Pakistan condemns purported CIA airstrike
Al-Qaida's al-Zawahri reportedly unsuccessfully targeted by U.S.; Thousands of Pakistanis protest attack which killed at least 17
By Riaz Khan
Associated Press Writer
Originally published January 14, 2006, 11:05 AM EST
DAMADOLA, Pakistan // Pakistan on Saturday condemned a purported CIA airstrike on a border village that officials said unsuccessfully targeted al-Qaida's second-in-command, and said it was protesting to the U.S. Embassy over the attack that killed at least 17 people.
Thousands of local tribesmen, chanting "God is Great," demonstrated against the attack, claiming the victims were local villagers without terrorist links and had never hosted Ayman al-Zawahri.
Two senior Pakistani officials told The Associated Press that the CIA acted on incorrect information in launching the attack early Friday in the northwestern village of Damadola, near the Afghan border.
Citing unidentified American intelligence officials, U.S. news networks reported that CIA-operated Predator drone aircraft carried out the missile strike because al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, was thought to be at a compound in the village or about to arrive.
"Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that they acted on a false information," said a senior Pakistani intelligence official with direct knowledge of Pakistan's investigations into the attack.
His account was confirmed by a senior government official who said al-Zawahri "was not there." Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.
Washington had no comment on the reports that the attack was aimed at al-Zawahri, who has a $25 million U.S. government bounty on his head. Like bin Laden, he is believed to have been hiding along the rugged Pakistan-Afghan frontier since the Sept. 11 terror attacks.
Pakistan says it does not allow Afghan or the 20,000 U.S. forces in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of Taliban and al-Qaida believed to be hiding there. The war on terror is opposed by many in this Islamic nation of 150 million people.
Pakistan's information minister, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, called the "incident" in Damadola "highly condemnable."
The Foreign Ministry later issued a statement saying a protest had been filed with the U.S. Embassy.
"According to preliminary investigations there was foreign presence in the area and that in all probability was targeted from across the border in Afghanistan," the Foreign Ministry said.
"The investigations are still continuing. Meanwhile the Foreign Office has lodged a protest with the U.S. ambassador in Islamabad."
U.S. Embassy spokesman Rakesh Surampudi said the protest had not been received by Saturday evening.
An AP reporter who visited Damadola about 12 hours after the attack saw three destroyed houses, hundreds of yards apart. Villagers had buried at least 15 people, including women and children, and were digging for more bodies in the rubble.
Villagers denied hosting al-Zawahri or any other member of al-Qaida or Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime, and said all the dead were local people.
More than 8,000 tribesmen staged a peaceful protest in a nearby town Saturday to condemn the airstrike, which one speaker described as "open terrorism." Police dispersed a smaller protest in another town using tear gas. A mob burned the office of a U.S.-backed aid agency near Damadola, but nobody was injured, residents said.
NBC News reported that U.S. and Pakistani officials said Predator drones had fired as many as 10 missiles at Damadola in the Bajur tribal region. ABC quoted anonymous Pakistani military sources as saying al-Zawahri could have been among five top al-Qaida officials believed killed.
A second Pakistani intelligence official told AP that the remains of some bodies had "quickly been removed" from Damadola after the strike and DNA tests were being conducted, but would not say by whom. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to journalists.
The official said that hours before the strike some unidentified guests had arrived at the home of a tribesman named Shah Zaman.
Zaman, who said three of his children were killed when his home was destroyed, told AP he was a "law-abiding" laborer and had no ties to al-Zawahri or any other militants.
"I don't know him. He was not at my home. No foreigner was at my home when the planes came and dropped bombs," Zaman said.
Local lawmaker Sahibzada Haroon ur Rashid, who visited Damadola soon after the attack, said the dead had been buried and that no foreigners were among them. They came from a local family of jewelers, he said, adding that none of the bodies was burned so badly that identification was difficult.
In Washington, Pentagon, State Department, National Security Council and intelligence officials all said they had no information on the reports concerning al-Zawahri. A U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan, Lt. Mike Cody, referred questions on the matter to the Pentagon.
Doctors told AP that at least 17 people died in the attack, but residents of Damadola, a Pashtun tribal hamlet on a hillside about four miles from the Afghan border, said more than 30 died. They recounted hearing aircraft fly overhead before explosions in the village that were felt miles away.
Speaking as he dug through the rubble of his home, Zaman said he heard planes at around 2:40 a.m. and then eight huge explosions. He said planes had been flying over the village for three or four days.
At another destroyed house, Sami Ullah, a 17-year-old student, said 24 of his family members were killed and vowed he would "seek justice from God."
The attack was the latest in a series of strikes on the Pakistan side of the border with Afghanistan that have not been explained by authorities but are widely suspected to have targeted terror suspects or Islamic militants.
Pakistan lodged a protest Monday with the U.S. military in Afghanistan after a reported U.S. air strike killed eight people in the North Waziristan tribal region last Saturday. Pakistan says it does not allow U.S. forces to cross the border in pursuit of Taliban and al-Qaida fighters.
In Afghanistan, Mohammed Hasan, deputy police chief of Kunar province, which is opposite Bajur, said U.S. forces had for weeks been patrolling in airplanes along the rugged border, which he described as a hide-out for Arab terrorists.
Al-Zawahri, an Egyptian, has appeared regularly over the Internet and in Arab media to encourage Muslims to attack Americans and U.S. interests worldwide.
Associated Press writers Munir Ahmad, Sadaqat Jan and Matthew Pennington in Islamabad contributed to this report.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
TheStar.com - Canada would be a different nation
TheStar.com - Canada would be a different nation
Canada would be a different nation
Jan. 14, 2006. 09:22 AM
As Canadians prepare to go to the polls, many are pondering what Canada might look like if the Conservatives under Stephen Harper are elected.
While it is impossible to foresee all the issues a new Conservative government might face in the future, or predict how it might address them, we can look back in time at some of the significant national issues this country has faced in recent years, and we can say with some confidence how the Tories would have dealt with them.
It is instructive to recognize that Canada would be different today, had the Conservatives been in a position to act on their past campaign promises and platform. And that should come as no surprise.
Harper ran for the Tory leadership vowing to "create a country built on solid Conservative values, not on expensive Liberal promises, a country the Liberals wouldn't even recognize." And while his views on specific issues have evolved, "I don't think my fundamental beliefs have changed in a decade," he told reporters this week. Harper is a conviction politician, who truly does believe in changing the nation's course.
Tomorrow, the Star will focus on what Canada will be like if the Conservatives implement the campaign platform they unveiled yesterday. But today, we are focusing on what would have been.
Canada would take more cues from the United States.
Canadian troops would likely have joined the American war on Iraq, which was waged under false pretences, to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Harper felt we should be "shoulder to shoulder" with our closest ally.
Canada would not have signed the Kyoto accord to curb global warming.
And we would have joined the controversial U.S. missile defence system.
Parliament itself might look very different.
Harper would have changed the dynamic in Parliament by appointing senators only after they had been elected provincially. Over time, this would create two competing power centres in Parliament, with the House of Commons championing the national interest and a Senate with more political legitimacy pulling for the provinces.
Ultimately, parliamentary gridlock might be a real risk.
Ottawa would be less activist.
Conservatives believe as an article of faith in smaller, less activist federal government, and a looser federation. Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives also would not have promoted a new national social program, such as the proposed child-care network.
Canada would be a less progressive society.
It is hard to imagine Harper would have named a progressive pioneer, such as Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, to the Supreme Court. And a Conservative government would not have passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry in Canada.
Rather, many Conservatives would have pushed for a far more restrictive abortion law, and for tougher pornography laws.
Canada's rich-poor gap would be more pronounced.
In the 2004 election, the Conservatives vowed to give Canadians the lowest taxes in the world, lower even than in the United States, where there is a more pronounced rich-poor gap. The Tories believe lower taxes will attract business investment, but we firmly believe they would actually lead to more polarization of the rich and poor. Generally, the Conservative preference for cutting taxes over providing services has traditionally favoured the more affluent. Moreover, the poor in Canada, who rely more heavily on services for health, education, child care and shelter, get shortchanged. Ottawa would have had to pare support for services as federal revenues shrank.
Toronto would be worse off.
Harper showed no great enthusiasm for a "new deal" for Toronto, and other cities, that involved giving them a multi-billion-dollar package of gas tax revenues, a goods and services tax break and other assistance. Nor would funding for transit infrastructure have been a major priority.
Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats will disagree on whether Canada would have been better or worse off under these different policies that the Tories would have pursued. But there is no debating that the country would have looked different, had the Conservatives been in a position to champion their agenda.
Canada would have a more pro-American foreign policy today. In Parliament, national-provincial tensions would be more keenly felt. Ottawa would be less active providing national social programs. Society itself would be less progressive. The rich-poor gap would likely be wider. And cash-strapped major cities would be receiving less federal help.
Tomorrow we will look at the current Conservative platform, which was fully unveiled yesterday, and how it proposes to reshape the country.
Canada would be a different nation
Jan. 14, 2006. 09:22 AM
As Canadians prepare to go to the polls, many are pondering what Canada might look like if the Conservatives under Stephen Harper are elected.
While it is impossible to foresee all the issues a new Conservative government might face in the future, or predict how it might address them, we can look back in time at some of the significant national issues this country has faced in recent years, and we can say with some confidence how the Tories would have dealt with them.
It is instructive to recognize that Canada would be different today, had the Conservatives been in a position to act on their past campaign promises and platform. And that should come as no surprise.
Harper ran for the Tory leadership vowing to "create a country built on solid Conservative values, not on expensive Liberal promises, a country the Liberals wouldn't even recognize." And while his views on specific issues have evolved, "I don't think my fundamental beliefs have changed in a decade," he told reporters this week. Harper is a conviction politician, who truly does believe in changing the nation's course.
Tomorrow, the Star will focus on what Canada will be like if the Conservatives implement the campaign platform they unveiled yesterday. But today, we are focusing on what would have been.
Canada would take more cues from the United States.
Canadian troops would likely have joined the American war on Iraq, which was waged under false pretences, to eliminate weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Harper felt we should be "shoulder to shoulder" with our closest ally.
Canada would not have signed the Kyoto accord to curb global warming.
And we would have joined the controversial U.S. missile defence system.
Parliament itself might look very different.
Harper would have changed the dynamic in Parliament by appointing senators only after they had been elected provincially. Over time, this would create two competing power centres in Parliament, with the House of Commons championing the national interest and a Senate with more political legitimacy pulling for the provinces.
Ultimately, parliamentary gridlock might be a real risk.
Ottawa would be less activist.
Conservatives believe as an article of faith in smaller, less activist federal government, and a looser federation. Unlike the Liberals, the Conservatives also would not have promoted a new national social program, such as the proposed child-care network.
Canada would be a less progressive society.
It is hard to imagine Harper would have named a progressive pioneer, such as Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, to the Supreme Court. And a Conservative government would not have passed a law allowing same-sex couples to marry in Canada.
Rather, many Conservatives would have pushed for a far more restrictive abortion law, and for tougher pornography laws.
Canada's rich-poor gap would be more pronounced.
In the 2004 election, the Conservatives vowed to give Canadians the lowest taxes in the world, lower even than in the United States, where there is a more pronounced rich-poor gap. The Tories believe lower taxes will attract business investment, but we firmly believe they would actually lead to more polarization of the rich and poor. Generally, the Conservative preference for cutting taxes over providing services has traditionally favoured the more affluent. Moreover, the poor in Canada, who rely more heavily on services for health, education, child care and shelter, get shortchanged. Ottawa would have had to pare support for services as federal revenues shrank.
Toronto would be worse off.
Harper showed no great enthusiasm for a "new deal" for Toronto, and other cities, that involved giving them a multi-billion-dollar package of gas tax revenues, a goods and services tax break and other assistance. Nor would funding for transit infrastructure have been a major priority.
Liberals, Conservatives and New Democrats will disagree on whether Canada would have been better or worse off under these different policies that the Tories would have pursued. But there is no debating that the country would have looked different, had the Conservatives been in a position to champion their agenda.
Canada would have a more pro-American foreign policy today. In Parliament, national-provincial tensions would be more keenly felt. Ottawa would be less active providing national social programs. Society itself would be less progressive. The rich-poor gap would likely be wider. And cash-strapped major cities would be receiving less federal help.
Tomorrow we will look at the current Conservative platform, which was fully unveiled yesterday, and how it proposes to reshape the country.
Friday, January 13, 2006
The tumultuous and tawdry travels of Neil Bush
The tumultuous and tawdry travels of Neil Bush
By Bill Berkowitz
Online Journal Guest Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_414.shtml
Jan 13, 2006, 00:54
Over the past six months, Neil Bush, the son of former President George Herbert Walker Bush and Barbara Bush, and the younger brother of President George W. Bush, has been shepherded around several former Soviet republics by a man wanted for fraud by Russian authorities, and has showed up in the Philippines and Taiwan at the side of a self-styled messiah.
If people know anything at all about the star-crossed Neil Bush, it likely relates to either his role in the failed Silverado Savings & Loan scandal during the 1980s -- which cost taxpayers more than $1 billion -- or, more recently, the lurid details of his divorce from his wife of 23 years.
After a brief hiatus from the spotlight, Neil Bush is back. Within a three-month period, Bush showed up in Latvia, Ukraine and Georgia with Russian fugitive Boris Berezovsky, and appeared at the side of the Unification Church's Rev. Sun Myung Moon in Taiwan and the Philippines.
In September, Bush visited Latvia with Boris Berezovsky, described by the Washington Post as "a fugitive Russian tycoon who made millions in the violent scramble for control of Russian government assets after the fall of communism."
Bush, whom the St. Petersburg Times characterized as "the scandal-tainted brother of the U.S. president," and Berezovsky, who currently lives in London, where he has received political asylum, was toodling around the former Soviet republics to promote Ignite! Learning, the Texas-based interactive education software company Bush founded in 1999.
Berezovsky took Bush "on a tour of countries from the former Soviet Union that have spun out of Moscow's sphere of influence," the newspaper pointed out. In June, it was Ukraine, then Georgia, "where Berezovsky's longtime partner and Tbilisi power broker Badri Patarkatsishvili was on hand to wine and dine the U.S. president's brother."
"He asked me to think about possible projects in the regions that I know about," Berezovsky said. "I've known this region for a long time. The CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] is my area of expertise."
According to the newspaper, Berezovsky, "a former Kremlin king-maker . . . served a stint as executive secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States under former President Boris Yeltsin." He later clashed with Russian President Putin shortly after he was elected in 2000.
Ken Leonard, the president of Ignite!, said that he had no knowledge of any political problems that Berezovsky -- a shareholder in the company -- might have. "We know him in terms of his relationship directly with the company," he said.
The newspaper also pointed out that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow had disavowed any knowledge of Bush's activities, while the State Department denied any "involvement in, or any role in arranging, the activities of these two private individuals in Riga."
Leonard refused to discuss the company's earnings or profits, nor would he comment on how many schools were using the company's software. He did point out, however, that "thousands of students" had access to it in a number of states, including Texas, Florida, Washington and California.
The company has start-up projects in Latin America and South Korea, and is eager to move into the former Soviet space. The Bush/Berezovsky trip resulted in several countries ordering "10 of Ignite!'s science courses for pilot programs in their schools," the St. Petersburg Times reported. "So far, the agreement is to use the English-language U.S. curriculum available in existing material, Leonard said. But the programs, if successful, might be first translated into Russian and then localized to meet each country's curriculum, he said."
While traipsing through Eastern Europe with Berezovsky raised some eyebrows, the St. Petersburg Times reported that other Bush business deals are also controversial.
During his divorce proceedings Bush said he was co-chairman of Crest Investment Corporation, a company based in Houston, Texas, that invests in energy and other ventures. He said that he received $15,000 every three months for working an average three or four hours a week.
One of Bush's business partners is Jamal Daniel, "a Syrian-American businessman, who is co-chairman with Bush of a fund called Crest Investment Company." According to the newspaper, "Daniel boasts important connections with leaders and their families in the Middle East, including former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, the Financial Times reported in a December 2003 investigative article on the Daniel-Bush relationship."
Last year, despite being a "little-known fund," Crest Investment Company was "granted lucrative rights to develop a plant to process liquefied natural gas near Freeport, Texas, in the process pushing out ExxonMobil, which had first rights to develop the plant."
Jamal Daniel was also a member of the advisory board of New Bridge Strategies, a low-profile Washington firm set up to help companies invest in postwar Iraq. Directors of New Bridge include political heavyweights Joe Allbaugh, the former manager of the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000, and Ed Rogers, a former senior White House aide to President Bush.
Neil and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon
More recently, Bush showed up in the Philippines and Taiwan at the side of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the head of the controversial Unification Church. In the Philippines, Bush attended the inaugural convocation of the Universal Peace Federation (UPF) in Manila, the Manila Bulletin reported. Bush, along with other "peace leaders" joined with Moon in meeting with Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The president "praised Moon for his global peace efforts and God-centered, family-centered economic and social initiatives in various parts of the world, including projects in a number of Philippine cities," the Manila paper reported.
Moon's tour has come up with a new way of promoting world peace, which he is calling the "World Peace King Bridge-Tunnel":
"For thousands of years, Satan used the Bering Strait to separate East and West, North and South, as well as North America and Russia geographically. I propose that a bridge be constructed over the Bering Strait, or a tunnel be dug under it, so that it will be able to connect the world super highway starting from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to Santiago in Chile, and from London to New York, making the world a single community."
Moon's Philippine trip, one stop on a 100-day tour that is taking him to 100 cities in 67 nations and covering nearly 100,000 miles, is also centered on building momentum for his idea of developing a faith-based path to peace by revamping the United Nations.
John Gorenfeld, a veteran investigative reporter and a longtime chronicler of Moon's sojourns, described Moon's thinking on another ongoing project, his attempt to transform the United Nations: "Moon speaks in parables from the Book of Genesis. He says the U.N. is like Cain, but he wants to build a second entity that is like Abel. Ideally, his 'Abel U.N.' -- a body fusing all religions -- would be embraced by the U.N. But if not, he wants to set up his own alternative diplomatic machine to outshine the U.N."
During a May 2003 meeting with President Bush at the White House, Philippines President Arroyo suggested that the United States might consider co-sponsoring the proposal, the conservative online news magazine, NewsMax.com reported. According to that report, the president "expressed deep interest and asked his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to study the matter."
"Some 3,000 people, including Vice President Annette Lu, US President George W. Bush's younger brother Neil Bush and Washington Times president Joo Dong Moon, listened to Reverend Moon's speech at the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall in Taipei," the Taipei Times reported.
Neil Bush is no stranger to showing up at out of the way places searching for business: One month after 9/11, Bush showed up at an international technology conference in Dubai where he was hunting for investors for Ignite!
A few months later, he was in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered the keynote address on the concluding day of the three-day Jeddah Economic Forum. Bush told conferees that the best way to change perceptions in the United States about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was to expand their political lobbying.
Divorced and Fancy Free
Stained by his involvement in the savings and loan debacle, Neil Bush's reputation was further soiled by revelations contained in a deposition that was part of his divorce from his ex-wife Sharon. In those documents, Bush revealed details about rewarding business deals and a series of sexual encounters with women in Asia.
Sharon Bush's lawyer, Marshall Davis Brown, questioned Bush about an August 2002 contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years: "You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?"
"That's correct," Bush responded.
"And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?"
In the deposition, Bush also admitted to having had a series of sexual encounters with Asian woman, while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong. According to Bush, the women knocked on his door, entered and engaged in sex with him. According to a CNN report, Bush "said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them."
"Mr. Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.
"It was very unusual," Bush said.
Reverend Moon has been a longtime friend to the Bush family. After supporting George W. Bush's election in 2000 through his flagship publication, the Washington Times, the newspaper's foundation sponsored a prayer luncheon attended by some 1,700 religious, civic, and political leaders the day before Bush's inauguration.
In 1995, former President George H. W. Bush received $10,000 to speak at a Moon-sponsored Buenos Aires banquet that launched the Reverend's Latin American publication, "Tiempos del Mundo" (Times of the World). "A lot of my friends in South America don't know about the Washington Times but it is an independent voice," the former president said. "The editors of the Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington DC."
Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right.
By Bill Berkowitz
Online Journal Guest Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_414.shtml
Jan 13, 2006, 00:54
Over the past six months, Neil Bush, the son of former President George Herbert Walker Bush and Barbara Bush, and the younger brother of President George W. Bush, has been shepherded around several former Soviet republics by a man wanted for fraud by Russian authorities, and has showed up in the Philippines and Taiwan at the side of a self-styled messiah.
If people know anything at all about the star-crossed Neil Bush, it likely relates to either his role in the failed Silverado Savings & Loan scandal during the 1980s -- which cost taxpayers more than $1 billion -- or, more recently, the lurid details of his divorce from his wife of 23 years.
After a brief hiatus from the spotlight, Neil Bush is back. Within a three-month period, Bush showed up in Latvia, Ukraine and Georgia with Russian fugitive Boris Berezovsky, and appeared at the side of the Unification Church's Rev. Sun Myung Moon in Taiwan and the Philippines.
In September, Bush visited Latvia with Boris Berezovsky, described by the Washington Post as "a fugitive Russian tycoon who made millions in the violent scramble for control of Russian government assets after the fall of communism."
Bush, whom the St. Petersburg Times characterized as "the scandal-tainted brother of the U.S. president," and Berezovsky, who currently lives in London, where he has received political asylum, was toodling around the former Soviet republics to promote Ignite! Learning, the Texas-based interactive education software company Bush founded in 1999.
Berezovsky took Bush "on a tour of countries from the former Soviet Union that have spun out of Moscow's sphere of influence," the newspaper pointed out. In June, it was Ukraine, then Georgia, "where Berezovsky's longtime partner and Tbilisi power broker Badri Patarkatsishvili was on hand to wine and dine the U.S. president's brother."
"He asked me to think about possible projects in the regions that I know about," Berezovsky said. "I've known this region for a long time. The CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] is my area of expertise."
According to the newspaper, Berezovsky, "a former Kremlin king-maker . . . served a stint as executive secretary of the Commonwealth of Independent States under former President Boris Yeltsin." He later clashed with Russian President Putin shortly after he was elected in 2000.
Ken Leonard, the president of Ignite!, said that he had no knowledge of any political problems that Berezovsky -- a shareholder in the company -- might have. "We know him in terms of his relationship directly with the company," he said.
The newspaper also pointed out that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow had disavowed any knowledge of Bush's activities, while the State Department denied any "involvement in, or any role in arranging, the activities of these two private individuals in Riga."
Leonard refused to discuss the company's earnings or profits, nor would he comment on how many schools were using the company's software. He did point out, however, that "thousands of students" had access to it in a number of states, including Texas, Florida, Washington and California.
The company has start-up projects in Latin America and South Korea, and is eager to move into the former Soviet space. The Bush/Berezovsky trip resulted in several countries ordering "10 of Ignite!'s science courses for pilot programs in their schools," the St. Petersburg Times reported. "So far, the agreement is to use the English-language U.S. curriculum available in existing material, Leonard said. But the programs, if successful, might be first translated into Russian and then localized to meet each country's curriculum, he said."
While traipsing through Eastern Europe with Berezovsky raised some eyebrows, the St. Petersburg Times reported that other Bush business deals are also controversial.
During his divorce proceedings Bush said he was co-chairman of Crest Investment Corporation, a company based in Houston, Texas, that invests in energy and other ventures. He said that he received $15,000 every three months for working an average three or four hours a week.
One of Bush's business partners is Jamal Daniel, "a Syrian-American businessman, who is co-chairman with Bush of a fund called Crest Investment Company." According to the newspaper, "Daniel boasts important connections with leaders and their families in the Middle East, including former Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz, the Financial Times reported in a December 2003 investigative article on the Daniel-Bush relationship."
Last year, despite being a "little-known fund," Crest Investment Company was "granted lucrative rights to develop a plant to process liquefied natural gas near Freeport, Texas, in the process pushing out ExxonMobil, which had first rights to develop the plant."
Jamal Daniel was also a member of the advisory board of New Bridge Strategies, a low-profile Washington firm set up to help companies invest in postwar Iraq. Directors of New Bridge include political heavyweights Joe Allbaugh, the former manager of the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000, and Ed Rogers, a former senior White House aide to President Bush.
Neil and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon
More recently, Bush showed up in the Philippines and Taiwan at the side of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, the head of the controversial Unification Church. In the Philippines, Bush attended the inaugural convocation of the Universal Peace Federation (UPF) in Manila, the Manila Bulletin reported. Bush, along with other "peace leaders" joined with Moon in meeting with Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. The president "praised Moon for his global peace efforts and God-centered, family-centered economic and social initiatives in various parts of the world, including projects in a number of Philippine cities," the Manila paper reported.
Moon's tour has come up with a new way of promoting world peace, which he is calling the "World Peace King Bridge-Tunnel":
"For thousands of years, Satan used the Bering Strait to separate East and West, North and South, as well as North America and Russia geographically. I propose that a bridge be constructed over the Bering Strait, or a tunnel be dug under it, so that it will be able to connect the world super highway starting from the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa to Santiago in Chile, and from London to New York, making the world a single community."
Moon's Philippine trip, one stop on a 100-day tour that is taking him to 100 cities in 67 nations and covering nearly 100,000 miles, is also centered on building momentum for his idea of developing a faith-based path to peace by revamping the United Nations.
John Gorenfeld, a veteran investigative reporter and a longtime chronicler of Moon's sojourns, described Moon's thinking on another ongoing project, his attempt to transform the United Nations: "Moon speaks in parables from the Book of Genesis. He says the U.N. is like Cain, but he wants to build a second entity that is like Abel. Ideally, his 'Abel U.N.' -- a body fusing all religions -- would be embraced by the U.N. But if not, he wants to set up his own alternative diplomatic machine to outshine the U.N."
During a May 2003 meeting with President Bush at the White House, Philippines President Arroyo suggested that the United States might consider co-sponsoring the proposal, the conservative online news magazine, NewsMax.com reported. According to that report, the president "expressed deep interest and asked his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, to study the matter."
"Some 3,000 people, including Vice President Annette Lu, US President George W. Bush's younger brother Neil Bush and Washington Times president Joo Dong Moon, listened to Reverend Moon's speech at the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall in Taipei," the Taipei Times reported.
Neil Bush is no stranger to showing up at out of the way places searching for business: One month after 9/11, Bush showed up at an international technology conference in Dubai where he was hunting for investors for Ignite!
A few months later, he was in Saudi Arabia, where he delivered the keynote address on the concluding day of the three-day Jeddah Economic Forum. Bush told conferees that the best way to change perceptions in the United States about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was to expand their political lobbying.
Divorced and Fancy Free
Stained by his involvement in the savings and loan debacle, Neil Bush's reputation was further soiled by revelations contained in a deposition that was part of his divorce from his ex-wife Sharon. In those documents, Bush revealed details about rewarding business deals and a series of sexual encounters with women in Asia.
Sharon Bush's lawyer, Marshall Davis Brown, questioned Bush about an August 2002 contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years: "You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?"
"That's correct," Bush responded.
"And you have absolutely over the last 10, 15, 20 years not a lot of demonstrable business experience that would bring about a company investing $2 million in you?"
In the deposition, Bush also admitted to having had a series of sexual encounters with Asian woman, while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong. According to Bush, the women knocked on his door, entered and engaged in sex with him. According to a CNN report, Bush "said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them."
"Mr. Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.
"It was very unusual," Bush said.
Reverend Moon has been a longtime friend to the Bush family. After supporting George W. Bush's election in 2000 through his flagship publication, the Washington Times, the newspaper's foundation sponsored a prayer luncheon attended by some 1,700 religious, civic, and political leaders the day before Bush's inauguration.
In 1995, former President George H. W. Bush received $10,000 to speak at a Moon-sponsored Buenos Aires banquet that launched the Reverend's Latin American publication, "Tiempos del Mundo" (Times of the World). "A lot of my friends in South America don't know about the Washington Times but it is an independent voice," the former president said. "The editors of the Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington DC."
Bill Berkowitz is a longtime observer of the conservative movement. His WorkingForChange column Conservative Watch documents the strategies, players, institutions, victories and defeats of the American Right.
Legendary conspiracy historian Eustace Mullins mysteriously disappears; worst feared
Legendary conspiracy historian Eustace Mullins mysteriously disappears; worst feared
By John Kaminski
Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_415.shtml
Jan 13, 2006, 00:57
Friends, associates, and admirers of renowned conspiracy author Eustace Mullins have gone into full panic mode over his mysterious disappearance. Mullins, 82, has been missing for seven days (as of Jan. 12) from his Staunton, Virginia, home, where his cars are still parked and his mail and newspapers are piling up on the front porch.
Local police say there's nothing they can do and are notoriously vague and nonchalant about his welfare or whereabouts, according to friends who have called them to express alarm over his sudden disappearance.
Mullins, author of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" and more than a dozen other well-researched tomes about who runs the world from behind the scenes, was scheduled to appear on an Internet radio show, Hesham Tillawi's Current Issues, on Thursday, Jan 5, but did not appear.
Filmmaker Randy Atkins, who was scheduled to appear with Mullins and did actually participate in the show with Tillawi, has no idea where Eustace is, but noted it was very unlike the affable and professional Mullins to miss a scheduled appointment.
Atkins recently created a new film about Mullins' perspective on world events, titled "Neo-Zionist Order: Who Rules Your Rulers?" This DVD is available at Arsenal of Hypocrisy (a site named for an earlier Atkins film about the U.S. space weapons program that featured Noam Chomsky). Both Mullins and Atkins recently participated in a European talk show in which the methods of the international bankers who run the world from behind the scenes were extensively discussed.
Mullins' longtime friend and webmaster, Wayne Blanchard of Staunton, is not only worried about the sudden disappearance, but furious at the nonchalance of public officials in the matter.
"Both the sheriff's department and the police department gave me no cooperation," said Blanchard. "Eustace has lived there for 35 years. You'd think they'd be more concerned."
But, Blanchard noted, such a meticulous researcher of sacred cows as Mullins has made his share of enemies over the years. "He's filed a lot of lawsuits" (and has one pending)," Blanchard noted. "Everybody tends to shy away from him" over his involvement with the hottest topics possible.
The notorious bane of patriots everywhere, Morris Dees of the Zionist-front organization Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote a hit piece on Mullins for the local Staunton newspaper several years, and because of Mullins' dedicated zeal in researching the sinister underpinnings of corrupt politics, he has made a lot of enemies.
Nor does Mullins have a loving family to rely upon. According to Blanchard, when Mullins had a series of ministrokes three years ago, "his brother had him put in a nursing home, and tried to have him declared incompetent. I got him out."
But serious damage to Mullins' health had been done, not by his illness, according to Blanchard, but by his family.
"He lost everything," Blanchard explained. "His brother Bob proceeded to steal his assets, life insurance policy, and his silver collection worth $150,000." In addition, Blanchard said Mullins had a joint bank account with his grandnephew, Matt Mader, from which "$30,000 was stolen out of that account."
Mullins later sued his brother, Blanchard said.
Worse, brother Bob closed Mullins's post office box, which he had used for 35 years and from which he sold all his books.
Mullins' prolific career as a conspiratologist began when he befriended the legendary poet Ezra Pound who had been jailed in a mental hospital for broadcasting against American corporate interests during World War II. Mullins wrote the only approved biography of Pound.
Other noteworthy books by Mullins, all of which he self-published, include "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," "The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology Of History," "Murder By Injection: The Medical Conspiracy Against America," "The Rape of Justice," "Education for Slavery," "The London Connection," and "Who Owns the TV Networks."
Blanchard said "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" sold over 100,000 copies and insists it was later plagiarized by G. Edward Griffin in his popular book, "The Creature from Jekyl Island."
"Eustace gave power of attorney to his brother Bob under duress," Blanchard explained. His brother Bob put him into a nursing home, saying Eustace suffered from the initial stages of dementia. Later tests at the University of Virginia determined Eustace competent, Blanchard said.
"Bob was probably run by the ADL (the Jewish Anti-Defamation League)," Blanchard said. "Things just don't add up."
Filmmaker Atkins recently posted a sensational video clip of Mullins on his website, in which Mullins makes a chilling prediction of what is in store for the world at this time.
Quoting from the video clip: Mullins says, "Israel actually plans to exterminate the entire Arab Muslim population in the world, and the Muslims know this . . . Israel is interested only in genocide and exterminating all the Arab people or putting them under complete domination . . . the Israelis are always exterminationists."
Then Atkins asks, "Is the United States being used by Israel to create a Christian-Muslim war?"
Mullins responds, "Yes. It's all deliberate . . . a billion Christians and a billion Muslims are now at a war to the death with each other, and the only victor will be the state of Israel."
Atkins recounts the last time he talked with Mullins. "I talked to him that Monday (Jan. 2), reminded him of Thursday's interview. He said he was looking forward to it." Whether that was the last public utterance of Eustace Mullins remains to be determined.
Blanchard had a darker view. "I think the ADL probably snatched him and did away with him."
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida whose Internet essays are seen on hundreds of websites around the world. His latest collection of essays, "Recipe for Extinction," will be available for sale in late February. For more information see JohnKaminski.com.
By John Kaminski
Online Journal Contributing Writer
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/printer_415.shtml
Jan 13, 2006, 00:57
Friends, associates, and admirers of renowned conspiracy author Eustace Mullins have gone into full panic mode over his mysterious disappearance. Mullins, 82, has been missing for seven days (as of Jan. 12) from his Staunton, Virginia, home, where his cars are still parked and his mail and newspapers are piling up on the front porch.
Local police say there's nothing they can do and are notoriously vague and nonchalant about his welfare or whereabouts, according to friends who have called them to express alarm over his sudden disappearance.
Mullins, author of "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" and more than a dozen other well-researched tomes about who runs the world from behind the scenes, was scheduled to appear on an Internet radio show, Hesham Tillawi's Current Issues, on Thursday, Jan 5, but did not appear.
Filmmaker Randy Atkins, who was scheduled to appear with Mullins and did actually participate in the show with Tillawi, has no idea where Eustace is, but noted it was very unlike the affable and professional Mullins to miss a scheduled appointment.
Atkins recently created a new film about Mullins' perspective on world events, titled "Neo-Zionist Order: Who Rules Your Rulers?" This DVD is available at Arsenal of Hypocrisy (a site named for an earlier Atkins film about the U.S. space weapons program that featured Noam Chomsky). Both Mullins and Atkins recently participated in a European talk show in which the methods of the international bankers who run the world from behind the scenes were extensively discussed.
Mullins' longtime friend and webmaster, Wayne Blanchard of Staunton, is not only worried about the sudden disappearance, but furious at the nonchalance of public officials in the matter.
"Both the sheriff's department and the police department gave me no cooperation," said Blanchard. "Eustace has lived there for 35 years. You'd think they'd be more concerned."
But, Blanchard noted, such a meticulous researcher of sacred cows as Mullins has made his share of enemies over the years. "He's filed a lot of lawsuits" (and has one pending)," Blanchard noted. "Everybody tends to shy away from him" over his involvement with the hottest topics possible.
The notorious bane of patriots everywhere, Morris Dees of the Zionist-front organization Southern Poverty Law Center, wrote a hit piece on Mullins for the local Staunton newspaper several years, and because of Mullins' dedicated zeal in researching the sinister underpinnings of corrupt politics, he has made a lot of enemies.
Nor does Mullins have a loving family to rely upon. According to Blanchard, when Mullins had a series of ministrokes three years ago, "his brother had him put in a nursing home, and tried to have him declared incompetent. I got him out."
But serious damage to Mullins' health had been done, not by his illness, according to Blanchard, but by his family.
"He lost everything," Blanchard explained. "His brother Bob proceeded to steal his assets, life insurance policy, and his silver collection worth $150,000." In addition, Blanchard said Mullins had a joint bank account with his grandnephew, Matt Mader, from which "$30,000 was stolen out of that account."
Mullins later sued his brother, Blanchard said.
Worse, brother Bob closed Mullins's post office box, which he had used for 35 years and from which he sold all his books.
Mullins' prolific career as a conspiratologist began when he befriended the legendary poet Ezra Pound who had been jailed in a mental hospital for broadcasting against American corporate interests during World War II. Mullins wrote the only approved biography of Pound.
Other noteworthy books by Mullins, all of which he self-published, include "Secrets of the Federal Reserve," "The Curse of Canaan: A Demonology Of History," "Murder By Injection: The Medical Conspiracy Against America," "The Rape of Justice," "Education for Slavery," "The London Connection," and "Who Owns the TV Networks."
Blanchard said "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" sold over 100,000 copies and insists it was later plagiarized by G. Edward Griffin in his popular book, "The Creature from Jekyl Island."
"Eustace gave power of attorney to his brother Bob under duress," Blanchard explained. His brother Bob put him into a nursing home, saying Eustace suffered from the initial stages of dementia. Later tests at the University of Virginia determined Eustace competent, Blanchard said.
"Bob was probably run by the ADL (the Jewish Anti-Defamation League)," Blanchard said. "Things just don't add up."
Filmmaker Atkins recently posted a sensational video clip of Mullins on his website, in which Mullins makes a chilling prediction of what is in store for the world at this time.
Quoting from the video clip: Mullins says, "Israel actually plans to exterminate the entire Arab Muslim population in the world, and the Muslims know this . . . Israel is interested only in genocide and exterminating all the Arab people or putting them under complete domination . . . the Israelis are always exterminationists."
Then Atkins asks, "Is the United States being used by Israel to create a Christian-Muslim war?"
Mullins responds, "Yes. It's all deliberate . . . a billion Christians and a billion Muslims are now at a war to the death with each other, and the only victor will be the state of Israel."
Atkins recounts the last time he talked with Mullins. "I talked to him that Monday (Jan. 2), reminded him of Thursday's interview. He said he was looking forward to it." Whether that was the last public utterance of Eustace Mullins remains to be determined.
Blanchard had a darker view. "I think the ADL probably snatched him and did away with him."
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida whose Internet essays are seen on hundreds of websites around the world. His latest collection of essays, "Recipe for Extinction," will be available for sale in late February. For more information see JohnKaminski.com.
Leaked memo: Corrupt DEA agents in Colombia help narcos and paramilitaries
Leaked memo: Corrupt DEA agents in Colombia help narcos and paramilitaries
Special Reports
Leaked memo: Corrupt DEA agents in Colombia help narcos and paramilitaries
By Bill Conroy
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jan 13, 2006, 01:05
Internal Justice Dept. Document Alleges Drug Trafficking Links, Money Laundering and Conspiracy to Murder
The drug war is supposed to follow a very clear script: According to the official screenwriters, the U.S. justice system is pitted against corrupt players in foreign countries who are trying to flood American streets with illicit drugs. The narco-traffickers, crooked cops, and thieving politicians in the drug war are always over there, in Latin America, and elsewhere, and U.S. law enforcers and government officials are always the good guys battling these forces of evil.
But what happens when evidence surfaces that turns that script on its ear? What happens if proof emerges that it is the U.S. justice system that is corrupt? A document obtained recently by Narco News makes those questions more than hypothetical queries. In this document, Department of Justice attorney Thomas M. Kent claims that federal agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration's office in Bogot�, Colombia, are the corrupt players in the war on drugs. (The DEA is part of the larger Justice Department.)
The information in that document is also corroborated by a number of other sources that spoke directly to Narco News, including former government officials who are familiar with the DEA's Bogot� operations
Kent's memorandum contains some of the most serious allegations ever raised against U.S. anti-narcotics officers: that DEA agents on the front lines of the drug war in Colombia are on drug traffickers' payrolls, complicit in the murders of informants who knew too much, and, most startlingly, directly involved in helping Colombia's infamous right-wing paramilitary death squads to launder drug money.
The memo further claims that, rather than being simply a few "bad apples" who need to be reported to their superiors, these allegedly dirty agents are being protected by an ongoing cover-up orchestrated by "watchdog" agencies within the Justice Department.
These charges blow away the smoke concealing the pretense of the war on drugs. If they are true, there will be no brushing them aside at pre-scripted press conferences; everyone who becomes aware of these allegations will be forced to consider where we go from here in that so-called war.
The Kent Memo
On Dec. 19, 2004, Thomas M. Kent, an attorney in the wiretap unit of the Justice Department's Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Section (NDDS), sent off a memo to his section chief. Law enforcement sources tell Narco News that a number of other high-level officials within Justice and the DEA soon received copies of the same memo. In it, Kent raised a series of corruption allegations centering on the DEA's office in Bogot�.
Kent says his claims are supported by a number of DEA agents in Florida whom the agency muzzled and retaliated against after they tried to expose the corruption. Specifically, Kent contends that the DEA's Office of Professional Responsibility (or OPR, essentially the agency's Internal Affairs department) and elements of DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have worked to keep a lid on the corruption charges. According to Kent, these offices -- which are supposed to serve as watchdog agencies that investigate corruption -- sabotaged investigations being carried out by the Florida DEA agents and by one of the OIG's own agents.
From Kent's memo:
As discussed in my (prior) memorandum dated December 13, 2004, several unrelated investigations, including Operation Snowplow, identified corrupt agents within DEA. As further discussed in my memorandum, OPR's handling of the investigations into those allegations has come into question and the OIG investigator who was actively looking into the allegations has been removed from the investigation. As discussed in my email, dated December 17, 2004, I want to speak directly with the (DOJ) Public Integrity Section because I want to ensure that the allegations are fully investigated and acted upon if true.
As promised, I am providing you with further information on the allegations and evidence that is already in files at OPR and OIG. Agents I know were able to vouch for my credibility and several individuals close to the prior investigations that uncovered corruption agreed to speak with me. I had a limited time frame in which to speak with them and ask questions. They were able to provide me with some of the highlights, but certainly not all of the information that is sitting at OPR and OIG. Such a debriefing, based on what I learned in a few hours, would take days.
Having been failed by so many before and facing tremendous risks to their careers and their safety and the safety of their families, they were understandably hesitant to reveal the information I requested, including the names of those directly involved in criminal activity in Bogot� and the United States. They agreed to reveal the names to me on the condition that I not further disseminate these for the time being. They are prepared to provide the Public Integrity Section with those names and everything in the files at OPR and OIG, and then some, if called upon to do so.
Why is an attorney within Justice afraid to reveal the names of the DEA whistleblowers out of fear that it might jeopardize their law enforcement careers and the lives of their families? And why, as Kent contends, is it all being covered up?
What do Glenn Fine, the head of the DOJ's OIG, and Rogelio E. Guevara, who currently oversees the DEA's OPR, know about Kent's charges, which were brought forth in his memo more than a year ago?
A look at the nature of the alleged corruption may give us some clues.
(Remember that all of these allegations come strictly from the Kent memo, though law enforcement sources have corroborated much of this information on condition of anonymity.)
Money Laundering and Paramilitaries
Kent alleges that one of the corrupt agents from Bogot� was caught on a wiretap some time in 2004 discussing criminal activity related to the huge right-wing paramilitary group known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC in its Spanish initials). The group is widely recognized to be involved in narco-trafficking and arms dealing at the highest levels. Working closely with various sectors of the Colombian military, it has fielded death squads responsible for murdering thousands of Colombians.
The following is from a 2004 report prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service:
The AUC targets real and perceived supporters of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), as well as political activists, police officials and judges. The group is known for its brutality and has killed more civilians than the leftist insurgencies have killed: in 2001, the AUC killed at least 1,015 civilians, compared to the 197 civilians killed by the FARC. The AUC also committed over 100 massacres in 2001, a tactic it used to displace large portions of the peasant population in order maintain firmer control over the major coca-growing lands.
Kent contends, in the memorandum, that during the wiretap, the corrupt Bogot� DEA agent "discusses his involvement in laundering money for the AUC." But despite being caught on tape admitting to helping the most murderous political force in the hemisphere today to launder the money from their extensive drug trafficking operations, the agent faced no punishment. In fact, says Kent, the agent was essentially promoted: "That call has been documented by the DEA and that agent is now in charge of numerous narcotics and money laundering investigations."
Kent, in the memorandum, also alleges that DOJ officials shut down a money laundering investigation because they discovered that it was linked to the alleged DEA corruption in Bogot�. He claims that the nail in that coffin was driven in by OPR after it discovered that an OIG agent was investigating the Bogot� corruption and related money laundering operation
"In June 2004, OPR and DEA, the two agencies embarrassed by the prior allegations (involving the Bogot� agents) and likely to come under tremendous scrutiny for their own actions in response, demanded that my case agent turn all of the (investigation) information . . . over to OPR," Kent states in the memorandum. "One week after submitting the (information) to OPR, the money laundering investigation was shut down."
Kent details three further cases of extreme corruption in his memo, all involving Bogot� DEA agents persecuting or conspiring to kill Colombian informants who threatened to bring down their activities. Sources told Narco News that these corruption allegations involve cases launched in 1999 or 2000, but which resulted in investigations that carried on for months or years.
(Kent wrote his memo in late 2004 only after he became aware of the alleged corruption and then had exhausted other internal channels within DOJ for addressing the problems.)
Allegation One: Corrupt DEA Agents in Bogot� Conspired to Murder Informants Who Betrayed Them
During the course of an investigation into a Colombian narco-trafficking operation, a group of DEA agents in Florida had zeroed in on several targets, with the help of several Colombian informants. Once the targets were identified as being part of the drug ring, they began to cooperate with the Florida-based agents.
" . . . They made startling revelations concerning DEA agents in Bogot�," Kent writes. "They alleged that they were assisted in their narcotics activities by the [Bogot�] agents. Specifically, they alleged that the agents provided them with information on investigations and other law enforcement activities in Colombia."
The traffickers eventually gave the Florida agents copies of confidential DEA reports, which the Bogot� agents allegedly had handed over to the traffickers. After the Florida agents turned these documents over to the OPR and OIG, one of them was put on "administrative leave" -- the first sign that a cover-up was underway.
While the Florida agent was out on leave, the Bogot� agents set up a meeting with one of the informants.
"As the informant left that meeting, he was murdered," Kent states. "Other informants . . . who also worked with the DEA group in Florida were also murdered. Each murder was preceded by a request for their identity by an agent in Bogot�."
Allegation Two: Bogot� DEA Agents Imprison and Possibly Conspire to Murder Informants to Prevent Their Travel to U.S.
A separate DEA group, also based in Florida, ran into trouble with the same DEA office in Bogot� while investigating another Colombian narco-trafficking operation. Informants tipped off the Florida agents that that this drug ring had developed an ingenious method for smuggling cocaine into the United States, a method that seems to have been lifted right out of the script of the drug-war movie Traffic.
"Specifically, the narcotics traffickers in Colombia were infusing acrylic with cocaine and shaping it into any number of commercial goods," Kent states. "The acrylic was then shipped to the United States and Europe where, during processing, the cocaine was extracted from the acrylic."
Informants working for the Florida agents sent samples of the cocaine-laced acrylic to the DEA, but the agency's chemists couldn't figure out how to extract the cocaine. As a result, the Florida agents decided to have the informants come to the United States with a sample of the acrylic, so they could walk DEA's chemists through the extraction process.
"Agents contacted the Bogot� Country Office to discuss the informants' planned travel and their bringing cocaine out of Colombia infused in acrylic," writes Kent. "They were advised that the best tact was for the informants to carry it out themselves."
But when the informants got to the airport to leave for the U.S., they were arrested. A DEA agent in Bogot�, it turns out, had told Colombian officials to "lock them (the informants) up and throw away the key," according to Kent. The Bogot� agent then claimed that he had no idea the Florida agents had given the informants permission to transport the cocaine.
"His misrepresentations were backed by another agent in Bogot�," Kent states. "The informants were imprisoned for nine months while the accusations flew back and forth. Once it was determined that the agents in Bogot� were lying, the informants were released. One of the informants was kidnapped and murdered in Bogot� where he had gone into hiding."
Allegation Three: Informant Outed by Traffickers with Ties to Bogot� Agents
In yet another case outlined in Kent's memorandum, the second Florida DEA group was working with an informant in Colombia who claimed to have made contact with a FARC guerilla while in prison. Sources told Narco News that the informant is a wealthy Colombian businessman with investments in high-tech firms and ties to narco-trafficking. The FARC (Spanish initials for Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the largest leftist insurgent group in that country's civil war, accused by U.S. officials of drug and arms trafficking) was supposedly interested in buying communications equipment from him.
While this investigation eventually ended up in the hands of the National Security Agency, from the beginning it appeared to be related to drug trafficking and the Florida DEA agents decided to investigate. Agents from the Bogot� office promised to help, one of them assuring the Florida agents that the informant's release from prison could be arranged. But when the Florida agents arrived in Colombia, another Bogot� DEA agent told them that the informant was going to stay in prison.
The Bogot� agents seemed obsessed with stopping the informant from working with the Florida agents, and began doing everything in their power to prevent the investigation from moving forward. "As the two sides argued back and forth, the informant was challenged by the Bogot� agents to prove his allegations," the memorandum states. "He did so by making a videotape of a conversation he then had with a member of the FARC in jail in which they discussed their desire for him to provide them with communications equipment. When confronted with the actual tape that confirmed the informant's story, the agents in Bogot� complained that what the informant and DEA group from Florida had done was illegal and they would be unable to obtain the informant's release (from prison)."
The Florida agents kept trying to revive the investigation, but Bogot� agents continued to thwart it one way or another. Eventually, the informant was released from prison and tried to start working with the Florida agents again, but an agent from the Bogot� office traveled to Washington, D.C., and managed to convince DEA brass to derail the investigation.
When the informant approached the DEA once again with information, writes Kent, "the Bogot� agent that traveled to Washington, D.C., now claimed that the informant was a pedophile. The investigation was halted. The Bogot� agent was called on his claim and could not provide any evidence." The agent then switched tactics, arguing that the DEA could not work with the informant because the FARC might end up with the communications equipment. He also claimed that one of the targets of the FARC-related investigation was not involved in narco-trafficking -- even though the Bogot� office had previously identified that individual as a narco-trafficker.
"The (Bogot�) agent was unable to dissuade those involved in the investigation, and it finally took off with the assistance of the NSA," the memo states. "The investigation continued until the informant was faxed a document that identified him as a DEA informant on the FARC. The document mirrored information the DEA group in Florida provided the corrupt agents in Bogot� previously."
In other words, someone outed the Florida group's informant, making him into a target for many dangerous people including the FARC guerrillas, and the tool used to expose him was proprietary DEA information that appeared to have come out of the Bogot� DEA office. The DEA agents in Florida looked further into the source of that information and followed the trail to several other DEA informants. The Florida agents then set up a wiretap and recorded conversations between their own informants and the other DEA informants who were tied to the leaked DEA information. The recordings revealed that a narco-trafficker had indeed obtained the internal DEA information that was used to expose the Florida group's informant.
"That person (the narco-trafficker) is also a DEA informant," the memorandum states, "and is believed to have been controlled by the Bogot� Country Office. Among other things, it was alleged that the informant (the narco-trafficker) had several agents on his payroll who provided him with classified information. The agents were believed to work in Colombia and Washington, D.C."
The tape recordings that revealed this damning information were turned over to both the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General, Kent states in the memorandum. The agents in the Florida DEA office also tried to set up a sting targeting the allegedly corrupt agents from Bogot� and Washington, D.C.
"The meeting (the sting) was called off when it was learned the agents likely knew of the trap," the memorandum states. " . . . The informant who was identified . . . as the narcotics trafficker with several agents on his payroll was eventually brought to Florida to take a polygraph test on the allegations that he was obtaining classified documents from agents in Bogot� and elsewhere."
Kent says that the narco-trafficker passed the lie detector test in Florida, at which he was asked whether agents had passed him classified documents and he claimed that they hadn't. But the OPR mysteriously ordered the polygrapher not to report on the test: "He was instructed (to say) that the test never took place."
The Deluge
The corruption allegations raised in Kent's memorandum are startling, but agents in the Bogot� DEA office are not the first to have been accused of participating in a narco-trafficking conspiracy. Similar tales of corruption involving overseas DEA agents have surfaced in the past. And although the charges raised by Kent in his 2004 memorandum have now passed before many eyes, they have still not been addressed in the light of day. Instead, as in similar past cases, they have been buried in the contorted layers of the Justice Department bureaucracy.
Kent is no longer with the Washington, D.C.-based wiretap unit of NDDS. He has been transferred to Nashville, according to sources familiar with the memorandum. Ironically, the NDDS chief to whom Kent addressed the memorandum, Jodi L. Avergun, is now the chief of staff for DEA.
In addition, Kent's request to send the Bogot� corruption allegations to the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section was denied, and his memorandum deep-sixed -- until now.
A full investigation of his allegations may well prove that the DEA's Bogot� office is clean as a whistle. But if that is indeed the case, then why has Justice chosen to silence and punish the whistleblowers in this case rather than look into their claims?
From Kent's memorandum:
If we are unable to arrange for a sit-down between the reporting agents and those attorneys within the Department of Justice who are tasked with ensuring that corrupted agents and officials are held accountable, then I firmly believe that we will watch from the sidelines as the allegations play out in a courtroom, on the news, and/or on Capital Hill. The reporting agents have placed their trust in me. . . . I have assured them that I will lay the issue before you with a much more detailed accounting of the allegations and how the DEA and OPR, and now seemingly OIG, have failed to fully investigate the allegations and hold those responsible accountable.
If we can put them together with the Public Integrity Section, they assured me that other agents who have to this point remained silent for fear of retaliation will come forward. Those agents have additional evidence not in the files maintained by OPR and OIG. I believe, based on their representations, that that new evidence alone would put the corrupt agents in prison.
Given the pretense that defines the war on drugs, Kent's memorandum (which basically rewrites the script of that war) is not likely to be a hot seller in Washington, D.C., anytime soon�absent pressure from a major media blitz.
And what of the mainstream-media guardians of our liberty? Will they step up to the plate on this story, given their penchant for adhering to the standard drug-war script? The fact that Narco News is breaking this story first may tell us all we need to know on that front.
But the truth, like water, always brings the scum to the surface. And in this case, the dam holding back the truth in the so-called war on drugs may be close to breaking. For how much longer will nations in Latin America and around the world accept U.S. drug warriors' imposing presence in their lands, when those same agents and bureaucrats get neck-deep in the very drug trade they are supposedly trying to wipe out, with complete impunity and protection from their superiors back home?
"The agents who reported the . . . allegations (of corruption) did so to correct wrongs committed by other members of the DEA and OPR," Kent states in the memorandum. "Their attempts to do so led to retaliation. . . . The cracks in the lid DEA and OPR has attempted to place on this problem are getting bigger.
"It is only a matter of time before this thing explodes. . . ."
Click here to read Kent's memorandum for yourself.
Bill Conroy is an investigative reporter and correspondent for Narco News, where this article originally appeared. He can be contacted at wkc6428@aol.com.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Special Reports
Leaked memo: Corrupt DEA agents in Colombia help narcos and paramilitaries
By Bill Conroy
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jan 13, 2006, 01:05
Internal Justice Dept. Document Alleges Drug Trafficking Links, Money Laundering and Conspiracy to Murder
The drug war is supposed to follow a very clear script: According to the official screenwriters, the U.S. justice system is pitted against corrupt players in foreign countries who are trying to flood American streets with illicit drugs. The narco-traffickers, crooked cops, and thieving politicians in the drug war are always over there, in Latin America, and elsewhere, and U.S. law enforcers and government officials are always the good guys battling these forces of evil.
But what happens when evidence surfaces that turns that script on its ear? What happens if proof emerges that it is the U.S. justice system that is corrupt? A document obtained recently by Narco News makes those questions more than hypothetical queries. In this document, Department of Justice attorney Thomas M. Kent claims that federal agents with the Drug Enforcement Administration's office in Bogot�, Colombia, are the corrupt players in the war on drugs. (The DEA is part of the larger Justice Department.)
The information in that document is also corroborated by a number of other sources that spoke directly to Narco News, including former government officials who are familiar with the DEA's Bogot� operations
Kent's memorandum contains some of the most serious allegations ever raised against U.S. anti-narcotics officers: that DEA agents on the front lines of the drug war in Colombia are on drug traffickers' payrolls, complicit in the murders of informants who knew too much, and, most startlingly, directly involved in helping Colombia's infamous right-wing paramilitary death squads to launder drug money.
The memo further claims that, rather than being simply a few "bad apples" who need to be reported to their superiors, these allegedly dirty agents are being protected by an ongoing cover-up orchestrated by "watchdog" agencies within the Justice Department.
These charges blow away the smoke concealing the pretense of the war on drugs. If they are true, there will be no brushing them aside at pre-scripted press conferences; everyone who becomes aware of these allegations will be forced to consider where we go from here in that so-called war.
The Kent Memo
On Dec. 19, 2004, Thomas M. Kent, an attorney in the wiretap unit of the Justice Department's Narcotic and Dangerous Drugs Section (NDDS), sent off a memo to his section chief. Law enforcement sources tell Narco News that a number of other high-level officials within Justice and the DEA soon received copies of the same memo. In it, Kent raised a series of corruption allegations centering on the DEA's office in Bogot�.
Kent says his claims are supported by a number of DEA agents in Florida whom the agency muzzled and retaliated against after they tried to expose the corruption. Specifically, Kent contends that the DEA's Office of Professional Responsibility (or OPR, essentially the agency's Internal Affairs department) and elements of DOJ's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have worked to keep a lid on the corruption charges. According to Kent, these offices -- which are supposed to serve as watchdog agencies that investigate corruption -- sabotaged investigations being carried out by the Florida DEA agents and by one of the OIG's own agents.
From Kent's memo:
As discussed in my (prior) memorandum dated December 13, 2004, several unrelated investigations, including Operation Snowplow, identified corrupt agents within DEA. As further discussed in my memorandum, OPR's handling of the investigations into those allegations has come into question and the OIG investigator who was actively looking into the allegations has been removed from the investigation. As discussed in my email, dated December 17, 2004, I want to speak directly with the (DOJ) Public Integrity Section because I want to ensure that the allegations are fully investigated and acted upon if true.
As promised, I am providing you with further information on the allegations and evidence that is already in files at OPR and OIG. Agents I know were able to vouch for my credibility and several individuals close to the prior investigations that uncovered corruption agreed to speak with me. I had a limited time frame in which to speak with them and ask questions. They were able to provide me with some of the highlights, but certainly not all of the information that is sitting at OPR and OIG. Such a debriefing, based on what I learned in a few hours, would take days.
Having been failed by so many before and facing tremendous risks to their careers and their safety and the safety of their families, they were understandably hesitant to reveal the information I requested, including the names of those directly involved in criminal activity in Bogot� and the United States. They agreed to reveal the names to me on the condition that I not further disseminate these for the time being. They are prepared to provide the Public Integrity Section with those names and everything in the files at OPR and OIG, and then some, if called upon to do so.
Why is an attorney within Justice afraid to reveal the names of the DEA whistleblowers out of fear that it might jeopardize their law enforcement careers and the lives of their families? And why, as Kent contends, is it all being covered up?
What do Glenn Fine, the head of the DOJ's OIG, and Rogelio E. Guevara, who currently oversees the DEA's OPR, know about Kent's charges, which were brought forth in his memo more than a year ago?
A look at the nature of the alleged corruption may give us some clues.
(Remember that all of these allegations come strictly from the Kent memo, though law enforcement sources have corroborated much of this information on condition of anonymity.)
Money Laundering and Paramilitaries
Kent alleges that one of the corrupt agents from Bogot� was caught on a wiretap some time in 2004 discussing criminal activity related to the huge right-wing paramilitary group known as the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC in its Spanish initials). The group is widely recognized to be involved in narco-trafficking and arms dealing at the highest levels. Working closely with various sectors of the Colombian military, it has fielded death squads responsible for murdering thousands of Colombians.
The following is from a 2004 report prepared for Congress by the Congressional Research Service:
The AUC targets real and perceived supporters of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the National Liberation Army (ELN), as well as political activists, police officials and judges. The group is known for its brutality and has killed more civilians than the leftist insurgencies have killed: in 2001, the AUC killed at least 1,015 civilians, compared to the 197 civilians killed by the FARC. The AUC also committed over 100 massacres in 2001, a tactic it used to displace large portions of the peasant population in order maintain firmer control over the major coca-growing lands.
Kent contends, in the memorandum, that during the wiretap, the corrupt Bogot� DEA agent "discusses his involvement in laundering money for the AUC." But despite being caught on tape admitting to helping the most murderous political force in the hemisphere today to launder the money from their extensive drug trafficking operations, the agent faced no punishment. In fact, says Kent, the agent was essentially promoted: "That call has been documented by the DEA and that agent is now in charge of numerous narcotics and money laundering investigations."
Kent, in the memorandum, also alleges that DOJ officials shut down a money laundering investigation because they discovered that it was linked to the alleged DEA corruption in Bogot�. He claims that the nail in that coffin was driven in by OPR after it discovered that an OIG agent was investigating the Bogot� corruption and related money laundering operation
"In June 2004, OPR and DEA, the two agencies embarrassed by the prior allegations (involving the Bogot� agents) and likely to come under tremendous scrutiny for their own actions in response, demanded that my case agent turn all of the (investigation) information . . . over to OPR," Kent states in the memorandum. "One week after submitting the (information) to OPR, the money laundering investigation was shut down."
Kent details three further cases of extreme corruption in his memo, all involving Bogot� DEA agents persecuting or conspiring to kill Colombian informants who threatened to bring down their activities. Sources told Narco News that these corruption allegations involve cases launched in 1999 or 2000, but which resulted in investigations that carried on for months or years.
(Kent wrote his memo in late 2004 only after he became aware of the alleged corruption and then had exhausted other internal channels within DOJ for addressing the problems.)
Allegation One: Corrupt DEA Agents in Bogot� Conspired to Murder Informants Who Betrayed Them
During the course of an investigation into a Colombian narco-trafficking operation, a group of DEA agents in Florida had zeroed in on several targets, with the help of several Colombian informants. Once the targets were identified as being part of the drug ring, they began to cooperate with the Florida-based agents.
" . . . They made startling revelations concerning DEA agents in Bogot�," Kent writes. "They alleged that they were assisted in their narcotics activities by the [Bogot�] agents. Specifically, they alleged that the agents provided them with information on investigations and other law enforcement activities in Colombia."
The traffickers eventually gave the Florida agents copies of confidential DEA reports, which the Bogot� agents allegedly had handed over to the traffickers. After the Florida agents turned these documents over to the OPR and OIG, one of them was put on "administrative leave" -- the first sign that a cover-up was underway.
While the Florida agent was out on leave, the Bogot� agents set up a meeting with one of the informants.
"As the informant left that meeting, he was murdered," Kent states. "Other informants . . . who also worked with the DEA group in Florida were also murdered. Each murder was preceded by a request for their identity by an agent in Bogot�."
Allegation Two: Bogot� DEA Agents Imprison and Possibly Conspire to Murder Informants to Prevent Their Travel to U.S.
A separate DEA group, also based in Florida, ran into trouble with the same DEA office in Bogot� while investigating another Colombian narco-trafficking operation. Informants tipped off the Florida agents that that this drug ring had developed an ingenious method for smuggling cocaine into the United States, a method that seems to have been lifted right out of the script of the drug-war movie Traffic.
"Specifically, the narcotics traffickers in Colombia were infusing acrylic with cocaine and shaping it into any number of commercial goods," Kent states. "The acrylic was then shipped to the United States and Europe where, during processing, the cocaine was extracted from the acrylic."
Informants working for the Florida agents sent samples of the cocaine-laced acrylic to the DEA, but the agency's chemists couldn't figure out how to extract the cocaine. As a result, the Florida agents decided to have the informants come to the United States with a sample of the acrylic, so they could walk DEA's chemists through the extraction process.
"Agents contacted the Bogot� Country Office to discuss the informants' planned travel and their bringing cocaine out of Colombia infused in acrylic," writes Kent. "They were advised that the best tact was for the informants to carry it out themselves."
But when the informants got to the airport to leave for the U.S., they were arrested. A DEA agent in Bogot�, it turns out, had told Colombian officials to "lock them (the informants) up and throw away the key," according to Kent. The Bogot� agent then claimed that he had no idea the Florida agents had given the informants permission to transport the cocaine.
"His misrepresentations were backed by another agent in Bogot�," Kent states. "The informants were imprisoned for nine months while the accusations flew back and forth. Once it was determined that the agents in Bogot� were lying, the informants were released. One of the informants was kidnapped and murdered in Bogot� where he had gone into hiding."
Allegation Three: Informant Outed by Traffickers with Ties to Bogot� Agents
In yet another case outlined in Kent's memorandum, the second Florida DEA group was working with an informant in Colombia who claimed to have made contact with a FARC guerilla while in prison. Sources told Narco News that the informant is a wealthy Colombian businessman with investments in high-tech firms and ties to narco-trafficking. The FARC (Spanish initials for Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, the largest leftist insurgent group in that country's civil war, accused by U.S. officials of drug and arms trafficking) was supposedly interested in buying communications equipment from him.
While this investigation eventually ended up in the hands of the National Security Agency, from the beginning it appeared to be related to drug trafficking and the Florida DEA agents decided to investigate. Agents from the Bogot� office promised to help, one of them assuring the Florida agents that the informant's release from prison could be arranged. But when the Florida agents arrived in Colombia, another Bogot� DEA agent told them that the informant was going to stay in prison.
The Bogot� agents seemed obsessed with stopping the informant from working with the Florida agents, and began doing everything in their power to prevent the investigation from moving forward. "As the two sides argued back and forth, the informant was challenged by the Bogot� agents to prove his allegations," the memorandum states. "He did so by making a videotape of a conversation he then had with a member of the FARC in jail in which they discussed their desire for him to provide them with communications equipment. When confronted with the actual tape that confirmed the informant's story, the agents in Bogot� complained that what the informant and DEA group from Florida had done was illegal and they would be unable to obtain the informant's release (from prison)."
The Florida agents kept trying to revive the investigation, but Bogot� agents continued to thwart it one way or another. Eventually, the informant was released from prison and tried to start working with the Florida agents again, but an agent from the Bogot� office traveled to Washington, D.C., and managed to convince DEA brass to derail the investigation.
When the informant approached the DEA once again with information, writes Kent, "the Bogot� agent that traveled to Washington, D.C., now claimed that the informant was a pedophile. The investigation was halted. The Bogot� agent was called on his claim and could not provide any evidence." The agent then switched tactics, arguing that the DEA could not work with the informant because the FARC might end up with the communications equipment. He also claimed that one of the targets of the FARC-related investigation was not involved in narco-trafficking -- even though the Bogot� office had previously identified that individual as a narco-trafficker.
"The (Bogot�) agent was unable to dissuade those involved in the investigation, and it finally took off with the assistance of the NSA," the memo states. "The investigation continued until the informant was faxed a document that identified him as a DEA informant on the FARC. The document mirrored information the DEA group in Florida provided the corrupt agents in Bogot� previously."
In other words, someone outed the Florida group's informant, making him into a target for many dangerous people including the FARC guerrillas, and the tool used to expose him was proprietary DEA information that appeared to have come out of the Bogot� DEA office. The DEA agents in Florida looked further into the source of that information and followed the trail to several other DEA informants. The Florida agents then set up a wiretap and recorded conversations between their own informants and the other DEA informants who were tied to the leaked DEA information. The recordings revealed that a narco-trafficker had indeed obtained the internal DEA information that was used to expose the Florida group's informant.
"That person (the narco-trafficker) is also a DEA informant," the memorandum states, "and is believed to have been controlled by the Bogot� Country Office. Among other things, it was alleged that the informant (the narco-trafficker) had several agents on his payroll who provided him with classified information. The agents were believed to work in Colombia and Washington, D.C."
The tape recordings that revealed this damning information were turned over to both the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of the Inspector General, Kent states in the memorandum. The agents in the Florida DEA office also tried to set up a sting targeting the allegedly corrupt agents from Bogot� and Washington, D.C.
"The meeting (the sting) was called off when it was learned the agents likely knew of the trap," the memorandum states. " . . . The informant who was identified . . . as the narcotics trafficker with several agents on his payroll was eventually brought to Florida to take a polygraph test on the allegations that he was obtaining classified documents from agents in Bogot� and elsewhere."
Kent says that the narco-trafficker passed the lie detector test in Florida, at which he was asked whether agents had passed him classified documents and he claimed that they hadn't. But the OPR mysteriously ordered the polygrapher not to report on the test: "He was instructed (to say) that the test never took place."
The Deluge
The corruption allegations raised in Kent's memorandum are startling, but agents in the Bogot� DEA office are not the first to have been accused of participating in a narco-trafficking conspiracy. Similar tales of corruption involving overseas DEA agents have surfaced in the past. And although the charges raised by Kent in his 2004 memorandum have now passed before many eyes, they have still not been addressed in the light of day. Instead, as in similar past cases, they have been buried in the contorted layers of the Justice Department bureaucracy.
Kent is no longer with the Washington, D.C.-based wiretap unit of NDDS. He has been transferred to Nashville, according to sources familiar with the memorandum. Ironically, the NDDS chief to whom Kent addressed the memorandum, Jodi L. Avergun, is now the chief of staff for DEA.
In addition, Kent's request to send the Bogot� corruption allegations to the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section was denied, and his memorandum deep-sixed -- until now.
A full investigation of his allegations may well prove that the DEA's Bogot� office is clean as a whistle. But if that is indeed the case, then why has Justice chosen to silence and punish the whistleblowers in this case rather than look into their claims?
From Kent's memorandum:
If we are unable to arrange for a sit-down between the reporting agents and those attorneys within the Department of Justice who are tasked with ensuring that corrupted agents and officials are held accountable, then I firmly believe that we will watch from the sidelines as the allegations play out in a courtroom, on the news, and/or on Capital Hill. The reporting agents have placed their trust in me. . . . I have assured them that I will lay the issue before you with a much more detailed accounting of the allegations and how the DEA and OPR, and now seemingly OIG, have failed to fully investigate the allegations and hold those responsible accountable.
If we can put them together with the Public Integrity Section, they assured me that other agents who have to this point remained silent for fear of retaliation will come forward. Those agents have additional evidence not in the files maintained by OPR and OIG. I believe, based on their representations, that that new evidence alone would put the corrupt agents in prison.
Given the pretense that defines the war on drugs, Kent's memorandum (which basically rewrites the script of that war) is not likely to be a hot seller in Washington, D.C., anytime soon�absent pressure from a major media blitz.
And what of the mainstream-media guardians of our liberty? Will they step up to the plate on this story, given their penchant for adhering to the standard drug-war script? The fact that Narco News is breaking this story first may tell us all we need to know on that front.
But the truth, like water, always brings the scum to the surface. And in this case, the dam holding back the truth in the so-called war on drugs may be close to breaking. For how much longer will nations in Latin America and around the world accept U.S. drug warriors' imposing presence in their lands, when those same agents and bureaucrats get neck-deep in the very drug trade they are supposedly trying to wipe out, with complete impunity and protection from their superiors back home?
"The agents who reported the . . . allegations (of corruption) did so to correct wrongs committed by other members of the DEA and OPR," Kent states in the memorandum. "Their attempts to do so led to retaliation. . . . The cracks in the lid DEA and OPR has attempted to place on this problem are getting bigger.
"It is only a matter of time before this thing explodes. . . ."
Click here to read Kent's memorandum for yourself.
Bill Conroy is an investigative reporter and correspondent for Narco News, where this article originally appeared. He can be contacted at wkc6428@aol.com.
Copyright © 1998-2006 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor
Ex-Gitmo chief takes military 5th on abuse
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Guantanamo_Abuse_Investigation.html
Thursday, January 12, 2006 · Last updated 2:45 p.m. PT
Ex-Gitmo chief takes military 5th on abuse
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- The former commander of the Guantanamo
Bay detention center, who has been tied to the
prisoner abuse scandal, is declining to answer
questions in two courts-martial cases involving the
use of dogs during interrogations.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller invoked the military's
version of the Fifth Amendment right to not
incriminate himself, a move that was defended Thursday
by the military's top commander.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told Pentagon reporters that while he expects
military leaders to do the right thing, that does not
mean they should lose their constitutional rights.
Pace said officers should "tell the truth as they know
it." He added, "We expect our leaders to lead by
example. But we do not expect them to give up their
individual rights as people."
Miller's lawyer, Michelle Crawford, said Thursday that
her client repeatedly has answered questions about the
matter in various investigations, interviews and
congressional testimony. In May 2004, for example, he
told the Senate Armed Services Committee there "was no
systemic abuse at Guantanamo at any time."
"From our perspective, nothing has changed since he
began answering these questions. In fact, not a single
new question has been posed," Crawford said in an
e-mail.
She added that "Miller's decision to stop answering
these same questions and exercise his Article 31
rights was made wholly independent of any
investigations, inquiries, or other proceedings that
may be pending."
Military investigators proposed disciplining Miller
for failing to oversee the interrogation of a prisoner
who was suspected of being involved in the Sept. 11
attacks. But that recommendation was overruled by a
military commander who concluded Miller didn't violate
any U.S. laws or policies.
The commander referred the matter to the Army's
inspector general, who looked into it and closed the
case.
His decision to invoke his Article 31 rights - which
are similar to the Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination - affects two general court-martial
proceedings scheduled for the coming weeks.
Sgt. Michael Smith and Sgt. Santos Cardona are facing
courts-martial in connection with charges they used
their dogs to frighten detainees at the Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. The two dog handlers, attached to the
320th Military Police Battalion, were charged with
dereliction of duty and maltreatment of detainees.
Smith told investigators in February 2004 that he and
Cardona used their unmuzzled dogs to help the military
intelligence unit with interrogations.
Miller, who recently requested retirement, took
command of the Guantanamo detention center in Cuba in
late 2002 with a mandate to get more and better
information from prisoners.
In August 2003, the Pentagon sent Miller to inspect
interrogation procedures in Iraq, and he recommended
using the Guantanamo techniques on prisoners in Iraq
to improve intelligence on the growing anti-U.S.
insurgency. He was sent to Iraq in March 2004 to run
detainee operations.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Guantanamo_Abuse_Investigation.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Guantanamo_Abuse_Investigation.html
Thursday, January 12, 2006 · Last updated 2:45 p.m. PT
Ex-Gitmo chief takes military 5th on abuse
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER
WASHINGTON -- The former commander of the Guantanamo
Bay detention center, who has been tied to the
prisoner abuse scandal, is declining to answer
questions in two courts-martial cases involving the
use of dogs during interrogations.
Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller invoked the military's
version of the Fifth Amendment right to not
incriminate himself, a move that was defended Thursday
by the military's top commander.
Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, told Pentagon reporters that while he expects
military leaders to do the right thing, that does not
mean they should lose their constitutional rights.
Pace said officers should "tell the truth as they know
it." He added, "We expect our leaders to lead by
example. But we do not expect them to give up their
individual rights as people."
Miller's lawyer, Michelle Crawford, said Thursday that
her client repeatedly has answered questions about the
matter in various investigations, interviews and
congressional testimony. In May 2004, for example, he
told the Senate Armed Services Committee there "was no
systemic abuse at Guantanamo at any time."
"From our perspective, nothing has changed since he
began answering these questions. In fact, not a single
new question has been posed," Crawford said in an
e-mail.
She added that "Miller's decision to stop answering
these same questions and exercise his Article 31
rights was made wholly independent of any
investigations, inquiries, or other proceedings that
may be pending."
Military investigators proposed disciplining Miller
for failing to oversee the interrogation of a prisoner
who was suspected of being involved in the Sept. 11
attacks. But that recommendation was overruled by a
military commander who concluded Miller didn't violate
any U.S. laws or policies.
The commander referred the matter to the Army's
inspector general, who looked into it and closed the
case.
His decision to invoke his Article 31 rights - which
are similar to the Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination - affects two general court-martial
proceedings scheduled for the coming weeks.
Sgt. Michael Smith and Sgt. Santos Cardona are facing
courts-martial in connection with charges they used
their dogs to frighten detainees at the Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. The two dog handlers, attached to the
320th Military Police Battalion, were charged with
dereliction of duty and maltreatment of detainees.
Smith told investigators in February 2004 that he and
Cardona used their unmuzzled dogs to help the military
intelligence unit with interrogations.
Miller, who recently requested retirement, took
command of the Guantanamo detention center in Cuba in
late 2002 with a mandate to get more and better
information from prisoners.
In August 2003, the Pentagon sent Miller to inspect
interrogation procedures in Iraq, and he recommended
using the Guantanamo techniques on prisoners in Iraq
to improve intelligence on the growing anti-U.S.
insurgency. He was sent to Iraq in March 2004 to run
detainee operations.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/printer2/index.asp?ploc=t&refer=http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1152AP_Guantanamo_Abuse_Investigation.html
Pentagon Says U.S. Military Not Conducting Attacks in Pakistan
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1466519&C=airwar
Pentagon Says U.S. Military Not Conducting Attacks in Pakistan
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, WASHINGTON
The Pentagon said the U.S. military was not engaged in operations in a Pakistani border area where 18 people, including women and children, were reported killed Jan. 13 in a missile strike.
“There is no reason to believe the U.S. military is conducting operations there,” said Lt. Col. Todd Vician.
Villagers said two helicopters launched missiles and a bomb in the town of Mamund in the Bajur tribal area bordering Pakistan, destroying three houses.
They said the attack left five women, five children and eight men dead.
One of the houses destroyed in the attack belonged to Gul Zaman, a member of an outlawed Islamic extremist group, they said.
Pentagon Says U.S. Military Not Conducting Attacks in Pakistan
By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE, WASHINGTON
The Pentagon said the U.S. military was not engaged in operations in a Pakistani border area where 18 people, including women and children, were reported killed Jan. 13 in a missile strike.
“There is no reason to believe the U.S. military is conducting operations there,” said Lt. Col. Todd Vician.
Villagers said two helicopters launched missiles and a bomb in the town of Mamund in the Bajur tribal area bordering Pakistan, destroying three houses.
They said the attack left five women, five children and eight men dead.
One of the houses destroyed in the attack belonged to Gul Zaman, a member of an outlawed Islamic extremist group, they said.
Documents Tie Shadowy US Unit to Inmate Abuse Case
Documents Tie Shadowy US Unit to Inmate Abuse Case
By Will Dunham
Reuters
Friday 13 January 2006
Washington - Newly released military documents show US Army investigators closed a probe into allegations an Iraqi detainee had been abused by a shadowy military task force after its members used fake names and asserted that key computer files had been lost.
The documents shed light on Task Force 6-26, a special operations unit, and confirmed the existence of a secret military "Special Access Program" associated with it, ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said on Thursday.
The documents were released by the Army to the American Civil Liberties Union under court order through the Freedom of Information Act. They were the latest files to provide details of the numerous investigations carried out by the Army into allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq.
A June 2005 document by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command in Iraq described its investigation into suspected abuse of a detainee captured in January 2004 by Task Force 6-26 in Tikrit, deposed President Saddam Hussein's hometown. His name was redacted, but he was mentioned as the son of a Saddam bodyguard.
The man was taken to Baghdad international airport, documents stated. The United States maintains a prison there for "high-value" detainees.
He told Army investigators that US personnel forced him one night to remove his clothes, walk into walls with a box over his head connected to a rope around his neck, punched him in the spinal area until he fainted, placed him in front of an air conditioner while cold water was poured on him, and kicked him in the stomach until he vomited, the documents stated.
'Fake Names'
Investigators could not find the personnel involved or the man's medical files, and the case was closed, the files stated. A memo listed the suspected offenses as "aggravated assault, cruelty and maltreatment."
"The only names identified by this investigation were determined to be fake names utilized by the capturing soldiers," the memo stated. "6-26 also had a major computer malfunction which resulted in them losing 70 percent of their files; therefore they can't find the cases we need to review."
The memo said the investigation should not be reopened. "Hell, even if we reopened it we wouldn't get anymore information than we already have," the memo stated.
Singh said previous documents indicated Task Force 6-26 was linked to other instances of detainee abuse in Iraq.
"This document suggests that Task Force 6-26 was part of a larger, clandestine program that we think may have links with high-ranking officials, because obviously someone high up had the authority to put this program in place," Singh said in a telephone interview.
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the Army had taken allegations of detainee abuse "extremely seriously."
"The Army has gone to great extent in travel, interviews, documentation and concern to make sure that each and every allegation was thoroughly reviewed, thoroughly examined and, when appropriate, acted upon either through non-judicial or judicial punishment," Boyce said.
A document stated Army investigators were not able to fully investigate suspects and witnesses because they were involved in the Special Access Program and due to the classified nature of their work.
The task force is stationed out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the document said. The base houses the Army Special Operations Command.
By Will Dunham
Reuters
Friday 13 January 2006
Washington - Newly released military documents show US Army investigators closed a probe into allegations an Iraqi detainee had been abused by a shadowy military task force after its members used fake names and asserted that key computer files had been lost.
The documents shed light on Task Force 6-26, a special operations unit, and confirmed the existence of a secret military "Special Access Program" associated with it, ACLU lawyer Amrit Singh said on Thursday.
The documents were released by the Army to the American Civil Liberties Union under court order through the Freedom of Information Act. They were the latest files to provide details of the numerous investigations carried out by the Army into allegations of detainee abuse in Iraq.
A June 2005 document by the US Army Criminal Investigation Command in Iraq described its investigation into suspected abuse of a detainee captured in January 2004 by Task Force 6-26 in Tikrit, deposed President Saddam Hussein's hometown. His name was redacted, but he was mentioned as the son of a Saddam bodyguard.
The man was taken to Baghdad international airport, documents stated. The United States maintains a prison there for "high-value" detainees.
He told Army investigators that US personnel forced him one night to remove his clothes, walk into walls with a box over his head connected to a rope around his neck, punched him in the spinal area until he fainted, placed him in front of an air conditioner while cold water was poured on him, and kicked him in the stomach until he vomited, the documents stated.
'Fake Names'
Investigators could not find the personnel involved or the man's medical files, and the case was closed, the files stated. A memo listed the suspected offenses as "aggravated assault, cruelty and maltreatment."
"The only names identified by this investigation were determined to be fake names utilized by the capturing soldiers," the memo stated. "6-26 also had a major computer malfunction which resulted in them losing 70 percent of their files; therefore they can't find the cases we need to review."
The memo said the investigation should not be reopened. "Hell, even if we reopened it we wouldn't get anymore information than we already have," the memo stated.
Singh said previous documents indicated Task Force 6-26 was linked to other instances of detainee abuse in Iraq.
"This document suggests that Task Force 6-26 was part of a larger, clandestine program that we think may have links with high-ranking officials, because obviously someone high up had the authority to put this program in place," Singh said in a telephone interview.
Army spokesman Paul Boyce said the Army had taken allegations of detainee abuse "extremely seriously."
"The Army has gone to great extent in travel, interviews, documentation and concern to make sure that each and every allegation was thoroughly reviewed, thoroughly examined and, when appropriate, acted upon either through non-judicial or judicial punishment," Boyce said.
A document stated Army investigators were not able to fully investigate suspects and witnesses because they were involved in the Special Access Program and due to the classified nature of their work.
The task force is stationed out of Fort Bragg, North Carolina, the document said. The base houses the Army Special Operations Command.
Venezuela, Iran agreement go into effect
Venezuela, Iran agreement go into effect
JAN. 12 7:10 P.M. ET Venezuelan lawmakers approved a bill Thursday that will allow preliminary cooperation agreements signed by the South American country and Iran to go into effect.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has signed numerous preliminary agreements with Iranian officials, including an accord to jointly build oil tankers, over the last two years. Pro-Chavez lawmakers dominate Venezuela's legislature.
Diplomatic relations between the two oil-producing countries have tightened as left-leaning Chavez has sought to build international alliances to counter what he sees as U.S. economic and political dominance in Latin America.
Venezuela. The two nations also have plans to jointly survey and certify heavy crude deposits in Venezuela's oil-rich Orinoco river belt.
Venezuela and Iran are both members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and have consistently backed efforts to bolster prices by controlling production volumes.
JAN. 12 7:10 P.M. ET Venezuelan lawmakers approved a bill Thursday that will allow preliminary cooperation agreements signed by the South American country and Iran to go into effect.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has signed numerous preliminary agreements with Iranian officials, including an accord to jointly build oil tankers, over the last two years. Pro-Chavez lawmakers dominate Venezuela's legislature.
Diplomatic relations between the two oil-producing countries have tightened as left-leaning Chavez has sought to build international alliances to counter what he sees as U.S. economic and political dominance in Latin America.
Venezuela. The two nations also have plans to jointly survey and certify heavy crude deposits in Venezuela's oil-rich Orinoco river belt.
Venezuela and Iran are both members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and have consistently backed efforts to bolster prices by controlling production volumes.
Pentagon Limits Cell Phone Use on Military Installations
Pentagon Limits Cell Phone Use on Military Installations
Pentagon Limits Cell Phone Use on Military Installations
by JOSN Austin Rice
Journal staff writer
The Defense Department changed regulations Dec. 1 and now requires anyone driving on a military installation to use a hands-free cell phone device.
Military police will cite drivers with a $50 ticket for an infraction. The Pentagon changed its regulations to increase motor vehicle safety on its installations.
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to use a cell phone while driving period, whether it's hands-free or not," said HM2 Daniel Quick, a National Naval Medical Center dental technician. "Talking while driving diverts your attention away from the road where it should be."
A University of Utah study, titled "Inattention Blindness," helped the Defense Department conclude the new regulations are necessary. The 2001 study found a driver talking on a cell phone has a slower reaction time and is more likely to have an accident.
Researchers also found that talking on a cell phone while driving impairs a driver's ability to process visual information. Drivers, even when looking straight ahead, may not see objects because their attention is diverted.
"What really needs to be clarified is that using a cell phone with a hands free device is still acceptable on post," said Rich Wooters, a Bethesda Safety Office occupational and health specialist. "However, anytime your distracting yourself while driving, it's a danger."
The new cell phone regulations, however, don't affect the Navy's uniform instructions concerning cell phones. The Navy's regulation, released in September, said using a cell phone while in uniform is acceptable as long as it doesn't interfere with rendering proper military courtesies and honors. Sailors may also clip a cell phone to their belt, as long as it's not viewable from the front and does not cause clothing to bunch or sag.
Pentagon Limits Cell Phone Use on Military Installations
by JOSN Austin Rice
Journal staff writer
The Defense Department changed regulations Dec. 1 and now requires anyone driving on a military installation to use a hands-free cell phone device.
Military police will cite drivers with a $50 ticket for an infraction. The Pentagon changed its regulations to increase motor vehicle safety on its installations.
"I don't think anyone should be allowed to use a cell phone while driving period, whether it's hands-free or not," said HM2 Daniel Quick, a National Naval Medical Center dental technician. "Talking while driving diverts your attention away from the road where it should be."
A University of Utah study, titled "Inattention Blindness," helped the Defense Department conclude the new regulations are necessary. The 2001 study found a driver talking on a cell phone has a slower reaction time and is more likely to have an accident.
Researchers also found that talking on a cell phone while driving impairs a driver's ability to process visual information. Drivers, even when looking straight ahead, may not see objects because their attention is diverted.
"What really needs to be clarified is that using a cell phone with a hands free device is still acceptable on post," said Rich Wooters, a Bethesda Safety Office occupational and health specialist. "However, anytime your distracting yourself while driving, it's a danger."
The new cell phone regulations, however, don't affect the Navy's uniform instructions concerning cell phones. The Navy's regulation, released in September, said using a cell phone while in uniform is acceptable as long as it doesn't interfere with rendering proper military courtesies and honors. Sailors may also clip a cell phone to their belt, as long as it's not viewable from the front and does not cause clothing to bunch or sag.
People's Daily Online -- China cherishes friendly ties with Africa
People's Daily Online -- China cherishes friendly ties with Africa
China cherishes friendly ties with Africa
font size ZoomIn ZoomOut
The Chinese Government issued the African Policy Paper in Beijing yesterday in a bid to promote steady growth of China-Africa relations in the long term and bring the mutually-beneficial co-operation to a new stage.
The Chinese Government wishes to present to the world the objectives of China's policy towards Africa, the measures to achieve them, and its proposals for co-operation in various fields in the coming years, according to the paper.
This is the first time that the Chinese Government has issued a paper elaborating its policy towards Africa.
The paper, composed of more than 3,000 English words, is divided into six parts, including Africa's position and role, China's relations with Africa, China's African policy, Enhancing all-round co-operation between China and Africa, Forum on China-Africa Co-operation and its follow-up actions, China's relations with African regional organizations.
The paper points out that African countries play an increasingly important role in international affairs as they have actively participated in the South-South co-operation and worked for the North-South dialogue.
It said Africa has a long history, vast expanse of land, rich natural resources and huge potential for development. After many years of struggle, the African people freed themselves from colonial rule, wiped out apartheid, won independence and emancipation, thus making significant contribution to the progress of civilization.
Following their independence, it said, countries in Africa have been conscientiously exploring a road to development suited to their national conditions and seeking peace, stability and development by joint efforts.
Thanks to the concerted efforts of African countries, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the African Union (AU), the political situation in Africa has been stable on the whole, regional conflicts are being gradually resolved and economy has been growing for years.
The New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) has drawn up an encouraging picture of African rejuvenation and development.
It said Africa still faces many challenges on its road of development. However, with the persistent efforts of African countries and the continuous support of the international community, Africa will surely surmount difficulties and achieve rejuvenation in the new century.
China's relations with Africa
"The founding of the People's Republic of China and the independence of African countries ushered in a new era in China-Africa relations," the paper stressed.
Sincerity, equality and mutual benefit, solidarity and common development are the principles guiding China-Africa exchange and co-operation.
The paper said China-Africa friendship is embedded in the long history of interchange. Sharing similar historical experience, China and Africa have all along sympathized with and supported each other in the struggle for national liberation and forged a profound friendship.
For over half a century, the two sides have enjoyed close political ties and frequent exchange of high-level visits and people-to-people contacts.
The bilateral trade and economic co-operation have grown rapidly; co-operation in other fields has yielded good results; and consultation and coordination in international affairs have been intensified, the paper said.
China has provided assistance to the best of its ability to African countries, while African countries have also rendered strong support to China on many occasions, it said.
The one-China principle is the political foundation for the establishment and development of China's relations with African countries and regional organizations, according to the Paper.
The Chinese Government appreciates the fact that the overwhelming majority of African countries abide by the one China principle, refuse to have official relations and contacts with Taiwan and support China's great cause of reunification, the paper said.
Among the total 53 countries in Africa, 47 have established diplomatic relations with China.
China stands ready to establish and develop state-to-state relations with countries that have not yet established diplomatic ties with China on the basis of the one China principle.
African policy
As far as the country's African policy is concerned, the paper stipulates that China will develop a new type of strategic partnership with Africa, featuring political equality and mutual trust, economic win-win co-operation and cultural exchange.
The general principles and objectives of China's African policy are as follows:
Sincerity, friendship and equality. China adheres to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, respects African countries' independent choice of the road of development and supports African countries' efforts to grow stronger through unity.
Mutual benefit, reciprocity and common prosperity. China supports African countries' endeavour for economic development and nation building, carries out co-operation in various forms in the economic and social development, and promotes common prosperity of China and Africa.
Mutual support and close coordination. China will strengthen co-operation with Africa in the UN and other multilateral systems by supporting each other's just demand and reasonable propositions and continue to appeal to the international community to give more attention to questions concerning peace and development in Africa.
Learning from each other and seeking common development. China and Africa will learn from and draw upon each other's experience in governance and development, strengthen exchange and co-operation in education, science, culture and health. Supporting African countries' efforts to enhance capacity building, China will work together with Africa in the exploration of the road of sustainable development.
All-round co-operation
The paper announced that China is ready to enhance all-round co-operation with Africa.
On China-Africa political co-operation, the paper said, China will maintain the momentum of mutual visits and dialogues between Chinese and African leaders, with a view to facilitating communication, deepening friendship and promoting mutual understanding and trust.
China favours increased multi-level and multi-channel friendly exchanges on the basis of mutual respect between China's National People's Congress on the one hand and parliaments of African countries and the Pan-African Parliament of the AU on the other.
The paper also hailed party relations between China and African countries on the basis of the principles of independence, equality, mutual respect and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
The paper also urged the two sides to establish and improve mechanisms such as national bilateral committees between China and African countries, political consultation between foreign ministries, joint (mixed) committees on trade and economic co-operation and mixed committees on science and technology, so as to institutionalize dialogue and consultation in a flexible and pragmatic manner.
In addition, the paper said China's central government attaches importance to the exchanges between local governments of China and African countries, vigorously supports twin province/state and twin city relationship aimed at facilitating bilateral exchanges and co-operation in local development and administration.
In the economic field, the paper declares that China is willing to negotiate Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with African countries and African regional organizations when conditions are ripe.
The Chinese Government encourages and supports Chinese enterprises' investment and business in Africa.
African countries are welcome to make investment in China and the two sides should work together to create a favourable environment for investment and co-operation and protect the legitimate rights and interests of investors from both sides, the paper said.
The Chinese Government will step up China-Africa co-operation in transportation, communication, water conservancy, electricity and other infrastructures. It will vigorously encourage Chinese enterprises to participate in the building of infrastructure in African countries, scale up their contracts, and gradually establish multilateral and bilateral mechanisms on contractual projects.
According to the paper, the Chinese Government encourages and supports competent Chinese enterprises to cooperate with African nations in various ways on the basis of the principle of mutual benefit and common development, to develop and exploit rationally their resources, with a view to helping African countries translate their advantages in resources into competitive strength, and realize sustainable development in their own countries and the continent as a whole.
China is ready to continue friendly consultation with some African countries with a view to seeking solution to, or reduction of, the debts they owe to China. It will urge the international community, developed countries in particular, to take more substantial action on the issue of debt reduction and relief for African nations.
China will step up co-operation with other countries and international organizations to support the development of Africa and help realize Millennium Development Goals in Africa.
The Chinese Government will also give full play to the role of its "African Human Resources Development Foundation" in training African personnel, the paper stipulated.
China will expand areas of co-operation and provide more input according to the needs of African countries so as to achieve greater results.
Exchange of students between China and Africa will continue, and China will increase the number of government scholarships, continue to send teachers to help African countries in Chinese language teaching and carry out educational assistance project to help develop Africa's weak disciplines.
China intends to strengthen co-operation in such fields as vocational education and distance learning while encouraging exchanges and co-operation between educational and academic institutions of both sides, the paper said.
China is also ready to promote its co-operation with Africa in the fields of science and technology, culture, medicine, media, civil service system and environmental co-operation, and to increase people-to-people exchange between the two sides.
International arena
In the international arena, the Chinese Government supports African nations' desire to be an equal partner in international affairs, the paper said.
China will continue to strengthen solidarity and co-operation with African countries on the international arena, conduct regular exchange of views, coordinate positions on major international and regional issues and stand for mutual support on major issues concerning state sovereignty, territorial integrity, national dignity and human rights.
"China is devoted, as are African nations, to making the UN play a greater role, defending the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, establishing a new international political and economic order featuring justice, rationality, equality and mutual benefit, promoting more democratic international relationship and rule of law in international affairs and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries," the paper said.
In regard to conflict settlement and peacekeeping operations, China supports the positive efforts by the African Union and other African regional organizations to settle regional conflicts and will provide assistance within its own capacity, the paper said.
China is prepared to promote exchange and co-operation between Chinese and African judicial and law enforcement departments, it said.
Besides, China will cooperate closely with immigration departments of African countries in tackling the problem of illegal migration, it said.
In non-traditional security areas, China will explore more effective ways for closer co-operation with Africa in combating terrorism, small arms smuggling, drug trafficking and transnational economic crimes.
China-Africa forum
In the paper, the Chinese Government hailed the positive role of the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation, saying that the forum has become an effective mechanism for collective dialogue and multilateral co-operation between China and Africa.
The paper said China stands ready to work with African countries to conscientiously implement the Beijing Declaration of the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation, the Program for China-Africa Co-operation in Economic and Social Development and the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation-Addis Ababa Action Plan (2004-06) and its follow-up action plans.
"China will work with African countries within the framework of the Forum to explore new ways to enhance mutual political trust, promote the comprehensive development of pragmatic co-operation, further improve the mechanism of the forum, and try to find the best way for furthering co-operation between the Forum and the New Partnership for Africa's Development," the paper said.
Source: China Daily
China cherishes friendly ties with Africa
font size ZoomIn ZoomOut
The Chinese Government issued the African Policy Paper in Beijing yesterday in a bid to promote steady growth of China-Africa relations in the long term and bring the mutually-beneficial co-operation to a new stage.
The Chinese Government wishes to present to the world the objectives of China's policy towards Africa, the measures to achieve them, and its proposals for co-operation in various fields in the coming years, according to the paper.
This is the first time that the Chinese Government has issued a paper elaborating its policy towards Africa.
The paper, composed of more than 3,000 English words, is divided into six parts, including Africa's position and role, China's relations with Africa, China's African policy, Enhancing all-round co-operation between China and Africa, Forum on China-Africa Co-operation and its follow-up actions, China's relations with African regional organizations.
The paper points out that African countries play an increasingly important role in international affairs as they have actively participated in the South-South co-operation and worked for the North-South dialogue.
It said Africa has a long history, vast expanse of land, rich natural resources and huge potential for development. After many years of struggle, the African people freed themselves from colonial rule, wiped out apartheid, won independence and emancipation, thus making significant contribution to the progress of civilization.
Following their independence, it said, countries in Africa have been conscientiously exploring a road to development suited to their national conditions and seeking peace, stability and development by joint efforts.
Thanks to the concerted efforts of African countries, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and the African Union (AU), the political situation in Africa has been stable on the whole, regional conflicts are being gradually resolved and economy has been growing for years.
The New Partnership for Africa Development (NEPAD) has drawn up an encouraging picture of African rejuvenation and development.
It said Africa still faces many challenges on its road of development. However, with the persistent efforts of African countries and the continuous support of the international community, Africa will surely surmount difficulties and achieve rejuvenation in the new century.
China's relations with Africa
"The founding of the People's Republic of China and the independence of African countries ushered in a new era in China-Africa relations," the paper stressed.
Sincerity, equality and mutual benefit, solidarity and common development are the principles guiding China-Africa exchange and co-operation.
The paper said China-Africa friendship is embedded in the long history of interchange. Sharing similar historical experience, China and Africa have all along sympathized with and supported each other in the struggle for national liberation and forged a profound friendship.
For over half a century, the two sides have enjoyed close political ties and frequent exchange of high-level visits and people-to-people contacts.
The bilateral trade and economic co-operation have grown rapidly; co-operation in other fields has yielded good results; and consultation and coordination in international affairs have been intensified, the paper said.
China has provided assistance to the best of its ability to African countries, while African countries have also rendered strong support to China on many occasions, it said.
The one-China principle is the political foundation for the establishment and development of China's relations with African countries and regional organizations, according to the Paper.
The Chinese Government appreciates the fact that the overwhelming majority of African countries abide by the one China principle, refuse to have official relations and contacts with Taiwan and support China's great cause of reunification, the paper said.
Among the total 53 countries in Africa, 47 have established diplomatic relations with China.
China stands ready to establish and develop state-to-state relations with countries that have not yet established diplomatic ties with China on the basis of the one China principle.
African policy
As far as the country's African policy is concerned, the paper stipulates that China will develop a new type of strategic partnership with Africa, featuring political equality and mutual trust, economic win-win co-operation and cultural exchange.
The general principles and objectives of China's African policy are as follows:
Sincerity, friendship and equality. China adheres to the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, respects African countries' independent choice of the road of development and supports African countries' efforts to grow stronger through unity.
Mutual benefit, reciprocity and common prosperity. China supports African countries' endeavour for economic development and nation building, carries out co-operation in various forms in the economic and social development, and promotes common prosperity of China and Africa.
Mutual support and close coordination. China will strengthen co-operation with Africa in the UN and other multilateral systems by supporting each other's just demand and reasonable propositions and continue to appeal to the international community to give more attention to questions concerning peace and development in Africa.
Learning from each other and seeking common development. China and Africa will learn from and draw upon each other's experience in governance and development, strengthen exchange and co-operation in education, science, culture and health. Supporting African countries' efforts to enhance capacity building, China will work together with Africa in the exploration of the road of sustainable development.
All-round co-operation
The paper announced that China is ready to enhance all-round co-operation with Africa.
On China-Africa political co-operation, the paper said, China will maintain the momentum of mutual visits and dialogues between Chinese and African leaders, with a view to facilitating communication, deepening friendship and promoting mutual understanding and trust.
China favours increased multi-level and multi-channel friendly exchanges on the basis of mutual respect between China's National People's Congress on the one hand and parliaments of African countries and the Pan-African Parliament of the AU on the other.
The paper also hailed party relations between China and African countries on the basis of the principles of independence, equality, mutual respect and non-interference in each other's internal affairs.
The paper also urged the two sides to establish and improve mechanisms such as national bilateral committees between China and African countries, political consultation between foreign ministries, joint (mixed) committees on trade and economic co-operation and mixed committees on science and technology, so as to institutionalize dialogue and consultation in a flexible and pragmatic manner.
In addition, the paper said China's central government attaches importance to the exchanges between local governments of China and African countries, vigorously supports twin province/state and twin city relationship aimed at facilitating bilateral exchanges and co-operation in local development and administration.
In the economic field, the paper declares that China is willing to negotiate Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with African countries and African regional organizations when conditions are ripe.
The Chinese Government encourages and supports Chinese enterprises' investment and business in Africa.
African countries are welcome to make investment in China and the two sides should work together to create a favourable environment for investment and co-operation and protect the legitimate rights and interests of investors from both sides, the paper said.
The Chinese Government will step up China-Africa co-operation in transportation, communication, water conservancy, electricity and other infrastructures. It will vigorously encourage Chinese enterprises to participate in the building of infrastructure in African countries, scale up their contracts, and gradually establish multilateral and bilateral mechanisms on contractual projects.
According to the paper, the Chinese Government encourages and supports competent Chinese enterprises to cooperate with African nations in various ways on the basis of the principle of mutual benefit and common development, to develop and exploit rationally their resources, with a view to helping African countries translate their advantages in resources into competitive strength, and realize sustainable development in their own countries and the continent as a whole.
China is ready to continue friendly consultation with some African countries with a view to seeking solution to, or reduction of, the debts they owe to China. It will urge the international community, developed countries in particular, to take more substantial action on the issue of debt reduction and relief for African nations.
China will step up co-operation with other countries and international organizations to support the development of Africa and help realize Millennium Development Goals in Africa.
The Chinese Government will also give full play to the role of its "African Human Resources Development Foundation" in training African personnel, the paper stipulated.
China will expand areas of co-operation and provide more input according to the needs of African countries so as to achieve greater results.
Exchange of students between China and Africa will continue, and China will increase the number of government scholarships, continue to send teachers to help African countries in Chinese language teaching and carry out educational assistance project to help develop Africa's weak disciplines.
China intends to strengthen co-operation in such fields as vocational education and distance learning while encouraging exchanges and co-operation between educational and academic institutions of both sides, the paper said.
China is also ready to promote its co-operation with Africa in the fields of science and technology, culture, medicine, media, civil service system and environmental co-operation, and to increase people-to-people exchange between the two sides.
International arena
In the international arena, the Chinese Government supports African nations' desire to be an equal partner in international affairs, the paper said.
China will continue to strengthen solidarity and co-operation with African countries on the international arena, conduct regular exchange of views, coordinate positions on major international and regional issues and stand for mutual support on major issues concerning state sovereignty, territorial integrity, national dignity and human rights.
"China is devoted, as are African nations, to making the UN play a greater role, defending the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, establishing a new international political and economic order featuring justice, rationality, equality and mutual benefit, promoting more democratic international relationship and rule of law in international affairs and safeguarding the legitimate rights and interests of developing countries," the paper said.
In regard to conflict settlement and peacekeeping operations, China supports the positive efforts by the African Union and other African regional organizations to settle regional conflicts and will provide assistance within its own capacity, the paper said.
China is prepared to promote exchange and co-operation between Chinese and African judicial and law enforcement departments, it said.
Besides, China will cooperate closely with immigration departments of African countries in tackling the problem of illegal migration, it said.
In non-traditional security areas, China will explore more effective ways for closer co-operation with Africa in combating terrorism, small arms smuggling, drug trafficking and transnational economic crimes.
China-Africa forum
In the paper, the Chinese Government hailed the positive role of the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation, saying that the forum has become an effective mechanism for collective dialogue and multilateral co-operation between China and Africa.
The paper said China stands ready to work with African countries to conscientiously implement the Beijing Declaration of the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation, the Program for China-Africa Co-operation in Economic and Social Development and the Forum on China-Africa Co-operation-Addis Ababa Action Plan (2004-06) and its follow-up action plans.
"China will work with African countries within the framework of the Forum to explore new ways to enhance mutual political trust, promote the comprehensive development of pragmatic co-operation, further improve the mechanism of the forum, and try to find the best way for furthering co-operation between the Forum and the New Partnership for Africa's Development," the paper said.
Source: China Daily
Bush could seize absolute control
Bush could seize absolute control of U.S. government
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 13, 2006, 07:42
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7986.shtml
President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to
impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that
prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him
absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.
Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11
terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by
Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.
These “national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine
Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal,
charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders
that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law,
establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the
President.
John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation
plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis
Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s
implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African
Americans in “relocation camps.” Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with
the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they
remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.
Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the
9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking
points supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would could allow
imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978, the law
that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.
Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and
misapplied” and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the “full and
absolute authority” to send troops into American streets to “enforce order and
maintain the peace.”
Bush used parts of the plan to send troops into the streets of New Orleans following
Hurricane Katrina. In addition, FEMA hired former special forces personnel from the
mercenary firm Blackwater USA to “enforce security.”
Blackwater USA, in its promotional materials, describes itself as “the most
comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and
stability operations company in the world,” adding that “we have established a
global presence and provide training and operational solutions for the 21st century
in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”
Blackwater is also a major U.S. contractor in Iraq and has a contract with the Bush
White House to provide additional security work “on an as-needed basis.”
The Department of Homeland Security established the “Northern Command for National
Defense,” a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the
National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the
Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and
television stations and networks and impose martial law “in times of national
emergency.”
The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with
Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for
permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.
The White House press office would neither confirm nor deny existence of Bush’s
executive orders or the existence of the Northern Command for National Defense.
Neither would the Department of Homeland Security.
But my sources within the White House and DHS tell me the plans are in place, ready
for implementation when the command comes from the man who keeps telling the
American public that he is a “war time president” who will “do anything in my power”
to impose his will on the people of the United States.
And he has made sure that power will be absolute when he chooses to use it.
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 13, 2006, 07:42
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7986.shtml
President George W. Bush has signed executive orders giving him sole authority to
impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus and ignore the Posse Comitatus Act that
prohibits deployment of U.S. troops on American streets. This would give him
absolute dictatorial power over the government with no checks and balances.
Bush discussed imposing martial law on American streets in the aftermath of the 9/11
terrorist attacks by activating “national security initiatives” put in place by
Ronald Reagan during the 1980s.
These “national security initiatives," hatched in 1982 by controversial Marine
Colonel Oliver North, later one of the key players in the Iran-Contra Scandal,
charged the Federal Emergency Management Agency with administering executive orders
that allowed suspension of the Constitution, implementation of martial law,
establishment of internment camps, and the turning the government over to the
President.
John Brinkerhoff, deputy director of FEMA, developed the martial law implementation
plan, following a template originally developed by former FEMA director Louis
Guiffrida to battle a “national uprising of black militants.” Gifuffrida’s
implementation of martial law called for jailing at least 21 million African
Americans in “relocation camps.” Brinkerhoff later admitted in an interview with
the Miami Herald that President Reagan signed off on the initiatives and they
remained in place, dormant, until George W. Bush took office.
Brinkerhoff moved on the Anser Institute for Homeland Security and, following the
9/11 terrorist attacks, provided the Bush White House and the Pentagon with talking
points supporting revised “national security initiatives” that would could allow
imposition of martial law and suspension of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1978, the law
that is supposed to forbid use of troops for domestic law enforcement.
Brinkerhoff wrote that intentions of Posse Comitatus are “misunderstood and
misapplied” and that the U.S. has in times of national emergency the “full and
absolute authority” to send troops into American streets to “enforce order and
maintain the peace.”
Bush used parts of the plan to send troops into the streets of New Orleans following
Hurricane Katrina. In addition, FEMA hired former special forces personnel from the
mercenary firm Blackwater USA to “enforce security.”
Blackwater USA, in its promotional materials, describes itself as “the most
comprehensive professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and
stability operations company in the world,” adding that “we have established a
global presence and provide training and operational solutions for the 21st century
in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”
Blackwater is also a major U.S. contractor in Iraq and has a contract with the Bush
White House to provide additional security work “on an as-needed basis.”
The Department of Homeland Security established the “Northern Command for National
Defense,” a wide-ranging program that includes FEMA, the Pentagon, the FBI and the
National Security Agency. Executive orders already signed by Bush allow the
Northern Command to send troops into American streets, seize control of radio and
television stations and networks and impose martial law “in times of national
emergency.”
The authority to declare what is or is not a national emergency rests entirely with
Bush who does not have to either consult or seek the approval of Congress for
permission to assume absolute control over the government of the United States.
The White House press office would neither confirm nor deny existence of Bush’s
executive orders or the existence of the Northern Command for National Defense.
Neither would the Department of Homeland Security.
But my sources within the White House and DHS tell me the plans are in place, ready
for implementation when the command comes from the man who keeps telling the
American public that he is a “war time president” who will “do anything in my power”
to impose his will on the people of the United States.
And he has made sure that power will be absolute when he chooses to use it.
U.S. Seeks to Avoid Detainee Ruling
U.S. Seeks to Avoid Detainee Ruling
By Dan Eggen and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 13, 2006; A07
The Bush administration took the unusual step yesterday of asking the Supreme Court to call off a landmark confrontation over the legality of military trials for terrorism suspects, arguing that a law enacted last month eliminates the court's ability to consider the issue.
In a 23-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said the justices should throw out an appeal by Yemeni national Salim Hamdan, an alleged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, because a new statute governing the treatment of U.S. detainees "removes the court's jurisdiction to hear this action."
The brief represents the latest escalation in the showdown between the Bush administration and critics of the government over the legal rights of military detainees captured overseas. Hamdan's case is one of several high-stakes legal battles working their way through the courts, and the Supreme Court's November decision to consider his appeal was a blow to the government.
Hamdan is among approximately 500 inmates held at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; nine are scheduled to be tried by "military commissions" created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Hamdan's lawyers and many civil liberties groups have decried the commissions as unconstitutional and unfairly stacked against defendants.
Separately, the administration is trying to eliminate habeas corpus lawsuits filed on behalf of nearly every detainee, saying they have clogged federal courts with frivolous actions. The Supreme Court gave Guantanamo Bay detainees access to federal courts in a 2004 ruling.
The Detainee Treatment Act, principally written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and signed into law Dec. 30, is intended to prevent detainees from having access to U.S. courts except in specific circumstances. It outlines a limited system for legal challenges by inmates, allowing them only to appeal the determination that they are enemy combatants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then, potentially, to the Supreme Court. It also allows anyone convicted in a military commission to appeal that decision.
The two lawmakers and their colleagues have disagreed sharply in recent days over whether the legislation is meant to apply to cases such as Hamdan's that were filed before Bush signed the legislation into law.
Clement's brief argues that the statute must be given "immediate effect" -- meaning that previous legal challenges should be dismissed, and that Hamdan and other inmates should proceed under the new rules.
"Congress made clear that the federal courts no longer have jurisdiction over actions filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees," Clement wrote.
Levin, in a statement issued yesterday, said that "the Justice Department is in error. Far from deciding that the relevant statutory language applies to pending cases, Congress specifically considered and rejected language that would have stripped the courts of jurisdiction in cases that they had before them."
Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who represents Hamdan, declined to comment on the government's filing.
Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the Hamdan case, said the government's brief ignores the fact that if Hamdan's case is dismissed, he and other detainees will have no avenue to challenge the legality of Bush's power to detain enemy combatants and create military trials.
"The government's basic argument is: You can't hear it now, but you can hear it later," Neuborne said. "What they don't say is that the other route doesn't let Hamdan raise the question of the president's authority in these cases. . . . They're not telling the Supreme Court the real consequences of their motion."
Justice Department officials believe cases filed on behalf of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay should now be pulled from all U.S. courts. They filed notice within days of the law's passage asking for the dismissal of cases in the U.S. District Court and the appeals court in the District of Columbia. The cases range from legal challenges of the military commissions process to complaints about treatment at the facility in Cuba.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton denied yesterday all motions in 15 pending detainee cases before him and indefinitely stayed the cases, noting that the new law "raises serious questions concerning whether this Court retains jurisdiction" to hear them. Walton wrote that he will wait for the appeals court to resolve the jurisdictional issues before removing the stays.
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, who represents a Guantanamo Bay detainee named Jumah Dossari, said yesterday that the stay in his case leaves his client with few options for improving his conditions at the prison. Dossari has tried to kill himself at least 10 times, according to his lawyers, who have been asking the court for independent mental health experts and better living conditions.
"He may have been placed in a legal limbo that may last months or years," Colangelo-Bryan said. "This means that he is utterly and entirely at the mercy of the military, which chose to place him in isolation despite knowing that he was suicidal. Our hands are tied in terms of seeking relief."
By Dan Eggen and Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, January 13, 2006; A07
The Bush administration took the unusual step yesterday of asking the Supreme Court to call off a landmark confrontation over the legality of military trials for terrorism suspects, arguing that a law enacted last month eliminates the court's ability to consider the issue.
In a 23-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Paul D. Clement said the justices should throw out an appeal by Yemeni national Salim Hamdan, an alleged driver and bodyguard for Osama bin Laden, because a new statute governing the treatment of U.S. detainees "removes the court's jurisdiction to hear this action."
The brief represents the latest escalation in the showdown between the Bush administration and critics of the government over the legal rights of military detainees captured overseas. Hamdan's case is one of several high-stakes legal battles working their way through the courts, and the Supreme Court's November decision to consider his appeal was a blow to the government.
Hamdan is among approximately 500 inmates held at the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; nine are scheduled to be tried by "military commissions" created after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Hamdan's lawyers and many civil liberties groups have decried the commissions as unconstitutional and unfairly stacked against defendants.
Separately, the administration is trying to eliminate habeas corpus lawsuits filed on behalf of nearly every detainee, saying they have clogged federal courts with frivolous actions. The Supreme Court gave Guantanamo Bay detainees access to federal courts in a 2004 ruling.
The Detainee Treatment Act, principally written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and signed into law Dec. 30, is intended to prevent detainees from having access to U.S. courts except in specific circumstances. It outlines a limited system for legal challenges by inmates, allowing them only to appeal the determination that they are enemy combatants to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and then, potentially, to the Supreme Court. It also allows anyone convicted in a military commission to appeal that decision.
The two lawmakers and their colleagues have disagreed sharply in recent days over whether the legislation is meant to apply to cases such as Hamdan's that were filed before Bush signed the legislation into law.
Clement's brief argues that the statute must be given "immediate effect" -- meaning that previous legal challenges should be dismissed, and that Hamdan and other inmates should proceed under the new rules.
"Congress made clear that the federal courts no longer have jurisdiction over actions filed on behalf of Guantanamo detainees," Clement wrote.
Levin, in a statement issued yesterday, said that "the Justice Department is in error. Far from deciding that the relevant statutory language applies to pending cases, Congress specifically considered and rejected language that would have stripped the courts of jurisdiction in cases that they had before them."
Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who represents Hamdan, declined to comment on the government's filing.
Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the Hamdan case, said the government's brief ignores the fact that if Hamdan's case is dismissed, he and other detainees will have no avenue to challenge the legality of Bush's power to detain enemy combatants and create military trials.
"The government's basic argument is: You can't hear it now, but you can hear it later," Neuborne said. "What they don't say is that the other route doesn't let Hamdan raise the question of the president's authority in these cases. . . . They're not telling the Supreme Court the real consequences of their motion."
Justice Department officials believe cases filed on behalf of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay should now be pulled from all U.S. courts. They filed notice within days of the law's passage asking for the dismissal of cases in the U.S. District Court and the appeals court in the District of Columbia. The cases range from legal challenges of the military commissions process to complaints about treatment at the facility in Cuba.
U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton denied yesterday all motions in 15 pending detainee cases before him and indefinitely stayed the cases, noting that the new law "raises serious questions concerning whether this Court retains jurisdiction" to hear them. Walton wrote that he will wait for the appeals court to resolve the jurisdictional issues before removing the stays.
Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, who represents a Guantanamo Bay detainee named Jumah Dossari, said yesterday that the stay in his case leaves his client with few options for improving his conditions at the prison. Dossari has tried to kill himself at least 10 times, according to his lawyers, who have been asking the court for independent mental health experts and better living conditions.
"He may have been placed in a legal limbo that may last months or years," Colangelo-Bryan said. "This means that he is utterly and entirely at the mercy of the military, which chose to place him in isolation despite knowing that he was suicidal. Our hands are tied in terms of seeking relief."
George Bush Is My Friend
col_kurtz1961 *********
from....STRANGE BEDFELLOWS.......
George Bush can do no wrong. He's My President, and if he does it, it
must be OK. Two Thumbs Up, George. They took my neighbor away in the
middle of the night yesterday. He must have done something Wrong. Who
would have suspected he was Al-Qeida? I know he was a soldier in
WWII, and raised three kids, and worked his whole life and paid taxes
and he and his wife always kept their home nice. These nasty Al-
Qeida, they sure can infiltrate our Homeland. I'm so glad My
President is on watch. He's doing his job. He keeps us Safe. Why do
these people criticize him? Just because he has secret black torture
prisons in third world countries and arrests people without charges
and spies on all of us, these un-American people want to hurt our
troops by being critical of Mr. Bush.
Why, the way they talk you'd think he was some kind of Dictator, a
Tyrant who Is the law. Didn't they hear him when he told us all he's
defending Our Democracy, and he needs to do all those things to keep
our nation Free. I believe him, 'cause he's My President and I love
him. And he gets such good advice from his handlers and ministers.
They all love America too. That's why they make so much money from
their friends, like Jack Abermoff and Haliburton and the Carlye
Group. They're Real Patriots. Not like these disloyal Communists who
just want to tear down America, just because we go around the world
and kill people who don't agree with us. If those people would just
look at all the good we do, they'd love us too. Too bad we have to
kill them to make them see. Oh Why don't they just understand that
we're there to help them. We help them get all their natural
resources out of the ground, or burn down their huts. Plus we help
them get loans from the World Bank, so they can replace their
outmoded old cultures with our culture. Then they can watch Madonna.
I love her. She's such a good singer.
Just because those 3 million illegal aliens came in the country last
year doesn't mean he's not protecting us. And just because none of
them has done any terrorist stuff is no reason to think that the War
On Terror is a big fake. And just because we now have a state policy
of invading anyone we want to on the flimsiest of provocation is no
reason to think the Bushes have turned America into an aggressor
state. And that darned Osama! No one can find him. He's such a good
hider. He makes such a good enemy for us all to hate and fear. I'm
sure glad My President is on the lookout for him.
And just because that Osama Bin Laden was a business partner of the
Bush family, and so was Saddam Hussein, and so was Manuel Noriega,
and so was Adolf Hitler, it's no reason to think
that the Bushes are criminals who back stab everyone they ever deal
with.
And just because he and all his friends are making a killing on Wall
Street with their new factories in China and their maids and
gardeners from Costa Rica and all the American workers don't have
jobs, it' no reason to blame Our President. He loves us and takes
care of us. Why, I have nothing to hide, so I'm glad he taps my
phone. I don't want any Al-Qeidas to get in there. Plus he's keeping
the Gays from getting married to us. And he's a real Christian who
loves Christian Values, and keeps us safe from all those Muslims who
worship the devil.
Why I bet that sneaky Al-Qeida is planning something Bad right now.
If only George Bush could listen in on their plans and stop 'em then
everything would be all right. If only we had a huge spy
establishment with hundreds of billions of dollars and exciting high-
tech spy stuff then maybe we could have stopped 9/11 from happening.
Maybe we should of had fighter planes to shoot down the highjacked
airliners before they could crash into our buildings. Too bad we
didn't give George Bush the tools he needed to do his job back then.
Why do all these people worry so much about freedom and the rule of
law and the Constitution and tyranny? Don't they know there's a War
on?
They need to listen to what Our President is telling them. He's just
like a friendly, protective older sibling who makes sure no bullies
get you on the way to school. That's why I love him so.
from....STRANGE BEDFELLOWS.......
George Bush can do no wrong. He's My President, and if he does it, it
must be OK. Two Thumbs Up, George. They took my neighbor away in the
middle of the night yesterday. He must have done something Wrong. Who
would have suspected he was Al-Qeida? I know he was a soldier in
WWII, and raised three kids, and worked his whole life and paid taxes
and he and his wife always kept their home nice. These nasty Al-
Qeida, they sure can infiltrate our Homeland. I'm so glad My
President is on watch. He's doing his job. He keeps us Safe. Why do
these people criticize him? Just because he has secret black torture
prisons in third world countries and arrests people without charges
and spies on all of us, these un-American people want to hurt our
troops by being critical of Mr. Bush.
Why, the way they talk you'd think he was some kind of Dictator, a
Tyrant who Is the law. Didn't they hear him when he told us all he's
defending Our Democracy, and he needs to do all those things to keep
our nation Free. I believe him, 'cause he's My President and I love
him. And he gets such good advice from his handlers and ministers.
They all love America too. That's why they make so much money from
their friends, like Jack Abermoff and Haliburton and the Carlye
Group. They're Real Patriots. Not like these disloyal Communists who
just want to tear down America, just because we go around the world
and kill people who don't agree with us. If those people would just
look at all the good we do, they'd love us too. Too bad we have to
kill them to make them see. Oh Why don't they just understand that
we're there to help them. We help them get all their natural
resources out of the ground, or burn down their huts. Plus we help
them get loans from the World Bank, so they can replace their
outmoded old cultures with our culture. Then they can watch Madonna.
I love her. She's such a good singer.
Just because those 3 million illegal aliens came in the country last
year doesn't mean he's not protecting us. And just because none of
them has done any terrorist stuff is no reason to think that the War
On Terror is a big fake. And just because we now have a state policy
of invading anyone we want to on the flimsiest of provocation is no
reason to think the Bushes have turned America into an aggressor
state. And that darned Osama! No one can find him. He's such a good
hider. He makes such a good enemy for us all to hate and fear. I'm
sure glad My President is on the lookout for him.
And just because that Osama Bin Laden was a business partner of the
Bush family, and so was Saddam Hussein, and so was Manuel Noriega,
and so was Adolf Hitler, it's no reason to think
that the Bushes are criminals who back stab everyone they ever deal
with.
And just because he and all his friends are making a killing on Wall
Street with their new factories in China and their maids and
gardeners from Costa Rica and all the American workers don't have
jobs, it' no reason to blame Our President. He loves us and takes
care of us. Why, I have nothing to hide, so I'm glad he taps my
phone. I don't want any Al-Qeidas to get in there. Plus he's keeping
the Gays from getting married to us. And he's a real Christian who
loves Christian Values, and keeps us safe from all those Muslims who
worship the devil.
Why I bet that sneaky Al-Qeida is planning something Bad right now.
If only George Bush could listen in on their plans and stop 'em then
everything would be all right. If only we had a huge spy
establishment with hundreds of billions of dollars and exciting high-
tech spy stuff then maybe we could have stopped 9/11 from happening.
Maybe we should of had fighter planes to shoot down the highjacked
airliners before they could crash into our buildings. Too bad we
didn't give George Bush the tools he needed to do his job back then.
Why do all these people worry so much about freedom and the rule of
law and the Constitution and tyranny? Don't they know there's a War
on?
They need to listen to what Our President is telling them. He's just
like a friendly, protective older sibling who makes sure no bullies
get you on the way to school. That's why I love him so.
US pilot who tried to stop the My Lai massacre of civilians in the Vietnam War
by Michael Bilton
Wednesday January 11, 2006 : A Guardian Report
Hugh Thompson, who has died aged 64, was the helicopter pilot who
tried to halt the My Lai massacre of more than 500 villagers by
American troops during the Vietnam war. At one point, he rescued 15
defenceless civilians while training his machine guns on US
infantrymen commanded by the infamous Lieutenant William Calley,
threatening to shoot if they did not stop the slaughter.
By the time he arrived in Vietnam in late December 1967, Thompson was
a 25-year-old chief warrant officer reconnaissance pilot with the
123rd Aviation Battalion. On March 16 1968, he was flying his H-23
scout helicopter, with its three-man crew, over a part of Quang Ngai
province known as Pinkville, supporting a three company
search-and-destroy assault on several villages, which faulty
intelligence had indicated were heavily defended by Vietcong troops.
The US 1/20th Infantry Battalion attack was led by Charlie Company,
commanded by Captain Ernest Medina, who sent in the 1st platoon, led
by Calley, to clear out My Lai and several neighbouring hamlets.
Charlie Company was bent on revenge; days earlier several of its
members had been killed by Vietcong mines and booby traps. Without a
shot being fired against them, Calley's men began slaughtering anyone
they could find - old men, women and children. Groups of villagers, 20
and 30 at a time, were lined up and mown down. In the four-hour
assault, the men of the 2nd and 3rd platoons joined in.
Early on, Thompson spotted a young woman injured in a field. He
dropped a smoke cannister to indicate she needed medical help; he
claimed in a court martial later that Medina went over and shot her.
During the massacre, Thompson discovered the bodies of 170 executed
villagers in a drainage ditch. One of his crew rescued a child and
flew it to hospital at Quang Ngai.
In another incident, he challenged Calley to help a group of civilians
hiding in a bunker rather than attack them. When Calley refused,
Thompson ordered his helicopter gunners to open fire on the 1st
platoon if they advanced any closer. He then called down gunships to
rescue the civilians.
On returning to Chu Lai military base, Thompson reported everything to
his commanding officer. But a local inquiry whitewashed his
complaints, claiming the civilian deaths had been caused by artillery
fire. An elaborate cover-up ensued and Thompson was awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross for saving the lives of Vietnamese
civilians "in the face of hostile enemy fire" - he threw the medal
away, believing his commanders wanted to buy his silence.
A year later, the Pentagon learned the truth and a high-level inquiry
was conducted by Lieutenant General William Peers. Thompson later
appeared as a witness at the courts martial of several men involved in
the massacre or the cover-up, though the only person convicted was
Calley, who served a few months in jail before having his life
sentence reduced and being given parole.
During his time in Vietnam, Thompson was shot down five times, finally
breaking his backbone. He received a commission, but back in America
some colleagues regarded him as a turncoat. When evidence of the
atrocity was finally made public in late 1969, he was castigated by
pro-Vietnam war politicians in Washington.
It was only 30 years later that Thompson was recognised as a genuine
American hero by the Pentagon, after a nine-year letter-writing
campaign. The US army had initially wanted his Soldier's Medal, the
military's highest award for bravery in peacetime, to be presented
quietly, preferring to keep what happened at My Lai in the background.
But Thompson resisted. He wanted a ceremony at the Vietnam memorial in
Washington, DC, and the bravery of his fellow crew members recognised
as well. In March 1998, he finally got his wish.
Thompson was born in Atlanta, Georgia, to strict Episcopalian parents,
and moved to nearby Stone Mountain when he was three years old. His
father served with both the US army and navy during the second world
war and spent 30 years with the naval reserve. His paternal
grandfather was a full-blooded Cherokee Native American, forced off
tribal land in North Carolina in the 1850s and resettled in Georgia.
Thompson joined the US navy in 1961, and spent three years with a
Seebees construction unit. After a brief return to civilian life in
1964, during which he became a funeral director, he re-enlisted in the
army, as it was becoming engaged in Vietnam.
The My Lai experience affected him badly. He grappled with alcohol and
had several failed marriages. After service in Korea, he returned to
the US, dropping the name Hugh and calling himself Buck as a way of
distancing himself from past events. He left the army briefly and then
re-enlisted, flying with medical evacuation units and instructing
trainee pilots. He retired from the army in November 1983 and worked
as a helicopter pilot for oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico. Later
he was involved with the Louisiana department of veteran affairs for
six years, giving lectures to students and schoolchildren and speaking
about ethics to military academies.
After his role in trying to stop the massacre was recognised in the
US, Thompson and his surviving crew member, Larry Colburn, were taken
back to My Lai, where they were introduced to three women who had
survived the massacre. On a second visit three years later, he met an
electrician from Ho Chi Minh City who, aged nine, had been one of the
children Thompson had rescued from the bunker.
Thompson is survived by three sons and his partner Mona Gossen.
· Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr, pilot and whistleblower, born April 15
1943; died January 6 2006
Courtesy : The Guardian
http://malakandsky.blogspot.com/
Fountainhead
Wednesday January 11, 2006 : A Guardian Report
Hugh Thompson, who has died aged 64, was the helicopter pilot who
tried to halt the My Lai massacre of more than 500 villagers by
American troops during the Vietnam war. At one point, he rescued 15
defenceless civilians while training his machine guns on US
infantrymen commanded by the infamous Lieutenant William Calley,
threatening to shoot if they did not stop the slaughter.
By the time he arrived in Vietnam in late December 1967, Thompson was
a 25-year-old chief warrant officer reconnaissance pilot with the
123rd Aviation Battalion. On March 16 1968, he was flying his H-23
scout helicopter, with its three-man crew, over a part of Quang Ngai
province known as Pinkville, supporting a three company
search-and-destroy assault on several villages, which faulty
intelligence had indicated were heavily defended by Vietcong troops.
The US 1/20th Infantry Battalion attack was led by Charlie Company,
commanded by Captain Ernest Medina, who sent in the 1st platoon, led
by Calley, to clear out My Lai and several neighbouring hamlets.
Charlie Company was bent on revenge; days earlier several of its
members had been killed by Vietcong mines and booby traps. Without a
shot being fired against them, Calley's men began slaughtering anyone
they could find - old men, women and children. Groups of villagers, 20
and 30 at a time, were lined up and mown down. In the four-hour
assault, the men of the 2nd and 3rd platoons joined in.
Early on, Thompson spotted a young woman injured in a field. He
dropped a smoke cannister to indicate she needed medical help; he
claimed in a court martial later that Medina went over and shot her.
During the massacre, Thompson discovered the bodies of 170 executed
villagers in a drainage ditch. One of his crew rescued a child and
flew it to hospital at Quang Ngai.
In another incident, he challenged Calley to help a group of civilians
hiding in a bunker rather than attack them. When Calley refused,
Thompson ordered his helicopter gunners to open fire on the 1st
platoon if they advanced any closer. He then called down gunships to
rescue the civilians.
On returning to Chu Lai military base, Thompson reported everything to
his commanding officer. But a local inquiry whitewashed his
complaints, claiming the civilian deaths had been caused by artillery
fire. An elaborate cover-up ensued and Thompson was awarded the
Distinguished Flying Cross for saving the lives of Vietnamese
civilians "in the face of hostile enemy fire" - he threw the medal
away, believing his commanders wanted to buy his silence.
A year later, the Pentagon learned the truth and a high-level inquiry
was conducted by Lieutenant General William Peers. Thompson later
appeared as a witness at the courts martial of several men involved in
the massacre or the cover-up, though the only person convicted was
Calley, who served a few months in jail before having his life
sentence reduced and being given parole.
During his time in Vietnam, Thompson was shot down five times, finally
breaking his backbone. He received a commission, but back in America
some colleagues regarded him as a turncoat. When evidence of the
atrocity was finally made public in late 1969, he was castigated by
pro-Vietnam war politicians in Washington.
It was only 30 years later that Thompson was recognised as a genuine
American hero by the Pentagon, after a nine-year letter-writing
campaign. The US army had initially wanted his Soldier's Medal, the
military's highest award for bravery in peacetime, to be presented
quietly, preferring to keep what happened at My Lai in the background.
But Thompson resisted. He wanted a ceremony at the Vietnam memorial in
Washington, DC, and the bravery of his fellow crew members recognised
as well. In March 1998, he finally got his wish.
Thompson was born in Atlanta, Georgia, to strict Episcopalian parents,
and moved to nearby Stone Mountain when he was three years old. His
father served with both the US army and navy during the second world
war and spent 30 years with the naval reserve. His paternal
grandfather was a full-blooded Cherokee Native American, forced off
tribal land in North Carolina in the 1850s and resettled in Georgia.
Thompson joined the US navy in 1961, and spent three years with a
Seebees construction unit. After a brief return to civilian life in
1964, during which he became a funeral director, he re-enlisted in the
army, as it was becoming engaged in Vietnam.
The My Lai experience affected him badly. He grappled with alcohol and
had several failed marriages. After service in Korea, he returned to
the US, dropping the name Hugh and calling himself Buck as a way of
distancing himself from past events. He left the army briefly and then
re-enlisted, flying with medical evacuation units and instructing
trainee pilots. He retired from the army in November 1983 and worked
as a helicopter pilot for oil companies in the Gulf of Mexico. Later
he was involved with the Louisiana department of veteran affairs for
six years, giving lectures to students and schoolchildren and speaking
about ethics to military academies.
After his role in trying to stop the massacre was recognised in the
US, Thompson and his surviving crew member, Larry Colburn, were taken
back to My Lai, where they were introduced to three women who had
survived the massacre. On a second visit three years later, he met an
electrician from Ho Chi Minh City who, aged nine, had been one of the
children Thompson had rescued from the bunker.
Thompson is survived by three sons and his partner Mona Gossen.
· Hugh Clowers Thompson Jr, pilot and whistleblower, born April 15
1943; died January 6 2006
Courtesy : The Guardian
http://malakandsky.blogspot.com/
Fountainhead
Beam weapons almost ready for battle MSNBC.com
Directed energy could revolutionize warfare, expert says
Beam weapons almost ready for battle
By Leonard David
Senior space writer
Space.com
Updated: 12:10 p.m. ET Jan. 11, 2006
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching —
and at the speed of light, no less. They are labeled "directed-energy
weapons," and they may well signal a revolution in military hardware —
perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.
Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered
microwaves and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea,
and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic
spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too.
That's the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently
published book "The E-Bomb: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons
Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future." Beason
previously served on the White House staff working for the president's
science adviser under both the Bush and Clinton administrations.
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the
verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of
energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as
well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
"History has shown that, without investment in high technology,
fighting the next war will be done using the 'last war' type of
technique," Beason told Space.com. Putting money into basic and
long-range research is critical, Beason said, adding: "You can't
always schedule breakthroughs."
A leading expert in directed-energy research for 26 years, Beason is
also director of threat reduction here at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. However, he noted that he was expressing his own views
rather than the policy of the laboratory, the Defense Department or
the Energy Department.
Ripe for transformation?
Though considerable work has been done in lasers, high-power
microwaves and other directed-energy technologies, weaponization is
still an ongoing process.
For example, work is continuing in the military's Airborne Laser
program. It utilizes a megawatt-class, high-energy chemical oxygen
iodine laser toted skyward aboard a modified Boeing 747-400 aircraft.
Purpose of the program is to enable the detection, tracking and
destruction of ballistic missiles in the boost phase, or powered part
of their flight.
Similarly, testing of the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser in
White Sands, N.M., has shown the ability of heating high-flying rocket
warheads, blasting them with enough energy to make them self-detonate.
THEL uses a high-energy, deuterium fluoride chemical laser. A mobile
THEL also demonstrated the ability to kill multiple mortar rounds.
Then there's Active Denial Technology — a non-lethal way to use
millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter and turn back an
advancing adversary. This technology, supported by the U.S. Marines,
uses a beam of millimeter waves to heat a foe's skin, causing severe
pain without damage, and making the adversary flee the scene.
Beason also pointed to new exciting research areas underway at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory: Free-electron laser work with the Navy and
a new type of directed energy that operates in the terahertz region.
Niche for new technology
While progress in directed-energy is appreciable, Beason sees two
upfront problems in moving the technology forward. One issue has to do
with "convincing the warfighter that there's a niche for this new type
of weapon," and the other relates to making sure these new systems are
not viewed as a panacea to solve all problems. "They are only another
tool," he said.
Looming even larger is the role of those who acquire new weapons. "The
U.S. could put ourselves in a very disastrous position if we allow our
acquisition officials to be non-technically competent," Beason explained.
Over the decades, Beason said that the field of directed-energy has
had its share of "snake-oil salesmen", as well as those advocates who
overpromised. "It wasn't ready for prime time."
At present, directed-energy systems "are barely limping along with
enough money just to prove that they can work," Beason pointed out.
Meanwhile, huge slugs of money are being put into legacy-type systems
to keep them going.
"It's a matter of priority," Beason said. The time is now to identify
high-payoff, directed-energy projects for the smallest amounts of
money, he said.
Unknown unknowns
In Beason's view, Active Denial Technology, the Airborne Laser program
and the THEL project, as well as supporting technologies such as relay
mirrors, are all works in progress that give reason for added support
and priority funding.
"I truly believe that as the Airborne Laser goes, so goes the rest of
the nation's directed-energy programs. Right now, it's working on the
margin. I believe that there are still `unknown unknowns' out there
that are going to occur in science and technology. We think we have
the physics defined. We think we have the engineering defined. But
something always goes wrong … and we're working too close at the
margin," Beason said.
Stepwise demonstration programs that spotlight directed-energy weapon
systems are needed, Beason noted. Such in-the-field displays could
show off greater beam distance-to-target runs, mobility of hardware,
ease-of-operation, battlefield utility and other attributes.
Directed-energy technologies can offer a range of applications, from
botching up an enemy's electronics to performing "dial-up" destructive
strikes at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage.
Beason said he has a blue-sky idea of his own, which he tags "the
voice from heaven." By tuning the resonance of a laser onto Earth's
ionosphere, you can create audible frequencies. Like some boom box in
the sky, the laser-produced voice could bellow from above down to the
target below: "Put down your weapons."
Relay mirrors
Regarding use of directed-energy space weapons, Beason advised that
"we'll eventually see it."
However, present-day systems are far too messy. Most high-powered
chemical lasers — in the megawatt-class — require onboard fuels and
oxidizers to crank out the amount of energy useful for strategic
applications. Stability of such a laser system rooted in space is also
wanting.
On the other hand, Beason said he expected to see the rise of more
efficient lasers — especially solid-state laser systems. "What
breakthroughs are needed … I'm not sure. Eventually, I think it's
going to happen, but it is going to be a generation after the
battlefield lasers."
Shooting beams "through space" is another matter, Beason quickly
added. Space-based relay mirrors — even high-altitude airships
equipped with relay mirrors — can direct ground-based or air-based
laser beams nearly around the world, he said.
"So you're using space … exploiting it. But you are going through
space to attack anywhere on Earth," Beason said.
History lesson
Late last year, speaking before the Heritage Foundation in Washington,
Beason told his audience that laser energy, the power sources and beam
control, as well as knowledge about how laser beams interact with
Earth's atmosphere, are quite mature technologies that are ready for
the shift into front-line warfare status.
"The good news is that directed energy exists. Directed energy is
being tested, and within a few years directed energy is going to be
deployed upon the battlefield," Beason reported. "But the bad news is
that acquisition policies right now in this nation are one more gear
toward evolutionary practices rather than revolutionary practices."
"Visionaries win wars … and not bureaucrats. We've seen this through
history," Beason observed.
© 2006 Space.com. All rights reserved. More from Space.com.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Beam weapons almost ready for battle
By Leonard David
Senior space writer
Space.com
Updated: 12:10 p.m. ET Jan. 11, 2006
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. - There is a new breed of weaponry fast approaching —
and at the speed of light, no less. They are labeled "directed-energy
weapons," and they may well signal a revolution in military hardware —
perhaps more so than the atomic bomb.
Directed-energy weapons take the form of lasers, high-powered
microwaves and particle beams. Their adoption for ground, air, sea,
and space warfare depends not only on using the electromagnetic
spectrum, but also upon favorable political and budgetary wavelengths too.
That's the outlook of J. Douglas Beason, author of the recently
published book "The E-Bomb: How America's New Directed Energy Weapons
Will Change the Way Wars Will Be Fought in the Future." Beason
previously served on the White House staff working for the president's
science adviser under both the Bush and Clinton administrations.
After more than two decades of research, the United States is on the
verge of deploying a new generation of weapons that discharge beams of
energy, such as the Airborne Laser and the Active Denial System, as
well as the Tactical High Energy Laser, or THEL.
"History has shown that, without investment in high technology,
fighting the next war will be done using the 'last war' type of
technique," Beason told Space.com. Putting money into basic and
long-range research is critical, Beason said, adding: "You can't
always schedule breakthroughs."
A leading expert in directed-energy research for 26 years, Beason is
also director of threat reduction here at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory. However, he noted that he was expressing his own views
rather than the policy of the laboratory, the Defense Department or
the Energy Department.
Ripe for transformation?
Though considerable work has been done in lasers, high-power
microwaves and other directed-energy technologies, weaponization is
still an ongoing process.
For example, work is continuing in the military's Airborne Laser
program. It utilizes a megawatt-class, high-energy chemical oxygen
iodine laser toted skyward aboard a modified Boeing 747-400 aircraft.
Purpose of the program is to enable the detection, tracking and
destruction of ballistic missiles in the boost phase, or powered part
of their flight.
Similarly, testing of the U.S. Army's Tactical High Energy Laser in
White Sands, N.M., has shown the ability of heating high-flying rocket
warheads, blasting them with enough energy to make them self-detonate.
THEL uses a high-energy, deuterium fluoride chemical laser. A mobile
THEL also demonstrated the ability to kill multiple mortar rounds.
Then there's Active Denial Technology — a non-lethal way to use
millimeter-wave electromagnetic energy to stop, deter and turn back an
advancing adversary. This technology, supported by the U.S. Marines,
uses a beam of millimeter waves to heat a foe's skin, causing severe
pain without damage, and making the adversary flee the scene.
Beason also pointed to new exciting research areas underway at the Los
Alamos National Laboratory: Free-electron laser work with the Navy and
a new type of directed energy that operates in the terahertz region.
Niche for new technology
While progress in directed-energy is appreciable, Beason sees two
upfront problems in moving the technology forward. One issue has to do
with "convincing the warfighter that there's a niche for this new type
of weapon," and the other relates to making sure these new systems are
not viewed as a panacea to solve all problems. "They are only another
tool," he said.
Looming even larger is the role of those who acquire new weapons. "The
U.S. could put ourselves in a very disastrous position if we allow our
acquisition officials to be non-technically competent," Beason explained.
Over the decades, Beason said that the field of directed-energy has
had its share of "snake-oil salesmen", as well as those advocates who
overpromised. "It wasn't ready for prime time."
At present, directed-energy systems "are barely limping along with
enough money just to prove that they can work," Beason pointed out.
Meanwhile, huge slugs of money are being put into legacy-type systems
to keep them going.
"It's a matter of priority," Beason said. The time is now to identify
high-payoff, directed-energy projects for the smallest amounts of
money, he said.
Unknown unknowns
In Beason's view, Active Denial Technology, the Airborne Laser program
and the THEL project, as well as supporting technologies such as relay
mirrors, are all works in progress that give reason for added support
and priority funding.
"I truly believe that as the Airborne Laser goes, so goes the rest of
the nation's directed-energy programs. Right now, it's working on the
margin. I believe that there are still `unknown unknowns' out there
that are going to occur in science and technology. We think we have
the physics defined. We think we have the engineering defined. But
something always goes wrong … and we're working too close at the
margin," Beason said.
Stepwise demonstration programs that spotlight directed-energy weapon
systems are needed, Beason noted. Such in-the-field displays could
show off greater beam distance-to-target runs, mobility of hardware,
ease-of-operation, battlefield utility and other attributes.
Directed-energy technologies can offer a range of applications, from
botching up an enemy's electronics to performing "dial-up" destructive
strikes at the speed of light with little or no collateral damage.
Beason said he has a blue-sky idea of his own, which he tags "the
voice from heaven." By tuning the resonance of a laser onto Earth's
ionosphere, you can create audible frequencies. Like some boom box in
the sky, the laser-produced voice could bellow from above down to the
target below: "Put down your weapons."
Relay mirrors
Regarding use of directed-energy space weapons, Beason advised that
"we'll eventually see it."
However, present-day systems are far too messy. Most high-powered
chemical lasers — in the megawatt-class — require onboard fuels and
oxidizers to crank out the amount of energy useful for strategic
applications. Stability of such a laser system rooted in space is also
wanting.
On the other hand, Beason said he expected to see the rise of more
efficient lasers — especially solid-state laser systems. "What
breakthroughs are needed … I'm not sure. Eventually, I think it's
going to happen, but it is going to be a generation after the
battlefield lasers."
Shooting beams "through space" is another matter, Beason quickly
added. Space-based relay mirrors — even high-altitude airships
equipped with relay mirrors — can direct ground-based or air-based
laser beams nearly around the world, he said.
"So you're using space … exploiting it. But you are going through
space to attack anywhere on Earth," Beason said.
History lesson
Late last year, speaking before the Heritage Foundation in Washington,
Beason told his audience that laser energy, the power sources and beam
control, as well as knowledge about how laser beams interact with
Earth's atmosphere, are quite mature technologies that are ready for
the shift into front-line warfare status.
"The good news is that directed energy exists. Directed energy is
being tested, and within a few years directed energy is going to be
deployed upon the battlefield," Beason reported. "But the bad news is
that acquisition policies right now in this nation are one more gear
toward evolutionary practices rather than revolutionary practices."
"Visionaries win wars … and not bureaucrats. We've seen this through
history," Beason observed.
© 2006 Space.com. All rights reserved. More from Space.com.
© 2006 MSNBC.com
URL: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10805240/
Robertson Apologizes for Sharon Remarks
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060112/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_christians&printer=1;_ylt=AlqY0Zf9h1knBcN_DRlRJ7gUewgF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-
Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Robertson Apologizes for Sharon Remarks
By BRIAN MURPHY, AP Religion WriterThu Jan 12, 6:35 PM ET
Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has sent a letter apologizing for suggesting that Ariel Sharon's massive stroke was divine punishment for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip.
Robertson's comments drew widespread condemnation from other Christian leaders, President Bush and Israeli officials, who canceled plans to include the American evangelist in the construction of a Christian tourist center in northern Israel.
In a letter dated Wednesday and marked for hand delivery to Sharon's son Omri, Robertson called the Israeli prime minister a "kind, gracious and gentle man" who was "carrying an almost insurmountable burden of making decisions for his nation."
"My concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness," the letter said.
"I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel," Robertson wrote.
The 77-year-old prime minister suffered a devastating stroke Jan. 4 and remained hospitalized Thursday in critical but stable condition.
The day after Sharon's stroke, Robertson suggested he was being punished for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip last summer. The pullout was seen by many evangelical groups as a retreat from biblical prophecy of Jewish sovereignty over the area.
"God considers this land to be his," Robertson said on his TV program "The 700 Club." "You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'"
Despite the apology, it was doubtful Robertson would be brought back into the fold of the proposed Christian Heritage Center in the northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught.
The exclusion carries a special irony for a preacher who helped define television ministries: The planned complex is to include studios and satellite links for live broadcasts from the Holy Land.
Rami Levi, director of marketing for Israel's tourism ministry, told The Associated Press that the government remains "outraged" by Robertson's remarks.
Israel's tourism minister, Abraham Hirchson, said Wednesday that Robertson's help was no longer welcome for the proposed center.
"But, of course, we continue full engines ahead to construct it because the Christian community around the world — the evangelical community — are friends," said Levi, who is responsible for coordinating tourism contacts between Israeli groups and other faiths around the world.
Christian groups, particularly evangelical congregations from the United States, have become an important source of revenue and political influence.
Evangelicals funnel millions of dollars each year to Jewish settlers in the West Bank and provide aid for those evicted from Gaza. They also represent an essential component of the estimated $4 billion in tourist revenue expected this year.
Levi said groundbreaking on the center could come early this year and the first buildings could be finished within two years. The complex will include an amphitheater and broadcast facilities near key Christian sites, including Capernaum, the Mount of the Beatitudes, where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and Tabgha on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, where Christians believe Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fish.
Hirchson had predicted it would draw up to 1 million pilgrims a year, generate $1.5 billion in spending and support about 40,000 jobs. Robertson was leading a group of evangelicals who have pledged to raise the $50 million needed to build the site.
But Levi said there was "more than enough outreach" to other Christian groups to meet the funding.
"The government does not rely on one person in constructing such a site, which is important to the Christians around the world," said Levi.
Levi suggested that an apology from Robertson would not get him back on the project, but he said that Hirchson did not exclude cooperation with Robertson on other fronts.
"We love to do joint projects with people. But we are also human beings and we have feelings and we think our partners should consider that at times — especially times like this — that statements like this hurt," said Levi.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Back to Story - Help
Yahoo! News
Robertson Apologizes for Sharon Remarks
By BRIAN MURPHY, AP Religion WriterThu Jan 12, 6:35 PM ET
Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson has sent a letter apologizing for suggesting that Ariel Sharon's massive stroke was divine punishment for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip.
Robertson's comments drew widespread condemnation from other Christian leaders, President Bush and Israeli officials, who canceled plans to include the American evangelist in the construction of a Christian tourist center in northern Israel.
In a letter dated Wednesday and marked for hand delivery to Sharon's son Omri, Robertson called the Israeli prime minister a "kind, gracious and gentle man" who was "carrying an almost insurmountable burden of making decisions for his nation."
"My concern for the future safety of your nation led me to make remarks which I can now view in retrospect as inappropriate and insensitive in light of a national grief experienced because of your father's illness," the letter said.
"I ask your forgiveness and the forgiveness of the people of Israel," Robertson wrote.
The 77-year-old prime minister suffered a devastating stroke Jan. 4 and remained hospitalized Thursday in critical but stable condition.
The day after Sharon's stroke, Robertson suggested he was being punished for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip last summer. The pullout was seen by many evangelical groups as a retreat from biblical prophecy of Jewish sovereignty over the area.
"God considers this land to be his," Robertson said on his TV program "The 700 Club." "You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'"
Despite the apology, it was doubtful Robertson would be brought back into the fold of the proposed Christian Heritage Center in the northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught.
The exclusion carries a special irony for a preacher who helped define television ministries: The planned complex is to include studios and satellite links for live broadcasts from the Holy Land.
Rami Levi, director of marketing for Israel's tourism ministry, told The Associated Press that the government remains "outraged" by Robertson's remarks.
Israel's tourism minister, Abraham Hirchson, said Wednesday that Robertson's help was no longer welcome for the proposed center.
"But, of course, we continue full engines ahead to construct it because the Christian community around the world — the evangelical community — are friends," said Levi, who is responsible for coordinating tourism contacts between Israeli groups and other faiths around the world.
Christian groups, particularly evangelical congregations from the United States, have become an important source of revenue and political influence.
Evangelicals funnel millions of dollars each year to Jewish settlers in the West Bank and provide aid for those evicted from Gaza. They also represent an essential component of the estimated $4 billion in tourist revenue expected this year.
Levi said groundbreaking on the center could come early this year and the first buildings could be finished within two years. The complex will include an amphitheater and broadcast facilities near key Christian sites, including Capernaum, the Mount of the Beatitudes, where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and Tabgha on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, where Christians believe Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fish.
Hirchson had predicted it would draw up to 1 million pilgrims a year, generate $1.5 billion in spending and support about 40,000 jobs. Robertson was leading a group of evangelicals who have pledged to raise the $50 million needed to build the site.
But Levi said there was "more than enough outreach" to other Christian groups to meet the funding.
"The government does not rely on one person in constructing such a site, which is important to the Christians around the world," said Levi.
Levi suggested that an apology from Robertson would not get him back on the project, but he said that Hirchson did not exclude cooperation with Robertson on other fronts.
"We love to do joint projects with people. But we are also human beings and we have feelings and we think our partners should consider that at times — especially times like this — that statements like this hurt," said Levi.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Swiss Investigate Leak to Paper on C.I.A. Prisons in Eastern Europe - New York Times
Swiss Investigate Leak to Paper on C.I.A. Prisons in Eastern Europe - New York Times
Swiss Investigate Leak to Paper on C.I.A. Prisons in Eastern Europe
By DOREEN CARVAJAL,
International Herald Tribune
PARIS, Jan. 11 - Switzerland is conducting criminal investigations to track down the source of a leak to the Zurich-based newspaper SonntagsBlick of what it reported was a secret document citing clandestine C.I.A. prisons in Eastern Europe.
The Sunday weekly published what it reported was a summary of a fax in November from Egypt's Foreign Ministry to its London embassy that said the United States had held 23 Iraqi and Afghan prisoners at a base in Romania. It also referred to similar detention centers in Bulgaria, Kosovo, Macedonia and Ukraine.
"The Egyptians have sources confirming the presence of secret American prisons," said the document, dated Nov. 15 and written in French to summarize the contents of the fax.
"According to the embassy's own sources, 23 Iraqis and Afghans were interrogated at the Mikhail Kogalniceau base at Constanza, on the Black Sea."
The leaked fax, which the newspaper said was sent by satellite and intercepted by the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, was signed by Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the report said.
Christoph Grenacher, the newspaper's editor in chief, said that before the article was published, newspaper officials met with high-ranking Swiss government officials, who urged the paper to withhold the information. "We concluded that the discussion about so-called secret prisons is much more important than the interests of the secret service in Switzerland," he said.
During those discussions, he said, no one contested the authenticity of the document. Egypt has not commented on the report, but it quickly reignited a political fury in Europe that began in the fall with news reports that said there were C.I.A. interrogation centers in Europe and that there had been secret flights through European countries transferring terrorism suspects for questioning.
After the article was published on Sunday, Romania and Ukraine issued denials, and the Swiss criminal investigations were opened. Some European lawmakers seized on the information as evidence of dissembling by European Union members. "This is a piece of real evidence to back up the gut instinct many of us have that the denials of complicity we are hearing from E.U. member and candidate states cannot be relied upon," Sarah Ludford, a Liberal Democratic member of the British Parliament, said in a statement.
The Swiss Army's chief prosecutor opened an investigation of Mr. Grenacher and two of his reporters to determine whether military secrets were exposed and to find the source of the leaks. The Swiss attorney general's office is also investigating the issue, adding another layer to its existing investigation of whether there were C.I.A. flights in Swiss airspace.
Germany and Denmark are also examining accusations that the agency used their airspace to transport terrorism suspects.
The United States has acknowledged flights but not the existence of prisons. A C.I.A. spokeswoman declined to comment on the report in the newspaper.
Conceivably, the journalists could face five years in prison for revealing military secrets, although no one prosecuted under the law has ever served any prison time, the authorities said.
Martin Immenhauser, a spokesman for the military prosecutor, said of the document: "Nobody has told us that it's not authentic. I think you can say that it's 99 percent certain that it's authentic."
Swiss Investigate Leak to Paper on C.I.A. Prisons in Eastern Europe
By DOREEN CARVAJAL,
International Herald Tribune
PARIS, Jan. 11 - Switzerland is conducting criminal investigations to track down the source of a leak to the Zurich-based newspaper SonntagsBlick of what it reported was a secret document citing clandestine C.I.A. prisons in Eastern Europe.
The Sunday weekly published what it reported was a summary of a fax in November from Egypt's Foreign Ministry to its London embassy that said the United States had held 23 Iraqi and Afghan prisoners at a base in Romania. It also referred to similar detention centers in Bulgaria, Kosovo, Macedonia and Ukraine.
"The Egyptians have sources confirming the presence of secret American prisons," said the document, dated Nov. 15 and written in French to summarize the contents of the fax.
"According to the embassy's own sources, 23 Iraqis and Afghans were interrogated at the Mikhail Kogalniceau base at Constanza, on the Black Sea."
The leaked fax, which the newspaper said was sent by satellite and intercepted by the Swiss Strategic Intelligence Service, was signed by Egypt's foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, the report said.
Christoph Grenacher, the newspaper's editor in chief, said that before the article was published, newspaper officials met with high-ranking Swiss government officials, who urged the paper to withhold the information. "We concluded that the discussion about so-called secret prisons is much more important than the interests of the secret service in Switzerland," he said.
During those discussions, he said, no one contested the authenticity of the document. Egypt has not commented on the report, but it quickly reignited a political fury in Europe that began in the fall with news reports that said there were C.I.A. interrogation centers in Europe and that there had been secret flights through European countries transferring terrorism suspects for questioning.
After the article was published on Sunday, Romania and Ukraine issued denials, and the Swiss criminal investigations were opened. Some European lawmakers seized on the information as evidence of dissembling by European Union members. "This is a piece of real evidence to back up the gut instinct many of us have that the denials of complicity we are hearing from E.U. member and candidate states cannot be relied upon," Sarah Ludford, a Liberal Democratic member of the British Parliament, said in a statement.
The Swiss Army's chief prosecutor opened an investigation of Mr. Grenacher and two of his reporters to determine whether military secrets were exposed and to find the source of the leaks. The Swiss attorney general's office is also investigating the issue, adding another layer to its existing investigation of whether there were C.I.A. flights in Swiss airspace.
Germany and Denmark are also examining accusations that the agency used their airspace to transport terrorism suspects.
The United States has acknowledged flights but not the existence of prisons. A C.I.A. spokeswoman declined to comment on the report in the newspaper.
Conceivably, the journalists could face five years in prison for revealing military secrets, although no one prosecuted under the law has ever served any prison time, the authorities said.
Martin Immenhauser, a spokesman for the military prosecutor, said of the document: "Nobody has told us that it's not authentic. I think you can say that it's 99 percent certain that it's authentic."
The Book of Hypocrisy
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7985.shtml
The Book of Hypocrisy
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 12, 2006, 10:42
The oh-so-self-righteous religious right wing has
their sensible panties in a bunch again – this time
over an irreverent NBC television series called The
Book of Daniel.
In their usual spirit of trying to force their archaic
values on the rest of us, these Bible-thumping whack
jobs are petitioning NBC affiliates to drop the show,
threatening advertisers with boycotts and demanding
Congress step in and, essentially, censor the network
for daring take a jaundiced look at religion and
everyday life.
The protests, of course, started long before any of
these nutcases had actually seen an episode of the
show. They object, loudly, about the show’s premise –
a pain-killer addicted Episcopalian minister with an
alcoholic wife, a gay son (who is, God-forbid, a
Republican), a drug-dealing daughter, a horny adopted
son who is sleeping with the Bishop’s daughter and a
lesbian secretary who’s sleeping with his
sister-in-law.
Granted, that’s a lot of dysfunction for one family
but what the hell, the show is only an hour long and
the screenwriter just didn’t have time to spread all
this fun and frivolity around to others in the
neighborhood.
To make matters, when the Rev. Daniel Webster is
zoning out on pain pills, he talks with Jesus about is
problems, at least when Christ is not reminding him
that he’s tailgating or stressing out.
As expected, the homophobic American Family
Association is urging its bigoted, repressive
membership to protest the show and boycott all
advertisers. So far, six NBC affiliates have refused
to carry future episodes of the series. In Little
Rock, Arkansas, KARK-TV dropped the show but the local
Warner Brothers affiliate, WD-42, picked it up. So all
these God-fearing, love thy neighbor Christians
started sending nasty emails and making threats by
phone so the station had to hire extra security.
The threatened ad boycott is also limiting the number
of companies willing to take a chance. NBC sold only
about half its ad time for the two-hour premiere of
the series last week.
This kind of hypocritical crap is all too typical of
the right-wing demagogues who represent a minority of
Americans but still manage to control our government
and culture today. These two-faced clowns who decry a
series that shows a minister talking to Christ are the
same ones who rally around an insane President who
claims to talk to God and orders Americans to fight
and die in wars he proclaims are “God’s will.”
These same hypocrites who decry abortion as killing
but think nothing of bombing right-to-life clinics and
killing innocents to further their cause.
In Roanoke, Virginia, WSLS Channel 10 opened a phone
bank to take calls from listeners during the premiere
of the Book of Daniel last week. This is the same
Channel 10 that, every morning, airs an hour of phony
religious crap call Pat Robertson’s 700 Club – yes,
the same Pat Robertson who said Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon’s stroke was the will of God and told a
town it deserved to be destroyed by hurricanes and
floods from God because the voters ousted a school
board that promoting the teaching of so-called
“intelligent design.”
Channel 10’s anchors seemed shocked after the show
aired Friday night to report that public reaction to
The Book of Daniel ran about 50/50 support/oppose.
They were hoping for a huge public outcry to give them
a reason to can the show and the viewers turned out to
be more enlightened than the station’s management.
In Lexington, KY, another place where the Bible-belt
tries to keep a stranglehold on the populace, WLEX TV
got about 700 phone calls and emails before the show
aired demanding it be pulled. Then the show ran and
the protests stopped.
"I haven't heard anything since the show aired," WLEX
president and general manager Timothy Gilbert said
this week.
“The biggest outcries about the show are that the
depiction is of a minister's family, showing ministers
with worldly problems, and showing a sweet-faced Jesus
with a sense of humor about life on earth,” says TV
critic Bill Warren of the CBS affiliate in El Paso,
TX. “We should all be so lucky.”
We aren’t so lucky. Such things are lost causes with
religious fruitcakes. To them, God cannot possibly
have a sense of humor and reality can never, ever, be
allowed to intrude into their secular world where all
people are white, all sex is missionary position
routines practiced only for the procreation of
children between heterosexuals married to each other
and any thought of humanity is forbidden fruit.
And, if that’s their idea of heaven, they can have it.
I’d rather party with the horny guy down South.
The Book of Hypocrisy
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Jan 12, 2006, 10:42
The oh-so-self-righteous religious right wing has
their sensible panties in a bunch again – this time
over an irreverent NBC television series called The
Book of Daniel.
In their usual spirit of trying to force their archaic
values on the rest of us, these Bible-thumping whack
jobs are petitioning NBC affiliates to drop the show,
threatening advertisers with boycotts and demanding
Congress step in and, essentially, censor the network
for daring take a jaundiced look at religion and
everyday life.
The protests, of course, started long before any of
these nutcases had actually seen an episode of the
show. They object, loudly, about the show’s premise –
a pain-killer addicted Episcopalian minister with an
alcoholic wife, a gay son (who is, God-forbid, a
Republican), a drug-dealing daughter, a horny adopted
son who is sleeping with the Bishop’s daughter and a
lesbian secretary who’s sleeping with his
sister-in-law.
Granted, that’s a lot of dysfunction for one family
but what the hell, the show is only an hour long and
the screenwriter just didn’t have time to spread all
this fun and frivolity around to others in the
neighborhood.
To make matters, when the Rev. Daniel Webster is
zoning out on pain pills, he talks with Jesus about is
problems, at least when Christ is not reminding him
that he’s tailgating or stressing out.
As expected, the homophobic American Family
Association is urging its bigoted, repressive
membership to protest the show and boycott all
advertisers. So far, six NBC affiliates have refused
to carry future episodes of the series. In Little
Rock, Arkansas, KARK-TV dropped the show but the local
Warner Brothers affiliate, WD-42, picked it up. So all
these God-fearing, love thy neighbor Christians
started sending nasty emails and making threats by
phone so the station had to hire extra security.
The threatened ad boycott is also limiting the number
of companies willing to take a chance. NBC sold only
about half its ad time for the two-hour premiere of
the series last week.
This kind of hypocritical crap is all too typical of
the right-wing demagogues who represent a minority of
Americans but still manage to control our government
and culture today. These two-faced clowns who decry a
series that shows a minister talking to Christ are the
same ones who rally around an insane President who
claims to talk to God and orders Americans to fight
and die in wars he proclaims are “God’s will.”
These same hypocrites who decry abortion as killing
but think nothing of bombing right-to-life clinics and
killing innocents to further their cause.
In Roanoke, Virginia, WSLS Channel 10 opened a phone
bank to take calls from listeners during the premiere
of the Book of Daniel last week. This is the same
Channel 10 that, every morning, airs an hour of phony
religious crap call Pat Robertson’s 700 Club – yes,
the same Pat Robertson who said Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon’s stroke was the will of God and told a
town it deserved to be destroyed by hurricanes and
floods from God because the voters ousted a school
board that promoting the teaching of so-called
“intelligent design.”
Channel 10’s anchors seemed shocked after the show
aired Friday night to report that public reaction to
The Book of Daniel ran about 50/50 support/oppose.
They were hoping for a huge public outcry to give them
a reason to can the show and the viewers turned out to
be more enlightened than the station’s management.
In Lexington, KY, another place where the Bible-belt
tries to keep a stranglehold on the populace, WLEX TV
got about 700 phone calls and emails before the show
aired demanding it be pulled. Then the show ran and
the protests stopped.
"I haven't heard anything since the show aired," WLEX
president and general manager Timothy Gilbert said
this week.
“The biggest outcries about the show are that the
depiction is of a minister's family, showing ministers
with worldly problems, and showing a sweet-faced Jesus
with a sense of humor about life on earth,” says TV
critic Bill Warren of the CBS affiliate in El Paso,
TX. “We should all be so lucky.”
We aren’t so lucky. Such things are lost causes with
religious fruitcakes. To them, God cannot possibly
have a sense of humor and reality can never, ever, be
allowed to intrude into their secular world where all
people are white, all sex is missionary position
routines practiced only for the procreation of
children between heterosexuals married to each other
and any thought of humanity is forbidden fruit.
And, if that’s their idea of heaven, they can have it.
I’d rather party with the horny guy down South.
Gag Reflex - Russian press's take on Bushco
Gag Reflex
By Chris Floyd
01/12/06 "Moscow Times" -- -- If President George W. Bush shows no qualms about violating the 217-year-old U.S. Constitution or the 791-year-old Magna Carta, why should we be surprised to find that he is now violating the 2,400-year-old Hippocratic Oath?
And yet this week's revelation of how U.S. doctors are force-feeding captives on hunger strike in Bush's concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay still has the power to shock and sicken -- not just from the savage act itself, but also for the wider moral defeat it represents: another open embrace of raw brutality, another step in America's accelerating plunge into vicious despotism.
News of the hunger strike has been trickling out from the ever-incurious U.S. media for months. Indeed, Pentagon warlord Donald Rumsfeld even joked about prisoners "going on a diet." But the full scope of the strike -- and the unethical methods being used to quash it -- only emerged this week in The Observer, which obtained legal affidavits from the Army doctors involved in this "torture lite." The strike, which began last August with a handful of captives, has now spread to 81 prisoners trying to starve themselves to death.
Men driven to such desperation make bad PR for their captors -- especially a blustering pipsqueak who likes to pass himself off as a God-blessed beacon of goodness and freedom. So the strikers are being strapped down and force-fed by tubes shoved through their noses and crammed down into their stomachs. This daily process leaves them bleeding and retching, according to sworn testimony from the concentration camp's hospital chief, Captain John Edmondson.
The good doctor defended the practice as humane, noting that his medicos grease the captives' nostrils with lubricant, and use only "soft and flexible" 3-millimeter hoses -- an amelioration of their previous technique: stuffing 4.8-millimeter hard-rubber tubes down nose and gullet in order to pump gruel into a prisoner's belly more quickly. Yet despite the Christ-like tenderness of this treatment, Edmondson is now being sued in California, his native state, for unprofessional conduct. It seems that U.S. doctors are legally bound by the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration, which explicitly forbids force-feeding under any circumstances.
Ah, but what are laws, treaties and oaths in our brave new world? There are of course no inherent legal protections or human rights in the Bushist philosophy of power. Like his brother in blood, Osama bin Laden, Bush recognizes no law beyond his own will. Anyone he designates an "enemy" -- without any charges or evidence whatsoever -- becomes sub-human, a piece of trash. And so it is with the Guantanamo captives. None of them has been charged with any crime, as The Observer notes; none has been shown any evidence justifying their imprisonment, or knows how long they will be held. Many of the hunger strikers have been chained in this agonizing limbo for more than four years, a living death guaranteed to induce torment, madness and fatal despair.
Yet it has been thoroughly documented -- sometimes by the Pentagon itself -- that numerous "Terror War" prisoners are innocent men (and children) who have been falsely accused through incompetent intelligence work, or even sold into captivity by bounty hunters paid by eager Bushist agents, as The Washington Post reports. We know too, by the regime's own admission, that all "high-value" terrorist targets are held in secret CIA prisons hidden around the globe, not at Guantanamo.
But last week Bush turned the screws even tighter on his Gitmo trash, signing a law that strips the captives of the ancient right of habeas corpus, which predates the Magna Carta. They are to have no access to the legal system, not even a simple declaration of why they are being held. What's more, last week Bush also asserted his right to ignore an anti-torture law he had just signed, The Boston Globe reports. Even as he reaped kudos for his apparent approval of the mild restraints on torture pushed by Senator John McCain, Bush simultaneously issued a "signing statement" -- an unconstitutional "presidential interpretation" of law -- declaring that he can set aside the law if he feels it conflicts with his "authority as commander-in-chief" at any point. (Cries of "Amen, brother!" were immediately heard in that quadrant of hell where Hitler and Stalin sit gnawing on the anuses of rats.)
No doubt any spot of legal bother about force-feeding captives will be dismissed under the rubric of this unbridled "authority," perhaps with the help of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, a longtime apologist for authoritarian rule by unrestrained presidents. After all, it was Alito himself who concocted the law-gutting device of the presidential "signing statement" when he was a legal factotum in the Ronald Reagan White House, The Washington Post reports.
But just how far does the "Commander's" torture authority reach? To the crushing of an innocent child's testicles. So says John Yoo, the former deputy assistant attorney general who helped craft the official White House "torture memos" that justified any torture short of permanent maiming or death -- and even countenanced the latter if it was "unintentional." Yoo also helped devise the regime's crank philosophy of the "unitary executive" -- that is, dictatorship for a "war president." In response to a question at a public debate last month, Yoo declared that Bush could override any law or treaty and order his goons to crush the testicles of a prisoner's child in the name of "national security," commentator Andrew Sullivan reports.
Crushed testicles. Torture. Tyranny. Aggressive war. Bush better start developing a taste for rat rectums right away. He's going to need it.
By Chris Floyd
01/12/06 "Moscow Times" -- -- If President George W. Bush shows no qualms about violating the 217-year-old U.S. Constitution or the 791-year-old Magna Carta, why should we be surprised to find that he is now violating the 2,400-year-old Hippocratic Oath?
And yet this week's revelation of how U.S. doctors are force-feeding captives on hunger strike in Bush's concentration camp at Guantanamo Bay still has the power to shock and sicken -- not just from the savage act itself, but also for the wider moral defeat it represents: another open embrace of raw brutality, another step in America's accelerating plunge into vicious despotism.
News of the hunger strike has been trickling out from the ever-incurious U.S. media for months. Indeed, Pentagon warlord Donald Rumsfeld even joked about prisoners "going on a diet." But the full scope of the strike -- and the unethical methods being used to quash it -- only emerged this week in The Observer, which obtained legal affidavits from the Army doctors involved in this "torture lite." The strike, which began last August with a handful of captives, has now spread to 81 prisoners trying to starve themselves to death.
Men driven to such desperation make bad PR for their captors -- especially a blustering pipsqueak who likes to pass himself off as a God-blessed beacon of goodness and freedom. So the strikers are being strapped down and force-fed by tubes shoved through their noses and crammed down into their stomachs. This daily process leaves them bleeding and retching, according to sworn testimony from the concentration camp's hospital chief, Captain John Edmondson.
The good doctor defended the practice as humane, noting that his medicos grease the captives' nostrils with lubricant, and use only "soft and flexible" 3-millimeter hoses -- an amelioration of their previous technique: stuffing 4.8-millimeter hard-rubber tubes down nose and gullet in order to pump gruel into a prisoner's belly more quickly. Yet despite the Christ-like tenderness of this treatment, Edmondson is now being sued in California, his native state, for unprofessional conduct. It seems that U.S. doctors are legally bound by the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration, which explicitly forbids force-feeding under any circumstances.
Ah, but what are laws, treaties and oaths in our brave new world? There are of course no inherent legal protections or human rights in the Bushist philosophy of power. Like his brother in blood, Osama bin Laden, Bush recognizes no law beyond his own will. Anyone he designates an "enemy" -- without any charges or evidence whatsoever -- becomes sub-human, a piece of trash. And so it is with the Guantanamo captives. None of them has been charged with any crime, as The Observer notes; none has been shown any evidence justifying their imprisonment, or knows how long they will be held. Many of the hunger strikers have been chained in this agonizing limbo for more than four years, a living death guaranteed to induce torment, madness and fatal despair.
Yet it has been thoroughly documented -- sometimes by the Pentagon itself -- that numerous "Terror War" prisoners are innocent men (and children) who have been falsely accused through incompetent intelligence work, or even sold into captivity by bounty hunters paid by eager Bushist agents, as The Washington Post reports. We know too, by the regime's own admission, that all "high-value" terrorist targets are held in secret CIA prisons hidden around the globe, not at Guantanamo.
But last week Bush turned the screws even tighter on his Gitmo trash, signing a law that strips the captives of the ancient right of habeas corpus, which predates the Magna Carta. They are to have no access to the legal system, not even a simple declaration of why they are being held. What's more, last week Bush also asserted his right to ignore an anti-torture law he had just signed, The Boston Globe reports. Even as he reaped kudos for his apparent approval of the mild restraints on torture pushed by Senator John McCain, Bush simultaneously issued a "signing statement" -- an unconstitutional "presidential interpretation" of law -- declaring that he can set aside the law if he feels it conflicts with his "authority as commander-in-chief" at any point. (Cries of "Amen, brother!" were immediately heard in that quadrant of hell where Hitler and Stalin sit gnawing on the anuses of rats.)
No doubt any spot of legal bother about force-feeding captives will be dismissed under the rubric of this unbridled "authority," perhaps with the help of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, a longtime apologist for authoritarian rule by unrestrained presidents. After all, it was Alito himself who concocted the law-gutting device of the presidential "signing statement" when he was a legal factotum in the Ronald Reagan White House, The Washington Post reports.
But just how far does the "Commander's" torture authority reach? To the crushing of an innocent child's testicles. So says John Yoo, the former deputy assistant attorney general who helped craft the official White House "torture memos" that justified any torture short of permanent maiming or death -- and even countenanced the latter if it was "unintentional." Yoo also helped devise the regime's crank philosophy of the "unitary executive" -- that is, dictatorship for a "war president." In response to a question at a public debate last month, Yoo declared that Bush could override any law or treaty and order his goons to crush the testicles of a prisoner's child in the name of "national security," commentator Andrew Sullivan reports.
Crushed testicles. Torture. Tyranny. Aggressive war. Bush better start developing a taste for rat rectums right away. He's going to need it.
Homeland Security opening private mail
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/
Homeland Security opening private mail
Retired professor confused, angered when letter from abroad is opened
By Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 5:55 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006
WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.
But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.
Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.
“I had no idea (Homeland Security) would open personal letters,” Goodman told MSNBC.com in a phone interview. “That’s why I alerted the media. I thought it should be known publicly that this is going on,” he said. Goodman originally showed the letter to his own local newspaper, the Kansas-based Lawrence Journal-World.
“I was shocked and there was a certain degree of disbelief in the beginning,” Goodman said when he noticed the letter had been tampered with, adding that he felt his privacy had been invaded. “I think I must be under some kind of surveillance.”
Goodman is no stranger to mail snooping; as an officer during World War II he was responsible for reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command and censoring any passages that might provide clues as to his unit’s position. “But we didn’t do it as clumsily as they’ve done it, I can tell you that,” Goodman noted, with no small amount of irony in his voice. “Isn’t it funny that this doesn’t appear to be any kind of surreptitious effort here,” he said.
The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her. And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government’s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.
A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection division said he couldn’t speak directly to Goodman’s case but acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary.
“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,” says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. “All mail means ‘all mail,’” said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.
“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site. “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said.
However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, “obviously it’s a security-related criteria.”
Mohan also declined to say how often or in what volume CBP might be opening mail. “All I can really say is that Customs and Border Protection does undertake [opening mail] when it is determined to be necessary,” he said.
Homeland Security opening private mail
Retired professor confused, angered when letter from abroad is opened
By Brock N. Meeks
Chief Washington correspondent
MSNBC
Updated: 5:55 p.m. ET Jan. 6, 2006
WASHINGTON - In the 50 years that Grant Goodman has known and corresponded with a colleague in the Philippines he never had any reason to suspect that their friendship was anything but spectacularly ordinary.
But now he believes that the relationship has somehow sparked the interest of the Department of Homeland Security and led the agency to place him under surveillance.
Last month Goodman, an 81-year-old retired University of Kansas history professor, received a letter from his friend in the Philippines that had been opened and resealed with a strip of dark green tape bearing the words “by Border Protection” and carrying the official Homeland Security seal.
“I had no idea (Homeland Security) would open personal letters,” Goodman told MSNBC.com in a phone interview. “That’s why I alerted the media. I thought it should be known publicly that this is going on,” he said. Goodman originally showed the letter to his own local newspaper, the Kansas-based Lawrence Journal-World.
“I was shocked and there was a certain degree of disbelief in the beginning,” Goodman said when he noticed the letter had been tampered with, adding that he felt his privacy had been invaded. “I think I must be under some kind of surveillance.”
Goodman is no stranger to mail snooping; as an officer during World War II he was responsible for reading all outgoing mail of the men in his command and censoring any passages that might provide clues as to his unit’s position. “But we didn’t do it as clumsily as they’ve done it, I can tell you that,” Goodman noted, with no small amount of irony in his voice. “Isn’t it funny that this doesn’t appear to be any kind of surreptitious effort here,” he said.
The letter comes from a retired Filipino history professor; Goodman declined to identify her. And although the Philippines is on the U.S. government’s radar screen as a potential spawning ground for Muslim-related terrorism, Goodman said his friend is a devout Catholic and not given to supporting such causes.
A spokesman for the Customs and Border Protection division said he couldn’t speak directly to Goodman’s case but acknowledged that the agency can, will and does open mail coming to U.S. citizens that originates from a foreign country whenever it’s deemed necessary.
“All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination,” says the CBP Web site. That includes personal correspondence. “All mail means ‘all mail,’” said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.
“This process isn’t something we’re trying to hide,” Mohan said, noting the wording on the agency’s Web site. “We’ve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created,” Mohan said.
However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, “obviously it’s a security-related criteria.”
Mohan also declined to say how often or in what volume CBP might be opening mail. “All I can really say is that Customs and Border Protection does undertake [opening mail] when it is determined to be necessary,” he said.
A Prison Scandal Without an Answer
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
A Prison Scandal Without an Answer
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/01/a_prison_scanda.html
Col. Thomas M. Pappas, once commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, and the senior intelligence officer responsible for military interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison, has now been given immunity from prosecution and has been ordered to testify at upcoming courts-martial of yet more low-ranking Army enlisted soldiers implicated in the mistreatment of detainees.
Pappas may seen like the military Scooter Libby falling on his sword to protect higher ranking officers, but the truth of the matter is that there will never be a connection made between the goings on at Abu Ghraib and the top ranks of either the Pentagon or the Bush administration.
The Washington Post reported on the front page this morning that developments in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal might finally answer the question of who ordered "the use of military working dogs to frighten detainees."
The news is that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the one time commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison and the supposed inspiration for Abu Ghraib's operations has invoked his right not to incriminate himself.
Col. Thomas M. Pappas also accepted immunity from prosecution. In May, Pappas was relieved of his European command stemming from dereliction of duty accusations over Abu Ghraib. Pappas was found to have failed to ensure that subordinates received adequately information, training and supervision in the applying interrogation procedures. According to the Pentagon, "he also allegedly failed to obtain the approval of superior commanders before authorizing a nonsanctioned interrogation technique, specifically the presence of military working dogs during the questioning of a detainee."
Pappas' nonjudicial proceedings resulted in a written reprimand and forfeiture of $4,000 pay per month for two months.
Seven enlisted military policemen have so far been prosecuted for treatment of detainees. Private Charles A. Graner received a 10-year prison sentence.
The military calls it different spanks for different ranks.
Pappas could surprise us all and implicate higher-ups in the chain of command. I find that unlikely.
Pappas has admitted that he improperly ordered the use of dogs. But he hasn't said much more, and he has never said a word indicating what was conveyed in face to face meetings with Miller or others, in video teleconferences, in phone calls, or in back channel communications.
Here's how it works: An Army Colonel in Iraq talks to his direct commander and liaises with adjacent commanders. He occasionally talks to the one-star staff officers, special assistants and executive aides to the two and three stars. The staff jockeys are themselves strap hangers and note takers in video teleconferences with the muckety-mucks in Europe and stateside where people with even more stars discuss issues of policy.
But not the most sensitive policies. When sensitive matters -- including issues of personality and high level assignments -- are being discussed, the general officers "meet" privately on the VTC without back seaters in the room. Or they talk on the phone.
In an era where even official Emails can be retrieved by investigators, "personal for" back channel communications going over separate "SCI" channels convey thoughts and orders for which there is no record.
Pappas has told investigators that he made cells available for CIA detainees as well as for Special Forces; that their detainees did not go through the regular processing procedures. It is just another "back channel," another suggestion of more to know. But it is also outside of Pappas' domain and a Top Secret sequel that only suggests commands from on high to operate in certain ways.
I wrote almost two years ago, when the Abu Ghraib scandal was first breaking ("The Making of a Mob: Muddled, leaderless, high-pressure conditions set the stage for abuse in Iraq" in The Los Angeles Times), that I didn't believe that an "order" would ever be uncovered, that a direct connection would ever be made between the soldiers in those cell blocks and officers at a higher level.
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, one of the few heroes in this escapade and the initial investigating officer in the scandal, testified before Congress that a "failure in leadership, lack of discipline; no training whatsoever; and no supervision" led to the mistreatment.
I wrote then that "In the context of what was going on in Iraq [in 2003], a muddled, leaderless, unsupervised, high-pressure environment at Abu Ghraib led military policemen and their intelligence brethren to turn into a mob."
Heads should certainly roll, I said, but more important, I thought we should learn the lesson: "that we, represented by the American fighting men and women stuck in the muddled and hopeless endeavor of Iraq, are in way over our heads."
We still haven't learned that lesson.
The real crime of the wars since 9/11 is that when it comes to any kind of "sensitive" -- read controversial -- actions and policies, there are no explicit written orders. Without rules, without oversight, without accountability, with such a high octane and high pressured overblown -- almost manic -- enterprise, it is no wonder that many of the participants think that they are saving the world and thereby take liberties in their day-to-day efforts.
By William M. Arkin | January 12, 2006; 10:15 AM ET | Category: War on Terrorism
Previous: Booze Broads No More | Main Index
A Prison Scandal Without an Answer
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2006/01/a_prison_scanda.html
Col. Thomas M. Pappas, once commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, and the senior intelligence officer responsible for military interrogations at the Abu Ghraib prison, has now been given immunity from prosecution and has been ordered to testify at upcoming courts-martial of yet more low-ranking Army enlisted soldiers implicated in the mistreatment of detainees.
Pappas may seen like the military Scooter Libby falling on his sword to protect higher ranking officers, but the truth of the matter is that there will never be a connection made between the goings on at Abu Ghraib and the top ranks of either the Pentagon or the Bush administration.
The Washington Post reported on the front page this morning that developments in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal might finally answer the question of who ordered "the use of military working dogs to frighten detainees."
The news is that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the one time commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison and the supposed inspiration for Abu Ghraib's operations has invoked his right not to incriminate himself.
Col. Thomas M. Pappas also accepted immunity from prosecution. In May, Pappas was relieved of his European command stemming from dereliction of duty accusations over Abu Ghraib. Pappas was found to have failed to ensure that subordinates received adequately information, training and supervision in the applying interrogation procedures. According to the Pentagon, "he also allegedly failed to obtain the approval of superior commanders before authorizing a nonsanctioned interrogation technique, specifically the presence of military working dogs during the questioning of a detainee."
Pappas' nonjudicial proceedings resulted in a written reprimand and forfeiture of $4,000 pay per month for two months.
Seven enlisted military policemen have so far been prosecuted for treatment of detainees. Private Charles A. Graner received a 10-year prison sentence.
The military calls it different spanks for different ranks.
Pappas could surprise us all and implicate higher-ups in the chain of command. I find that unlikely.
Pappas has admitted that he improperly ordered the use of dogs. But he hasn't said much more, and he has never said a word indicating what was conveyed in face to face meetings with Miller or others, in video teleconferences, in phone calls, or in back channel communications.
Here's how it works: An Army Colonel in Iraq talks to his direct commander and liaises with adjacent commanders. He occasionally talks to the one-star staff officers, special assistants and executive aides to the two and three stars. The staff jockeys are themselves strap hangers and note takers in video teleconferences with the muckety-mucks in Europe and stateside where people with even more stars discuss issues of policy.
But not the most sensitive policies. When sensitive matters -- including issues of personality and high level assignments -- are being discussed, the general officers "meet" privately on the VTC without back seaters in the room. Or they talk on the phone.
In an era where even official Emails can be retrieved by investigators, "personal for" back channel communications going over separate "SCI" channels convey thoughts and orders for which there is no record.
Pappas has told investigators that he made cells available for CIA detainees as well as for Special Forces; that their detainees did not go through the regular processing procedures. It is just another "back channel," another suggestion of more to know. But it is also outside of Pappas' domain and a Top Secret sequel that only suggests commands from on high to operate in certain ways.
I wrote almost two years ago, when the Abu Ghraib scandal was first breaking ("The Making of a Mob: Muddled, leaderless, high-pressure conditions set the stage for abuse in Iraq" in The Los Angeles Times), that I didn't believe that an "order" would ever be uncovered, that a direct connection would ever be made between the soldiers in those cell blocks and officers at a higher level.
Maj. Gen. Antonio M. Taguba, one of the few heroes in this escapade and the initial investigating officer in the scandal, testified before Congress that a "failure in leadership, lack of discipline; no training whatsoever; and no supervision" led to the mistreatment.
I wrote then that "In the context of what was going on in Iraq [in 2003], a muddled, leaderless, unsupervised, high-pressure environment at Abu Ghraib led military policemen and their intelligence brethren to turn into a mob."
Heads should certainly roll, I said, but more important, I thought we should learn the lesson: "that we, represented by the American fighting men and women stuck in the muddled and hopeless endeavor of Iraq, are in way over our heads."
We still haven't learned that lesson.
The real crime of the wars since 9/11 is that when it comes to any kind of "sensitive" -- read controversial -- actions and policies, there are no explicit written orders. Without rules, without oversight, without accountability, with such a high octane and high pressured overblown -- almost manic -- enterprise, it is no wonder that many of the participants think that they are saving the world and thereby take liberties in their day-to-day efforts.
By William M. Arkin | January 12, 2006; 10:15 AM ET | Category: War on Terrorism
Previous: Booze Broads No More | Main Index
Pentagon to set new communications policy-official
Reuters AlertNet - Pentagon to set new communications policy-official
Pentagon to set new communications policy-official
11 Jan 2006 18:04:44 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - The Pentagon, stung by criticism over secret U.S. military payments to Iraqi newspapers to print pro-American articles, is moving to develop a "strategic communications" plan, a senior defense official said on Wednesday.
The White House and some members of Congress have expressed concern over the payments, but the military says it is important to spread the truth in Iraq to counter what it calls lying by insurgents to the Iraqi people.
The defense official said that developing clear guidance for communicating with the public at home and abroad is a key issue that will be taken up this year as a result of top-level debate in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR.
"There are a number of road maps that have been identified to be developed over the next year. One of them happens to be on strategic communications," the official, who asked not to be identified, told reporters of the QDR report, which will be sent to the White House and Congress in February.
"It basically gives you a direction in which to then develop your policies, your directives, your instructions, your doctrine," the official said.
The military's Central Command, with responsibility for operations in Iraq, is investigating the payments to Iraqi journalists and news organizations by the Washington-based Lincoln Group, a defense contractor, as part of "information operations" there.
That investigation is almost complete, but Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the Central Command, had thus far not ordered any halt to the media payments.
"I don't know if there is any specific tie," the senior defense official told reporters on Wednesday when asked if there was any direct link between the Iraq media issue and the QDR decision to move toward a new communications policy.
"For some time we have recognized that we are in a new and very challenging communications environment out there and we tend to focus our efforts to ensuring that the combatant commander has all of the capabilities that he needs to accomplish his missions," the official said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, last month expressed concern over the Iraq media payments.
A senior State Department official, who asked for anonymity, also said at the time that the reports of planted stories undermined U.S. diplomats' efforts to foster democracy in Iraq.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, was asked during a briefing in Baghdad in December whether paying off Iraqi news organizations to run pro-American stories undermines the credibility of the U.S. military and of the new Iraqi media.
"We don't lie. We don't need to lie. We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact not based on fiction," Lynch said.
Pentagon to set new communications policy-official
11 Jan 2006 18:04:44 GMT
Source: Reuters
By Charles Aldinger
WASHINGTON, Jan 11 (Reuters) - The Pentagon, stung by criticism over secret U.S. military payments to Iraqi newspapers to print pro-American articles, is moving to develop a "strategic communications" plan, a senior defense official said on Wednesday.
The White House and some members of Congress have expressed concern over the payments, but the military says it is important to spread the truth in Iraq to counter what it calls lying by insurgents to the Iraqi people.
The defense official said that developing clear guidance for communicating with the public at home and abroad is a key issue that will be taken up this year as a result of top-level debate in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, or QDR.
"There are a number of road maps that have been identified to be developed over the next year. One of them happens to be on strategic communications," the official, who asked not to be identified, told reporters of the QDR report, which will be sent to the White House and Congress in February.
"It basically gives you a direction in which to then develop your policies, your directives, your instructions, your doctrine," the official said.
The military's Central Command, with responsibility for operations in Iraq, is investigating the payments to Iraqi journalists and news organizations by the Washington-based Lincoln Group, a defense contractor, as part of "information operations" there.
That investigation is almost complete, but Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of the Central Command, had thus far not ordered any halt to the media payments.
"I don't know if there is any specific tie," the senior defense official told reporters on Wednesday when asked if there was any direct link between the Iraq media issue and the QDR decision to move toward a new communications policy.
"For some time we have recognized that we are in a new and very challenging communications environment out there and we tend to focus our efforts to ensuring that the combatant commander has all of the capabilities that he needs to accomplish his missions," the official said.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan and Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, last month expressed concern over the Iraq media payments.
A senior State Department official, who asked for anonymity, also said at the time that the reports of planted stories undermined U.S. diplomats' efforts to foster democracy in Iraq.
Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, spokesman for U.S. forces in Iraq, was asked during a briefing in Baghdad in December whether paying off Iraqi news organizations to run pro-American stories undermines the credibility of the U.S. military and of the new Iraqi media.
"We don't lie. We don't need to lie. We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public, but everything we do is based on fact not based on fiction," Lynch said.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
British Officer Blisters US Army in Iraq Critique
Published on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 by Reuters
British Officer Blisters US Army in Iraq Critique
by Will Dunham
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army has displayed damaging cultural insensitivity in Iraq, while being blinded by unrealistic optimism and predisposed to use maximum force, a senior British officer wrote in a blistering appraisal in a U.S. military publication.
The essay by British Army Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who served with U.S. forces in Iraq from December 2003 to November 2004, appeared in the latest edition of the magazine Military Review, published by the U.S. Army.
Aylwin-Foster said U.S. Army personnel struggled to grasp the nuances of battling insurgents while also winning the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis.
"Moreover, whilst they were almost unfailingly courteous and considerate, at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism," Aylwin-Foster wrote, arguing that the Army exacerbated the task it now faces by alienating significant parts of the Iraqi population.
An Army spokesman at the Pentagon, Paul Boyce, said "we may not agree with it" but the Army wants to present candid views.
"The U.S. Army encourages alternate and diverse opinions so that we may find out more about our effectiveness, lessons learned and how to adapt in the future. We invited this particular commentary and published it in our magazine," Boyce said on Wednesday.
Britain has been the chief U.S. ally in the Iraq war, launched in March 2003, and about 8,500 British troops serve alongside 147,000 U.S. troops there now. Two dozen other countries also have troops in the U.S.-led coalition.
Other critics also have accused the U.S. military of a lack of understanding of Iraqi and Islamic culture. The military concedes that the vast majority of U.S. troops do not know Arabic, and has launched an effort costing $750 million over five years to improve foreign language skills in the ranks.
'DAMAGING OPTIMISM'
Aylwin-Foster, whose rank equates to a one-star U.S. general, referred to U.S. Army officers' "damaging optimism" that seemed out of touch with a more sobering reality.
"Self-belief and resilient optimism are recognized necessities for successful command, and all professional forces strive for a strong can-do ethos. However, it is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," he wrote.
"Force commanders and political masters need to know the true state of affairs if they are to reach timely decisions to change plans: arguably, they did not always do so," he added.
Aylwin-Foster faulted "moral righteousness" felt by U.S. personnel that "encouraged the erroneous assumption that given the justness of the cause, actions that occurred in its name would be understood and accepted by the population, even if mistakes and civilian fatalities occurred in the implementation."
Aylwin-Foster said U.S. forces in Iraq were more disposed to use offensive military operations than the forces of coalition partners, and U.S. rules of engagement "were more lenient than other nations', thus encouraging earlier escalation."
Aylwin-Foster lauded the U.S. Army's sense of patriotism and its talent, and said it was "in no way lacking in humanity or compassion."
"Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."
British Officer Blisters US Army in Iraq Critique
by Will Dunham
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Army has displayed damaging cultural insensitivity in Iraq, while being blinded by unrealistic optimism and predisposed to use maximum force, a senior British officer wrote in a blistering appraisal in a U.S. military publication.
The essay by British Army Brigadier Nigel Aylwin-Foster, who served with U.S. forces in Iraq from December 2003 to November 2004, appeared in the latest edition of the magazine Military Review, published by the U.S. Army.
Aylwin-Foster said U.S. Army personnel struggled to grasp the nuances of battling insurgents while also winning the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis.
"Moreover, whilst they were almost unfailingly courteous and considerate, at times their cultural insensitivity, almost certainly inadvertent, arguably amounted to institutional racism," Aylwin-Foster wrote, arguing that the Army exacerbated the task it now faces by alienating significant parts of the Iraqi population.
An Army spokesman at the Pentagon, Paul Boyce, said "we may not agree with it" but the Army wants to present candid views.
"The U.S. Army encourages alternate and diverse opinions so that we may find out more about our effectiveness, lessons learned and how to adapt in the future. We invited this particular commentary and published it in our magazine," Boyce said on Wednesday.
Britain has been the chief U.S. ally in the Iraq war, launched in March 2003, and about 8,500 British troops serve alongside 147,000 U.S. troops there now. Two dozen other countries also have troops in the U.S.-led coalition.
Other critics also have accused the U.S. military of a lack of understanding of Iraqi and Islamic culture. The military concedes that the vast majority of U.S. troops do not know Arabic, and has launched an effort costing $750 million over five years to improve foreign language skills in the ranks.
'DAMAGING OPTIMISM'
Aylwin-Foster, whose rank equates to a one-star U.S. general, referred to U.S. Army officers' "damaging optimism" that seemed out of touch with a more sobering reality.
"Self-belief and resilient optimism are recognized necessities for successful command, and all professional forces strive for a strong can-do ethos. However, it is unhelpful if it discourages junior commanders from reporting unwelcome news up the chain of command," he wrote.
"Force commanders and political masters need to know the true state of affairs if they are to reach timely decisions to change plans: arguably, they did not always do so," he added.
Aylwin-Foster faulted "moral righteousness" felt by U.S. personnel that "encouraged the erroneous assumption that given the justness of the cause, actions that occurred in its name would be understood and accepted by the population, even if mistakes and civilian fatalities occurred in the implementation."
Aylwin-Foster said U.S. forces in Iraq were more disposed to use offensive military operations than the forces of coalition partners, and U.S. rules of engagement "were more lenient than other nations', thus encouraging earlier escalation."
Aylwin-Foster lauded the U.S. Army's sense of patriotism and its talent, and said it was "in no way lacking in humanity or compassion."
"Yet it seemed weighed down by bureaucracy, a stiflingly hierarchical outlook, a predisposition to offensive operations, and a sense that duty required all issues to be confronted head-on."
Amnesty Releases New Gitmo Torture Testimony
Amnesty Releases New Gitmo Torture Testimony
Amnesty International | Press Release
Tuesday 10 January 2006
Washington - Marking the fourth anniversary of the first transfers of detainees to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, January 11, 2006, Amnesty International released new testimonies alleging the use of torture and ill treatment against prisoners in the U.S. detention center and additional details on several detainee cases.
The testimonies include that of one of the first detainees to be transferred to Guantánamo, Jumah al-Dossari, a 32-year-old Bahraini national who was taken to the U.S. Naval Base in January 2002 after being held by U.S. forces in the Kandahar airbase in Afghanistan.
Al-Dossari's testimony, corroborated by people who have now been released from Guantánamo, includes several allegations of physical and psychological torture and ill treatment inflicted by U.S. personnel both on him and on other inmates in Afghanistan and Guantánamo.
"Anniversaries usually represent milestones. Today's milestone is a frightening and disheartening one. The situation at Guantánamo is not getting better - in fact, it may be worse. First, the Bush Administration wants all 186 pending habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the detainees to be dismissed based on a new law that was not meant to apply to cases filed before the law went into effect. And now, after Congress overwhelming passed the historic Anti-Torture Amendment, President Bush is asserting that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against detainees. When does the hypocrisy of defending democracy around the world while continuing to curtail fundamental due process end?" said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA.
"There are approximately 500 men who have been treated with complete and utter disdain - the antipathy of the American value of recognizing the basic human dignity of all people. It isn't surprising that after years of uncertainty about their fate, some of these men have expressed their intention to die rather than remain in Guantánamo indefinitely," added Schulz.
Amnesty International also revealed further details on the cases of Al-Jazeera journalist Sami al Hajj, transferred to Guantánamo in June 2002 after spending time in detention in Bagram and Kandahar, and Abdulsalam al-Hela, a Yemeni businessman, subjected to rendition and secret detention before being transferred to Guantánamo. Amnesty International is urging Congress to create an independent commission to investigate all aspects of U.S. detention and interrogation policies including the dozens of reports of torture and ill treatment that have taken place since 2002 and to take measures to prevent torture from recurring in the future.
Testimony Highlights of Jumah al-Dossari
Below are highlights from testimony of Jumah al-Dossari, which he wrote in July 2005 in the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay naval base, Cuba. The hand written testimony was given to Amnesty International by Jumah al-Dossari's civilian lawyer. At the date of publication Jumah al-Dossari remains detained in Guantánamo Bay. This testimony is Jumah al-Dossari's personal account of his experiences in Pakistani and US custody, and the views expressed in it are his own.
From here, from the depths of the degradation that debase a person's dignity, attack his religion, his person, his honour, his dignity and his humanity, all in the name of fighting terror. I am writing for those who will read my words. I am writing the story of what I have suffered from the day I was kidnapped on the Pakistani border and sold to American troops until now and my being in Guantánamo, Cuba. What I will write here is not a flight of fancy or a moment of madness; what I will write here are the established facts and events agreed upon by detainees who were eye witnesses to them, representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as well as soldiers, investigators and interpreters.
Arrest and Treatment by Pakistani Authorities
* I passed through several small jails where there was a lot of abuse. I had previously met several people when I was on the border, they were of different nationalities. They had left Afghanistan and the Pakistani army abused us and gave us the worst and most nasty kind of food. They put me in a cell which was 4m x 4m in which there were 59 prisoners without mattresses, blankets or a bathroom; there was only one bucket in the cell for everyone to relieve themselves in without a screen.
* They stole many passports from the prisoners who were of many nationalities and we were abused. They abused me personally and beat me several times during investigations. The worst tribulation for us was when they transported us from one place to another: they would tie us up in the most savage way, so much so that some of us got gangrenous fingers and our hands and feet swelled and turned blue. They would tie us up for long periods of time in military trucks, sometimes from daybreak until night, in addition to the hours that they spent transporting us in trucks.
* When we reached the airport, an American military plane, American soldiers and an American interpreter who spoke Arabic were waiting for us. They took one by one and handed us over to the American soldiers. The deal was done and they sold us for a few dollars and they were not interested in us. US custody in Afghanistan
* When we were all in the plane - there were approximately 30 of us - they closed the plane door which from behind said "designed to carry machinery". After they closed the door, the soldiers started shouting, screaming and insulting us with the most vulgar insults and nasty curses. They started beating us and took pictures of us on a camera; I could see the flash. I had a violent pain in my stomach - I had had an operation on my stomach and there was a piece of metal in it; when I complained about the severity of the pain, a soldier came and started kicking me in my stomach with his military boot until I vomited blood. I do not know how many hours I was in that state as we went from the base in Kohat to Kandahar Airport where there is an American military base.
* We arrived at Kandahar airport after midnight. It was a Friday night at the beginning of January 2002. They started to wrap a very strong wire around our right arms; each of us was tied at a distance of about two metres from the person in front of him. After they pulled this wire, they started making us run towards the unknown. When we approached the tents which had previously been an instalment, they started to insult us savagely. The prisoners started shouting and crying because of their severe pain - there were many young people with us - and the soldiers increased their insults and beatings and those of us who fell started to drag themselves on the grounds on the asphalt of the airfield and the others continued to jog. As I have already mentioned, I still had the Pakistani shackle which made it hard for me to walk, so I was one of those who fell and was dragging himself along on the asphalt.
* When they wanted to take one of us, they would order us to lie on our stomachs on the floor, and then they would tie our hands behind our backs. When it was my turn, two soldiers took me. I was barefoot and they beat me before I met the investigator. They banged my head against the metal building and made me walk on the barbed wire. They raised my hands from behind my back so high that my shoulders were almost dislocated. When I entered the investigation tent, I found that there were two Americans among the investigators, one of whom was white and the other was black. I said to them, "why are you torturing me and you haven't even started questioning me? What do you want from me? Give me a piece of paper and I will sign anything you want". He said to me, "there is no torture here and there are no beatings".
* During that time, I was moved to the camp clinic because of the terrible state of my health. They would take me for investigations which were mostly held at night; they would beat me severely and tell me to confess that I was a terrorist!! Once, from the excessive and severe beatings, one of my foot shackles broke. Once, they poured boiling hot liquid on my head and the investigator stubbed his cigarette out on my foot. I said to him, "why are you treating me like this?" He then took a cigarette and stubbed it out on my right wrist and said, "in the name of Christ and the Cross I am doing this". Once, they had beaten me so severely that my clothes were ripped and my genitals were exposed. I tried to cover myself up but they started kicking me with their boots.
* They started preparing to move us to Cuba. When it was my turn and I was in approximately the third group to be moved to Guantánamo, I was moved to another tent with several people. We were next to an empty tent in which they put Afghans from the northern states and Shabarghan.
Transfer to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba
* The third stage started on the day the plane landed us in Guantánamo in Cuba; we did not know where we were. The soldiers put us on a military bus that had no seats in it. They made us sit on the floor of the bus. A translator who was Lebanese came and said, "you are at an American base and you mustn't talk or move. You have to keep your heads down.
* When I was put in the cage, a soldier told me, "you mustn't talk, you mustn't touch the mesh, you mustn't cover your head and your hands when you sleep and you have to stay in the middle of the cage". He also me that there was a toilet outside the cage; if I needed to relieve myself, I would have to ask one of the soldiers. In the cage, there were two buckets, one had water in it and the other was empty. The soldier said that the empty bucket was for urine.
* It was then that my suffering started. If we wanted to go to the outside toilet, a portaloo, the soldiers would take us violently and would look at our genitals; even the female soldiers did that. They would stand outside the door which was open while we relieved ourselves.
Torture and Ill-Treatment in Guantánamo Bay
* During investigations, I was threatened with rape, attacks on my family in Saudi Arabia, my daughter being kidnapped, and my murder - assassination - by their spies in the Middle East if I went back to Saudi Arabia.
* They went to a detainee and put his head in the toilet. The toilets in Camp Delta are iron, Turkish-style toilets and then they flushed his head down the toilet until he almost died. They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours.
* One detainee, called Abdul Aziz Al-Masri, was ill and was asleep in the hospital. These soldiers went and beat him very badly in the hospital in front of the doctors and nurses. His injuries were excessive and caused his spine to break. He is now hemiplegic. They are now trying to operate on him but he is refusing out of fear that they will play with his back and make it worse rather than make it better as their operations often do. These kinds of incidents happen often. They would make sending them to the detainees an excuse for incidents in which we would suffer extensive injuries, severe disfiguration and fractures as there was no one monitoring or following up their actions. Rather, their officers and officials gave them the orders.
* At the end of 2003, a major incident happened to me in the investigation room. The soldiers took me to the investigation room and the investigator - who I only ever saw on this one occasion - had a Koran in his hand when he entered the room. He put it on the table and started talking and raving. Then he asked some soldiers to come in so some soldiers came. This investigator had brought the American and Israeli flags in with him. He then ordered the soldiers to wrap the flags around me tightly and then he took the Koran, threw it on the floor and damaged it with his shoe. Then he exposed his penis and urinated on it. He said a lot of things to me, such as, "this is a holy war between the star of David and the cross against the crescent" and "the whole world will submit to us and if any one doesn't submit to us.
Camp 5
* This stage finished when they finished building Camp 5 which was opened on 25 May 2004. I went into this new camp to start a new stage of misery, privation, humiliation and distress. There was an order to move me to Camp 5 for me to finish off the rest of my days in solitary isolation there. All the cells in Camp 5 were isolation cells and the whole building was made entirely of pre-cast concrete.
* I return now to my story. In March 2005, I met the lawyer who had taken on my case. I was telling him about the torture, violations and assaults I had faced and I do not know if they were spying on us. When the lawyer left, a soldier came and he had put on the military [illegible] and he was angry. He said, "it's best that you forget everything that's happened to you and don't mention it again to anyone if you want to stay safe."
* My state of health has become very poor recently. I fall and faint nearly every day. On 12 June 2005, in the evening, when my evening meal was brought to me, there was a dead scorpion on the plate. When I ate a little and saw the scorpion, I gave the food back to the soldier and showed him the scorpion. On that same night, in the same meal, a Tunisian brother called Hecham was also given a plate of food with a dead scorpion on it. Since the day that they threatened until now, I have been removing insects and dung beetles from the food and showing it to the soldier who then says, do you want another plate?
* Today is the end of the second week and the strike is still continuing. We have been in Cuba for nearly four years, during which time we have not faced any trial or charges. We are also on hunger strike because of the medical abuse and neglect we face and because they prevent us from learning about our religion and about religious issues. Two days ago, while I was writing these memoirs, I became really ill; I fell and was taken to the hospital. I spent two days there and then they brought me back here. Here I am now; as I try to write the last page of my memoirs, I am in a terrible state.
* I would thus like to point out that NOT all of the soldiers in Guantánamo tortured and oppressed us. There were some soldiers who treated us humanely, some of them would cry because of what was happening to us and were embarrassed by the style of management at the camp and even by the American government, their lack of justice and oppression of us. To give an example, when I was in Camp India in Camp Delta and I was being tortured, an Afro-American came to me. He said sorry to me and gave me a cup of hot chocolate and some sweet biscuits. When I thanked him, he said, "I don't want your thanks. I want you to know that we are not all bad and we think differently". When I was talking to a soldier and I told him what happened to me, he cried and had tears in his eyes. He was clearly moved. He said sorry to me about what had happened to me and he also offered me some food. These are examples to show the reader that there are some soldiers who have humanity, irrespective of their race, gender or faith.
Amnesty International | Press Release
Tuesday 10 January 2006
Washington - Marking the fourth anniversary of the first transfers of detainees to Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, January 11, 2006, Amnesty International released new testimonies alleging the use of torture and ill treatment against prisoners in the U.S. detention center and additional details on several detainee cases.
The testimonies include that of one of the first detainees to be transferred to Guantánamo, Jumah al-Dossari, a 32-year-old Bahraini national who was taken to the U.S. Naval Base in January 2002 after being held by U.S. forces in the Kandahar airbase in Afghanistan.
Al-Dossari's testimony, corroborated by people who have now been released from Guantánamo, includes several allegations of physical and psychological torture and ill treatment inflicted by U.S. personnel both on him and on other inmates in Afghanistan and Guantánamo.
"Anniversaries usually represent milestones. Today's milestone is a frightening and disheartening one. The situation at Guantánamo is not getting better - in fact, it may be worse. First, the Bush Administration wants all 186 pending habeas corpus petitions filed on behalf of the detainees to be dismissed based on a new law that was not meant to apply to cases filed before the law went into effect. And now, after Congress overwhelming passed the historic Anti-Torture Amendment, President Bush is asserting that he can waive the restrictions on the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against detainees. When does the hypocrisy of defending democracy around the world while continuing to curtail fundamental due process end?" said Dr. William F. Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA.
"There are approximately 500 men who have been treated with complete and utter disdain - the antipathy of the American value of recognizing the basic human dignity of all people. It isn't surprising that after years of uncertainty about their fate, some of these men have expressed their intention to die rather than remain in Guantánamo indefinitely," added Schulz.
Amnesty International also revealed further details on the cases of Al-Jazeera journalist Sami al Hajj, transferred to Guantánamo in June 2002 after spending time in detention in Bagram and Kandahar, and Abdulsalam al-Hela, a Yemeni businessman, subjected to rendition and secret detention before being transferred to Guantánamo. Amnesty International is urging Congress to create an independent commission to investigate all aspects of U.S. detention and interrogation policies including the dozens of reports of torture and ill treatment that have taken place since 2002 and to take measures to prevent torture from recurring in the future.
Testimony Highlights of Jumah al-Dossari
Below are highlights from testimony of Jumah al-Dossari, which he wrote in July 2005 in the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay naval base, Cuba. The hand written testimony was given to Amnesty International by Jumah al-Dossari's civilian lawyer. At the date of publication Jumah al-Dossari remains detained in Guantánamo Bay. This testimony is Jumah al-Dossari's personal account of his experiences in Pakistani and US custody, and the views expressed in it are his own.
From here, from the depths of the degradation that debase a person's dignity, attack his religion, his person, his honour, his dignity and his humanity, all in the name of fighting terror. I am writing for those who will read my words. I am writing the story of what I have suffered from the day I was kidnapped on the Pakistani border and sold to American troops until now and my being in Guantánamo, Cuba. What I will write here is not a flight of fancy or a moment of madness; what I will write here are the established facts and events agreed upon by detainees who were eye witnesses to them, representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as well as soldiers, investigators and interpreters.
Arrest and Treatment by Pakistani Authorities
* I passed through several small jails where there was a lot of abuse. I had previously met several people when I was on the border, they were of different nationalities. They had left Afghanistan and the Pakistani army abused us and gave us the worst and most nasty kind of food. They put me in a cell which was 4m x 4m in which there were 59 prisoners without mattresses, blankets or a bathroom; there was only one bucket in the cell for everyone to relieve themselves in without a screen.
* They stole many passports from the prisoners who were of many nationalities and we were abused. They abused me personally and beat me several times during investigations. The worst tribulation for us was when they transported us from one place to another: they would tie us up in the most savage way, so much so that some of us got gangrenous fingers and our hands and feet swelled and turned blue. They would tie us up for long periods of time in military trucks, sometimes from daybreak until night, in addition to the hours that they spent transporting us in trucks.
* When we reached the airport, an American military plane, American soldiers and an American interpreter who spoke Arabic were waiting for us. They took one by one and handed us over to the American soldiers. The deal was done and they sold us for a few dollars and they were not interested in us. US custody in Afghanistan
* When we were all in the plane - there were approximately 30 of us - they closed the plane door which from behind said "designed to carry machinery". After they closed the door, the soldiers started shouting, screaming and insulting us with the most vulgar insults and nasty curses. They started beating us and took pictures of us on a camera; I could see the flash. I had a violent pain in my stomach - I had had an operation on my stomach and there was a piece of metal in it; when I complained about the severity of the pain, a soldier came and started kicking me in my stomach with his military boot until I vomited blood. I do not know how many hours I was in that state as we went from the base in Kohat to Kandahar Airport where there is an American military base.
* We arrived at Kandahar airport after midnight. It was a Friday night at the beginning of January 2002. They started to wrap a very strong wire around our right arms; each of us was tied at a distance of about two metres from the person in front of him. After they pulled this wire, they started making us run towards the unknown. When we approached the tents which had previously been an instalment, they started to insult us savagely. The prisoners started shouting and crying because of their severe pain - there were many young people with us - and the soldiers increased their insults and beatings and those of us who fell started to drag themselves on the grounds on the asphalt of the airfield and the others continued to jog. As I have already mentioned, I still had the Pakistani shackle which made it hard for me to walk, so I was one of those who fell and was dragging himself along on the asphalt.
* When they wanted to take one of us, they would order us to lie on our stomachs on the floor, and then they would tie our hands behind our backs. When it was my turn, two soldiers took me. I was barefoot and they beat me before I met the investigator. They banged my head against the metal building and made me walk on the barbed wire. They raised my hands from behind my back so high that my shoulders were almost dislocated. When I entered the investigation tent, I found that there were two Americans among the investigators, one of whom was white and the other was black. I said to them, "why are you torturing me and you haven't even started questioning me? What do you want from me? Give me a piece of paper and I will sign anything you want". He said to me, "there is no torture here and there are no beatings".
* During that time, I was moved to the camp clinic because of the terrible state of my health. They would take me for investigations which were mostly held at night; they would beat me severely and tell me to confess that I was a terrorist!! Once, from the excessive and severe beatings, one of my foot shackles broke. Once, they poured boiling hot liquid on my head and the investigator stubbed his cigarette out on my foot. I said to him, "why are you treating me like this?" He then took a cigarette and stubbed it out on my right wrist and said, "in the name of Christ and the Cross I am doing this". Once, they had beaten me so severely that my clothes were ripped and my genitals were exposed. I tried to cover myself up but they started kicking me with their boots.
* They started preparing to move us to Cuba. When it was my turn and I was in approximately the third group to be moved to Guantánamo, I was moved to another tent with several people. We were next to an empty tent in which they put Afghans from the northern states and Shabarghan.
Transfer to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba
* The third stage started on the day the plane landed us in Guantánamo in Cuba; we did not know where we were. The soldiers put us on a military bus that had no seats in it. They made us sit on the floor of the bus. A translator who was Lebanese came and said, "you are at an American base and you mustn't talk or move. You have to keep your heads down.
* When I was put in the cage, a soldier told me, "you mustn't talk, you mustn't touch the mesh, you mustn't cover your head and your hands when you sleep and you have to stay in the middle of the cage". He also me that there was a toilet outside the cage; if I needed to relieve myself, I would have to ask one of the soldiers. In the cage, there were two buckets, one had water in it and the other was empty. The soldier said that the empty bucket was for urine.
* It was then that my suffering started. If we wanted to go to the outside toilet, a portaloo, the soldiers would take us violently and would look at our genitals; even the female soldiers did that. They would stand outside the door which was open while we relieved ourselves.
Torture and Ill-Treatment in Guantánamo Bay
* During investigations, I was threatened with rape, attacks on my family in Saudi Arabia, my daughter being kidnapped, and my murder - assassination - by their spies in the Middle East if I went back to Saudi Arabia.
* They went to a detainee and put his head in the toilet. The toilets in Camp Delta are iron, Turkish-style toilets and then they flushed his head down the toilet until he almost died. They went to a detainee and started beating his head against the toilet rim until he lost consciousness and he could not see for more than 10 hours.
* One detainee, called Abdul Aziz Al-Masri, was ill and was asleep in the hospital. These soldiers went and beat him very badly in the hospital in front of the doctors and nurses. His injuries were excessive and caused his spine to break. He is now hemiplegic. They are now trying to operate on him but he is refusing out of fear that they will play with his back and make it worse rather than make it better as their operations often do. These kinds of incidents happen often. They would make sending them to the detainees an excuse for incidents in which we would suffer extensive injuries, severe disfiguration and fractures as there was no one monitoring or following up their actions. Rather, their officers and officials gave them the orders.
* At the end of 2003, a major incident happened to me in the investigation room. The soldiers took me to the investigation room and the investigator - who I only ever saw on this one occasion - had a Koran in his hand when he entered the room. He put it on the table and started talking and raving. Then he asked some soldiers to come in so some soldiers came. This investigator had brought the American and Israeli flags in with him. He then ordered the soldiers to wrap the flags around me tightly and then he took the Koran, threw it on the floor and damaged it with his shoe. Then he exposed his penis and urinated on it. He said a lot of things to me, such as, "this is a holy war between the star of David and the cross against the crescent" and "the whole world will submit to us and if any one doesn't submit to us.
Camp 5
* This stage finished when they finished building Camp 5 which was opened on 25 May 2004. I went into this new camp to start a new stage of misery, privation, humiliation and distress. There was an order to move me to Camp 5 for me to finish off the rest of my days in solitary isolation there. All the cells in Camp 5 were isolation cells and the whole building was made entirely of pre-cast concrete.
* I return now to my story. In March 2005, I met the lawyer who had taken on my case. I was telling him about the torture, violations and assaults I had faced and I do not know if they were spying on us. When the lawyer left, a soldier came and he had put on the military [illegible] and he was angry. He said, "it's best that you forget everything that's happened to you and don't mention it again to anyone if you want to stay safe."
* My state of health has become very poor recently. I fall and faint nearly every day. On 12 June 2005, in the evening, when my evening meal was brought to me, there was a dead scorpion on the plate. When I ate a little and saw the scorpion, I gave the food back to the soldier and showed him the scorpion. On that same night, in the same meal, a Tunisian brother called Hecham was also given a plate of food with a dead scorpion on it. Since the day that they threatened until now, I have been removing insects and dung beetles from the food and showing it to the soldier who then says, do you want another plate?
* Today is the end of the second week and the strike is still continuing. We have been in Cuba for nearly four years, during which time we have not faced any trial or charges. We are also on hunger strike because of the medical abuse and neglect we face and because they prevent us from learning about our religion and about religious issues. Two days ago, while I was writing these memoirs, I became really ill; I fell and was taken to the hospital. I spent two days there and then they brought me back here. Here I am now; as I try to write the last page of my memoirs, I am in a terrible state.
* I would thus like to point out that NOT all of the soldiers in Guantánamo tortured and oppressed us. There were some soldiers who treated us humanely, some of them would cry because of what was happening to us and were embarrassed by the style of management at the camp and even by the American government, their lack of justice and oppression of us. To give an example, when I was in Camp India in Camp Delta and I was being tortured, an Afro-American came to me. He said sorry to me and gave me a cup of hot chocolate and some sweet biscuits. When I thanked him, he said, "I don't want your thanks. I want you to know that we are not all bad and we think differently". When I was talking to a soldier and I told him what happened to me, he cried and had tears in his eyes. He was clearly moved. He said sorry to me about what had happened to me and he also offered me some food. These are examples to show the reader that there are some soldiers who have humanity, irrespective of their race, gender or faith.
Venezuela mulls buying warplanes from Russia
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/11/content_4037030.htm
Venezuela mulls buying warplanes from Russia
CARACAS, Jan. 10 (Xinhuanet) -- Venezuela is considering buying Russian fighter planes to replace the ageing F-16s it bought from the United States, President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday.
Speaking at a military event in Caracas, Chavez said that he had sent a delegation to Moscow, the Russian capital, to discuss the issue.
Washington "is refusing to do major refurbishment and delaying spare parts" for the F-16s, which were bought under the 1979-1984 Christian Democrat government of Luis Herrera Campins, Chavez said.
Venezuela bought 24 Fighting Falcon F-16 aircraft, two of which have been lost in accidents.
"If we have to substitute the fleet of F-16s with a modern fleet of MiGs, we will do it, nothing is going to stop us, " said Chavez.
Chavez also accused the United States of blocking Venezuela's acquisition of Super Tucano military planes from Brazil because the planes are built with U.S. technologies.
The United States was trying to keep Venezuela dependent by doing so, he said.
"We will wait for some time to see if Brazil can resolve this problem," Chavez said.
Venezuela mulls buying warplanes from Russia
CARACAS, Jan. 10 (Xinhuanet) -- Venezuela is considering buying Russian fighter planes to replace the ageing F-16s it bought from the United States, President Hugo Chavez said on Tuesday.
Speaking at a military event in Caracas, Chavez said that he had sent a delegation to Moscow, the Russian capital, to discuss the issue.
Washington "is refusing to do major refurbishment and delaying spare parts" for the F-16s, which were bought under the 1979-1984 Christian Democrat government of Luis Herrera Campins, Chavez said.
Venezuela bought 24 Fighting Falcon F-16 aircraft, two of which have been lost in accidents.
"If we have to substitute the fleet of F-16s with a modern fleet of MiGs, we will do it, nothing is going to stop us, " said Chavez.
Chavez also accused the United States of blocking Venezuela's acquisition of Super Tucano military planes from Brazil because the planes are built with U.S. technologies.
The United States was trying to keep Venezuela dependent by doing so, he said.
"We will wait for some time to see if Brazil can resolve this problem," Chavez said.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Senator Frank Church: The NSA could enable a dictator to impose total tyranny :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch
Senator Frank Church: The NSA could enable a dictator to impose total tyranny :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch
Senator Frank Church: The NSA could enable a dictator to impose total tyranny
Ben Frank
January 10, 2006
Senator Frank Church chaired the Senate Hearings on the FBI’s Cointelpro operation, which spied upon & attempted to INFILTRATE, DISRUPT & DISCREDIT the peace movement, even Martin Luther King Jr.
if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable [him] to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
From James Bamford’s NSA, the agency that could be Big Brother, Senator Church:
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide."
He added that if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable [him] to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person’s mind…
"I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
MLK had informants on his staff. I wonder who has informants on their staff, travelling with them today…
BushCo is trying to bury the significance of their illegal spying, why aren’t the Democrats "screaming to the rafters"?
hmmm- just read this on PDA, "John Conyers (D-MI), a leader in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations"… interesting to note that NO Accountability came out of those.
He also led the election fraud investigation in 2004 which concluded there was reasonable doubt of fraud, but nothing came of it… and Conyers led the Downing Street Memo investigation, McGovern’s testimony alone (mp3) should have been enough to force impeachment… yet Conyers focused on collecting signatures asking Bush for more information…
If I were Bush or Cheney, I would certainly be pushing for Conyers to be the lead "investigator" as long as possible.
Think about it- after the explosive DSM hearing, there was no action until mid July when Barbara Lee introduced a Resolution of Inquiry on the DSM, which has to be acted on in 14 working days, but she introduced it "too late" and shucks, they had to wait til after vacation in Sept to deal with it… and by then Katrina had it and it was buried. It’s like they were stalling for Bush…
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." ~ J. Edgar Hoover
:: Article nr. 19445 sent on 10-jan-2006 04:24 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=19445
:: The incoming address of this article is :
benfrank.net/blog/2006/01/08/frank_church/
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
Senator Frank Church: The NSA could enable a dictator to impose total tyranny
Ben Frank
January 10, 2006
Senator Frank Church chaired the Senate Hearings on the FBI’s Cointelpro operation, which spied upon & attempted to INFILTRATE, DISRUPT & DISCREDIT the peace movement, even Martin Luther King Jr.
if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable [him] to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
From James Bamford’s NSA, the agency that could be Big Brother, Senator Church:
"That capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left, such is the capability to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide."
He added that if a dictator ever took over, the NSA "could enable [him] to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back."
At the time, the agency had the ability to listen to only what people said over the telephone or wrote in an occasional telegram; they had no access to private letters. But today, with people expressing their innermost thoughts in e-mail messages, exposing their medical and financial records to the Internet, and chatting constantly on cellphones, the agency virtually has the ability to get inside a person’s mind…
"I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge," Senator Church said. "I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return."
MLK had informants on his staff. I wonder who has informants on their staff, travelling with them today…
BushCo is trying to bury the significance of their illegal spying, why aren’t the Democrats "screaming to the rafters"?
hmmm- just read this on PDA, "John Conyers (D-MI), a leader in the Watergate and Iran-Contra investigations"… interesting to note that NO Accountability came out of those.
He also led the election fraud investigation in 2004 which concluded there was reasonable doubt of fraud, but nothing came of it… and Conyers led the Downing Street Memo investigation, McGovern’s testimony alone (mp3) should have been enough to force impeachment… yet Conyers focused on collecting signatures asking Bush for more information…
If I were Bush or Cheney, I would certainly be pushing for Conyers to be the lead "investigator" as long as possible.
Think about it- after the explosive DSM hearing, there was no action until mid July when Barbara Lee introduced a Resolution of Inquiry on the DSM, which has to be acted on in 14 working days, but she introduced it "too late" and shucks, they had to wait til after vacation in Sept to deal with it… and by then Katrina had it and it was buried. It’s like they were stalling for Bush…
"The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." ~ J. Edgar Hoover
:: Article nr. 19445 sent on 10-jan-2006 04:24 ECT
:: The address of this page is : www.uruknet.info?p=19445
:: The incoming address of this article is :
benfrank.net/blog/2006/01/08/frank_church/
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Uruknet .
did the NSA help Bush hack the vote?
The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Bob Fitrakis
Did the NSA help Bush hack the vote?
January 9, 2006
What do we make of the President boldly proclaiming that he has �spy powers?� Does he have X-ray vision too?
When he and his cronies crawl up into Cheney�s bunker with the sign on the door �He-man Woman-haters Club. No Girls Allowed (except Condi),� do they synchronize their spy decoder rings and decide what new absurd folly to unleash on the world?
Illegal invasion of Iraq, suspending writs of habeus corpus, secret CIA torture dungeons, or election rigging? Most people outgrow such childish games and fantasies by the time they�re ten years old. And by age twelve, most understand that the President is not a king. Or a dictator. That U.S. citizens have inalienable rights.
That there are such things as search warrants. If the executive branch of government is going to conduct surveillance on the American people, they have to get a warrant from the judicial branch specifying what they�re looking for and the reasons for the search.
The Bush administration�s utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the specific information we now know about its use of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance network should further call into question Bush� 2004 presidential �election.� In a recent revelation, we have learned that the NSA shared the fruits of its illegal spying on behalf of Bush with other government agencies.
What are e-voting machines and central tabulators that pass the voting results over electronic networks from the internet to phone lines? No more than data easily spied on and tapped into. The Franklin County Board of Elections, for example, tells us that it was a �transmission error� in Gahanna Ward 1B, where 638 people cast votes and Bush, the Wonder Boy, received 4258 votes. It�s not magic, nor is it an accident or an act of God. If the vote total wasn�t so hugely illogical, no one would have caught it.
Bush and his cabal are notorious for collecting raw intelligence data and using it for their political gain. While many progressives accept the fact that our government manufactured an illegal war in Iraq and routinely violate human rights worldwide, many are reluctant to accept that they would spy on John Kerry and rig the election � which is very easy to do when the NSA does your bidding.
What part of the headline in the Columbus Dispatch: �Diebold vote machine can be hacked, test finds� don�t people understand? The electronic hacking and monitoring of votes by U.S. intelligence agencies has a long history, from mainframe computers in the 70s and 80s to DREs in the 80s and 90s. In face, W.�s father appears to be one of the first beneficiary of e-voting fraud with his victory of Bob Dole in the 1988 New Hampshire primary.
Most voting rights advocates are well aware of Al Gore�s infamous loss of 16,000 votes in the 2004 Florida presidential election, which allowed Bush�s cousin at Fox News to call the election for Dubya. How do we explain the bizarre �rob georgia� Diebold file that Bev Harris of Black Box Voting found on the internet after the stunning upset of Senator Max Cleland of Georgia.
The recent revelations about hacking of Diebold voting machines and the findings of the General Accountability Office as to the insecurity of the e-voting networks cannot be separated from the president�s criminal use of the NSA to spy on American citizens. As much as we rejoice in the resignation of Diebold CEO Walden O�Dell and the pending lawsuits by shareholders against Diebold, it should not obscure the massive continued potential to hack the vote.
Both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines ran November 2004 cover stories on how easy it is to hack the e-voting machines and their communication networks. In one famous cartoon, a teenage hacker was announced as the president.
This is precisely the type of game George W. and his He-man authoritarian boy�s club would engage in. Recently, Professor Steve Freeman of Penn spoke at a New York election reform forum and told the audience that a third of the Kerry voters who showed up in exit polls in rural Republican-dominated areas simply don�t show up in the actual vote tally. Not just in Ohio, but throughout the nation.
Would a president who believes he has spy powers, the right to torture, the ability to wage illegal wars based on bogus, manufactured intelligence reports, simply refuse to spy on Kerry and rig an election electronically? In Ohio, two burglaries occurred against the Democratic Party in Lucas County and Franklin County just prior to 2004 election involving computer theft.
Congress must investigate whether Bush used the NSA for partisan political gain during the 2004 election, and whether any NSA Bush operatives or other members of the security industrial complex had access to e-voting machines, central tabulators or the communication lines that delivered the voting results.
--
Bob Fitrakis is the co-editor of Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election? with Harvey Wasserman (www.freepress.org) and co-counsel with Cliff Arnebeck in the Alliance for Democracy suit against the Hocking County Board of Elections.
Did the NSA help Bush hack the vote?
January 9, 2006
What do we make of the President boldly proclaiming that he has �spy powers?� Does he have X-ray vision too?
When he and his cronies crawl up into Cheney�s bunker with the sign on the door �He-man Woman-haters Club. No Girls Allowed (except Condi),� do they synchronize their spy decoder rings and decide what new absurd folly to unleash on the world?
Illegal invasion of Iraq, suspending writs of habeus corpus, secret CIA torture dungeons, or election rigging? Most people outgrow such childish games and fantasies by the time they�re ten years old. And by age twelve, most understand that the President is not a king. Or a dictator. That U.S. citizens have inalienable rights.
That there are such things as search warrants. If the executive branch of government is going to conduct surveillance on the American people, they have to get a warrant from the judicial branch specifying what they�re looking for and the reasons for the search.
The Bush administration�s utter contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the specific information we now know about its use of the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance network should further call into question Bush� 2004 presidential �election.� In a recent revelation, we have learned that the NSA shared the fruits of its illegal spying on behalf of Bush with other government agencies.
What are e-voting machines and central tabulators that pass the voting results over electronic networks from the internet to phone lines? No more than data easily spied on and tapped into. The Franklin County Board of Elections, for example, tells us that it was a �transmission error� in Gahanna Ward 1B, where 638 people cast votes and Bush, the Wonder Boy, received 4258 votes. It�s not magic, nor is it an accident or an act of God. If the vote total wasn�t so hugely illogical, no one would have caught it.
Bush and his cabal are notorious for collecting raw intelligence data and using it for their political gain. While many progressives accept the fact that our government manufactured an illegal war in Iraq and routinely violate human rights worldwide, many are reluctant to accept that they would spy on John Kerry and rig the election � which is very easy to do when the NSA does your bidding.
What part of the headline in the Columbus Dispatch: �Diebold vote machine can be hacked, test finds� don�t people understand? The electronic hacking and monitoring of votes by U.S. intelligence agencies has a long history, from mainframe computers in the 70s and 80s to DREs in the 80s and 90s. In face, W.�s father appears to be one of the first beneficiary of e-voting fraud with his victory of Bob Dole in the 1988 New Hampshire primary.
Most voting rights advocates are well aware of Al Gore�s infamous loss of 16,000 votes in the 2004 Florida presidential election, which allowed Bush�s cousin at Fox News to call the election for Dubya. How do we explain the bizarre �rob georgia� Diebold file that Bev Harris of Black Box Voting found on the internet after the stunning upset of Senator Max Cleland of Georgia.
The recent revelations about hacking of Diebold voting machines and the findings of the General Accountability Office as to the insecurity of the e-voting networks cannot be separated from the president�s criminal use of the NSA to spy on American citizens. As much as we rejoice in the resignation of Diebold CEO Walden O�Dell and the pending lawsuits by shareholders against Diebold, it should not obscure the massive continued potential to hack the vote.
Both Popular Science and Popular Mechanics magazines ran November 2004 cover stories on how easy it is to hack the e-voting machines and their communication networks. In one famous cartoon, a teenage hacker was announced as the president.
This is precisely the type of game George W. and his He-man authoritarian boy�s club would engage in. Recently, Professor Steve Freeman of Penn spoke at a New York election reform forum and told the audience that a third of the Kerry voters who showed up in exit polls in rural Republican-dominated areas simply don�t show up in the actual vote tally. Not just in Ohio, but throughout the nation.
Would a president who believes he has spy powers, the right to torture, the ability to wage illegal wars based on bogus, manufactured intelligence reports, simply refuse to spy on Kerry and rig an election electronically? In Ohio, two burglaries occurred against the Democratic Party in Lucas County and Franklin County just prior to 2004 election involving computer theft.
Congress must investigate whether Bush used the NSA for partisan political gain during the 2004 election, and whether any NSA Bush operatives or other members of the security industrial complex had access to e-voting machines, central tabulators or the communication lines that delivered the voting results.
--
Bob Fitrakis is the co-editor of Did George W. Bush Steal America's 2004 Election? with Harvey Wasserman (www.freepress.org) and co-counsel with Cliff Arnebeck in the Alliance for Democracy suit against the Hocking County Board of Elections.
Monday, January 09, 2006
How Many Iraqis Have Died Since the US Invasion in 2003?
How Many Iraqis Have Died Since the US Invasion in 2003?
30,000? No. 100,000? No.
By ANDREW COCKBURN
01/09/06 "Counterpunch" -- -- President Bush's off-hand summation last month of the number of Iraqis who have so far died as a result of our invasion and occupation as "30,000, more or less" was quite certainly an under-estimate. The true number is probably hitting around 180,000 by now, with a possibility, as we shall see, that it has reached as high as half a million.
But even Bush's number was too much for his handlers to allow. Almost as soon as he finished speaking, they hastened to downplay the presidential figure as "unofficial", plucked by the commander in chief from "public estimates". Such calculations have been discouraged ever since the oafish General Tommy Franks infamously announced at the time of the invasion: "We don't do body counts". In December 2004, an effort by the Iraqi Ministry of Health to quantify ongoing mortality on the basis of emergency room admissions was halted by direct order of the occupying power.
In fact, the President may have been subconsciously quoting figures published by iraqbodycount.org, a British group that diligently tabulates published press reports of combat-related killings in Iraq. Due to IBC's policy of posting minimum and maximum figures, currently standing at 27787 and 31317, their numbers carry a misleading air of scientific precision. As the group itself readily concedes, the estimate must be incomplete, since it omits unreported deaths.
There is however another and more reliable method for estimating figures such as these: nationwide random sampling. No one doubts that, if the sample is truly random, and the consequent data correctly calculated, the sampled results reflect the national figures within the states accuracy. That, after all, is how market researchers assess public opinion on everything from politicians to breakfast cereals. Epidemiologists use it to chart the impact of epidemics. In 2000 an epidemiological team led by Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health used random sampling to calculate the death toll from combat and consequent disease and starvation in the ongoing Congolese civil war at 1.7 million. This figure prompted shocked headlines and immediate action by the UN Security Council. No one questioned the methodology.
In September 2004, Roberts led a similar team that researched death rates, using the same techniques, in Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion. Making "conservative assumptions" they concluded that "about 100,000 excess deaths" (in fact 98,000) among men, women, and children had occurred in just under eighteen months. Violent deaths alone had soared twentyfold. But, as in most wars, the bulk of the carnage was due to the indirect effects of the invasion, notably the breakdown of the Iraqi health system. Thus, though many commentators contrasted the iarqbodycount and Johns Hopkins figures, they are not comparable. The bodycounters were simply recording, or at least attempting to record, deaths from combat violence, while the medical specialists were attempting something far more complete, an accounting of the full death toll wrought by the devastation of the US invasion and occupation.
Unlike the respectful applause granted the Congolese study, this one, published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, generated a hail of abusive criticism. The general outrage may have been prompted by the unsettling possibility that Iraq's liberators had already killed a third as many Iraqis as the reported 300,000 murdered by Saddam Hussein in his decades of tyranny. Some of the attacks were self-evidently absurd. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman, for example, queried the survey because it "appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique rather than a detailed body count", as if Blair had never made a political decision based on a poll. Others chose to compare apples with oranges by mixing up nationwide Saddam-era government statistics with individual cluster survey results in order to cast doubt on the latter.
Some questioned whether the sample was distorted by unrepresentative hot spots such as Fallujah. In fact, the amazingly dedicated and courageous Iraqi doctors who actually gathered the data visited 33 "clusters" selected on an entirely random basis across the length and breadth of Iraq. In each of these clusters the teams conducted interviews in 30 households, again selected by rigorously random means. As it happened, Fallujah was one of the clusters thrown up by this process. Strictly speaking, the team should have included the data from that embattled city in their final result - random is random after all -- which would have given an overall post-invasion excess death figure of no less than 268,000. Nevertheless, erring on the side of caution, they eliminated Fallujah from their sample.
For such dedication to scholarly integrity, Roberts and his colleagues had to endure the flatulent ignorance of Michael E. O'Hanlon, sage of the Brookings Institute, who told the New York Times that the self-evidently deficient Iraqbodycount estimate was "certainly a more serious work than the Lancet report".
No point in the study attracted more confident assaults by ersatz statisticians than the study's passing mention of a 95 per cent "confidence interval" for the overall death toll of between 194,000 and 8,000. This did not mean, as asserted by commentators who ought to have known better, that the true figure lay anywhere between those numbers and that the 98,000 number was produced merely by splitting the difference. In fact, the 98,000 figure represents the best estimate drawn from the data. The high and low numbers represented the spread, known to statisticians as "the confidence interval", within which it is 95 per cent certain the true number will be found. Had the published study (which was intensively peer reviewed) cited the 80 per cent confidence interval also calculated by the team - a statistically respectable option -- then the spread would have been between 152,000 and 44,000.
Seeking further elucidation on the mathematical tools available to reveal the hidden miseries of today's Iraq, I turned to CounterPunch's consultant statistician, Pierre Sprey. He reviewed not only the Iraq study as published in the Lancet, but also the raw data collected in the household survey and kindly forwarded me by Dr. Roberts.
"I have the highest respect for the rigor of the sampling method used and the meticulous and courageous collection of the data. I'm certainly not criticizing in any way Robert's data or the importance of the results. But they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble had they discarded the straitjacket of Gaussian distribution in favor of a more practical statistical approach", says Sprey. "As with all such studies, the key question is that of 'scatter' i.e. the random spread in data between each cluster sampled. So cluster A might have a ratio of twice as many deaths after the invasion as before, while cluster B might experience only two thirds as many. The academically conventional approach is to assume that scatter follows the bell shaped curve, otherwise known as 'normal distribution,' popularized by Carl Gauss in the early 19th century. This is a formula dictating that the most frequent occurrence of data will be close to the mean, or center, and that frequency of occurrence will fall off smoothly and symmetrically as data scatters further and further from the mean - following the curve of a bell shaped mountain as you move from the center of the data.
"Generations of statisticians have had it beaten in to their skulls that any data that scatters does so according to the iron dictates of the bell shaped curve. The truth is that in no case has a sizable body of naturally occurring data ever been proven to follow the curve". (A $200,000 prize offered in the 1920s for anyone who could provide rigorous evidence of a natural occurrence of the curve remains unclaimed.)
"Slavish adherence to this formula obscures information of great value. The true shape of the data scatter almost invariably contains insights of great physical or, in this case medical importance. In particular it very frequently grossly exaggerates the true scatter of the data. Why? Simply because the mathematics of making the data fit the bell curve inexorably leads one to placing huge emphasis on isolated extreme 'outliers' of the data.
"For example if the average cluster had ten deaths and most clusters had 8 to 12 deaths, but some had 0 or 20, the Gaussian math would force you to weight the importance of those rare points like 0 or 20 (i.e. 'outliers') by the square of their distance from the center, or average. So a point at 20 would have a weight of 100 (20 minus 10 squared) while a point of 11 would have a weight of 1 (11 minus 10 squared.)
"This approach has inherently pernicious effects. Suppose for example one is studying survival rates of plant- destroying spider mites, and the sampled population happens to be a mix of a strain of very hardy mites and another strain that is quite vulnerable to pesticides. Fanatical Gaussians will immediately clamp the bell shaped curve onto the overall population of mites being studied, thereby wiping out any evidence that this group is in fact a mixture of two strains.
"The commonsensical amateur meanwhile would look at the scatter of the data and see very quickly that instead of a single "peak" in surviving mites, which would be the result if the data were processed by traditional Gaussian rules, there are instead two obvious peaks. He would promptly discern that he has two different strains mixed together on his plants, a conclusion of overwhelming importance for pesticide application".
(Sprey once conducted such a statistical study at Cornell - a bad day for mites.)
So how to escape the Gaussian distortion?
"The answer lies in quite simple statistical techniques called 'distribution free' or 'non parametric' methods. These make the obviously more reasonable assumption that one hasn't the foggiest notion of what the distribution of the data should be, especially when considering data one hasn't seen -- before one is prepared to let the data define its own distribution, whatever that unusual shape may be, rather than forcing it into the bell curve. The relatively simple computational methods used in this approach basically treat each point as if it has the same weight as any other, with the happy result that outliers don't greatly exaggerate the scatter.
"So, applying that simple notion to the death rates before and after the US invasion of Iraq, we find that the confidence intervals around the estimated 100,000 "excess deaths" not only shrink considerably but also that the numbers move significantly higher. With a distribution-free approach, a 95 per cent confidence interval thereby becomes 53,000 to 279,000. (Recall that the Gaussian approach gave a 95 per cent confidence interval of 8,000 to 194,000.) With an 80 per cent confidence interval, the lower bound is 78,000 and the upper bound is 229,000. This shift to higher excess deaths occurs because the real, as opposed to the Gaussian, distribution of the data is heavily skewed to the high side of the distribution center".
Sprey's results make it clear that the most cautious estimate possible for the Iraqi excess deaths caused by the US invasion is far higher than the 8,000 figure imposed on the Johns Hopkins team by the fascist bell curve. (The eugenicists of the 1920s were much enamored of Gaussian methodology.) The upper bounds indicate a reasonable possibility of much higher excess deaths than the 194,000 excess deaths (95 per cent confidence) offered in the study published in the Lancet.
Of course the survey on which all these figures are based was conducted fifteen months ago. Assuming the rate of death has proceeded at the same pace since the study was carried out, Sprey calculates that deaths inflicted to date as a direct result of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq could be, at best estimate, 183,000, with an upper 95 per cent confidence boundary of 511,000.
Given the generally smug and heartless reaction accorded the initial Lancet study, no such updated figure is likely to resonate in public discourse, especially when it registers a dramatic increase. Though the figures quoted by Bush were without a shadow of a doubt a gross underestimate (he couldn't even be bothered to get the number of dead American troops right) 30,000 dead among the people we were allegedly coming to save is still an appalling notion. The possibility that we have actually helped kill as many as half a million people suggests a war crime of truly twentieth century proportions.
In some countries, denying the fact of mass murder is considered a felony offence, incurring harsh penalties. But then, it all depends on who is being murdered, and by whom.
Andrew Cockburn is the co-author, with Patrick Cockburn, of Out of the Ashes: the Resurrection of Saddam Hussein.
30,000? No. 100,000? No.
By ANDREW COCKBURN
01/09/06 "Counterpunch" -- -- President Bush's off-hand summation last month of the number of Iraqis who have so far died as a result of our invasion and occupation as "30,000, more or less" was quite certainly an under-estimate. The true number is probably hitting around 180,000 by now, with a possibility, as we shall see, that it has reached as high as half a million.
But even Bush's number was too much for his handlers to allow. Almost as soon as he finished speaking, they hastened to downplay the presidential figure as "unofficial", plucked by the commander in chief from "public estimates". Such calculations have been discouraged ever since the oafish General Tommy Franks infamously announced at the time of the invasion: "We don't do body counts". In December 2004, an effort by the Iraqi Ministry of Health to quantify ongoing mortality on the basis of emergency room admissions was halted by direct order of the occupying power.
In fact, the President may have been subconsciously quoting figures published by iraqbodycount.org, a British group that diligently tabulates published press reports of combat-related killings in Iraq. Due to IBC's policy of posting minimum and maximum figures, currently standing at 27787 and 31317, their numbers carry a misleading air of scientific precision. As the group itself readily concedes, the estimate must be incomplete, since it omits unreported deaths.
There is however another and more reliable method for estimating figures such as these: nationwide random sampling. No one doubts that, if the sample is truly random, and the consequent data correctly calculated, the sampled results reflect the national figures within the states accuracy. That, after all, is how market researchers assess public opinion on everything from politicians to breakfast cereals. Epidemiologists use it to chart the impact of epidemics. In 2000 an epidemiological team led by Les Roberts of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health used random sampling to calculate the death toll from combat and consequent disease and starvation in the ongoing Congolese civil war at 1.7 million. This figure prompted shocked headlines and immediate action by the UN Security Council. No one questioned the methodology.
In September 2004, Roberts led a similar team that researched death rates, using the same techniques, in Iraq before and after the 2003 invasion. Making "conservative assumptions" they concluded that "about 100,000 excess deaths" (in fact 98,000) among men, women, and children had occurred in just under eighteen months. Violent deaths alone had soared twentyfold. But, as in most wars, the bulk of the carnage was due to the indirect effects of the invasion, notably the breakdown of the Iraqi health system. Thus, though many commentators contrasted the iarqbodycount and Johns Hopkins figures, they are not comparable. The bodycounters were simply recording, or at least attempting to record, deaths from combat violence, while the medical specialists were attempting something far more complete, an accounting of the full death toll wrought by the devastation of the US invasion and occupation.
Unlike the respectful applause granted the Congolese study, this one, published in the prestigious British medical journal The Lancet, generated a hail of abusive criticism. The general outrage may have been prompted by the unsettling possibility that Iraq's liberators had already killed a third as many Iraqis as the reported 300,000 murdered by Saddam Hussein in his decades of tyranny. Some of the attacks were self-evidently absurd. British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman, for example, queried the survey because it "appeared to be based on an extrapolation technique rather than a detailed body count", as if Blair had never made a political decision based on a poll. Others chose to compare apples with oranges by mixing up nationwide Saddam-era government statistics with individual cluster survey results in order to cast doubt on the latter.
Some questioned whether the sample was distorted by unrepresentative hot spots such as Fallujah. In fact, the amazingly dedicated and courageous Iraqi doctors who actually gathered the data visited 33 "clusters" selected on an entirely random basis across the length and breadth of Iraq. In each of these clusters the teams conducted interviews in 30 households, again selected by rigorously random means. As it happened, Fallujah was one of the clusters thrown up by this process. Strictly speaking, the team should have included the data from that embattled city in their final result - random is random after all -- which would have given an overall post-invasion excess death figure of no less than 268,000. Nevertheless, erring on the side of caution, they eliminated Fallujah from their sample.
For such dedication to scholarly integrity, Roberts and his colleagues had to endure the flatulent ignorance of Michael E. O'Hanlon, sage of the Brookings Institute, who told the New York Times that the self-evidently deficient Iraqbodycount estimate was "certainly a more serious work than the Lancet report".
No point in the study attracted more confident assaults by ersatz statisticians than the study's passing mention of a 95 per cent "confidence interval" for the overall death toll of between 194,000 and 8,000. This did not mean, as asserted by commentators who ought to have known better, that the true figure lay anywhere between those numbers and that the 98,000 number was produced merely by splitting the difference. In fact, the 98,000 figure represents the best estimate drawn from the data. The high and low numbers represented the spread, known to statisticians as "the confidence interval", within which it is 95 per cent certain the true number will be found. Had the published study (which was intensively peer reviewed) cited the 80 per cent confidence interval also calculated by the team - a statistically respectable option -- then the spread would have been between 152,000 and 44,000.
Seeking further elucidation on the mathematical tools available to reveal the hidden miseries of today's Iraq, I turned to CounterPunch's consultant statistician, Pierre Sprey. He reviewed not only the Iraq study as published in the Lancet, but also the raw data collected in the household survey and kindly forwarded me by Dr. Roberts.
"I have the highest respect for the rigor of the sampling method used and the meticulous and courageous collection of the data. I'm certainly not criticizing in any way Robert's data or the importance of the results. But they could have saved themselves a lot of trouble had they discarded the straitjacket of Gaussian distribution in favor of a more practical statistical approach", says Sprey. "As with all such studies, the key question is that of 'scatter' i.e. the random spread in data between each cluster sampled. So cluster A might have a ratio of twice as many deaths after the invasion as before, while cluster B might experience only two thirds as many. The academically conventional approach is to assume that scatter follows the bell shaped curve, otherwise known as 'normal distribution,' popularized by Carl Gauss in the early 19th century. This is a formula dictating that the most frequent occurrence of data will be close to the mean, or center, and that frequency of occurrence will fall off smoothly and symmetrically as data scatters further and further from the mean - following the curve of a bell shaped mountain as you move from the center of the data.
"Generations of statisticians have had it beaten in to their skulls that any data that scatters does so according to the iron dictates of the bell shaped curve. The truth is that in no case has a sizable body of naturally occurring data ever been proven to follow the curve". (A $200,000 prize offered in the 1920s for anyone who could provide rigorous evidence of a natural occurrence of the curve remains unclaimed.)
"Slavish adherence to this formula obscures information of great value. The true shape of the data scatter almost invariably contains insights of great physical or, in this case medical importance. In particular it very frequently grossly exaggerates the true scatter of the data. Why? Simply because the mathematics of making the data fit the bell curve inexorably leads one to placing huge emphasis on isolated extreme 'outliers' of the data.
"For example if the average cluster had ten deaths and most clusters had 8 to 12 deaths, but some had 0 or 20, the Gaussian math would force you to weight the importance of those rare points like 0 or 20 (i.e. 'outliers') by the square of their distance from the center, or average. So a point at 20 would have a weight of 100 (20 minus 10 squared) while a point of 11 would have a weight of 1 (11 minus 10 squared.)
"This approach has inherently pernicious effects. Suppose for example one is studying survival rates of plant- destroying spider mites, and the sampled population happens to be a mix of a strain of very hardy mites and another strain that is quite vulnerable to pesticides. Fanatical Gaussians will immediately clamp the bell shaped curve onto the overall population of mites being studied, thereby wiping out any evidence that this group is in fact a mixture of two strains.
"The commonsensical amateur meanwhile would look at the scatter of the data and see very quickly that instead of a single "peak" in surviving mites, which would be the result if the data were processed by traditional Gaussian rules, there are instead two obvious peaks. He would promptly discern that he has two different strains mixed together on his plants, a conclusion of overwhelming importance for pesticide application".
(Sprey once conducted such a statistical study at Cornell - a bad day for mites.)
So how to escape the Gaussian distortion?
"The answer lies in quite simple statistical techniques called 'distribution free' or 'non parametric' methods. These make the obviously more reasonable assumption that one hasn't the foggiest notion of what the distribution of the data should be, especially when considering data one hasn't seen -- before one is prepared to let the data define its own distribution, whatever that unusual shape may be, rather than forcing it into the bell curve. The relatively simple computational methods used in this approach basically treat each point as if it has the same weight as any other, with the happy result that outliers don't greatly exaggerate the scatter.
"So, applying that simple notion to the death rates before and after the US invasion of Iraq, we find that the confidence intervals around the estimated 100,000 "excess deaths" not only shrink considerably but also that the numbers move significantly higher. With a distribution-free approach, a 95 per cent confidence interval thereby becomes 53,000 to 279,000. (Recall that the Gaussian approach gave a 95 per cent confidence interval of 8,000 to 194,000.) With an 80 per cent confidence interval, the lower bound is 78,000 and the upper bound is 229,000. This shift to higher excess deaths occurs because the real, as opposed to the Gaussian, distribution of the data is heavily skewed to the high side of the distribution center".
Sprey's results make it clear that the most cautious estimate possible for the Iraqi excess deaths caused by the US invasion is far higher than the 8,000 figure imposed on the Johns Hopkins team by the fascist bell curve. (The eugenicists of the 1920s were much enamored of Gaussian methodology.) The upper bounds indicate a reasonable possibility of much higher excess deaths than the 194,000 excess deaths (95 per cent confidence) offered in the study published in the Lancet.
Of course the survey on which all these figures are based was conducted fifteen months ago. Assuming the rate of death has proceeded at the same pace since the study was carried out, Sprey calculates that deaths inflicted to date as a direct result of the Anglo-American invasion and occupation of Iraq could be, at best estimate, 183,000, with an upper 95 per cent confidence boundary of 511,000.
Given the generally smug and heartless reaction accorded the initial Lancet study, no such updated figure is likely to resonate in public discourse, especially when it registers a dramatic increase. Though the figures quoted by Bush were without a shadow of a doubt a gross underestimate (he couldn't even be bothered to get the number of dead American troops right) 30,000 dead among the people we were allegedly coming to save is still an appalling notion. The possibility that we have actually helped kill as many as half a million people suggests a war crime of truly twentieth century proportions.
In some countries, denying the fact of mass murder is considered a felony offence, incurring harsh penalties. But then, it all depends on who is being murdered, and by whom.
Andrew Cockburn is the co-author, with Patrick Cockburn, of Out of the Ashes: the Resurrection of Saddam Hussein.
Possibility of US military presence raises fears in Paraguay
http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2005/12/25/possibility_of_us_military_presence_raises_fears_in_paraguay/
Possibility of US military presence raises fears in Paraguay
Visit by Rumsfeld stirs speculation on military base
By Patrick J. McDonnell, Los Angeles Times | December 25, 2005
ASUNCION, Paraguay -- Are the Americans coming?
That question continues to reverberate in this sleepy capital four months after a ''courtesy call" visit by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld unleashed a torrent of speculation about Washington's reputed ''secret agenda."
US officials have categorically denied having plans for a military base here, describing the episode as a misunderstanding over ongoing US-Paraguayan military exercises.
Despite the denials, talk of detachments of Marines taking up residence in this nation in the heart of South America has entered the continent's political discourse.
''No Yanqui Troops in Paraguay!" read banners hoisted by protesters at last month's Summit of the Americas in Argentina.
For Paraguayans who lived through a 35-year dictatorship that was long backed by the United States, the daily images from Iraq have stirred memories of American interventions in Latin America, one of the battlegrounds of the Cold War.
''We don't need armies, especially foreign armies," Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Argentine Nobel Peace prize laureate and leftist icon, declared during a recent visit here. ''It's important to remember that once the troops of the United States enter a country, they never leave."
To many, the lingering controversy also illustrates the political and social frailties of a long-isolated, landlocked nation still in the formative stages of democracy 16 years after the dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner ended.
''Paraguay remains a country in gestation," said Oscar Torres, a legal scholar here. ''We still haven't reached national maturation. We are in our adolescence, and, consequently, full of fears and ghosts."
The current president, Nicanor Duarte Frutos, is generally viewed as a centrist, free-market advocate who has become aggressively pro-Washington. The former journalist became the first Paraguayan head of state received at the Oval Office, and his vice president, Luis Castiglioni, also visited Washington -- trips that raised eyebrows here. No one disputes that Washington has interests here and maintains a substantial presence at its well-fortified embassy.
Paraguay is known as a smuggling and drug-trafficking corridor and is suspected as a conduit for terrorist financing from the so-called triple border region of Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina, an area that has a substantial Arab population. US officials have publicly declared their concern about illicit drugs and terrorist funding allegedly flowing from Paraguay.
US authorities call the military exercises standard and largely humanitarian in nature, involving no more than two dozen or so US troops at a time in this California-sized nation. Paraguayan officials approved 13 joint exercises last spring, lasting through the end of next year, but it wasn't until Rumsfeld's visit in August that the maneuvers ignited a firestorm, especially in neighboring Brazil.
Not all have condemned the notion of a tilt toward the United States. Some here have applauded the idea of enhanced political, commercial, and even military ties to the United States, complaining that Brazil -- an economic colossus here -- has had an unhealthy stranglehold on this nation of 6 million, which suffers from high unemployment and has little industry. Stolen cars, contraband cigarettes, and high-quality marijuana are among Paraguay's best-known products.
''Why shouldn't Paraguay have cooperative agreements with the United States, which is one of the world's principal markets?" said Senator Eusebio Ramon Ayala of the opposition Authentic Radical Liberal Party, who favors expanded relations. ''Paraguay is not a new Iraq, and Asuncion is not a new Baghdad. . . . The Cold War is over, the economy is ever more globalized. . . . Why should we rely so much on Brazil?"
On the newly resurgent left, critics charge that Washington is keen to use Paraguay as a springboard to grab water, gas, petroleum, hydroelectric power and other regional resources, while keeping an eye on troubling political movements.
''The bases, the water, the power, the oil -- it's all connected," declared Ignacio Gonzalez, a 28-year-old sociologist and leftist activist, who spoke in front of a busy McDonald's, frequently displaying printouts from the Internet to bolster his points. ''It's all part of a much bigger, perfect strategy to protect and expand American interests."
President Duarte and his aides, while open to the idea of expanded commerce, have repeatedly denied any plans to allow a US base here or turn the country into a strategic asset for Washington. But public perception has trumped the president's assertions.
''Let's face it: Donald Rumsfeld doesn't come to Asuncion to observe how much it rains," said Benjamin Fernandez, a radio commentator here, who spoke in his office as yet another deluge drenched this steamy capital. ''It makes sense for the United States to try and define friends and enemies in the Southern Cone with respect to matters on its agenda."
Many here also see an over-arching political motivation: to send a message of American might to the continent's leftist governments, especially Venezuela's anti-US president, Hugo Chavez.
According to this theory, the US moves here are particularly aimed at neighboring Bolivia, where Evo Morales, a populist and admirer of Chavez, is the apparent leader in the Dec. 18 presidential election.
Possibility of US military presence raises fears in Paraguay
Visit by Rumsfeld stirs speculation on military base
By Patrick J. McDonnell, Los Angeles Times | December 25, 2005
ASUNCION, Paraguay -- Are the Americans coming?
That question continues to reverberate in this sleepy capital four months after a ''courtesy call" visit by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld unleashed a torrent of speculation about Washington's reputed ''secret agenda."
US officials have categorically denied having plans for a military base here, describing the episode as a misunderstanding over ongoing US-Paraguayan military exercises.
Despite the denials, talk of detachments of Marines taking up residence in this nation in the heart of South America has entered the continent's political discourse.
''No Yanqui Troops in Paraguay!" read banners hoisted by protesters at last month's Summit of the Americas in Argentina.
For Paraguayans who lived through a 35-year dictatorship that was long backed by the United States, the daily images from Iraq have stirred memories of American interventions in Latin America, one of the battlegrounds of the Cold War.
''We don't need armies, especially foreign armies," Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the Argentine Nobel Peace prize laureate and leftist icon, declared during a recent visit here. ''It's important to remember that once the troops of the United States enter a country, they never leave."
To many, the lingering controversy also illustrates the political and social frailties of a long-isolated, landlocked nation still in the formative stages of democracy 16 years after the dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner ended.
''Paraguay remains a country in gestation," said Oscar Torres, a legal scholar here. ''We still haven't reached national maturation. We are in our adolescence, and, consequently, full of fears and ghosts."
The current president, Nicanor Duarte Frutos, is generally viewed as a centrist, free-market advocate who has become aggressively pro-Washington. The former journalist became the first Paraguayan head of state received at the Oval Office, and his vice president, Luis Castiglioni, also visited Washington -- trips that raised eyebrows here. No one disputes that Washington has interests here and maintains a substantial presence at its well-fortified embassy.
Paraguay is known as a smuggling and drug-trafficking corridor and is suspected as a conduit for terrorist financing from the so-called triple border region of Paraguay, Brazil, and Argentina, an area that has a substantial Arab population. US officials have publicly declared their concern about illicit drugs and terrorist funding allegedly flowing from Paraguay.
US authorities call the military exercises standard and largely humanitarian in nature, involving no more than two dozen or so US troops at a time in this California-sized nation. Paraguayan officials approved 13 joint exercises last spring, lasting through the end of next year, but it wasn't until Rumsfeld's visit in August that the maneuvers ignited a firestorm, especially in neighboring Brazil.
Not all have condemned the notion of a tilt toward the United States. Some here have applauded the idea of enhanced political, commercial, and even military ties to the United States, complaining that Brazil -- an economic colossus here -- has had an unhealthy stranglehold on this nation of 6 million, which suffers from high unemployment and has little industry. Stolen cars, contraband cigarettes, and high-quality marijuana are among Paraguay's best-known products.
''Why shouldn't Paraguay have cooperative agreements with the United States, which is one of the world's principal markets?" said Senator Eusebio Ramon Ayala of the opposition Authentic Radical Liberal Party, who favors expanded relations. ''Paraguay is not a new Iraq, and Asuncion is not a new Baghdad. . . . The Cold War is over, the economy is ever more globalized. . . . Why should we rely so much on Brazil?"
On the newly resurgent left, critics charge that Washington is keen to use Paraguay as a springboard to grab water, gas, petroleum, hydroelectric power and other regional resources, while keeping an eye on troubling political movements.
''The bases, the water, the power, the oil -- it's all connected," declared Ignacio Gonzalez, a 28-year-old sociologist and leftist activist, who spoke in front of a busy McDonald's, frequently displaying printouts from the Internet to bolster his points. ''It's all part of a much bigger, perfect strategy to protect and expand American interests."
President Duarte and his aides, while open to the idea of expanded commerce, have repeatedly denied any plans to allow a US base here or turn the country into a strategic asset for Washington. But public perception has trumped the president's assertions.
''Let's face it: Donald Rumsfeld doesn't come to Asuncion to observe how much it rains," said Benjamin Fernandez, a radio commentator here, who spoke in his office as yet another deluge drenched this steamy capital. ''It makes sense for the United States to try and define friends and enemies in the Southern Cone with respect to matters on its agenda."
Many here also see an over-arching political motivation: to send a message of American might to the continent's leftist governments, especially Venezuela's anti-US president, Hugo Chavez.
According to this theory, the US moves here are particularly aimed at neighboring Bolivia, where Evo Morales, a populist and admirer of Chavez, is the apparent leader in the Dec. 18 presidential election.
The NSA Spy Engine: Echelon
The NSA Spy Engine: Echelon
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report
Monday 09 January 2006
A clandestine National Security Agency spy program code-named Echelon was likely responsible for tapping into the emails, telephone calls and facsimiles of thousands of average American citizens over the past four years in its effort to identify people suspected of communicating with al-Qaeda terrorists, according to half-a-dozen current and former intelligence officials from the NSA and FBI.
The existence of the program has been known for some time. Echelon was developed in the 1970s primarily as an American-British intelligence sharing system to monitor foreigners - specifically, during the Cold War, to catch Soviet spies. But sources said the spyware, operated by satellite, is the means by which the NSA eavesdropped on Americans when President Bush secretly authorized the agency to do so in 2002.
Another top-secret program code-named Tempest, also operated by satellite, is capable of reading computer monitors, cash registers and automatic teller machines from as far away as a half-mile and is being used to keep a close eye on an untold number of American citizens, the sources said, pointing to a little known declassified document that sheds light on the program.
Echelon has been shrouded in secrecy for years. A special report prepared by the European Parliament in the late 1990s disclosed explosive details about the covert program when it alleged that Echelon was being used to spy on two foreign defense contractors - the European companies Airbus Industrie and Thomson-CSF - as well as sifting through private emails, industrial files and cell phones of foreigners.
The program is part of a multinational spy effort that includes intelligence agencies in Canada, Britain, New Zealand and Australia, also known as the Echelon Alliance, which is responsible for monitoring different parts of the world.
The NSA has never publicly admitted that Echelon exists, but the program has been identified in declassified government documents. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have long criticized the program and have, in the past, engaged in fierce debate with the intelligence community over Echelon because of the ease with which it can spy on Americans without any oversight from the federal government.
Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told the news program 60 Minutes in February 2000 how Echelon routinely eavesdrops on many average people at any given moment and how, depending on what you say either in an email or over the telephone, you could end up on an NSA watch list.
"While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a -- a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that," Frost said. "The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist."
Ironically, during the first Bush administration, a woman named Margaret Newsham, who worked for Lockheed Martin and was stationed at the NSA's Menwith Hill listening post in Yorkshire, England, told Congressional investigators that she had firsthand knowledge that the NSA was illegally spying on American citizens.
While a Congressional committee did look into Newsham's allegations, it never published a report. However, a British investigative reporter named Duncan Campbell got hold of some committee documents and discovered that Newsham was telling the truth. One of the documents described a program called "Echelon" that would monitor and analyze "civilian communications into the 21st century."
As of 2000, sources said, the NSA had Echelon listening posts located in: Menwith Hill, Britain; Morwenstow, Britain; Bad Aibling, Germany; Geraldton Station, Australia; Shoal Bay, Australia; Waihopai, New Zealand; Leitrim, Canada; Misawa, Japan; Yakima Firing Center, Seattle; Sugar Grove, Virginia.
A January 1, 2001, story in the magazine Popular Mechanics disclosed details of how Echelon works.
"The electronic signals that Echelon satellites and listening posts capture are separated into two streams, depending upon whether the communications are sent with or without encryption," the magazine reported. "Scrambled signals are converted into their original language, and then, along with selected "clear" messages, are checked by a piece of software called Dictionary. There are actually several localized "dictionaries." The UK version, for example, is packed with names and slang used by the Irish Republican Army. Messages with trigger words are dispatched to their respective agencies."
Electronic signals are captured and analyzed through a series of supercomputers known as dictionaries, which are programmed to search through each communication for targeted addresses, words, phrases, and sometimes individual voices. The communication is then sent to the National Security Agency for review. Some of the more common sample key words that the NSA flags are: terrorism, plutonium, bomb, militia, gun, explosives, Iran, Iraq, sources said.
Because Echelon can easily spy on Americans without any oversight or detection, and because Echelon covers such a wide spectrum of communication, many current and former NSA officials said that it's likely the agency used its satellites to target Americans, Mark Levin, a former chief of staff to Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration, wrote last month in a blog post on the National Review Online.
"Under the ECHELON program, the NSA and certain foreign intelligence agencies throw an extremely wide net over virtually all electronic communications world-wide. There are no warrants. No probable cause requirements. No FISA court. And information is intercepted that is communicated solely between US citizens within the US, which may not be the purpose of the program but, nonetheless, is a consequence of the program."
Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributer to t r u t h o u t.
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Investigative Report
Monday 09 January 2006
A clandestine National Security Agency spy program code-named Echelon was likely responsible for tapping into the emails, telephone calls and facsimiles of thousands of average American citizens over the past four years in its effort to identify people suspected of communicating with al-Qaeda terrorists, according to half-a-dozen current and former intelligence officials from the NSA and FBI.
The existence of the program has been known for some time. Echelon was developed in the 1970s primarily as an American-British intelligence sharing system to monitor foreigners - specifically, during the Cold War, to catch Soviet spies. But sources said the spyware, operated by satellite, is the means by which the NSA eavesdropped on Americans when President Bush secretly authorized the agency to do so in 2002.
Another top-secret program code-named Tempest, also operated by satellite, is capable of reading computer monitors, cash registers and automatic teller machines from as far away as a half-mile and is being used to keep a close eye on an untold number of American citizens, the sources said, pointing to a little known declassified document that sheds light on the program.
Echelon has been shrouded in secrecy for years. A special report prepared by the European Parliament in the late 1990s disclosed explosive details about the covert program when it alleged that Echelon was being used to spy on two foreign defense contractors - the European companies Airbus Industrie and Thomson-CSF - as well as sifting through private emails, industrial files and cell phones of foreigners.
The program is part of a multinational spy effort that includes intelligence agencies in Canada, Britain, New Zealand and Australia, also known as the Echelon Alliance, which is responsible for monitoring different parts of the world.
The NSA has never publicly admitted that Echelon exists, but the program has been identified in declassified government documents. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have long criticized the program and have, in the past, engaged in fierce debate with the intelligence community over Echelon because of the ease with which it can spy on Americans without any oversight from the federal government.
Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told the news program 60 Minutes in February 2000 how Echelon routinely eavesdrops on many average people at any given moment and how, depending on what you say either in an email or over the telephone, you could end up on an NSA watch list.
"While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a -- a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like that," Frost said. "The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist."
Ironically, during the first Bush administration, a woman named Margaret Newsham, who worked for Lockheed Martin and was stationed at the NSA's Menwith Hill listening post in Yorkshire, England, told Congressional investigators that she had firsthand knowledge that the NSA was illegally spying on American citizens.
While a Congressional committee did look into Newsham's allegations, it never published a report. However, a British investigative reporter named Duncan Campbell got hold of some committee documents and discovered that Newsham was telling the truth. One of the documents described a program called "Echelon" that would monitor and analyze "civilian communications into the 21st century."
As of 2000, sources said, the NSA had Echelon listening posts located in: Menwith Hill, Britain; Morwenstow, Britain; Bad Aibling, Germany; Geraldton Station, Australia; Shoal Bay, Australia; Waihopai, New Zealand; Leitrim, Canada; Misawa, Japan; Yakima Firing Center, Seattle; Sugar Grove, Virginia.
A January 1, 2001, story in the magazine Popular Mechanics disclosed details of how Echelon works.
"The electronic signals that Echelon satellites and listening posts capture are separated into two streams, depending upon whether the communications are sent with or without encryption," the magazine reported. "Scrambled signals are converted into their original language, and then, along with selected "clear" messages, are checked by a piece of software called Dictionary. There are actually several localized "dictionaries." The UK version, for example, is packed with names and slang used by the Irish Republican Army. Messages with trigger words are dispatched to their respective agencies."
Electronic signals are captured and analyzed through a series of supercomputers known as dictionaries, which are programmed to search through each communication for targeted addresses, words, phrases, and sometimes individual voices. The communication is then sent to the National Security Agency for review. Some of the more common sample key words that the NSA flags are: terrorism, plutonium, bomb, militia, gun, explosives, Iran, Iraq, sources said.
Because Echelon can easily spy on Americans without any oversight or detection, and because Echelon covers such a wide spectrum of communication, many current and former NSA officials said that it's likely the agency used its satellites to target Americans, Mark Levin, a former chief of staff to Edwin Meese during the Reagan administration, wrote last month in a blog post on the National Review Online.
"Under the ECHELON program, the NSA and certain foreign intelligence agencies throw an extremely wide net over virtually all electronic communications world-wide. There are no warrants. No probable cause requirements. No FISA court. And information is intercepted that is communicated solely between US citizens within the US, which may not be the purpose of the program but, nonetheless, is a consequence of the program."
Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributer to t r u t h o u t.
As it was 30 years ago, NSA at center of uproar over surveillance
KRT Wire | 01/08/2006 | As it was 30 years ago, NSA at center of uproar over surveillance
As it was 30 years ago, NSA at center of uproar over surveillance
BY CAM SIMPSON
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - A super-secret government agency is listening in on the phone calls of Americans - without warrants. Phone numbers belonging to certain people trigger special interest, because they might pose a threat to "national security."
Powerful computers at the same super-secret agency peer into many international messages sent from or through the United States each day, all thanks to a quiet deal between the government and major communications companies.
Those may sound like revelations from the current controversy unfolding in Washington over the Bush administration's use of warrantless surveillance inside the United States, but they're not - at least not exclusively. They are among the now 30-year-old findings of a handful of young congressional investigators, the first outsiders to peer into the previously hidden world of the National Security Agency.
At the time, revelations from the blandly named "Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities" shocked the nation. Findings from the panel, more commonly known as the Church Committee because its chairman was Democratic Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, also laid the foundation for today's debate over the need to balance government surveillance with the privacy rights of American citizens.
As it was in 1975-76, the hyper-secret NSA is now at center stage.
For the investigators who pieced together the report's findings on the agency, now scattered to locales such as Salt Lake City, New York and Washington, the three-decade-old investigation is reverberating anew.
"Many of us have felt like it's deja vu all over again," said Barry Carter, a lawyer who joined the Church Committee and its NSA task force, after stepping down as a Nixon administration aide to Henry Kissinger.
"Deja vu all over again - I'm sure you've heard that from everybody," said Eric Richard, another investigator on the NSA case. "You just have the feeling that no one has learned anything in 30 years."
The Bush administration and its supporters say the White House's actions - including the president's approval of warrantless wiretaps on certain international calls - are perfectly legitimate and not remotely like the abuses uncovered by the Church Committee.
That committee's area of inquiry was expansive. It stretched from Cuba and Southeast Asia, where the U.S. government was involved in covert assassination plots, to the streets of Chicago, where anti-war and black power groups were targeted for infiltration or surveillance.
In short, the committee was charged with investigating any "illegal, improper, or unethical" activities engaged in by government intelligence agencies.
By 1975 - almost 30 years after the creation of the CIA and after decades of little to no congressional oversight of the FBI - the list of questionable covert activities was both long and shameful. The committee ended up publishing 14 reports totaling more than 5,500 pages, and the staggering tales of abuse therein dominated newspaper headlines for months.
Intelligence insiders feared the revelations would destroy America's covert capabilities.
But at the outset, investigating the NSA, a quasi-military agency that almost no one had heard of, didn't seem like a very sexy Church Committee assignment, staffers recalled. The NSA's mission is to gather electronic intelligence from all over the world.
"The CIA, everybody knew something about that," said Richard, who joined the panel a few days after taking his final law school exam at Harvard in 1975. "But NSA, it was a blank slate. Nobody knew much about it."
The NSA was nicknamed "No Such Agency," and its campus in Fort Meade, Md., outside Washington was filled with the 1970s equivalent of computer geeks, hardly the stuff of cloak-and-dagger intrigue.
Almost nothing about NSA's operations was known. Congressional oversight was practically non-existent, except for lawmakers who approved appropriations. And those lawmakers would hand over vast sums of money while remaining intentionally ignorant of operations, Church investigators recalled.
"In most cases, they would say, `Don't tell us. We don't want to know,'" said Peter Fenn, another Church investigator.
Now a Democratic political strategist in Washington, Fenn came from Church's own staff.
Because of his work on Kissinger's National Security Council, Carter knew more than most about the NSA's work. But not long into the investigation, even Carter was blown away by what the investigation found.
On a secret trip to Puerto Rico, Carter and Fenn worked their way into an NSA "listening post," one piece of a vast global surveillance network capable of scooping communications from around the world out of thin air.
"This was the first time we realized there was a whole different way of collecting intelligence," said Carter, who now teaches international law at Georgetown University. "Instead of putting dog-eared clamps on telephone wires outside someone's home, or on a switching station somewhere downtown ... they just sucked it all in like a vacuum cleaner."
In a way, Carter said, "as soon as they set up the vacuum cleaner, they were listening to everything."
Beyond the communications of Americans inadvertently sucked in, international calls by U.S. citizens had been specifically targeted as early as 1962, the investigators found.
The agency created a "watch list" to automatically target the international communications of thousands of individuals, both foreigners and Americans. The FBI, Secret Service, the military and the CIA all sent names to Fort Meade for inclusion on the list, an effort that eventually became known as "Project MINARET."
Between 1967 and 1973 alone, about 1,200 American names were added, including 180 American citizens or groups active in civil rights and anti-war activities because they were viewed as threats to national security.
The FBI, especially under J. Edgar Hoover, was specifically interested in so-called "new leftists." The CIA wanted to know what American "radicals" were saying in their overseas calls.
Church investigators also stumbled on something else: For nearly 30 years, the agency, through a secret deal with three communications giants, physically picked up paper or magnetic tapes each day holding copies of telegrams sent overseas via the world's foremost telegraph companies. For years, a courier rode a train from Washington to New York and back to grab the tapes, until the NSA set up a New York office under CIA cover to make the collection easier.
Church investigators were both awed and terrified by the vastness of NSA's sweep, as was their boss.
"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss," Church declared. "That is the abyss from which there is no return."
As Congress prepares to launch promised hearings into the program later this month, many former investigators who uncovered NSA operations and abuses are hoping the central lessons of their work are not forgotten.
"If we did anything, we established the precedent that even national security has to be subjected to the rule of law," said Richard, who lives in Maryland. "It's inevitable that any government power that is secret or unchecked by outside oversight will grow and be abused."
Michael Madigan, a Republican lawyer who served on the committee as counsel to former Sen. Howard Baker, agreed that the most significant lesson was the need to subject the intelligence community to congressional oversight and the rule of law.
But Madigan would not single out the Bush administration for criticism in the current debate.
"I think that if you want to assess blame, and I'm not sure that is the right word, for where we find ourselves today on an issue which is of critical importance to our country, it might be quite properly spread around both the executive and legislative branches of our government," said Madigan, a partner at the Washington law firm of Akin Gump Hauer Strauss & Feld.
He said lawmakers and staffers who dealt directly with the probe's fallout envisioned a fluid system of oversight in which ever-changing intelligence needs could be matched by congressional flexibility.
Madigan said increased partisanship in Washington in the last 30 years has not helped sustain such an environment, perhaps adding to the current uproar.
As it was 30 years ago, NSA at center of uproar over surveillance
BY CAM SIMPSON
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - A super-secret government agency is listening in on the phone calls of Americans - without warrants. Phone numbers belonging to certain people trigger special interest, because they might pose a threat to "national security."
Powerful computers at the same super-secret agency peer into many international messages sent from or through the United States each day, all thanks to a quiet deal between the government and major communications companies.
Those may sound like revelations from the current controversy unfolding in Washington over the Bush administration's use of warrantless surveillance inside the United States, but they're not - at least not exclusively. They are among the now 30-year-old findings of a handful of young congressional investigators, the first outsiders to peer into the previously hidden world of the National Security Agency.
At the time, revelations from the blandly named "Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities" shocked the nation. Findings from the panel, more commonly known as the Church Committee because its chairman was Democratic Sen. Frank Church of Idaho, also laid the foundation for today's debate over the need to balance government surveillance with the privacy rights of American citizens.
As it was in 1975-76, the hyper-secret NSA is now at center stage.
For the investigators who pieced together the report's findings on the agency, now scattered to locales such as Salt Lake City, New York and Washington, the three-decade-old investigation is reverberating anew.
"Many of us have felt like it's deja vu all over again," said Barry Carter, a lawyer who joined the Church Committee and its NSA task force, after stepping down as a Nixon administration aide to Henry Kissinger.
"Deja vu all over again - I'm sure you've heard that from everybody," said Eric Richard, another investigator on the NSA case. "You just have the feeling that no one has learned anything in 30 years."
The Bush administration and its supporters say the White House's actions - including the president's approval of warrantless wiretaps on certain international calls - are perfectly legitimate and not remotely like the abuses uncovered by the Church Committee.
That committee's area of inquiry was expansive. It stretched from Cuba and Southeast Asia, where the U.S. government was involved in covert assassination plots, to the streets of Chicago, where anti-war and black power groups were targeted for infiltration or surveillance.
In short, the committee was charged with investigating any "illegal, improper, or unethical" activities engaged in by government intelligence agencies.
By 1975 - almost 30 years after the creation of the CIA and after decades of little to no congressional oversight of the FBI - the list of questionable covert activities was both long and shameful. The committee ended up publishing 14 reports totaling more than 5,500 pages, and the staggering tales of abuse therein dominated newspaper headlines for months.
Intelligence insiders feared the revelations would destroy America's covert capabilities.
But at the outset, investigating the NSA, a quasi-military agency that almost no one had heard of, didn't seem like a very sexy Church Committee assignment, staffers recalled. The NSA's mission is to gather electronic intelligence from all over the world.
"The CIA, everybody knew something about that," said Richard, who joined the panel a few days after taking his final law school exam at Harvard in 1975. "But NSA, it was a blank slate. Nobody knew much about it."
The NSA was nicknamed "No Such Agency," and its campus in Fort Meade, Md., outside Washington was filled with the 1970s equivalent of computer geeks, hardly the stuff of cloak-and-dagger intrigue.
Almost nothing about NSA's operations was known. Congressional oversight was practically non-existent, except for lawmakers who approved appropriations. And those lawmakers would hand over vast sums of money while remaining intentionally ignorant of operations, Church investigators recalled.
"In most cases, they would say, `Don't tell us. We don't want to know,'" said Peter Fenn, another Church investigator.
Now a Democratic political strategist in Washington, Fenn came from Church's own staff.
Because of his work on Kissinger's National Security Council, Carter knew more than most about the NSA's work. But not long into the investigation, even Carter was blown away by what the investigation found.
On a secret trip to Puerto Rico, Carter and Fenn worked their way into an NSA "listening post," one piece of a vast global surveillance network capable of scooping communications from around the world out of thin air.
"This was the first time we realized there was a whole different way of collecting intelligence," said Carter, who now teaches international law at Georgetown University. "Instead of putting dog-eared clamps on telephone wires outside someone's home, or on a switching station somewhere downtown ... they just sucked it all in like a vacuum cleaner."
In a way, Carter said, "as soon as they set up the vacuum cleaner, they were listening to everything."
Beyond the communications of Americans inadvertently sucked in, international calls by U.S. citizens had been specifically targeted as early as 1962, the investigators found.
The agency created a "watch list" to automatically target the international communications of thousands of individuals, both foreigners and Americans. The FBI, Secret Service, the military and the CIA all sent names to Fort Meade for inclusion on the list, an effort that eventually became known as "Project MINARET."
Between 1967 and 1973 alone, about 1,200 American names were added, including 180 American citizens or groups active in civil rights and anti-war activities because they were viewed as threats to national security.
The FBI, especially under J. Edgar Hoover, was specifically interested in so-called "new leftists." The CIA wanted to know what American "radicals" were saying in their overseas calls.
Church investigators also stumbled on something else: For nearly 30 years, the agency, through a secret deal with three communications giants, physically picked up paper or magnetic tapes each day holding copies of telegrams sent overseas via the world's foremost telegraph companies. For years, a courier rode a train from Washington to New York and back to grab the tapes, until the NSA set up a New York office under CIA cover to make the collection easier.
Church investigators were both awed and terrified by the vastness of NSA's sweep, as was their boss.
"I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss," Church declared. "That is the abyss from which there is no return."
As Congress prepares to launch promised hearings into the program later this month, many former investigators who uncovered NSA operations and abuses are hoping the central lessons of their work are not forgotten.
"If we did anything, we established the precedent that even national security has to be subjected to the rule of law," said Richard, who lives in Maryland. "It's inevitable that any government power that is secret or unchecked by outside oversight will grow and be abused."
Michael Madigan, a Republican lawyer who served on the committee as counsel to former Sen. Howard Baker, agreed that the most significant lesson was the need to subject the intelligence community to congressional oversight and the rule of law.
But Madigan would not single out the Bush administration for criticism in the current debate.
"I think that if you want to assess blame, and I'm not sure that is the right word, for where we find ourselves today on an issue which is of critical importance to our country, it might be quite properly spread around both the executive and legislative branches of our government," said Madigan, a partner at the Washington law firm of Akin Gump Hauer Strauss & Feld.
He said lawmakers and staffers who dealt directly with the probe's fallout envisioned a fluid system of oversight in which ever-changing intelligence needs could be matched by congressional flexibility.
Madigan said increased partisanship in Washington in the last 30 years has not helped sustain such an environment, perhaps adding to the current uproar.
Belafonte Calls Bush 'Greatest Terrorist'
Belafonte Calls Bush 'Greatest Terrorist'
By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jan 8, 10:55 PM ET
The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday. Some in the group attended Chavez's television and radio broadcast Sunday.
"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.
The 78-year-old Belafonte, famous for his calypso-inspired music, including the "Day-O" song, was a close collaborator of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and is now a UNICEF goodwill ambassador. He also has been outspoken in criticizing the U.S. embargo of Cuba.
Chavez said he believes deeply in the struggle for justice by blacks, both in the U.S. and Venezuela.
"Although we may not believe it, there continues to be great discrimination here against black people," Chavez said, urging his government to redouble its efforts to prevent discrimination.
Belafonte accused U.S. news media of falsely painting Chavez as a "dictator," when in fact, he said, there is democracy and citizens are "optimistic about their future."
Dolores Huerta, a pioneer of the United Farm Workers labor union also in the delegation, called the visit a "very deep experience."
Chavez accuses Bush of trying to overthrow him, pointing to intelligence documents released by the U.S. indicating that the CIA knew beforehand that dissident officers planned a short-lived 2002 coup. The U.S. denies involvement, but Chavez says Venezuela must be on guard.
Belafonte suggested setting up a youth exchange for Venezuelans and Americans. He finished by shouting in Spanish: "Viva la revolucion!"
By IAN JAMES, Associated Press Writer
Sun Jan 8, 10:55 PM ET
The American singer and activist Harry Belafonte called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world" on Sunday and said millions of Americans support the socialist revolution of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.
Belafonte led a delegation of Americans including the actor Danny Glover and the Princeton University scholar Cornel West that met the Venezuelan president for more than six hours late Saturday. Some in the group attended Chavez's television and radio broadcast Sunday.
"No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution," Belafonte told Chavez during the broadcast.
The 78-year-old Belafonte, famous for his calypso-inspired music, including the "Day-O" song, was a close collaborator of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and is now a UNICEF goodwill ambassador. He also has been outspoken in criticizing the U.S. embargo of Cuba.
Chavez said he believes deeply in the struggle for justice by blacks, both in the U.S. and Venezuela.
"Although we may not believe it, there continues to be great discrimination here against black people," Chavez said, urging his government to redouble its efforts to prevent discrimination.
Belafonte accused U.S. news media of falsely painting Chavez as a "dictator," when in fact, he said, there is democracy and citizens are "optimistic about their future."
Dolores Huerta, a pioneer of the United Farm Workers labor union also in the delegation, called the visit a "very deep experience."
Chavez accuses Bush of trying to overthrow him, pointing to intelligence documents released by the U.S. indicating that the CIA knew beforehand that dissident officers planned a short-lived 2002 coup. The U.S. denies involvement, but Chavez says Venezuela must be on guard.
Belafonte suggested setting up a youth exchange for Venezuelans and Americans. He finished by shouting in Spanish: "Viva la revolucion!"
US troops seize award-winning Iraqi journalist
US troops seize award-winning Iraqi journalist
Monday January 9, 2006
Guardian
American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.
Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.
Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.
The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.
The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.
"We need a convincing assurance from the American authorities that this terrifying experience was not harassment and a crude attempt to discourage Ali's investigation."
Dr Fadhil was asleep with his wife, their three-year-old daughter, Sarah, and seven-month-old son, Adam, when the troops forced their way in.
"They fired into the bedroom where we were sleeping, then three soldiers came in. They rolled me on to the floor and tied my hands. When I tried to ask them what they were looking for they just told me to shut up," he said.
Monday January 9, 2006
Guardian
American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the Guardian and Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.
Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning. He was released hours later.
Dr Fadhil is working with Guardian Films on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated.
The troops told Dr Fadhil that they were looking for an Iraqi insurgent and seized video tapes he had shot for the programme. These have not yet been returned.
The director of the film, Callum Macrae, said yesterday: "The timing and nature of this raid is extremely disturbing. It is only a few days since we first approached the US authorities and told them Ali was doing this investigation, and asked them then to grant him an interview about our findings.
"We need a convincing assurance from the American authorities that this terrifying experience was not harassment and a crude attempt to discourage Ali's investigation."
Dr Fadhil was asleep with his wife, their three-year-old daughter, Sarah, and seven-month-old son, Adam, when the troops forced their way in.
"They fired into the bedroom where we were sleeping, then three soldiers came in. They rolled me on to the floor and tied my hands. When I tried to ask them what they were looking for they just told me to shut up," he said.
Venezuela Enters Mercosur as a Permanent Member, an Industrialinfo.com News Alert
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/prn/texas/3574817.html
(BW) Venezuela Enters Mercosur as a Permanent Member, an Industrialinfo.com News Alert
By Business Editors
(c) 2006 Business Wire
CORDOBA, Argentina--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 9, 2006--Researched by Industrialinfo.com (Industrial Information Resources, Incorporated; Houston, Texas). Venezuela has joined Mercosur, a free trade zone commonly known as the Southern Common Market. The entry of the world's fifth largest oil exporter to Mercosur will add South America's sixth largest economy to the group originally comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Venezuela will be an ordinary member, technically defined as "Estado Parte," meaning that, for now, it will have a voice but no vote.
Apparently, the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's main objective is to politically and economically unite a significant part of South America. However, many analysts expect that his plans will end up aggravating Mercosur's internal divisions and will do little to help Mercosur become a more powerful force or increase trade among member nations. Although Mercosur's members have formed a common front on issues like opposition to the subsidies rich nations give their farmers, critics say the most flagrant failure of the trade pact has been its inability to fully integrate the economies of the participating nations. Instead, frequent trade battles have occurred between Mercosur's members. Venezuela will increase the total population of Mercosur nations to 252 million, almost 70% of South America's 362 million people. And after adding Venezuela's $78 billion in annual gross domestic product, Mercosur's GDP of $803 billion would be a whopping 89% of the continent's $906 billion in goods and services produced each year.
The new entrant arrives at a crucial time, as high oil prices make Venezuela's promise of lower-cost energy all the more attractive. With the new member, South America's biggest trade bloc will become the biggest source of energy in the American Continent.
Some experts say that Venezuela's exports to Mercosur nations are not estimated to rise any faster than normal once it becomes a member. It is also not expected to gain more diversity in the trade within Mercosur. The country's biggest exports by far are oil and petrochemical products, and Venezuela has little more to offer its new partners.
Mercosur's members have set a one-year waiting period before Venezuela is fully integrated into Mercosur. This process could be accelerated, though. During this period, Venezuela will have voice but not vote, and it is supposed to meet certain prerequisites, such as signing the Treaty of Asuncion and other protocols.
Tariff agreements
Mercosur was founded by Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay in 1991. Since then, Venezuela - along with Peru, Bolivia and Chile - has held associate member status. This blocked it from participating in many important Mercosur tariff agreements. From now on, as a full member, Venezuela will have to adopt Mercosur's common external tariff.
Brazil and Argentina
Venezuelan citizens, especially farmers, complain about Brazil, South America's largest economy, and Argentina, South America's second largest economy. These countries could steamroll the Venezuelan economy via cheap imports of everything from beef to beans.
Venezuela is a huge importer of food, cars, and industrialized products, which would theoretically help Brazil and Argentina's economies. Both nations are heavily industrialized, and have already staked out international reputations as agricultural superpowers in products such as soybeans.
Political Interests
According to Forbes.com, Chavez is already using Venezuela's entry into Mercosur to increase opposition to the Free Trade Zone of the Americas, saying that South America's "destiny is Mercosur, and that's anti-FTAA." Apart from that, it's almost certain that Chavez, who led the anti-FTAA crusade in Mar del Plata (Argentina), has political interests to get through Mercosur.
For more breaking industrial news in the Americas check out Industrialinfo.com's Premium Industrial News at www.industrialinfo.com.
Industrial Information Resources (IIR) is a Marketing Information Service company that has been doing business for over 22 years. IIR is respected as the leader in providing comprehensive market intelligence pertaining to the industrial processing, heavy manufacturing, and energy-related industries throughout the world. For more information, send inquiries to refininggroup@industrialinfo.com or visit us online at www.industrialinfo.com.
(BW) Venezuela Enters Mercosur as a Permanent Member, an Industrialinfo.com News Alert
By Business Editors
(c) 2006 Business Wire
CORDOBA, Argentina--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Jan. 9, 2006--Researched by Industrialinfo.com (Industrial Information Resources, Incorporated; Houston, Texas). Venezuela has joined Mercosur, a free trade zone commonly known as the Southern Common Market. The entry of the world's fifth largest oil exporter to Mercosur will add South America's sixth largest economy to the group originally comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. Venezuela will be an ordinary member, technically defined as "Estado Parte," meaning that, for now, it will have a voice but no vote.
Apparently, the Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez's main objective is to politically and economically unite a significant part of South America. However, many analysts expect that his plans will end up aggravating Mercosur's internal divisions and will do little to help Mercosur become a more powerful force or increase trade among member nations. Although Mercosur's members have formed a common front on issues like opposition to the subsidies rich nations give their farmers, critics say the most flagrant failure of the trade pact has been its inability to fully integrate the economies of the participating nations. Instead, frequent trade battles have occurred between Mercosur's members. Venezuela will increase the total population of Mercosur nations to 252 million, almost 70% of South America's 362 million people. And after adding Venezuela's $78 billion in annual gross domestic product, Mercosur's GDP of $803 billion would be a whopping 89% of the continent's $906 billion in goods and services produced each year.
The new entrant arrives at a crucial time, as high oil prices make Venezuela's promise of lower-cost energy all the more attractive. With the new member, South America's biggest trade bloc will become the biggest source of energy in the American Continent.
Some experts say that Venezuela's exports to Mercosur nations are not estimated to rise any faster than normal once it becomes a member. It is also not expected to gain more diversity in the trade within Mercosur. The country's biggest exports by far are oil and petrochemical products, and Venezuela has little more to offer its new partners.
Mercosur's members have set a one-year waiting period before Venezuela is fully integrated into Mercosur. This process could be accelerated, though. During this period, Venezuela will have voice but not vote, and it is supposed to meet certain prerequisites, such as signing the Treaty of Asuncion and other protocols.
Tariff agreements
Mercosur was founded by Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Paraguay in 1991. Since then, Venezuela - along with Peru, Bolivia and Chile - has held associate member status. This blocked it from participating in many important Mercosur tariff agreements. From now on, as a full member, Venezuela will have to adopt Mercosur's common external tariff.
Brazil and Argentina
Venezuelan citizens, especially farmers, complain about Brazil, South America's largest economy, and Argentina, South America's second largest economy. These countries could steamroll the Venezuelan economy via cheap imports of everything from beef to beans.
Venezuela is a huge importer of food, cars, and industrialized products, which would theoretically help Brazil and Argentina's economies. Both nations are heavily industrialized, and have already staked out international reputations as agricultural superpowers in products such as soybeans.
Political Interests
According to Forbes.com, Chavez is already using Venezuela's entry into Mercosur to increase opposition to the Free Trade Zone of the Americas, saying that South America's "destiny is Mercosur, and that's anti-FTAA." Apart from that, it's almost certain that Chavez, who led the anti-FTAA crusade in Mar del Plata (Argentina), has political interests to get through Mercosur.
For more breaking industrial news in the Americas check out Industrialinfo.com's Premium Industrial News at www.industrialinfo.com.
Industrial Information Resources (IIR) is a Marketing Information Service company that has been doing business for over 22 years. IIR is respected as the leader in providing comprehensive market intelligence pertaining to the industrial processing, heavy manufacturing, and energy-related industries throughout the world. For more information, send inquiries to refininggroup@industrialinfo.com or visit us online at www.industrialinfo.com.
Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly
Attack on Iran: A Looming Folly
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 09 January 2006
The wires have been humming since before the New Year with reports that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. "The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media," reported UPI on December 30th.
"The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week," continued UPI, "quoted 'NATO intelligence sources' who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This 'all options are open' line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months."
An examination of the ramifications of such an attack is desperately in order.
1. Blowback in Iraq
The recent elections in Iraq were dominated by an amalgam of religiously fundamentalist Shi'ite organizations, principally the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Both Dawa and SCIRI have umbilical connections to the fundamentalist Shi'ite leadership in Iran that go back decades. In essence, Iran now owns a significant portion of the Iraqi government.
Should the United States undertake military action against Iran, the ramifications in Iraq would be immediate and extreme.
In the first eight days of January, eighteen US troops have been killed in Iraq, compounded by another twelve deaths from a Black Hawk helicopter crash on Saturday. Much of the violence aimed at American forces is coming from disgruntled Sunni factions that have their own militias, believe the last elections were a sham, and hold little political power in the government.
If the US attacks Iran, it is probable that American forces - already taxed by attacks from Sunni factions - will also face reprisal attacks in Iraq from Shi'ite factions loyal to Iran. The result will be a dramatic escalation in US and civilian casualties, US forces will be required to bunker themselves further into their bases, and US forces will find themselves required to fight the very government they just finished helping into power. Iraq, already a seething cauldron, will sink further into chaos.
2. Iran's Armaments
Unlike Iraq, Iran has not spent the last fifteen years having its conventional forces worn down by grueling sanctions, repeated attacks, and two American-led wars. While Iran's conventional army is not what it was during the heyday of the Iran-Iraq war - their armaments have deteriorated and the veterans of that last war have retired - the nation enjoys substantial military strength nonetheless.
According to a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in December of 2004, Iran "has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."
"Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability," continued the CSIS report. "Iran has significant capabilities for asymmetric warfare, and poses the additional threat of proliferation. There is considerable evidence that it is developing both a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction. It has never properly declared its holdings of chemical weapons, and the status of its biological weapons programs is unknown."
A MILNET brief issued in February 2005 reports, "Due to its position astride the Persian Gulf, Iran has constantly been a threat to the Gulf. The so called 'Tanker' wars in the late 1980s put Iran squarely in the bullseye of all nations seeking to transport oil out of the region. Even the small navy that Iran puts to sea is capable enough to harass shipping, and several cases of small boat operations against oil well heads in the Gulf during that period made it clear small asymmetrical tactics of the Iranian Navy could be quite effective."
"More concerning," continued the MILNET brief, "is the priority placed on expanding and modernizing its Navy. The CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping cruise missiles: 'Iran has obtained new anti-ship missiles and missile patrol craft from China, midget submarines from North Korea, submarines from Russia, and modern mines.'"
It is Iran's missile armaments that pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Iran's coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. The Gulf itself only has one exit, the Strait of Hormuz, which is also dominated by the mountainous Iranian coastline. In essence, Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf. Missile batteries arrayed in those mountains could raise bloody havoc with any fleet deployed below.
Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them.
The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with some 7,000 souls aboard. Sailing with the Roosevelt is the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Force, which includes the USS Tarawa, the USS Austin, and the USS Pearl Harbor. The USS Austin is likewise deployed in the Gulf. The Sunburn missile, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection, would do terrible damage these ships if Iran chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders.
Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire.
3. The Syrian Connection
In February of 2005, Iran and Syria agreed upon a mutual protection pact to combat "challenges and threats" in the region. This was a specific reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, and a reaction to America's condemnation of Syria after the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which was widely seen as an assassination ordered from Damascus. An attack on Iran would trigger this mutual defense pact, and could conceivably bring Syria into direct conflict with American forces.
Like Iran, Syria's military is nothing to scoff at. Virtually every credible analysis has Syria standing as the strongest military force in the Middle East after Israel. Damascus has been intent for years upon establishing significant military strength to serve as a counterweight to Israel's overwhelming capabilities. As of 2002, Syria had some 215,000 soldiers under arms, 4,700 tanks, and a massive artillery capability. The Syrian Air Force is comprised of ten to eleven fighter/attack squadrons and sixteen fighter squadrons, totaling somewhere near 650 aircraft.
Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies. Compounding this is the well-based suspicion that Syria has perhaps the most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Persian Gulf.
4. China and the US Economy
While the ominous possibilities of heightened Iraqi chaos, missiles in the Gulf, and Syrian involvement loom large if the US attacks Iran, all pale in comparison to the involvement of China in any US/Iran engagement.
China's economy is exploding, hampered only by their great thirst for petroleum and natural gas to fuel their industry. In the last several months, China has inked deals with Iran for $70 billion dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas. China will purchase 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas from Iran over the next 30 years, will develop the massive Yadavaran oil field in Iran, and will receive 150,000 barrels of oil per day from that field. China is seeking the construction of a pipeline from Iran to the Caspian Sea, where it would link with another planned pipeline running from Kazakhstan to China.
Any US attack on Iran could be perceived by China as a direct threat to its economic health. Further, any fighting in the Persian Gulf would imperil the tankers running China's liquefied natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Should China decide to retaliate against the US to defend its oil and natural gas deal with Iran, the US would be faced with a significant threat. This threat exists not merely on a military level, though China could force a confrontation in the Pacific by way of Taiwan. More significantly, China holds a large portion of the American economy in the palm of its hand.
Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose."
"The hardest blow on Americans," concluded Roberts, "will fall when China does revalue its currency. When China's currency ceases to be undervalued, American shoppers in Wal-Mart, where 70 percent of the goods on the shelves are made in China, will think they are in Neiman Marcus. Price increases will cause a dramatic reduction in American real incomes. If this coincides with rising interest rates and a setback in the housing market, American consumers will experience the hardest times since the Great Depression."
In short, China has the American economy by the throat. Should they decide to squeeze, we will all feel it. China's strong hand in this even extends to the diplomatic realm; China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and could veto any actions against Iran proposed by the United States.
5. American Preparedness
American citizens have for decades taken it as a given that our military can overwhelm and overcome any foe on the battlefield. The rapid victory during the first Gulf War cemented this perception. The last three years of the Iraq occupation, however, have sapped this confidence. Worse, the occupation has done great damage to the strength of the American military, justifying the decrease in confidence. Thanks to repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting is at an all-time low. Soldiers with vital training and know-how are refusing to re-enlist. Across the board, the American military is stretched to the breaking point.
Two vaunted economists - one a Nobel Prize winner and the other a nationally renowned budget expert - have analyzed the data at hand and put a price tag on the Iraq occupation. According to Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, the final cost of the Iraq occupation will run between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, surpassing by orders of magnitude the estimates put forth by the Bush administration. If an engagement with Iran envelops our forces in Iraq, and comes to involve Syria, our economy will likely shatter under the strain of fighting so many countries simultaneously. Add to this the economic threat posed by China, and the economic threat implicit in any substantial disruption of the distribution of Mideast petroleum to the globe.
If Iran and Syria - with their significant armaments, missile technologies and suspected chemical weapons capabilities - decide to engage with the relatively undersized US force in Iraq, our troops there will be fish in a barrel. Iran's position over the Gulf would make resupply by ship and air support from carriers a dangerous affair. In the worst-case scenario, the newly-minted American order of battle requiring the use of nuclear weapons to rescue a surrounded and imperiled force could come into play, hurling the entire planet into military and diplomatic bedlam.
Conclusion: Is Any of This Possible?
The question must be put as directly as possible: what manner of maniac would undertake a path so fraught with peril and potential economic catastrophe? It is difficult to imagine a justification for any action that could envelop the United States in a military and economic conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria and China simultaneously.
Iran is suspected by many nations of working towards the development of nuclear weapons, but even this justification has been tossed into a cocked hat. Recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin bluntly stated that Iran is not developing its nuclear capability for any reasons beyond peaceful energy creation, and pledged to continue assisting Iran in this endeavor. Therefore, any attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities will bring Russia into the mess. Iran also stands accused of aiding terrorism across the globe. The dangers implicit in any attack upon that nation, however, seem to significantly offset whatever gains could be made in the so-called "War on Terror."
Unfortunately, all the dangers in the world are no match for the self-assurance of a bubble-encased zealot. What manner of maniac would undertake such a dangerous course? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
George W. Bush and his administration have consistently undertaken incredibly dangerous courses of action in order to garner political power on the home front. Recall the multiple terror threats lobbed out by the administration whenever damaging political news appeared in the media. More significantly, recall Iraq. Karl Rove, Bush's most senior advisor, notoriously told Republicans on the ballot during the 2002 midterms to "run on the war." The invasion of Iraq provided marvelous political cover for the GOP not only during those midterms, but during the 2004 Presidential election.
What kind of political cover would be gained from an attack on Iran, and from the diversion of attention to that attack? The answer lies in one now-familiar name: Jack Abramoff. The Abramoff scandal threatens to subsume all the hard-fought GOP gains in Congress, and the 2006 midterms are less than a year away.
Is any of this a probability? Logic says no, but logic seldom plays any part in modern American politics. All arguments that the Bush administration would be insane to attack Iran and risk a global conflagration for the sake of political cover run into one unavoidable truth.
They did it once already in Iraq.
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Monday 09 January 2006
The wires have been humming since before the New Year with reports that the Bush administration is planning an attack on Iran. "The Bush administration is preparing its NATO allies for a possible military strike against suspected nuclear sites in Iran in the New Year, according to German media reports, reinforcing similar earlier suggestions in the Turkish media," reported UPI on December 30th.
"The Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel this week," continued UPI, "quoted 'NATO intelligence sources' who claimed that the NATO allies had been informed that the United States is currently investigating all possibilities of bringing the mullah-led regime into line, including military options. This 'all options are open' line has been President George W Bush's publicly stated policy throughout the past 18 months."
An examination of the ramifications of such an attack is desperately in order.
1. Blowback in Iraq
The recent elections in Iraq were dominated by an amalgam of religiously fundamentalist Shi'ite organizations, principally the Dawa Party and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Both Dawa and SCIRI have umbilical connections to the fundamentalist Shi'ite leadership in Iran that go back decades. In essence, Iran now owns a significant portion of the Iraqi government.
Should the United States undertake military action against Iran, the ramifications in Iraq would be immediate and extreme.
In the first eight days of January, eighteen US troops have been killed in Iraq, compounded by another twelve deaths from a Black Hawk helicopter crash on Saturday. Much of the violence aimed at American forces is coming from disgruntled Sunni factions that have their own militias, believe the last elections were a sham, and hold little political power in the government.
If the US attacks Iran, it is probable that American forces - already taxed by attacks from Sunni factions - will also face reprisal attacks in Iraq from Shi'ite factions loyal to Iran. The result will be a dramatic escalation in US and civilian casualties, US forces will be required to bunker themselves further into their bases, and US forces will find themselves required to fight the very government they just finished helping into power. Iraq, already a seething cauldron, will sink further into chaos.
2. Iran's Armaments
Unlike Iraq, Iran has not spent the last fifteen years having its conventional forces worn down by grueling sanctions, repeated attacks, and two American-led wars. While Iran's conventional army is not what it was during the heyday of the Iran-Iraq war - their armaments have deteriorated and the veterans of that last war have retired - the nation enjoys substantial military strength nonetheless.
According to a report issued by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in December of 2004, Iran "has some 540,000 men under arms and over 350,000 reserves. They include 120,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards trained for land and naval asymmetrical warfare. Iran's military also includes holdings of 1,613 main battle tanks, 21,600 other armored fighting vehicles, 3,200 artillery weapons, 306 combat aircraft, 60 attack helicopters, 3 submarines, 59 surface combatants, and 10 amphibious ships."
"Iran is now the only regional military power that poses a significant conventional military threat to Gulf stability," continued the CSIS report. "Iran has significant capabilities for asymmetric warfare, and poses the additional threat of proliferation. There is considerable evidence that it is developing both a long-range missile force and a range of weapons of mass destruction. It has never properly declared its holdings of chemical weapons, and the status of its biological weapons programs is unknown."
A MILNET brief issued in February 2005 reports, "Due to its position astride the Persian Gulf, Iran has constantly been a threat to the Gulf. The so called 'Tanker' wars in the late 1980s put Iran squarely in the bullseye of all nations seeking to transport oil out of the region. Even the small navy that Iran puts to sea is capable enough to harass shipping, and several cases of small boat operations against oil well heads in the Gulf during that period made it clear small asymmetrical tactics of the Iranian Navy could be quite effective."
"More concerning," continued the MILNET brief, "is the priority placed on expanding and modernizing its Navy. The CSIS report cites numerous areas where Iran has funded modernization including the most troublesome aspect, anti-shipping cruise missiles: 'Iran has obtained new anti-ship missiles and missile patrol craft from China, midget submarines from North Korea, submarines from Russia, and modern mines.'"
It is Iran's missile armaments that pose the greatest concern for American forces in the Gulf, especially for the US Navy. Iran's coast facing the Persian Gulf is a looming wall of mountains that look down upon any naval forces arrayed in those waters. The Gulf itself only has one exit, the Strait of Hormuz, which is also dominated by the mountainous Iranian coastline. In essence, Iran holds the high ground in the Gulf. Missile batteries arrayed in those mountains could raise bloody havoc with any fleet deployed below.
Of all the missiles in Iran's armament, the most dangerous is the Russian-made SS-N-22 Sunburn. These missiles are, simply, the fastest anti-ship weapons on the planet. The Sunburn can reach Mach 3 at high altitude. Its maximum low-altitude speed is Mach 2.2, some three times faster than the American-made Harpoon. The Sunburn takes two short minutes to cover its full range. The missile's manufacturers state that one or two missiles could cripple a destroyer, and five missiles could sink a 20,000 ton ship. The Sunburn is also superior to the Exocet missile. Recall that it was two Exocets that ripped the USS Stark to shreds in 1987, killing 37 sailors. The Stark could not see them to stop them.
The US aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt is currently deployed in the Persian Gulf, with some 7,000 souls aboard. Sailing with the Roosevelt is the Tarawa Expeditionary Strike Force, which includes the USS Tarawa, the USS Austin, and the USS Pearl Harbor. The USS Austin is likewise deployed in the Gulf. The Sunburn missile, with its incredible speed and ability to avoid radar detection, would do terrible damage these ships if Iran chooses to retaliate in the Gulf after an American attack within its borders.
Beyond the naval threat is the possibility of Iran throwing its military muscle into the ongoing struggle in Iraq. Currently, the US is facing an asymmetrical attack from groups wielding small arms, shoulder-fired grenades and roadside bombs. The vaunted American military has suffered 2,210 deaths and tens of thousands of wounded from this form of warfare. The occupation of Iraq has become a guerrilla war, a siege that has lasted more than a thousand days. If Iran decides to throw any or all of its 23,000 armored fighting vehicles, along with any or all of its nearly million-strong army, into the Iraq fray, the situation in the Middle East could become unspeakably dire.
3. The Syrian Connection
In February of 2005, Iran and Syria agreed upon a mutual protection pact to combat "challenges and threats" in the region. This was a specific reaction to the American invasion of Iraq, and a reaction to America's condemnation of Syria after the death of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which was widely seen as an assassination ordered from Damascus. An attack on Iran would trigger this mutual defense pact, and could conceivably bring Syria into direct conflict with American forces.
Like Iran, Syria's military is nothing to scoff at. Virtually every credible analysis has Syria standing as the strongest military force in the Middle East after Israel. Damascus has been intent for years upon establishing significant military strength to serve as a counterweight to Israel's overwhelming capabilities. As of 2002, Syria had some 215,000 soldiers under arms, 4,700 tanks, and a massive artillery capability. The Syrian Air Force is comprised of ten to eleven fighter/attack squadrons and sixteen fighter squadrons, totaling somewhere near 650 aircraft.
Syria also possesses one of the largest arsenals of ballistic missiles in the region, comprised primarily of SCUD-derived systems. Iran, North Korea and China have been willing providers of state-of-the-art technologies. Compounding this is the well-based suspicion that Syria has perhaps the most advanced chemical weapons capability in the Persian Gulf.
4. China and the US Economy
While the ominous possibilities of heightened Iraqi chaos, missiles in the Gulf, and Syrian involvement loom large if the US attacks Iran, all pale in comparison to the involvement of China in any US/Iran engagement.
China's economy is exploding, hampered only by their great thirst for petroleum and natural gas to fuel their industry. In the last several months, China has inked deals with Iran for $70 billion dollars worth of Iranian oil and natural gas. China will purchase 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas from Iran over the next 30 years, will develop the massive Yadavaran oil field in Iran, and will receive 150,000 barrels of oil per day from that field. China is seeking the construction of a pipeline from Iran to the Caspian Sea, where it would link with another planned pipeline running from Kazakhstan to China.
Any US attack on Iran could be perceived by China as a direct threat to its economic health. Further, any fighting in the Persian Gulf would imperil the tankers running China's liquefied natural gas through the Strait of Hormuz. Should China decide to retaliate against the US to defend its oil and natural gas deal with Iran, the US would be faced with a significant threat. This threat exists not merely on a military level, though China could force a confrontation in the Pacific by way of Taiwan. More significantly, China holds a large portion of the American economy in the palm of its hand.
Paul Craig Roberts, writing for The American Conservative, said in July of 2005 that "As a result of many years of persistent trade surpluses with the United States, the Japanese government holds dollar reserves of approximately $1 trillion. China's accumulation of dollars is approximately $600 billion. South Korea holds about $200 billion. These sums give these countries enormous leverage over the United States. By dumping some portion of their reserves, these countries could put the dollar under intense pressure and send U.S. interest rates skyrocketing. Washington would really have to anger Japan and Korea to provoke such action, but in a showdown with China - over Taiwan, for example - China holds the cards. China and Japan, and the world at large, have more dollar reserves than they require. They would have no problem teaching a hegemonic superpower a lesson if the need arose."
"The hardest blow on Americans," concluded Roberts, "will fall when China does revalue its currency. When China's currency ceases to be undervalued, American shoppers in Wal-Mart, where 70 percent of the goods on the shelves are made in China, will think they are in Neiman Marcus. Price increases will cause a dramatic reduction in American real incomes. If this coincides with rising interest rates and a setback in the housing market, American consumers will experience the hardest times since the Great Depression."
In short, China has the American economy by the throat. Should they decide to squeeze, we will all feel it. China's strong hand in this even extends to the diplomatic realm; China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, and could veto any actions against Iran proposed by the United States.
5. American Preparedness
American citizens have for decades taken it as a given that our military can overwhelm and overcome any foe on the battlefield. The rapid victory during the first Gulf War cemented this perception. The last three years of the Iraq occupation, however, have sapped this confidence. Worse, the occupation has done great damage to the strength of the American military, justifying the decrease in confidence. Thanks to repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting is at an all-time low. Soldiers with vital training and know-how are refusing to re-enlist. Across the board, the American military is stretched to the breaking point.
Two vaunted economists - one a Nobel Prize winner and the other a nationally renowned budget expert - have analyzed the data at hand and put a price tag on the Iraq occupation. According to Linda Bilmes of Harvard and Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, the final cost of the Iraq occupation will run between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, surpassing by orders of magnitude the estimates put forth by the Bush administration. If an engagement with Iran envelops our forces in Iraq, and comes to involve Syria, our economy will likely shatter under the strain of fighting so many countries simultaneously. Add to this the economic threat posed by China, and the economic threat implicit in any substantial disruption of the distribution of Mideast petroleum to the globe.
If Iran and Syria - with their significant armaments, missile technologies and suspected chemical weapons capabilities - decide to engage with the relatively undersized US force in Iraq, our troops there will be fish in a barrel. Iran's position over the Gulf would make resupply by ship and air support from carriers a dangerous affair. In the worst-case scenario, the newly-minted American order of battle requiring the use of nuclear weapons to rescue a surrounded and imperiled force could come into play, hurling the entire planet into military and diplomatic bedlam.
Conclusion: Is Any of This Possible?
The question must be put as directly as possible: what manner of maniac would undertake a path so fraught with peril and potential economic catastrophe? It is difficult to imagine a justification for any action that could envelop the United States in a military and economic conflict with Iraq, Iran, Syria and China simultaneously.
Iran is suspected by many nations of working towards the development of nuclear weapons, but even this justification has been tossed into a cocked hat. Recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin bluntly stated that Iran is not developing its nuclear capability for any reasons beyond peaceful energy creation, and pledged to continue assisting Iran in this endeavor. Therefore, any attack upon Iran's nuclear facilities will bring Russia into the mess. Iran also stands accused of aiding terrorism across the globe. The dangers implicit in any attack upon that nation, however, seem to significantly offset whatever gains could be made in the so-called "War on Terror."
Unfortunately, all the dangers in the world are no match for the self-assurance of a bubble-encased zealot. What manner of maniac would undertake such a dangerous course? Look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
George W. Bush and his administration have consistently undertaken incredibly dangerous courses of action in order to garner political power on the home front. Recall the multiple terror threats lobbed out by the administration whenever damaging political news appeared in the media. More significantly, recall Iraq. Karl Rove, Bush's most senior advisor, notoriously told Republicans on the ballot during the 2002 midterms to "run on the war." The invasion of Iraq provided marvelous political cover for the GOP not only during those midterms, but during the 2004 Presidential election.
What kind of political cover would be gained from an attack on Iran, and from the diversion of attention to that attack? The answer lies in one now-familiar name: Jack Abramoff. The Abramoff scandal threatens to subsume all the hard-fought GOP gains in Congress, and the 2006 midterms are less than a year away.
Is any of this a probability? Logic says no, but logic seldom plays any part in modern American politics. All arguments that the Bush administration would be insane to attack Iran and risk a global conflagration for the sake of political cover run into one unavoidable truth.
They did it once already in Iraq.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Jordan backs U.S. on war crimes court
Jordan backs U.S. on war crimes court
Americans get immunity, Jordan keeps financial aid
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Jordan on Sunday approved an agreement that gives American citizens in Jordan immunity against prosecution for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
The lower house of parliament approved the agreement, which had already been passed by the upper house last year.
Approval by both houses ratifies the agreement. King Abdullah II, who has already approved the measure, is expected to issue a royal decree making it law.
The bilateral agreement says that any U.S. national -- or non-national working for the U.S. government -- accused by the court will be surrendered by Jordan to U.S. custody, rather than to the international court in The Hague, Netherlands.
Opponents of the agreement said it violated Jordan's 2002 signing of the Rome statute that helped bring the court into being.
The agreement's ratification ensures continued U.S. economic and military assistance, which amounted to $250 million (euro207 million) last year.
"Jordan has been a leading country in the ICC, the only Arab country to sign up, and today it has stepped down from its pedestal under U.S. economic pressure," said Christoph Wilcke of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, which has actively campaigned for Jordan's parliament to reject the agreement.
"We are very disappointed that the lower house has reversed its previous courageous decision," Wilcke told The Associated Press in a telephone interview in Amman.
Parliament's lower house initially voted down the agreement by an overwhelming majority last summer.
Jordanian lawmaker Ali Abu-Sukar told the AP that "the agreement contradicts the Rome accord ... and in our days the Americans are the people who now commit war crimes."
Abu-Sukar is a member of Jordan's largest opposition group, the Islamic Action Front, which is the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement.
"It is humiliating and will twist arms because the United States had threatened to cut economic aid to countries which reject this agreement," he said.
But the majority of Jordanian lawmakers who passed the agreement said it was in the country's political and economic interest, according to the official Petra news agency.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Americans get immunity, Jordan keeps financial aid
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) -- Jordan on Sunday approved an agreement that gives American citizens in Jordan immunity against prosecution for war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
The lower house of parliament approved the agreement, which had already been passed by the upper house last year.
Approval by both houses ratifies the agreement. King Abdullah II, who has already approved the measure, is expected to issue a royal decree making it law.
The bilateral agreement says that any U.S. national -- or non-national working for the U.S. government -- accused by the court will be surrendered by Jordan to U.S. custody, rather than to the international court in The Hague, Netherlands.
Opponents of the agreement said it violated Jordan's 2002 signing of the Rome statute that helped bring the court into being.
The agreement's ratification ensures continued U.S. economic and military assistance, which amounted to $250 million (euro207 million) last year.
"Jordan has been a leading country in the ICC, the only Arab country to sign up, and today it has stepped down from its pedestal under U.S. economic pressure," said Christoph Wilcke of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, which has actively campaigned for Jordan's parliament to reject the agreement.
"We are very disappointed that the lower house has reversed its previous courageous decision," Wilcke told The Associated Press in a telephone interview in Amman.
Parliament's lower house initially voted down the agreement by an overwhelming majority last summer.
Jordanian lawmaker Ali Abu-Sukar told the AP that "the agreement contradicts the Rome accord ... and in our days the Americans are the people who now commit war crimes."
Abu-Sukar is a member of Jordan's largest opposition group, the Islamic Action Front, which is the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood Movement.
"It is humiliating and will twist arms because the United States had threatened to cut economic aid to countries which reject this agreement," he said.
But the majority of Jordanian lawmakers who passed the agreement said it was in the country's political and economic interest, according to the official Petra news agency.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The 'fin de regime'?
The 'fin de regime'?
An out-of-touch George Bush now presides over a lost foreign war and a morass of influence peddling
By Eric Margolis
01/08/06 "Toronto Sun" -- -- WASHINGTON -- China's Taoists philosophers warned that you become what you hate. We see this paradox in Washington, where the current administration increasingly reminds one of the old Soviet Union.
The U.S.S.R. went bankrupt after spending 40% of national income on the military. President George Bush's administration will spend a staggering $419.3 billion US on the military this fiscal year. An additional $130 billion US has been budgeted in 2006 for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's $10.8 billion a month -- 40% above previous estimates -- and somewhat more than the monthly cost of the Vietnam War at its height. Add to this huge sum an estimated $1.5 billion in monthly secret expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan by CIA and Pentagon intelligence.
Astoundingly, U.S. military spending in 2006 will equal the rest of the world's total combined military expenditures. I just saw an ad for the new, $115-million F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, trumpeting how its radar can "intercept communications of insurgents." Using a $115-million aircraft to listen to cellphone calls by a bunch of jihadis in Waziristan staggers the imagination.
Meanwhile, Moscow on the Potomac is in an uproar over government spying on citizens, torture, and what appears to be the mother of all influence-peddling scandals. Revelations that the super-secret National Security Agency and FBI have been monitoring domestic as well as international telecommunications have roused even the deadheads in Congress and the lapdog media. FBI agents are reportely spying on such nefarious "terrorists" as vegetarians and animal rights activists.
Bush (shades of Leonid Brezhnev) claims the right to override any laws because the U.S. is at war. "Terrorists" ("enemies of the state" in Soviet talk) threaten the U.S., so anything goes. What next -- cancelling next fall's elections because of the threat of the phantom al-Qaida?
Meanwhile, a scandal bursts right out of the last days of the corrupt Soviet Union. A sinister Republican apparatchik named Jack Abramoff has admitted dishing out $4.4 million in bribes to senators, congressmen and political aides. Bigwigs like Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Republican grand poobah Tom DeLay, Bible-thumping crusader Ralph Reed, Hillary Clinton and a bevy of venal legislators have been implicated in this culture of corruption.
Abramoff got over $30 million from various Indian tribes promoting their casino businesses. He and cronies scalped their Indian clients, pocketing $11 million in kickbacks. Where, one wonders with awe, did those persecuted native Americans find so much cash?
Republicans (and also some Democrats) are scared silly by the scandal. Many legislators may be headed for the big house.
All parties that stay in power too long become deeply corrupt. Wise voters need to kick out incumbents regularly. Longevity in office ensures bad government. The Republicans, buoyed by faked-up war fever, became deeply corrupted more quickly than usual.
The Achilles heel
Money is the Achilles heel of democracy. In America, winning and keeping office demands spending huge sums on TV advertising. The Washington lobbyists and bagmen who produce millions to fund politicians have become more powerful than elected legislators. This is how parasites like Abramoff flourish.
A smell of "fin du regime" hangs over Washington, just as it did over the last days of decaying Soviet oligarchy. An out-of-touch leader presides over a lost foreign war and a morass of influence peddling and bribery, as the secret police struggle to keep a lid on growing dissent.
margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com
An out-of-touch George Bush now presides over a lost foreign war and a morass of influence peddling
By Eric Margolis
01/08/06 "Toronto Sun" -- -- WASHINGTON -- China's Taoists philosophers warned that you become what you hate. We see this paradox in Washington, where the current administration increasingly reminds one of the old Soviet Union.
The U.S.S.R. went bankrupt after spending 40% of national income on the military. President George Bush's administration will spend a staggering $419.3 billion US on the military this fiscal year. An additional $130 billion US has been budgeted in 2006 for the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
That's $10.8 billion a month -- 40% above previous estimates -- and somewhat more than the monthly cost of the Vietnam War at its height. Add to this huge sum an estimated $1.5 billion in monthly secret expenditures in Iraq and Afghanistan by CIA and Pentagon intelligence.
Astoundingly, U.S. military spending in 2006 will equal the rest of the world's total combined military expenditures. I just saw an ad for the new, $115-million F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, trumpeting how its radar can "intercept communications of insurgents." Using a $115-million aircraft to listen to cellphone calls by a bunch of jihadis in Waziristan staggers the imagination.
Meanwhile, Moscow on the Potomac is in an uproar over government spying on citizens, torture, and what appears to be the mother of all influence-peddling scandals. Revelations that the super-secret National Security Agency and FBI have been monitoring domestic as well as international telecommunications have roused even the deadheads in Congress and the lapdog media. FBI agents are reportely spying on such nefarious "terrorists" as vegetarians and animal rights activists.
Bush (shades of Leonid Brezhnev) claims the right to override any laws because the U.S. is at war. "Terrorists" ("enemies of the state" in Soviet talk) threaten the U.S., so anything goes. What next -- cancelling next fall's elections because of the threat of the phantom al-Qaida?
Meanwhile, a scandal bursts right out of the last days of the corrupt Soviet Union. A sinister Republican apparatchik named Jack Abramoff has admitted dishing out $4.4 million in bribes to senators, congressmen and political aides. Bigwigs like Bush, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Republican grand poobah Tom DeLay, Bible-thumping crusader Ralph Reed, Hillary Clinton and a bevy of venal legislators have been implicated in this culture of corruption.
Abramoff got over $30 million from various Indian tribes promoting their casino businesses. He and cronies scalped their Indian clients, pocketing $11 million in kickbacks. Where, one wonders with awe, did those persecuted native Americans find so much cash?
Republicans (and also some Democrats) are scared silly by the scandal. Many legislators may be headed for the big house.
All parties that stay in power too long become deeply corrupt. Wise voters need to kick out incumbents regularly. Longevity in office ensures bad government. The Republicans, buoyed by faked-up war fever, became deeply corrupted more quickly than usual.
The Achilles heel
Money is the Achilles heel of democracy. In America, winning and keeping office demands spending huge sums on TV advertising. The Washington lobbyists and bagmen who produce millions to fund politicians have become more powerful than elected legislators. This is how parasites like Abramoff flourish.
A smell of "fin du regime" hangs over Washington, just as it did over the last days of decaying Soviet oligarchy. An out-of-touch leader presides over a lost foreign war and a morass of influence peddling and bribery, as the secret police struggle to keep a lid on growing dissent.
margolis@foreigncorrespondent.com
The Whitewashing of Ariel Sharon
Published on Saturday, January 7, 2006 by the Los Angeles Times
The Whitewashing of Ariel Sharon
The 'man of courage and peace' story ignores his bloody and ruthless past
by Saree Makdis
As Ariel Sharon's career comes to an end, the whitewashing is already underway. Literally overnight he was being hailed as "a man of courage and peace" who had generated "hopes for a far-reaching accord" with an electoral campaign promising "to end conflict with the Palestinians."
But even if end-of-career assessments often stretch the truth, and even if far too many people fall for the old saw about the gruff old warrior miraculously turning into a man of peace, the reality is that miracles don't happen, and only rarely have words and realities been separated by such a yawning abyss.
From the beginning to the end of his career, Sharon was a man of ruthless and often gratuitous violence. The waypoints of his career are all drenched in blood, from the massacre he directed at the village of Qibya in 1953, in which his men destroyed whole houses with their occupants — men, women and children — still inside, to the ruinous invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in which his army laid siege to Beirut, cut off water, electricity and food supplies and subjected the city's hapless residents to weeks of indiscriminate bombardment by land, sea and air.
As a purely gratuitous bonus, Sharon and his army later facilitated the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and in all about 20,000 people — almost all innocent civilians — were killed during his Lebanon adventure.
Sharon's approach to peacemaking in recent years wasn't very different from his approach to war. Extrajudicial assassinations, mass home demolitions, the construction of hideous barriers and walls, population transfers and illegal annexations — these were his stock in trade as "a man of courage and peace."
Some may take comfort in the myth that Sharon was transformed into a peacemaker, but in fact he never deviated from his own 1998 call to "run and grab as many hilltops" in the occupied territories as possible. His plan for peace with the Palestinians involved grabbing large portions of the West Bank, ultimately annexing them to Israel, and turning over the shattered, encircled, isolated, disconnected and barren fragments of territory left behind to what only a fool would call a Palestinian state.
Sharon's "painful sacrifices" for peace may have involved Israel keeping less, rather than more, of the territory that it captured violently and has clung to illegally for four decades, but few seem to have noticed that it's not really a sacrifice to return something that wasn't yours to begin with.
His much-ballyhooed withdrawal from Gaza left 1.4 million Palestinians in what is essentially the world's largest prison, cut off from the rest of the world and as subject to Israeli power as before. It also terminated the possibility of a two-state solution to the conflict by condemning Palestinians to whiling away their lives in a series of disconnected Bantustans, ghettos, reservations and strategic hamlets, entirely at the mercy of Israel.
That's not peace. As Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull would have recognized at a glance, it's an attempt to pacify an entire people by bludgeoning them into a subhuman irrelevance. Nothing short of actual genocide — for which Sharon's formula was merely a kind of substitute — would persuade the Palestinian people to quietly accept such an arrangement, or negate themselves in some other way. And no matter which Israeli politician now assumes Sharon's bloody mantle, such an approach to peace will always fail.
Saree Makdis is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA.
The Whitewashing of Ariel Sharon
The 'man of courage and peace' story ignores his bloody and ruthless past
by Saree Makdis
As Ariel Sharon's career comes to an end, the whitewashing is already underway. Literally overnight he was being hailed as "a man of courage and peace" who had generated "hopes for a far-reaching accord" with an electoral campaign promising "to end conflict with the Palestinians."
But even if end-of-career assessments often stretch the truth, and even if far too many people fall for the old saw about the gruff old warrior miraculously turning into a man of peace, the reality is that miracles don't happen, and only rarely have words and realities been separated by such a yawning abyss.
From the beginning to the end of his career, Sharon was a man of ruthless and often gratuitous violence. The waypoints of his career are all drenched in blood, from the massacre he directed at the village of Qibya in 1953, in which his men destroyed whole houses with their occupants — men, women and children — still inside, to the ruinous invasion of Lebanon in 1982, in which his army laid siege to Beirut, cut off water, electricity and food supplies and subjected the city's hapless residents to weeks of indiscriminate bombardment by land, sea and air.
As a purely gratuitous bonus, Sharon and his army later facilitated the massacre of hundreds of Palestinians at the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila, and in all about 20,000 people — almost all innocent civilians — were killed during his Lebanon adventure.
Sharon's approach to peacemaking in recent years wasn't very different from his approach to war. Extrajudicial assassinations, mass home demolitions, the construction of hideous barriers and walls, population transfers and illegal annexations — these were his stock in trade as "a man of courage and peace."
Some may take comfort in the myth that Sharon was transformed into a peacemaker, but in fact he never deviated from his own 1998 call to "run and grab as many hilltops" in the occupied territories as possible. His plan for peace with the Palestinians involved grabbing large portions of the West Bank, ultimately annexing them to Israel, and turning over the shattered, encircled, isolated, disconnected and barren fragments of territory left behind to what only a fool would call a Palestinian state.
Sharon's "painful sacrifices" for peace may have involved Israel keeping less, rather than more, of the territory that it captured violently and has clung to illegally for four decades, but few seem to have noticed that it's not really a sacrifice to return something that wasn't yours to begin with.
His much-ballyhooed withdrawal from Gaza left 1.4 million Palestinians in what is essentially the world's largest prison, cut off from the rest of the world and as subject to Israeli power as before. It also terminated the possibility of a two-state solution to the conflict by condemning Palestinians to whiling away their lives in a series of disconnected Bantustans, ghettos, reservations and strategic hamlets, entirely at the mercy of Israel.
That's not peace. As Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull would have recognized at a glance, it's an attempt to pacify an entire people by bludgeoning them into a subhuman irrelevance. Nothing short of actual genocide — for which Sharon's formula was merely a kind of substitute — would persuade the Palestinian people to quietly accept such an arrangement, or negate themselves in some other way. And no matter which Israeli politician now assumes Sharon's bloody mantle, such an approach to peace will always fail.
Saree Makdis is a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA.
TIME.com: The CIA Says, "Shhh..." -
TIME.com: The CIA Says, "Shhh..."
The CIA Says, "Shhh..."
By DOUGLAS WALLER, TIMOTHY J. BURGER, BRIAN BENNETT
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Jan. 08, 2006
Angered by recent leaks of information about sensitive intelligence operations, CIA Director Porter Goss is redoubling efforts to get his spooks to keep their mouths shut. At staff meetings last week, CIA managers at the agency's Langley, Va., headquarters told employees that the leaking had got out of control and needed to stop. "They're exercised about it and are trying to do what they can to clamp down," a former senior CIA official tells TIME.
The Bush Administration seems apoplectic over the revelations in November about the CIA's secret network of terrorist-interrogation prisons and the disclosure in the New York Times last month that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on the phone calls of some Americans without a warrant. The latter report was also in State of War, a book by Times reporter James Risen, who drew scathing condemnation from CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck last week. She charged that Risen "demonstrates an unfathomable and sad disregard for U.S. national security and those who take life-threatening risks to ensure it."
Goss is concerned about the potential effects of books written by those with inside knowledge of agency operations. Citing the book Jawbreaker, by a former CIA field commander who hunted for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the movie Syriana, based on a retired CIA officer's book, an intelligence official says part of the worry is a possible "chilling effect" on both U.S. and foreign intelligence officials—as well as on secret assets. "You don't want people who sit down with an intel officer in confidence to be concerned it will end up in the guy's memoirs in a year or two," the official says. Goss has banned current CIA officers from publishing books and ordered stricter reviews of retirees' books.
Meanwhile, there are efforts within the government to identify leakers. The Justice Department is investigating who gave away the NSA secrets. While such probes rarely succeed, the department's new willingness to subpoen a reporters and their records could change that. And the CIA has a group of mostly retired officers on contract to read news stories that contain classified material and try to uncover their sources. This may be the toughest spook work. Over the years, the unit, nicknamed "the leak chasers" by some agency hands, has been able to finger only a few talkers. But it has an enthusiastic—and active—backer in Goss. He told TIME in June that he had made dozens of leak-investigation referrals. "Virtually every day I can pick up a paper and find somebody who is an anonymous source," he said. "That is willful. And it seems to me there ought to be a penalty for that."
From the Jan. 16, 2006 issue of TIME magazine
The CIA Says, "Shhh..."
By DOUGLAS WALLER, TIMOTHY J. BURGER, BRIAN BENNETT
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Sunday, Jan. 08, 2006
Angered by recent leaks of information about sensitive intelligence operations, CIA Director Porter Goss is redoubling efforts to get his spooks to keep their mouths shut. At staff meetings last week, CIA managers at the agency's Langley, Va., headquarters told employees that the leaking had got out of control and needed to stop. "They're exercised about it and are trying to do what they can to clamp down," a former senior CIA official tells TIME.
The Bush Administration seems apoplectic over the revelations in November about the CIA's secret network of terrorist-interrogation prisons and the disclosure in the New York Times last month that the President authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on the phone calls of some Americans without a warrant. The latter report was also in State of War, a book by Times reporter James Risen, who drew scathing condemnation from CIA spokeswoman Jennifer Millerwise Dyck last week. She charged that Risen "demonstrates an unfathomable and sad disregard for U.S. national security and those who take life-threatening risks to ensure it."
Goss is concerned about the potential effects of books written by those with inside knowledge of agency operations. Citing the book Jawbreaker, by a former CIA field commander who hunted for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and the movie Syriana, based on a retired CIA officer's book, an intelligence official says part of the worry is a possible "chilling effect" on both U.S. and foreign intelligence officials—as well as on secret assets. "You don't want people who sit down with an intel officer in confidence to be concerned it will end up in the guy's memoirs in a year or two," the official says. Goss has banned current CIA officers from publishing books and ordered stricter reviews of retirees' books.
Meanwhile, there are efforts within the government to identify leakers. The Justice Department is investigating who gave away the NSA secrets. While such probes rarely succeed, the department's new willingness to subpoen a reporters and their records could change that. And the CIA has a group of mostly retired officers on contract to read news stories that contain classified material and try to uncover their sources. This may be the toughest spook work. Over the years, the unit, nicknamed "the leak chasers" by some agency hands, has been able to finger only a few talkers. But it has an enthusiastic—and active—backer in Goss. He told TIME in June that he had made dozens of leak-investigation referrals. "Virtually every day I can pick up a paper and find somebody who is an anonymous source," he said. "That is willful. And it seems to me there ought to be a penalty for that."
From the Jan. 16, 2006 issue of TIME magazine
SECRET U.S. PLANS FOR IRAQ'S OIL
By Greg Palast
BBC News World Edition
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Reporting for BBC Newsnight (London)
Why was Paul Wolfowitz pushed out of the Pentagon onto the World Bank?
The answer lies in a 323-page document, secret until now, indicating
that the allies of Big Oil in the Bush Administration have defeated
neo-conservatives and their chief Wolfowitz. BBC Television Newsnight
tells the true story of the fall of the neo-cons. An investigation
conducted by BBC with Harper's magazine will also reveal that the US
State Department made detailed plans for war in Iraq -- and for Iraq's
oil -- within weeks of Bush's first inauguration in 2001.
********************
Watch the Broadcast of this report
********************
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before
the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big
Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British
and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the
US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy
war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a
combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight
from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of
American oil industry consultants.
View Segments of Iraq oil plans
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's
first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on
the US.
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took
part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle
East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential
successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
Secret sell-off plan
The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by yet another secret
plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the
sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by
neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec
cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London
headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad,
according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil
analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight,
at the request of the State Department.
Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims
that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed
Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks
on US and British occupying forces.
"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, your
losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to
take you over and make your life miserable," said Mr Aljibury from his
home near San Francisco.
"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built
on the premise that privatization is coming."
Privatization blocked by industry
Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of
Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the
invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation
chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no
privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."
The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up
a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.
Ari Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight
that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He
advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said
America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer"
decision.
Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that
statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be
thought about by someone with no brain."
New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and
Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for
creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry.
It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the
guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US
Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker
Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.
View segments of Iraq oil plans
Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state
control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of
Russia's energy privatization. In the wake of the collapse of the
Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.
Jaffe said "There is no question that an American oil company ...
would not be enthusiastic about a plan that would privatize all the
assets with Iraq companies and they (US companies) might be left out
of the transaction."
In addition, Ms. Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan
that would undermine Opec, "They [oil companies] have to worry about
the price of oil."
"I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you
put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for
me or my company."
The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight, "Many
neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs
about markets, about democracy, about this that and the other.
International oil companies without exception are very pragmatic
commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."
A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide
all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".
Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight
and Harper's Magazine - will broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.
You can watch the program online from Democracy Now!
Read the story in greater detail in the April issue of Harper's magazine.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy." View his writings at www.GregPalast.com.
Leni von Eckardt contributed investigative research for this project.
For interviews, email us at contact(at)GregPalast.com
Rense.com
BBC News World Edition
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Reporting for BBC Newsnight (London)
Why was Paul Wolfowitz pushed out of the Pentagon onto the World Bank?
The answer lies in a 323-page document, secret until now, indicating
that the allies of Big Oil in the Bush Administration have defeated
neo-conservatives and their chief Wolfowitz. BBC Television Newsnight
tells the true story of the fall of the neo-cons. An investigation
conducted by BBC with Harper's magazine will also reveal that the US
State Department made detailed plans for war in Iraq -- and for Iraq's
oil -- within weeks of Bush's first inauguration in 2001.
********************
Watch the Broadcast of this report
********************
The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before
the 9/11 attacks sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big
Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed.
Two years ago today - when President George Bush announced US, British
and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad - protestors claimed the
US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.
In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy
war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a
combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists."
"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight
from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of
American oil industry consultants.
View Segments of Iraq oil plans
Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's
first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on
the US.
An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took
part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle
East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.
Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential
successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.
Secret sell-off plan
The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by yet another secret
plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the
sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan, crafted by
neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec
cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.
The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London
headed by Fadhil Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad,
according to Robert Ebel. Mr. Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil
analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, flew to the London meeting, he told Newsnight,
at the request of the State Department.
Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims
that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed
Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks
on US and British occupying forces.
"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, your
losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to
take you over and make your life miserable," said Mr Aljibury from his
home near San Francisco.
"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built
on the premise that privatization is coming."
Privatization blocked by industry
Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of
Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the
invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.
Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation
chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no
privatization of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."
The chosen successor to Mr Carroll, a Conoco Oil executive, ordered up
a new plan for a state oil company preferred by the industry.
Ari Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight
that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields. He
advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said
America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer"
decision.
Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that
statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be
thought about by someone with no brain."
New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and
Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for
creation of a state-owned oil company favored by the US oil industry.
It was completed in January 2004, Harper's discovered, under the
guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. Former US
Secretary of State Baker is now an attorney. His law firm, Baker
Botts, is representing ExxonMobil and the Saudi Arabian government.
View segments of Iraq oil plans
Questioned by Newsnight, Ms Jaffe said the oil industry prefers state
control of Iraq's oil over a sell-off because it fears a repeat of
Russia's energy privatization. In the wake of the collapse of the
Soviet Union, US oil companies were barred from bidding for the reserves.
Jaffe said "There is no question that an American oil company ...
would not be enthusiastic about a plan that would privatize all the
assets with Iraq companies and they (US companies) might be left out
of the transaction."
In addition, Ms. Jaffe says US oil companies are not warm to any plan
that would undermine Opec, "They [oil companies] have to worry about
the price of oil."
"I'm not sure that if I'm the chair of an American company, and you
put me on a lie detector test, I would say high oil prices are bad for
me or my company."
The former Shell oil boss agrees. In Houston, he told Newsnight, "Many
neo conservatives are people who have certain ideological beliefs
about markets, about democracy, about this that and the other.
International oil companies without exception are very pragmatic
commercial organizations. They don't have a theology."
A State Department spokesman told Newsnight they intended "to provide
all possibilities to the Oil Ministry of Iraq and advocate none".
Greg Palast's film - the result of a joint investigation by Newsnight
and Harper's Magazine - will broadcast on Thursday, 17 March, 2005.
You can watch the program online from Democracy Now!
Read the story in greater detail in the April issue of Harper's magazine.
Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best
Democracy Money Can Buy." View his writings at www.GregPalast.com.
Leni von Eckardt contributed investigative research for this project.
For interviews, email us at contact(at)GregPalast.com
Rense.com
Lawrence R. Velvel: the NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story
Lawrence R. Velvel: the NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story
The NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story for a Year
By LAWRENCE R. VELVEL
The one year delay in The New York Times' revelation of the warrantless electronic eavesdropping remains inexplicable. The Times' ombudsman, Byron Calame, wrote last Sunday that the high Times officials involved -- Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger -- refused to give any adequate explanation or to answer his questions. It did seem to Calame, however, that in effect they were claiming that to explain would be to give the government leads it could use to track down (and punish) the whistleblowers, the people whom one other writer, Jonathan Alter, believes are the true patriots here because they exposed serious governmental wrongdoing.
Such a claim by Keller and Sulzberger, which is no doubt being made in fact, strikes me as unpersuasive. For as has been discussed here before in regard to Times revelations about planes used for CIA renditions, it is always possible to sufficiently describe events in ways that make it impossible to know the whos and wheres of a situation, yet to know in some depth what occurred. One retreats where necessary to higher levels of abstraction that do not reveal specific actors or places. Not to mention that it is difficult to know how one can reasonably expect the details of the revelations to remain secret for long anyway, when, according to The Times itself, about a dozen government officials were part of the process.
Keller did say, however, that the forthcoming publication of a book by one of the reporters who broke the story, James Risen, a book that apparently would have disclosed the secret surveillance, was not the reason the disclosure article was finally printed. (Calame appeared to display a certain incipient dubiousness about this statement.)
And though, in prepared statements, Keller did not mention the November 2004 presidential election or say whether The Times learned of the eavesdropping before or after that election, he implicitly appeared to deny that the election had anything to do with The Times' failure to print the story in 2004. He said that:
The publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event. We published the story when we did because after much hard work it was fully reported, checked and ready, and because, after listening respectfully to the Administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it.
One might add, indeed, that if the election were the cause of The Times' delay, why didn't it publish the article after the election but without waiting a full year?
Nonetheless, the suspicion that the election may have had something to do with the story initially being withheld will not down. Perhaps the election's "only" impact was that, due to desperation arising from the possibility that disclosure prior to the election would increase the possibility of defeat at the polls, Bush really laid his claims of national security on The Times thickly, stridently, before the election, at a time when the paper may not have been as sure as it was later that his claims were bovine defecation. Here is what Keller said in his prepared statements in regard to this point and in regard to why The Times later changed its mind and published the story:
A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security. Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions. As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.
We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.
First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It is not our place to pass judgement on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood. (Emphasis added.)
Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record. The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known. The fact that the N.S.A. can legally monitor communications within the United States with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is also public information. What is new is that the N.S.A. has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant. It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article.
Suspicion that Bush may have laid it on really thick the first time is only increased because of an online article by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter about what subsequently happened in December of 2005, a year later.
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on Dec. 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president's desperation.
The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists -- in fact, all American Muslims, period -- have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that "the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy." But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a "shameful act," it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story -- which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year -- because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had "legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force." But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary force" in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
Curiously, Alter does not make clear whether his statements about Bush's desperation are his own view, or are the view transmitted to him by the unidentified sources from whom he learned of the December 6, 2005 meeting and who may be privy to the reaction of the Timesmen to that meeting. One assumes the view is that of Alter himself, but you never know.
There are, one thinks, two points emanating from all this. One is a question. Keller says it is (and in 2004 I think was) well known that the government engages in surveillance. Nonetheless, Keller's statement also says The Times initially eschewed publication in part because "Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." (Emphasis added.) Then his statement says publication ultimately occurred in part because "we developed a further picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It is not our place to pass judgement on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood." (Emphasis added.) The question which obviously arises is this: Especially since Keller says it is (and I believe was) well known that the government is engaging in surveillance, why did publication depend upon what people within the government said was the legality or illegality of the program? Why the hell didn't The Times (confidentially) consult its own lawyers, who could have told it in a New York minute, in 2004, that what was being done by the government was flatly in violation of the law?
Is it possible that The Times did consult its own lawyers, who told it not to publish for one reason or another? That is what happened in the Pentagon Papers case, you know, so The Times had to get itself a new lawyer there. If it did consult its lawyers about the electronic surveillance and they told it, for any reason, not to publish, then it needs new lawyers now, as in the Pentagon Papers matter. Somehow or other, however, I am dubious that The Times consulted its lawyers in 2004. Somehow or other I would bet that The Times, as Keller said, (inexplicably) relied solely on the soothing statements of government officials, notorious liars all, it would seem, right up to Bush himself. In any event, the question of whether The Times (very negligently) relied solely on the statements of government officials in 2004, without even bothering to consult its own counsel, cries out for answer.
The other point of enormous relevance is the issue of whether The Times did in fact learn of the warrantless surveillance before the 2004 election, and was persuaded (strong- armed?) before the election not to print the story. This too cries out for an answer. George Bush was not elected by the American people in 2000. He was elected by denying the vote to blacks in Florida, by the ballot skullduggery that caused votes to be cast for Buchanan rather than Gore by members of that famous political organization called "Elderly Florida Jews for Pat Buchanan," and by the Supreme Court, whose latest nominee is the subject of hearings that begin in a few days. Is it possible that, after being elected by denying votes to blacks, by misleading members of "Elderly Florida Jews for Buchanan," and by the Supreme Court, Bush got himself reelected by persuading The Times not to publish the news of his lawbreaking prior to the 2004 reelection and by The Times acceding to this? The Times plainly should let us know the answer to this horrid possibility.
Lawrence R. Velvel is the Dean of Massachusetts School of Law. He can be reached at velvel@mslaw.edu.
*This essay represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel.
The NYT's Unconscionable Decision to Sit on the NSA Story for a Year
By LAWRENCE R. VELVEL
The one year delay in The New York Times' revelation of the warrantless electronic eavesdropping remains inexplicable. The Times' ombudsman, Byron Calame, wrote last Sunday that the high Times officials involved -- Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger -- refused to give any adequate explanation or to answer his questions. It did seem to Calame, however, that in effect they were claiming that to explain would be to give the government leads it could use to track down (and punish) the whistleblowers, the people whom one other writer, Jonathan Alter, believes are the true patriots here because they exposed serious governmental wrongdoing.
Such a claim by Keller and Sulzberger, which is no doubt being made in fact, strikes me as unpersuasive. For as has been discussed here before in regard to Times revelations about planes used for CIA renditions, it is always possible to sufficiently describe events in ways that make it impossible to know the whos and wheres of a situation, yet to know in some depth what occurred. One retreats where necessary to higher levels of abstraction that do not reveal specific actors or places. Not to mention that it is difficult to know how one can reasonably expect the details of the revelations to remain secret for long anyway, when, according to The Times itself, about a dozen government officials were part of the process.
Keller did say, however, that the forthcoming publication of a book by one of the reporters who broke the story, James Risen, a book that apparently would have disclosed the secret surveillance, was not the reason the disclosure article was finally printed. (Calame appeared to display a certain incipient dubiousness about this statement.)
And though, in prepared statements, Keller did not mention the November 2004 presidential election or say whether The Times learned of the eavesdropping before or after that election, he implicitly appeared to deny that the election had anything to do with The Times' failure to print the story in 2004. He said that:
The publication was not timed to the Iraqi election, the Patriot Act debate, Jim's forthcoming book or any other event. We published the story when we did because after much hard work it was fully reported, checked and ready, and because, after listening respectfully to the Administration's objections, we were convinced there was no good reason not to publish it.
One might add, indeed, that if the election were the cause of The Times' delay, why didn't it publish the article after the election but without waiting a full year?
Nonetheless, the suspicion that the election may have had something to do with the story initially being withheld will not down. Perhaps the election's "only" impact was that, due to desperation arising from the possibility that disclosure prior to the election would increase the possibility of defeat at the polls, Bush really laid his claims of national security on The Times thickly, stridently, before the election, at a time when the paper may not have been as sure as it was later that his claims were bovine defecation. Here is what Keller said in his prepared statements in regard to this point and in regard to why The Times later changed its mind and published the story:
A year ago, when this information first became known to Times reporters, the Administration argued strongly that writing about this eavesdropping program would give terrorists clues about the vulnerability of their communications and would deprive the government of an effective tool for the protection of the country's security. Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions. As we have done before in rare instances when faced with a convincing national security argument, we agreed not to publish at that time.
We also continued reporting, and in the ensuing months two things happened that changed our thinking.
First, we developed a fuller picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It is not our place to pass judgement on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood. (Emphasis added.)
Second, in the course of subsequent reporting we satisfied ourselves that we could write about this program -- withholding a number of technical details -- in a way that would not expose any intelligence-gathering methods or capabilities that are not already on the public record. The fact that the government eavesdrops on those suspected of terrorist connections is well-known. The fact that the N.S.A. can legally monitor communications within the United States with a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is also public information. What is new is that the N.S.A. has for the past three years had the authority to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States without a warrant. It is that expansion of authority -- not the need for a robust anti-terror intelligence operation -- that prompted debate within the government, and that is the subject of the article.
Suspicion that Bush may have laid it on really thick the first time is only increased because of an online article by Newsweek's Jonathan Alter about what subsequently happened in December of 2005, a year later.
No wonder Bush was so desperate that The New York Times not publish its story on the National Security Agency eavesdropping on American citizens without a warrant, in what lawyers outside the administration say is a clear violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I learned this week that on Dec. 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president's desperation.
The problem was not that the disclosures would compromise national security, as Bush claimed at his press conference. His comparison to the damaging pre-9/11 revelation of Osama bin Laden's use of a satellite phone, which caused bin Laden to change tactics, is fallacious; any Americans with ties to Muslim extremists -- in fact, all American Muslims, period -- have long since suspected that the U.S. government might be listening in to their conversations. Bush claimed that "the fact that we are discussing this program is helping the enemy." But there is simply no evidence, or even reasonable presumption, that this is so. And rather than the leaking being a "shameful act," it was the work of a patriot inside the government who was trying to stop a presidential power grab.
No, Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story -- which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year -- because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had "legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force." But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing "all necessary force" in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
Curiously, Alter does not make clear whether his statements about Bush's desperation are his own view, or are the view transmitted to him by the unidentified sources from whom he learned of the December 6, 2005 meeting and who may be privy to the reaction of the Timesmen to that meeting. One assumes the view is that of Alter himself, but you never know.
There are, one thinks, two points emanating from all this. One is a question. Keller says it is (and in 2004 I think was) well known that the government engages in surveillance. Nonetheless, Keller's statement also says The Times initially eschewed publication in part because "Officials also assured senior editors of The Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." (Emphasis added.) Then his statement says publication ultimately occurred in part because "we developed a further picture of the concerns and misgivings that had been expressed during the life of the program. It is not our place to pass judgement on the legal or civil liberties questions involved in such a program, but it became clear those questions loomed larger within the government than we had previously understood." (Emphasis added.) The question which obviously arises is this: Especially since Keller says it is (and I believe was) well known that the government is engaging in surveillance, why did publication depend upon what people within the government said was the legality or illegality of the program? Why the hell didn't The Times (confidentially) consult its own lawyers, who could have told it in a New York minute, in 2004, that what was being done by the government was flatly in violation of the law?
Is it possible that The Times did consult its own lawyers, who told it not to publish for one reason or another? That is what happened in the Pentagon Papers case, you know, so The Times had to get itself a new lawyer there. If it did consult its lawyers about the electronic surveillance and they told it, for any reason, not to publish, then it needs new lawyers now, as in the Pentagon Papers matter. Somehow or other, however, I am dubious that The Times consulted its lawyers in 2004. Somehow or other I would bet that The Times, as Keller said, (inexplicably) relied solely on the soothing statements of government officials, notorious liars all, it would seem, right up to Bush himself. In any event, the question of whether The Times (very negligently) relied solely on the statements of government officials in 2004, without even bothering to consult its own counsel, cries out for answer.
The other point of enormous relevance is the issue of whether The Times did in fact learn of the warrantless surveillance before the 2004 election, and was persuaded (strong- armed?) before the election not to print the story. This too cries out for an answer. George Bush was not elected by the American people in 2000. He was elected by denying the vote to blacks in Florida, by the ballot skullduggery that caused votes to be cast for Buchanan rather than Gore by members of that famous political organization called "Elderly Florida Jews for Pat Buchanan," and by the Supreme Court, whose latest nominee is the subject of hearings that begin in a few days. Is it possible that, after being elected by denying votes to blacks, by misleading members of "Elderly Florida Jews for Buchanan," and by the Supreme Court, Bush got himself reelected by persuading The Times not to publish the news of his lawbreaking prior to the 2004 reelection and by The Times acceding to this? The Times plainly should let us know the answer to this horrid possibility.
Lawrence R. Velvel is the Dean of Massachusetts School of Law. He can be reached at velvel@mslaw.edu.
*This essay represents the personal views of Lawrence R. Velvel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
