission has already pointed out that this general retreat from the intent of the law hardly discourages terrorists; in fact, it was the government's internal failure to share information that contributed to that tragedy.
Innocuous White House press pool reports are now subject to classification, while historians complain of yearlong delays before academic requests are even acknowledged, never mind fulfilled. Environmentalists can't see routine dam and river drainage maps in the name of homeland security. Attempts by firearm agents to keep data on illegal gun traffic from those filing public lawsuits have now been ruled improper twice by the courts.
A turnaround is urgently needed, including penalties for delays, which now can run into years, and an independent watchdog working for the public. Bipartisan interest in reform is stirring, and in an attempt to head off Congressional involvement, President Bush recently ordered better information access at federal agencies. But his order's details are pro forma public relations, at best, and no match for legislation proposed by Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, and Senators John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, and Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. They would push the disclosure pendulum back toward center and put muscle back in the law for the public.
Pentagon Shakes Up Emergency Hierarchy
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-defense-doomsday-succession,1,5936454.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true
Pentagon Shakes Up Emergency Hierarchy
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
8:01 AM PST, December 29, 2005
WASHINGTON ? Heading a military service isn't quite the position of power it used to be. In a Bush administration revision of plans for Pentagon succession in a doomsday scenario, three of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's most loyal advisers moved ahead of the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position currently is vacant. The Army secretary, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.
The changes, announced last week, are the second in six months and reflect the administration's new emphasis on intelligence gathering versus combat in 21st century war fighting.
Technically, the line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the current individuals holding those jobs.
But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.
The changes were recommended, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, because the three undersecretaries have "a broad knowledge and perspective of overall Defense Department operations." The service leaders are more focused on training, equipping and leading a particular military service, said Whitman.
Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions.
"It continues to devalue the services as institutions," said Donnelly, saying it will centralize power and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise.
Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot. Former Ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary, and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions.
The first to succeed Rumsfeld remains the deputy secretary, a position currently vacant because the Senate has not confirmed Bush's nominee -- current Navy Secretary Gordon England.
Senators have already approved Donald Winter to be England's replacement as Navy chief, and it is expected that Bush will eventually move England into the No. 2 Pentagon job without congressional approval through a recess appointment.
The new succession order bumps the Navy secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession -- eighth behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the Army and Air Force secretaries.
The Army secretary historically has been third in line, right behind the deputy secretary.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, intelligence gathering has taken center stage. Earlier this year, Bush named former ambassador John Negroponte as the country's first director of national intelligence, charged with overseeing the government's 15 highly competitive spy agencies.
In spring 2003, Rumsfeld installed Cambone -- one of his closest aides -- in the new job of intelligence undersecretary.
Pentagon Shakes Up Emergency Hierarchy
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer
8:01 AM PST, December 29, 2005
WASHINGTON ? Heading a military service isn't quite the position of power it used to be. In a Bush administration revision of plans for Pentagon succession in a doomsday scenario, three of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's most loyal advisers moved ahead of the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
A little-noticed holiday week executive order from President Bush moved the Pentagon's intelligence chief to the No. 3 spot in the succession hierarchy behind Rumsfeld. The second spot would be the deputy secretary of defense, but that position currently is vacant. The Army secretary, which long held the No. 3 spot, was dropped to sixth.
The changes, announced last week, are the second in six months and reflect the administration's new emphasis on intelligence gathering versus combat in 21st century war fighting.
Technically, the line of succession is assigned to specific positions, rather than the current individuals holding those jobs.
But in its current incarnation, the doomsday plan moves to near the top three undersecretaries who are Rumsfeld loyalists and who previously worked for Vice President Dick Cheney when he was defense secretary.
The changes were recommended, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, because the three undersecretaries have "a broad knowledge and perspective of overall Defense Department operations." The service leaders are more focused on training, equipping and leading a particular military service, said Whitman.
Thomas Donnelly, a defense expert with the American Enterprise Institute, said the changes make it easier for the administration to assert political control and could lead to more narrow-minded decisions.
"It continues to devalue the services as institutions," said Donnelly, saying it will centralize power and shift it away from the services, where there is generally more military expertise.
Under the new plan, Rumsfeld ally Stephen Cambone, the undersecretary for intelligence, moved up to the third spot. Former Ambassador Eric Edelman, the policy undersecretary, and Kenneth Krieg, the undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, hold the fourth and fifth positions.
The first to succeed Rumsfeld remains the deputy secretary, a position currently vacant because the Senate has not confirmed Bush's nominee -- current Navy Secretary Gordon England.
Senators have already approved Donald Winter to be England's replacement as Navy chief, and it is expected that Bush will eventually move England into the No. 2 Pentagon job without congressional approval through a recess appointment.
The new succession order bumps the Navy secretary to near the bottom of the line of succession -- eighth behind the deputy, the three Pentagon undersecretaries and the Army and Air Force secretaries.
The Army secretary historically has been third in line, right behind the deputy secretary.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, intelligence gathering has taken center stage. Earlier this year, Bush named former ambassador John Negroponte as the country's first director of national intelligence, charged with overseeing the government's 15 highly competitive spy agencies.
In spring 2003, Rumsfeld installed Cambone -- one of his closest aides -- in the new job of intelligence undersecretary.
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Pentagon rolls out stealth PR
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-12-14-pentagon-pr_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
Pentagon rolls out stealth PR
By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? A $300 million Pentagon psychological warfare operation includes plans for placing pro-American messages in foreign media outlets without disclosing the U.S. government as the source, one of the military officials in charge of the program says.
Run by psychological warfare experts at the U.S. Special Operations Command, the media campaign is being designed to counter terrorist ideology and sway foreign audiences to support American policies. The military wants to fight the information war against al-Qaeda through newspapers, websites, radio, television and "novelty items" such as T-shirts and bumper stickers.
The program will operate throughout the world, including in allied nations and in countries where the United States is not involved in armed conflict.
The description of the program by Mike Furlong, deputy director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, provides the most detailed look to date at the Pentagon's global campaign.
The three companies handling the campaign include the Lincoln Group, the company being investigated by the Pentagon for paying Iraqi newspapers to run pro-U.S. stories. (Related story: Contracts for pro-U.S. propaganda)
Military officials involved with the campaign say they're not planning to place false stories in foreign news outlets clandestinely. But the military won't always reveal its role in distributing pro-American messages, Furlong says.
"While the product may not carry the label, 'Made in the USA,' we will respond truthfully if asked" by journalists, Furlong told USA TODAY in a videoconference interview.
He declined to give examples of specific "products," which he said would include articles, advertisements and public-service announcements.
The military's communications work in Iraq has recently drawn controversy with disclosures that Lincoln Group and the U.S. military secretly paid journalists and news outlets to run pro-American stories.
White House officials have expressed concern about the practice, even when the stories are true.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley said President Bush was "very troubled" by activities in Iraq and would stop them if they hurt efforts to build independent news media in Iraq. The military started its own probe.
It's legal for the government to plant propaganda in other countries but not in the USA. The White House referred requests for comment about the contracts to the Pentagon, where officials did not respond.
Special Operations Command awarded three contracts worth up to $100 million each for the media campaign in June. Besides the Lincoln Group, the contractors are Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) of San Diego and SYColeman of Washington.
SAIC and Lincoln Group spokesmen declined to comment on the contract. Rick Kiernan, a spokesman for SYColeman, says its work for Special Operations Command is "more in the world of advertising."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has emphasized that Washington must promote its message better. "The worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world," he said last week.
The Iraq example may cause Arabs to doubt any pro-American messages, says Jumana al-Tamimi, an editor for the Gulf News, an English-language newspaper published in the United Arab Emirates.
Placing pro-U.S. content in foreign media "makes people suspicious of the open press," says Ken Bacon, a Clinton administration Pentagon spokesman who heads the non-profit group Refugees International.
No contractor for the global program has made a final product, Furlong says. Approval will come from Rumsfeld's office and regional commanders. Some of the development work is classified.
"Sometimes it's not good to signal ... what your plans are," he says.
Pentagon rolls out stealth PR
By Matt Kelley, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON ? A $300 million Pentagon psychological warfare operation includes plans for placing pro-American messages in foreign media outlets without disclosing the U.S. government as the source, one of the military officials in charge of the program says.
Run by psychological warfare experts at the U.S. Special Operations Command, the media campaign is being designed to counter terrorist ideology and sway foreign audiences to support American policies. The military wants to fight the information war against al-Qaeda through newspapers, websites, radio, television and "novelty items" such as T-shirts and bumper stickers.
The program will operate throughout the world, including in allied nations and in countries where the United States is not involved in armed conflict.
The description of the program by Mike Furlong, deputy director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, provides the most detailed look to date at the Pentagon's global campaign.
The three companies handling the campaign include the Lincoln Group, the company being investigated by the Pentagon for paying Iraqi newspapers to run pro-U.S. stories. (Related story: Contracts for pro-U.S. propaganda)
Military officials involved with the campaign say they're not planning to place false stories in foreign news outlets clandestinely. But the military won't always reveal its role in distributing pro-American messages, Furlong says.
"While the product may not carry the label, 'Made in the USA,' we will respond truthfully if asked" by journalists, Furlong told USA TODAY in a videoconference interview.
He declined to give examples of specific "products," which he said would include articles, advertisements and public-service announcements.
The military's communications work in Iraq has recently drawn controversy with disclosures that Lincoln Group and the U.S. military secretly paid journalists and news outlets to run pro-American stories.
White House officials have expressed concern about the practice, even when the stories are true.
National security adviser Stephen Hadley said President Bush was "very troubled" by activities in Iraq and would stop them if they hurt efforts to build independent news media in Iraq. The military started its own probe.
It's legal for the government to plant propaganda in other countries but not in the USA. The White House referred requests for comment about the contracts to the Pentagon, where officials did not respond.
Special Operations Command awarded three contracts worth up to $100 million each for the media campaign in June. Besides the Lincoln Group, the contractors are Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) of San Diego and SYColeman of Washington.
SAIC and Lincoln Group spokesmen declined to comment on the contract. Rick Kiernan, a spokesman for SYColeman, says its work for Special Operations Command is "more in the world of advertising."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has emphasized that Washington must promote its message better. "The worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world," he said last week.
The Iraq example may cause Arabs to doubt any pro-American messages, says Jumana al-Tamimi, an editor for the Gulf News, an English-language newspaper published in the United Arab Emirates.
Placing pro-U.S. content in foreign media "makes people suspicious of the open press," says Ken Bacon, a Clinton administration Pentagon spokesman who heads the non-profit group Refugees International.
No contractor for the global program has made a final product, Furlong says. Approval will come from Rumsfeld's office and regional commanders. Some of the development work is classified.
"Sometimes it's not good to signal ... what your plans are," he says.
Padilla's Lawyers Ask for Review of Powers
Padilla's Lawyers Ask for Review of Powers
By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer
Lawyers for Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held as an
"enemy combatant" for nearly four years, want the
Supreme Court to resolve how much power a president
has while the nation is at war.
Lawyers Donna Newman and Andrew Patel told the high
court in papers filed Tuesday that the justices must
step in "to preserve the vital checks and balances" on
the president.
They cited the Bush administration's interpretation of
the president's war powers to justify its decision to
hold Padilla ? until recently ? without charges in a
military brig in South Carolina.
Padilla's lawyers also said President Bush abused his
war powers authority by approving warrantless
surveillance of conversations between people in the
United States and abroad who had suspected terrorist
ties.
Such developments "underscore the need for this court
to address the fundamental constitutional questions
presented by this case," the lawyers wrote.
"The government continues to defend this sweeping view
of the president's power to substitute military law
for the rule of law and seeks to expand it further,
arguing that the very authorities that it says justify
the indefinite detention without charge of citizens
also justify widespread spying on citizens without
judicial warrant or Congressional notification,"
Padilla's lawyers said.
Padilla's appeal deals not only with the broad
questions of presidential power, but also seeks to
resolve whether Padilla should remain in military or
civilian custody.
Last week, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Court of
Appeals urged the Supreme Court to take the case after
chastising the administration for shifting its tactics
in the Padilla case and warning the government that it
was risking its credibility with the courts.
A three-judge appellate panel refused the
administration's request to vacate a September ruling
that gave Bush wide authority to detain "enemy
combatants" indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil.
The decision, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig,
questioned why the administration used one set of
facts before the court for 3 1/2 years to justify
holding Padilla without charges but used another set
to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last
month.
Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was arrested in
2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport as he returned to the
United States from Afghanistan. Initially,
then-Attorney General John Ashcroft alleged Padilla
planned to set off a radiological device known as a
"dirty bomb."
The administration then argued before federal courts
in New York and Virginia that Padilla should be held
without charges because he had come home to carry out
an al-Qaida backed plot to blow up apartment buildings
in New York, Washington or Florida.
Last month, a grand jury in Miami charged Padilla with
being part of a North American terror support cell
that allegedly raised funds and recruited fighters to
wage violent jihad outside the United States.
By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer
Lawyers for Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen held as an
"enemy combatant" for nearly four years, want the
Supreme Court to resolve how much power a president
has while the nation is at war.
Lawyers Donna Newman and Andrew Patel told the high
court in papers filed Tuesday that the justices must
step in "to preserve the vital checks and balances" on
the president.
They cited the Bush administration's interpretation of
the president's war powers to justify its decision to
hold Padilla ? until recently ? without charges in a
military brig in South Carolina.
Padilla's lawyers also said President Bush abused his
war powers authority by approving warrantless
surveillance of conversations between people in the
United States and abroad who had suspected terrorist
ties.
Such developments "underscore the need for this court
to address the fundamental constitutional questions
presented by this case," the lawyers wrote.
"The government continues to defend this sweeping view
of the president's power to substitute military law
for the rule of law and seeks to expand it further,
arguing that the very authorities that it says justify
the indefinite detention without charge of citizens
also justify widespread spying on citizens without
judicial warrant or Congressional notification,"
Padilla's lawyers said.
Padilla's appeal deals not only with the broad
questions of presidential power, but also seeks to
resolve whether Padilla should remain in military or
civilian custody.
Last week, the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Court of
Appeals urged the Supreme Court to take the case after
chastising the administration for shifting its tactics
in the Padilla case and warning the government that it
was risking its credibility with the courts.
A three-judge appellate panel refused the
administration's request to vacate a September ruling
that gave Bush wide authority to detain "enemy
combatants" indefinitely without charges on U.S. soil.
The decision, written by Judge J. Michael Luttig,
questioned why the administration used one set of
facts before the court for 3 1/2 years to justify
holding Padilla without charges but used another set
to convince a grand jury in Florida to indict him last
month.
Padilla, a former Chicago gang member, was arrested in
2002 at Chicago's O'Hare Airport as he returned to the
United States from Afghanistan. Initially,
then-Attorney General John Ashcroft alleged Padilla
planned to set off a radiological device known as a
"dirty bomb."
The administration then argued before federal courts
in New York and Virginia that Padilla should be held
without charges because he had come home to carry out
an al-Qaida backed plot to blow up apartment buildings
in New York, Washington or Florida.
Last month, a grand jury in Miami charged Padilla with
being part of a North American terror support cell
that allegedly raised funds and recruited fighters to
wage violent jihad outside the United States.
Looking for votes in all the wrong places....
California Demands Repairs to Software for Voting Machines
The Associated Press
Sunday 25 December 2005
Sacramento - California election officials have told one of the country's largest makers of voting machines to repair its software after problems with vote counts and verification surfaced in the state's special election in November.
In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, Bradley J. Clark, the assistant secretary of state for elections, threatened to start the process of decertifying machines made by the maker, Election Systems and Software, if senior officials did not address the concerns immediately.
"The California secretary of state is deeply concerned about problems experienced by counties utilizing ES&S voting equipment and software," Mr. Clark wrote in a letter addressed to the company president, Aldo Tesi, nine days after the Nov. 8 election.
Software problems included incorrect counting of turnout figures, a malfunction that prevented voters from verifying that their choices were registered accurately and one machine recording the wrong vote in a test, according to the letter.
Eleven California counties used the company's voting machines in the special election. Election Systems and Software equipment also is used in 45 other states.
The problems in California are similar to ones the company has experienced elsewhere. In a 2004 primary election in Hawaii, glitches with the company's optical scanners led to a miscount of about 6,000 votes.
It is the second time this week that questions have arisen about electronic voting systems in California. The secretary of state's office also warned 17 counties that machines made by Diebold Election Systems must pass more rigorous security tests to be available for use in 2006. At issue with those machines is the computer language that secures ballot entries and instructs election officials on how to gain access to and tally the votes.
The state's letter to Election Systems and Software said it was imperative that company representatives "take corrective action as soon as possible."
Ken Fields, a spokesman for the company, which is based in Omaha, said officials had since met with the secretary of state's office.
"We listened carefully to the issues that they raised, and we've been working to address each of the issues," Mr. Fields said.
He said some of the problems outlined in the letter were caused by operator error or misunderstandings about how the software was to be used. None of the problems caused any incorrect votes to be recorded or affected the election results, Mr. Fields said.
A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Bruce McPherson declined to elaborate further on the Election Day mishaps, the problems discussed in the letter or the company's assertion that state officials were pleased with its proposed solutions.
-------
The Associated Press
Sunday 25 December 2005
Sacramento - California election officials have told one of the country's largest makers of voting machines to repair its software after problems with vote counts and verification surfaced in the state's special election in November.
In a letter obtained by The Associated Press, Bradley J. Clark, the assistant secretary of state for elections, threatened to start the process of decertifying machines made by the maker, Election Systems and Software, if senior officials did not address the concerns immediately.
"The California secretary of state is deeply concerned about problems experienced by counties utilizing ES&S voting equipment and software," Mr. Clark wrote in a letter addressed to the company president, Aldo Tesi, nine days after the Nov. 8 election.
Software problems included incorrect counting of turnout figures, a malfunction that prevented voters from verifying that their choices were registered accurately and one machine recording the wrong vote in a test, according to the letter.
Eleven California counties used the company's voting machines in the special election. Election Systems and Software equipment also is used in 45 other states.
The problems in California are similar to ones the company has experienced elsewhere. In a 2004 primary election in Hawaii, glitches with the company's optical scanners led to a miscount of about 6,000 votes.
It is the second time this week that questions have arisen about electronic voting systems in California. The secretary of state's office also warned 17 counties that machines made by Diebold Election Systems must pass more rigorous security tests to be available for use in 2006. At issue with those machines is the computer language that secures ballot entries and instructs election officials on how to gain access to and tally the votes.
The state's letter to Election Systems and Software said it was imperative that company representatives "take corrective action as soon as possible."
Ken Fields, a spokesman for the company, which is based in Omaha, said officials had since met with the secretary of state's office.
"We listened carefully to the issues that they raised, and we've been working to address each of the issues," Mr. Fields said.
He said some of the problems outlined in the letter were caused by operator error or misunderstandings about how the software was to be used. None of the problems caused any incorrect votes to be recorded or affected the election results, Mr. Fields said.
A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Bruce McPherson declined to elaborate further on the Election Day mishaps, the problems discussed in the letter or the company's assertion that state officials were pleased with its proposed solutions.
-------
Pink Floyd Voted World's Greatest Rock Act -
Pink Floyd Voted World's Greatest Rock Act
Ahead of Led Zep and The Stones...
By: Scott Colothan on 12/28/2005
Pink Floyd have Been voted as the world?s greatest rock band.
The band which reformed briefly in the summer for Live 8 beat the likes of Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones to the top spot in the poll conducted by the Planet Rock radio station.
Planet Rock presenter Nicky Horne told reporters: ?They are one of the greatest bands in the history of rock and roll.?
Surprisingly, the musical travesty that is Bon Jovi were voted into ninth place ahead of Jimi Hendrix.
The full top ten is as follows:
1. Pink Floyd
2. Led Zeppelin
3. The Rolling Stones
4. The Who
5. AC/DC
6. U2
7. Guns N Roses
8. Nirvana
9. Bon Jovi
10. Jimi Hendrix"
Ahead of Led Zep and The Stones...
By: Scott Colothan on 12/28/2005
Pink Floyd have Been voted as the world?s greatest rock band.
The band which reformed briefly in the summer for Live 8 beat the likes of Led Zeppelin and The Rolling Stones to the top spot in the poll conducted by the Planet Rock radio station.
Planet Rock presenter Nicky Horne told reporters: ?They are one of the greatest bands in the history of rock and roll.?
Surprisingly, the musical travesty that is Bon Jovi were voted into ninth place ahead of Jimi Hendrix.
The full top ten is as follows:
1. Pink Floyd
2. Led Zeppelin
3. The Rolling Stones
4. The Who
5. AC/DC
6. U2
7. Guns N Roses
8. Nirvana
9. Bon Jovi
10. Jimi Hendrix"
White House Leaked Classified Intelligence to Make its Case for War
White House Leaked Classified Intelligence to Make its
Case for War
by David Swanson
Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 11:17:34 PM PDT
A new report looks into instances in which the Bush
Administration leaked classified information to
support its case that Iraq was a threat to the United
States.
While that case was, of course, ridiculous and the
information falsified, the leaking of it was illegal.
And the leaks appear to have been part of a
coordinated effort. Immediately following important
leaks, top administration officials appeared on talk
shows to discuss information that they could not have
legally discussed had it not appeared in a newspaper
that morning.
David Swanson's diary :: ::
Congressman John Conyers has just released an
extensive report titled "The Constitution in Crisis:
The Downing Street Minutes and Deception,
Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in
the Iraq War." Pages 73 - 81 address the Bush
Administration's claims regarding aluminum tubes
allegedly acquired by Iraq for the purpose of
developing nuclear weapons.
On page 78, the report notes: "Our investigation has
also found that classified intelligence information
supporting the Bush Administration's position
regarding the aluminum tubes was leaked to the press.
For example, on Sunday, September 8, 2002, the lead
story in The New York Times, written by Judith Miller
and Michael R. Gordon, quotes 'anonymous'
Administration officials as stating that 'Iraq has
stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has
embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an
atomic bomb.'"
The headline of that article was "U.S. Says Hussein
Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts."
Conyers' report continues: "The article goes on to
source 'administration officials' for the proposition
that '[i]n the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy
thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which
American officials believe were intended as components
of centrifuges to enrich uranium' and that '[t]he
diameter, thickness and other technical specifications
of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American
intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's
nuclear program.'"
So, someone in the Administration was leaking
classified information. Of course, it was false
information, but that made it all the more damaging.
But who was the leaker(s)?
According to Conyers' report, "Subsequent media
accounts have traced the story, at least in part, to
Paul Wolfowitz:
"'In the summer of 2002, [Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul] Wolfowitz convened a secret meeting [concerning
the tubes] in his office with Francis Brooke, the
I.N.C. adviser, and Khidir Hamza, a former chief of
Saddam's nuclear program, who had defected to America
in 1994 . . . Wolfowitz circulated his conclusions to
his administration allies. A few days later, the story
of the "nuclear" tubes was leaked to The New York
Times, where it landed on the front page.'
"On the CNN Documentary, Dead Wrong, an anonymous
source characterized the dissemination of this biased
and slanted information to Miller and Gordon as
'official leaking': 'I would call it official leaking
because I think these were authorized conversations
between the press and members of the intelligence
community that further misreported the nature of the
intelligence community's disagreement on this issue.'
Of course, a front page story in the New York Times
gets everyone's attention, and - if the lies are
glaring enough - can lead to a reporter resigning in
disgrace. But the Bush Administration has often
promoted stories into the "mainstream" media by first
establishing them in the super-right-wing outlets.
"The Constitution in Crisis" continues: "Our
investigation has also learned that administration
officials appear to have leaked classified information
to the press well before the New York Times article. A
July 29, 2002, article in the Washington Times, titled
'Iraq Seeks Steel for Nukes' reported:
"'Procurement agents from Iraq's covert nuclear-arms
program were detected as they tried to purchase
stainless-steel tubing, uniquely used in gas
centrifuges and a key component in making the material
for nuclear bombs, from an unknown supplier, said
administration officials familiar with intelligence
reports . . . U.S. intelligence agencies believe the
tubing is an essential component of Iraq's plans to
enrich radioactive uranium to the point where it could
be used to fashion a nuclear bomb.'"
With impeccable timing, on the eve of the first
anniversary of the September 11th attacks, top Bush
officials appeared on the Sunday talk shows to discuss
the aluminum tube story that someone among them had
just planted in the New York Times.
Knight Ridder explained how this worked: "[the leaks]
appearance in the nation's most influential paper also
gave Cheney and Rice an opportunity to discuss the
matter the same day on the Sunday television talk
shows. They could discuss the article, but otherwise
they wouldn't have been able to talk about classified
intelligence in public." ("CIA leak illustrates
selective use of intelligence on Iraq [The Aluminum
Tubes]," by Jonathan S. Landay, Knight Ridder
Newspapers.)
And who can forget the horrifying comments that the
Bush Administration made?
Condoleezza Rice: "[Iraq has obtained] high quality
aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear
weapons programs, centrifuge programs" and "We don't
want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
-- CNN Late Edition (CNN television broadcast, Sept.
8, 2002).
Vice President Dick Cheney: "I do know with absolutely
certainty that he is using his procurement system to
acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to
build a nuclear weapon"
-- Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast, Sept. 8,
2002).
Donald Rumsfeld: "Imagine a September 11 with weapons
of mass destruction."
-- Face the Nation (CBS television broadcast, Sept. 8,
2002).
Tags: Iraq, War Lies, Leaks, George W. Bush, John
Conyers, Recommended, Propaganda, treason (all tags)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/11734/628
Case for War
by David Swanson
Tue Dec 27, 2005 at 11:17:34 PM PDT
A new report looks into instances in which the Bush
Administration leaked classified information to
support its case that Iraq was a threat to the United
States.
While that case was, of course, ridiculous and the
information falsified, the leaking of it was illegal.
And the leaks appear to have been part of a
coordinated effort. Immediately following important
leaks, top administration officials appeared on talk
shows to discuss information that they could not have
legally discussed had it not appeared in a newspaper
that morning.
David Swanson's diary :: ::
Congressman John Conyers has just released an
extensive report titled "The Constitution in Crisis:
The Downing Street Minutes and Deception,
Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Cover-ups in
the Iraq War." Pages 73 - 81 address the Bush
Administration's claims regarding aluminum tubes
allegedly acquired by Iraq for the purpose of
developing nuclear weapons.
On page 78, the report notes: "Our investigation has
also found that classified intelligence information
supporting the Bush Administration's position
regarding the aluminum tubes was leaked to the press.
For example, on Sunday, September 8, 2002, the lead
story in The New York Times, written by Judith Miller
and Michael R. Gordon, quotes 'anonymous'
Administration officials as stating that 'Iraq has
stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has
embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an
atomic bomb.'"
The headline of that article was "U.S. Says Hussein
Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts."
Conyers' report continues: "The article goes on to
source 'administration officials' for the proposition
that '[i]n the last 14 months, Iraq has sought to buy
thousands of specially designed aluminum tubes, which
American officials believe were intended as components
of centrifuges to enrich uranium' and that '[t]he
diameter, thickness and other technical specifications
of the aluminum tubes had persuaded American
intelligence experts that they were meant for Iraq's
nuclear program.'"
So, someone in the Administration was leaking
classified information. Of course, it was false
information, but that made it all the more damaging.
But who was the leaker(s)?
According to Conyers' report, "Subsequent media
accounts have traced the story, at least in part, to
Paul Wolfowitz:
"'In the summer of 2002, [Deputy Defense Secretary
Paul] Wolfowitz convened a secret meeting [concerning
the tubes] in his office with Francis Brooke, the
I.N.C. adviser, and Khidir Hamza, a former chief of
Saddam's nuclear program, who had defected to America
in 1994 . . . Wolfowitz circulated his conclusions to
his administration allies. A few days later, the story
of the "nuclear" tubes was leaked to The New York
Times, where it landed on the front page.'
"On the CNN Documentary, Dead Wrong, an anonymous
source characterized the dissemination of this biased
and slanted information to Miller and Gordon as
'official leaking': 'I would call it official leaking
because I think these were authorized conversations
between the press and members of the intelligence
community that further misreported the nature of the
intelligence community's disagreement on this issue.'
Of course, a front page story in the New York Times
gets everyone's attention, and - if the lies are
glaring enough - can lead to a reporter resigning in
disgrace. But the Bush Administration has often
promoted stories into the "mainstream" media by first
establishing them in the super-right-wing outlets.
"The Constitution in Crisis" continues: "Our
investigation has also learned that administration
officials appear to have leaked classified information
to the press well before the New York Times article. A
July 29, 2002, article in the Washington Times, titled
'Iraq Seeks Steel for Nukes' reported:
"'Procurement agents from Iraq's covert nuclear-arms
program were detected as they tried to purchase
stainless-steel tubing, uniquely used in gas
centrifuges and a key component in making the material
for nuclear bombs, from an unknown supplier, said
administration officials familiar with intelligence
reports . . . U.S. intelligence agencies believe the
tubing is an essential component of Iraq's plans to
enrich radioactive uranium to the point where it could
be used to fashion a nuclear bomb.'"
With impeccable timing, on the eve of the first
anniversary of the September 11th attacks, top Bush
officials appeared on the Sunday talk shows to discuss
the aluminum tube story that someone among them had
just planted in the New York Times.
Knight Ridder explained how this worked: "[the leaks]
appearance in the nation's most influential paper also
gave Cheney and Rice an opportunity to discuss the
matter the same day on the Sunday television talk
shows. They could discuss the article, but otherwise
they wouldn't have been able to talk about classified
intelligence in public." ("CIA leak illustrates
selective use of intelligence on Iraq [The Aluminum
Tubes]," by Jonathan S. Landay, Knight Ridder
Newspapers.)
And who can forget the horrifying comments that the
Bush Administration made?
Condoleezza Rice: "[Iraq has obtained] high quality
aluminum tubes that are only really suited for nuclear
weapons programs, centrifuge programs" and "We don't
want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
-- CNN Late Edition (CNN television broadcast, Sept.
8, 2002).
Vice President Dick Cheney: "I do know with absolutely
certainty that he is using his procurement system to
acquire the equipment he needs to enrich uranium to
build a nuclear weapon"
-- Meet the Press (NBC television broadcast, Sept. 8,
2002).
Donald Rumsfeld: "Imagine a September 11 with weapons
of mass destruction."
-- Face the Nation (CBS television broadcast, Sept. 8,
2002).
Tags: Iraq, War Lies, Leaks, George W. Bush, John
Conyers, Recommended, Propaganda, treason (all tags)
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/12/28/11734/628
Rant: GOP disillusionment with Bush grows
The Rant
GOP disillusionment with Bush grows
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 28, 2005, 05:07
While die-hard Republicans try to present a unified front in support of President George W. Bush?s evasion of the law and Constitution in ordering nonstop spying on Americans, splits are showing in the GOP ranks.
?What's wrong with it is several-fold,? former GOP Congressman Bob Barr says of the domestic spying. ?One, it is bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without a court order.?
Barr, one of the most conservative members of Congress when he served in the House, leads an increasing group of disenchanted Republicans who have had enough of Bush?s misuse of the law and encroachment of civil liberties that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. He has joined with fellow conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly and the ultra-liberal American Civil Liberties Union to fight renewal of many of the rights-robbing provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
And he?s not alone. Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho and Olympia Snowe of Maine question Bush?s actions along with Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
?I have grave doubts as to its applicability,? says Specter. ?The President?s actions raise very fundamental questions about privacy and the Bill of Rights.?
Republican strategists tell me House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are fighting to hold GOP dissension over the President?s policies in check but they may not be able to keep the anger from spilling over into public view.
Frist, hampered by questions over his insider stock sale of Hospital Corporation of America holdings, couldn?t keep GOP anger from helping derail Bush?s push to make the USA Patriot Act a permanent law of the land.
?The White House is particularly pissed at Frist,? says one longtime GOP consultant. ?They want him out as majority leader and a more hardball leader in the style of Tom DeLay in his place.?
Bush is also angry with Craig, a conservative who joined with Democrats in a filibuster to defeat permanent renewal of the Patriot Act. As a meeting recently, Bush referred to Craig as ?a goddamned traitor? and told the National Republican Senatorial Committee to start recruiting someone to run against the Idaho Senator in 2008.
Such anger against those who dare oppose him is typical for a President who all too often launches into obscene tirades when his policies are questioned. Bush, on many occasions, has called political opponents ?traitors? and, in private, refers to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter as a ?lily-livered bastard.?
Craig, however, is unfazed by all this and says the Patriot Act ?doesn't do enough to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans.?
And while Criag, Hagel, Snowe and Specter are willing to speak out publicly about the illegal actions of a President who is a member of their own party, other Republicans stick to grumbling in private ? not surprising given the President?s reputation to waging wars on revenge against those who oppose him.
?Bush may be under siege but he is still the President,? says political scientist George Harleigh, who served in the Nixon Administration. ?He still has the power to reward those who back his policies and punish those who do not.?
Another political scientist, the University of Virginia?s Larry Sabato, says Bush has problems and knows it.
?Things are bad,? Sabato says of Bush?s situation. ?Really bad.? Sabato says you can tell that Bush knows this because it is ?written all over? Bush?s face when he appears in public.
So he has a message for the President.
?The lesson is obvious, Mr. President: You're a lot closer to Nixon than you are to Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. And that's not where you want to be. Nixon's second term ended rather badly, as you will recall.?
GOP disillusionment with Bush grows
By DOUG THOMPSON
Dec 28, 2005, 05:07
While die-hard Republicans try to present a unified front in support of President George W. Bush?s evasion of the law and Constitution in ordering nonstop spying on Americans, splits are showing in the GOP ranks.
?What's wrong with it is several-fold,? former GOP Congressman Bob Barr says of the domestic spying. ?One, it is bad policy for our government to be spying on American citizens through the National Security Agency. Secondly, it's bad to be spying on Americans without court oversight. And thirdly, it's bad to be spying on Americans apparently in violation of federal laws against doing it without a court order.?
Barr, one of the most conservative members of Congress when he served in the House, leads an increasing group of disenchanted Republicans who have had enough of Bush?s misuse of the law and encroachment of civil liberties that are supposed to be protected by the Constitution. He has joined with fellow conservative firebrand Phyllis Schlafly and the ultra-liberal American Civil Liberties Union to fight renewal of many of the rights-robbing provisions of the USA Patriot Act.
And he?s not alone. Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Larry Craig of Idaho and Olympia Snowe of Maine question Bush?s actions along with Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter, chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee.
?I have grave doubts as to its applicability,? says Specter. ?The President?s actions raise very fundamental questions about privacy and the Bill of Rights.?
Republican strategists tell me House Speaker Dennis J. Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist are fighting to hold GOP dissension over the President?s policies in check but they may not be able to keep the anger from spilling over into public view.
Frist, hampered by questions over his insider stock sale of Hospital Corporation of America holdings, couldn?t keep GOP anger from helping derail Bush?s push to make the USA Patriot Act a permanent law of the land.
?The White House is particularly pissed at Frist,? says one longtime GOP consultant. ?They want him out as majority leader and a more hardball leader in the style of Tom DeLay in his place.?
Bush is also angry with Craig, a conservative who joined with Democrats in a filibuster to defeat permanent renewal of the Patriot Act. As a meeting recently, Bush referred to Craig as ?a goddamned traitor? and told the National Republican Senatorial Committee to start recruiting someone to run against the Idaho Senator in 2008.
Such anger against those who dare oppose him is typical for a President who all too often launches into obscene tirades when his policies are questioned. Bush, on many occasions, has called political opponents ?traitors? and, in private, refers to Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter as a ?lily-livered bastard.?
Craig, however, is unfazed by all this and says the Patriot Act ?doesn't do enough to protect the civil liberties of innocent Americans.?
And while Criag, Hagel, Snowe and Specter are willing to speak out publicly about the illegal actions of a President who is a member of their own party, other Republicans stick to grumbling in private ? not surprising given the President?s reputation to waging wars on revenge against those who oppose him.
?Bush may be under siege but he is still the President,? says political scientist George Harleigh, who served in the Nixon Administration. ?He still has the power to reward those who back his policies and punish those who do not.?
Another political scientist, the University of Virginia?s Larry Sabato, says Bush has problems and knows it.
?Things are bad,? Sabato says of Bush?s situation. ?Really bad.? Sabato says you can tell that Bush knows this because it is ?written all over? Bush?s face when he appears in public.
So he has a message for the President.
?The lesson is obvious, Mr. President: You're a lot closer to Nixon than you are to Eisenhower, Reagan, and Clinton. And that's not where you want to be. Nixon's second term ended rather badly, as you will recall.?
A Veteran's Iraq Message Upsets Army Recruiters
Published on Tuesday, December 27, 2005 by the New York Times
A Veteran's Iraq Message Upsets Army Recruiters
by Monica Davey
DULUTH, Minnessota - As those thinking of becoming soldiers arrive on the slushy doorstep of the Army recruiting station here, they cannot miss the message posted in bold black letters on the storefront right next door.
"Remember the Fallen Heroes," the sign reads, and then it ticks off numbers - the number of American troops killed in Iraq, the number wounded, the number of days gone by since this war began.
The sign, put up by a former soldier, has stirred intense, though always polite, debate in this city along the edge of Lake Superior in northeastern Minnesota. In a way, many of the nation's vast and complicated arguments about war are playing out on a single block here, around a simple piece of wood.
The seven military recruiters here, six of whom have themselves served in Iraq, want the sign taken away. "It's disheartening," Staff Sgt. Gary J. Capan, the station's commander, said. "Everyone knows that people are dying in Iraq, but to walk past this on the way to work every day is too much."
But Scott Cameron, a local man who was wounded in the Vietnam War, says his sign should remain. Mr. Cameron volunteers for a candidate for governor of Minnesota whose campaign opened a storefront office next door to the recruiting station, and he has permission to post the message he describes as "not antiwar, but pro-veteran."
"We're still taking casualties from Vietnam, years later," Mr. Cameron said recently. "Is the same thing going to happen again?" Despite the location, he insists that his purpose is not to prevent new recruits from signing up for the Army, but to honor those who made sacrifices. Still, Mr. Cameron also says, "Before they join the military, people better know what they're getting into."
Clashes like this are emerging elsewhere, too, even as the Army wrestles with the challenge of recruiting during a war, a struggle that left it 8 percent shy of its goal to bring in 80,000 new active-duty soldiers in the most recent recruiting year.
Some of the conflicts are part of a growing number of planned "counterrecruiting" efforts by antiwar groups, parents and individuals. They have fought to prevent recruiters from getting access to students' contact information from schools or have set up their own booths near recruiters' at job fairs to tell potential recruits why they should not sign up.
At George Mason University in Virginia, an Air Force veteran was arrested this fall while standing near a recruitment table on campus, wearing a sign that said "recruiters lie." At Kent State University in Ohio, a former marine climbed a recruiter's rock-climbing display in October and unfurled a peace banner.
But some of the debates, like the one here, have played out far more quietly, seeming less staged, more ambiguous and more like the natural edges of the country's debate over war seeping out on their own.
Early this month, State Senator Steve Kelley, a candidate for governor of Minnesota from the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (the Democratic party in Minnesota, whose name is a vestige of its liberal heritage), held a grand opening for his new campaign office along Superior Street, a main thoroughfare in downtown Duluth. When Mr. Cameron, a Kelley volunteer, asked whether he could put his sign up in the window of the office, alongside the collage of campaign posters, Mr. Kelley agreed.
Mr. Cameron, who was shot in Vietnam in 1969 and says he has since undergone 46 operations to repair the damage, said he felt compelled to post his message to remind people of the soldiers now lost. Decades ago, he said, he did not speak his mind about Vietnam because he feared he might harm support for the troops. He is not, he said, "going to be silent again."
Although Mr. Cameron, 55, acknowledged that he opposed the war in Iraq, he insisted that his sign was not about that at all. Its intent, he said, is simple and apolitical: to remember the troops, to care for veterans, to recognize what is being lost each day. "This is for the veterans," he said. "And the way I understand it, this is what we're over there fighting for in the first place - for my right to put a sign right there."
A few days after the opening, the office drew a visit from next door. Sergeant Capan, 31, said his recruiters were upset and wanted the sign removed. One woman who had just returned from duty in Iraq, he said, found the sign especially disconcerting and impersonal. "It was upsetting to veterans who don't look at their friends and colleagues killed as numbers on a list," he said.
In truth, neither side agrees on what precisely the sign is saying. Each sees its message through its own prism.
Sergeant Capan said he wondered why, if Mr. Cameron was truly trying to send a "pro-veterans" message, he had not instead posted a sign listing how many soldiers had returned home from Iraq safely and placed it somewhere else - an Interstate highway, say, or the Capitol. And Mr. Cameron said he suspected that Sergeant Capan's true fear was not so much the well-being of his recruiters as how the sign might deter potential recruits.
Sergeant Capan dismissed that notion. "Overall recruiting is going well, and this sign has not detracted," he said, adding, "Everybody who's joining the Army knows that there are deaths at war."
Elsewhere, it is nearly impossible to gauge how more concerted counterrecruiting efforts have affected military recruiting, if at all, said S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.
"There's been a good bit of activity this year," Mr. Smith said of the counterrecruiting efforts. "But in terms of impact, it's very hard to say." In this fiscal year, the Army hopes to recruit more than 105,000 active-duty and reserve soldiers by next fall. As of the end of November, Mr. Smith said, the Army was slightly ahead of its year-to-date goals.
Back in Duluth, Mr. Kelley ultimately decided to leave Mr. Cameron's sign alone, despite the Army's request that it be removed.
Mr. Kelley, who describes the centerpiece of his campaign for governor as education, found himself in the awkward position of being thrust into the debate over war, an issue most candidates for state and local offices rarely have to confront.
"In the past, I have taken positions in support of free speech," he said the other day, explaining his decision to let the sign remain. "And I thought if I'm going to try to be consistent about free speech, how could I tell Scott to take the sign down?"
Since news of the sign was reported in local newspapers, response has been mixed. A woman from Missouri had two pizzas delivered to reward Sergeant Capan's recruiters, while a veteran wrote to say that the sergeant needed "psychological screening" for even suggesting the removal of a disabled veteran's tribute to "his fallen brothers and sisters."
Mr. Cameron, meanwhile, says he has been asked to make copies of his sign (which he had made for $100 at a local sign company) and is thinking of marketing them.
For now, the neighbors on Superior Street have agreed to disagree. An offering of cookies by Mr. Cameron was not accepted, Sergeant Capan said, but Sergeant Capan insisted that relations on the street remained polite nonetheless.
"We're going to move on," he said. "We're soldiers."
A Veteran's Iraq Message Upsets Army Recruiters
by Monica Davey
DULUTH, Minnessota - As those thinking of becoming soldiers arrive on the slushy doorstep of the Army recruiting station here, they cannot miss the message posted in bold black letters on the storefront right next door.
"Remember the Fallen Heroes," the sign reads, and then it ticks off numbers - the number of American troops killed in Iraq, the number wounded, the number of days gone by since this war began.
The sign, put up by a former soldier, has stirred intense, though always polite, debate in this city along the edge of Lake Superior in northeastern Minnesota. In a way, many of the nation's vast and complicated arguments about war are playing out on a single block here, around a simple piece of wood.
The seven military recruiters here, six of whom have themselves served in Iraq, want the sign taken away. "It's disheartening," Staff Sgt. Gary J. Capan, the station's commander, said. "Everyone knows that people are dying in Iraq, but to walk past this on the way to work every day is too much."
But Scott Cameron, a local man who was wounded in the Vietnam War, says his sign should remain. Mr. Cameron volunteers for a candidate for governor of Minnesota whose campaign opened a storefront office next door to the recruiting station, and he has permission to post the message he describes as "not antiwar, but pro-veteran."
"We're still taking casualties from Vietnam, years later," Mr. Cameron said recently. "Is the same thing going to happen again?" Despite the location, he insists that his purpose is not to prevent new recruits from signing up for the Army, but to honor those who made sacrifices. Still, Mr. Cameron also says, "Before they join the military, people better know what they're getting into."
Clashes like this are emerging elsewhere, too, even as the Army wrestles with the challenge of recruiting during a war, a struggle that left it 8 percent shy of its goal to bring in 80,000 new active-duty soldiers in the most recent recruiting year.
Some of the conflicts are part of a growing number of planned "counterrecruiting" efforts by antiwar groups, parents and individuals. They have fought to prevent recruiters from getting access to students' contact information from schools or have set up their own booths near recruiters' at job fairs to tell potential recruits why they should not sign up.
At George Mason University in Virginia, an Air Force veteran was arrested this fall while standing near a recruitment table on campus, wearing a sign that said "recruiters lie." At Kent State University in Ohio, a former marine climbed a recruiter's rock-climbing display in October and unfurled a peace banner.
But some of the debates, like the one here, have played out far more quietly, seeming less staged, more ambiguous and more like the natural edges of the country's debate over war seeping out on their own.
Early this month, State Senator Steve Kelley, a candidate for governor of Minnesota from the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (the Democratic party in Minnesota, whose name is a vestige of its liberal heritage), held a grand opening for his new campaign office along Superior Street, a main thoroughfare in downtown Duluth. When Mr. Cameron, a Kelley volunteer, asked whether he could put his sign up in the window of the office, alongside the collage of campaign posters, Mr. Kelley agreed.
Mr. Cameron, who was shot in Vietnam in 1969 and says he has since undergone 46 operations to repair the damage, said he felt compelled to post his message to remind people of the soldiers now lost. Decades ago, he said, he did not speak his mind about Vietnam because he feared he might harm support for the troops. He is not, he said, "going to be silent again."
Although Mr. Cameron, 55, acknowledged that he opposed the war in Iraq, he insisted that his sign was not about that at all. Its intent, he said, is simple and apolitical: to remember the troops, to care for veterans, to recognize what is being lost each day. "This is for the veterans," he said. "And the way I understand it, this is what we're over there fighting for in the first place - for my right to put a sign right there."
A few days after the opening, the office drew a visit from next door. Sergeant Capan, 31, said his recruiters were upset and wanted the sign removed. One woman who had just returned from duty in Iraq, he said, found the sign especially disconcerting and impersonal. "It was upsetting to veterans who don't look at their friends and colleagues killed as numbers on a list," he said.
In truth, neither side agrees on what precisely the sign is saying. Each sees its message through its own prism.
Sergeant Capan said he wondered why, if Mr. Cameron was truly trying to send a "pro-veterans" message, he had not instead posted a sign listing how many soldiers had returned home from Iraq safely and placed it somewhere else - an Interstate highway, say, or the Capitol. And Mr. Cameron said he suspected that Sergeant Capan's true fear was not so much the well-being of his recruiters as how the sign might deter potential recruits.
Sergeant Capan dismissed that notion. "Overall recruiting is going well, and this sign has not detracted," he said, adding, "Everybody who's joining the Army knows that there are deaths at war."
Elsewhere, it is nearly impossible to gauge how more concerted counterrecruiting efforts have affected military recruiting, if at all, said S. Douglas Smith, a spokesman for Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.
"There's been a good bit of activity this year," Mr. Smith said of the counterrecruiting efforts. "But in terms of impact, it's very hard to say." In this fiscal year, the Army hopes to recruit more than 105,000 active-duty and reserve soldiers by next fall. As of the end of November, Mr. Smith said, the Army was slightly ahead of its year-to-date goals.
Back in Duluth, Mr. Kelley ultimately decided to leave Mr. Cameron's sign alone, despite the Army's request that it be removed.
Mr. Kelley, who describes the centerpiece of his campaign for governor as education, found himself in the awkward position of being thrust into the debate over war, an issue most candidates for state and local offices rarely have to confront.
"In the past, I have taken positions in support of free speech," he said the other day, explaining his decision to let the sign remain. "And I thought if I'm going to try to be consistent about free speech, how could I tell Scott to take the sign down?"
Since news of the sign was reported in local newspapers, response has been mixed. A woman from Missouri had two pizzas delivered to reward Sergeant Capan's recruiters, while a veteran wrote to say that the sergeant needed "psychological screening" for even suggesting the removal of a disabled veteran's tribute to "his fallen brothers and sisters."
Mr. Cameron, meanwhile, says he has been asked to make copies of his sign (which he had made for $100 at a local sign company) and is thinking of marketing them.
For now, the neighbors on Superior Street have agreed to disagree. An offering of cookies by Mr. Cameron was not accepted, Sergeant Capan said, but Sergeant Capan insisted that relations on the street remained polite nonetheless.
"We're going to move on," he said. "We're soldiers."
Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com
Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away - Newsweek Periscope - MSNBC.com
Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away
Newsweek
Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.
But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora?intelligence operatives had tracked him?and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."
In his book?titled "Jawbreaker"?the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."
Berntsen's book gives, by contrast, a heroic portrayal of CIA activities at Tora Bora and in the war on terror. Ironically, he has sued the agency over what he calls unacceptable delays in approving his book?a standard process for ex-agency employees describing classified matters. "They're just holding the book," which is scheduled for October release, he says. "CIA officers, Special Forces and U.S. air power drove the Taliban out in 70 days. The CIA has taken roughly 80 days to clear my book." Jennifer Millerwise, a CIA spokeswoman, says Berntsen's "timeline is not accurate," adding that he submitted his book as an ex-employee only in mid-June. "We take seriously our goal of responding quickly."
?Michael Hirsh
� 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
� 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/
Exclusive: CIA Commander: U.S. Let bin Laden Slip Away
Newsweek
Aug. 15, 2005 issue - During the 2004 presidential campaign, George W. Bush and John Kerry battled about whether Osama bin Laden had escaped from Tora Bora in the final days of the war in Afghanistan. Bush, Kerry charged, "didn't choose to use American forces to hunt down and kill" the leader of Al Qaeda. The president called his opponent's allegation "the worst kind of Monday-morning quarterbacking." Bush asserted that U.S. commanders on the ground did not know if bin Laden was at the mountain hideaway along the Afghan border.
But in a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders did know that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora?intelligence operatives had tracked him?and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."
In his book?titled "Jawbreaker"?the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops."
Berntsen's book gives, by contrast, a heroic portrayal of CIA activities at Tora Bora and in the war on terror. Ironically, he has sued the agency over what he calls unacceptable delays in approving his book?a standard process for ex-agency employees describing classified matters. "They're just holding the book," which is scheduled for October release, he says. "CIA officers, Special Forces and U.S. air power drove the Taliban out in 70 days. The CIA has taken roughly 80 days to clear my book." Jennifer Millerwise, a CIA spokeswoman, says Berntsen's "timeline is not accurate," adding that he submitted his book as an ex-employee only in mid-June. "We take seriously our goal of responding quickly."
?Michael Hirsh
� 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
� 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/
Lawyers for terror defendants plan to challenge NSA wiretaps
Lawyers for terror defendants plan to challenge NSA wiretaps
12/28/2005 @ 3:37 am
Filed by RAW STORY
Defense lawyers for terror suspects plan to legally challenge the National Security Agency program of warrantless wiretaps authorized by the Bush Administration, according to a report in Wednesday's New York Times, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
#
The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were targeted for investigation.
The expected legal challenges, in cases from Ohio and Virginia to Florida and Oregon, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.
...
Some Justice Department prosecutors, speaking on condition of anonymity because the NSA program remains classified, said they were concerned that the agency's warrantless wiretaps could create problems for the department in terrorism prosecutions both past and future.
'If I'm a defense attorney,' one Justice Department prosecutor said, 'the first thing I'm going to say in court is, 'This was an illegal wiretap.''
#
Developing..."
12/28/2005 @ 3:37 am
Filed by RAW STORY
Defense lawyers for terror suspects plan to legally challenge the National Security Agency program of warrantless wiretaps authorized by the Bush Administration, according to a report in Wednesday's New York Times, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
#
The lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were targeted for investigation.
The expected legal challenges, in cases from Ohio and Virginia to Florida and Oregon, add another dimension to the growing controversy over the agency's domestic surveillance program and could jeopardize some of the Bush administration's most important courtroom victories in terror cases, legal analysts say.
...
Some Justice Department prosecutors, speaking on condition of anonymity because the NSA program remains classified, said they were concerned that the agency's warrantless wiretaps could create problems for the department in terrorism prosecutions both past and future.
'If I'm a defense attorney,' one Justice Department prosecutor said, 'the first thing I'm going to say in court is, 'This was an illegal wiretap.''
#
Developing..."
Pentagon not acting in trafficking ban
Pentagon not acting in trafficking ban
Pentagon not acting in trafficking ban
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- The U.S. Defense Department has yet to adopt a policy barring human trafficking by overseas contractors despite a demand by President Bush.
Bush said three years ago he had "zero tolerance" for the practice and Congress mandated a similar policy a year later.
A proposal prohibiting defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forced prostitution and labor was drafted by the Pentagon last summer.
But, the Chicago Tribune said, five defense lobbying groups oppose key provisions and a final policy still appears to be months away, according to those involved and Defense Department records.
The opposing lobbying groups said while they favor the idea in principle, they believe that implementing key portions of it overseas is unrealistic.
They represent thousands of firms, including some of the industry's biggest names, such as DynCorp International and Halliburton subsidiary KBR, both of which have been linked to trafficking-related concerns.
Pentagon not acting in trafficking ban
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27 (UPI) -- The U.S. Defense Department has yet to adopt a policy barring human trafficking by overseas contractors despite a demand by President Bush.
Bush said three years ago he had "zero tolerance" for the practice and Congress mandated a similar policy a year later.
A proposal prohibiting defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forced prostitution and labor was drafted by the Pentagon last summer.
But, the Chicago Tribune said, five defense lobbying groups oppose key provisions and a final policy still appears to be months away, according to those involved and Defense Department records.
The opposing lobbying groups said while they favor the idea in principle, they believe that implementing key portions of it overseas is unrealistic.
They represent thousands of firms, including some of the industry's biggest names, such as DynCorp International and Halliburton subsidiary KBR, both of which have been linked to trafficking-related concerns.
SEC. RUMSFELD: "Mr. Congressman, we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable."
$2.6 TRILLION Still Missing
From Department Of Defense...
12-28-5
Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Budget Request As Given by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, and Comptroller Dov Zakheim, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Monday, July 16, 2001.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, thank you very much. Your question is, of course, right at the heart of an enormously important issue for the Department of Defense. We have a panel in the Quadrennial Defense Review on this subject. We have met with it twice in the last two weeks. We're obviously going to have to meet with it again. It is a big, broad, complicated subject.
As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.
To see the full testimony -
http://www.dod.gov/speeches/2001/s20010716-secdef2.html
From Department Of Defense...
12-28-5
Testimony before the House Appropriations Committee: Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Budget Request As Given by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Hugh Shelton, and Comptroller Dov Zakheim, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC, Monday, July 16, 2001.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Mr. Congressman, thank you very much. Your question is, of course, right at the heart of an enormously important issue for the Department of Defense. We have a panel in the Quadrennial Defense Review on this subject. We have met with it twice in the last two weeks. We're obviously going to have to meet with it again. It is a big, broad, complicated subject.
As you know, the Department of Defense really is not in charge of its civilian workforce, in a certain sense. It's the OPM, or Office of Personnel management, I guess. There are all kinds of long- standing rules and regulations about what you can do and what you can't do. I know Dr. Zakheim's been trying to hire CPAs because the financial systems of the department are so snarled up that we can't account for some $2.6 trillion in transactions that exist, if that's believable. And yet we're told that we can't hire CPAs to help untangle it in many respects.
To see the full testimony -
http://www.dod.gov/speeches/2001/s20010716-secdef2.html
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Kurt Vonnegut's Last Stand
Kurt Vonnegut's Last Stand
A Man Without a Country
By DAVID SWANSON
Kurt Vonnegut, at age 82, has published over two dozen books. His latest is called "A Man Without a Country." It's a book that is brutally honest in its hopelessness, in fact I think overly hopeless, and yet humorous. It may even be hopeless in order to better be humorous. Vonnegut discusses in the book the use of tragedy to heighten laughter. But certainly the humor works to lighten the load of dismay and despair that this book ever-so-lightly dumps on us.
"I know of very few people," Vonnegut writes, "who are dreaming of a world for their grandchildren." Later he writes this epitaph for the Earth: "The good Earth we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."
Vonnegut cannot be comforted with the fantasy that our destruction of the Earth is all part of some benevolent plan beyond our ken, because he doesn't believe such rubbish. "My parents and grandparents were humanists," he writes. "what used to be called Free Thinkers. So as a humanist I am honoring my ancestors, which the Bible says is a good thing to do. We humanists try to behave as decently, as fairly, and as honorably as we can without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. My brother and sister didn't think there was one, my parents and grandparents didn't think there was one. It was enough that they were alive. We humanists serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any familiarity, which is our community."
Vonnegut does not have consolations or comforts, but he does have humor. He continues:
"I am, incidentally, Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that totally functionless capacity. We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, 'Isaac is up in heaven now.' It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, 'Kurt is up in heaven now.' That's my favorite joke.
"How do humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all humanists do, 'If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?'
"But if Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being.
"I'd just as soon be a rattlesnake."
So, Kurt has no religion. But why does he say he has no country?
Well, there's this: "I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened instead is that it was taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'etat imaginable."
Kurt blames many of our problems on a drug:
"Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't the TV news is it? Here's what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on."
And this, of course, leads Vonnegut to despair but not to lose his sense of humor:
"I know there is not a chance in hell of America becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts us absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many lifeless bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas."
David Swanson can be reached at: david@davidswanson.org
http://counterpunch.org/swanson12272005.html
A Man Without a Country
By DAVID SWANSON
Kurt Vonnegut, at age 82, has published over two dozen books. His latest is called "A Man Without a Country." It's a book that is brutally honest in its hopelessness, in fact I think overly hopeless, and yet humorous. It may even be hopeless in order to better be humorous. Vonnegut discusses in the book the use of tragedy to heighten laughter. But certainly the humor works to lighten the load of dismay and despair that this book ever-so-lightly dumps on us.
"I know of very few people," Vonnegut writes, "who are dreaming of a world for their grandchildren." Later he writes this epitaph for the Earth: "The good Earth we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy."
Vonnegut cannot be comforted with the fantasy that our destruction of the Earth is all part of some benevolent plan beyond our ken, because he doesn't believe such rubbish. "My parents and grandparents were humanists," he writes. "what used to be called Free Thinkers. So as a humanist I am honoring my ancestors, which the Bible says is a good thing to do. We humanists try to behave as decently, as fairly, and as honorably as we can without any expectation of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. My brother and sister didn't think there was one, my parents and grandparents didn't think there was one. It was enough that they were alive. We humanists serve as best we can the only abstraction with which we have any familiarity, which is our community."
Vonnegut does not have consolations or comforts, but he does have humor. He continues:
"I am, incidentally, Honorary President of the American Humanist Association, having succeeded the late, great science fiction writer Isaac Asimov in that totally functionless capacity. We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, 'Isaac is up in heaven now.' It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, 'Kurt is up in heaven now.' That's my favorite joke.
"How do humanists feel about Jesus? I say of Jesus, as all humanists do, 'If what he said is good, and so much of it is absolutely beautiful, what does it matter if he was God or not?'
"But if Christ hadn't delivered the Sermon on the Mount, with its message of mercy and pity, I wouldn't want to be a human being.
"I'd just as soon be a rattlesnake."
So, Kurt has no religion. But why does he say he has no country?
Well, there's this: "I myself feel that our country, for whose Constitution I fought in a just war, might as well have been invaded by Martians and body snatchers. Sometimes I wish it had been. What has happened instead is that it was taken over by means of the sleaziest, low-comedy, Keystone Cops-style coup d'etat imaginable."
Kurt blames many of our problems on a drug:
"Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn't the TV news is it? Here's what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial. And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we're hooked on."
And this, of course, leads Vonnegut to despair but not to lose his sense of humor:
"I know there is not a chance in hell of America becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts us absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many lifeless bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas."
David Swanson can be reached at: david@davidswanson.org
http://counterpunch.org/swanson12272005.html
Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/After_domestic_spying_reports_U.S._spying_1227.html
Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council
in run-up to war, former officials say
Jason Leopold
December 27, 2005
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the
National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office
telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United
Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign
delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the
U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on
U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know
how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call
for comment.
The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also
participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up"
efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats.
Advertisement
A spokeswoman at the White House who refused to give her name also would
not comment, and pointed to a March 3, 2003 press briefing by former
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer when questions about U.N.
spying were first raised.
"As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments
on anything involving any people involved in intelligence," Fleischer
said. "So I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."
Disclosure of the wiretaps and the monitoring of U.N. members' email
came on the eve of the Iraq war in the British-based Observer. The leak
-- which the paper acquired in the form of an email via a British
translator -- came amid a U.S. push urging U.N. members to vote in favor
of a resolution that said Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolution 1441,
asserting that it had failed to rid the country of weapons of mass
destruction.
News of the NSA spying on the U.N. received scant coverage in U.S.
newspapers at the time. But with the explosive domestic spying report
published in the New York Times last week, a closer examination of
pre-war spying may shed light on whether the Bush administration has
used the NSA for its own political purposes, as opposed to tracking down
communications regarding potential terrorist threats against the U.S.
The leaked NSA email detailing the agency's spy tactics against the U.N.
was written Jan. 31, 2003 by Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank
Koza. In the email, Koza asked an undisclosed number of NSA and British
intelligence officials to "pay attention to existing non-UN Security
Council Member UN-related and domestic comms (home and office
telephones) for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations."
One intelligence source who spoke to RAW STORY said top White House
officials and some Republican members of Congress had debated in
December 2002 whether to step up the surveillance of U.N. officials to
include eavesdropping on home telephone and personal email accounts.
Some feared that in the event it was discovered, it would further erode
relations between the U.S. and the U.N.
The source added that U.S. spying on the U.N. isn't new.
"It's part of the job," the intelligence source said. "Everyone knows
it's being done."
Eavesdropping on U.N. diplomats is authorized under the U.S. Foreign
Intelligence Services Act. However, it's still considered a violation of
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which says that "The
receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part
of the mission for all official purposes... The official correspondence
of the mission shall be inviolable."
According to one former official, "The administration pushed the
envelope by tapping their home phones."
Koza's email, a copy of which is included at the end of this report,
says the "Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN
Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for
insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE:
Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/
negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies,
etc."
"The whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge
in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.
In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against
UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as
extra focus on Pakistan UN matters."
Koza's email was sent out to NSA and British intelligence officials
through a top secret surveillance network set up by the NSA, the British
Government Communication Headquarters and similar intelligence agencies
based in Australia, New Zealand and Canada known as Echelon.
Moreover, the email was distributed just four days after Hans Blix filed
his Iraq weapons report with the U.N.
It was leaked to a handful of media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. by
Katharine Tersea Gun, a former translator for British intelligence. Gun
was arrested in November 2003 and charged with violating her country's
Official Secrets Act. She said she felt compelled to leak the memo
because she believed the U.S. and Britain were about to launch an
illegal war.
"Any disclosures that may have been made were justified on the following
grounds: because they exposed serious illegality and wrongdoing on the
part of the U.S. Government who attempted to subvert our own security
services and, to prevent wide-scale death and casualties among ordinary
Iraqi people and UK forces in the course of an illegal war," she said in
a statement at the time.
In his book "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward, deputy managing editor of
the Washington Post, said the administration was also spying on Hans
Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector sent to Iraq to look for WMDs.
"One of the things that's gone unnoticed is national intelligence assets
spying on Hans Blix," Woodward told the Council on Foreign Relations on
June 9, 2004 "And Bush was getting these reports and felt that there was
incongruity between what Blix was saying publicly and what he was
actually doing. It makes it very clear we were wiretapping Hans Blix."
In an article for Counterpunch, media critic Norman Solomon noted that
the U.S. media barely covered the U.N. spying.
"Nearly 96 hours after the Observer had reported it, I called Times
deputy foreign editor Alison Smale and asked why not," Solomon writes.
"'We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting,' Smale
replied. She added that 'we could get no confirmation or comment.' In
other words, U.S. intelligence officials refused to confirm or discuss
the memo -- so the Times did not see fit to report on it."
The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the
headline "Spying Report No Shock to U.N," while the Los Angeles Times
emphasized from the outset that U.S. spy activities at the United
Nations are "long-standing," Solomon wrote.
Solomon says his research turned up only one story which took the spying
seriously -- a Mar. 4, 2003 piece in the Baltimore Sun.
The leaked NSA email which revealed the spying follows.
#
To: [Recipients withheld] From: FRANK KOZA, Def Chief of Staff (Regional
Targets) CIV/NSA Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16 Subject: Reflections of Iraq
Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions
Importance: HIGH Top Secret//COMINT//X1 All, As you've likely heard by
now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN
Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for
insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE:
Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/
negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies,
etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an
edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off
surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create
efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and
Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters. We've also asked
ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing
non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful
related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of
special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from
countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute
related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't
afford to ignore this possible source. We'd appreciate your support in
getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct
access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I
suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels
- especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this
specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's
presentation to the UNSC. Thanks for your help
Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council
in run-up to war, former officials say
Jason Leopold
December 27, 2005
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the
National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office
telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United
Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign
delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the
U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.
Two former NSA officials familiar with the agency's campaign to spy on
U.N. members say then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
authorized the plan at the request of President Bush, who wanted to know
how delegates were going to vote. Rice did not immediately return a call
for comment.
The former officials said Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also
participated in discussions about the plan, which involved "stepping up"
efforts to eavesdrop on diplomats.
Advertisement
A spokeswoman at the White House who refused to give her name also would
not comment, and pointed to a March 3, 2003 press briefing by former
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer when questions about U.N.
spying were first raised.
"As a matter of long-standing policy, the administration never comments
on anything involving any people involved in intelligence," Fleischer
said. "So I'm not saying yes and I'm not saying no."
Disclosure of the wiretaps and the monitoring of U.N. members' email
came on the eve of the Iraq war in the British-based Observer. The leak
-- which the paper acquired in the form of an email via a British
translator -- came amid a U.S. push urging U.N. members to vote in favor
of a resolution that said Iraq was in violation of U.N. resolution 1441,
asserting that it had failed to rid the country of weapons of mass
destruction.
News of the NSA spying on the U.N. received scant coverage in U.S.
newspapers at the time. But with the explosive domestic spying report
published in the New York Times last week, a closer examination of
pre-war spying may shed light on whether the Bush administration has
used the NSA for its own political purposes, as opposed to tracking down
communications regarding potential terrorist threats against the U.S.
The leaked NSA email detailing the agency's spy tactics against the U.N.
was written Jan. 31, 2003 by Chief of Staff for Regional Targets Frank
Koza. In the email, Koza asked an undisclosed number of NSA and British
intelligence officials to "pay attention to existing non-UN Security
Council Member UN-related and domestic comms (home and office
telephones) for anything useful related to Security Council deliberations."
One intelligence source who spoke to RAW STORY said top White House
officials and some Republican members of Congress had debated in
December 2002 whether to step up the surveillance of U.N. officials to
include eavesdropping on home telephone and personal email accounts.
Some feared that in the event it was discovered, it would further erode
relations between the U.S. and the U.N.
The source added that U.S. spying on the U.N. isn't new.
"It's part of the job," the intelligence source said. "Everyone knows
it's being done."
Eavesdropping on U.N. diplomats is authorized under the U.S. Foreign
Intelligence Services Act. However, it's still considered a violation of
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which says that "The
receiving state shall permit and protect free communication on the part
of the mission for all official purposes... The official correspondence
of the mission shall be inviolable."
According to one former official, "The administration pushed the
envelope by tapping their home phones."
Koza's email, a copy of which is included at the end of this report,
says the "Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN
Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for
insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE:
Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/
negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies,
etc."
"The whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge
in obtaining results favorable to U.S. goals or to head off surprises.
In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create efforts against
UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and Guinea, as well as
extra focus on Pakistan UN matters."
Koza's email was sent out to NSA and British intelligence officials
through a top secret surveillance network set up by the NSA, the British
Government Communication Headquarters and similar intelligence agencies
based in Australia, New Zealand and Canada known as Echelon.
Moreover, the email was distributed just four days after Hans Blix filed
his Iraq weapons report with the U.N.
It was leaked to a handful of media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. by
Katharine Tersea Gun, a former translator for British intelligence. Gun
was arrested in November 2003 and charged with violating her country's
Official Secrets Act. She said she felt compelled to leak the memo
because she believed the U.S. and Britain were about to launch an
illegal war.
"Any disclosures that may have been made were justified on the following
grounds: because they exposed serious illegality and wrongdoing on the
part of the U.S. Government who attempted to subvert our own security
services and, to prevent wide-scale death and casualties among ordinary
Iraqi people and UK forces in the course of an illegal war," she said in
a statement at the time.
In his book "Plan of Attack," Bob Woodward, deputy managing editor of
the Washington Post, said the administration was also spying on Hans
Blix, the U.N. weapons inspector sent to Iraq to look for WMDs.
"One of the things that's gone unnoticed is national intelligence assets
spying on Hans Blix," Woodward told the Council on Foreign Relations on
June 9, 2004 "And Bush was getting these reports and felt that there was
incongruity between what Blix was saying publicly and what he was
actually doing. It makes it very clear we were wiretapping Hans Blix."
In an article for Counterpunch, media critic Norman Solomon noted that
the U.S. media barely covered the U.N. spying.
"Nearly 96 hours after the Observer had reported it, I called Times
deputy foreign editor Alison Smale and asked why not," Solomon writes.
"'We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting,' Smale
replied. She added that 'we could get no confirmation or comment.' In
other words, U.S. intelligence officials refused to confirm or discuss
the memo -- so the Times did not see fit to report on it."
The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the
headline "Spying Report No Shock to U.N," while the Los Angeles Times
emphasized from the outset that U.S. spy activities at the United
Nations are "long-standing," Solomon wrote.
Solomon says his research turned up only one story which took the spying
seriously -- a Mar. 4, 2003 piece in the Baltimore Sun.
The leaked NSA email which revealed the spying follows.
#
To: [Recipients withheld] From: FRANK KOZA, Def Chief of Staff (Regional
Targets) CIV/NSA Sent on Jan 31 2003 0:16 Subject: Reflections of Iraq
Debate/Votes at UN-RT Actions + Potential for Related Contributions
Importance: HIGH Top Secret//COMINT//X1 All, As you've likely heard by
now, the Agency is mounting a surge particularly directed at the UN
Security Council (UNSC) members (minus US and GBR of course) for
insights as to how to membership is reacting to the on-going debate RE:
Iraq, plans to vote on any related resolutions, what related policies/
negotiating positions they may be considering, alliances/ dependencies,
etc - the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an
edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off
surprises. In RT, that means a QRC surge effort to revive/ create
efforts against UNSC members Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Bulgaria and
Guinea, as well as extra focus on Pakistan UN matters. We've also asked
ALL RT topi's to emphasize and make sure they pay attention to existing
non-UNSC member UN-related and domestic comms for anything useful
related to the UNSC deliberations/ debates/ votes. We have a lot of
special UN-related diplomatic coverage (various UN delegations) from
countries not sitting on the UNSC right now that could contribute
related perspectives/ insights/ whatever. We recognize that we can't
afford to ignore this possible source. We'd appreciate your support in
getting the word to your analysts who might have similar, more in-direct
access to valuable information from accesses in your product lines. I
suspect that you'll be hearing more along these lines in formal channels
- especially as this effort will probably peak (at least for this
specific focus) in the middle of next week, following the SecState's
presentation to the UNSC. Thanks for your help
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them
Bush was denied wiretaps, bypassed them
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George
Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for
international wiretaps because the court was
challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by
Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap
requests from the Bush administration than the four
previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps
modified only two search warrant orders out of the
13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years
of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the
5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush
administration, the report said. A total of 173 of
those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took
place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected
or deferred at least six requests for warrants during
those two years -- the first outright rejection of a
wiretap request in the court's history.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 26 (UPI) -- U.S. President George
Bush decided to skip seeking warrants for
international wiretaps because the court was
challenging him at an unprecedented rate.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress by
Hearst newspapers shows the 26-year-old Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more wiretap
requests from the Bush administration than the four
previous presidential administrations combined.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps
modified only two search warrant orders out of the
13,102 applications approved over the first 22 years
of the court's operation.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the
5,645 requests for surveillance by the Bush
administration, the report said. A total of 173 of
those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took
place in 2003 and 2004. And, the judges also rejected
or deferred at least six requests for warrants during
those two years -- the first outright rejection of a
wiretap request in the court's history.
Telling it like it isn't
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11391.htm
NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN
Telling it like it isn't
By Robert Fisk
12/27/05 "Los Angeles Times" -- -- I FIRST REALIZED the enormous pressures on
American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to
a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a
region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone
else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter
the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers.
"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my
editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected."
And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."
Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's
friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing
as it had ever been.
This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American
journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on
Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the
moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment
around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish
neighborhoods" ? or even, in some cases, "outposts."
Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports
into "disputed" Palestinian land ? just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell,
in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as
"disputed" rather than "occupied" territory.
Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according
to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing
innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not
follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too
often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security
barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are
told, it is not a wall at all ? so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast
snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old
Berlin Wall.
The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land
is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law
courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an
Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.
If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly
"neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless
terrorist act.
And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" ? words
that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a
private housing complex.
For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a
generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.
We follow these unwritten rules elsewhere in the region. American journalists
frequently used the words of U.S. officials in the early days of the Iraqi
insurgency ? referring to those who attacked American troops as "rebels" or
"terrorists" or "remnants" of the former regime. The language of the second U.S. pro-
consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, was taken up obediently ? and grotesquely ? by
American journalists.
American television, meanwhile, continues to present war as a bloodless sandpit in
which the horrors of conflict ? the mutilated bodies of the victims of aerial
bombing, torn apart in the desert by wild dogs ? are kept off the screen. Editors in
New York and London make sure that viewers' "sensitivities" don't suffer, that we
don't indulge in the "pornography" of death (which is exactly what war is) or
"dishonor" the dead whom we have just killed.
Our prudish video coverage makes war easier to support, and journalists long ago
became complicit with governments in making conflict and death more acceptable to
viewers. Television journalism has thus become a lethal adjunct to war.
Back in the old days, we used to believe ? did we not? ? that journalists should
"tell it how it is." Read the great journalism of World War II and you'll see what I
mean. The Ed Murrows and Richard Dimblebys, the Howard K. Smiths and Alan Moorheads
didn't mince their words or change their descriptions or run mealy-mouthed from the
truth because listeners or readers didn't want to know or preferred a different
version.
So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall
a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not,
primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit.
ROBERT FISK is Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and the author,
most recently, of "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East,"
published last month by Knopf.
NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN
Telling it like it isn't
By Robert Fisk
12/27/05 "Los Angeles Times" -- -- I FIRST REALIZED the enormous pressures on
American journalists in the Middle East when I went some years ago to say goodbye to
a colleague from the Boston Globe. I expressed my sorrow that he was leaving a
region where he had obviously enjoyed reporting. I could save my sorrows for someone
else, he said. One of the joys of leaving was that he would no longer have to alter
the truth to suit his paper's more vociferous readers.
"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,' " he said. "But recently, my
editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected."
And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."
Ouch. I knew at once that these "readers" were viewed at his newspaper as Israel's
friends, but I also knew that the Likud under Benjamin Netanyahu was as right wing
as it had ever been.
This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American
journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on
Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the
moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment
around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish
neighborhoods" ? or even, in some cases, "outposts."
Similarly, "occupied" Palestinian land was softened in many American media reports
into "disputed" Palestinian land ? just after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell,
in 2001, instructed U.S. embassies in the Middle East to refer to the West Bank as
"disputed" rather than "occupied" territory.
Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according
to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing
innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not
follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too
often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security
barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are
told, it is not a wall at all ? so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast
snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old
Berlin Wall.
The semantic effect of this journalistic obfuscation is clear. If Palestinian land
is not occupied but merely part of a legal dispute that might be resolved in law
courts or discussions over tea, then a Palestinian child who throws a stone at an
Israeli soldier in this territory is clearly acting insanely.
If a Jewish colony built illegally on Arab land is simply a nice friendly
"neighborhood," then any Palestinian who attacks it must be carrying out a mindless
terrorist act.
And surely there is no reason to protest a "fence" or a "security barrier" ? words
that conjure up the fence around a garden or the gate arm at the entrance to a
private housing complex.
For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a
generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.
We follow these unwritten rules elsewhere in the region. American journalists
frequently used the words of U.S. officials in the early days of the Iraqi
insurgency ? referring to those who attacked American troops as "rebels" or
"terrorists" or "remnants" of the former regime. The language of the second U.S. pro-
consul in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer III, was taken up obediently ? and grotesquely ? by
American journalists.
American television, meanwhile, continues to present war as a bloodless sandpit in
which the horrors of conflict ? the mutilated bodies of the victims of aerial
bombing, torn apart in the desert by wild dogs ? are kept off the screen. Editors in
New York and London make sure that viewers' "sensitivities" don't suffer, that we
don't indulge in the "pornography" of death (which is exactly what war is) or
"dishonor" the dead whom we have just killed.
Our prudish video coverage makes war easier to support, and journalists long ago
became complicit with governments in making conflict and death more acceptable to
viewers. Television journalism has thus become a lethal adjunct to war.
Back in the old days, we used to believe ? did we not? ? that journalists should
"tell it how it is." Read the great journalism of World War II and you'll see what I
mean. The Ed Murrows and Richard Dimblebys, the Howard K. Smiths and Alan Moorheads
didn't mince their words or change their descriptions or run mealy-mouthed from the
truth because listeners or readers didn't want to know or preferred a different
version.
So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall
a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not,
primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit.
ROBERT FISK is Middle East correspondent for the London Independent and the author,
most recently, of "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East,"
published last month by Knopf.
U.S.allies withdraw troops from Iraq
U.S. allies withdraw troops from Iraq
Ukraine, Bulgaria pull out remaining forces, Poland plans deep cuts to deployment
The Associated Press
Originally published December 27, 2005, 2:32 PM EST
KIEV, Ukraine // The last Ukrainian and Bulgarian troops have left Iraq, and Poland plans deep cuts in its deployment next year, the countries said today, the latest of several U.S. allies to draw down force levels as public demand weighs on government leaders.
Polish officials said today that Poland would remain in Iraq but reduce troop levels in March, from nearly 1,500 to 900. The Polish government's decision must be approved by President Lech Kaczynski.
There was no immediate reaction from the president, but it was widely expected that he would approve the extension, reversing the previous government's decision to bring troops home within the next few weeks.
Polish Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said keeping troops there longer would support "the growing democratization of life" in Iraq after the country's constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections.
"We would like to gradually carry the pullout of Polish troops from Iraq, not in an abrupt way, but gradually," he told reporters in Warsaw. "Stabilization is taking place. The high turnout in the October referendum and a still higher turnout in the elections Dec. 15 -- all this suggests that within two or three months there will be a government of national unity in place created by all the political forces in Iraq."
The deployment is unpopular, and 17 Polish soldiers have died in Iraq.
Ukraine's defense ministry said today that its last troops had left Iraq, fulfilling a long-planned withdrawal pledged by President Viktor Yushchenko.
A column of eight armored personnel carriers and 44 soldiers had left the country and arrived in Kuwait, the statement said. Ukraine had kept 867 soldiers in Iraq after partial pullouts earlier this year. By Friday, all are due back in Ukraine, where the deployment has been unpopular.
"Not a single Ukrainian soldier remains on Iraqi soil," the ministry statement said, adding that some 50 Ukrainian military instructors will stay on to train Iraqi forces.
Ukraine opposed the invasion of Iraq but later contributed 1,650 troops to the U.S.-led coalition, becoming one of the largest non-NATO participants. Eighteen Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and another 32 wounded.
In Bulgaria, Defense Minister Veselin Bliznakov said today that his country had completed its own military pullout from Iraq.
"The last unit of 130 servicemen has been relocated at a safe place in Kuwait since last night," Bliznakov told reporters. He said the group was expected to return to Bulgaria by the weekend.
Bulgaria began withdrawing its troops from the city of Diwaniya shortly after Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, transferring its military responsibilities to Iraqi forces.
Bliznakov has said that Bulgaria will "most likely" continue its military involvement in Iraq next year by contributing a 120-strong non-combat unit tasked with guarding the Ashraf refugee camp.
Poland has been a U.S. ally in Iraq, sending combat troops to the country and in September 2003 taking command of an international force that currently numbers some 3,000 troops, including the Poles.
However, some in Poland have complained that they have not seen sufficient rewards -- for example, easier access to U.S. visas or more contracts for Polish companies in the rebuilding of Iraq.
In other developments, Spain's Socialist government, which vehemently opposes the war in Iraq and withdrew troops sent there by its predecessor, acknowledged that it had let a Spanish navy frigate join a U.S. battle group in the Persian Gulf. The Spanish Defense Ministry denied a newspaper report that the frigate Alvaro de Bazan participated in combat operations during its deployment.
Ukraine, Bulgaria pull out remaining forces, Poland plans deep cuts to deployment
The Associated Press
Originally published December 27, 2005, 2:32 PM EST
KIEV, Ukraine // The last Ukrainian and Bulgarian troops have left Iraq, and Poland plans deep cuts in its deployment next year, the countries said today, the latest of several U.S. allies to draw down force levels as public demand weighs on government leaders.
Polish officials said today that Poland would remain in Iraq but reduce troop levels in March, from nearly 1,500 to 900. The Polish government's decision must be approved by President Lech Kaczynski.
There was no immediate reaction from the president, but it was widely expected that he would approve the extension, reversing the previous government's decision to bring troops home within the next few weeks.
Polish Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz said keeping troops there longer would support "the growing democratization of life" in Iraq after the country's constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections.
"We would like to gradually carry the pullout of Polish troops from Iraq, not in an abrupt way, but gradually," he told reporters in Warsaw. "Stabilization is taking place. The high turnout in the October referendum and a still higher turnout in the elections Dec. 15 -- all this suggests that within two or three months there will be a government of national unity in place created by all the political forces in Iraq."
The deployment is unpopular, and 17 Polish soldiers have died in Iraq.
Ukraine's defense ministry said today that its last troops had left Iraq, fulfilling a long-planned withdrawal pledged by President Viktor Yushchenko.
A column of eight armored personnel carriers and 44 soldiers had left the country and arrived in Kuwait, the statement said. Ukraine had kept 867 soldiers in Iraq after partial pullouts earlier this year. By Friday, all are due back in Ukraine, where the deployment has been unpopular.
"Not a single Ukrainian soldier remains on Iraqi soil," the ministry statement said, adding that some 50 Ukrainian military instructors will stay on to train Iraqi forces.
Ukraine opposed the invasion of Iraq but later contributed 1,650 troops to the U.S.-led coalition, becoming one of the largest non-NATO participants. Eighteen Ukrainian soldiers have been killed and another 32 wounded.
In Bulgaria, Defense Minister Veselin Bliznakov said today that his country had completed its own military pullout from Iraq.
"The last unit of 130 servicemen has been relocated at a safe place in Kuwait since last night," Bliznakov told reporters. He said the group was expected to return to Bulgaria by the weekend.
Bulgaria began withdrawing its troops from the city of Diwaniya shortly after Iraq's Dec. 15 parliamentary elections, transferring its military responsibilities to Iraqi forces.
Bliznakov has said that Bulgaria will "most likely" continue its military involvement in Iraq next year by contributing a 120-strong non-combat unit tasked with guarding the Ashraf refugee camp.
Poland has been a U.S. ally in Iraq, sending combat troops to the country and in September 2003 taking command of an international force that currently numbers some 3,000 troops, including the Poles.
However, some in Poland have complained that they have not seen sufficient rewards -- for example, easier access to U.S. visas or more contracts for Polish companies in the rebuilding of Iraq.
In other developments, Spain's Socialist government, which vehemently opposes the war in Iraq and withdrew troops sent there by its predecessor, acknowledged that it had let a Spanish navy frigate join a U.S. battle group in the Persian Gulf. The Spanish Defense Ministry denied a newspaper report that the frigate Alvaro de Bazan participated in combat operations during its deployment.
Editorial:Watch listed--Doodling? Reading wrong book? Look out
Editorial: Watch listed
Doodling? Reading wrong book? Look out
Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B6
As headlines focus on warrantless wiretaps and "cruel, inhuman and degrading" techniques for interrogating detainees, other events affecting Americans' civil liberties occur with little notice.
Here are two examples, on opposite coasts, one close to home in Elk Grove and another in Massachusetts.
A 16-year-old Elk Grove student was pulled out of class Sept. 27 and interrogated by two FBI agents. They focused on an incident two years earlier in a math class. The student had written the letters "PLO" on his binder. His teacher called the PLO a terrorist organization and said anyone who supported it was a terrorist. The student defended the PLO as a legitimate political group that opposed Israeli occupation. A tipster apparently also told the FBI the student had pictures of suicide bombers on his cellphone. He didn't.
Here we had a student innocently expressing his right to free speech. Nothing threatening. Nothing disruptive.
The incident raises obvious questions: Why would the FBI drag a teenager out of class to interrogate him about a 2-year-old doodle on a notebook? Does the FBI assess tips (and the possible motives of tipsters) before touching off needless scares and upending people's lives? Why interrogate people who have been linked to no crimes?
Then there's the story reported in The Standard-Times newspaper in Massachusetts of a University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, student doing a research paper for a history class on fascism and totalitarianism. He requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's "Little Red Book" through interlibrary loan for a paper on communism. Two agents of the Department of Homeland Security later showed up at his parents' home in New Bedford, Mass., to interrogate him, telling him they were there because the book was on a "watch list" and the student had spent time abroad.
What else is on that "watch list" - Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" or "Das Kapital"? Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? Other staples in the history of political thought courses?
Such abuses led U.S. senators to filibuster to force changes to the USA Patriot Act. Parts of that law were set to expire Dec. 31, but Congress has agreed to temporarily extend it to work out language among the House, Senate and president. The Senate is holding out for language that would require some connection between the records sought and a person suspected of being a terrorist - which is altogether reasonable.
Incidents such as these make it appear that our national security agencies have no idea what they're doing. So they resort to random, oceanwide fishing expeditions in the vain hope they'll turn up something. That does little to advance the war against terrorism, but it does unnecessarily alienate, humiliate and frighten innocent people whose trust is needed.
The Sacramento Bee - Get the whole story every day - SUBSCRIBE NOW!
Doodling? Reading wrong book? Look out
Published 2:15 am PST Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B6
As headlines focus on warrantless wiretaps and "cruel, inhuman and degrading" techniques for interrogating detainees, other events affecting Americans' civil liberties occur with little notice.
Here are two examples, on opposite coasts, one close to home in Elk Grove and another in Massachusetts.
A 16-year-old Elk Grove student was pulled out of class Sept. 27 and interrogated by two FBI agents. They focused on an incident two years earlier in a math class. The student had written the letters "PLO" on his binder. His teacher called the PLO a terrorist organization and said anyone who supported it was a terrorist. The student defended the PLO as a legitimate political group that opposed Israeli occupation. A tipster apparently also told the FBI the student had pictures of suicide bombers on his cellphone. He didn't.
Here we had a student innocently expressing his right to free speech. Nothing threatening. Nothing disruptive.
The incident raises obvious questions: Why would the FBI drag a teenager out of class to interrogate him about a 2-year-old doodle on a notebook? Does the FBI assess tips (and the possible motives of tipsters) before touching off needless scares and upending people's lives? Why interrogate people who have been linked to no crimes?
Then there's the story reported in The Standard-Times newspaper in Massachusetts of a University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, student doing a research paper for a history class on fascism and totalitarianism. He requested a copy of Mao Tse-Tung's "Little Red Book" through interlibrary loan for a paper on communism. Two agents of the Department of Homeland Security later showed up at his parents' home in New Bedford, Mass., to interrogate him, telling him they were there because the book was on a "watch list" and the student had spent time abroad.
What else is on that "watch list" - Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto" or "Das Kapital"? Hitler's "Mein Kampf"? Other staples in the history of political thought courses?
Such abuses led U.S. senators to filibuster to force changes to the USA Patriot Act. Parts of that law were set to expire Dec. 31, but Congress has agreed to temporarily extend it to work out language among the House, Senate and president. The Senate is holding out for language that would require some connection between the records sought and a person suspected of being a terrorist - which is altogether reasonable.
Incidents such as these make it appear that our national security agencies have no idea what they're doing. So they resort to random, oceanwide fishing expeditions in the vain hope they'll turn up something. That does little to advance the war against terrorism, but it does unnecessarily alienate, humiliate and frighten innocent people whose trust is needed.
The Sacramento Bee - Get the whole story every day - SUBSCRIBE NOW!
NSA Spied on UN Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq
NSA Spied on UN Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 27 December 2005
Despite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency's domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on UN diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the UN Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream US media winked at Bush's illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
Back then, after news of the NSA's targeted spying at the United Nations broke in the British press, major US media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage - or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA's spying at the UN goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole.
A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec. 20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate, which pointedly noted that "the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed."
But after dodging the story of the NSA's spying at the UN when it mattered most - before the invasion of Iraq - the New York Times and other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now. That's all the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.
In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported that the NSA was secretly participating in the US government's high-pressure campaign for the UN Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution. A few days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about US spying on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. "This leak," he replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers." The key word was "timely."
Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg's heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had been underway for many years. But with an invasion of Iraq still in the future, the leak about NSA spying on UN diplomats in New York could erode the Bush administration's already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.) And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington's war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.
"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq," the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the US government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of UN delegates." The smoking gun was "a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency." The friendly agency was Britain's Government Communications Headquarters.
The Observer explained: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council - "the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises."
Noting that the Bush administration "finds itself isolated" in its zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo an "embarrassing disclosure." And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.
Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA's supposed paper of record. "Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. But "we could get no confirmation or comment" on the memo from US officials. Smale added: "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." Whatever the rationale, the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.
Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March 4, the coverage in major US media outlets downplayed the significance of the Observer's revelations. The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline "Spying Report No Shock to UN" Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn't only depict US surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times story also reported "some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could be a forgery" - and "several former top intelligence officials said they were skeptical of the memo's authenticity."
But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo's "authenticity" was gone. The British press reported that the UK government had arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency in connection with the leak. By then, however, the spotty coverage of the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream US press had disappeared.
As it turned out, the Observer's expose - headlined "Revealed: US Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War" - came 18 days before the invasion of Iraq began.
From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped charges against whistleblower Katharine Gun, major US news outlets provided very little coverage of the story. The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun's name became public as the British press reported that she had been formally charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.
Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that disclosure of the NSA memo was "necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed." She said: "I have only ever followed my conscience."
In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo - and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed it - the most powerful US news outlets gave the revelation the media equivalent of a yawn. Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved at the lack of US media concern about the NSA's illicit spying, must have been very encouraged.
--------
This article is adapted from Norman Solomon's new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
By Norman Solomon
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 27 December 2005
Despite all the news accounts and punditry since the New York Times published its Dec. 16 bombshell about the National Security Agency's domestic spying, the media coverage has made virtually no mention of the fact that the Bush administration used the NSA to spy on UN diplomats in New York before the invasion of Iraq.
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the UN Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream US media winked at Bush's illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.
Back then, after news of the NSA's targeted spying at the United Nations broke in the British press, major US media outlets gave it only perfunctory coverage - or, in the case of the New York Times, no coverage at all. Now, while the NSA is in the news spotlight with plenty of retrospective facts, the NSA's spying at the UN goes unmentioned: buried in an Orwellian memory hole.
A rare exception was a paragraph in a Dec. 20 piece by Patrick Radden Keefe in the online magazine Slate, which pointedly noted that "the eavesdropping took place in Manhattan and violated the General Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, the Headquarters Agreement for the United Nations, and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, all of which the United States has signed."
But after dodging the story of the NSA's spying at the UN when it mattered most - before the invasion of Iraq - the New York Times and other major news organizations are hardly apt to examine it now. That's all the more reason for other media outlets to step into the breach.
In early March 2003, journalists at the London-based Observer reported that the NSA was secretly participating in the US government's high-pressure campaign for the UN Security Council to approve a pro-war resolution. A few days after the Observer revealed the text of an NSA memo about US spying on Security Council delegations, I asked Daniel Ellsberg to assess the importance of the story. "This leak," he replied, "is more timely and potentially more important than the Pentagon Papers." The key word was "timely."
Publication of the top-secret Pentagon Papers in 1971, made possible by Ellsberg's heroic decision to leak those documents, came after the Vietnam War had been underway for many years. But with an invasion of Iraq still in the future, the leak about NSA spying on UN diplomats in New York could erode the Bush administration's already slim chances of getting a war resolution through the Security Council. (Ultimately, no such resolution passed before the invasion.) And media scrutiny in the United States could have shed light on how Washington's war push was based on subterfuge and manipulation.
"As part of its battle to win votes in favor of war against Iraq," the Observer had reported on March 2, 2003, the US government developed an "aggressive surveillance operation, which involves interception of the home and office telephones and the e-mails of UN delegates." The smoking gun was "a memorandum written by a top official at the National Security Agency - the US body which intercepts communications around the world - and circulated to both senior agents in his organization and to a friendly foreign intelligence agency." The friendly agency was Britain's Government Communications Headquarters.
The Observer explained: "The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia."
The NSA memo, dated Jan. 31, 2003, outlined the wide scope of the surveillance activities, seeking any information useful to push a war resolution through the Security Council - "the whole gamut of information that could give US policymakers an edge in obtaining results favorable to US goals or to head off surprises."
Noting that the Bush administration "finds itself isolated" in its zeal for war on Iraq, the Times of London called the leak of the memo an "embarrassing disclosure." And, in early March 2003, the embarrassment was nearly worldwide. From Russia to France to Chile to Japan to Australia, the story was big mainstream news. But not in the United States.
Several days after the "embarrassing disclosure," not a word about it had appeared in the New York Times, the USA's supposed paper of record. "Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale told me on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. But "we could get no confirmation or comment" on the memo from US officials. Smale added: "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." Whatever the rationale, the New York Times opted not to cover the story at all.
Except for a high-quality Baltimore Sun article that appeared on March 4, the coverage in major US media outlets downplayed the significance of the Observer's revelations. The Washington Post printed a 514-word article on a back page with the headline "Spying Report No Shock to UN" Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times published a longer piece that didn't only depict US surveillance at the United Nations as old hat; the LA Times story also reported "some experts suspected that it [the NSA memo] could be a forgery" - and "several former top intelligence officials said they were skeptical of the memo's authenticity."
But within days, any doubt about the NSA memo's "authenticity" was gone. The British press reported that the UK government had arrested an unnamed female employee at a British intelligence agency in connection with the leak. By then, however, the spotty coverage of the top-secret NSA memo in the mainstream US press had disappeared.
As it turned out, the Observer's expose - headlined "Revealed: US Dirty Tricks to Win Vote on Iraq War" - came 18 days before the invasion of Iraq began.
From the day that the Observer first reported on NSA spying at the United Nations until the moment 51 weeks later when British prosecutors dropped charges against whistleblower Katharine Gun, major US news outlets provided very little coverage of the story. The media avoidance continued well past the day in mid-November 2003 when Gun's name became public as the British press reported that she had been formally charged with violating the draconian Official Secrets Act.
Facing the possibility of a prison sentence, Katharine Gun said that disclosure of the NSA memo was "necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed." She said: "I have only ever followed my conscience."
In contrast to the courage of the lone woman who leaked the NSA memo - and in contrast to the journalistic vigor of the Observer team that exposed it - the most powerful US news outlets gave the revelation the media equivalent of a yawn. Top officials of the Bush administration, no doubt relieved at the lack of US media concern about the NSA's illicit spying, must have been very encouraged.
--------
This article is adapted from Norman Solomon's new book War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death. For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
Secret court modified wiretap requests
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/253334_nsaspying24.html?source=mypi
Secret court modified wiretap requests
Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel
By STEWART M. POWELL
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was
encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal
surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and
order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's
approval.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the
26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more
wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four
previous presidential administrations combined.
The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap
requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court
nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying
on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside
the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority
on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes
and Internet communications.
"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on,
and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the
court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of
Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The
Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization."
"The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these
applications by the Bush administration."
Bamford offered his speculation in an interview last week.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by Congress in
the wake of President Nixon's misuse of the NSA and the CIA before his
resignation over Watergate, sets a high standard for court-approved
wiretaps on Americans and resident aliens inside the United States.
To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable
cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign
terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities
that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.
Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had
difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people
within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida
suspects inside the United States.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least
18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches
from five presidential administrations since 1979.
advertising
The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102
applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's
operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's
activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no
orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the
requested authority" submitted by the government.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for
court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of
those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and
2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants
during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's
history.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that Bush authorized
NSA surveillance of overseas communications by U.S.-based terror
suspects because the FISA court's approval process was too cumbersome.
The Bush administration, responding to concerns expressed by some judges
on the 11-member panel, agreed last week to give them a classified
briefing on the domestic spying program. U.S. District Judge Malcolm
Howard, a member of the panel, told CNN that the Bush administration
agreed to brief the judges after U.S. District Judge James Robertson
resigned from the FISA panel, apparently to protest Bush's spying program.
Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush
administration's domestic surveillance without court approval to
Nixon-era abuses of intelligence agencies.
NSA and previous eavesdropping agencies collected duplicates of all
international telegrams to and from the United States for decades during
the Cold War under a program code-named "Shamrock" before the program
ended in the 1970s. A program known as "Minaret" tracked 75,000
Americans whose activities had drawn government interest between 1952
and 1974, including participation in the anti-war movement during the
Vietnam War.
"NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying the
legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks like
we're going back to the bad old days again."
Secret court modified wiretap requests
Intervention may have led Bush to bypass panel
By STEWART M. POWELL
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Government records show that the administration was
encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal
surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and
order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's
approval.
A review of Justice Department reports to Congress shows that the
26-year-old Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court modified more
wiretap requests from the Bush administration than from the four
previous presidential administrations combined.
The court's repeated intervention in Bush administration wiretap
requests may explain why the president decided to bypass the court
nearly four years ago to launch secret National Security Agency spying
on hundreds and possibly thousands of Americans and foreigners inside
the United States, according to James Bamford, an acknowledged authority
on the supersecret NSA, which intercepts telephone calls, e-mails, faxes
and Internet communications.
"They wanted to expand the number of people they were eavesdropping on,
and they didn't think they could get the warrants they needed from the
court to monitor those people," said Bamford, author of "Body of
Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" and "The
Puzzle Palace: Inside America's Most Secret Intelligence Organization."
"The FISA court has shown its displeasure by tinkering with these
applications by the Bush administration."
Bamford offered his speculation in an interview last week.
The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, adopted by Congress in
the wake of President Nixon's misuse of the NSA and the CIA before his
resignation over Watergate, sets a high standard for court-approved
wiretaps on Americans and resident aliens inside the United States.
To win a court-approved wiretap, the government must show "probable
cause" that the target of the surveillance is a member of a foreign
terrorist organization or foreign power and is engaged in activities
that "may" involve a violation of criminal law.
Faced with that standard, Bamford said, the Bush administration had
difficulty obtaining FISA court-approved wiretaps on dozens of people
within the United States who were communicating with targeted al-Qaida
suspects inside the United States.
The 11-judge court that authorizes FISA wiretaps has approved at least
18,740 applications for electronic surveillance or physical searches
from five presidential administrations since 1979.
advertising
The judges modified only two search warrant orders out of the 13,102
applications that were approved over the first 22 years of the court's
operation. In 20 of the first 21 annual reports on the court's
activities up to 1999, the Justice Department told Congress that "no
orders were entered (by the FISA court) which modified or denied the
requested authority" submitted by the government.
But since 2001, the judges have modified 179 of the 5,645 requests for
court-ordered surveillance by the Bush administration. A total of 173 of
those court-ordered "substantive modifications" took place in 2003 and
2004 -- the most recent years for which public records are available.
The judges also rejected or deferred at least six requests for warrants
during those two years -- the first outright rejection in the court's
history.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said last week that Bush authorized
NSA surveillance of overseas communications by U.S.-based terror
suspects because the FISA court's approval process was too cumbersome.
The Bush administration, responding to concerns expressed by some judges
on the 11-member panel, agreed last week to give them a classified
briefing on the domestic spying program. U.S. District Judge Malcolm
Howard, a member of the panel, told CNN that the Bush administration
agreed to brief the judges after U.S. District Judge James Robertson
resigned from the FISA panel, apparently to protest Bush's spying program.
Bamford, 59, a Vietnam-era Navy veteran, likens the Bush
administration's domestic surveillance without court approval to
Nixon-era abuses of intelligence agencies.
NSA and previous eavesdropping agencies collected duplicates of all
international telegrams to and from the United States for decades during
the Cold War under a program code-named "Shamrock" before the program
ended in the 1970s. A program known as "Minaret" tracked 75,000
Americans whose activities had drawn government interest between 1952
and 1974, including participation in the anti-war movement during the
Vietnam War.
"NSA prides itself on learning the lessons of the 1970s and obeying the
legal restrictions imposed by FISA," Bamford said. "Now it looks like
we're going back to the bad old days again."
Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings on Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping
Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings on Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping
By Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
Monday 26 December 2005
Former justice official says he was interpreting law, not making policy
John Yoo knows the epithets of the libertarians, the liberals and the lefties. Widely considered the intellectual architect of the most dramatic assertion of White House power since the Nixon era, he has seen constitutional scholars skewer his reasoning and students call for his ouster from the University of California at Berkeley.
Civil liberties advocates were appalled by a memo he helped draft on torture. The State Department's chief legal adviser at the time called his analysis of the Geneva Conventions "seriously flawed." Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, in a critique of administration views espoused by Yoo, "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
Yoo has alienated so many influential opponents that he is considered unconfirmable for a judgeship or high office, not unlike a certain conservative jurist rejected by the Senate for the Supreme Court.
"Someone said to me that I was the Robert Bork of my generation," he reported the other day.
Yet Yoo, 38, an engaging and outspoken lifelong conservative who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, can be found at seminars and radio microphones, standing up for Bush administration legal arguments that will be studied for decades.
"The worst thing you could do, now that people are critical of your views, is to run and hide. I agree with the work I did. I have an obligation to explain it," Yoo said from his Berkeley office. "I'm one of the few people who is willing to defend decisions I made in government."
Those decisions, made when he was a mid-level Justice Department adviser, have been the most fiercely contested legal positions of the Bush presidency. Framing the battle against terrorism as a wartime emergency, Yoo redefined torture, reinterpreted the Constitution and classified as archaic the long-established humanitarian rules of the battlefield.
Yoo wrote a memo that said the White House was not bound by a federal law prohibiting warrantless eavesdropping on communications that originated or ended in the United States. When news of the program broke, members of both parties called for hearings.
Yoo believes he was correct, even if critics say the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "threatens the very idea of America," as one editorial said. "It would be inappropriate for a lawyer to say, 'The law means A, but I'm going to say B because to interpret it as A would violate American values,'" Yoo said. "A lawyer's job is if the law says A, the law says A."
How Yoo, who has never met President Bush or Vice President Cheney, came to be a principal interpreter of laws and the Constitution for the Bush team is a story rooted in his conservative convictions and a network of like-minded thinkers who helped him thrive.
"He has succeeded and won people over and advanced his ideas," said Manus Cooney, who hired Yoo on to the Judiciary Committee staff of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) in 1995. "As far as conservative academics, I don't think there's anyone in the law whose contacts run deeper in the three branches, or higher."
Yoo traces his convictions in no small part to his parents, and Ronald Reagan. His father and mother are psychiatrists who grew up in Korea during the Japanese occupation and the Korean War. They emigrated in 1967, when Yoo was 3 months old. They sought three things, he said: education, economic opportunity and democracy. They settled in Philadelphia because they admired Eugene Ormandy, then conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra.
Coming of age in an anti-communist household, Yoo said, he associated strong opposition to communist rule with the Republican Party and was himself "attracted to Reagan's message." What he liked most in conservatism was "the grounding in reason and reasonableness."
Yoo attended Episcopal Academy, a private religious school where he studied history, Latin and Greek. Then came Harvard, where he discovered that many people he encountered "were very different-minded, who thought that conservatives were actually sort of stupid or backward." He studied diplomatic history and worked for the school newspaper, where in 1988 he wrote a presidential endorsement of George H.W. Bush rejected by the editorial board's liberal majority.
"It got even worse at law school," Yoo said, recalling the first meeting he attended at the Federalist Society, a national organization of conservatives and libertarians, which attracted all of nine people. Critical of some fellow students who, he said, considered abortion and affirmative action to be the era's most important questions, he settled on matters of war and peace.
With the help of his Federalist Society contacts, he landed a clerkship with U.S. Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, known for his experience in national security issues. Soon after being hired at Berkeley, which Yoo described as the best school to offer him a tenure-track job, he left for the Supreme Court, where he clerked for Thomas and played squash with Justice Antonin Scalia.
Yoo reached the Judiciary Committee staff after Hatch began a search for bright, conservative up-and-comers. Cooney, the staff director, said Yoo maneuvered well: "His smarts are undeniable, but unlike others of similar or equal wattage, he has an appreciation for the political nature of D.C."
Returning to Berkeley, Yoo - who had interned for the Wall Street Journal - turned to his legal writings and op-eds. He earned tenure in 1999.
Along the way, he became a regular at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where he often found himself in sync with international law skeptic John R. Bolton, an ally of Cheney's and now ambassador to the United Nations. Yoo also testified to the GOP-led Florida legislature during the 2000 presidential recount.
Despite his rsum and connections, Yoo required a particular convergence for his views to become as influential as they did. He needed a well-placed position, a national crisis and a receptive audience. He quickly got all three.
Known for his belief in a strong presidency, he joined the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the attorney general and the White House, in July 2001. Two months later came the terrorist attacks and the rush to respond. Soon, Yoo found his audience in the highest echelons of the White House, where the president and vice president already tended to see the courts, Congress and international conventions as constraints on the conduct of foreign affairs and national security.
"He was the right person in the right place at the right time," said Georgetown University's David Cole, a constitutional scholar and administration critic. "Here was someone who had made his career developing arguments for unchecked power, who could cut-and-paste from his law review articles into memos that essentially told the president, 'You can do what you want.' "
In a series of opinions, Yoo argued that the Constitution grants the president virtually unhindered discretion in wartime. He said the fight against terrorism, with no fixed battlefield or uniformed enemy, was a new kind of war.
Two weeks after Sept. 11, Yoo said in a memo for the White House that the Constitution conferred "plenary," or absolute, authority to use force abroad, "especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States."
In reasoning Bush cited last week in defending his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, Yoo's Sept. 25, 2001, memo said Congress granted the president great latitude on Sept. 14, 2001, when it supported the use of force in response to the attacks. The resolution specified the Sept. 11 plotters and their supporters.
"Nonetheless," the memo concluded, "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force to defend the Nation, recognized by the Joint Resolution itself, would allow the President to take whatever actions he deems appropriate to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters."
The majority view among constitutional scholars holds that the Framers purposely imposed checks on the executive branch, even in wartime, not least in reaction to the rule of Britain's King George III. On such issues, Yoo's critics contend, he went too far. "It's largely a misreading of original intent," Cole said. "The Framers, above all, were concerned about a strong executive."
An Aug. 1, 2002, memo on interrogation, written largely by Yoo, drew the most intense criticism. Saying the administration was not bound by federal anti-torture laws, it declared that, to be considered torture, techniques must produce lasting psychological damage or suffering "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
Word of the memo sparked an outcry, causing the White House to back away.
"The idea that . . . Congress has no authority to impose limits on torture has little support in constitutional texts or history, or legal precedent," said University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. Yet Sunstein, like many of Yoo's critics, called him "a very interesting and provocative scholar" who "doesn't deserve the demonization to which he has been subject."
Yoo thinks his critics should understand that he offered legal advice, while others made policy.
"I think people don't understand how difficult was the work we did, how difficult the questions, how recent the 9/11 attacks were," he said. "There was no book at the time you could open and say, 'under American law, this is what torture means.' "
"The lawyer's job is to say, 'This is what the law says and this is what you can't do,' " Yoo said. He advised the White House that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda or the terrorism fight, "but the president could say as a matter of policy we're going to apply them anyway."
Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, is among those who say Yoo deserves considerable blame. "The issues which have most disturbed Americans about the conduct of the executive branch in fighting terrorism can ultimately be traced to legal theories that he espoused in memos pushing the administration in that direction," she said.
Yoo draws inspiration from Thomas and Hatch, saying, "I've seen how they've persevered and still stand up for what they believe in and get their point across." It is a style affirmed by Bork, who wrote a glowing blurb for Yoo's new book, "The Powers of War and Peace."
"He's just being vilified. It's the usual conduct of business in this town right now," Bork said. "You argue your position. What else can you do? There's no tactic that can deflect criticism."
--------
Research editor Lucy Shackelford and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
By Peter Slevin
The Washington Post
Monday 26 December 2005
Former justice official says he was interpreting law, not making policy
John Yoo knows the epithets of the libertarians, the liberals and the lefties. Widely considered the intellectual architect of the most dramatic assertion of White House power since the Nixon era, he has seen constitutional scholars skewer his reasoning and students call for his ouster from the University of California at Berkeley.
Civil liberties advocates were appalled by a memo he helped draft on torture. The State Department's chief legal adviser at the time called his analysis of the Geneva Conventions "seriously flawed." Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote, in a critique of administration views espoused by Yoo, "a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens."
Yoo has alienated so many influential opponents that he is considered unconfirmable for a judgeship or high office, not unlike a certain conservative jurist rejected by the Senate for the Supreme Court.
"Someone said to me that I was the Robert Bork of my generation," he reported the other day.
Yet Yoo, 38, an engaging and outspoken lifelong conservative who clerked for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, can be found at seminars and radio microphones, standing up for Bush administration legal arguments that will be studied for decades.
"The worst thing you could do, now that people are critical of your views, is to run and hide. I agree with the work I did. I have an obligation to explain it," Yoo said from his Berkeley office. "I'm one of the few people who is willing to defend decisions I made in government."
Those decisions, made when he was a mid-level Justice Department adviser, have been the most fiercely contested legal positions of the Bush presidency. Framing the battle against terrorism as a wartime emergency, Yoo redefined torture, reinterpreted the Constitution and classified as archaic the long-established humanitarian rules of the battlefield.
Yoo wrote a memo that said the White House was not bound by a federal law prohibiting warrantless eavesdropping on communications that originated or ended in the United States. When news of the program broke, members of both parties called for hearings.
Yoo believes he was correct, even if critics say the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks "threatens the very idea of America," as one editorial said. "It would be inappropriate for a lawyer to say, 'The law means A, but I'm going to say B because to interpret it as A would violate American values,'" Yoo said. "A lawyer's job is if the law says A, the law says A."
How Yoo, who has never met President Bush or Vice President Cheney, came to be a principal interpreter of laws and the Constitution for the Bush team is a story rooted in his conservative convictions and a network of like-minded thinkers who helped him thrive.
"He has succeeded and won people over and advanced his ideas," said Manus Cooney, who hired Yoo on to the Judiciary Committee staff of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) in 1995. "As far as conservative academics, I don't think there's anyone in the law whose contacts run deeper in the three branches, or higher."
Yoo traces his convictions in no small part to his parents, and Ronald Reagan. His father and mother are psychiatrists who grew up in Korea during the Japanese occupation and the Korean War. They emigrated in 1967, when Yoo was 3 months old. They sought three things, he said: education, economic opportunity and democracy. They settled in Philadelphia because they admired Eugene Ormandy, then conductor of the Philadelphia Orchestra.
Coming of age in an anti-communist household, Yoo said, he associated strong opposition to communist rule with the Republican Party and was himself "attracted to Reagan's message." What he liked most in conservatism was "the grounding in reason and reasonableness."
Yoo attended Episcopal Academy, a private religious school where he studied history, Latin and Greek. Then came Harvard, where he discovered that many people he encountered "were very different-minded, who thought that conservatives were actually sort of stupid or backward." He studied diplomatic history and worked for the school newspaper, where in 1988 he wrote a presidential endorsement of George H.W. Bush rejected by the editorial board's liberal majority.
"It got even worse at law school," Yoo said, recalling the first meeting he attended at the Federalist Society, a national organization of conservatives and libertarians, which attracted all of nine people. Critical of some fellow students who, he said, considered abortion and affirmative action to be the era's most important questions, he settled on matters of war and peace.
With the help of his Federalist Society contacts, he landed a clerkship with U.S. Appeals Judge Laurence H. Silberman, known for his experience in national security issues. Soon after being hired at Berkeley, which Yoo described as the best school to offer him a tenure-track job, he left for the Supreme Court, where he clerked for Thomas and played squash with Justice Antonin Scalia.
Yoo reached the Judiciary Committee staff after Hatch began a search for bright, conservative up-and-comers. Cooney, the staff director, said Yoo maneuvered well: "His smarts are undeniable, but unlike others of similar or equal wattage, he has an appreciation for the political nature of D.C."
Returning to Berkeley, Yoo - who had interned for the Wall Street Journal - turned to his legal writings and op-eds. He earned tenure in 1999.
Along the way, he became a regular at the conservative American Enterprise Institute in Washington, where he often found himself in sync with international law skeptic John R. Bolton, an ally of Cheney's and now ambassador to the United Nations. Yoo also testified to the GOP-led Florida legislature during the 2000 presidential recount.
Despite his rsum and connections, Yoo required a particular convergence for his views to become as influential as they did. He needed a well-placed position, a national crisis and a receptive audience. He quickly got all three.
Known for his belief in a strong presidency, he joined the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the attorney general and the White House, in July 2001. Two months later came the terrorist attacks and the rush to respond. Soon, Yoo found his audience in the highest echelons of the White House, where the president and vice president already tended to see the courts, Congress and international conventions as constraints on the conduct of foreign affairs and national security.
"He was the right person in the right place at the right time," said Georgetown University's David Cole, a constitutional scholar and administration critic. "Here was someone who had made his career developing arguments for unchecked power, who could cut-and-paste from his law review articles into memos that essentially told the president, 'You can do what you want.' "
In a series of opinions, Yoo argued that the Constitution grants the president virtually unhindered discretion in wartime. He said the fight against terrorism, with no fixed battlefield or uniformed enemy, was a new kind of war.
Two weeks after Sept. 11, Yoo said in a memo for the White House that the Constitution conferred "plenary," or absolute, authority to use force abroad, "especially in response to grave national emergencies created by sudden, unforeseen attacks on the people and territory of the United States."
In reasoning Bush cited last week in defending his decision to authorize warrantless wiretapping of U.S. citizens, Yoo's Sept. 25, 2001, memo said Congress granted the president great latitude on Sept. 14, 2001, when it supported the use of force in response to the attacks. The resolution specified the Sept. 11 plotters and their supporters.
"Nonetheless," the memo concluded, "the President's broad constitutional power to use military force to defend the Nation, recognized by the Joint Resolution itself, would allow the President to take whatever actions he deems appropriate to pre-empt or respond to terrorist threats from new quarters."
The majority view among constitutional scholars holds that the Framers purposely imposed checks on the executive branch, even in wartime, not least in reaction to the rule of Britain's King George III. On such issues, Yoo's critics contend, he went too far. "It's largely a misreading of original intent," Cole said. "The Framers, above all, were concerned about a strong executive."
An Aug. 1, 2002, memo on interrogation, written largely by Yoo, drew the most intense criticism. Saying the administration was not bound by federal anti-torture laws, it declared that, to be considered torture, techniques must produce lasting psychological damage or suffering "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."
Word of the memo sparked an outcry, causing the White House to back away.
"The idea that . . . Congress has no authority to impose limits on torture has little support in constitutional texts or history, or legal precedent," said University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. Yet Sunstein, like many of Yoo's critics, called him "a very interesting and provocative scholar" who "doesn't deserve the demonization to which he has been subject."
Yoo thinks his critics should understand that he offered legal advice, while others made policy.
"I think people don't understand how difficult was the work we did, how difficult the questions, how recent the 9/11 attacks were," he said. "There was no book at the time you could open and say, 'under American law, this is what torture means.' "
"The lawyer's job is to say, 'This is what the law says and this is what you can't do,' " Yoo said. He advised the White House that the Geneva Conventions do not apply to al Qaeda or the terrorism fight, "but the president could say as a matter of policy we're going to apply them anyway."
Elisa Massimino, Washington director of Human Rights First, is among those who say Yoo deserves considerable blame. "The issues which have most disturbed Americans about the conduct of the executive branch in fighting terrorism can ultimately be traced to legal theories that he espoused in memos pushing the administration in that direction," she said.
Yoo draws inspiration from Thomas and Hatch, saying, "I've seen how they've persevered and still stand up for what they believe in and get their point across." It is a style affirmed by Bork, who wrote a glowing blurb for Yoo's new book, "The Powers of War and Peace."
"He's just being vilified. It's the usual conduct of business in this town right now," Bork said. "You argue your position. What else can you do? There's no tactic that can deflect criticism."
--------
Research editor Lucy Shackelford and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
Cleaning Up after the Fall
Cleaning Up after the Fall
By Carrie Johnson
The Washington Post
Tuesday 27 December 2005
Liquidating Enron's maze of partnerships could cost more than $1 billion.
Four years after Enron Corp. collapsed, the Houston energy trader clings to life as "the financial equivalent of a Superfund site," its chairman said.
New managers are struggling to clean up after the firm's December 2001 bankruptcy - a process they say is likely to run into 2008. Two operating divisions must be unloaded. Lawsuits against banks that helped the company hide debt must be settled or brought to trial. Leftover cash must be dispensed to creditors claiming some $60 billion.
As with everything else at Enron, a company that became a synonym for greed, a punch line for comedians and a curse word for thousands of workers who lost their retirement savings, closing shop hasn't been simple.
"Soup to nuts here, you've got a few years of hard duty," said Chairman John J. Ray III.
First on the agenda is selling what remains of a more than $4 billion trading portfolio, a reminder of the days when Enron leaders appeared on the cover of business magazines touting a bold new way to swap energy and other commodities. Soon Enron's former leaders will be in the news again. Former chairman Kenneth L. Lay and onetime chief executive Jeffrey K. Skilling face trial Jan. 17 on fraud and conspiracy charges.
Meantime, a five-member board of directors recruited to unwind what was once the nation's seventh-largest firm, has logged 100 meetings over the past year dealing with what was left behind.
"It probably ought to be called E-Liquidation Company," said Ray. "This company has no future life to it. We're just basically in a dismemberment sort of process."
They are guiding Portland General Electric Co., an Oregon utility that serves 750,000 customers, through the process of becoming a separate, publicly traded company as early as April 2006. Regulators blocked a proposed sale to the Texas Pacific Group earlier this year.
They're also ensuring that business plans and audits are in shape at Prisma Energy International Inc., a collection of energy assets around the globe that employs nearly 8,500 people, said board member James R. Latimer III. With gas pipelines in Bolivia, the Caribbean, Europe, and Turkey, Prisma has never operated as a stand-alone company, complicating the efforts to spin off or auction the unit.
Ultimately, the board members said, they hope that the process goes as smoothly as last year's sale of their prize asset, 9,700 miles of domestic pipeline in CrossCountry Energy LLC, for $2 billion to Southern Union Co. and a General Electric Co. finance unit.
In all, Enron now sits on about $12 billion in cash, generated through asset sales and recoveries from investment banks including J.P. Morgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Litigation continues against five more banks, led by Citigroup and Credit Suisse First Boston, which Enron accuses of aiding and abetting fraud by its previous management team. Their civil trial is set for July 2007.
About 300 people continue to work at Enron's modest headquarters in Houston, a far cry from the gleaming downtown office towers it once occupied. The sculpted tilted-E logo, a one-ton beh-E-moth that stood in front of corporate headquarters, has been liquidated, too - for $44,000.
The company also employs 30 more people at a warehouse on the outskirts of town, where they oversee document requests from lawyers and investigators. A federal grand jury continues to hear evidence about wrongdoing at Enron. Board members say it is impossible to predict how much Enron's 30,000 creditors will ultimately receive. They continue to sift through claims, which once reached $1 trillion. Eventually, they hope to return about 20 cents on the dollar to creditors whose claims they deem valid. Disbursals are planned twice a year.
In the meantime, the lawyers, accountants and turnaround experts who guided the company through bankruptcy have collected or are seeking substantial amounts. Stephen F. Cooper, the corporate executive who served as Enron's interim chairman, wants a $25 million success fee - besides his $1.3 million salary and extra consulting fees the company paid several of his associates at Kroll Zolfo Cooper LLC.
The law firm of R. Neal Batson, who prepared several reports as the company's court-appointed bankruptcy examiner over an 18-month period, took home $90 million.
Dozens of other professional advisers billed more than $1 billion, making the Enron bankruptcy the costliest ever, said University of California at Los Angeles law professor Lynn M. LoPucki.
Enron's current directors are well compensated for their work, which they say is more akin to a management role than a traditional corporate board position. Each was recruited to handle a specific issue. Ray, who negotiates with investment banks and others, makes $1.2 million per year. California investment banker and vice chairman Robert M. Deutschman, who helps with valuing and spinning off the assets, collects $420,000. Three other directors, including Latimer, earn $300,000. Stephen D. Bennett, who has a background in the steel industry, monitors costs and budgets. Rick A. Harrington, a former top lawyer at Conoco Phillips, reviews litigation and regulatory issues.
"The immediate cause of the high fees in Enron is the number of professional firms hired to work on the case," said LoPucki, author of a book on problems with the bankruptcy system.
Michael J. Missal, a legal adviser to the bankruptcy examiner in the WorldCom Inc. case, attributed some of the high fees to unwinding sophisticated business partnerships Enron used to conceal debt and pump up earnings.
Even so, Missal said, "I'm not sure that anyone knew it was going to be this large at the beginning."
By Carrie Johnson
The Washington Post
Tuesday 27 December 2005
Liquidating Enron's maze of partnerships could cost more than $1 billion.
Four years after Enron Corp. collapsed, the Houston energy trader clings to life as "the financial equivalent of a Superfund site," its chairman said.
New managers are struggling to clean up after the firm's December 2001 bankruptcy - a process they say is likely to run into 2008. Two operating divisions must be unloaded. Lawsuits against banks that helped the company hide debt must be settled or brought to trial. Leftover cash must be dispensed to creditors claiming some $60 billion.
As with everything else at Enron, a company that became a synonym for greed, a punch line for comedians and a curse word for thousands of workers who lost their retirement savings, closing shop hasn't been simple.
"Soup to nuts here, you've got a few years of hard duty," said Chairman John J. Ray III.
First on the agenda is selling what remains of a more than $4 billion trading portfolio, a reminder of the days when Enron leaders appeared on the cover of business magazines touting a bold new way to swap energy and other commodities. Soon Enron's former leaders will be in the news again. Former chairman Kenneth L. Lay and onetime chief executive Jeffrey K. Skilling face trial Jan. 17 on fraud and conspiracy charges.
Meantime, a five-member board of directors recruited to unwind what was once the nation's seventh-largest firm, has logged 100 meetings over the past year dealing with what was left behind.
"It probably ought to be called E-Liquidation Company," said Ray. "This company has no future life to it. We're just basically in a dismemberment sort of process."
They are guiding Portland General Electric Co., an Oregon utility that serves 750,000 customers, through the process of becoming a separate, publicly traded company as early as April 2006. Regulators blocked a proposed sale to the Texas Pacific Group earlier this year.
They're also ensuring that business plans and audits are in shape at Prisma Energy International Inc., a collection of energy assets around the globe that employs nearly 8,500 people, said board member James R. Latimer III. With gas pipelines in Bolivia, the Caribbean, Europe, and Turkey, Prisma has never operated as a stand-alone company, complicating the efforts to spin off or auction the unit.
Ultimately, the board members said, they hope that the process goes as smoothly as last year's sale of their prize asset, 9,700 miles of domestic pipeline in CrossCountry Energy LLC, for $2 billion to Southern Union Co. and a General Electric Co. finance unit.
In all, Enron now sits on about $12 billion in cash, generated through asset sales and recoveries from investment banks including J.P. Morgan Chase and the Royal Bank of Scotland. Litigation continues against five more banks, led by Citigroup and Credit Suisse First Boston, which Enron accuses of aiding and abetting fraud by its previous management team. Their civil trial is set for July 2007.
About 300 people continue to work at Enron's modest headquarters in Houston, a far cry from the gleaming downtown office towers it once occupied. The sculpted tilted-E logo, a one-ton beh-E-moth that stood in front of corporate headquarters, has been liquidated, too - for $44,000.
The company also employs 30 more people at a warehouse on the outskirts of town, where they oversee document requests from lawyers and investigators. A federal grand jury continues to hear evidence about wrongdoing at Enron. Board members say it is impossible to predict how much Enron's 30,000 creditors will ultimately receive. They continue to sift through claims, which once reached $1 trillion. Eventually, they hope to return about 20 cents on the dollar to creditors whose claims they deem valid. Disbursals are planned twice a year.
In the meantime, the lawyers, accountants and turnaround experts who guided the company through bankruptcy have collected or are seeking substantial amounts. Stephen F. Cooper, the corporate executive who served as Enron's interim chairman, wants a $25 million success fee - besides his $1.3 million salary and extra consulting fees the company paid several of his associates at Kroll Zolfo Cooper LLC.
The law firm of R. Neal Batson, who prepared several reports as the company's court-appointed bankruptcy examiner over an 18-month period, took home $90 million.
Dozens of other professional advisers billed more than $1 billion, making the Enron bankruptcy the costliest ever, said University of California at Los Angeles law professor Lynn M. LoPucki.
Enron's current directors are well compensated for their work, which they say is more akin to a management role than a traditional corporate board position. Each was recruited to handle a specific issue. Ray, who negotiates with investment banks and others, makes $1.2 million per year. California investment banker and vice chairman Robert M. Deutschman, who helps with valuing and spinning off the assets, collects $420,000. Three other directors, including Latimer, earn $300,000. Stephen D. Bennett, who has a background in the steel industry, monitors costs and budgets. Rick A. Harrington, a former top lawyer at Conoco Phillips, reviews litigation and regulatory issues.
"The immediate cause of the high fees in Enron is the number of professional firms hired to work on the case," said LoPucki, author of a book on problems with the bankruptcy system.
Michael J. Missal, a legal adviser to the bankruptcy examiner in the WorldCom Inc. case, attributed some of the high fees to unwinding sophisticated business partnerships Enron used to conceal debt and pump up earnings.
Even so, Missal said, "I'm not sure that anyone knew it was going to be this large at the beginning."
Top commander admits Iraqis want US out ?as soon as possible?
Top commander admits Iraqis want US out ?as soon as possible?: "
BAGHDAD: The top US military commander admitted Sunday that Iraqis wanted US and other foreign troops to leave the country ?as soon as possible?, and said US troop levels in Iraq were now being re-assessed on a monthly basis.
The admission by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Marine General Peter Pace followed a decision by the Pentagon to reduce the current level of 160,000 soldiers in Iraq by two army brigades, which amounts to about 7,000 soldiers.
?Understandably, Iraqis themselves would prefer to have coalition forces leave their country as soon as possible,? Pace said in a Christmas Day interview on Fox News Sunday. ?They don?t want us to leave tomorrow, but they do want us to leave as soon as possible.?
Some US foreign policy experts have expressed concern that a new Iraqi government emerging from the December 15 parliamentary elections could ask American troops to leave, but officials have dismissed that forecast as unrealistic.
However, an opinion survey conducted in Iraq in October and November by ABC News and a pool of other US and foreign media outlets showed that despite some improvements in security and living standards, US military operations in the country were increasingly unpopular.
Two-thirds of those polled said they opposed the presence of US and coalition forces in Iraq, up 14 points from a similar survey taken in February 2004.
Nearly 60 percent disapproved of the way the United States has operated in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, with most of those expressing ?strong disapproval,? the poll found.
When asked to suggest a timing for the US pullout, 26 percent said US and other coalition forces should ?leave now,? while 19 percent opted for a withdrawal after the Iraqis formed a new government based on the results on the December 15 election.
Among those who support a delayed pullout, 31 percent said it should happen after security is fully restored, while 16 percent favored waiting until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, according to the survey.
Pace denied the US Defence Department had prepared a plan that calls for bringing the US troop level in Iraq below 100,000 by the end of next year. But he said force requirements in Iraq are being regularly assessed by the top US military commander there, General George Casey.
?They do a very, very thorough analysis, literally once a month, in great detail,? Pace said. ?They then determine how many troops they need to get the job done.?
ut the chairman warned that ?the enemy has a vote? in how fast US troops were being drawn down, and if attacks intensified, ?you could see troop levels go up a little bit to handle that problem.? afp"
BAGHDAD: The top US military commander admitted Sunday that Iraqis wanted US and other foreign troops to leave the country ?as soon as possible?, and said US troop levels in Iraq were now being re-assessed on a monthly basis.
The admission by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Marine General Peter Pace followed a decision by the Pentagon to reduce the current level of 160,000 soldiers in Iraq by two army brigades, which amounts to about 7,000 soldiers.
?Understandably, Iraqis themselves would prefer to have coalition forces leave their country as soon as possible,? Pace said in a Christmas Day interview on Fox News Sunday. ?They don?t want us to leave tomorrow, but they do want us to leave as soon as possible.?
Some US foreign policy experts have expressed concern that a new Iraqi government emerging from the December 15 parliamentary elections could ask American troops to leave, but officials have dismissed that forecast as unrealistic.
However, an opinion survey conducted in Iraq in October and November by ABC News and a pool of other US and foreign media outlets showed that despite some improvements in security and living standards, US military operations in the country were increasingly unpopular.
Two-thirds of those polled said they opposed the presence of US and coalition forces in Iraq, up 14 points from a similar survey taken in February 2004.
Nearly 60 percent disapproved of the way the United States has operated in Iraq since the war began in March 2003, with most of those expressing ?strong disapproval,? the poll found.
When asked to suggest a timing for the US pullout, 26 percent said US and other coalition forces should ?leave now,? while 19 percent opted for a withdrawal after the Iraqis formed a new government based on the results on the December 15 election.
Among those who support a delayed pullout, 31 percent said it should happen after security is fully restored, while 16 percent favored waiting until Iraqi security forces can operate independently, according to the survey.
Pace denied the US Defence Department had prepared a plan that calls for bringing the US troop level in Iraq below 100,000 by the end of next year. But he said force requirements in Iraq are being regularly assessed by the top US military commander there, General George Casey.
?They do a very, very thorough analysis, literally once a month, in great detail,? Pace said. ?They then determine how many troops they need to get the job done.?
ut the chairman warned that ?the enemy has a vote? in how fast US troops were being drawn down, and if attacks intensified, ?you could see troop levels go up a little bit to handle that problem.? afp"
US embassy close to admitting Syria rendition flight
US embassy close to admitting Syria rendition flight
� Statement contradicts ambassador's interview
� Correction could leave Britain open to challenge
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Tuesday December 27, 2005
Guardian
The US embassy in London was forced to issue a correction yesterday to an interview given by the ambassador, Robert Tuttle, in which he claimed America would not fly suspected terrorists to Syria, which has one of the worst torture records in the Middle East. A statement acknowledged media reports of a suspect taken from the US to Syria.
Torture is banned in the US but the CIA has been engaged in a policy of rendition, flying terrorist suspects to countries in the Middle East and other parts of the world where torture is commonplace.
Although Mr Tuttle, a Beverly Hills car dealer and major donor to George Bush's re-election campaign, has been ambassador in London only since the summer, he is proving to be accident-prone. Last month he vigorously denied British media reports that American forces used white phosphorus as a weapon in Iraq, only to be undercut by an admission from the Pentagon the next day.
Mr Tuttle gave an interview to the BBC Today programme on Thursday for broadcast yesterday morning. On Friday, the US embassy returned to the BBC with a lengthy statement of clarification, which was also broadcast yesterday at the end of the interview.
Asked by the BBC if the US dumped suspects in Syria, Mr Tuttle said: "I don't think there is any evidence that there have been any renditions carried out in the country of Syria. There is no evidence of that. And I think we have to take what the secretary [Condoleezza Rice] says at face value. It is something very important, it is done very carefully and she has said we do not authorise, condone torture in any way, shape or form."
A US embassy spokeswoman contacted the BBC on Friday to say the ambassador "recognised that there had been a media report of a rendition to Syria but reiterated that the United States is not in a position to comment on specific allegations of intelligence activities that appear in the press".
The embassy spokeswoman "underscored that the president and secretary Rice have made clear that even in today's circumstances, where we are confronting a new kind of threat, the United States does not condone torture, its officials do not participate in such activities anywhere, and we do not hand over anyone in our custody to anywhere where we believe that they will be tortured. Full stop.
"We take our actions in the fight against terrorism with full respect for our international obligations and with full respect for the sovereignty of our partners."
The embassy's statement is close to an admission of at least one flight to Syria as it would be unlikely to embarrass the ambassador by referring to a media report it considered inaccurate.
Maher Arar, a Canadian software engineer of Syrian descent, says he was arrested in New York in 2002 and transferred to Jordan, then to Syria, where he said he was tortured. The US use of Syria for rendition sits uneasily with Washington's portrayal of the country as a pariah state. The Guardian has reported the CIA used British airports to refuel for rendition flights, which would contravene British law.
Asked if he knew whether the US had sought permission from Britain, Mr Tuttle said Ms Rice had maintained that rendition would respect each country's sovereignty. His reply would seem to imply the US had sought permission, possibly leaving the British government open to challenge.
Backstory
US presidents tend to treat the post of ambassador to Britain more as a reward for political donors and allies than a job for diplomats, and Robert Tuttle fits this pattern. A Beverly Hills car dealer and major Republican party donor, he became ambassador this summer. He served in Ronald Reagan's White House and was ranked as a "pioneer" in George Bush's re-election campaign for raising more than �100,000 (�57,000).
� Statement contradicts ambassador's interview
� Correction could leave Britain open to challenge
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Tuesday December 27, 2005
Guardian
The US embassy in London was forced to issue a correction yesterday to an interview given by the ambassador, Robert Tuttle, in which he claimed America would not fly suspected terrorists to Syria, which has one of the worst torture records in the Middle East. A statement acknowledged media reports of a suspect taken from the US to Syria.
Torture is banned in the US but the CIA has been engaged in a policy of rendition, flying terrorist suspects to countries in the Middle East and other parts of the world where torture is commonplace.
Although Mr Tuttle, a Beverly Hills car dealer and major donor to George Bush's re-election campaign, has been ambassador in London only since the summer, he is proving to be accident-prone. Last month he vigorously denied British media reports that American forces used white phosphorus as a weapon in Iraq, only to be undercut by an admission from the Pentagon the next day.
Mr Tuttle gave an interview to the BBC Today programme on Thursday for broadcast yesterday morning. On Friday, the US embassy returned to the BBC with a lengthy statement of clarification, which was also broadcast yesterday at the end of the interview.
Asked by the BBC if the US dumped suspects in Syria, Mr Tuttle said: "I don't think there is any evidence that there have been any renditions carried out in the country of Syria. There is no evidence of that. And I think we have to take what the secretary [Condoleezza Rice] says at face value. It is something very important, it is done very carefully and she has said we do not authorise, condone torture in any way, shape or form."
A US embassy spokeswoman contacted the BBC on Friday to say the ambassador "recognised that there had been a media report of a rendition to Syria but reiterated that the United States is not in a position to comment on specific allegations of intelligence activities that appear in the press".
The embassy spokeswoman "underscored that the president and secretary Rice have made clear that even in today's circumstances, where we are confronting a new kind of threat, the United States does not condone torture, its officials do not participate in such activities anywhere, and we do not hand over anyone in our custody to anywhere where we believe that they will be tortured. Full stop.
"We take our actions in the fight against terrorism with full respect for our international obligations and with full respect for the sovereignty of our partners."
The embassy's statement is close to an admission of at least one flight to Syria as it would be unlikely to embarrass the ambassador by referring to a media report it considered inaccurate.
Maher Arar, a Canadian software engineer of Syrian descent, says he was arrested in New York in 2002 and transferred to Jordan, then to Syria, where he said he was tortured. The US use of Syria for rendition sits uneasily with Washington's portrayal of the country as a pariah state. The Guardian has reported the CIA used British airports to refuel for rendition flights, which would contravene British law.
Asked if he knew whether the US had sought permission from Britain, Mr Tuttle said Ms Rice had maintained that rendition would respect each country's sovereignty. His reply would seem to imply the US had sought permission, possibly leaving the British government open to challenge.
Backstory
US presidents tend to treat the post of ambassador to Britain more as a reward for political donors and allies than a job for diplomats, and Robert Tuttle fits this pattern. A Beverly Hills car dealer and major Republican party donor, he became ambassador this summer. He served in Ronald Reagan's White House and was ranked as a "pioneer" in George Bush's re-election campaign for raising more than �100,000 (�57,000).
Pearl Harbor and 9/11
Pearl Harbor and 9/11
Two attacks, two responses, two outcomes
� Bryan Zepp Jamieson
12/27/05
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/VRWC/twoattacks.htm
One of the favorite stances people writing about the attacks on 9/11/01
like to take is that of comparing the attacks to the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. There?s comfort in that, because
there?s widespread belief among Americans that the nation responded by
jumping to its collective feet with an angry roar, and promptly thrashed
the Germans and the Japanese, saved the Jews and England, and made the
Germans stop behaving like Europeans.
People like to cling to that, even though things haven?t gone exactly
the way things went after Pearl Harbor. It has been four years, four
months, and sixteen days since 9/11. In terms of time after Pearl
Harbor, that would be the equivalent date of April 23rd, 1946. Hitler
and FDR were both dead over a year by that point, Japan was taking the
first steps toward regaining self rule without the military involved,
and the world was making a slow recovery from the years of madness.
In America, people were finally believing that the end of the war didn?t
mean the return of the depression, and in fact, America was beginning
the biggest economic boom in her history.
In other words, in the amount of time that we?ve seen since 9/11,
America had fought World War II, and everything was settling back into a
peaceful prosperity.
But if the aftermath has proved a disappointment to fans of Vengeance
America, the fact is that the actual events had some major differences, too.
Americans felt far more smug and secure in 1941 than they did in 2001.
There was still a depression, but it was nowhere near as bad as it had
been in the grim years between 1929 and 1934. Americans knew that they
might well get drawn into the European War (and Congress knew it, too,
passing the first peacetime draft in 1940 and authorizing the $50
billion lend-lease program in 1941), but it wouldn?t be as bad as The
Great War had been. The Japanese, when they were thought of at all, were
regarded as comical little half-monkey half-men with buck teeth and
thick glasses who lisped when they spoke. Many Americans believed that
the Japanese were physiologically and mentally incapable of piloting a
plane, and that the Japanese air attacks were conducted by Germans who
flew and designed the Zero. (Both were Japanese accomplishments).
Suddenly, America had to confront the reality of what they faced. In
Europe, Nazi Germany controlled nearly the entire continent, and much of
Russia. (In fact, the tide was already turning against Hitler at that
point; England had won the Battle of Britain, the French resistance was
beginning to take a toll, and, despite himself and at a horrific cost to
his own people, Stalin had lured the German army into its first Russian
winter. But few in America knew that).
The Japanese Empire was even bigger, covering nearly an eighth of the
globe. And suddenly the Japanese went from funny little monkeymen to
ruthless, terrifyingly intelligent high-tech beings who would fight for
three days after their heads were cut off.
If there?s anything stupider than a racial stereotype that makes your
target group look inferior to you, it?s a racial stereotype that takes
that same group and makes them into some sort of diseased supermen.
Americans panicked in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, and with good
reason. The might and determination of the Axis was evident, and even
without the silly racial stereotypes, the Japanese atrocities and the
cold precision of the Pearl Harbor attack made it obvious they were a
deadly and implacable foe.
America was not a super power. Her military was considered less powerful
than France?s, which Germany took only two weeks to demolish. Rumors
wildfired. The Japanese had taken the Aleutians. Then it was that they
had taken California. Axis war craft sailed along both of America?s
coasts with impunity, adding to the general alarm.
Americans did some foolish things in their panic. Congress passed and
FDR signed HR1776, which rounded up Americans of Japanese descent and
threw them in concentration camps. Less foolish, but questionable
activities also transpired. The government worked with the studios to
produce a lot of war time propaganda, and citizens were encouraged to
report suspicious activities. The court made one funky decision
regarding foreign nationals sneaking into the country with malicious
intent, and embarrassedly overruled themselves the first time such a
case popped up after the war.
But that?s where it stopped. Americans didn?t throw away their rights,
and FDR, despite his huge popularity, never tried claiming the only way
America could win the war would be if he were to have the ability to
snoop on every American to make sure they weren?t selling military
secrets to Tojo.
There were the usual stuffy cardboard patriots around who questioned the
patriotism of anyone who complained or questioned, but all cultures have
those in all wars. If they do little good for homeland morale, they also
usually do little harm.
When 9/11 happened, it was generally assumed that America would hunt
down the people responsible, punish them, and move on. Nobody dreamed
America would permanently occupy one land that had some contacts with
the people behind the attacks while blissfully ignoring other countries,
such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, that had far greater
involvement with the people held responsible for the attacks.
Then, of course, Putsch attacked a country that had nothing at all to do
with 9/11, pressured Congress not to investigate 9/11 (Pearl Harbor had
four major Congressional investigations in the first year ? yes, while
America was in a state of war. President?s own party controlled
Congress, too) and had all the evidence removed and destroyed (most of
the wreckage at Pearl is STILL there, as a national memorial).
People held still for that, which is mind boggling. Americans were told
they were right to be afraid, that these rag-tag little bands of
malcontents thousands of miles away were a far greater threat than Nazi
Germany and the Japanese Empire combined, and that America faced a far
greater peril if government did not scrap rights to privacy and the
fourth amendment and proactively ?protect? us.
And Americans BELIEVED this. A vast majority at first, but the numbers
are dwindling as time goes by, and the threat becomes just part of the
background hum, along with lightning strikes and shark attacks.
But millions of Americans, party loyalists to the GOP mostly, still
chant that anyone who questions the war is a terrorist sympathizer, and
that Putsch has the right to monitor our phone conversations. After all,
that Methodist Pastor up the street admits he didn?t vote for Putsch in
either election ? he might be a terrorist sympathizer!
What?s happening here is NOT politics as usual, and this goes well
beyond the games of party partisanship.
Americans were frightened after Pearl Harbor, and FDR led, and gave them
confidence and courage to face what at first must have seemed a daunting
task.
This time, Americans were frightened after 9/11, but as time went on, it
became clear that the threat behind 9/11 was, for all the spectacular
horror of that day, really a minor one. But Putsch didn?t make Americans
confident and resolute. Instead, he worked hard to keep us all
frightened, and he and his administrations pushed the endless chant of
?Terror! Terror! Terror!? to keep Americans frightened.
He is working against America?s best interests, exploiting whatever
happened on that terrible day for his own agenda. It?s no coincidence
that he and his party of greedy jackals decided within weeks that
erecting a police state and passing tax cuts for the rich were the only
way to fight this foe.
And now we have the warrantless wiretap thing. Millions of people that
Putsch is listening to; suspect groups like the Audubon Society, or
Quakers, and Peace Activists. Librarians are the enemy in this
administration?s eyes, along with any Congressman who asks why we are
fighting in Iraq.
Anyone who still supports the administration at this point is saying,
loudly and clearly, ?I am throwing away the rights of my self, my family
and friends, everyone I ever cared about, and all of America, because
Putsch has told me that is the only way I can be safe.?
And that, my friend, is not patriotism. Quite the opposite.
It is not courage. Quite the opposite.
It is not resolve. Quite the opposite.
Anyone who supports Putsch at this point is an appeaser who is selling
out his country because he let George frighten him.
The folks who remember Pearl Harbor would have nothing but contempt.
Two attacks, two responses, two outcomes
� Bryan Zepp Jamieson
12/27/05
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com/VRWC/twoattacks.htm
One of the favorite stances people writing about the attacks on 9/11/01
like to take is that of comparing the attacks to the Japanese attack on
Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941. There?s comfort in that, because
there?s widespread belief among Americans that the nation responded by
jumping to its collective feet with an angry roar, and promptly thrashed
the Germans and the Japanese, saved the Jews and England, and made the
Germans stop behaving like Europeans.
People like to cling to that, even though things haven?t gone exactly
the way things went after Pearl Harbor. It has been four years, four
months, and sixteen days since 9/11. In terms of time after Pearl
Harbor, that would be the equivalent date of April 23rd, 1946. Hitler
and FDR were both dead over a year by that point, Japan was taking the
first steps toward regaining self rule without the military involved,
and the world was making a slow recovery from the years of madness.
In America, people were finally believing that the end of the war didn?t
mean the return of the depression, and in fact, America was beginning
the biggest economic boom in her history.
In other words, in the amount of time that we?ve seen since 9/11,
America had fought World War II, and everything was settling back into a
peaceful prosperity.
But if the aftermath has proved a disappointment to fans of Vengeance
America, the fact is that the actual events had some major differences, too.
Americans felt far more smug and secure in 1941 than they did in 2001.
There was still a depression, but it was nowhere near as bad as it had
been in the grim years between 1929 and 1934. Americans knew that they
might well get drawn into the European War (and Congress knew it, too,
passing the first peacetime draft in 1940 and authorizing the $50
billion lend-lease program in 1941), but it wouldn?t be as bad as The
Great War had been. The Japanese, when they were thought of at all, were
regarded as comical little half-monkey half-men with buck teeth and
thick glasses who lisped when they spoke. Many Americans believed that
the Japanese were physiologically and mentally incapable of piloting a
plane, and that the Japanese air attacks were conducted by Germans who
flew and designed the Zero. (Both were Japanese accomplishments).
Suddenly, America had to confront the reality of what they faced. In
Europe, Nazi Germany controlled nearly the entire continent, and much of
Russia. (In fact, the tide was already turning against Hitler at that
point; England had won the Battle of Britain, the French resistance was
beginning to take a toll, and, despite himself and at a horrific cost to
his own people, Stalin had lured the German army into its first Russian
winter. But few in America knew that).
The Japanese Empire was even bigger, covering nearly an eighth of the
globe. And suddenly the Japanese went from funny little monkeymen to
ruthless, terrifyingly intelligent high-tech beings who would fight for
three days after their heads were cut off.
If there?s anything stupider than a racial stereotype that makes your
target group look inferior to you, it?s a racial stereotype that takes
that same group and makes them into some sort of diseased supermen.
Americans panicked in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, and with good
reason. The might and determination of the Axis was evident, and even
without the silly racial stereotypes, the Japanese atrocities and the
cold precision of the Pearl Harbor attack made it obvious they were a
deadly and implacable foe.
America was not a super power. Her military was considered less powerful
than France?s, which Germany took only two weeks to demolish. Rumors
wildfired. The Japanese had taken the Aleutians. Then it was that they
had taken California. Axis war craft sailed along both of America?s
coasts with impunity, adding to the general alarm.
Americans did some foolish things in their panic. Congress passed and
FDR signed HR1776, which rounded up Americans of Japanese descent and
threw them in concentration camps. Less foolish, but questionable
activities also transpired. The government worked with the studios to
produce a lot of war time propaganda, and citizens were encouraged to
report suspicious activities. The court made one funky decision
regarding foreign nationals sneaking into the country with malicious
intent, and embarrassedly overruled themselves the first time such a
case popped up after the war.
But that?s where it stopped. Americans didn?t throw away their rights,
and FDR, despite his huge popularity, never tried claiming the only way
America could win the war would be if he were to have the ability to
snoop on every American to make sure they weren?t selling military
secrets to Tojo.
There were the usual stuffy cardboard patriots around who questioned the
patriotism of anyone who complained or questioned, but all cultures have
those in all wars. If they do little good for homeland morale, they also
usually do little harm.
When 9/11 happened, it was generally assumed that America would hunt
down the people responsible, punish them, and move on. Nobody dreamed
America would permanently occupy one land that had some contacts with
the people behind the attacks while blissfully ignoring other countries,
such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Egypt, that had far greater
involvement with the people held responsible for the attacks.
Then, of course, Putsch attacked a country that had nothing at all to do
with 9/11, pressured Congress not to investigate 9/11 (Pearl Harbor had
four major Congressional investigations in the first year ? yes, while
America was in a state of war. President?s own party controlled
Congress, too) and had all the evidence removed and destroyed (most of
the wreckage at Pearl is STILL there, as a national memorial).
People held still for that, which is mind boggling. Americans were told
they were right to be afraid, that these rag-tag little bands of
malcontents thousands of miles away were a far greater threat than Nazi
Germany and the Japanese Empire combined, and that America faced a far
greater peril if government did not scrap rights to privacy and the
fourth amendment and proactively ?protect? us.
And Americans BELIEVED this. A vast majority at first, but the numbers
are dwindling as time goes by, and the threat becomes just part of the
background hum, along with lightning strikes and shark attacks.
But millions of Americans, party loyalists to the GOP mostly, still
chant that anyone who questions the war is a terrorist sympathizer, and
that Putsch has the right to monitor our phone conversations. After all,
that Methodist Pastor up the street admits he didn?t vote for Putsch in
either election ? he might be a terrorist sympathizer!
What?s happening here is NOT politics as usual, and this goes well
beyond the games of party partisanship.
Americans were frightened after Pearl Harbor, and FDR led, and gave them
confidence and courage to face what at first must have seemed a daunting
task.
This time, Americans were frightened after 9/11, but as time went on, it
became clear that the threat behind 9/11 was, for all the spectacular
horror of that day, really a minor one. But Putsch didn?t make Americans
confident and resolute. Instead, he worked hard to keep us all
frightened, and he and his administrations pushed the endless chant of
?Terror! Terror! Terror!? to keep Americans frightened.
He is working against America?s best interests, exploiting whatever
happened on that terrible day for his own agenda. It?s no coincidence
that he and his party of greedy jackals decided within weeks that
erecting a police state and passing tax cuts for the rich were the only
way to fight this foe.
And now we have the warrantless wiretap thing. Millions of people that
Putsch is listening to; suspect groups like the Audubon Society, or
Quakers, and Peace Activists. Librarians are the enemy in this
administration?s eyes, along with any Congressman who asks why we are
fighting in Iraq.
Anyone who still supports the administration at this point is saying,
loudly and clearly, ?I am throwing away the rights of my self, my family
and friends, everyone I ever cared about, and all of America, because
Putsch has told me that is the only way I can be safe.?
And that, my friend, is not patriotism. Quite the opposite.
It is not courage. Quite the opposite.
It is not resolve. Quite the opposite.
Anyone who supports Putsch at this point is an appeaser who is selling
out his country because he let George frighten him.
The folks who remember Pearl Harbor would have nothing but contempt.
Comedy of terror
Comedy of terror
Tony Blair, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld - you're my prize guys
Terry Jones
Tuesday December 27, 2005
The Guardian
Well the end of the year is as good a time as any to distribute prizes. And first is the Gary Glitter Cup for Self-Restraint, to Tony Blair. It can't have been an easy couple of years for him, and yet he has somehow managed to keep that smile on his lips and that cheerful sparkle in his eye with a degree of self-restraint that impressed the judges.
Over the past two years, Tony has seen all his Iraq policies turn into unmitigated disasters. Instead of his stated aim of bringing peace and happiness to the people of Iraq, he has brought them chaos, bloodshed, violence and misery. Instead of making Britain safer, his policies have made this country a target for terrorism for the foreseeable future.
And now there is open talk in the Senate of impeaching George Bush; the New York Times accuses him of "recklessness" and claims he "may also have violated the law". Tony must be finding it difficult to sleep. Yet he is able to get up in the morning unassisted! He is able to look at himself in the mirror, shave without damaging his throat, and go to work with every appearance of a man who imagines he's doing a good job.
This achievement richly deserves the Gary Glitter Cup. Well done, Tony!
And now we come to the Dick Cheney "Goblet of Fire" Award for Courage in the Face of Action. And for the sixth successive year, the award goes to ... the vice-president of the US ... Dick Cheney!
This year the judge (who is, once again, Dick Cheney) cites in particular Mr Cheney's fearlessness in speaking with authority on military matters despite the fact that he has never served in the military. In fact Mr Cheney received no less than five deferments rather than serve his country in uniform. Nor has he lost his nerve, despite seeing the death rate of American servicemen and women climb above the 2,000 mark. Those who have already died will be heartened by his courageous determination to risk yet more people's lives.
Well done, Dick. The "Goblet of Fire" is yours once again.
The Kellogg Brown and Root Shield for Corporate Services also goes to Dick Cheney, along with the purse of between $180,000 and $1m (payable annually as "deferred compensation"). KBR is the engineering and construction arm of Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000 - in which time the value of Halliburton's US government contracts almost doubled from $1.2bn to $2.3bn.
He then became vice-president, and things have got even better for KBR, even though Mr Cheney resigned his company position. As of March 1 2004, KBR has been awarded reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan worth at least $3.9bn.
So step up, Dick Cheney!
We now come to the Abu Ghraib Trophy for Human Rights, and ... yes, it's another triumph for the VP! Dick Cheney has stood firm against a wicked cabal of Republican senators - John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina - who tried to sneak a clause into the 2005 military spending bill that would outlaw "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" to military prisoners. How can the US champion human rights unless it is allowed unrestrained access to any torture techniques it considers fit, to use against enemies that are both sub-human and have forfeited any rights to be treated as our fellow creatures?
Well done, Dick! I hope the Abu Ghraib Trophy will sit proudly alongside all those others.
We now move on to the Narnia Prize for the Closest Impersonation of Donald Rumsfeld, which this year goes to ... yes, Donald Rumsfeld! Donald has consistently played himself, throughout the unfolding military and public relations disaster in Iraq and the exposure of torture in US military prisons. Eschewing all imitations, he has brought his philosophical double-think and understated, homespun comedy to all affairs of state, no matter how grave. Chaos and lawlessness in Iraq? "Freedom's untidy," says the defence secretary, November 2005. Hunger strike at Guant�namo Bay? "There are a number of people who do go on a diet," says Rummy. Great stuff.
Finally we come to the Apocalypse Now! Award for Redefining the World, which this year goes to the president of the United States, George Bush.
The judges were unanimous. The president claimed that in the second world war, the forces of freedom defeated the ideology of fascism. In the cold war, those same forces defeated communism. "Today, in the Middle East, freedom is contending with ... terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al-Qaida," whose ultimate aim is to "establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain".
With a simple piece of unnoticed elision, George Bush has recreated the crusades. Rumsfeld and Cheney can rest assured that the arms industry will flourish for years to come. The west has a new enemy: Islam.
Poor Islam. Poor Christianity. Poor us.
George Bush, the Apocalypse Now! award is yours.
� Terry Jones's War On The War On Terror, which includes a collection of his Guardian columns, is published by Nation Books. feggfeat@macline.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1673894,00.html
Tony Blair, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld - you're my prize guys
Terry Jones
Tuesday December 27, 2005
The Guardian
Well the end of the year is as good a time as any to distribute prizes. And first is the Gary Glitter Cup for Self-Restraint, to Tony Blair. It can't have been an easy couple of years for him, and yet he has somehow managed to keep that smile on his lips and that cheerful sparkle in his eye with a degree of self-restraint that impressed the judges.
Over the past two years, Tony has seen all his Iraq policies turn into unmitigated disasters. Instead of his stated aim of bringing peace and happiness to the people of Iraq, he has brought them chaos, bloodshed, violence and misery. Instead of making Britain safer, his policies have made this country a target for terrorism for the foreseeable future.
And now there is open talk in the Senate of impeaching George Bush; the New York Times accuses him of "recklessness" and claims he "may also have violated the law". Tony must be finding it difficult to sleep. Yet he is able to get up in the morning unassisted! He is able to look at himself in the mirror, shave without damaging his throat, and go to work with every appearance of a man who imagines he's doing a good job.
This achievement richly deserves the Gary Glitter Cup. Well done, Tony!
And now we come to the Dick Cheney "Goblet of Fire" Award for Courage in the Face of Action. And for the sixth successive year, the award goes to ... the vice-president of the US ... Dick Cheney!
This year the judge (who is, once again, Dick Cheney) cites in particular Mr Cheney's fearlessness in speaking with authority on military matters despite the fact that he has never served in the military. In fact Mr Cheney received no less than five deferments rather than serve his country in uniform. Nor has he lost his nerve, despite seeing the death rate of American servicemen and women climb above the 2,000 mark. Those who have already died will be heartened by his courageous determination to risk yet more people's lives.
Well done, Dick. The "Goblet of Fire" is yours once again.
The Kellogg Brown and Root Shield for Corporate Services also goes to Dick Cheney, along with the purse of between $180,000 and $1m (payable annually as "deferred compensation"). KBR is the engineering and construction arm of Halliburton, of which Dick Cheney was CEO from 1995 to 2000 - in which time the value of Halliburton's US government contracts almost doubled from $1.2bn to $2.3bn.
He then became vice-president, and things have got even better for KBR, even though Mr Cheney resigned his company position. As of March 1 2004, KBR has been awarded reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan worth at least $3.9bn.
So step up, Dick Cheney!
We now come to the Abu Ghraib Trophy for Human Rights, and ... yes, it's another triumph for the VP! Dick Cheney has stood firm against a wicked cabal of Republican senators - John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina - who tried to sneak a clause into the 2005 military spending bill that would outlaw "cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment" to military prisoners. How can the US champion human rights unless it is allowed unrestrained access to any torture techniques it considers fit, to use against enemies that are both sub-human and have forfeited any rights to be treated as our fellow creatures?
Well done, Dick! I hope the Abu Ghraib Trophy will sit proudly alongside all those others.
We now move on to the Narnia Prize for the Closest Impersonation of Donald Rumsfeld, which this year goes to ... yes, Donald Rumsfeld! Donald has consistently played himself, throughout the unfolding military and public relations disaster in Iraq and the exposure of torture in US military prisons. Eschewing all imitations, he has brought his philosophical double-think and understated, homespun comedy to all affairs of state, no matter how grave. Chaos and lawlessness in Iraq? "Freedom's untidy," says the defence secretary, November 2005. Hunger strike at Guant�namo Bay? "There are a number of people who do go on a diet," says Rummy. Great stuff.
Finally we come to the Apocalypse Now! Award for Redefining the World, which this year goes to the president of the United States, George Bush.
The judges were unanimous. The president claimed that in the second world war, the forces of freedom defeated the ideology of fascism. In the cold war, those same forces defeated communism. "Today, in the Middle East, freedom is contending with ... terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al-Qaida," whose ultimate aim is to "establish a totalitarian Islamic empire that reaches from Indonesia to Spain".
With a simple piece of unnoticed elision, George Bush has recreated the crusades. Rumsfeld and Cheney can rest assured that the arms industry will flourish for years to come. The west has a new enemy: Islam.
Poor Islam. Poor Christianity. Poor us.
George Bush, the Apocalypse Now! award is yours.
� Terry Jones's War On The War On Terror, which includes a collection of his Guardian columns, is published by Nation Books. feggfeat@macline.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1673894,00.html
Are You Being Tracked?
Are You Being Tracked?
By Devanie Angel, Sacramento News & Review
Posted on December 27, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/29890/
It looks fairly innocuous, a metal-and-plastic square with wires coiled up like an angular snail, a lot like the anti-theft tag you'd find if you pried apart a book you'd just bought at a chain store. But it's a Radio Frequency Identification tag, RFID for short, and each one has a tiny antenna that can broadcast information about the product, or person, to which it is attached.
To the industry that makes and markets RFID, it's simply the next logical step from bar codes: providing a cheap, easy way to keep products on the shelves, consumers happy and companies making money.
But to many privacy-rights advocates, RFID tags could be the forerunner to nightmare scenarios in which RFID technology is the Trojan horse that brings Big Brother into your home, snooping through your medicine cabinets, fridge and underwear drawer to find out what you do, buy and believe, and, ultimately, what you are.
This small tag has, so far, largely flown under the radar of consumers and the mainstream press. But in early October, privacy-rights advocates Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre published a book, "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID," that has RFID proponents on the defensive.
The book holds up plenty of evidence to back up the fears of people who otherwise might be written off as tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists: IBM taking out a patent for a "person-tracking unit" that uses RFID tags to identify individuals, their movements and purchases in stores. Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart collaborating on a test that put cameras on a store shelf in Oklahoma and watched customers pluck lipsticks off an RFID-enabled shelf. A Sutter County grade school's experimental program requiring students to wear RFID-enabled badges to track their on-campus movements, thanks to supplies donated by the InCom Corp. based 50 miles northwest of Sacramento.
And the federal government plans to put RFID tags in passports, prescription medications and perhaps driver's licenses and postage stamps. One day, the "Spychips" authors fear, the tiny tags could be on everything from candy bars to dollar bills, compromising both privacy and personal security.
"I think the industry is waiting until they've done adequate PR to where the public will really embrace it," Albrecht said. "They want to get the infrastructure in place [and] find ways to integrate this technology in a way that is not going to scare people. They envision these things in our homes and our refrigerators and in the doorway of our kids' bedrooms."
In the weeks after "Spychips"' release, RFID supporters retaliated with rebuttals calling the book at best a futuristic fairy tale and at worst a delusional pack of lies by fringe alarmists.
As much as the RFID industry (which researchers say will be a $4.2 billion-a-year business by 2011) might want to ignore the book and its authors, it can't afford to do so. One RFID company has even bought space on Google, eBay and Amazon so when consumers search for "Spychips," a link to a 24-page rebuttal pops up.
"We felt we had a responsibility to educate consumers," said Nicholas Chavez, president of RFID Ltd., who co-authored the rebuttal released November 4. "They may get first blanch at the consumers through the book," he said. "There's a big fear out there that people will go read 'Spychips' and then go out and tell 10 people."
"Spychips," he said, casts RFID in "this sinister, Orwellian light" and presupposes applications that aren't within the current capabilities of the technology. RFID was first envisioned in the 1940s, combining the existing disciplines of radio broadcast technology and radar to communicate via reflected power, according to a history by AIM Global, the Association for Automatic Identification and Mobility. It wasn't until the late 1970s that technical capabilities caught up with the vision and RFID began to be applied commercially.
While "active" RFID tags send out radio signals, the more typical "passive" tags lie dormant until picked up by devices called readers, which can be positioned anywhere from a couple of inches to several feet away. The reader transmits the information to a database, where it can be stored. There's some debate over actual vs. intended read range, and Albrecht says she has registered results from as far as 15 feet away, but "you don't need these massive read ranges," Albrecht said, if RFID readers are placed in strategic locations, such as freeway onramps, grocery-store aisles, floors or doorways of homes. While some chips are smaller than a grain of sand, the ones currently in use on shipping crates are the size of a credit card.
It's a technology that ultimately will win over consumers through convenience and savings, said Gail Tom, a California State University, Sacramento, professor who teaches marketing courses and has written two books on consumer behavior.
And yet, she acknowledged, "if you went up to the average person on the street, they would not know what RFID is."
The "Spychips" book, she said, "alerts people to at least think about it." "Whenever you have new technology, there are concerns, and it's good to have concerns [due to] just the possibility that there could be Draconian and negative things. You would hope the good outweighs the bad," she said. "When UPC codes came out, it was somewhat controversial, too," Tom said, remembering worries that unscrupulous retailers would switch prices on unsuspecting customers.
"Using the analogy of the bar code is a good one, because it tracks the product, it doesn't track you," she said. "Marketers are not interested in individuals. They're interested in segments and clumps of people." A lot of the technology's success depends on how the RFID industry plays it, and Tom agreed it's now somewhat on the defensive. "It may not have occurred to marketers that they needed to publicize this, because they may not have seen a lot of the privacy issues."
Underwear tags and smart shopping carts
The RFID industry's adversaries are smart, passionate and media-savvy. With each new development, the authors of "Spychips" fire off an e-mail press release touting their successes or assailing their critics, turning industry leaders' own words against them. They've organized pickets at Wal-Marts, along with boycotts of companies such as Gillette and European retail store Tesco. (In 2003, that store collaborated to package RFID tags with Mach3 razor blades and surreptitiously snap photos of customers taking them from the shelf, and later at the cash register, in a test designed in part to identify potential shoplifters.) The clothing company Benetton canceled its plans to put RFID in underwear and other products after Albrecht launched an "I'd rather go naked" campaign.
Their message is resonating with anti-government Libertarians, conservative Christians and staunch American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) types. But that's not all. "It doesn't have a demographic," Albrecht said of "Spychips." "Everyone's got a reason not to be spied on."
Try to get biographical information out of Katherine Albrecht, and you'll get some unintended insight into what she's all about. She started taking college courses at age 15 but won't say where she grew up. Along with a master's in instructional technology from Harvard (she's working on her doctorate there), she has a bachelor's degree in international marketing but won't say from where. She's married and has kids but won't say how many. Her family lives somewhere in the state of New Hampshire.
She'll eat a loss before handing over her driver's license to reverse an overcharge at Kmart. She also refuses to use credit or ATM cards, only paying cash. Fittingly, she likes to wear mirrored sunglasses.
"I think I've always been kind of a rebel," Albrecht said. "The ultimate irony is that by being the person who is so openly advocating for privacy, I've become a public figure."
Disturbed by the concept of supermarket loyalty cards, which she feels blackmail shoppers into turning over personal data in exchange for lower prices, Albrecht decided to study the practice for her master's thesis. In 1999, she founded CASPIAN, Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion And Numbering.
So, it wasn't a reach when, a couple of years later, Albrecht heard about "smart" shopping carts that use RFID to track shoppers throughout a store. She researched and wrote an article for the Denver University Law Review and began attending RFID trade shows in the United States and Europe, where she heard the multiple, often conflicting messages companies were sending to clients, consumers and the general and trade presses.
Also in 1999, corporations and academia were collaborating to create the Auto-ID Center on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) campus. The nonprofit research project was founded and funded by Procter & Gamble, Gillette and the Uniform Code Council, which manages the bar code.
"It was just down the street from Harvard, where I was working on my doctorate," Albrecht said. In the spring of 2002, she signed up as a member of the media to attend a meeting at the Auto-ID Center, which was in the midst of its successful quest to get $300,000 each from companies that wanted to be sponsoring partners. "I was a fly on the wall taking notes in the back." By then, years into her anti-loyalty-card crusade, Albrecht was a confirmed skeptic and wasn't surprised that big business would want to gather personal information on and track customers, or that it would hope to fly under consumers' radar until RFID was embedded in society and it was too late to do anything about it. "What surprised and horrified me in 2002 was that they actually had a technology to do this."
And no one seemed to be talking about privacy issues.
"I came home that day so sickened and so reeling that I sat down with my husband and said, 'I feel like I have the weight of the world on my shoulders because I know what's coming.'
"This is going to fundamentally change everything."
At another board meeting at MIT, Albrecht found herself sharing an elevator with the then-executive director of the Auto-ID Center, Kevin Ashton. Ashton, who was not available for comment and now works for a company that makes RFID readers, has told interviewers that item-level RFID tagging will become common between 2007 and 2010, with RFID common in the home between 2010 and 2020. He also envisions an "Internet of Things" that will link every item sold, from a can of Pepsi to an Armani dress shirt, to its own Web page, tracking it from manufacturer to warehouse to transport and beyond, until the tag is presumably killed by the consumer.
"He gets it. He sees the hugeness of this," Albrecht said of the man she considers her arch nemesis. "He embraces this future; I'm horrified."
To track or to serve?
In October 2003, the Auto-ID Center dissolved, and EPCGlobal took its place as a nonprofit entity standardizing what's referred to as Electronic Product Code. Unlike a bar code, which can reveal only the type of product you purchased, an EPC is a unique identifier that attaches a serial number to tell a reader exactly whi
By Devanie Angel, Sacramento News & Review
Posted on December 27, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/29890/
It looks fairly innocuous, a metal-and-plastic square with wires coiled up like an angular snail, a lot like the anti-theft tag you'd find if you pried apart a book you'd just bought at a chain store. But it's a Radio Frequency Identification tag, RFID for short, and each one has a tiny antenna that can broadcast information about the product, or person, to which it is attached.
To the industry that makes and markets RFID, it's simply the next logical step from bar codes: providing a cheap, easy way to keep products on the shelves, consumers happy and companies making money.
But to many privacy-rights advocates, RFID tags could be the forerunner to nightmare scenarios in which RFID technology is the Trojan horse that brings Big Brother into your home, snooping through your medicine cabinets, fridge and underwear drawer to find out what you do, buy and believe, and, ultimately, what you are.
This small tag has, so far, largely flown under the radar of consumers and the mainstream press. But in early October, privacy-rights advocates Katherine Albrecht and Liz McIntyre published a book, "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID," that has RFID proponents on the defensive.
The book holds up plenty of evidence to back up the fears of people who otherwise might be written off as tinfoil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists: IBM taking out a patent for a "person-tracking unit" that uses RFID tags to identify individuals, their movements and purchases in stores. Procter & Gamble and Wal-Mart collaborating on a test that put cameras on a store shelf in Oklahoma and watched customers pluck lipsticks off an RFID-enabled shelf. A Sutter County grade school's experimental program requiring students to wear RFID-enabled badges to track their on-campus movements, thanks to supplies donated by the InCom Corp. based 50 miles northwest of Sacramento.
And the federal government plans to put RFID tags in passports, prescription medications and perhaps driver's licenses and postage stamps. One day, the "Spychips" authors fear, the tiny tags could be on everything from candy bars to dollar bills, compromising both privacy and personal security.
"I think the industry is waiting until they've done adequate PR to where the public will really embrace it," Albrecht said. "They want to get the infrastructure in place [and] find ways to integrate this technology in a way that is not going to scare people. They envision these things in our homes and our refrigerators and in the doorway of our kids' bedrooms."
In the weeks after "Spychips"' release, RFID supporters retaliated with rebuttals calling the book at best a futuristic fairy tale and at worst a delusional pack of lies by fringe alarmists.
As much as the RFID industry (which researchers say will be a $4.2 billion-a-year business by 2011) might want to ignore the book and its authors, it can't afford to do so. One RFID company has even bought space on Google, eBay and Amazon so when consumers search for "Spychips," a link to a 24-page rebuttal pops up.
"We felt we had a responsibility to educate consumers," said Nicholas Chavez, president of RFID Ltd., who co-authored the rebuttal released November 4. "They may get first blanch at the consumers through the book," he said. "There's a big fear out there that people will go read 'Spychips' and then go out and tell 10 people."
"Spychips," he said, casts RFID in "this sinister, Orwellian light" and presupposes applications that aren't within the current capabilities of the technology. RFID was first envisioned in the 1940s, combining the existing disciplines of radio broadcast technology and radar to communicate via reflected power, according to a history by AIM Global, the Association for Automatic Identification and Mobility. It wasn't until the late 1970s that technical capabilities caught up with the vision and RFID began to be applied commercially.
While "active" RFID tags send out radio signals, the more typical "passive" tags lie dormant until picked up by devices called readers, which can be positioned anywhere from a couple of inches to several feet away. The reader transmits the information to a database, where it can be stored. There's some debate over actual vs. intended read range, and Albrecht says she has registered results from as far as 15 feet away, but "you don't need these massive read ranges," Albrecht said, if RFID readers are placed in strategic locations, such as freeway onramps, grocery-store aisles, floors or doorways of homes. While some chips are smaller than a grain of sand, the ones currently in use on shipping crates are the size of a credit card.
It's a technology that ultimately will win over consumers through convenience and savings, said Gail Tom, a California State University, Sacramento, professor who teaches marketing courses and has written two books on consumer behavior.
And yet, she acknowledged, "if you went up to the average person on the street, they would not know what RFID is."
The "Spychips" book, she said, "alerts people to at least think about it." "Whenever you have new technology, there are concerns, and it's good to have concerns [due to] just the possibility that there could be Draconian and negative things. You would hope the good outweighs the bad," she said. "When UPC codes came out, it was somewhat controversial, too," Tom said, remembering worries that unscrupulous retailers would switch prices on unsuspecting customers.
"Using the analogy of the bar code is a good one, because it tracks the product, it doesn't track you," she said. "Marketers are not interested in individuals. They're interested in segments and clumps of people." A lot of the technology's success depends on how the RFID industry plays it, and Tom agreed it's now somewhat on the defensive. "It may not have occurred to marketers that they needed to publicize this, because they may not have seen a lot of the privacy issues."
Underwear tags and smart shopping carts
The RFID industry's adversaries are smart, passionate and media-savvy. With each new development, the authors of "Spychips" fire off an e-mail press release touting their successes or assailing their critics, turning industry leaders' own words against them. They've organized pickets at Wal-Marts, along with boycotts of companies such as Gillette and European retail store Tesco. (In 2003, that store collaborated to package RFID tags with Mach3 razor blades and surreptitiously snap photos of customers taking them from the shelf, and later at the cash register, in a test designed in part to identify potential shoplifters.) The clothing company Benetton canceled its plans to put RFID in underwear and other products after Albrecht launched an "I'd rather go naked" campaign.
Their message is resonating with anti-government Libertarians, conservative Christians and staunch American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) types. But that's not all. "It doesn't have a demographic," Albrecht said of "Spychips." "Everyone's got a reason not to be spied on."
Try to get biographical information out of Katherine Albrecht, and you'll get some unintended insight into what she's all about. She started taking college courses at age 15 but won't say where she grew up. Along with a master's in instructional technology from Harvard (she's working on her doctorate there), she has a bachelor's degree in international marketing but won't say from where. She's married and has kids but won't say how many. Her family lives somewhere in the state of New Hampshire.
She'll eat a loss before handing over her driver's license to reverse an overcharge at Kmart. She also refuses to use credit or ATM cards, only paying cash. Fittingly, she likes to wear mirrored sunglasses.
"I think I've always been kind of a rebel," Albrecht said. "The ultimate irony is that by being the person who is so openly advocating for privacy, I've become a public figure."
Disturbed by the concept of supermarket loyalty cards, which she feels blackmail shoppers into turning over personal data in exchange for lower prices, Albrecht decided to study the practice for her master's thesis. In 1999, she founded CASPIAN, Consumers Against Supermarket Privacy Invasion And Numbering.
So, it wasn't a reach when, a couple of years later, Albrecht heard about "smart" shopping carts that use RFID to track shoppers throughout a store. She researched and wrote an article for the Denver University Law Review and began attending RFID trade shows in the United States and Europe, where she heard the multiple, often conflicting messages companies were sending to clients, consumers and the general and trade presses.
Also in 1999, corporations and academia were collaborating to create the Auto-ID Center on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) campus. The nonprofit research project was founded and funded by Procter & Gamble, Gillette and the Uniform Code Council, which manages the bar code.
"It was just down the street from Harvard, where I was working on my doctorate," Albrecht said. In the spring of 2002, she signed up as a member of the media to attend a meeting at the Auto-ID Center, which was in the midst of its successful quest to get $300,000 each from companies that wanted to be sponsoring partners. "I was a fly on the wall taking notes in the back." By then, years into her anti-loyalty-card crusade, Albrecht was a confirmed skeptic and wasn't surprised that big business would want to gather personal information on and track customers, or that it would hope to fly under consumers' radar until RFID was embedded in society and it was too late to do anything about it. "What surprised and horrified me in 2002 was that they actually had a technology to do this."
And no one seemed to be talking about privacy issues.
"I came home that day so sickened and so reeling that I sat down with my husband and said, 'I feel like I have the weight of the world on my shoulders because I know what's coming.'
"This is going to fundamentally change everything."
At another board meeting at MIT, Albrecht found herself sharing an elevator with the then-executive director of the Auto-ID Center, Kevin Ashton. Ashton, who was not available for comment and now works for a company that makes RFID readers, has told interviewers that item-level RFID tagging will become common between 2007 and 2010, with RFID common in the home between 2010 and 2020. He also envisions an "Internet of Things" that will link every item sold, from a can of Pepsi to an Armani dress shirt, to its own Web page, tracking it from manufacturer to warehouse to transport and beyond, until the tag is presumably killed by the consumer.
"He gets it. He sees the hugeness of this," Albrecht said of the man she considers her arch nemesis. "He embraces this future; I'm horrified."
To track or to serve?
In October 2003, the Auto-ID Center dissolved, and EPCGlobal took its place as a nonprofit entity standardizing what's referred to as Electronic Product Code. Unlike a bar code, which can reveal only the type of product you purchased, an EPC is a unique identifier that attaches a serial number to tell a reader exactly whi