Data mining program continues after lawmakers order it closed
02/24/2006 @ 11:33 am
Filed by RAW STORY
A controversial intelligence data mining program, which was closed by lawmakers over privacy concerns two years ago, has continued to receive funding and remained in operation under different code names in different agencies, according to today's National Journal.
Excerpts from the Journal's article follow:
Research under the Defense Department's Total Information Awareness program -- which developed technologies to predict terrorist attacks by mining government databases and the personal records of people in the United States -- was moved from the Pentagon's research-and-development agency to another group, which builds technologies primarily for the National Security Agency, according to documents obtained by National Journal and to intelligence sources familiar with the move. The names of key projects were changed, apparently to conceal their identities, but their funding remained intact, often under the same contracts.
...
Two of the most important components of the TIA program were moved to the Advanced Research and Development Activity, housed at NSA headquarters in Fort Meade, Md., documents and sources confirm. One piece was the Information Awareness Prototype System, the core architecture that tied together numerous information extraction, analysis, and dissemination tools developed under TIA. The prototype system included privacy-protection technologies that may have been discontinued or scaled back following the move to ARDA. ...
Another key TIA project that moved to ARDA was Genoa II, which focused on building information technologies to help analysts and policy makers anticipate and pre-empt terrorist attacks. Genoa II was renamed Topsail when it moved to ARDA, intelligence sources confirmed. (The name continues the program's nautical nomenclature; "genoa" is a synonym for the headsail of a ship.)
...
It is unclear when funding for Topsail was terminated. But earlier this month, at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, one of TIA's strongest critics questioned whether intelligence officials knew that some of its programs had been moved to other agencies. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., asked Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and FBI Director Robert Mueller whether it was "correct that when [TIA] was closed, that several ... projects were moved to various intelligence agencies.... I and others on this panel led the effort to close [TIA]; we want to know if Mr. Poindexter's programs are going on somewhere else."
#
For the full story, including ties to Iran-Contra's John Poindexter, go here.
Saturday, February 25, 2006
Scoop: IDF opens fire on medical team wounding many
Scoop: IDF opens fire on medical team wounding many
IDF opens fire on medical team wounding many
Israeli military opens fire on medical team wounding Palestinian and International medical volunteers"We were standing in the alley way, everything was quite when suddenly without warning we heard a big explosion and heard gun shots. I then saw Jarar and Ihab liying on the floor. Ihab wasn't moving." Wounded Dutch medical volunteer
At 11:45 this morning an explosion set off by the Israeli military inside the house belonging to Muhammed Abu Hamis Abu Amar caused a fire in the house. Occupation forces prevented fire trucks from accessing the area and told them that they will be detonating further explosions in the same house. Emergency teams accompanied by international volunteers treated children in some of the adjacent houses who were effected by smoke inhalation. Neighbours attempted to put out the fire by bringing buckets of water.
At 12:30 the military set off a series of additional explosions inside the house of Muhammed Abu Amar.
At 1:00 a medical team including two Palestinians and two international volunteers were trapped in an alleyway adjacent to the house belonging to Muhammed Abu Amar. They were standing behind an Israeli Jeep that soldiers had vacated.
At 2:00 without any warning shots they were fired at and a grenade was thrown at them from around the corner. According to the volunteers the shooting came from the direction of the Alleyway where the Israeli soldiers were. A twenty two year old American student was wounded by shrapnel in the hand a twenty nine year old Dutch volunteer was wounded by shrapnel in the thigh and shoulder, Jirar Candola an ambulance driver with the UPMRC was shot in the arm and leg and Ihab Mansour, a medical volunteer working with the Palestinian scientific society, was shot in the head and taken away by the Israeli soldiers.
At 3:00 the soldiers blew up Muhammad Abu Amar's house, thus killing three Palestinian fighters who were inside.
Earlier this morning the Israeli military shot and killed 19 Year old Ibrahim Saadi, who was throwing a stone at the Israeli armored jeeps and 20 year old Naim Abu Sarif, who was shot dead by a sniper while on the roof of his house.
Blogs are vital alternative media sources
FT.com / Comment & analysis / Letters - Blogs are vital alternative media sources
Blogs are vital alternative media sources
>By Caroline Kay
>Published: February 25 2006 02:00 | Last updated: February 25 2006 02:00
>
>
Blogs are vital alternative media sources
>By Caroline Kay
>Published: February 25 2006 02:00 | Last updated: February 25 2006 02:00
>
>From Ms Caroline Kay.
Sir, Your article on blogs bears no resemblance whatever to the world I see when I go online ("Time for the last post", FT Weekend, February 18/19).
I have never visited a gossip blog at all. The blogs I visit are those whose contributors are lawyers, economists and other academics, political strategists, media people of various sorts and ordinary citizens representative of many other occupations.
Some of these people write well and some do not but the ones I read consistently have ideas that are worth thinking about - ideas that never would have seen the light of day if we were only allowed to read what the US corporate media have dished up for our entertainment.
No human can possibly absorb all the informational and disinformational material available to us now.
There is a huge advantage in having many eyeballs patrolling the sources of information, many minds with many varieties of experience free to express their thoughts in an open forum - discussion that is not chosen and/or edited by people whose living may depend on not offending the powerful.
Maybe since your reporter works for a non-American newspaper he is not familiar with how our media kowtow to powerful people, refusing to call them on their obvious lies and hypocrisies.
If we did not have blogs, we might never know about the latest assaults on truth, and we certainly would not know the details. We assuredly would not have the audio and video evidence.
None of us individually would have the resources to dig up the stories and the quotes from the past that often totally debunk what's being said currently.
Carolyn Kay
US conducts subcritical nuclear test.
US conducts subcritical nuclear test. 24/02/2006. ABC News Online
The Energy Department has confirmed the United States has carried out a subcritical nuclear experiment at an underground test site in Nevada on Thursday (local time).
The test was aimed at gathering ''scientific data that provides crucial information to maintain the safety and reliability of... nuclear weapons without having to conduct underground nuclear tests,'' the department said.
Some anti-nuclear groups are concerned that the Bush administration is trying to accelerate its efforts to develop new nuclear arms through such tests.
Anti-nuclear groups have criticised and continue to urge Washington to stop the tests, saying they are undermining the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty on nuclear weapons.
The US argues that subcritical tests are fully consistent with the nuclear test moratorium it has maintained since 1992.
It says the tests do not violate the treaty because they do no involve a nuclear chain reaction and are necessary to ensure the safety of nuclear stockpiles.
The department said the Los Alamos National Laboratory and Britain's Atomic Weapons Establishment ''successfully'' undertook the latest experiment in an underground laboratory of horizontal tunnels about 290 metres beneath the surface.
According to the department, subcritical tests ''examine the behaviour of plutonium as it is strongly shocked by forces produced by chemical high explosives".
''The experiments are subcritical, that is, no critical mass is formed and no self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction can occur, thus, there is no nuclear explosion,'' the department said.
The test, conducted together with Britain, represented the first since May 2004 and the ninth under the administration of President George W Bush.
It was the second carried out with Britain following one in February 2002.
U.S. Military DU Movie--if you watch nothing else on this site!!! watch this!!!
U.S. Military DU Movie
Why Has Our Military Refused to Show This Training Video To Our Troops Now Serving In Iraq?
US ARMY TRAINING VIDEO:
Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness
Between October and December 1995, the U.S. Army's Depleted Uranium (DU) Project completed a series of training videos and manuals about depleted uranium munitions. This training regimen was developed as the result of recommendations made in the January 1993 General Accounting Office (GAO) report, "Army Not Adequately Prepared to Deal with Depleted Uranium Contamination."
The training materials were intended to instruct servicemen and women about the use and hazards of depleted uranium munitions. In addition, the training regimen included instructions for soldiers who repair and recover vehicles contaminated by depleted uranium.
Throughout 1996, these videos sat on a shelf, while U.S. soldiers continued to use and work with depleted uranium munitions. In June 1997, Bernard Rostker, The Department of Defense (DoD) principle spokesperson for their investigation of Gulf War hazardous exposures, stated that the depleted uranium safety training program would begin to be shared by a limited number of servicemen and women in July 1997.
STILL TODAY the vast majority of servicemen and women in the U.S. military, and likely in the armed forces of other countries which are developing or have obtained depleted uranium munitions, are unaware of the use and dangers of depleted uranium munitions, or of the protective clothing and procedures which can minimize or prevent serious short-term exposures.
David Sirota | The Dirty Little Secret behind the UAE Port Security Scandal
David Sirota | The Dirty Little Secret behind the UAE Port Security Scandal
The Dirty Little Secret behind the UAE Port Security Scandal
By David Sirota
Working for Change
The Dirty Little Secret behind the UAE Port Security Scandal
By David Sirota
Working for Change
Wednesday 22 February 2006
Politicians and the media are loudly decrying the Bush administration's proposal to turn over port security to a firm owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) - a country with ties to terrorists. They are talking tough about national security - but almost no one is talking about what may have fueled the administration's decision to push forward with this deal: the desire to move forward Big Money's "free" trade agenda.
How much does "free" trade have to do with this? How about a lot. The Bush administration is in the middle of a two-year push to ink a corporate-backed "free" trade accord with the UAE. At the end of 2004, in fact, it was Bush Trade Representative Robert Zoellick who proudly boasted of his trip to the UAE to begin negotiating the trade accord. Rejecting this port security deal might have set back that trade pact. Accepting the port security deal - regardless of the security consequences - likely greases the wheels for the pact. That's probably why instead of backing off the deal, President Bush - supposedly Mr. Tough on National Secuirty - took the extraordinary step of threatening to use the first veto of his entire presidency to protect the UAE's interests. Because he knows protecting those interetsts - regardless of the security implications for America - is integral to the "free" trade agenda all of his corporate supporters are demanding.
The Inter Press Service highlights exactly what's at stake, quoting a conservative activists who admits that this is all about trade:
"The United States' trade relationship with the UAE is the third largest in the Middle East, after Israel and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are engaged in bilateral free talks that would liberalise trade between the two countries and would, in theory at least, allow companies to own and operate businesses in both nations. 'There are legitimate security questions to be asked but it would be a mistake and really an insult to one of our leading trading partners in that region to reject this commercial transaction out of hand,' said Daniel T. Griswold, who directs the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, a Washington-based libertarian think tank."
Look, we've seen this before. Just last year, Congress approved a US taxpayer-funded loan by the Bush administration to a British company to help build nuclear technology in Communist China. Despite major security concerns raised - and a legislative effort to block the loan - Congress's "free traders" (many of whom talk so tough on security) made sure the loan went through so as to preserve the US-China free trade relationship that is allowing lawmakers' corporate campaign contributors export so many US jobs.
There is no better proof that our government takes its orders from corporate interests than these kinds of moves. That's what this UAE deal is all about - the mixture of the right-wing's goal of privatizing all government services (even post 9/11 port security!) with the political Establishment's desire to make sure Tom-Friedman-style "free" trade orthodoxy supersedes everything. This is where the culture of corruption meets national security policy - and, more specifically, where the unbridled corruption of on-the-take politicians are weakening America's security.
The fact that no politicians and almost no media wants to even explore this simple fact is telling. Here we have a major US security scandal with the same country we are simultaneously negotiating a free trade pact with, and no one in Washington is saying a thing. The silence tells you all you need to know about a political/media establishment that is so totally owned by Big Money interests they won't even talk about what's potentially at the heart of a burgeoning national security scandal.
William Fisher | A Tale of Two Gitmos: Where Was the MSM?
William Fisher | A Tale of Two Gitmos: Where Was the MSM?
A Tale of Two Gitmos: Where Was the MSM?
By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
A Tale of Two Gitmos: Where Was the MSM?
By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 22 February 2006
Last June 17, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters, "If you think of the people down there (at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba), these are people, all of whom were captured on a battlefield. They're terrorists, trainers, bomb makers, recruiters, financiers, (Osama bin Laden's) bodyguards, would-be suicide bombers, probably the 20th 9/11 hijacker."
Yet two recent reports, based on the Defense Department's own documentation, reach conclusions that are dramatically different than Mr. Rumsfeld's. And, despite the millions of words journalists have written about Gitmo during the past few years, the mainstream press has largely ignored these new reports.
One report, prepared by a team headed by Mark Denbeaux, a law professor at Seton Hall University in New Jersey - who is a lawyer for two of the Guantánamo detainees - found that more than half of the terror suspects being held have not been accused of committing hostile acts against the United States or its allies.
Compiled from declassified Defense Department evaluations of the more than 500 detainees at the Cuba facility, the report says just eight percent are listed as fighters for a terrorist group, while 30 percent are considered members of a terrorist group and the remaining 60 percent were just "associated with" terrorists.
The evaluations were completed as part of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals conducted during 2004 to determine if the prisoners were being correctly held as enemy combatants. So far, just ten of the detainees have been formally charged with crimes and are headed for military tribunals.
According to the report, 55 percent of the detainees are informally accused of committing a hostile act. But the DOD's descriptions of their actions range from a high-ranking Taliban member who tortured and killed Afghan natives to people who possessed rifles, used a guesthouse or wore olive drab clothing.
The report also found that about one-third of the detainees were linked to al-Qaida; 22 percent to the Taliban; 28 percent to both; and seven percent to either one or the other, but not specified.
Lolita C. Baldor of The Associated Press filed a story on the report on February 7, 2006. But few US newspapers have run the story.
The DOD documents, which are publicly available, were declassified versions of evaluations that contain additional information about each detainee. Those additional details were not made public. The Pentagon had no comment on the report for the AP, which has filed a lawsuit seeking the release of the classified versions of the documents.
"The government has detained these individuals for more than four years, without a trial or judicial hearing, and has had unfettered access to each detainee for that time," said the Denbeaux report.
Of the approximately 760 prisoners brought to Guantánamo since 2002, the military has released 180 and transferred 76 to the custody of other countries.
The second report, written by Corine Hegland for the fiercely nonpartisan National Journal (NJ), was based on a review conducted by the magazine of files on 132 prisoners who have asked the courts for help, and a thorough reading of heavily censored transcripts from the Combatant Status Review Tribunals conducted in Guantánamo for 314 prisoners.
Its conclusion: most of the "enemy combatants" held at Guantánamo - for four years now - are simply not "the worst of the worst" of the terrorist world.
"Many of them are not accused of hostilities against the United States or its allies. Most, when captured, were innocent of any terrorist activity, were Taliban foot soldiers at worst and were often far less than that. And some, perhaps many, are guilty only of being foreigners in Afghanistan or Pakistan at the wrong time. And much of the evidence - even the classified evidence - gathered by the Defense Department against these men is flimsy, second-, third-, fourth- or 12th-hand. It's based largely on admissions by the detainees themselves or on coerced, or worse, interrogations of their fellow inmates, some of whom have been proved to be liars," the magazine said.
NJ reported, "Notwithstanding Rumsfeld's description, the majority of them were not caught by American soldiers on the battlefield. They came into American custody from third parties, mostly from Pakistan, some after targeted raids there, most after a dragnet for Arabs after 9/11."
It added, "Much of the evidence against the detainees is weak. One prisoner at Guantánamo, for example, has made accusations against more than 60 of his fellow inmates; that's more than ten percent of Guantánamo's entire prison population."
"The men in the orange jumpsuits, President Bush said, were terrorists," the NJ recounted. "They were the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth, Rumsfeld said. They were so vicious, if given the chance they would gnaw through the hydraulic lines of a C-17 while they were being flown to Cuba, said Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
But, says the magazine, the CIA didn't see it that way. "By the fall of 2002, it was common knowledge around CIA circles that fewer than ten percent of Guantánamo's prisoners were high-value terrorist operatives, according to Michael Scheuer who headed the agency's bin Laden unit through 1999 and resigned in 2004."
According to Scheuer, "Most of the men were probably foot soldiers at best" who were "going to know absolutely nothing about terrorism." Guantánamo prisoners might be pumped for information about how they learned to fight, which could help American soldiers facing trained Islamic insurgencies. But the Defense Department and FBI interrogators at Guantánamo were interested more in catastrophic terrorism than in combat practicalities. They kept asking "every one of the guys about 9/11 and when was the next attack," questions most of these low-level prisoners couldn't answer.
Even as the CIA was deciding that most of the prisoners at Guantánamo didn't have much to say, Pentagon officials were getting frustrated with how little the detainees were saying. So they ramped up the pressure and gave interrogators more license, according to the magazine.
By June 2004, conditions were so bad at Guantánamo that the International Committee of the Red Cross, the only civilian group allowed to meet with detainees, sent a furious confidential report to the White House charging that the entire system in Cuba was "devised to break the will of prisoners at Guantánamo," making them "wholly dependent on their interrogators" through "humiliating acts, solitary confinement, temperature extremes, use of forced positions," according to a Defense Department report leaked to The New York Times.
The report called the operations "tantamount to torture." Pentagon officials, meanwhile, were citing the "safe, humane, and professional detention operation at Guantánamo that is providing valuable information in the war on terrorism." And members of Congress were touting the prison's excellent cuisine.
Gabor Rona, international legal director for Human Rights First, told IPS, "If most of these guys are not al Qaeda, i.e., are vanilla-flavored civilians or mere Taliban foot soldiers, then it gives the lie to the single mantra that the administration has left when attempting to defend itself against allegations of abuse in Gitmo: that the 'terrorists' are trained to make false allegations of abuse."
Rona said it reminds him of a story he sees as emblematic of the legal process at Guantánamo. "The story is about a guy who, after relentless interrogation, finally admitted to knowing Osama - 'Yes, OK, I know him, I've seen him on al Jazeera.' - upon which basis the Combatant Status Review Tribunal was informed that 'the individual admits to knowing bin Laden.' And upon this information, he was adjudicated an 'enemy combatant.' "
Some reports disputing the Bush Administration's versions of conditions at Guantánamo have received widespread coverage in the US press. For example, Amnesty International created a media firestorm with a report in which it referred to the prison as a "Gulag." Also widely covered was the recent report from investigators for the United Nations Human Rights Commission, recommending that Guantánamo be closed down. On the other side of the ledger, the recent report from a United Nations team of experts from the UN Human Rights Commission received relatively little attention in mainstream media. It recommended closure of the Guantánamo prison.
Similarly, the Seton Hall and National Journal reports found the media largely asleep. It may well be that local editors feel their readership is suffering from Gitmo-overload.
Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'
Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'
Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'
By Nat Parry
Consortium News
Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs'
By Nat Parry
Consortium News
Tuesday 21 February 2006
Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations - Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.
"The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.
"I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.
"Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."
In less paranoid times, Graham's comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways - ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.
But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy.
Top US officials have cited the need to challenge news that undercuts Bush's actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists, who are aided by "news informers" in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Detention Centers
Plus, there was that curious development in January when the Army Corps of Engineers awarded Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root a $385 million contract to construct detention centers somewhere in the United States, to deal with "an emergency influx of immigrants into the US, or to support the rapid development of new programs," KBR said. [Market Watch, Jan. 26, 2006]
Later, the New York Times reported that "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space." [Feb. 4, 2006]
Like most news stories on the KBR contract, the Times focused on concerns about Halliburton's reputation for bilking US taxpayers by overcharging for sub-par services.
"It's hard to believe that the administration has decided to entrust Halliburton with even more taxpayer dollars," remarked Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California.
Less attention centered on the phrase "rapid development of new programs" and what kind of programs would require a major expansion of detention centers, each capable of holding 5,000 people. Jamie Zuieback, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to elaborate on what these "new programs" might be.
Only a few independent journalists, such as Peter Dale Scott and Maureen Farrell, have pursued what the Bush administration might actually be thinking.
Scott speculated that the "detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law." He recalled that during the Reagan administration, National Security Council aide Oliver North organized Rex-84 "readiness exercise," which contemplated the Federal Emergency Management Agency rounding up and detaining 400,000 "refugees," in the event of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States.
Farrell pointed out that because "another terror attack is all but certain, it seems far more likely that the centers would be used for post-911-type detentions of immigrants rather than a sudden deluge" of immigrants flooding across the border.
Vietnam-era whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said, "Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters. They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."
Labor Camps
There also was another little-noticed item posted at the US Army Web site, about the Pentagon's Civilian Inmate Labor Program. This program "provides Army policy and guidance for establishing civilian inmate labor programs and civilian prison camps on Army installations."
The Army document, first drafted in 1997, underwent a "rapid action revision" on Jan. 14, 2005. The revision provides a "template for developing agreements" between the Army and corrections facilities for the use of civilian inmate labor on Army installations.
On its face, the Army's labor program refers to inmates housed in federal, state and local jails. The Army also cites various federal laws that govern the use of civilian labor and provide for the establishment of prison camps in the United States, including a federal statute that authorizes the Attorney General to "establish, equip, and maintain camps upon sites selected by him" and "make available ... the services of United States prisoners" to various government departments, including the Department of Defense.
Though the timing of the document's posting - within the past few weeks - may just be a coincidence, the reference to a "rapid action revision" and the KBR contract's contemplation of "rapid development of new programs" have raised eyebrows about why this sudden need for urgency.
These developments also are drawing more attention now because of earlier Bush administration policies to involve the Pentagon in "counter-terrorism" operations inside the United States.
Pentagon Surveillance
Despite the Posse Comitatus Act's prohibitions against US military personnel engaging in domestic law enforcement, the Pentagon has expanded its operations beyond previous boundaries, such as its role in domestic surveillance activities.
The Washington Post has reported that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the Defense Department has been creating new agencies that gather and analyze intelligence within the United States. [Washington Post, Nov. 27, 2005]
The White House also is moving to expand the power of the Pentagon's Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA), created three years ago to consolidate counterintelligence operations. The White House proposal would transform CIFA into an office that has authority to investigate crimes such as treason, terrorist sabotage or economic espionage.
The Pentagon also has pushed legislation in Congress that would create an intelligence exception to the Privacy Act, allowing the FBI and others to share information about US citizens with the Pentagon, CIA and other intelligence agencies. But some in the Pentagon don't seem to think that new laws are even necessary.
In a 2001 Defense Department memo that surfaced in January 2006, the US Army's top intelligence officer wrote, "Contrary to popular belief, there is no absolute ban on [military] intelligence components collecting US person information."
Drawing a distinction between "collecting" information and "receiving" information on US citizens, the memo argued that "MI [military intelligence] may receive information from anyone, anytime." [See CQ.com, Jan. 31, 2005]
This receipt of information presumably would include data from the National Security Agency, which has been engaging in surveillance of US citizens without court-approved warrants in apparent violation of the Foreign Intelligence Security Act. Bush approved the program of warrantless wiretaps shortly after 9/11.
There also may be an even more extensive surveillance program. Former NSA employee Russell D. Tice told a congressional committee on Feb. 14 that such a top-secret surveillance program existed, but he said he couldn't discuss the details without breaking classification laws.
Tice added that the "special access" surveillance program may be violating the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. [UPI, Feb. 14, 2006]
With this expanded surveillance, the government's list of terrorist suspects is rapidly swelling.
The Washington Post reported on Feb. 15 that the National Counterterrorism Center's central repository now holds the names of 325,000 terrorist suspects, a four-fold increase since the fall of 2003.
Asked whether the names in the repository were collected through the NSA's domestic surveillance program, an NCTC official told the Post, "Our database includes names of known and suspected international terrorists provided by all intelligence community organizations, including NSA."
Homeland Defense
As the administration scoops up more and more names, members of Congress also have questioned the elasticity of Bush's definitions for words like terrorist "affiliates," used to justify wiretapping Americans allegedly in contact with such people or entities.
During the Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the wiretap program, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, complained that the House and Senate Intelligence Committees "have not been briefed on the scope and nature of the program."
Feinstein added that, therefore, the committees "have not been able to explore what is a link or an affiliate to al-Qaeda or what minimization procedures (for purging the names of innocent people) are in place."
The combination of the Bush administration's expansive reading of its own power and its insistence on extraordinary secrecy has raised the alarm of civil libertarians when contemplating how far the Pentagon might go in involving itself in domestic matters.
A Defense Department document, entitled the "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support," has set out a military strategy against terrorism that envisions an "active, layered defense" both inside and outside US territory. In the document, the Pentagon pledges to "transform US military forces to execute homeland defense missions in the ... US homeland."
The Pentagon strategy paper calls for increased military reconnaissance and surveillance to "defeat potential challengers before they threaten the United States." The plan "maximizes threat awareness and seizes the initiative from those who would harm us."
But there are concerns over how the Pentagon judges "threats" and who falls under the category "those who would harm us." A Pentagon official said the Counterintelligence Field Activity's TALON program has amassed files on antiwar protesters.
In December 2005, NBC News revealed the existence of a secret 400-page Pentagon document listing 1,500 "suspicious incidents" over a 10-month period, including dozens of small antiwar demonstrations that were classified as a "threat."
The Defense Department also might be moving toward legitimizing the use of propaganda domestically, as part of its overall war strategy.
A secret Pentagon "Information Operations Roadmap," approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003, calls for "full spectrum" information operations and notes that "information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa."
"PSYOPS messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," the document states. The Pentagon argues, however, that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [US government] intent rather than information dissemination practices."
It calls for "boundaries" between information operations abroad and the news media at home, but does not outline any corresponding limits on PSYOP campaigns.
Similar to the distinction the Pentagon draws between "collecting" and "receiving" intelligence on US citizens, the Information Operations Roadmap argues that as long as the American public is not intentionally "targeted," any PSYOP propaganda consumed by the American public is acceptable.
The Pentagon plan also includes a strategy for taking over the Internet and controlling the flow of information, viewing the Web as a potential military adversary. The "roadmap" speaks of "fighting the net," and implies that the Internet is the equivalent of "an enemy weapons system."
In a speech on Feb. 17 to the Council on Foreign Relations, Rumsfeld elaborated on the administration's perception that the battle over information would be a crucial front in the War on Terror, or as Rumsfeld calls it, the Long War.
"Let there be no doubt, the longer it takes to put a strategic communication framework into place, the more we can be certain that the vacuum will be filled by the enemy and by news informers that most assuredly will not paint an accurate picture of what is actually taking place," Rumsfeld said.
The Department of Homeland Security also has demonstrated a tendency to deploy military operatives to deal with domestic crises.
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the department dispatched "heavily armed paramilitary mercenaries from the Blackwater private security firm, infamous for their work in Iraq, (and had them) openly patrolling the streets of New Orleans," reported journalists Jeremy Scahill and Daniela Crespo on Sept. 10, 2005.
Noting the reputation of the Blackwater mercenaries as "some of the most feared professional killers in the world," Scahill and Crespo said Blackwater's presence in New Orleans "raises alarming questions about why the government would allow men trained to kill with impunity in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to operate here."
US Battlefield
In the view of some civil libertarians, a form of martial law already exists in the United States and has been in place since shortly after the 9/11 attacks when Bush issued Military Order No. 1 which empowered him to detain any non-citizen as an international terrorist or enemy combatant.
"The President decided that he was no longer running the country as a civilian President," wrote civil rights attorney Michael Ratner in the book Guantanamo: What the World Should Know. "He issued a military order giving himself the power to run the country as a general."
For any American citizen suspected of collaborating with terrorists, Bush also revealed what's in store. In May 2002, the FBI arrested US citizen Jose Padilla in Chicago on suspicion that he might be an al-Qaeda operative planning an attack.
Rather than bring criminal charges, Bush designated Padilla an "enemy combatant" and had him imprisoned indefinitely without benefit of due process. After three years, the administration finally brought charges against Padilla, in order to avoid a Supreme Court showdown the White House might have lost.
But since the Court was not able to rule on the Padilla case, the administration's arguments have not been formally repudiated. Indeed, despite filing charges against Padilla, the White House still asserts the right to detain US citizens without charges as enemy combatants.
This claimed authority is based on the assertion that the United States is at war and the American homeland is part of the battlefield.
"In the war against terrorists of global reach, as the Nation learned all too well on Sept. 11, 2001, the territory of the United States is part of the battlefield," Bush's lawyers argued in briefs to the federal courts. [Washington Post, July 19, 2005]
Given Bush's now open assertions that he is using his "plenary" - or unlimited - powers as Commander in Chief for the duration of the indefinite War on Terror, Americans can no longer trust that their constitutional rights protect them from government actions.
As former Vice President Al Gore asked after recounting a litany of sweeping powers that Bush has asserted to fight the War on Terror, "Can it be true that any President really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is 'yes,' then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited?"
In such extraordinary circumstances, the American people might legitimately ask exactly what the Bush administration means by the "rapid development of new programs," which might require the construction of a new network of detention camps.
UAE Gave $1 Million to Bush Library
UAE Gave $1 Million to Bush Library
UAE Gave $1 Million to Bush Library
By Wendy Benjaminson
The Associated Press
UAE Gave $1 Million to Bush Library
By Wendy Benjaminson
The Associated Press
Thursday 23 February 2006
A sheik from the United Arab Emirates contributed at least $1 million to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library at Texas A&M University in College Station.
The UAE owns Dubai Port Co., which is taking operations from London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., which operates six US ports. A political uproar has ensued over the deal, which the White House approved without congressional oversight.
The donations were made in the early 1990s for the library, which houses the papers of former President George Bush, the current president's father.
The list of donors names Sheik Zayed Bin Sultan al Nahyan and the people of the United Arab Emirates as one donor in the $1 million or more category.
The amount of the gift grants them recognition on the engraved donor wall in the library entrance or on the paving bricks that line the library's walkways, according to library documents.
Roman Popaduik, chairman of the Bush Library Foundation that collects donations, said he could not discuss details of the gifts except to say the amount category and whether it was before or after 1997.
The chief executive of the Dubai company, Ahmed bin Sulayem, did not donate individually.
The hundreds of large donors include longtime Bush associates, including Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials as well as business titans - such as Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay - and big Republican donors.
Other Arab donors include the state of Kuwait, the Bandar bin Sultan family, the Sultanate of Oman, King Hassan II of Morocco and the amir of Qatar. The former Korean prime minister and China also gave tens of thousands of dollars to the library.
Pentagon quietly builds up South American bases- Teresa Gutierrez/ WWinternational
Published: Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Bylined to: Teresa Gutierrez
Bylined to: Teresa Gutierrez
Teresa Gutierrez: Pentagon quietly builds up South American bases
Workers World (Teresa Gutierrez): At the very same time that the working class and progressive movement in Latin America is rapidly shifting to the left, invigorating anti-imperialist sentiment around the world, Washington is quietly and ominously militarizing the Americas.
From the US/Mexican border to many parts farther south, US imperialism is setting up more and more military bases throughout the region and stealthily sending ever more U.S. troops and mercenaries to Latin America.
Under the guise of fighting the so-called drug war or seeking “Al Qaeda terrorist cells,” Washington’s real intention is to prepare to overcome the rising movements against US imperialism that are sweeping the region.
Washington’s intense escalation of military force is extremely dangerous for the oppressed people of the Americas and should be energetically fought by the anti-war movement in the United States.
As Conn Hallinan wrote last November in Foreign Policy in Focus, “Indeed, it is feeling a little like the run-up to the sixties and seventies, when Washington-sponsored military dictatorships dominated most of the continent, and (secret) armies ruled the night.”
The growing US military threat
Although it only recently came to light, last year the Bush administration sent 400-500 US troops to Paraguay, alarming many Latin Americans.
This action takes place within the context of a growing number of US military bases built in the region in the last several years, and within the context of Plan Colombia, a $3-billion-plus military initiative for Colombia, was passed under the Clinton Administration. Plan Colombia is the military wing of the stalled Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA).
What cannot be wrested from the people of Latin America by its operators in three-piece suits, Washington clearly aims to steal through its agents in military fatigues.
There are approximately 25 known US military bases or land-based radar stations in Latin America and the Caribbean. These include military bases in Guantanamo, Cuba; Comalapa, El Salvador; Reina Beatriz, Aruba; Fort Buchanan and Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico; Hato Rey, Curacao; Manta, Ecuador and Soto Cano, Honduras.
In January 2006, Cuban Radio Havana revealed that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had authorized the expansion of US military bases in the summer of 2005. These expanded military bases were called CSL’s -- Cooperative Security Locations -- and set up at the Mariscal Estigarribia airbase in Paraguay and elsewhere.
- According to Radio Havana, these bases, while staffed by a relatively small number of troops, “have the capability to ramp up military operations at short notice.”
Developments in Paraguay are alarming progressives across that country’s borders in Brazil, Argentina and Bolivia, where Indigenous peasant leader Evo Morales recently took office as president. According to an article in the January Political Affairs, the Bush administration in December 2004 canceled $330 million in aid to several South American countries because they had refused to grant US soldiers immunity from prosecution for crimes committed in those countries.
Paraguay did sign the immunity agreement in a secret session of its congress on May 26, 2005, authorizing an 18-month stay for US soldiers, which can be extended repeatedly.
The US troops that arrived in Paraguay last July 1 are only 120 miles from Bolivia at a base near Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay. The base has a runway long enough to accommodate large military transport planes such as B-52 bombers and Galaxy C-5 cargo planes. It also has barracks space for 16,000 troops, a huge radar system and vast hangers.
Prominent Paraguayan journalist and human rights activist Alfredo Boccia Paz stated recently that “immunity from prosecution for US soldiers, extension of their stay, and joint military exercises all provide the groundwork for the eventual installation of a U.S. base in Paraguay.”
- Furthermore, last July a high-powered meeting of Bush administration officials met with Paraguay’s vice president.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Noriega met with Paraguay Vice President Luis Castiglioni and concluded that “experts would soon be going to Paraguay to develop a planning seminar on systems for national security.”
The FBI also announced that in 2006 it would open an office in Paraguay.
The U.S. troops stationed in Paraguay are already up to no good. The Southern Command, according to several sources including Radio Havana, announced an upcoming “saber rattling” military exercise to take place in Paraguay called “Fuerzas Comando 06 (Operation Commando Force 06).”
Stan Goff, a former sergeant in the US Special Forces, often points out in his denunciations of US intervention that it can be misleading to judge the impact of a US intervention only by the number of US troops involved. If these troops are Special Forces, for example, they can train local mercenaries or pave the way for thousands of ground troops.
Bush administration officials deny that Mariscal Estigarribia will become or is a US military base.
Manta, Ecuador
In 2001, the Pentagon came under criticism for opening a military base in Manta, Ecuador. The base is located 20 minutes from war-torn Colombia’s borders. Those in Colombia who resist neocolonial domination there consider the base opening an act of war. Many US Congress members also opposed Manta and tried to block the Manta project.
The first thing the base in Manta housed was E-3 AWACS surveillance planes. According to the Washington Post (January 25, 2001), with the troops and the planes, “Manta will become the main hub for US surveillance flights over the vast cocaine-producing areas of Latin America.”
- The US pays no rent at Manta. It signed the deal with a former Ecuadorian president, Jamil Mahuad, who fled to exile in the US and was under indictment for abuse of power.
One year before Ecuador opened the Manta base it adopted the US$ as the national currency.
A rose is a rose
In the usual Pentagon and Washington double talk, government officials have taken to doctoring up the language of the militarization of Latin America to make it palatable for the US public.
In the case of both Manta, Ecuador, in 2001 and Mariscal Estigarribia, Paraguay now, government officials called the bases “Forward Operating Locations” or “Cooperative Security Locations” to avoid calling them bases.
Washington has mislabeled the militarization of Latin America as part of the fight against drugs, just as some of the media have mislabeled the Minutemen militarizing the US-Mexican border as freedom fighters.
In reality, the strengthening of military bases and the sending of US troops is aimed to subvert the rising revolutionary movements in Latin America. It is aimed against Presidents Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia and at Fidel Castro in Cuba.
But the tide for an end to colonial and imperialist domination has turned in favor of the oppressed and no military base can turn it back.
General News of Wednesday, 22 February 2006
General News of Wednesday, 22 February 2006
Marine General James L. Jones, Head of the US European Command, who made the disclosure said the Pentagon was seeking to acquire access to two kinds of bases in Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Kenya and other African Countries.
The new US strategy based on the conclusions of May 2001 report of the President’s National Energy Policy Development group chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney and known as the Cheney report.
The report simply says that African Countries provided 14 per cent of total US oil imports but by 2015, West Africa alone will supply25 per cent of America’s imported oil.
An article published in review of African Political Economy (No98: 573-584) says “ of particular significance is the fact that many West African streams are lighter, higher valued crude oils that are tailored made for the US East Coast market and are able to offer an alternative to Middle eastern supplies.”
“ In its efforts to promote greater diversity in oil supplies, the Bush Administration is focusing its attention on six African countries, Nigeria, Angola, Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, Chad and Equatorial Guinea.”
The article by Daniel Volman is silent on the dangers faced by countries, which elect to host US military bases around the world.
The major risks associated with hosting US military installation include terrorist attacks, the destruction of national culture and more direct US control over the lives of the host people.
The Insight newspaper said the Tamale Airport, according to speculation is to be turned into a US air force base if current consultations are concluded.
This could make Ghana a major target for Al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups around the world.
Ghana to host US military base
Marine General James L. Jones, Head of the US European Command, who made the disclosure said the Pentagon was seeking to acquire access to two kinds of bases in Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Kenya and other African Countries.
The new US strategy based on the conclusions of May 2001 report of the President’s National Energy Policy Development group chaired by Vice President Richard Cheney and known as the Cheney report.
The report simply says that African Countries provided 14 per cent of total US oil imports but by 2015, West Africa alone will supply25 per cent of America’s imported oil.
An article published in review of African Political Economy (No98: 573-584) says “ of particular significance is the fact that many West African streams are lighter, higher valued crude oils that are tailored made for the US East Coast market and are able to offer an alternative to Middle eastern supplies.”
“ In its efforts to promote greater diversity in oil supplies, the Bush Administration is focusing its attention on six African countries, Nigeria, Angola, Gabon, Congo Brazzaville, Chad and Equatorial Guinea.”
The article by Daniel Volman is silent on the dangers faced by countries, which elect to host US military bases around the world.
The major risks associated with hosting US military installation include terrorist attacks, the destruction of national culture and more direct US control over the lives of the host people.
The Insight newspaper said the Tamale Airport, according to speculation is to be turned into a US air force base if current consultations are concluded.
This could make Ghana a major target for Al-Quaeda and other terrorist groups around the world.
Pentagon to Identify Detainees
Pentagon to Identify Detainees
Pentagon to Identify Detainees
Military to Comply With Court Order at Guantanamo Bay
Pentagon to Identify Detainees
Military to Comply With Court Order at Guantanamo Bay
By Josh White
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 25, 2006; A02
Pentagon officials are preparing to release the names of several hundred detainees at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the first time the government will publicly link names to previously revealed information about many captives at the island prison.
The change came when the government decided this week not to appeal a federal judge's order to provide names that were redacted from documents released under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Associated Press. Although the government has previously released thousands of pages related to hearings on whether individual detainees are "enemy combatants," it has always withheld the names of the prisoners who participated in those hearings.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff ordered the Defense Department to release the names by next Friday. Pentagon officials said yesterday that the decision not to appeal the ruling, made by the Justice Department, came over the strong objections of the Defense Department general counsel's office, which has been seeking to prevent the release of the names.
The names of hundreds of detainees have become public since the Supreme Court in June 2004 allowed them to file federal court cases contesting their imprisonment. Others have been identified in the media and by advocacy groups, some after they were released. Over the past several years, The Washington Post has independently confirmed the names of approximately 450 people who were detained at Guantanamo Bay for some part of the past four years.
But the Pentagon has refused to discuss individual detainees in its custody.
The document release could include information gleaned from International Committee of the Red Cross letters that detainees used to defend themselves in "combatant status review tribunals," meaning the names of detainees' family members could also be a part of the disclosure.
"The Department of Defense will comply with the judge's decision in this matter," Navy Lt. Cmdr. J.D. Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman, said yesterday.
Defense officials made it clear yesterday that the release will not be a roster of the approximately 490 detainees now held at Guantanamo Bay. Instead it will contain names associated with about 390 hearing transcripts. Some detainees did not participate in the hearings.
Bill Goodman, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said yesterday that the ruling is a step in the right direction but will not quell concerns about the U.S. detention system. The center oversees federal cases filed on behalf of hundreds of the detainees in Cuba.
"The government has detained prisoners without due process; lied about who these people are; concealed their treatment from the public and denied basic information to the very people who are authorized to represent the detainees," Goodman said in a written statement. "This administration prefers to operate in the shadows, but Judge Rakoff's ruling helps shine a light that can make this process more open and democratic."
The Defense Department, however, has given the ICRC access to detainees at Guantanamo Bay, escorted news media representatives and members of Congress through the facility, and allowed international human rights officials to visit. But department officials have strictly limited contact with detainees.
Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps : SF Indymedia
Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps : SF Indymedia
by repost Friday, Feb. 24, 2006 at 12:03 AM
by Peter Dale Scott
kbrThe contract -- announced Jan. 24 by the engineering and construction firm KBR -- calls for preparing for "an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs" in the event of other emergencies, such as "a natural disaster." The release offered no details about where Halliburton was to build these facilities, or when.
To date, some newspapers have worried that open-ended provisions in the contract could lead to cost overruns, such as have occurred with KBR in Iraq. A Homeland Security spokesperson has responded that this is a "contingency contract" and that conceivably no centers might be built. But almost no paper so far has discussed the possibility that detention centers could be used to detain American citizens if the Bush administration were to declare martial law.
For those who follow covert government operations abroad and at home, the contract evoked ominous memories of Oliver North's controversial Rex-84 "readiness exercise" in 1984. This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary "refugees," in the context of "uncontrolled population movements" over the Mexican border into the United States. North's activities raised civil liberties concerns in both Congress and the Justice Department. The concerns persist.
"Almost certainly this is preparation for a roundup after the next 9/11 for Mid-Easterners, Muslims and possibly dissenters," says Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers, the U.S. military's account of its activities in Vietnam. "They've already done this on a smaller scale, with the 'special registration' detentions of immigrant men from Muslim countries, and with Guantanamo."
Plans for detention facilities or camps have a long history, going back to fears in the 1970s of a national uprising by black militants. As Alonzo Chardy reported in the Miami Herald on July 5, 1987, an executive order for continuity of government (COG) had been drafted in 1982 by FEMA head Louis Giuffrida. The order called for "suspension of the Constitution" and "declaration of martial law." The martial law portions of the plan were outlined in a memo by Giuffrida's deputy, John Brinkerhoff.
In 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 188, one of a series of directives that authorized continued planning for COG by a private parallel government.
Two books, James Mann's "Rise of the Vulcans" and James Bamford's "A Pretext for War," have revealed that in the 1980s this parallel structure, operating outside normal government channels, included the then-head of G. D. Searle and Co., Donald Rumsfeld, and then-Congressman from Wyoming Dick Cheney.
After 9/11, new martial law plans began to surface similar to those of FEMA in the 1980s. In January 2002 the Pentagon submitted a proposal for deploying troops on American streets. One month later John Brinkerhoff, the author of the 1982 FEMA memo, published an article arguing for the legality of using U.S. troops for purposes of domestic security.
Then in April 2002, Defense Dept. officials implemented a plan for domestic U.S. military operations by creating a new U.S. Northern Command (CINC-NORTHCOM) for the continental United States. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld called this "the most sweeping set of changes since the unified command system was set up in 1946."
The NORTHCOM commander, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced, is responsible for "homeland defense and also serves as head of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).... He will command U.S. forces that operate within the United States in support of civil authorities. The command will provide civil support not only in response to attacks, but for natural disasters."
John Brinkerhoff later commented on PBS that, "The United States itself is now for the first time since the War of 1812 a theater of war. That means that we should apply, in my view, the same kind of command structure in the United States that we apply in other theaters of war."
Then in response to Hurricane Katrina in Sept. 2005, according to the Washington Post, White House senior adviser Karl Rove told the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Babineaux Blanco, that she should explore legal options to impose martial law "or as close as we can get." The White House tried vigorously, but ultimately failed, to compel Gov. Blanco to yield control of the state National Guard.
Also in September, NORTHCOM conducted its highly classified Granite Shadow exercise in Washington. As William Arkin reported in the Washington Post, "Granite Shadow is yet another new Top Secret and compartmented operation related to the military's extra-legal powers regarding weapons of mass destruction. It allows for emergency military operations in the United States without civilian supervision or control."
It is clear that the Bush administration is thinking seriously about martial law. Many critics have alleged that FEMA's spectacular failure to respond to Katrina followed from a deliberate White House policy: of paring back FEMA, and instead strengthening the military for responses to disasters.
A multimillion program for detention facilities will greatly increase NORTHCOM's ability to respond to any domestic disorders.
Scott is author of "Drugs, Oil, and War: The United States in Afghanistan, Colombia, and Indochina" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). He is completing a book on "The Road to 9/11." Visit his Web site.
Pentagon promotes 'long war' strategy as violence threatens withdrawal
Telegraph | News | Pentagon promotes 'long war' strategy as violence threatens withdrawal
| | ||||
| ||||
The CIA's Pain Project
The CIA's Pain Project
By , Democracy Now!
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
The CIA's Pain Project
By , Democracy Now!
Posted on February 24, 2006, Printed on February 25, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/32638/
[Editor's Note: This is an edited transcript of an interview between Amy Goodman and Alfred McCoy from Democracy Now!. It originally aired on February 17, and is available for download from DemocracyNow.org.]
Amy Goodman: A new expose gives an account of the C.I.A.'s secret efforts to develop new forms of torture, spanning half a century. It reveals how the C.I.A. perfected its methods, distributing them across the world, from Vietnam to Iran to Central America, uncovering the roots of the Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo torture scandals.
The book is called "A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror," and we're joined by its author, Alfred McCoy, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. We welcome you to Democracy Now! I first learned of you with your first book "The Politics of Heroin: C.I.A. Complicity in the Global Drug Trade," for which you almost died. What happened then?
Alfred McCoy: When I was researching that book in the mountains of Laos, hiking from village to village, interviewing Laotian farmers about their opium harvest, and they were telling me that they took it down to the local helicopter pad where Air America helicopters would land, Air America being a subsidiary of the C.I.A., and officers, tribal officers in the C.I.A.'s secret army would buy the opium and fly it off to the C.I.A.'s secret compound, where it would be transformed into heroin and ultimately wind up in South Vietnam.
While I was doing that research, we were ambushed by a group of C.I.A. mercenaries. Fortunately, I had five militiamen from the village with me, and we shot our way out of there, but they came quite close. Then later on, a C.I.A. operative threatened to murder my interpreter unless I stopped doing that research.
AG: How did you know they were C.I.A.?
AM: In the mountains of Laos, there aren't that many white guys. The C.I.A. ran what was called the "Army Clandestine." They had a secret army, and those soldiers that ambushed us were soldiers in the secret army. That we knew.
AG: And the contention of that book was that the C.I.A. was complicit in the global drug trade?
AM: Right. In the context of conducting covert operations around the globe, particularly in the Asian opium zone, which stretched from the Golden Triangle of Vietnam and Laos all the way to Afghanistan, that in those mountains far away from home, when the C.I.A. had to mobilize tribal armies, the only allies were warlords. When the C.I.A. formed an alliance with them, the warlords used this alliance to become drug lords, and the C.I.A. didn't stop them from their involvement in the traffic.
AG: Well, as a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, you have not stopped looking at the C.I.A., and now you've written this new book. It's called A Question of Torture: C.I.A. Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror. Give us a history lesson.
AM: Look at the most famous of photographs from Abu Ghraib, of the Iraqi standing on the box, arms extended with a hood over his head and the fake electrical wires from his arms, OK? In that photograph you can see the entire 50-year history of C.I.A. torture. It's very simple. He's hooded for sensory disorientation, and his arms are extended for self-inflicted pain. And those are the two very simple fundamental C.I.A. techniques, developed at enormous cost.
From 1950 to 1962, the C.I.A. ran a massive research project, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind, spending over $1 billion a year to crack the code of human consciousness, from both mass persuasion and the use of coercion in individual interrogation. They tried LSD, mescaline, all kinds of drugs. They tried electroshock, truth serum, sodium pentathol. None of it worked. What worked was very simple behavioral findings, outsourced to our leading universities -- Harvard, Princeton, Yale and McGill -- and the first breakthrough came at McGill. It's in the book.
AG: Describe it.
AM: Dr. Donald O. Hebb of McGill University, a brilliant psychologist, had a contract from the Canadian Defense Research Board, which was a partner with the C.I.A. in this research, and he found that he could induce a state of psychosis in an individual within 48 hours. It didn't take electroshock, truth serum, beating or pain. He had student volunteers sit in a cubicle with goggles, gloves and headphones, earmuffs, so that they were cut off from their senses, denied sensory stimulation. Within 48 hours, they would suffer, first hallucinations, then ultimately breakdown. And if you look at many of those photographs, they show people with bags over their head.The photographs of the Guantánamo detainees look exactly like those student volunteers in Dr. Hebb's original cubicle.
The second major breakthrough that the C.I.A. had came here in New York City at Cornell University Medical Center, where two eminent neurologists under contract from the C.I.A. studied Soviet K.G.B. torture techniques. They found that the most effective K.G.B. technique was self-inflicted pain. You simply make somebody stand for a day or two. And as they stand, you tell them, "You're doing this to yourself. Cooperate with us, and you can sit down." As they stand, the fluids flow down to the legs, the legs swell, lesions form, they erupt, they suppurate, hallucinations start, the kidneys shut down.
Several of those photos you just showed, one of them with a man with a bag on his arm, his arms are straight in front of him, people are standing with their arms extended, that's self-inflicted pain. And the combination of those two techniques -- sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain -- is the basis of the C.I.A.'s technique.
AG: Who has pioneered this at the C.I.A.?
AM: This was done by Technical Services Division. Most of the in-house research involved drugs and all of the LSD experiments that we heard about for years, but ultimately they were a negative result. When you have any large massive research project, you get, you hit brick walls, you get negative results. All the drugs didn't work. What did work was this.
AG: But when you talk about the 'everyone knows the LSD experiments,' I don't think everyone knows. In fact, I would conjecture that more than 90 percent of Americans don't know that the C.I.A. was involved with LSD experiments on unwitting Americans. Can you explain what they did?
AM: As a part of this comprehensive survey of human consciousness, the C.I.A. tried every possible technique. And one of the things that they -- at the time that this research started in the 1940s, a Swiss pharmaceutical company developed LSD. Dr. Hoffman there was the man who developed it. The C.I.A. bought substantial doses, and they conducted experiments. One of the most notorious experiments was that Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, inside the agency, spiked the drinks of his co-workers, and one of those co-workers suffered a breakdown, Dr. Frank Olson. He either was pushed or jumped from a hotel here in New York City.
His son Eric Olson insists that his father was murdered by the C.I.A. He believes that his father did a tour of Europe, and he visited the ultimate Anglo-American test site, black site near Frankfurt, where they were doing lethal experiments, fatal experiments on double agents and suspected double agents, and that his father returned enormously upset by the discovery that this research was actually killing people. Olson argues his father was killed by the C.I.A., that he was pushed.
AG: And didn't they do experiments in brothels in the San Francisco area?
AM: They had two kinds of party houses. They had one in the San Francisco Bay Area, another in New York City. And what they did in San Francisco was they had prostitutes who go out to the streets, get individuals, bring them back, give them a drink, and there would be a two-way mirror, and the C.I.A. would photograph these people. They were running the brothel. They were running all of these experiments. They did that on Army soldiers through the Army Chemical Warfare Division.
AG: What did they do there?
AM: Again, they gave them LSD and other drugs to see what effect they would have.
AG: And what did the soldiers think they were getting?
AM: They were just told they were participating in an experiment for national defense.
AG: Also on prisoners, were there experiments?
AM: There were some in prisons in the United States and also the Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Ky. The Federal Drug Treatment Center in Lexington, Ky, had this. All of this research, all this very elaborate research …
AG: On unwitting Americans?
AM: Unwitting Americans, produced nothing. What they found time and again is that electroshock didn't work, and sodium pentathol didn't work, LSD certainly didn't work. You scramble the brain. You got unreliable information. But what did work was the combination of these two rather boring, rather mundane behavioral techniques: sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain. In 1963, the C.I.A. codified these results in the so-called KUBARK Counterintelligence Manual.
If you just type the word "KUBARK" into Google, you will get the manual, an actual copy of it, on your computer screen, and you can read the techniques. Read the report. But if you do, read the footnotes, because that's where the behavioral research is. This produced a distinctively American form of torture, the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in centuries, psychological torture, and it's the one that's with us today. It's proved to be a very resilient, quite adaptable, and an enormously destructive paradigm.
Let's make one thing clear. Americans refer to this often times in common parlance as "torture light." People who are involved in treatment tell us it's far more destructive, does far more lasting damage to the human psyche than does physical torture. As Sen. McCain said, himself, last year when he was debating his torture prohibition, faced with a choice between being beaten and psychologically tortured, I'd rather be beaten. It does far more lasting damage. It is far crueler than physical torture. This is something that we don't realize in this country.
The initial research basically developed techniques for attacking universal human sensory receptors: sight, sound, heat, cold, sense of time. That's why all of the detainees describe being put in dark rooms, being subjected to strobe lights, loud music. That's sensory deprivation or sensory assault. That was the phase one of the C.I.A. research. But the paradigm has proved to be quite adaptable.
Right at the start of the war of terror, in late 2002, Donald Rumsfeld appointed Gen. Geoffrey Miller to be chief at Guantánamo because the previous commanders at Guantánamo were too soft on the detainees. Gen. Miller turned Guantánamo into a de facto behavioral research laboratory, a kind of torture research laboratory. And under Gen. Miller at Guantánamo, they perfected the C.I.A. torture paradigm. They added two key techniques. They went beyond the universal sensory receptors of the original research. They added to it an attack on cultural sensitivity, particularly Arab male sensitivity to issues of gender and sexual identity.
And then they went further still. Under Gen. Miller, they created these things called "Biscuit" teams, behavioral science consultation teams, and they actually had qualified military psychologists participating in the ongoing interrogation, and these psychologists would identify individual phobias, like fear of dark or attachment to mother. And by the time we're done, by 2003, under Gen. Miller, Guantánamo had perfected the C.I.A. paradigm, and it had a three-fold total assault on the human psyche: sensory receptors, self-inflicted pain, cultural sensitivity, and individual fears and phobia.
AG: And then they sent Gen. Miller to, quote, "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib.
AM: In mid-2003, when the Iraqi resistance erupted, the United States found it had no intelligence assets; it had no way to contain the insurgency. The U.S. military was in a state of panic. They began sweeping across Iraq, rounding up thousands of Iraqi suspects, putting many of them in Abu Ghraib prison. At that point, in late August 2003, Gen. Miller was sent from Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib, and he brought his techniques with him. He brought a CD, and he brought a manual of his techniques. He gave them to the M.P. officers, the military intelligence officers and to Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. commander in Iraq.
In September of 2003, Gen. Sanchez issued orders, detailed orders, for expanded interrogation techniques beyond those allowed in the U.S. Army Field Manual 3452. If you look at those techniques, what he's ordering is a combination of self-inflicted pain, stress positions and sensory disorientation. If you look at the 1963 C.I.A. KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual, the 1983 C.I.A. Interrogation Training Manual that they used in Honduras for training Honduran officers in torture and interrogation, and then Gen. Sanchez's 2003 orders, there's a striking continuity across this 40-year span, in both the general principles, this total assault on the existential platforms of human identity and existence.
AG: And Rumsfeld's comment, when asked if it was torture, when people were forced to stand hours on end -- that he stands at his desk?
AM: Right, he wrote that in one of his memos. When he was asked to review the Guantánamo techniques in late 2003 or early 2004, he scribbled that marginal note and said, you know, "I stand at my desk eight hours a day." He has a designer standing desk. "How come we're limiting these techniques of the stress position to just four hours?" In other words, that was a clear signal from the defense secretary. One of the problems beyond the details of these orders is torture is an extraordinarily dangerous thing. There's an absolute ban on torture for a very good reason. Torture taps into the deepest recesses, unexplored recesses of human consciousness, where creation and destruction coexist, where the infinite human capacity for kindness and infinite human capacity for cruelty coexist, and it has a powerful perverse appeal. And once it starts, both the perpetrators and the powerful who order them, let it spread, and it spreads out of control.
When the Bush administration gave those orders for techniques tantamount to torture at the start of the war on terror, I think it was probably their intention that these be limited to top al-Qaida suspects. But within months, we were torturing hundreds of Afghanis at Bagram near Kabul. A few months later in 2003, through these techniques, we were torturing literally thousands of Iraqis. You can see in those photos, beyond the details of the techniques that we've described, you can see how that once it starts, it becomes this Dantesque hell, this kind of play palace of the darkest recesses of human consciousness. That's why it's necessary to maintain an absolute prohibition on torture. There is no such thing as a little bit of torture.
AG: Professor McCoy, when you started seeing these images, the first photos that came out at Abu Ghraib, the pictures we showed of the hooded man, electrodes coming out of his fingers, standing on the box, your response?
AM: The reason I wrote this book is when that photo came out in April 2004 on CBS news, at the Times, William Safire, for example, writing in the New York Times said this was the work of creeps. Later on, Defense Secretary Schlesinger said that this was just abuse by a few people on the night shift. There was another phrase: "Recycled hillbillies from Cumberland, Maryland." In other words, this was the bad apple thesis. We could blame these bad apples. I looked at those photos, I didn't see individual abuse. What I saw was two textbook, trademark C.I.A. psychological interrogation techniques: self-inflicted pain and sensory disorientation.
AG: And that bombardment of sound is often joked about. "Oh, we played Britney Spears really loud," or whatever it is.
AM: That's one of the problems of talking about this topic in the United States. We regard all of this panoply of psychological techniques as "torture light," as somehow not really torture. We're the only country in the world that does that. The U.N. convention defines torture as the infliction of severe psychological or physical pain. The U.N. convention which bans torture in 1984 gives equal weight to psychological and physical techniques. We alone as a society somehow exempt all of these psychological techniques.
Back in the early 1990s, the United States was emerging from the Cold War, and we began this process of disarming ourselves and trying to sort of bring ourselves in line with the rest of the international community. President Clinton sent the U.N. Anti-Torture Convention to the U.S. Congress for ratification in 1994; he included four detailed paragraphs of reservation that had been drafted by the Reagan administration. He adopted them without so much as changing a semicolon. When you read those detailed paragraphs of reservation, what you realize is that the United States Congress ratified the treaty, but basically we outlawed only physical torture. Those photographs of reservation are carefully written to avoid one word in the 26 printed pages of the U.N. convention. That word is "mental." Basically, we exempted psychological torture.
AG: You wrote a piece, "Why the McCain Torture Ban Won't Work: The Bush Legacy of Legalized Torture."
AM: Most Americans think that it's over, that in December 2005, the U.S. Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act 2005, which bars all inhumane or cruel treatment. Actually, what has happened is the Bush administration fought that amendment tooth and nail; they fought it with loopholes. Vice President Cheney went to Sen. McCain and asked for a specific exemption for the C.I.A. McCain refused. The National Security Advisor went to McCain and asked for certain kinds of exemptions for the C.I.A. He refused.
So then they started amending it. Basically what happened is, through the process, they introduced loopholes. President Bush said right on Sept. 11, 2001, when he addressed the nation, "I don't care what the international lawyers say. We're going to kick some ass." Those were his words, and then it was up to his legal advisors in the White House and the Justice Department to translate his otherwise unlawful orders into legal directives, and they did it by crafting three very controversial legal principles.
One, that the president, as commander-in-chief, could override laws and treaties. Two, that there was a possible defense for C.I.A. interrogators who engage in torture, and the defenses were of two kinds. First of all, they played around with the word "severe," that torture is the infliction of severe pain. That's when Jay Bybee, who was assistant attorney general, wrote that memo in which he said, "'severe' means equivalent to organ failure," in other words, right up to the point of death. The other thing was that they came up with the idea of intentionality. If a C.I.A. interrogator tortured, but the aim was information, not pain, then he could say that he was not guilty.
The third principle, which was crafted by John Yoo, was Guantánamo is not part of the United States; it is exempt from the writ of U.S. courts. Now, in the process of passing the McCain's ban on inhumane treatment, the White House has cleverly twisted the legislation to reestablish these three key principles. In his signing statement on December 30, President Bush said …
AG: This was the statement that he signed as he signed the McCain so-called ban on torture?
AM: Right, he emailed it at 8 o'clock at night from his ranch in Crawford on December 30th, that he was signing this legislation into law. He said, "I reserve the right, as commander-in-chief and as head of the unitary executive, to do what I need to do to defend America." The next thing that happened is that McCain, as a compromise, inserted into the legislation a provision that if a C.I.A. operative engages in inhumane treatment or torture but believes that he or she was following a lawful order, then that's a defense.
So they got the second principle, defense for C.I.A. torturers. The third principle is that the White House had Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina amend McCain's amendment by inserting language into it, saying that for the purposes of this act, the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay is not on U.S. territory.
In the last month, the Bush administration has gone to federal courts and said, "Drop all of your habeas corpus suits from Guantánamo." There are 160 of them. They've gone to the Supreme Court and said, "Drop your Guantánamo case." They have, in fact, used that law to quash legal oversight of their actions.
Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!
© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/32638/
CNN.com - The Navy's swimming spy plane - Feb 24, 2006
CNN.com - The Navy's swimming spy plane - Feb 24, 2006:
By Bill Sweetman
Popular Science
Friday, February 24, 2006 Posted: 1518 GMT (2318 HKT)
(Popsci.comexternal link) -- Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, famed for the U-2 and Blackbird spy planes that flew higher than anything else in the world in their day, is trying for a different altitude record: an airplane that starts and ends its mission 150 feet underwater.
The Cormorant, a stealthy, jet-powered, autonomous aircraft that could be outfitted with either short-range weapons or surveillance equipment, is designed to launch out of the Trident missile tubes in some of the U.S. Navy's gigantic Cold War--era Ohio-class submarines.
These formerly nuke-toting subs have become less useful in a military climate evolved to favor surgical strikes over nuclear stalemates, but the Cormorant could use their now-vacant tubes to provide another unmanned option for spying on or destroying targets near the coast.
This is no easy task.
The tubes are as long as a semi trailer but about seven feet wide -- not exactly airplane-shaped. The Cormorant has to be strong enough to withstand the pressure 150 feet underwater -- enough to cave in hatches on a normal aircraft -- but light enough to fly.
Another challenge: Subs survive by stealth, and an airplane flying back to the boat could give its position away.
The Skunk Works's answer is a four-ton airplane with gull wings that hinge around its body to fit inside the missile tube.
The craft is made of titanium to resist corrosion, and any empty spaces are filled with plastic foam to resist crushing. The rest of the body is pressurized with inert gas. Inflatable seals keep the weapon-bay doors, engine inlet and exhaust covers watertight.
The Cormorant does not shoot out of its tube like a missile. Instead an arm-like docking 'saddle' guides the craft out, sending it floating to the surface while the sub slips away. As the drone pops out of the water, the rocket boosters fire and the Cormorant takes off.
After completing its mission, the plane flies to the rendezvous coordinates it receives from the sub and lands in the sea. The sub then launches a robotic underwater vehicle to fetch the floating drone.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is funding tests of some of the Cormorant's unique systems, including a splashdown model and an underwater-recovery vehicle.
The tests should be completed by September, after which DARPA will decide whether it will fund a flying prototype."
By Bill Sweetman
Popular Science
Friday, February 24, 2006 Posted: 1518 GMT (2318 HKT)
(Popsci.comexternal link) -- Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works, famed for the U-2 and Blackbird spy planes that flew higher than anything else in the world in their day, is trying for a different altitude record: an airplane that starts and ends its mission 150 feet underwater.
The Cormorant, a stealthy, jet-powered, autonomous aircraft that could be outfitted with either short-range weapons or surveillance equipment, is designed to launch out of the Trident missile tubes in some of the U.S. Navy's gigantic Cold War--era Ohio-class submarines.
These formerly nuke-toting subs have become less useful in a military climate evolved to favor surgical strikes over nuclear stalemates, but the Cormorant could use their now-vacant tubes to provide another unmanned option for spying on or destroying targets near the coast.
This is no easy task.
The tubes are as long as a semi trailer but about seven feet wide -- not exactly airplane-shaped. The Cormorant has to be strong enough to withstand the pressure 150 feet underwater -- enough to cave in hatches on a normal aircraft -- but light enough to fly.
Another challenge: Subs survive by stealth, and an airplane flying back to the boat could give its position away.
The Skunk Works's answer is a four-ton airplane with gull wings that hinge around its body to fit inside the missile tube.
The craft is made of titanium to resist corrosion, and any empty spaces are filled with plastic foam to resist crushing. The rest of the body is pressurized with inert gas. Inflatable seals keep the weapon-bay doors, engine inlet and exhaust covers watertight.
The Cormorant does not shoot out of its tube like a missile. Instead an arm-like docking 'saddle' guides the craft out, sending it floating to the surface while the sub slips away. As the drone pops out of the water, the rocket boosters fire and the Cormorant takes off.
After completing its mission, the plane flies to the rendezvous coordinates it receives from the sub and lands in the sea. The sub then launches a robotic underwater vehicle to fetch the floating drone.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is funding tests of some of the Cormorant's unique systems, including a splashdown model and an underwater-recovery vehicle.
The tests should be completed by September, after which DARPA will decide whether it will fund a flying prototype."
Friday, February 24, 2006
Iran Has Started Producing Enriched Uranium - New York Times
Iran Has Started Producing Enriched Uranium - New York Times
needless to say---take it with a grain of salt EG:)
needless to say---take it with a grain of salt EG:)
Iran Has Started Producing Enriched Uranium
PARIS, Feb. 24 — International nuclear inspectors are expected to report next week that Iran has started producing enriched uranium on a very small scale, indicating that it is striving to solve technological problems in its nuclear program, European officials said today.
Only a month after Iran defied Europe and the International Atomic Energy Agency and declared it would restart what it termed research on enrichment, it has put 10 centrifuges into operation at the vast uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, according to the officials.
But it would take a year for more than a thousand machines to produce enough material for one weapon, and it is unclear how long it would take Iran to work out the problems of tying those machines into a "cascade" that could produce bomb-grade fuel.
Both American and European officials said they viewed Iran's action as largely a political statement — an effort, in the words of one senior American official, "to get something in operation in hopes that the world will just get used to it."
At a meeting of the atomic energy agency board on March 6, Bush administration officials plan to cite the move as evidence that Tehran is moving as fast as it can to master the fuel cycle. That would yield the technical knowledge, but not necessarily the capability, to produce highly enriched uranium for a weapon.
The 10 centrifuges, which European officials say are connected in a "mini-cascade," had been sealed as part of a voluntary agreement in November 2004 between Iran and the Europeans that had frozen Iran's nuclear enrichment-related activities. That agreement fell apart last month.
But Iran's efforts to reconstitute its operation are still just beginning. The Institute for Science and International Security, which monitors Iran, noted Thursday that "Iran still needs to repair and operate its first 164-machine test cascade at the Natanz pilot plant," and that it has to overcome considerable hurdles. "One of the reasons Iran spun many centrifuges is that they broke, or did not work as expected."
The new centrifuges have been run in full view of nuclear inspectors, a sign that Iran is attempting to make a political statement by openly challenging the international community.
In Washington on today, President Bush made no reference to the specific development, but once again branded Iran the world's primary sponsor of terrorism, and warned that the United States would never let the country develop nuclear weapons.
"A nontransparent society that is the world's premier state sponsor of terror cannot be allowed to possess the world's most dangerous weapons," he said in a speech defending his strategy in fighting terrorism.
Senior administration officials were quick to latch on to the news of the operating centrifuges as proof that Iran was trying to buy time in producing cascades. But some officials in Europe, including some with direct knowledge of Iran's activities, said the United States was exaggerating the importance of the development.
"On its own, I don't think this is a big deal," said one official in Vienna.
The report next week by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, based in Vienna, is expected to be forwarded to the United Nations Security Council after the agency's 35-nation board meets. Officials in Vienna and Washington say they expect the report to include a number of worrisome developments besides the news about the centrifuges.
It is likely to include information disclosed in an interim agency report last month that concluded there was evidence suggesting links between Iran's ostensibly peaceful nuclear program and its military work on high explosives and missiles. That report referred to a secretive Iranian entity called the Green Salt Project, which worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design.
Olli Heinonen, a deputy director general for the nuclear agency, is heading this weekend to Tehran, where officials have pledged to cooperate more fully with the agency in anticipation of next week's reports.
He and his team will also press longstanding demands, including access to the head of a former military site in Tehran, information about Iran's dealings with an international nuclear black market that supplied it with atomic technology, and information about possible work related to nuclear weapons.
Under pressure from the United States and three European countries that had forged the 2004 agreement with Iran — France, Britain and Germany — the agency's board voted on Feb. 4 to report Iran to the Security Council, a move that reflected increasing suspicion that Iran was determined to develop nuclear weapons.
The board delayed any action in the Security Council, however, until it has the opportunity to review the new report on March 6.
Venezuela to halt some US airline flights
US News Article | Reuters.com
Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:19 PM ET
Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:19 PM ET
By Patrick Markey
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuela will halt flights by U.S. carriers Delta Air Lines and Continental Airlines and restrict American Airlines in the latest dispute between Washington and the world's No. 5 oil exporter, airlines and industry officials said on Friday.
Washington, increasingly at odds with Venezuela's left-wing president, Hugo Chavez, said it could weigh countermeasures should Caracas press ahead with flight suspensions in March.
The restrictions on U.S. passenger and cargo flights came after U.S. authorities refused to lift limits put on place in 1995 on Venezuelan carriers flying to the United States due to safety concerns, Venezuela's INAC aviation authority said.
Venezuela's airline association ALAV, which represents carriers, said the measure would cancel some American flights and halt all Continental and Delta flights and affect cargo carrier FedEx when it takes effect next Wednesday.
"INAC has exhausted all conciliatory avenues with the U.S. aviation authorities ... and has not been able to re-establish rights the bilateral accord gives to Venezuelan air carriers," the Venezuelan agency said in a statement.
U.S. State Department spokesman Eric Watnik said Caracas had not consulted Washington before notifying U.S. carriers that flights would be canceled or reduced. He said the move violated a 1953 U.S.-Venezuela aviation accord.
"We are working to resolve this serious dispute," Watnik said. "If Venezuela proceeds with its announced plans, we will consider options for an appropriate response."
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said as early as last fall it had offered technical support to Venezuela to improve aviation safety.
Relations between Venezuela and the United States hit a low earlier this month when Chavez expelled a U.S. military attache accused of spying and Washington responded by kicking out a Venezuelan diplomat.
EXECUTIVE TALKS
Roberto Pulido, an ALAV association representative, said U.S. airline officials met with Venezuelan authorities on Friday to discuss the measure and its impact.
Delta spokesman John Kennedy said, "We are very disappointed by this unilateral action by the Venezuelan government and are working closely with the U.S. departments of State and Transport as well as our peer carriers."
Continental said the measure would halt all its operations from March but that it would maintain its daily Caracas-to-Houston flight and a weekly Caracas- to-Newark, New Jersey, flight while negotiations were under way.
A FedEx spokeswoman said the company was in talks with the government to see whether its operations would be affected but that its business would continue in the meantime.
The U.S. Federal Aviation Authority in 1995 said Venezuelan authorities had failed to comply fully with International Civil Aviation Organization standards and rated them a category 2, which restricted Venezuelan carrier flights to United States.
Venezuela briefly canceled direct flights by U.S. carriers in 1996 after Washington threatened to downgrade Venezuelan aviation authorities further with a full ban on local flights to the United States.
(Additional reporting by Magdalena Morales in Caracas and Jeremy Pelofsky and Sue Pleming in Washington)
Syria disputes US charges it incited cartoon mobs
World News Article | Reuters.co.uk
Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:50 PM GMT
Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:50 PM GMT
By Irwin Arieff
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Syria on Friday disputed U.S. charges it had incited mob violence over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, saying Damascus had done its best to protect embassies during violent protests and would pay for damages.
Dozens of Syrian police and security officers had been injured protecting foreign embassies during February 4 demonstrations in Damascus that started out peacefully but unexpectedly turned violent, Syrian U.N. Ambassador Fayssal Mekdad said in a letter to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has accused Damascus of inciting the violence, saying Syria and also Iran had gone "out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes."
Washington is in the midst of an international campaign to put pressure on Syria, accusing it of supporting terrorism, dominating Lebanon and backing insurgents in Iraq, charges Damascus denies.
Annan said this month Syria and Iran should pay for any damage caused by their failure to protect foreign embassies from mobs protesting over the cartoons, which first appeared in a Danish newspaper and triggered widespread protests across the Muslim world.
Mekdad, who was recently named Syria's vice foreign minister in a cabinet shuffle but remains in New York, accused Washington of "issuing statements having no basis in reality."
"They have twisted the facts and misrepresented the measures taken by the Syrian government," he said in the February 13 letter, circulated at the United Nations on Friday.
He said Syrian officials had apologized for the violence and pledged to pay for any damages in meetings with officials representing the European Union, the European Commission, Austria, Canada, Chile, Norway and Switzerland.
The Foreign Ministry was in the process of assessing the damage and has provided temporary quarters to the Chilean Embassy, he said.
Iran News - Iran's first VP leaves Syria for home
Iran News - Iran's first VP leaves Syria for home
| Iran's first VP leaves Syria for home |
 Saturday, February 25, 2006 - ©2005 IranMania.com |
| LONDON, February 25 (IranMania) - Iran's First Vice-President Parviz Dawoodi ended his 3-day visit to Syria and departed for Tehran from Aleppo Airport, IRNA reported. At Aleppo, Dawoodi visited the historical castle of the town (12th century) and the mausoleum of prophet Zechariah (PBUH). Dawoodi also visited a cement plant in Hama, 200 km from Damascus, on Friday. Dawoodi co-chaired Iran-Syria High Committee with Prime Minister Muhammad Naji al-Utri. The two officials signed six cooperation documents on Thursday in different fields of economic, social and cultural issues. Iran's first vice-president met with President Bashar al-Assad, Vice-President Farouk al-Shara, Prime Minister al-Utri and Foreign Minister Valis al-Moalem. |
BBN Technologies Smashes Speed Barriers with Worlds' Fastest Detector for Practical Quantum Cryptography; New Technology Enables Faster, Super Secure
BBN Technologies Smashes Speed Barriers with Worlds' Fastest Detector for Practical Quantum Cryptography; New Technology Enables Faster, Super Secure Communications over Greater Distances
BBN Technologies Smashes Speed Barriers with Worlds' Fastest Detector for Practical Quantum Cryptography; New Technology Enables Faster, Super Secure Communications over Greater Distances
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Feb. 23, 2006--BBN Technologies, an advanced technology and research and development firm, today announced a significant breakthrough in the world's first quantum cryptography network. In close collaboration with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder CO, BBN has successfully demonstrated a single-photon detector designed for standard telecom fibers that is 20 times faster than today's benchmark device and could produce even greater speed increases. Greater speeds not only mean faster communications but, in a quantum cryptographic network, also enable greater distances. This breakthrough brings quantum communications beyond metropolitan distances closer to reality. Previously, the practical uses of quantum cryptography networks were limited by their relatively short range of transmission. Now, transmissions can travel over 100 km of telecommunications fiber to enable practical applications in any situation where an ultra-secure network would be useful, such as in banking or military communications.
"We've now demonstrated the first generation of ultra-fast detectors based on superconducting technology that permit extremely secure transmission of information at high rates and over longer distances," said Dr. Jonathan Habif, BBN Scientist who led BBN's detector team. "Detectors have been a terrible bottleneck before now, but our system runs 20 times faster and we've shown that it can run over 100 km of telecom fiber with our new single-photon detector. We expect to run much faster in the near future."
BBN and NIST built the new devices under DARPA sponsorship, in collaboration with the University of Rochester in New York and Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. Laboratory trials have already confirmed continuous operation at a 100 million pulses per second. The technology is believed scalable to 10 billion pulses per second and beyond. The compact, rack-mounted detector system uses NIST-developed packaging and cooling technology which efficiently couples the superconducting detector to a standard telecom fiber and allows operation at a temperature of ~3K without using liquid cryogens.
BBN has operated the world's first quantum cryptography network, the DARPA Quantum Network, continuously since 2004, sending quantum keys between BBN, Harvard University and Boston University under the streets of Cambridge and Boston Mass. The network now has 10 nodes, exchanging quantum keys through both telecom fiber and the atmosphere.
The DARPA Quantum Network provides extremely high levels of information security guaranteed by the laws of quantum physics. It is fully integrated with the Internet and protects off-the-shelf Internet applications such as web surfing and video conferencing between the campuses.
Quantum cryptography is an approach to securing communications based on certain phenomena of Quantum physics, using single photons of light to distribute keys to encrypt and decrypt messages. Quantum cryptography is focused on the physics of information. The process of sending and storing information is always carried out by physical means, for example photons in optical fibers or electrons in electrical current. Eavesdropping can be viewed as measurements on a physical object -- in this case the carrier of the information. Using quantum phenomena allows for the design and implementation of a communication system which can always detect eavesdropping.
About BBN Technologies
BBN Technologies, an advanced technology and research and development firm, is focused on solving some of the world's most pressing problems. From national security, information security, speech recognition and language translation, to integrating disparate systems and networks, BBN has been at the forefront of technological change for over 50 years.
Known for pioneering the development of the ARPANET, the forerunner of the Internet, BBN continues to create advances in Internet and networking technologies through its work on ad-hoc networking, the semantic web, quantum communications, and advanced protocols. Building on its substantial list of firsts, BBN has created the first metro quantum cryptography network, the first real-time foreign broadcast monitoring system, and has developed the world's first stereoscopic digital mammography system. For more information, visit bbn.com
Iran - US marines probe tensions among Iran’s minorities
FT.com / Middle East & Africa / Iran - US marines probe tensions among Iran’s minorities
US marines probe tensions among Iran’s minorities
>By Guy Dinmore in Washington
>Published: February 23 2006 19:07 | Last updated: February 23 2006 19:07
>>
US marines probe tensions among Iran’s minorities
>By Guy Dinmore in Washington
>Published: February 23 2006 19:07 | Last updated: February 23 2006 19:07
>
>The intelligence wing of the US marines has launched a probe into Iran’s ethnic minorities at a time of heightened tensions along the border with Iraq and friction between capitals.
Iranian activists involved in a classified research project for the marines told the FT the Pentagon was examining the depth and nature of grievances against the Islamic government, and appeared to be studying whether Iran would be prone to a violent fragmentation along the same kind of fault lines that are splitting Iraq.
The research effort comes at a critical moment between Iran and the US. Last week the Bush administration asked Congress for $75m to promote democratic change within Iran, having already mustered diplomatic support at the UN to counter Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons programme.
At the same time, Iran has demanded that the UK withdraw its troops from the southern Iraqi city of Basra which lies close to its border. Iran has repeatedly accused both the US and UK of inciting explosions and sabotage in oil-rich frontier regions where Arab and Kurdish minorities predominate. The US and UK accuse Iran of meddling in Iraq and supplying weapons to insurgents.
US intelligence experts suggested the marines’ effort could indicate early stages of contingency plans for a ground assault on Iran. Or it could be an attempt to evaluate the implications of the unrest in Iranian border regions for marines stationed in Iraq, as well as Iranian infiltration.
Other experts affiliated to the Pentagon suggest the investigation merely underlines that diverse intelligence wings of the US military were seeking to justify their existence at a time of plentiful funding.
Lieutenant-Colonel Rick Long, a marines spokesman, confirmed that the marines had commissioned Hicks and Associates, a defence contractor, to conduct two research projects into Iraqi and Iranian ethnic groups.
The purpose was “so that we and our troops would have a better understanding of and respect for the various aspects of culture in those countries”, he said. He would not provide details, saying the projects were for official use only.
Marine Corps Intelligence defines its role as focusing “on crises and predeployment support to expeditionary warfare”. It also provides threat and technical intelligence assessments for the Marines.
The first study, on Iraq, was completed in late 2003, more than six months after marines spearheaded the US invasion. About 23,000 marines are still in Iraq. The Iran study was finished late last year.
Hicks and Associates is a wholly owned subsidiary of Science Applications International Corp, one of the biggest US defence contractors and deeply involved in the prewar planning for Iraq.
The Strategic Assessment Center of Hicks and Associates advertises one of its current projects as the “Impact of Foreign Cultures on Military Operations”. SAIC confirmed it completed the confidential studies for the Marine Corps.
While most analysts would agree that Iran has a far stronger sense of national identity than Iraq, its ethnic mix is even more complex than its neighbour.
Different in language and divided between followers of Sunni and Shia Islam, the ethnic minorities have little coherence. At times tensions among themselves are greater than with Tehran. Iran’s strongly centralised government does not release statistics on the ethnic groups that mainly inhabit sensitive border regions with Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Farsi-speaking Persians who dominate the central government are generally believed to make up a slim majority, followed by Azeris and Kurds in the north and west, Arabs in the oil-rich southwest and Baluch in the southeast.
A patchwork of Turkmen, Christian Armenians and Assyrians, Jews and tribal nomads are among many groups scattered across a country of some 68m people.
Diplomats in Washington expressed shock at the possible implications of the Marine Corps research.
The Financial Times interviewed several Iranians in the US who were invited to help. Some refused, seeing it as part of an effort to break up Iran. However several exiled politicians representing minority groups opposed to the Islamic regime did agree to take part, although they said they wanted a peaceful transition to a democratic, federal Iran and were opposed to any US military action.
Mauri Esfandiari, US representative of the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan which ended its armed struggle in 1997 and is based mostly in northern Iraq, said he believed the Pentagon was acting on its long-standing distrust of CIA and State Department analysis. He thought the Pentagon was looking to counter the prevailing administration view that US support for Iran’s minorities would create a disastrous backlash.
“They want to study and see if the State Department’s chaos theory is a valid hypothesis,” he told the FT. The US could not look to the Kurds to support an invasion as they did in Iraq, he said. “Iran will become democratic only if it is built by the Iranians. The democracy movement is strong enough to find its way without military struggle,” he said.
Karim Abdian, head of the Ahvaz Human Rights Organisation which campaigns on behalf of Iranian Arabs in the south-west, said his meeting with SAIC was video-taped. He was told the report would be made public.
Questions put to him were wide-ranging -- on the ethnic breakdown of Khuzestan province on the Iraq border, populations in cities, the level of discontent, the percentage of Arabs working in the oil industry, how they were represented in the central government, and their relations and kinship with Iraqi Arabs next door.
Mr Abdian said he did not know the motives behind the survey, whether the Marines were seeking a better understanding of the region that directly affects them, or were forming a contingency plan in case they had to “enter” Iran. They were learning from the lessons of Iraq where they had not understood the ethnic dynamics, he suggested.
Mr Abdian, who says his organisation has no government funding, accused Iran of using the threat of a US invasion as a pretext to suppress ethnic grievances rather than address what he called the root causes of land confiscation and discrimination.
Exiled Iranians from various ethnic groups held a “Congress” of nationalities in London a year ago. They issued a “manifesto” for a federal, democratic Iran with separation of mosque and state. Seven organizations included Baluch, Azeris, Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen.
Iran has recently experienced some of the worst unrest and violence among its Kurdish and Arab populations in recent years.
Although the root causes of the unrest -- economic and cultural grievances -- are long standing, analysts in the US believe that events in Iraq – where the new constitution has embraced the concept of federalism and a Kurd has become president -- are serving as a catalyst.
Last month two bombs exploded in Ahvaz, the capital of Khuzestan province close to Iraq. Eight people were killed on the same day that President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad had been due to visit. Six people were killed in bombings last October. Oil installations have been attacked. Iran has repeatedly accused the UK and US of being behind the violence, using separatist Arab groups in southern Iraq to foment instability inside Iran.
“We are very suspicious of British forces’ involvement in terrorist activities,” Mr Ahmadi-Nejad was quoted as saying last October. He accused British troops in Iraq of “hiring terrorists for sabotage”.
London and Washington have strongly denied Iran’s allegations.
Tehran cannot afford to dismiss minority grievances out of hand and seeks to blame the violence on outside forces, says Bill Samii, an Iran analyst with Radio Free Europe.
“The regime can crush dissent when it is localised and relatively small,” he commented.”But if sporadic incidents of ethnic unrest occurred across the country simultaneously, or if such troubles coincided with labour troubles and student demonstrations then the regime would have its hands full.” Given these developments, the question of Iran’s minorities has aroused interest across Washington.
State Department officials met representatives of the London “Congress” in the first such talks between the Bush administration and a coalition claiming to represent Iran’s minorities, participants told the FT.
Last October, the conservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI) held a conference chaired by Michael Ledeen, a proponent of regime change in Iran. It triggered uproar among exiled opposition groups, especially Persian nationalists. Mr Ledeen called the conference “Another case for Federalism?” and denied that AEI was seeking to foment separatism.
Reuel Gerecht, also with AEI and a former CIA specialist on the Middle East, says the State Department under Condoleezza Rice, and not the Pentagon, is running Iran policy. He said State was “several steps removed” from discussing covert action and “nowhere near the point” of trying to use separatist tendencies among minorities as traction against the Tehran regime. No one knew whether that would work, he added.
However, he complimented the Pentagon for “looking down the road”.
A former intelligence officer said the Marines’ probe reflected the “contingency planning” mindset of the US military. Nonetheless, he said, it was important to note that the ultimate purpose of the intelligence wing was “to support effective ground military operations by the Marine Corps”.
Iran, Syria sign economic, trade agreements
The Hindu News Update Service
Damascus (Syria), Feb. 24 (AP): After consolidating political ties, regional allies Syria and Iran moved to strengthen economic ties by signing a host of cooperation agreements in the fields of economy, trade, oil, agriculture and others.
Syrian Prime Minister, Naji al-Otari, said at a joint press conference with visiting Iranian Vice-President, Parziv Davoudi, yesterday that the agreements included one for favoured trade between the two countries, and another for establishing gas, oil, railroad and electrical links between Syria and Iran through neighbouring Iraq.
Memorandums of understanding were also signed spelling joint cooperation in the fields of electric power and a programme for cultural, scientific and educational cooperation. An agreement for agricultural cooperation was also signed, al-Otari said.
Davoudi is accompanied by a high ranking delegation which includes a number of cabinet ministers and senior political as well as economic officials.
Syrian Economy Minister, Amer Lutfi, said recently that trade between Iran and Syria stood at USD60 million, USD57 million of them Iranian exports to Syria.
Iran and Syria both face international pressure and the threat of sanctions, and have forged an alliance that was consolidated last month during a visit by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad to the Syrian capital Damascus.
Al-Otari reiterated yesterday that Syria supports Iran's right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. He said he discussed with Davoudi the situation in the region and condemned what he described as the "defamation campaigns" against Syria and Iran.
U.A.E. Tied to Bin Laden, Cole Bombing
Reports tied UAE to bin Laden, Cole bombing 
As its ties to the U.S. war on terror are brought into the spotlight, more details about the ties between The United Arab Emirates and U.S. enemies abroad are being unearthed.
As its ties to the U.S. war on terror are brought into the spotlight, more details about the ties between The United Arab Emirates and U.S. enemies abroad are being unearthed.The AP recently reported that the Sept. 11 Commission report states U.S. intelligence believed that Osama bin Laden had visited an Afghan desert in 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials.
According to the AP, commission sources claimed that:
"Bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis ... National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates."
Reacting to this information, White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke reportedly called the UAE to confront them about the government's reported contact with bin Laden, hoping to monitor the camp to launch a missile strike when bin Laden returned. Less than a week after the call, intelligence officials were "irate" to discover that the camp had been abandoned and dismantled.
But UAE ties to terrorism have received media scrutiny long before the ports contract uproar.
A September 14, 2001 report in The Guardian claimed that investigators had already linked some of the September 11 terrorists to the UAE. The only other country singled out in the Guardian report was Saudi Arabia. The UK news agency also noted that the nation was one of just three that recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
State controlled television in the UAE confirmed that two 9/11 suspects had licenses issued by the state.
The Guardian also noted that one of the suspects in the bombing of the USS Cole claimed to have received telephone instructions for the bombing from a co-conspirator inside the UAE.
The United States continues to maintain a good relationship with the UAE, considered to be a partner in the war on terror. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reports_tied_UAE_to_bin_Laden_0223.html
U.A.E. Tied to Bin Laden, Cole Bombing
Reports tied UAE to bin Laden, Cole bombing As its ties to the U.S. war on terror are brought into the spotlight, more details about the ties between The United Arab Emirates and U.S. enemies abroad are being unearthed.
As its ties to the U.S. war on terror are brought into the spotlight, more details about the ties between The United Arab Emirates and U.S. enemies abroad are being unearthed.The AP recently reported that the Sept. 11 Commission report states U.S. intelligence believed that Osama bin Laden had visited an Afghan desert in 1999 near a hunting camp used by UAE officials.
According to the AP, commission sources claimed that:
"Bin Laden regularly went from his adjacent camp to the larger camp where he visited the Emiratis ... National technical intelligence confirmed the location and description of the larger camp and showed the nearby presence of an official aircraft of the United Arab Emirates."
Reacting to this information, White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke reportedly called the UAE to confront them about the government's reported contact with bin Laden, hoping to monitor the camp to launch a missile strike when bin Laden returned. Less than a week after the call, intelligence officials were "irate" to discover that the camp had been abandoned and dismantled.
But UAE ties to terrorism have received media scrutiny long before the ports contract uproar.
A September 14, 2001 report in The Guardian claimed that investigators had already linked some of the September 11 terrorists to the UAE. The only other country singled out in the Guardian report was Saudi Arabia. The UK news agency also noted that the nation was one of just three that recognized the Taliban government in Afghanistan.
State controlled television in the UAE confirmed that two 9/11 suspects had licenses issued by the state.
The Guardian also noted that one of the suspects in the bombing of the USS Cole claimed to have received telephone instructions for the bombing from a co-conspirator inside the UAE.
The United States continues to maintain a good relationship with the UAE, considered to be a partner in the war on terror. http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Reports_tied_UAE_to_bin_Laden_0223.html
ABC News: FBI to Gitmo: Hostile Interrogations Risky
ABC News: FBI to Gitmo: Hostile Interrogations Risky
FBI to Gitmo: Hostile Interrogations Risky
Aggressive Interrogations Ineffective, Legally Risky, FBI Warned Military at Guantanamo
By MARK SHERMAN
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - FBI agents repeatedly warned military interrogators at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that their aggressive methods were legally risky and also likely to be ineffective, according to FBI memos made public Thursday.
A senior officer at the prison for terror suspects also "blatantly misled" his superiors at the Pentagon into thinking the FBI had endorsed the "aggressive and controversial interrogation plan" for one detainee, according to one of the 54 memos released by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The memos had been previously released, but in more heavily censored form, as part of an ACLU lawsuit under the federal Freedom of Information Act.
FBI officials, whose names were blacked out, indicated that senior military officials, including former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, were aware of and in some cases had approved of putting hoods on prisoners, threatening them with violence and subjecting them to humiliating treatment.
Wolfowitz is now president of the World Bank. Kevin Kellems, a spokesman for the World Bank, said Thursday, "This old story is fictional and is authored by anonymous people who have no real knowledge of what his role was."
Pentagon spokesman Larry Di Rita said: "These allegations are secondhand allegations made by people not directly involved. Nonetheless, the Department of Defense investigated them thoroughly and much of what was asserted in the e-mails was not substantiated. And nothing involving the deputy secretary of defense was substantiated."
Agents on temporary assignment at the U.S. Navy facility in Cuba brought their concerns to the prison's commander, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, and laid them out in detailed messages to top bureau officials at FBI headquarters in Washington.
One memo from May 2003 describes tension between the FBI agents and their military counterparts over "aggressive interrogation tactics in GTMO which are of questionable effectiveness and subject to uncertain interpretation based on law and regulation."
In other e-mails, some FBI officials said that while the techniques they observed were too aggressive by the FBI's standards, the interrogations were not abusive.
A military investigation into FBI reports of prisoner abuse at Guantanamo recommended that Miller be reprimanded for failing to oversee the interrogation of a high-value detainee, which was found to have been abusive. But a top general rejected the recommendation. Miller, who took over detainee operations in Iraq in March 2004, recently requested early retirement.
The documents provided to the ACLU also contain acknowledgment that the FBI was aware of allegations of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq before they came to public attention.
Ed Lueckenhoff, an FBI official in Iraq, said in a January 2004 e-mail "that the FBI will not enter into an investigation of the alleged abuse" because it was not part of the bureau's mission in Iraq.
"Second, we need to maintain good will and relations with those operating the prison. Our involvement in the investigation of the alleged abuse might harm our liaison," Lueckenhoff wrote in that e-mail to senior officials in Washington.
The ACLU's Jameel Jaffer said the memo "suggests the FBI turned a blind eye to preserve its relationship with administrators of the prison."
FBI special agent Richard Kolko, a spokesman in Washington, said FBI agents properly reported abuse allegations through the bureau's chain of command, but noted, "It is not within the scope of the FBI's jurisdiction overseas to investigate reports of alleged abuse of military detainees."
FBI: http://www.fbi.gov
ACLU: http://www.aclu.org
Military To Plan For Larger Role In Disaster Relief
Military To Plan For Larger Role In Disaster Relief
Military To Plan For Larger Role In Disaster Relief
by Jim Mannion
Washington DC (AFP) Feb 23, 2006
The US military will plan to assume a larger role in domestic disaster relief, including taking the lead in major catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina, a Pentagon spokesman said Thursday. A White House report on the lessons of Katrina said the military and the coast guard proved to be the only federal entities capable of turning the president's orders into prompt action on the ground.
Military To Plan For Larger Role In Disaster Relief
 Frances Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said the study concluded that the military's role can be enhanced without changing Posse Commitatus, the 1878 law that has kept the active duty military out of domestic law enforcement. Copyright AFP |
Washington DC (AFP) Feb 23, 2006
The US military will plan to assume a larger role in domestic disaster relief, including taking the lead in major catastrophes like Hurricane Katrina, a Pentagon spokesman said Thursday. A White House report on the lessons of Katrina said the military and the coast guard proved to be the only federal entities capable of turning the president's orders into prompt action on the ground.
A key recommendation of the report was for the Pentagon and Department of Homeland Security to plan for "those extraordinary circumstances when it is appropriate for the Defense Department to lead the federal response."
Giving the military the lead in domestic operations is a sensitive issue because US laws and traditions have barred it from engaging in domestic law enforcement.
The legal impediments contributed to the delayed deployment of US active duty troops in response to Hurricane Katrina, which devastated the US Gulf coast last August.
Another source of confusion were conflicting lines of authority over troops in the stricken area, the report found.
National Guard units answered to their state governors while the active duty forces served the president, said the report, which called for a unified command.
The military brought communications, logistics and planning capabilities that were critical to the Katrina relief operations.
But the report said the response was slow and bureacratic because federal agencies had to make specific requests for help for the military to act. As a result, critical needs were not met.
"One could imagine a situation in which a catastrophic event is of such a magnitude that it would require an even greater role for the Department of Defense," the report said.
"For these reasons, we should both expedite the mission assignment request and the approval process, but also define the circumstances under which we will push resources to state and local governments absent a request."
Frances Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser, said the study concluded that the military's role can be enhanced without changing Posse Commitatus, the 1878 law that has kept the active duty military out of domestic law enforcement.
"If you have integrated the National Guard and active duty forces this shouldn't be an issue," she said.
"National Guardsmen are trained and have law enforcement functions in a way active duty forces do not. And so you can preserve the bright line and not seek additional authorities," she said.
She said the study also decided the president's existing authorities were sufficient to allow him to order the deployment of active duty troops in domestic disasters.
During Katrina, the White House held off on federal troop deployments to Louisiana for days while wrangling with governor Kathleen Blanco over who had authority over troops in her state.
Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said work will now beging on rewriting the National Response Plan to redefine the role of the military in natural disasters.
Such basic questions as what would constitute a major catastrophic event must still be sorted out with other members of the president's Homeland Security Council, he said.
"That will be the goal of writing the National Response Plan, to define those things, to have a process in which you can make decisions rapidly to make determinations as to whether it reaches that threshhold," he said.
Source: Agence France-Presse
GA ASI and GD Canada Sign Agreement to Meet Canadian Surveillance Needs
GA ASI and GD Canada Sign Agreement to Meet Canadian Surveillance Needs
GA ASI and GD Canada Sign Agreement to Meet Canadian Surveillance Needs
by Staff Writers
San Diego CA (SPX) Feb 23, 2006
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has announced that is has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with General Dynamics Canada, Canada's largest defence systems integrator, to offer the Predator B unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and integrated communications systems to meet the Canadian government's surveillance needs.
GA ASI and GD Canada Sign Agreement to Meet Canadian Surveillance Needs
 file photo |
San Diego CA (SPX) Feb 23, 2006
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems has announced that is has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with General Dynamics Canada, Canada's largest defence systems integrator, to offer the Predator B unmanned aircraft system (UAS) and integrated communications systems to meet the Canadian government's surveillance needs.
"GA-ASI's establishment of a working relationship with General Dynamics Canada represents a strategic commitment by both companies to help Canada strengthen its domestic security and sovereignty, as well as its defence operations overseas," said Thomas J. Cassidy, Jr., president, Aircraft Systems Group, General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. "General Dynamics Canada's proven expertise in the collection, fusion and delivery of data in complex operational environments complements the multi-mission Predator B system's well-estabished, long-endurance reconnaissance and surveillance capabilities."
"The introduction of GA-ASI's Predator B aircraft system will play a key role in the Canadian Forces' transformation and add to the new ISR [Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance] capabilities that we are providing to the CP-140 Aurora and CH-148 Cyclone maritime air platforms," said John Watts, president, General Dynamics Canada.
by combining the complementary expertise, experience and technologies of two companies that are leaders in their fields, GA-ASI and General Dynamics Canada are uniquely positioned to respond to Canada's increasingly complex security environment. Their advanced technologies offer support for priority missions in the areas of national security, domestic and interoperable continental maritime surveillance, northern sovereignty, natural disaster response, critical asset protection, border surveillance and management of offshore fishery resources.
Army Testing Unmanned Stryker Convoys
Army Testing Unmanned Stryker Convoys
Army Testing Unmanned Stryker Convoys
US Army Tank Automotive Research and Development Engineer Center
General Dynamics
Fort Gordon
by Larry Edmond
Fort Gordon GA (SPX) Feb 23, 2006 Engineers conducting show-and-tell with a 20-ton robot on the last day of two weeks of trials on Fort Gordon were cautiously optimistic. Karl Murphy, a software engineer from Robotic Research, said there was a new principle of "Murphy's Law" at work on the test field Feb. 10.
Army Testing Unmanned Stryker Convoys
 A Stryker is driven robotically through the Fort Gordon range during testing this month. |
General Dynamics
Fort Gordon
by Larry Edmond
Fort Gordon GA (SPX) Feb 23, 2006 Engineers conducting show-and-tell with a 20-ton robot on the last day of two weeks of trials on Fort Gordon were cautiously optimistic. Karl Murphy, a software engineer from Robotic Research, said there was a new principle of "Murphy's Law" at work on the test field Feb. 10.
"One of my professors reminded us that we have 'sight-ons' present whenever an experiment is being viewed," Murphy said. "The more 'sight-ons' you have, the greater is the potential for something to go wrong."
Tongue in cheek, he continued explaining that sight-on fields increase with the rank and reach of individuals viewing a test. With national, regional and local media rolling cameras, the "sight-on" field was very high that Friday.
The demonstration at Fort Gordon was a part of a much larger program of tests being conducted by the Robotics Technology Integration Team from the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research and Development Engineer Center, General Dynamics Corporation and its sub-contractors.
Jeff Jaczkowski, TARDEC electrical engineer and manager for this Robotic Follower Advanced Technology Demonstrator project, explained what the testing was about and why Fort Gordon was chosen.
Pointing to the two Stryker Infantry Carrier vehicles idling behind him at their base camp on Range 37, Jaczkowski said these vehicles are part of a larger program set to bring vehicle electronics-vetronics technology integration and robotic systems to the force.
The system in testing at Fort Gordon is the robotic follower program. This program seeks to develop robots that can conduct convoy operations. One of the vehicles is called the CAT - short for crew integration and automation test bed. It serves as the manned leader vehicle.
The other vehicle serves as an unmanned follower in a convoy.
"We have done a circuit of testing that started in 2003," Jaczkowski said. "We have done a number of different environments, including Fort Bliss, Texas, that has a primarily sand/desert environment. We did Fort Knox, Ky., where there is more cross-country terrain. There was Fort Indiantown Gap and Letterkenny Army Depot in Pennsylvania.
"We are down here at Fort Gordon for the environment in the forested-type setting. We are focusing on road and long-haul convoy missions."
Jaczkowski said Fort Gordon provides an ideal setting with a 10-kilometer loop that has a three-kilometer stretch of dirt road and the rest is paved. The long stretches of isolated roads allow the teams to put their test vehicles through a series of high-speed tests.
"Yesterday we ran a 100-mile test where the lead vehicle was being driven manually and the robot was following," Jaczkowski said. "We did this successfully where the average speed was about 22 miles per hour. You may think that 22 miles per hour is not that fast when operational convoys are going 60 to 70 miles per hour. But you have to take into account that we did 68 right turns.
"You don't take right turns at 50 miles per hour, especially with a 20-ton robot."
On straight stretches, the vehicles routinely speed along at more than 40 mph, Jaczkowski said.
Pointing to the bristling array of sensors on the vehicles, Jaczkowski said these vehicles incorporate second-generation ladar-laser radar, forward-looking infrared sensors, and advanced computers to handle autonomous navigation.
For the autonomous follower, engineers are going beyond Global Positioning Systems to link terrain data from the lead vehicle back to the follower vehicle to augment data the follower vehicle gathers from on-board sensors.
"We have a major emphasis to create systems that can operate without GPS. We know that electronic interference can easily jam GPS in a battle zone.
"The idea is to pass electronic bread crumbs from the manned lead vehicle back to the autonomous follower vehicle, and provide high-level proofing of the follower's path so the follower avoids areas that might impede or confuse its autonomous navigation system, while requiring only a minimum of human intervention and control from the lead vehicle," Jaczkowski said.
Jaczkowski characterized all the testing so far as outstanding and gave high marks to the Fort Gordon Battle Lab and range control. "
Jaczkowski is quick to point out that the testing that he is conducting is not about the relatively new Stryker vehicle.
"The Stryker is a fielded system, but the robotic convoy technology sensors that we have on these units are what we are putting through the research and development stage."
The demonstration conducted before the media Feb. 10 showed how adept the robot is in making decisions. The lead vehicle was manually driven along the road through an area where a gate wa set, with the robot vehicle following about 100 meters behind.
After the lead vehicle passed, the engineers were planning to pull a cord releasing a gate to block the path. The follower vehicle should be able to detect the gate and plot a path around it before continuing, Jaczkowski said.
True to Murphy's Law and the sight-on rule, the chord attached to the spring release broke as engineer Karl Murphy tugged it to release the gate. Undaunted, Murphy reached down and tripped the release. The gate swung into the path of the following robot.
With only a few seconds to assess, the robot slowed, and veered around the gate. It then continued on its path, following the lead vehicle.
It was a slight glitch and only served to more graphically demonstrate how perceptive the robot is, Jaczkowski said.
In the future, Jaczkowski speculates the current efforts will lead to manned and unmanned convoys.
"There are two avenues that the Army is pursuing. The near-term objective is to automate the function of driving in a convoy vehicle."
Soldiers will remain in the vehicles for now, but by placing a vehicle on auto-pilot, the driver will be able to perform other duties or rest.
The long-term objective is to create dedicated unmanned ground vehicles.
In the tests being conducted on Fort Gordon, the lead vehicle develops a path along a route that it transmits to the follower vehicle that can follow the path immediately or weeks later.
"This is the beginning of going from point A to point B autonomously," Jaczowski said.
He said the payoff will be in saving lives from such routine missions as resupplying forces in environments like Iraq where roadside bombs wreak havoc.
The group will continue testing Feb. 24 to March 10, Jaczowski said.
Google Bans Australian-based Military Space News Website
Google Bans Australian-based Military Space News Website
Google Inc, Bans Australian-based Military Space News Website
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Gerroa, Australia (SPX) Feb 24, 2006
Google Inc. has banned SPACEWAR.COM, a news site covering military space. Reasons for the ban by Google are unclear. The company did not communicate with Space.TV Corp., the owner of SPACEWAR.COM, prior to its action, and Google representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
Google Inc.'s preferred method of banning a site is to delist its primary domain URL - www.spacewar.com - from the Google search index. Google also can reduce a site's page rank, or eliminate it entirely, as it has done to SpaceWar.com.
SpaceWar.com is owned and operated by Space.TV Corp., a Delaware registered company that publishes a range of space, science and technology Web sites.
In operation since the mid 1990s, the Space.TV network enjoys a monthly audience of more than 1 million visitors to its sites - with more than 100,000 monthly visitors to SPACEWAR.COM.
Google Inc in the wake of pressure from the Chinese government has begun blocking access to various websites deemed unfriendly to the "Boys From Beijing" (TM).
At this stage we have no evidence to suggest this is the reason why Google has banned SPACEWAR.COM. The lack of any forewarning that SPACEWAR.COM was operating in violation of Google's increasingly strict search engine compliance requirements, however, leads us to suspect the ban is politically motivated.
Google Inc.'s corporate mantra is "Do No Evil." Obviously, this is not true given Google's willingness to submit to the censorship requirements of the Chinese government.
Space.TV Corp is consulting with legal advisers in the United States and Australia, where production of the company's Web sites is conducted. We consider the ban a violation of the recently enacted US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Following a previous search engine compliance issue with Google, the Space.TV Corp. board of directors voted to remove and delete all links and pages that may have fallen within the area of practices deemed unacceptable by Google.
Our effort to achieve network-wide compliance with Google's requirements was completed in mid-January, and Google's army of Web robots was advised of this effort to comply.
Google Inc. is mostly operated by robotic systems agents with a brick wall between its human customers and human workers.
The only method of contacting a human at Google Inc is via its AdWords business, where Google's human employees will happily sell you an advertising package to get your site listed in its top-of-page sponsored links section.
What makes this case even more interesting is Space.TV Corp, decided in November 2005 to convert 90 percent of its advertising inventory base to Google's AdSense program, which enables publishers to run Google context-based text ads.
As a result, Space.TV Corp. now receives over 50 percent of its advertising revenue from Google, and this figure is forecast to rise to 80 percent by April.
Space.TV Corp is obviously now reconsidering its position as a Google Ad Sense partner site.
However, Google is has become the dominant advertising network for owner operated sites, and its competitors come a very poor second in terms of available advertIsing inventory. Essentially, Web sites such as those operated by Space.TV Corp. have little choice but to run Google AdSense text ads.
The only other network advertising available in any significant volume comprises ads for Smiley Icons and ScamWare Scanning Software, which we removed almost entirely from our network sites in November 2005.
We have done our best to provide a network of news sites that are informative and diverse in opinion, and free to readers.
As President of Space.TV Corp. and the nominal publisher of our network of news sites, I am deeply concerned by the implications of Google banning SPACEWAR.COM.
We consider Google's action as an attempt to dictate what information will appear on Web sites, and what links will be allowed between Web sites. If true, this constitutes a gross abuse of market power, and it should cause our political leadership in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia to investigate fully the business operations of Google Inc.
We are deeply concerned about retaliatory action by Google Inc. against our company and its various Web sites. In recent months, we have bet the business on Google advertising revenues, which has left us dangerously exposed to major revenue losses should Google cancel our AdSense contract, and delay payments and/or sue us for going public.
We ask that you communicate your concerns about Google's action in banning SPACEWAR.COM by contacting your local political representatives using the enclosed form letter. We also ask that you to communicate your concerns to Google's public relations officials via the following email address: press@google.com.
Simon Mansfield
President and Publisher Space.TV Corporation
Contact Details
Simon Mansfield
Publisher
Australian Office
02-4234-3841
simon@spacedaily.com
----------------
Writing To Your Senator or Political Representative
Please use a version of the following letter:
YOUR LETTER HEAD OR CONTACT DETAILS
RE: Google Blacklists worlds leading space and defense news website, www.spacewar.com
Dear Honorable Senator/Congressman/MP ......,
I am writing to ask you to investigate Google Inc's abuse of market power to destroy competition and squash free speech in America, Australia, Europe and Canada.
One of my regular news sites on the Internet - SPACEWAR.COM has been blacklisted by Google Inc. for reasons unknown.
Please visit www.spacewar.com and ask yourself if Google should hold the power to quash competition and free speech, ESPECIALLY since Google's market position is so dominant and important to the United States. The google index now feeds data to Microsoft and Yahoo and their blacklisting is not singular to the google index, but in reality reaches the very core of the market place.
Google is not a school project anymore, the index IS the American economy and the larger Internet economy throughout the world. It's regulation within the marketplace is of global importance and integral to the future economic prosperity of my country. Yours sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone number
--------------------
Readers can obtain contact details for their senators, congressman or political represenative via the following links organized via nations here:
Please also CC a copy to the Google press office at: press@google.com --
- US Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
- US Congressman:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
- Australian Senators:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/index.htm
- Australia MPs
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/index.htm
- Canadian Readers can contact their political representatives here:
http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html
- UK MPs and Lords can be found via here:
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories31.cfm
- Citizens of EU member nations can also contact European Parliament representatives
via here and choosing your language of choice
http://europa.eu.int/
Again make sure you CC all email letters to Google Press Office at: press@google.com
Google Inc, Bans Australian-based Military Space News Website
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Gerroa, Australia (SPX) Feb 24, 2006
Google Inc. has banned SPACEWAR.COM, a news site covering military space. Reasons for the ban by Google are unclear. The company did not communicate with Space.TV Corp., the owner of SPACEWAR.COM, prior to its action, and Google representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
Google Inc.'s preferred method of banning a site is to delist its primary domain URL - www.spacewar.com - from the Google search index. Google also can reduce a site's page rank, or eliminate it entirely, as it has done to SpaceWar.com.
SpaceWar.com is owned and operated by Space.TV Corp., a Delaware registered company that publishes a range of space, science and technology Web sites.
In operation since the mid 1990s, the Space.TV network enjoys a monthly audience of more than 1 million visitors to its sites - with more than 100,000 monthly visitors to SPACEWAR.COM.
Google Inc in the wake of pressure from the Chinese government has begun blocking access to various websites deemed unfriendly to the "Boys From Beijing" (TM).
At this stage we have no evidence to suggest this is the reason why Google has banned SPACEWAR.COM. The lack of any forewarning that SPACEWAR.COM was operating in violation of Google's increasingly strict search engine compliance requirements, however, leads us to suspect the ban is politically motivated.
Google Inc.'s corporate mantra is "Do No Evil." Obviously, this is not true given Google's willingness to submit to the censorship requirements of the Chinese government.
Space.TV Corp is consulting with legal advisers in the United States and Australia, where production of the company's Web sites is conducted. We consider the ban a violation of the recently enacted US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Following a previous search engine compliance issue with Google, the Space.TV Corp. board of directors voted to remove and delete all links and pages that may have fallen within the area of practices deemed unacceptable by Google.
Our effort to achieve network-wide compliance with Google's requirements was completed in mid-January, and Google's army of Web robots was advised of this effort to comply.
Google Inc. is mostly operated by robotic systems agents with a brick wall between its human customers and human workers.
The only method of contacting a human at Google Inc is via its AdWords business, where Google's human employees will happily sell you an advertising package to get your site listed in its top-of-page sponsored links section.
What makes this case even more interesting is Space.TV Corp, decided in November 2005 to convert 90 percent of its advertising inventory base to Google's AdSense program, which enables publishers to run Google context-based text ads.
As a result, Space.TV Corp. now receives over 50 percent of its advertising revenue from Google, and this figure is forecast to rise to 80 percent by April.
Space.TV Corp is obviously now reconsidering its position as a Google Ad Sense partner site.
However, Google is has become the dominant advertising network for owner operated sites, and its competitors come a very poor second in terms of available advertIsing inventory. Essentially, Web sites such as those operated by Space.TV Corp. have little choice but to run Google AdSense text ads.
The only other network advertising available in any significant volume comprises ads for Smiley Icons and ScamWare Scanning Software, which we removed almost entirely from our network sites in November 2005.
We have done our best to provide a network of news sites that are informative and diverse in opinion, and free to readers.
As President of Space.TV Corp. and the nominal publisher of our network of news sites, I am deeply concerned by the implications of Google banning SPACEWAR.COM.
We consider Google's action as an attempt to dictate what information will appear on Web sites, and what links will be allowed between Web sites. If true, this constitutes a gross abuse of market power, and it should cause our political leadership in the United States, Canada, Europe and Australia to investigate fully the business operations of Google Inc.
We are deeply concerned about retaliatory action by Google Inc. against our company and its various Web sites. In recent months, we have bet the business on Google advertising revenues, which has left us dangerously exposed to major revenue losses should Google cancel our AdSense contract, and delay payments and/or sue us for going public.
We ask that you communicate your concerns about Google's action in banning SPACEWAR.COM by contacting your local political representatives using the enclosed form letter. We also ask that you to communicate your concerns to Google's public relations officials via the following email address: press@google.com.
Simon Mansfield
President and Publisher Space.TV Corporation
Contact Details
Simon Mansfield
Publisher
Australian Office
02-4234-3841
simon@spacedaily.com
----------------
Writing To Your Senator or Political Representative
Please use a version of the following letter:
YOUR LETTER HEAD OR CONTACT DETAILS
RE: Google Blacklists worlds leading space and defense news website, www.spacewar.com
Dear Honorable Senator/Congressman/MP ......,
I am writing to ask you to investigate Google Inc's abuse of market power to destroy competition and squash free speech in America, Australia, Europe and Canada.
One of my regular news sites on the Internet - SPACEWAR.COM has been blacklisted by Google Inc. for reasons unknown.
Please visit www.spacewar.com and ask yourself if Google should hold the power to quash competition and free speech, ESPECIALLY since Google's market position is so dominant and important to the United States. The google index now feeds data to Microsoft and Yahoo and their blacklisting is not singular to the google index, but in reality reaches the very core of the market place.
Google is not a school project anymore, the index IS the American economy and the larger Internet economy throughout the world. It's regulation within the marketplace is of global importance and integral to the future economic prosperity of my country. Yours sincerely,
Your Name
Your Address
Your Phone number
--------------------
Readers can obtain contact details for their senators, congressman or political represenative via the following links organized via nations here:
Please also CC a copy to the Google press office at: press@google.com --
- US Senators:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
- US Congressman:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
- Australian Senators:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/index.htm
- Australia MPs
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/members/index.htm
- Canadian Readers can contact their political representatives here:
http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html
- UK MPs and Lords can be found via here:
http://www.parliament.uk/directories/directories31.cfm
- Citizens of EU member nations can also contact European Parliament representatives
via here and choosing your language of choice
http://europa.eu.int/
Again make sure you CC all email letters to Google Press Office at: press@google.com
CBS Reporter Killed Story At Pentagon's Request | MediaChannel.org
CBS Reporter Killed Story At Pentagon's Request | MediaChannel.org
CBS Reporter Killed Story At Pentagon's Request
Submitted by editor4 on February 23, 2006 - 3:01pm.
By David Martin
Source: CBS News
Pentagon correspondent David Martin explains his reasons for holding a story on IED's in Iraq and concedes that such decisions aren't always clear-cut.
This week I killed a story about the battle against Improvised Explosive Devices after a senior military officer told me it contained information that would be helpful to the enemy. I didn’t find his argument about how it would help the enemy very persuasive, but because there’s a war on I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve done that a number of times over the years, and each time it’s turned out that going with the story wouldn’t have caused any harm. It’s always a difficult decision, made more difficult by the fact that it always seems to happen late in the day when you’re under deadline pressure. When I killed the story on Thursday, it was 5:30 – an hour to air – and I left the Evening News broadcast without a lead story which they had been counting on all day. Not a good career move.
So how do you decide that a story contains sensitive information that shouldn’t see the light of day? In war, you can make an extreme case that almost any accurate information about the U.S. military is news the enemy can use. A story about the Army being “stretched too thin” or even “broken” by the pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be said to encourage the enemy to fight on. A story I did this week about new pictures of abuse from Abu Ghraib could be said to increase the likelihood of violence against American soldiers in Iraq. Indeed, the Pentagon made exactly that case when it went to court to try to prevent the photos from being released under the Freedom of Information Act. But that’s too hypothetical for me. The story I killed dealt with specific techniques and how well they were or weren’t working against IEDs. It wasn’t as simple as “you report this and American soldiers will die,” but I could see how it might conceivably be news the enemy could use to make their IEDs more effective. It wasn’t clear cut, but it was close enough. So how do you decide that a story contains legitimate secrets? It’s like the famous definition of pornography – you know it when you see it.
CBS Reporter Killed Story At Pentagon's Request
Submitted by editor4 on February 23, 2006 - 3:01pm.
By David Martin
Source: CBS News
Pentagon correspondent David Martin explains his reasons for holding a story on IED's in Iraq and concedes that such decisions aren't always clear-cut.
This week I killed a story about the battle against Improvised Explosive Devices after a senior military officer told me it contained information that would be helpful to the enemy. I didn’t find his argument about how it would help the enemy very persuasive, but because there’s a war on I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt. I’ve done that a number of times over the years, and each time it’s turned out that going with the story wouldn’t have caused any harm. It’s always a difficult decision, made more difficult by the fact that it always seems to happen late in the day when you’re under deadline pressure. When I killed the story on Thursday, it was 5:30 – an hour to air – and I left the Evening News broadcast without a lead story which they had been counting on all day. Not a good career move.
So how do you decide that a story contains sensitive information that shouldn’t see the light of day? In war, you can make an extreme case that almost any accurate information about the U.S. military is news the enemy can use. A story about the Army being “stretched too thin” or even “broken” by the pace of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could be said to encourage the enemy to fight on. A story I did this week about new pictures of abuse from Abu Ghraib could be said to increase the likelihood of violence against American soldiers in Iraq. Indeed, the Pentagon made exactly that case when it went to court to try to prevent the photos from being released under the Freedom of Information Act. But that’s too hypothetical for me. The story I killed dealt with specific techniques and how well they were or weren’t working against IEDs. It wasn’t as simple as “you report this and American soldiers will die,” but I could see how it might conceivably be news the enemy could use to make their IEDs more effective. It wasn’t clear cut, but it was close enough. So how do you decide that a story contains legitimate secrets? It’s like the famous definition of pornography – you know it when you see it.
Stay out of costly U.S. missile defence system, former Pentagon expert warns
Stay out of costly U.S. missile defence system, former Pentagon expert warns
Stay out of costly U.S. missile defence system, former Pentagon expert warns
Colin Perkel
Canadian Press
Friday, February 24, 2006
TORONTO (CP) - A former top Pentagon official is warning Canada not to join Washington's missile defence program, calling it a colossal waste of money that would make the country more vulnerable to attack, not less.
In fact, Canada should be leading international talks to prevent the weaponization of space, said Phil Coyle, who was assistant secretary of defence and senior weapons tester at the U.S. Department of Defence from 1994 to 2001.
"The concept of missile defence is quite seductive," Coyle said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"(But) it's destabilizing, it's incredibly expensive, and it doesn't work."
A year ago, former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin pulled the plug on Canadian participation in developing and deploying a system that would, in theory, shoot incoming missiles out of the sky before they strike North American targets.
The decision drew pointed scorn from the American ambassador at the time, Paul Cellucci, who called it a "perplexing, astounding" and "disappointing" decision that amounted to Canada wimping out and hiding behind the skirts of the U.S. military.
"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile," Cellucci said during a speech in Toronto last year.
"We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."
The new Tory government under Stephen Harper has been musing about revisiting the decision; Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Thursday he's willing to reopen the debate.
"In principle, I don't have difficulty, personally, with ballistic missile defence," O'Connor said.
Coyle, who is in Canada for a seminar on missile defence Friday at the National Press Club in Ottawa, warned against going that route.
"You don't get anything for your investment," he said. "All you get is a scarecrow defence."
Currently, Washington is spending about $10 billion US a year on the missile-defence system; two weeks ago, President George W. Bush asked Congress for $11.1 billion US for the program in 2007 - close to Canada's entire defence budget.
Despite the mammoth infusion of cash, Coyle said the system will never work.
Trying to hit an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile is like trying to score a hole-in-one on a green that's not only moving at 15,000 miles per hour, but also covered with holes identical to the one you're aiming at, he said.
He also said the threats the Pentagon cites as its justification for the program are bogus, warning that the system would inevitably spark a new arms race and lead to the weaponization of space.
"That's where Canada has drawn the line and it's a practical place to draw the line," Coyle said.
Taking part would increase the likelihood that friendly countries such as China would regard Canada with increased hostility, while refusing to get involved would not hurt our relations with the U.S., he added.
"Canada's place in the hearts of Americans is secure," he said.
"There's no country in the world that is as well regarded, admired and engenders as much affection in Americans as Canada does. Nothing is going to change there."
That affection also makes Canada ideally situated to persuade the Americans to rethink their plans, Coyle added.
Stay out of costly U.S. missile defence system, former Pentagon expert warns
Colin Perkel
Canadian Press
Friday, February 24, 2006
TORONTO (CP) - A former top Pentagon official is warning Canada not to join Washington's missile defence program, calling it a colossal waste of money that would make the country more vulnerable to attack, not less.
In fact, Canada should be leading international talks to prevent the weaponization of space, said Phil Coyle, who was assistant secretary of defence and senior weapons tester at the U.S. Department of Defence from 1994 to 2001.
"The concept of missile defence is quite seductive," Coyle said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.
"(But) it's destabilizing, it's incredibly expensive, and it doesn't work."
A year ago, former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin pulled the plug on Canadian participation in developing and deploying a system that would, in theory, shoot incoming missiles out of the sky before they strike North American targets.
The decision drew pointed scorn from the American ambassador at the time, Paul Cellucci, who called it a "perplexing, astounding" and "disappointing" decision that amounted to Canada wimping out and hiding behind the skirts of the U.S. military.
"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile," Cellucci said during a speech in Toronto last year.
"We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."
The new Tory government under Stephen Harper has been musing about revisiting the decision; Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Thursday he's willing to reopen the debate.
"In principle, I don't have difficulty, personally, with ballistic missile defence," O'Connor said.
Coyle, who is in Canada for a seminar on missile defence Friday at the National Press Club in Ottawa, warned against going that route.
"You don't get anything for your investment," he said. "All you get is a scarecrow defence."
Currently, Washington is spending about $10 billion US a year on the missile-defence system; two weeks ago, President George W. Bush asked Congress for $11.1 billion US for the program in 2007 - close to Canada's entire defence budget.
Despite the mammoth infusion of cash, Coyle said the system will never work.
Trying to hit an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile is like trying to score a hole-in-one on a green that's not only moving at 15,000 miles per hour, but also covered with holes identical to the one you're aiming at, he said.
He also said the threats the Pentagon cites as its justification for the program are bogus, warning that the system would inevitably spark a new arms race and lead to the weaponization of space.
"That's where Canada has drawn the line and it's a practical place to draw the line," Coyle said.
Taking part would increase the likelihood that friendly countries such as China would regard Canada with increased hostility, while refusing to get involved would not hurt our relations with the U.S., he added.
"Canada's place in the hearts of Americans is secure," he said.
"There's no country in the world that is as well regarded, admired and engenders as much affection in Americans as Canada does. Nothing is going to change there."
That affection also makes Canada ideally situated to persuade the Americans to rethink their plans, Coyle added.
Chron.com | Pentagon Told to Release Gitmo Transcripts
Chron.com | Pentagon Told to Release Gitmo Transcripts
Pentagon Told to Release Gitmo Transcripts
By BEN FOX Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A federal judge ordered the Pentagon on Thursday to release the identities of hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to The Associated Press, a move which would force the government to break its secrecy and reveal the most comprehensive list yet of those who have been imprisoned there.
Some of the hundreds of detainees in the war on terror being held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been held as long as four years. Only a handful have been officially identified.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff in New York ordered the Defense Department to release uncensored transcripts of detainee hearings, which contain the names of detainees in custody and those who have been held and later released. Previously released documents have had identities and other details blacked out.
The judge ordered the government to hand over the documents by March 3 after the Defense Department said Wednesday it would not appeal his earlier ruling in the lawsuit filed by the AP.
On Jan. 23, Rakoff ordered the military to turn over uncensored copies of transcripts and other documents from 317 military hearings for detainees at the prison camp. There were another 241 detainees who refused to participate in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Defense Department said no transcripts exist of those hearings.
U.S. authorities now hold about 490 prisoners at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Most have been held without charges since the detention center opened four years ago, prompting complaints from human rights groups and others.
"AP has been fighting for this information since the fall of 2004," said Dave Tomlin, assistant general counsel for the news organization. "We're grateful to have a decision at last that keeping prisoner identities secret is against the public policy and the law of this country."
The military has never officially released the names of any detainees except the 10 who have been charged.
Most of those that are known emerged from the approximately 400 civil suits filed on behalf of prisoners by lawyers who got their names from family or other detainees, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents about 200 detainees.
"They have been very resistant to releasing the names," Ratner said. "There are still people there who don't have a lawyer and we don't know who they are. They have disappeared."
The Defense Department earlier released transcripts after the AP filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act, but the names and other details of detainees were blacked out.
The Defense Department said it would obey the judge's order.
"DOD will be complying with the judge's decision in this matter," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.
Law experts said the case has wide-ranging implications.
"The government has tried to maintain Guantanamo as a black hole since they opened it," said Jonathan Hafetz of the New York University School of Law. "This is bringing it within the mainstream of the justice system and says we're not going to have secret detentions at Guantanamo."
In his ruling last month, Rakoff rejected government arguments that releasing the detainees' names from transcripts should be kept secret to protect their privacy and their families, friends and associates from embarrassment and retaliation.
The judge had given the government a month to decide whether to appeal and the U.S. Solicitor General decided not to pursue the case further, said Megan Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
The AP is awaiting a decision from the judge on whether the government must release the unredacted transcripts from a second round of hearings, the annual Administrative Review Board _ panels that decide whether detainees are still considered a threat to the United States.
Pentagon Told to Release Gitmo Transcripts
By BEN FOX Associated Press Writer
© 2006 The Associated Press
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A federal judge ordered the Pentagon on Thursday to release the identities of hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay to The Associated Press, a move which would force the government to break its secrecy and reveal the most comprehensive list yet of those who have been imprisoned there.
Some of the hundreds of detainees in the war on terror being held at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been held as long as four years. Only a handful have been officially identified.
U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff in New York ordered the Defense Department to release uncensored transcripts of detainee hearings, which contain the names of detainees in custody and those who have been held and later released. Previously released documents have had identities and other details blacked out.
The judge ordered the government to hand over the documents by March 3 after the Defense Department said Wednesday it would not appeal his earlier ruling in the lawsuit filed by the AP.
On Jan. 23, Rakoff ordered the military to turn over uncensored copies of transcripts and other documents from 317 military hearings for detainees at the prison camp. There were another 241 detainees who refused to participate in the Combatant Status Review Tribunals and the Defense Department said no transcripts exist of those hearings.
U.S. authorities now hold about 490 prisoners at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban. Most have been held without charges since the detention center opened four years ago, prompting complaints from human rights groups and others.
"AP has been fighting for this information since the fall of 2004," said Dave Tomlin, assistant general counsel for the news organization. "We're grateful to have a decision at last that keeping prisoner identities secret is against the public policy and the law of this country."
The military has never officially released the names of any detainees except the 10 who have been charged.
Most of those that are known emerged from the approximately 400 civil suits filed on behalf of prisoners by lawyers who got their names from family or other detainees, said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, which represents about 200 detainees.
"They have been very resistant to releasing the names," Ratner said. "There are still people there who don't have a lawyer and we don't know who they are. They have disappeared."
The Defense Department earlier released transcripts after the AP filed suit under the Freedom of Information Act, but the names and other details of detainees were blacked out.
The Defense Department said it would obey the judge's order.
"DOD will be complying with the judge's decision in this matter," said Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.
Law experts said the case has wide-ranging implications.
"The government has tried to maintain Guantanamo as a black hole since they opened it," said Jonathan Hafetz of the New York University School of Law. "This is bringing it within the mainstream of the justice system and says we're not going to have secret detentions at Guantanamo."
In his ruling last month, Rakoff rejected government arguments that releasing the detainees' names from transcripts should be kept secret to protect their privacy and their families, friends and associates from embarrassment and retaliation.
The judge had given the government a month to decide whether to appeal and the U.S. Solicitor General decided not to pursue the case further, said Megan Gaffney, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York.
The AP is awaiting a decision from the judge on whether the government must release the unredacted transcripts from a second round of hearings, the annual Administrative Review Board _ panels that decide whether detainees are still considered a threat to the United States.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
The New McCarthyism
The New McCarthyism
American NeoFascists
Recent developments suggest that the Bush administration
may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are
deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may
be considered helpful to the enemy.
consortiumnews
2-21-6
Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.
"The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.
"I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.
"Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."
In less paranoid times, Graham's comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways - ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.
But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy.
Top U.S. officials have cited the need to challenge news that undercuts Bush's actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists, who are aided by "news informers" in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com "Upside-Down Media" ]
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html
Joseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 May 2, 1957) was a Republican Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957. McCarthy organized a destructive campaign through the establishment of the "House Unamerican Activities Committee" through which countless civilians, government workers and even members of the military were brought before the committee to answer unsubstantiated charges of involvement with Communism, usually based on hearsay or general paranoid convictions held by the right-wing establishment. McCarthy employed tactics such as...
* Guilt by association
* Publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence
* The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition
Ultimately, McCarthy managed to destroy the lives and reputations of scores of businessmen, actors,
writers, attorneys, military personnel and government workers by the sheer weight of accusation alone at a time when Communism was hyped by the government as "The Red Menace," even resulting in black-lists in Hollywood and other industries where many could not find jobs, for fear of being associated with "suspect Communists." This despite the fact that Constitutionally, any citizen of the United States of America had every legal right to be a member of a Communist party. McCarthyism ended in shame, disgrace and hopefully a lesson learned about unbridled abuse of powers and the use of the media to generate fear, especially for a single political party currently in power.
American NeoFascists
Recent developments suggest that the Bush administration
may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are
deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may
be considered helpful to the enemy.
consortiumnews
2-21-6
Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration's domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.
"The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements," Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.
"I stand by this President's ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don't think you need a warrant to do that," Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.
"Senator," a smiling Gonzales responded, "the President already said we'd be happy to listen to your ideas."
In less paranoid times, Graham's comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways - ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.
But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy.
Top U.S. officials have cited the need to challenge news that undercuts Bush's actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists, who are aided by "news informers" in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com "Upside-Down Media" ]
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/022106a.html
Joseph Raymond McCarthy (November 14, 1908 May 2, 1957) was a Republican Senator from the state of Wisconsin from 1947 to 1957. McCarthy organized a destructive campaign through the establishment of the "House Unamerican Activities Committee" through which countless civilians, government workers and even members of the military were brought before the committee to answer unsubstantiated charges of involvement with Communism, usually based on hearsay or general paranoid convictions held by the right-wing establishment. McCarthy employed tactics such as...
* Guilt by association
* Publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard to evidence
* The use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition
Ultimately, McCarthy managed to destroy the lives and reputations of scores of businessmen, actors,
writers, attorneys, military personnel and government workers by the sheer weight of accusation alone at a time when Communism was hyped by the government as "The Red Menace," even resulting in black-lists in Hollywood and other industries where many could not find jobs, for fear of being associated with "suspect Communists." This despite the fact that Constitutionally, any citizen of the United States of America had every legal right to be a member of a Communist party. McCarthyism ended in shame, disgrace and hopefully a lesson learned about unbridled abuse of powers and the use of the media to generate fear, especially for a single political party currently in power.
DU Scandal Explodes - Horrendous US Casualties
DU Scandal Explodes - Horrendous US Casualties
DU Scandal Explodes -
Horrendous US Casualties
FreeMarketNews.com
2-22-6
The Preventive Psychiatry Newsletter has written to its subscribers telling them that the real reason the former Veterans Affairs Secretary, Anthony Principi, recently resigned was because he has been involved in a massive scandal covering up the fact that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the use of depleted uranium, according to the SF Bay View.
In the article Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law, reportedly wrote that "thousands of our military have suffered and died from, [and depleted uranium] has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed." Bernklau went on to detail several alarming statistics. The historical disability rate amongst soldiers last century was about 5 percent, although it approached 10 percent during Vietnam. But due to the use of depleted uranium in the battlefield, 56 percent of the 580,400 solders that served in the first Gulf War were on Permanent Medical Disability by 2000. 11,000 Gulf War veterans are already dead. Now 518,739 Gulf War Veterans, almost all of them, are currently on medical disability.
Principi, under the order of the Bush Administration, had been allegedly covering up the disastrous results of using depleted uranium since 2000. However, with so many soldiers having serious health problems it has become impossible to keep secret.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=8018
DU Scandal Explodes -
Horrendous US Casualties
FreeMarketNews.com
2-22-6
The Preventive Psychiatry Newsletter has written to its subscribers telling them that the real reason the former Veterans Affairs Secretary, Anthony Principi, recently resigned was because he has been involved in a massive scandal covering up the fact that Gulf War Syndrome was caused by the use of depleted uranium, according to the SF Bay View.
In the article Arthur Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law, reportedly wrote that "thousands of our military have suffered and died from, [and depleted uranium] has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed." Bernklau went on to detail several alarming statistics. The historical disability rate amongst soldiers last century was about 5 percent, although it approached 10 percent during Vietnam. But due to the use of depleted uranium in the battlefield, 56 percent of the 580,400 solders that served in the first Gulf War were on Permanent Medical Disability by 2000. 11,000 Gulf War veterans are already dead. Now 518,739 Gulf War Veterans, almost all of them, are currently on medical disability.
Principi, under the order of the Bush Administration, had been allegedly covering up the disastrous results of using depleted uranium since 2000. However, with so many soldiers having serious health problems it has become impossible to keep secret.
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=8018
Pentagon names new commander for Guantanamo prison
KRT Wire | 02/22/2006 | Pentagon names new commander for Guantanamo prison
Pentagon names new commander for Guantanamo prison
BY CAROL ROSENBERG
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has chosen an admiral as the next commander of the controversial prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, continuing a year-long shift from the Army toward the Navy.
Rear Adm. Harry Harris, a 28-year Navy veteran whose specialty is surveillance aircraft, becomes the first naval officer to run the sprawling center. Previous commanders have been Army generals.
"The Army pulled its weight for the first couple of years and the Navy has stepped up and contributed to the detention operations," said Army Col. Bill Costello, spokesman for the Southern Command in Miami, which supervises the Joint Task Force that runs the prison camp.
Harris' Navy biography says he was born in Yokosuka, Japan, grew up in Tennessee and Florida and has logged 4,400 flight hours in maritime surveillance, more than 400 of them in combat operations.
He has flown or directed U.S. air missions over the Middle East since the Reagan administration's air strikes on Libya, and also served in the U.S. wars to liberate Kuwait in 1991 and rid Afghanistan of al-Qaida and the Taliban in 2001. He also helped plan the Navy's role in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein.
A rear admiral, the equivalent of a one-star general, he is currently at Navy headquarters in Washinton, in charge of antiterror "force protection."
He said in a statement Wednesday that he was keen "to command such an outstanding group of joint military professionals who perform such an important mission in the Global War on Terror."
Harris takes charge next month, amid the latest round of controversy over the 4-year-old prison camps where the United States is holding nearly 500 men and several teenagers as "enemy combatants."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently dismissed a call by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to close the prison, following condemnation by a team of United Nations human rights fact-finders.
And The New York Times reported Wednesday that the Southern Command chief confirmed at a Washington, D.C., breakfast with Pentagon correspondents that military medical personnel have been strapping down hunger-striking captives for forced feedings through their noses.
Army Gen. Bantz Craddock said the military began using the "restraint chairs" on "hard-core" detainees who had been "purging" their liquid nutrition either by siphoning it off or vomiting.
Guantanamo's prison camp commander has typically been the Pentagon's point man in defending prison conditions there, and Harris is no stranger to military controversy.
As a P-3 spy plane squadron commander in the mid-1990s in California and Washington state, his crew included Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, a career sailor who had declared his homosexuality on ``Nightline'' and fought a long legal battle to stay in the military.
Harris was "one of the smartest people I've known," said Meinhold, who retired under Harris' command in 1996 after nearly 17 years in the Navy and now works at an investment firm in Miami.
"Commander Harris had wonderful potential and everyone knew that; people actually reenlisted to stay in his squadron," he said. "He always treated me as fairly as he could. I think he cared more about the quality of the sailors working for him than the `Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. I would not hesitate to work under his command again."
The prison was a mostly Marine operation when it opened in January 2002, but swiftly handed off operations to an Army general and to military police called up from the Army reserves and national guard units.
In the past year, however, the Pentagon has deployed a professional guard force of Navy police, called Masters at Arms, who are trained to handle captives considered high-risk, and potentially suicidal.
Pentagon names new commander for Guantanamo prison
BY CAROL ROSENBERG
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has chosen an admiral as the next commander of the controversial prison for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, continuing a year-long shift from the Army toward the Navy.
Rear Adm. Harry Harris, a 28-year Navy veteran whose specialty is surveillance aircraft, becomes the first naval officer to run the sprawling center. Previous commanders have been Army generals.
"The Army pulled its weight for the first couple of years and the Navy has stepped up and contributed to the detention operations," said Army Col. Bill Costello, spokesman for the Southern Command in Miami, which supervises the Joint Task Force that runs the prison camp.
Harris' Navy biography says he was born in Yokosuka, Japan, grew up in Tennessee and Florida and has logged 4,400 flight hours in maritime surveillance, more than 400 of them in combat operations.
He has flown or directed U.S. air missions over the Middle East since the Reagan administration's air strikes on Libya, and also served in the U.S. wars to liberate Kuwait in 1991 and rid Afghanistan of al-Qaida and the Taliban in 2001. He also helped plan the Navy's role in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein.
A rear admiral, the equivalent of a one-star general, he is currently at Navy headquarters in Washinton, in charge of antiterror "force protection."
He said in a statement Wednesday that he was keen "to command such an outstanding group of joint military professionals who perform such an important mission in the Global War on Terror."
Harris takes charge next month, amid the latest round of controversy over the 4-year-old prison camps where the United States is holding nearly 500 men and several teenagers as "enemy combatants."
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently dismissed a call by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to close the prison, following condemnation by a team of United Nations human rights fact-finders.
And The New York Times reported Wednesday that the Southern Command chief confirmed at a Washington, D.C., breakfast with Pentagon correspondents that military medical personnel have been strapping down hunger-striking captives for forced feedings through their noses.
Army Gen. Bantz Craddock said the military began using the "restraint chairs" on "hard-core" detainees who had been "purging" their liquid nutrition either by siphoning it off or vomiting.
Guantanamo's prison camp commander has typically been the Pentagon's point man in defending prison conditions there, and Harris is no stranger to military controversy.
As a P-3 spy plane squadron commander in the mid-1990s in California and Washington state, his crew included Petty Officer Keith Meinhold, a career sailor who had declared his homosexuality on ``Nightline'' and fought a long legal battle to stay in the military.
Harris was "one of the smartest people I've known," said Meinhold, who retired under Harris' command in 1996 after nearly 17 years in the Navy and now works at an investment firm in Miami.
"Commander Harris had wonderful potential and everyone knew that; people actually reenlisted to stay in his squadron," he said. "He always treated me as fairly as he could. I think he cared more about the quality of the sailors working for him than the `Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy. I would not hesitate to work under his command again."
The prison was a mostly Marine operation when it opened in January 2002, but swiftly handed off operations to an Army general and to military police called up from the Army reserves and national guard units.
In the past year, however, the Pentagon has deployed a professional guard force of Navy police, called Masters at Arms, who are trained to handle captives considered high-risk, and potentially suicidal.
Raytheon Awarded Project Hercules Contract for Next Gen BMD Tech
Raytheon Awarded Project Hercules Contract for Next Gen BMD Tech
Raytheon Awarded Project Hercules Contract for Next Gen BMD Tech
by Staff Writers
Tewksbury MA (SPX) Feb 22, 2006
Raytheon has been awarded a follow-on Missile Defense Agency contract valued at $49 million over the five-year period of performance for Project Hercules. "This award acknowledges Raytheon's capability as a systems integrator for advanced technologies and underscores our leadership in developing groundbreaking technologies to support the missile defense mission," said Pete Franklin, vice president of Raytheon IDS Missile Defense.
Under the contract, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) will develop advanced technologies and system-wide architectures to improve the capabilities of the Ballistic Missile Defense System and will prototype these technologies in fielded systems.
Raytheon IDS has been one of the prime contractors for Project Hercules since 2003. The program is a national effort to develop advanced algorithms, or complex mathematical instructions, to improve the performance of ballistic missile defense systems and to address increasingly sophisticated missile threats. IDS provides algorithm development and engineering expertise in threat discrimination and tracking, as well as the architectures to fuse infrared, radar and electro-optical sensor data for robust threat discrimination.
Raytheon Awarded Project Hercules Contract for Next Gen BMD Tech
by Staff Writers
Tewksbury MA (SPX) Feb 22, 2006
Raytheon has been awarded a follow-on Missile Defense Agency contract valued at $49 million over the five-year period of performance for Project Hercules. "This award acknowledges Raytheon's capability as a systems integrator for advanced technologies and underscores our leadership in developing groundbreaking technologies to support the missile defense mission," said Pete Franklin, vice president of Raytheon IDS Missile Defense.
Under the contract, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems (IDS) will develop advanced technologies and system-wide architectures to improve the capabilities of the Ballistic Missile Defense System and will prototype these technologies in fielded systems.
Raytheon IDS has been one of the prime contractors for Project Hercules since 2003. The program is a national effort to develop advanced algorithms, or complex mathematical instructions, to improve the performance of ballistic missile defense systems and to address increasingly sophisticated missile threats. IDS provides algorithm development and engineering expertise in threat discrimination and tracking, as well as the architectures to fuse infrared, radar and electro-optical sensor data for robust threat discrimination.
Press Can Be Prosecuted for Having Secret Files, U.S. Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 22, 2006; A03
The Bush administration said that journalists can be prosecuted under current espionage laws for receiving and publishing classified information but that such a step "would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly," according to a court filing made public this week.
"There plainly is no exemption in the statutes for the press, let alone lobbyists like the defendants," Justice Department lawyers wrote in response to a motion filed last month seeking to dismiss charges against Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
Last August, the two men were accused of receiving classified information during conversations they had with government officials, one of whom warned Weissman that "the information he was about to receive was highly classified 'Agency stuff,' " according to the government's indictment. That official was Lawrence A. Franklin, who worked at the Pentagon. He recently pleaded guilty to violating the Espionage Act.
One argument made in the defendants' motion was that the two pro-Israeli lobbyists were doing what reporters, think-tank experts and members of congressional staffs "do perhaps hundreds of times every day" in receiving leaked classified information and passing it on to others.
In its Jan. 30 response unsealed this week, the government said Rosen and Weissman, as lobbyists, "have no First Amendment right to willfully disclose national defense information." The government went on to say: "Stating this, we recognize that a prosecution under the espionage laws of an actual member of the press for publishing classified information leaked to it by a government source, would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly, indeed, the fact that there has never been such a prosecution speaks for itself."
Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, who first disclosed the government filing on his Web site, http://www.fas.org/sgp , said yesterday, "The idea that the government can penalize the receipt of proscribed information, and not just its unauthorized disclosure, is one that characterizes authoritarian societies, not mature democracies."
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Saudi Arabia Agrees With Egypt, Says Hamas Shouldn't Be Cut Off
Bloomberg.com: U.S.
Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia's chief diplomat said an incoming Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories should continue to be funded, putting the kingdom at odds with the U.S. view that the Islamic group should be cut off.
``We wish not to link the international aid to the Palestinian people to considerations other than their dire humanitarian needs,'' Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said at a news conference in Riyadh, the capital, late today with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Saudi Arabia provides roughly $15 million per month to the Palestinian Authority via the Arab League, and Saudi officials told visiting U.S. diplomats that aid would continue. The money might be channeled directly to the office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to bolster him, a senior U.S. official told reporters traveling with Rice's delegation.
The official said the Saudi government had denied a request from Hamas to visit the kingdom. Hamas, formally the Islamic Resistance Movement, defeated the U.S.-backed Fatah Party led by Abbas in legislative elections last month.
Faisal's comments echoed those from the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Gheit yesterday in Cairo.
Rice wants Arab countries to press Hamas to abandon violence, accept Israel's existence, and endorse previously negotiated agreements between Israel and Palestinian entities. Israel and the U.S. have said they are cutting off direct assistance.
Faisal expressed Saudi Arabia's ``full commitment'' to the Middle East peace effort aimed at creating a Palestinian state.
`No Proof'
Rice met today with Saudi King Abdullah and other senior Saudi officials to discuss Hamas's January victory in parliamentary elections, Iran's nuclear program, and the situation in Iraq.
``There is no proof yet that they are producing atomic weapons,'' Faisal said of Iran. ``They deny this. They've denied it many times to us. They say they need the technology for its own purposes.''
Iran should follow Saudi policy and help make the Middle East ``an area free of atomic weapons,'' he added.
Earlier today, Rice met with democracy activists in Cairo and heard criticism of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government. Rice told reporters that since her last visit in June, ``a lot has happened since, some good, some not good'' in terms of democratic change.
Rice goes next to the United Arab Emirates, which is caught up in a domestic U.S. political squabble over a transaction to take over operations at six U.S. ports.
President George W. Bush is resisting pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers who want the transaction stopped because of security concerns.
Bush was made aware of the $6.8 billion sale of London- based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a state-owned business in the UAE, in ``the last several days,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today. By that time, congressional opposition already was bubbling up.
Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabia's chief diplomat said an incoming Hamas-led government in the Palestinian territories should continue to be funded, putting the kingdom at odds with the U.S. view that the Islamic group should be cut off.
``We wish not to link the international aid to the Palestinian people to considerations other than their dire humanitarian needs,'' Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said at a news conference in Riyadh, the capital, late today with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Saudi Arabia provides roughly $15 million per month to the Palestinian Authority via the Arab League, and Saudi officials told visiting U.S. diplomats that aid would continue. The money might be channeled directly to the office of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to bolster him, a senior U.S. official told reporters traveling with Rice's delegation.
The official said the Saudi government had denied a request from Hamas to visit the kingdom. Hamas, formally the Islamic Resistance Movement, defeated the U.S.-backed Fatah Party led by Abbas in legislative elections last month.
Faisal's comments echoed those from the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Gheit yesterday in Cairo.
Rice wants Arab countries to press Hamas to abandon violence, accept Israel's existence, and endorse previously negotiated agreements between Israel and Palestinian entities. Israel and the U.S. have said they are cutting off direct assistance.
Faisal expressed Saudi Arabia's ``full commitment'' to the Middle East peace effort aimed at creating a Palestinian state.
`No Proof'
Rice met today with Saudi King Abdullah and other senior Saudi officials to discuss Hamas's January victory in parliamentary elections, Iran's nuclear program, and the situation in Iraq.
``There is no proof yet that they are producing atomic weapons,'' Faisal said of Iran. ``They deny this. They've denied it many times to us. They say they need the technology for its own purposes.''
Iran should follow Saudi policy and help make the Middle East ``an area free of atomic weapons,'' he added.
Earlier today, Rice met with democracy activists in Cairo and heard criticism of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's government. Rice told reporters that since her last visit in June, ``a lot has happened since, some good, some not good'' in terms of democratic change.
Rice goes next to the United Arab Emirates, which is caught up in a domestic U.S. political squabble over a transaction to take over operations at six U.S. ports.
President George W. Bush is resisting pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers who want the transaction stopped because of security concerns.
Bush was made aware of the $6.8 billion sale of London- based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a state-owned business in the UAE, in ``the last several days,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said today. By that time, congressional opposition already was bubbling up.
More than six dozen CIA-linked landings in Canada: declassified memos
More than six dozen CIA-linked landings in Canada: declassified memos
More than six dozen CIA-linked landings in Canada: declassified memos
Jim Bronskill
Canadian Press
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - Newly declassified memos show the number of Canadian landings by planes tied to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency far exceeds previously known figures.
Internal government briefing notes obtained Wednesday also reveal senior intelligence officials from six federal agencies, including Canada's spy service, met in late November to discuss the flights.
The memos underscore the level of concern in government circles about public fears the CIA has been ferrying terrorist suspects through Canada to foreign prisons.
One note, stamped secret, says 20 planes with alleged CIA ties have made 74 flights to Canada since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The note adds the Canada Border Services Agency, which compiled the figures, and Nav Canada, the civil aviation regulatory body, "have indicated that proper administrative and operational procedures were followed in relation to those flights."
The Public Safety Department said in January a federal review of landings by the supposed CIA flights showed no evidence of "illegal activities."
The explanations do not satisfy human rights group Amnesty International, which has been pressing the government on whether any of the flights involved the transfer of prisoners to countries where they may be tortured.
"We've consistently failed to get an answer to that," said Alex Neve, the group's Canadian secretary general.
One previous media report had cited flight logs indicating that during a four-year period a total of 13 aircraft had landed in Canada on 55 occasions.
Flight data obtained by The Canadian Press shows that since mid-2005, at least seven different planes owned by reputed CIA shell corporations have landed at Canadian airports in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut, Ontario and Quebec.
One recent flight, an 11-seat Beech turboprop with tail number N157A, set out for Keflavik, Iceland, on Feb. 12 from Goose Bay, N.L., where it had arrived the previous day from Montreal.
The U.S. military maintains an air station in Keflavik that serves as a refuelling point for Europe-bound aircraft.
The records released Wednesday under the Access to Information Act include an undated secret memorandum, titled Alleged CIA Aircraft in Canada, prepared by Privy Council Office officials for then-deputy prime minister and public safety czar Anne McLellan.
Considerable portions of the memos were blacked out. The deleted material was withheld under provisions of the access law that allows officials to refuse to disclose advice from officials or information related to international affairs and defence.
The Nov. 29 meeting included security officials from PCO, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Public Safety, Canada Border Services, Foreign Affairs and Transport Canada.
The agenda indicates they reviewed federal policy on "rendition" - the term often used to describe the transfer of suspected terrorists by the United States to countries where they may be more easily imprisoned and interrogated.
The officials also discussed the government's "public position" on the planes issue and the question of "U.S. engagement" - presumably a reference to raising the issue with American counterparts.
Gregory Jack, a PCO spokesman, and Canada Border Services spokeswoman Cara Prest declined comment Wednesday.
Public Safety Department spokesman Zuwena Robidas also refused to discuss the memos. "That's all the information that can be released."
More than six dozen CIA-linked landings in Canada: declassified memos
Jim Bronskill
Canadian Press
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
OTTAWA (CP) - Newly declassified memos show the number of Canadian landings by planes tied to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency far exceeds previously known figures.
Internal government briefing notes obtained Wednesday also reveal senior intelligence officials from six federal agencies, including Canada's spy service, met in late November to discuss the flights.
The memos underscore the level of concern in government circles about public fears the CIA has been ferrying terrorist suspects through Canada to foreign prisons.
One note, stamped secret, says 20 planes with alleged CIA ties have made 74 flights to Canada since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The note adds the Canada Border Services Agency, which compiled the figures, and Nav Canada, the civil aviation regulatory body, "have indicated that proper administrative and operational procedures were followed in relation to those flights."
The Public Safety Department said in January a federal review of landings by the supposed CIA flights showed no evidence of "illegal activities."
The explanations do not satisfy human rights group Amnesty International, which has been pressing the government on whether any of the flights involved the transfer of prisoners to countries where they may be tortured.
"We've consistently failed to get an answer to that," said Alex Neve, the group's Canadian secretary general.
One previous media report had cited flight logs indicating that during a four-year period a total of 13 aircraft had landed in Canada on 55 occasions.
Flight data obtained by The Canadian Press shows that since mid-2005, at least seven different planes owned by reputed CIA shell corporations have landed at Canadian airports in Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut, Ontario and Quebec.
One recent flight, an 11-seat Beech turboprop with tail number N157A, set out for Keflavik, Iceland, on Feb. 12 from Goose Bay, N.L., where it had arrived the previous day from Montreal.
The U.S. military maintains an air station in Keflavik that serves as a refuelling point for Europe-bound aircraft.
The records released Wednesday under the Access to Information Act include an undated secret memorandum, titled Alleged CIA Aircraft in Canada, prepared by Privy Council Office officials for then-deputy prime minister and public safety czar Anne McLellan.
Considerable portions of the memos were blacked out. The deleted material was withheld under provisions of the access law that allows officials to refuse to disclose advice from officials or information related to international affairs and defence.
The Nov. 29 meeting included security officials from PCO, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Public Safety, Canada Border Services, Foreign Affairs and Transport Canada.
The agenda indicates they reviewed federal policy on "rendition" - the term often used to describe the transfer of suspected terrorists by the United States to countries where they may be more easily imprisoned and interrogated.
The officials also discussed the government's "public position" on the planes issue and the question of "U.S. engagement" - presumably a reference to raising the issue with American counterparts.
Gregory Jack, a PCO spokesman, and Canada Border Services spokeswoman Cara Prest declined comment Wednesday.
Public Safety Department spokesman Zuwena Robidas also refused to discuss the memos. "That's all the information that can be released."
MPs recall Straw as air traffic controllers confirm 200 CIA flights
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | MPs recall Straw as air traffic controllers confirm 200 CIA flights
MPs recall Straw as air traffic controllers confirm 200 CIA flights
· Revelations 'fly in face' of government answers
· Ministers criticised over attitude to human rights
Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Cobain
Thursday February 23, 2006
The Guardian
MPs will today chastise ministers over their stance on the US practice of "extraordinary rendition" amid the first official admission that 200 suspect CIA flights had used British airspace.
In a report highly critical of the government's attitude towards human rights abuses, the Commons foreign affairs committee accuses ministers of failing in their duty to find out whether Britain has been complicit in the US policy of secretly transferring detainees to places where they risked being tortured.
Article continues
Members of the committee say they have not been told the full story despite months of trying. They are to summon the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to give evidence again on an issue which has serious political and legal implications. The move was agreed after Mr Straw suggested he would be questioned in private only by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, Paul Keetch, a Liberal Democrat member of the Commons foreign affairs group, said yesterday.
National Air Traffic Services (Nats) confirmed yesterday that two aircraft believed to have been chartered by the CIA made "around 200 journeys" through British airspace within the past five years.
The flights of the two planes, one a Gulfstream, the other a Boeing 737, were identified by the Guardian last September. Britain and the US have not denied reports that the planes were chartered by the CIA. Flight plans do not record the purpose of the flights, a Nats spokesman said yesterday. "They might have been CIA flights taking officials rather than people in orange boiler suits," he added.
The disclosure came as the Council of Europe in effect named and shamed five countries which failed to explain what steps they were taking to protect people from being detained and mistreated through rendition.
The council, which oversees the implementation of the European convention on human rights, said that Belgium, Bosnia, Georgia, Italy and San Marino had missed the deadline of midnight on Tuesday for submissions which were expected to explain how they were meeting their obligations under international law.
The Ministry of Defence, Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Foreign Office have all said in answers to parliamentary questions - notably from the Lib Dems and the Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie - that they are unaware of any rendition flights since 1998, that they do not keep records, or that records they did have had been destroyed.
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, yesterday wrote to the armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, saying he would complain to the parliamentary ombudsman unless the MoD gave details of flights which landed at RAF airfields. Mr Ingram has said they could be provided only at "disproportionate cost".
The Guardian has seen evidence that the MoD has details of the flights, including their origin and destination.
Mr Clegg also said that the disclosure by Britain's air traffic control service "flies in the face of the answer we received from the government that only two or three cases of rendition ever took place".
Mr Straw said yesterday: "We know of no occasion where there has been a rendition through UK territory, or indeed over UK territory, nor do we have any reason to believe that such flights have taken place without our knowledge."
Terry Davis, the Council of Europe's secretary general, said that all five countries he named had "failed to comply with their legal obligation" under the human rights convention. These, he added, "include positive obligations, meaning that governments are required to take action to prevent violations from taking place".
MPs recall Straw as air traffic controllers confirm 200 CIA flights
· Revelations 'fly in face' of government answers
· Ministers criticised over attitude to human rights
Richard Norton-Taylor and Ian Cobain
Thursday February 23, 2006
The Guardian
MPs will today chastise ministers over their stance on the US practice of "extraordinary rendition" amid the first official admission that 200 suspect CIA flights had used British airspace.
In a report highly critical of the government's attitude towards human rights abuses, the Commons foreign affairs committee accuses ministers of failing in their duty to find out whether Britain has been complicit in the US policy of secretly transferring detainees to places where they risked being tortured.
Article continues
Members of the committee say they have not been told the full story despite months of trying. They are to summon the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, to give evidence again on an issue which has serious political and legal implications. The move was agreed after Mr Straw suggested he would be questioned in private only by the parliamentary intelligence and security committee, Paul Keetch, a Liberal Democrat member of the Commons foreign affairs group, said yesterday.
National Air Traffic Services (Nats) confirmed yesterday that two aircraft believed to have been chartered by the CIA made "around 200 journeys" through British airspace within the past five years.
The flights of the two planes, one a Gulfstream, the other a Boeing 737, were identified by the Guardian last September. Britain and the US have not denied reports that the planes were chartered by the CIA. Flight plans do not record the purpose of the flights, a Nats spokesman said yesterday. "They might have been CIA flights taking officials rather than people in orange boiler suits," he added.
The disclosure came as the Council of Europe in effect named and shamed five countries which failed to explain what steps they were taking to protect people from being detained and mistreated through rendition.
The council, which oversees the implementation of the European convention on human rights, said that Belgium, Bosnia, Georgia, Italy and San Marino had missed the deadline of midnight on Tuesday for submissions which were expected to explain how they were meeting their obligations under international law.
The Ministry of Defence, Department for Transport, the Home Office and the Foreign Office have all said in answers to parliamentary questions - notably from the Lib Dems and the Conservative MP Andrew Tyrie - that they are unaware of any rendition flights since 1998, that they do not keep records, or that records they did have had been destroyed.
Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, yesterday wrote to the armed forces minister, Adam Ingram, saying he would complain to the parliamentary ombudsman unless the MoD gave details of flights which landed at RAF airfields. Mr Ingram has said they could be provided only at "disproportionate cost".
The Guardian has seen evidence that the MoD has details of the flights, including their origin and destination.
Mr Clegg also said that the disclosure by Britain's air traffic control service "flies in the face of the answer we received from the government that only two or three cases of rendition ever took place".
Mr Straw said yesterday: "We know of no occasion where there has been a rendition through UK territory, or indeed over UK territory, nor do we have any reason to believe that such flights have taken place without our knowledge."
Terry Davis, the Council of Europe's secretary general, said that all five countries he named had "failed to comply with their legal obligation" under the human rights convention. These, he added, "include positive obligations, meaning that governments are required to take action to prevent violations from taking place".
Foreign investment in Russia up 32.4 percent in 2005
Xinhua - English
www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-23 05:02:32
MOSCOW, Feb. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- Foreign investment in the Russian economy increased 32.4 percent to reach 53.6 billion U.S. dollars in 2005 from the previous year, the Federal State Statistics Service said on Wednesday.
Direct foreign investment in Russia grew 38.8 percent to 13.1 billion dollars. Portfolio investment increased 36.3 percent to 453 million dollars. Other investment rose 30.5 percent to 40.1 billion dollars.
As of the end of 2005, loans from international lending agencies and commercial loans account for 53.8 percent of total investment in Russia. Direct foreign investment takes up 44.5 percent and portfolio investment 1.7 percent.
Foreign investment grew 36.4 percent in 2004 in Russia. Enditem
www.chinaview.cn 2006-02-23 05:02:32
MOSCOW, Feb. 22 (Xinhuanet) -- Foreign investment in the Russian economy increased 32.4 percent to reach 53.6 billion U.S. dollars in 2005 from the previous year, the Federal State Statistics Service said on Wednesday.
Direct foreign investment in Russia grew 38.8 percent to 13.1 billion dollars. Portfolio investment increased 36.3 percent to 453 million dollars. Other investment rose 30.5 percent to 40.1 billion dollars.
As of the end of 2005, loans from international lending agencies and commercial loans account for 53.8 percent of total investment in Russia. Direct foreign investment takes up 44.5 percent and portfolio investment 1.7 percent.
Foreign investment grew 36.4 percent in 2004 in Russia. Enditem
Emcore adds DARPA funds to terrestrial solar push (February 2006) - News - Compound Semiconductor
Emcore adds DARPA funds to terrestrial solar push (February 2006) - News - Compound Semiconductor
Emcore adds DARPA funds to terrestrial solar push
22 February 2006
With three deals to supply GaAs-based solar cells for terrestrial applications already in place, Emcore gets a further boost from DARPA.
Emcore has joined the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) effort to develop solar cells with at least 50% photo-electric efficiency.
The very high efficiency solar cell (VHSEC) project, which is being run by the agency’s Advanced Technology Office, has potential total funding of $53 million over the next few years.
The Somerset, NJ, chip manufacturer has also joined a consortium formed by VHSEC’s prime contractor - the University of Delaware - and will develop a technology roadmap aimed at significantly reducing the cost of making such highly-efficient cells.
Emcore’s top-rated triple-junction solar cells operate at around 36% efficiency in terrestrial applications currently, and one way to boost this conversion efficiency would be to add more junctions based on III-V heterostructures.
But reducing the cost of the cells is critical if the GaAs-based cells, which are fabricated on germanium substrates, are to cross over from high-value satellite applications to terrestrial deployment.
However, Emcore is already enjoying some early success in the terrestrial market. In a conference call to discuss financial results earlier this month, CEO Reuben Richards revealed that Emcore already has three terrestrial customers lined up – one in Spain and two in Asia.
The company has started manufacturing solar cells for the first of those customers one quarter earlier than expected, added Richards.
With the political mood in the US now appearing to back solar energy strongly, the Bush Administration has proposed a $148 million fund for the Solar America Initiative in 2007, up $65 million on the 2006 figure.
"Within 10 years, we estimate that this program will result in 10 GW of grid-connected solar electric capacity," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association in Washington, DC. "That would be 20 times today's levels."
Emcore looks set to tap into this emerging market. According to its analysis of one forecast, Emcore expects to see a total addressable market of over $1 billion by 2010, mostly in utility-scale solar energy farms connected to the grid.
"Emcore changed the direction of solar power for space applications. We are going to do the same on Earth," announced the company in a presentation to investors on February 21.
Emcore adds DARPA funds to terrestrial solar push
22 February 2006
With three deals to supply GaAs-based solar cells for terrestrial applications already in place, Emcore gets a further boost from DARPA.
Emcore has joined the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) effort to develop solar cells with at least 50% photo-electric efficiency.
The very high efficiency solar cell (VHSEC) project, which is being run by the agency’s Advanced Technology Office, has potential total funding of $53 million over the next few years.
The Somerset, NJ, chip manufacturer has also joined a consortium formed by VHSEC’s prime contractor - the University of Delaware - and will develop a technology roadmap aimed at significantly reducing the cost of making such highly-efficient cells.
Emcore’s top-rated triple-junction solar cells operate at around 36% efficiency in terrestrial applications currently, and one way to boost this conversion efficiency would be to add more junctions based on III-V heterostructures.
But reducing the cost of the cells is critical if the GaAs-based cells, which are fabricated on germanium substrates, are to cross over from high-value satellite applications to terrestrial deployment.
However, Emcore is already enjoying some early success in the terrestrial market. In a conference call to discuss financial results earlier this month, CEO Reuben Richards revealed that Emcore already has three terrestrial customers lined up – one in Spain and two in Asia.
The company has started manufacturing solar cells for the first of those customers one quarter earlier than expected, added Richards.
With the political mood in the US now appearing to back solar energy strongly, the Bush Administration has proposed a $148 million fund for the Solar America Initiative in 2007, up $65 million on the 2006 figure.
"Within 10 years, we estimate that this program will result in 10 GW of grid-connected solar electric capacity," said Rhone Resch, president of the Solar Energy Industries Association in Washington, DC. "That would be 20 times today's levels."
Emcore looks set to tap into this emerging market. According to its analysis of one forecast, Emcore expects to see a total addressable market of over $1 billion by 2010, mostly in utility-scale solar energy farms connected to the grid.
"Emcore changed the direction of solar power for space applications. We are going to do the same on Earth," announced the company in a presentation to investors on February 21.
Bush Didn't Learn of Port Deal Until After Approval- Bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a2oc6OE9NiD8#
Bush Didn't Learn of Port Deal Until After Approval (Update2)
Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush didn't learn about the sale of six major U.S. port facilities to a Dubai company until after the deal was agreed to and federal approval was granted, his spokesman said today.
Bush was made aware of the $6.8 billion sale of London- based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates, in ``the last several days,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. By that time, congressional opposition already was bubbling up.
``This didn't rise to the presidential level,'' McClellan said at the White House.
The president checked with his Cabinet secretaries to see if there were concerns and there were none, McClellan said. Bush yesterday defended the deal in the face of opposition from Democrats and Republicans and threatened to exercise his first veto on any legislation that would block the transfer.
Two of the president's key congressional allies, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, announced their opposition to the sale because of concerns that port security might be jeopardized. Frist vowed to push through legislation blocking it unless the administration reconsiders. Republican Governors George Pataki in New York and Bob Ehrlich in Maryland also have expressed reservations. Congressional Democrats also are calling for the deal to be reviewed.
`Entirely Preventable'
The rare intra-party battle creates a political liability for Bush and an opportunity for Democrats that was ``entirely preventable,'' Republican political consultant Rich Galen said.
The controversy is ``another example of the White House not having the capacity to see over the horizon when it comes to the public-affairs piece of what they are doing,'' Galen said. ``Too few senators and congressmen knew anything about this program, and so they are upset about not being informed.''
McClellan today acknowledged that the administration erred in not informing lawmakers about details of the transaction.
``This is one where we probably should have consulted with, or briefed Congress on sooner,'' McClellan said.
The president ``hasn't had a conversation'' with Frist, McClellan said. To quell the political firestorm, the White House plans to brief lawmakers today and tomorrow, he said, without providing specifics.
``This is a principled decision,'' McClellan said. ``We shouldn't be holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company.''
Briefing Tomorrow
Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia said the armed services panel he chairs will hold a public briefing tomorrow with representatives from the departments and agencies involved in the approval ``to allow the relevant facts to be put on the record for the availability of all members'' of Congress.
Warner, in a statement, cited the ``key role'' the United Arab Emirates has played in the war on terror and ``the importance of making fair and objective decisions in working with our allies.''
Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey have proposed legislation to bar the acquisition. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Frist must let the Senate act as soon as it returns next week.
``It is already clear this deal should not go forward, and I hope he will permit the Senate to act expeditiously,'' Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said yesterday.
Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, vowed Congress would prevail. ``If the president wants to veto this, go ahead -- we'll override the veto,'' Weldon said in an interview yesterday.
Political Stakes
Bush, whose party seeks to retain control of Congress in this year's elections, may suffer politically no matter how the controversy is resolved. If he prevails, he will do so over key lawmakers in his own party who say the deal may undermine the country's readiness to forestall terrorism.
``This is totally inappropriate in the 9/11 world for a company coming out of a country which has had such strong al- Qaeda influence,'' House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, a New York Republican, said yesterday.
`Hypocrite'
If the deal fails, it could send the wrong signal to U.S. trading partners, even as Treasury officials travel the world trying to convince other nations to open up their capital markets.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, speaking today to reporters in Danbury, Connecticut, said the deal protects U.S. security interests and blocking it would have meant that investments from ``certain parts of the world'' aren't welcome in the U.S.
Cnooc Ltd., China's third-largest oil producer, in August withdrew an offer to buy U.S. oil producer Unocal Corp. for $18.5 billion, citing political opposition from U.S. lawmakers.
If congressional opposition kills the DP World deal, the U.S. ``looks like a hypocrite,'' said Gary Hufbauer, a researcher at the Institute for International Economics in Washington who was the Treasury's deputy assistant secretary for international trade from 1977 to 1979.
``The innuendo is that this Dubai company is a front for al-Qaeda, without any evidence,'' Hufbauer said in an interview. ``It suggests that a foreign company that wants to take over anything that's mildly delicate could be subject to this type of innuendo campaign.''
Precedents
Foreign ownership of port operations isn't unusual. At least five overseas-based companies already have operations on U.S. soil. One is the world's biggest cargo carrier, Maersk Line, based in Copenhagen. It is part of A.P. Moeller Maersk A/S. In addition, Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Japan's biggest shipping company, owns 20 U.S. cargo terminals.
The terminal operators use cranes to lift cargo on and off ships that sail the world laden with consumer goods such as clothing from Asia or beer from Europe. Trucks take the cargo to or from the docks.
DP World has operations in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Romania, Germany, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Djibouti, India and Saudi Arabia, McClellan said yesterday.
U.S. officials stressed that the terminal operators aren't in charge of port security.
`Nothing Changes'
``Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract,'' Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference yesterday. ``The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.''
Commander Jeff Carter, a Coast Guard spokesman, said the port operators must submit security plans for approval by the Guard, which also conducts inspections to make sure the firms follow through.
Jarrod Agen, a Homeland Security Department spokesman, said Customs and Border Protection agents would continue to examine some containers that flow through ports, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would keep tracking tips on illegal aliens and counterfeit goods.
Hastert, of Illinois, and Frist, of Tennessee, said an acquisition involving a state-owned company requires extra scrutiny.
``We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government,'' Hastert wrote in a letter to Bush yesterday.
Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates, and the plotters used the country to help funnel money to the operation.
Reviewed in November
The companies informed Treasury in November about the pending sale, and the foreign investment committee began an informal review immediately.
The committee is made up of 12 departments and agencies including Defense, Homeland Security, the White House National Security Council, Treasury and the Commerce Department. The Energy and Transportation departments were invited to join this review.
Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto said DP World addressed the security concerns raised by the committee. He declined to say what specific actions the company took to gain approval.
The process is secretive. The committee doesn't announce when it's conducting a review or publicize its findings. The committee's review of the purchase of International Business Machines Corp.'s personal-computer business by China's Lenovo Group Ltd. was only disclosed by the companies earlier this year.
Weldon said the process leaves him ``shocked for a couple of reasons.''
``I'm shocked by the total lack of transparency and arrogance of the White House not to consult with Congress,'' he said.
Bush Didn't Learn of Port Deal Until After Approval (Update2)
Feb. 22 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush didn't learn about the sale of six major U.S. port facilities to a Dubai company until after the deal was agreed to and federal approval was granted, his spokesman said today.
Bush was made aware of the $6.8 billion sale of London- based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a state-owned business in the United Arab Emirates, in ``the last several days,'' White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. By that time, congressional opposition already was bubbling up.
``This didn't rise to the presidential level,'' McClellan said at the White House.
The president checked with his Cabinet secretaries to see if there were concerns and there were none, McClellan said. Bush yesterday defended the deal in the face of opposition from Democrats and Republicans and threatened to exercise his first veto on any legislation that would block the transfer.
Two of the president's key congressional allies, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, announced their opposition to the sale because of concerns that port security might be jeopardized. Frist vowed to push through legislation blocking it unless the administration reconsiders. Republican Governors George Pataki in New York and Bob Ehrlich in Maryland also have expressed reservations. Congressional Democrats also are calling for the deal to be reviewed.
`Entirely Preventable'
The rare intra-party battle creates a political liability for Bush and an opportunity for Democrats that was ``entirely preventable,'' Republican political consultant Rich Galen said.
The controversy is ``another example of the White House not having the capacity to see over the horizon when it comes to the public-affairs piece of what they are doing,'' Galen said. ``Too few senators and congressmen knew anything about this program, and so they are upset about not being informed.''
McClellan today acknowledged that the administration erred in not informing lawmakers about details of the transaction.
``This is one where we probably should have consulted with, or briefed Congress on sooner,'' McClellan said.
The president ``hasn't had a conversation'' with Frist, McClellan said. To quell the political firestorm, the White House plans to brief lawmakers today and tomorrow, he said, without providing specifics.
``This is a principled decision,'' McClellan said. ``We shouldn't be holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard than a British company.''
Briefing Tomorrow
Republican Senator John Warner of Virginia said the armed services panel he chairs will hold a public briefing tomorrow with representatives from the departments and agencies involved in the approval ``to allow the relevant facts to be put on the record for the availability of all members'' of Congress.
Warner, in a statement, cited the ``key role'' the United Arab Emirates has played in the war on terror and ``the importance of making fair and objective decisions in working with our allies.''
Democrats such as Senators Hillary Clinton of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey have proposed legislation to bar the acquisition. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said Frist must let the Senate act as soon as it returns next week.
``It is already clear this deal should not go forward, and I hope he will permit the Senate to act expeditiously,'' Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said yesterday.
Pennsylvania Republican Curt Weldon, a member of the House Homeland Security Committee, vowed Congress would prevail. ``If the president wants to veto this, go ahead -- we'll override the veto,'' Weldon said in an interview yesterday.
Political Stakes
Bush, whose party seeks to retain control of Congress in this year's elections, may suffer politically no matter how the controversy is resolved. If he prevails, he will do so over key lawmakers in his own party who say the deal may undermine the country's readiness to forestall terrorism.
``This is totally inappropriate in the 9/11 world for a company coming out of a country which has had such strong al- Qaeda influence,'' House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King, a New York Republican, said yesterday.
`Hypocrite'
If the deal fails, it could send the wrong signal to U.S. trading partners, even as Treasury officials travel the world trying to convince other nations to open up their capital markets.
Treasury Secretary John Snow, speaking today to reporters in Danbury, Connecticut, said the deal protects U.S. security interests and blocking it would have meant that investments from ``certain parts of the world'' aren't welcome in the U.S.
Cnooc Ltd., China's third-largest oil producer, in August withdrew an offer to buy U.S. oil producer Unocal Corp. for $18.5 billion, citing political opposition from U.S. lawmakers.
If congressional opposition kills the DP World deal, the U.S. ``looks like a hypocrite,'' said Gary Hufbauer, a researcher at the Institute for International Economics in Washington who was the Treasury's deputy assistant secretary for international trade from 1977 to 1979.
``The innuendo is that this Dubai company is a front for al-Qaeda, without any evidence,'' Hufbauer said in an interview. ``It suggests that a foreign company that wants to take over anything that's mildly delicate could be subject to this type of innuendo campaign.''
Precedents
Foreign ownership of port operations isn't unusual. At least five overseas-based companies already have operations on U.S. soil. One is the world's biggest cargo carrier, Maersk Line, based in Copenhagen. It is part of A.P. Moeller Maersk A/S. In addition, Nippon Yusen Kaisha, Japan's biggest shipping company, owns 20 U.S. cargo terminals.
The terminal operators use cranes to lift cargo on and off ships that sail the world laden with consumer goods such as clothing from Asia or beer from Europe. Trucks take the cargo to or from the docks.
DP World has operations in Australia, China, Hong Kong, Romania, Germany, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Djibouti, India and Saudi Arabia, McClellan said yesterday.
U.S. officials stressed that the terminal operators aren't in charge of port security.
`Nothing Changes'
``Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract,'' Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told a Pentagon news conference yesterday. ``The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation.''
Commander Jeff Carter, a Coast Guard spokesman, said the port operators must submit security plans for approval by the Guard, which also conducts inspections to make sure the firms follow through.
Jarrod Agen, a Homeland Security Department spokesman, said Customs and Border Protection agents would continue to examine some containers that flow through ports, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents would keep tracking tips on illegal aliens and counterfeit goods.
Hastert, of Illinois, and Frist, of Tennessee, said an acquisition involving a state-owned company requires extra scrutiny.
``We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government,'' Hastert wrote in a letter to Bush yesterday.
Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the United Arab Emirates, and the plotters used the country to help funnel money to the operation.
Reviewed in November
The companies informed Treasury in November about the pending sale, and the foreign investment committee began an informal review immediately.
The committee is made up of 12 departments and agencies including Defense, Homeland Security, the White House National Security Council, Treasury and the Commerce Department. The Energy and Transportation departments were invited to join this review.
Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto said DP World addressed the security concerns raised by the committee. He declined to say what specific actions the company took to gain approval.
The process is secretive. The committee doesn't announce when it's conducting a review or publicize its findings. The committee's review of the purchase of International Business Machines Corp.'s personal-computer business by China's Lenovo Group Ltd. was only disclosed by the companies earlier this year.
Weldon said the process leaves him ``shocked for a couple of reasons.''
``I'm shocked by the total lack of transparency and arrogance of the White House not to consult with Congress,'' he said.
More than one beer.....
Secret Service agents say Cheney was drunk when he shot lawyer
By DOUG THOMPSON
Feb 22, 2006, 07:35
Email this article
Printer friendly page
A written report from Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing two weeks ago says Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting.
Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions, the report said.
According to those who have read the report and talked with others present at the outing, Cheney was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up.
We talked with a number of administration officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President's shooting "accident" and all admit Secret Service agents and others saw Cheney consume far more than the "one beer' he claimed he drank at lunch earlier that day.
"This was a South Texas hunt," says one White House aide. "Of course there was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it."
Cheney has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two convictions of driving under the influence when he was younger. Doctors tell me that someone like Cheney, who is taking blood thinners because of his history of heart attacks, could get legally drunk now after consuming just one drink.
If Cheney was legally drunk at the time of the shooting, he could be guilty of a felony under Texas law and the shooting, ruled an accident by a compliant Kenedy County Sheriff, would be a prosecutable offense.
But we will never know for sure because the owners of the Armstrong Ranch, where the shooting occurred, barred the sheriff's department from the property on the day of the shooting and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III agreed to wait until the next day to send deputies in to talk to those involved.
Sheriff's Captain Charles Kirk says he went to the Armstrong Ranch immediately after the shooting was reported on Saturday, February 11 but both he and a game warden were not allowed on the 50,000-acre property. He called Salinas who told him to forget about it and return to the station.
"I told him don't worry about it. I'll make a call," Salinas said. The sheriff claims he called another deputy who moonlights at the Armstrong ranch, said he was told it was "just an accident" and made the decision to wait until Sunday to investigate.
"We've known these people for years. They are honest and wouldn't call us, telling us a lie," Salinas said.
Like all elected officials in Kenedy County, Salinas owes his job to the backing and financial support of Katherine Armstrong, owner of the ranch and the county's largest employer.
"The Armstrongs rule Kenedy County like a fiefdom," says a former employee.
Secret Service officials also took possession of all tests on Whittington's blood at the hospitals where he was treated for his wounds. When asked if a blood alcohol test had been performed on Whittington, the doctors who treated him at Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial in Corpus Christi or the hospital in Kingsville refused to answer. One admits privately he was ordered by the Secret Service to "never discuss the case with the press."
It's a sure bet that is a private doctor who treated the victim of Cheney's reckless and drunken actions can't talk to the public then the memo that shows the Vice President was drunk as a skunk will never see the light of day.
By DOUG THOMPSON
Feb 22, 2006, 07:35
Email this article
Printer friendly page
A written report from Secret Service agents guarding Vice President Dick Cheney when he shot Texas lawyer Harry Whittington on a hunting outing two weeks ago says Cheney was "clearly inebriated" at the time of the shooting.
Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited "visible signs" of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions, the report said.
According to those who have read the report and talked with others present at the outing, Cheney was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up.
We talked with a number of administration officials who are privy to inside information on the Vice President's shooting "accident" and all admit Secret Service agents and others saw Cheney consume far more than the "one beer' he claimed he drank at lunch earlier that day.
"This was a South Texas hunt," says one White House aide. "Of course there was drinking. There's always drinking. Lots of it."
Cheney has a long history of alcohol abuse, including two convictions of driving under the influence when he was younger. Doctors tell me that someone like Cheney, who is taking blood thinners because of his history of heart attacks, could get legally drunk now after consuming just one drink.
If Cheney was legally drunk at the time of the shooting, he could be guilty of a felony under Texas law and the shooting, ruled an accident by a compliant Kenedy County Sheriff, would be a prosecutable offense.
But we will never know for sure because the owners of the Armstrong Ranch, where the shooting occurred, barred the sheriff's department from the property on the day of the shooting and Kenedy County Sheriff Ramon Salinas III agreed to wait until the next day to send deputies in to talk to those involved.
Sheriff's Captain Charles Kirk says he went to the Armstrong Ranch immediately after the shooting was reported on Saturday, February 11 but both he and a game warden were not allowed on the 50,000-acre property. He called Salinas who told him to forget about it and return to the station.
"I told him don't worry about it. I'll make a call," Salinas said. The sheriff claims he called another deputy who moonlights at the Armstrong ranch, said he was told it was "just an accident" and made the decision to wait until Sunday to investigate.
"We've known these people for years. They are honest and wouldn't call us, telling us a lie," Salinas said.
Like all elected officials in Kenedy County, Salinas owes his job to the backing and financial support of Katherine Armstrong, owner of the ranch and the county's largest employer.
"The Armstrongs rule Kenedy County like a fiefdom," says a former employee.
Secret Service officials also took possession of all tests on Whittington's blood at the hospitals where he was treated for his wounds. When asked if a blood alcohol test had been performed on Whittington, the doctors who treated him at Christus Spohn Hospital Memorial in Corpus Christi or the hospital in Kingsville refused to answer. One admits privately he was ordered by the Secret Service to "never discuss the case with the press."
It's a sure bet that is a private doctor who treated the victim of Cheney's reckless and drunken actions can't talk to the public then the memo that shows the Vice President was drunk as a skunk will never see the light of day.
Print Story: Rumsfeld: Planting Stories Under Review on Yahoo! News
Print Story: Rumsfeld: Planting Stories Under Review on Yahoo! News
Rumsfeld: Planting Stories Under Review
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military WriterTue Feb 21, 4:56 PM ET
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that the Pentagon is reviewing its practice of paying to plant stories in the Iraqi news media, withdrawing his earlier claim that it had been stopped.
Rumsfeld told reporters he was mistaken in the earlier assertion.
"I don't have knowledge as to whether it's been stopped. I do have knowledge it was put under review. I was correctly informed. And I just misstated the facts," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news briefing.
Rumsfeld had said in a speech in New York last Friday and in a television interview the same day that the controversial practice had been stopped.
He said that Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, was reviewing the practice. Previously, Casey has said he saw no reason to stop it.
Rumsfeld saluted members of the U.S. military participating in relief efforts in devastating mudslides in the Philippines.
"These efforts are an indication of the organizational talents of the United States military," Rumsfeld said.
Some 5,000 U.S. military members were in the Philippines at the time, most of them on training exercises, said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Rumsfeld also addressed mixed signals coming from Iraqi leaders over the type of government they'd like to eventually see take shape in Iraq.
"Iraqis are going through a political process," Rumsfeld said. "Until they agree on who their new leadership should be, you're going to see a lot of public statements by a lot of people ... reflecting a lot of different views."
Iraqi political parties have run into major obstacles in talks on a new national unity government. Any major delay would be a setback to U.S. hopes for a significant reduction in troop levels this year.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said earlier Tuesday in Baghdad that the results of the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections showed the Iraqi people want a "broad government of national unity" to bring together "all the different elements" of Iraqi society.
He spoke after meeting with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Iraqi leaders.
Al-Jaafari has said formation of the government was more complicated "because this time the Arab Sunnis are participating in the political process."
Rumsfeld also said he had no problems with a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over operations at six major U.S. seaports, a plan that has encountered stiff political opposition in Congress.
He called the UAE a good military partner in the war on terror.
"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation," Rumsfeld said.
Earlier Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld had been incorrect in saying on Friday that the practice of paying for positive stories in the Iraqi media had been halted in the wake of negative publicity in the United States.
An official inquiry into the program by Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk has been completed but its results have not been publicly released.
In his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign-policy think tank, Rumsfeld raised the issue as an example of the U.S. military command in Baghdad seeking "nontraditional means" to get its message to the Iraqi people in the face of a disinformation campaign by the insurgents.
"Yet this has been portrayed as inappropriate — for example, the allegations of someone in the military hiring a contractor and the contractor allegedly paying someone to print a story — a true story — but paying to print a story," he said during his speech.
"The resulting explosion of critical press stories then causes everything — all activity, all initiative — to stop, just frozen," he added.
In an appearance Friday on PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," Rumsfeld said he had not known about the practice of paying for news stories before it became a subject of critical publicity in the United States.
"When we heard about it we said, 'Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing,' and told the people down there," he said.
Although "it wasn't anything terrible that happened," Pentagon officials ordered a halt to the practice and "they stopped doing it," he added, according to a transcript provided by the show.
Rumsfeld: Planting Stories Under Review
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military WriterTue Feb 21, 4:56 PM ET
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that the Pentagon is reviewing its practice of paying to plant stories in the Iraqi news media, withdrawing his earlier claim that it had been stopped.
Rumsfeld told reporters he was mistaken in the earlier assertion.
"I don't have knowledge as to whether it's been stopped. I do have knowledge it was put under review. I was correctly informed. And I just misstated the facts," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon news briefing.
Rumsfeld had said in a speech in New York last Friday and in a television interview the same day that the controversial practice had been stopped.
He said that Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, was reviewing the practice. Previously, Casey has said he saw no reason to stop it.
Rumsfeld saluted members of the U.S. military participating in relief efforts in devastating mudslides in the Philippines.
"These efforts are an indication of the organizational talents of the United States military," Rumsfeld said.
Some 5,000 U.S. military members were in the Philippines at the time, most of them on training exercises, said Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Rumsfeld also addressed mixed signals coming from Iraqi leaders over the type of government they'd like to eventually see take shape in Iraq.
"Iraqis are going through a political process," Rumsfeld said. "Until they agree on who their new leadership should be, you're going to see a lot of public statements by a lot of people ... reflecting a lot of different views."
Iraqi political parties have run into major obstacles in talks on a new national unity government. Any major delay would be a setback to U.S. hopes for a significant reduction in troop levels this year.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said earlier Tuesday in Baghdad that the results of the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections showed the Iraqi people want a "broad government of national unity" to bring together "all the different elements" of Iraqi society.
He spoke after meeting with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Iraqi leaders.
Al-Jaafari has said formation of the government was more complicated "because this time the Arab Sunnis are participating in the political process."
Rumsfeld also said he had no problems with a deal permitting a United Arab Emirates company to take over operations at six major U.S. seaports, a plan that has encountered stiff political opposition in Congress.
He called the UAE a good military partner in the war on terror.
"Nothing changes with respect to security under the contract. The Coast Guard is in charge of security, not the corporation," Rumsfeld said.
Earlier Tuesday, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Rumsfeld had been incorrect in saying on Friday that the practice of paying for positive stories in the Iraqi media had been halted in the wake of negative publicity in the United States.
An official inquiry into the program by Navy Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk has been completed but its results have not been publicly released.
In his speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, a foreign-policy think tank, Rumsfeld raised the issue as an example of the U.S. military command in Baghdad seeking "nontraditional means" to get its message to the Iraqi people in the face of a disinformation campaign by the insurgents.
"Yet this has been portrayed as inappropriate — for example, the allegations of someone in the military hiring a contractor and the contractor allegedly paying someone to print a story — a true story — but paying to print a story," he said during his speech.
"The resulting explosion of critical press stories then causes everything — all activity, all initiative — to stop, just frozen," he added.
In an appearance Friday on PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show," Rumsfeld said he had not known about the practice of paying for news stories before it became a subject of critical publicity in the United States.
"When we heard about it we said, 'Gee, that's not what we ought to be doing,' and told the people down there," he said.
Although "it wasn't anything terrible that happened," Pentagon officials ordered a halt to the practice and "they stopped doing it," he added, according to a transcript provided by the show.
Fourfold Increase In British Radiation Levels After Iraq Invasion
Fourfold Increase In British Radiation Levels After Iraq Invasion
Fourfold Increase In British Radiation Levels After Iraq Invasion
by Staff Writers
London, UK (AFP) Feb 19, 2006
Radiation levels in Britain increased fourfold around the time of the start of the "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq in March 2003, according to a study cited by the Sunday Times.
The results were taken from testing stations at the government-linked Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, 51 miles (82 kilometres) west of London, and four others nearby.
Chris Busby, from Liverpool University, northwest England, and a founder of environmental consultancy Green Audit, told the newspaper he believed "uranium aerosols" from Iraq were released into the atmosphere and blown across Europe.
"This research shows that rather than remaining near the target as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away," he said.
The Ministry of Defence in London dismissed the claims as "unfeasible", instead insisting that the results were a coincidence and probably came from other, local sources.
Experts from Britain's leading science body, the Royal Academy, disputed the claims that depleted uranium could be the reason behind the temporary increase in radiation levels, according to the newspaper.
Instead, they reportedly said it could have come from natural uranium in the soil.
Depleted uranium is found in so-called "tank-busting" munitions because of its ability to pierce armour but is controversial because of its potential effect on human health.
It has been the subject of a number of studies and cited by some as being one of the possible causes of "Gulf War Syndrome", an umbrella term for a number of illnesses suffered by veterans of the first Iraq war in 1991.
Source: Agence France-Presse
Fourfold Increase In British Radiation Levels After Iraq Invasion
by Staff Writers
London, UK (AFP) Feb 19, 2006
Radiation levels in Britain increased fourfold around the time of the start of the "shock and awe" bombing campaign in Iraq in March 2003, according to a study cited by the Sunday Times.
The results were taken from testing stations at the government-linked Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) in Aldermaston, 51 miles (82 kilometres) west of London, and four others nearby.
Chris Busby, from Liverpool University, northwest England, and a founder of environmental consultancy Green Audit, told the newspaper he believed "uranium aerosols" from Iraq were released into the atmosphere and blown across Europe.
"This research shows that rather than remaining near the target as claimed by the military, depleted uranium weapons contaminate both locals and whole populations hundreds to thousands of miles away," he said.
The Ministry of Defence in London dismissed the claims as "unfeasible", instead insisting that the results were a coincidence and probably came from other, local sources.
Experts from Britain's leading science body, the Royal Academy, disputed the claims that depleted uranium could be the reason behind the temporary increase in radiation levels, according to the newspaper.
Instead, they reportedly said it could have come from natural uranium in the soil.
Depleted uranium is found in so-called "tank-busting" munitions because of its ability to pierce armour but is controversial because of its potential effect on human health.
It has been the subject of a number of studies and cited by some as being one of the possible causes of "Gulf War Syndrome", an umbrella term for a number of illnesses suffered by veterans of the first Iraq war in 1991.
Source: Agence France-Presse
Who will watch the watchers ?
Gmail - [reality101_redux] Who will watch the watchers ?
National Security Whistleblowers
By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 21 February 2006
Find illegal activity in the US national security agency you work for. Report it to your superiors. Get rewarded by being demoted or having your security clearance revoked - tantamount to losing your career - while those whose conduct you've reported get promoted.
This was the picture painted to a House of Representatives committee last week, as its members heard from five soldiers and civilians who say their livelihoods and reputations have been destroyed or placed in serious jeopardy by their attempts to expose and correct waste, fraud or abuse in their workplaces.
They are known as "national security whistleblowers." And, unlike whistleblowers in civilian agencies of the US government, they have little legal protection against retaliation.
The House Committee is chaired by Representative Christopher Shays, a Republican from Connecticut. But, in a rare occurrence in the current contentious political climate in Washington, he is receiving virtually unanimous bipartisan support for efforts to develop legislation to fix the problem.
Shays and his colleagues listened to a litany of retaliations taken against people who have spoken out about abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, illicit federal wiretapping and other alleged misconduct.
The litany came from current or former employees of the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Defense Department and the Energy Department. They told the committee that after they spoke out against alleged government misconduct or criminal activity they "were retaliated against, in some cases by having their security clearances revoked or their careers ruined."
Specialist Samuel Provance said he was demoted and humiliated after telling a general investigating the Abu Ghraib scandal that senior officers had covered up detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib. He said he tried to tell the general "things he didn't want to hear," adding, "Young soldiers were scapegoated while superiors misrepresented what had happened and tried to misdirect attention away from what was really going on." Provance lost his security clearance, was placed under a "gag order," and is now stationed in Germany, where his responsibilities consist of "picking up trash and guard duty."
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was among the first to disclose the Pentagon's "Able Danger" data-mining program. He said he believes that the program identified Mohammed Atta before he became the lead hijacker in the 2001 terrorist attacks, though a Pentagon review found no evidence to support that conclusion. Shaffer's security clearance was revoked.
Russell Tice, a former intelligence officer at the National Security Agency (NSA), charged that there were "illegalities and unconstitutional activity" in the agency's so-called "special-access programs," but was advised that he could not discuss them even with members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees in closed session. He told the Committee the Defense Department's harassment of him included spreading rumors that he suffers from bipolar disease.
Mike German resigned as an FBI agent after reporting that other agents and managers mishandled a major counter-terrorism case in 2002 and falsified records. The Justice Department inspector general confirmed German's allegations, and that he was retaliated against - his security clearance was revoked.
Richard Levernier's job as a senior Department of Energy nuclear security specialist was to test how well prepared America's nuclear weapons sites were to defend against a terrorist attack. He testified that the tests he supervised showed a 50 percent failure rate. When he reported this to his superiors, he was demoted and his security clearance was revoked. He says he was forced into early retirement.
All these witnesses said they tried to follow the chain of command for reporting wrongdoing, but were rebuffed or stonewalled. Some started by going to their immediate supervisors; others went to the Inspector Generals of their agencies; a few eventually told their stories to congresspersons or to the media.
The defense of whistleblowers comes at a time when top Bush administration officials are turning up the pressure to stop leaks of classified information.
Two news reports in recent months, an article in The New York Times on the National Security Agency's surveillance program and a Washington Post article on secret CIA detention centers, have been referred for criminal investigation.
Sibel Edmonds, founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) told us, "National Security employees should not have to sacrifice their careers or financial security in doing what is right. Good employees are being chased out of jobs and fired by those who either are engaged in wrongful behavior, or don't want to hear about it."
She added, "A national security employee has to choose between career and conscience when confronted with agency wrongdoing. We need to adopt protections for employees that allow them to be secure in their jobs and encourage them to report waste, fraud and abuse of power."
Ms. Edmonds, arguably the best known of recent national security whistleblowers, began working for the FBI shortly after the September 11 attacks, translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She was fired in the spring of 2002 after reporting concerns about sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence to superiors. In October 2002, at the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller, then Attorney General John Ashcroft imposed a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage to diplomatic relations or national security. Ms. Edmonds sued and appealed her case all the way to the Supreme Court. But the high court agreed with lower courts that trying her case would compromise "state secrets."
The NSWBC has drafted "model legislation for whistleblowers," which is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. Edmonds' group is also working on a House version of this bill.
At last week's House hearing, Specialist Provance's testimony drew extraordinary attention by Committee members, as it came only days after the release by an Australian television channel of new photos and videos showing prisoner abuse by the US military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Investigation of the "Able Danger" datamining program of the National Security Agency has been championed by a powerful Republican, Representative Kurt Weldon of Pennsylvania, who wrote a book on the subject. He claims that Lt. Col. Shaffer reported the program to the staff director of the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Philip Zelikow, when he and other staff members traveled to Afghanistan. Later, however, commission staff told him they had all the information they required. The program was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission's report.
Responding to a question from Congressman Weldon, Shaffer said he is convinced the Defense Department wants details of "Able Danger" buried to avoid embarrassment to defense officials. He also accused the Defense Department of conducting a "smear campaign" against him.
Shaffer was barred from testifying at an earlier Senate hearing on the program, but Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, told that hearing that the Defense Department had found no evidence that a likeness of Mohammed Atta was ever obtained through the program.
Noting that current whistleblower protection laws do not cover employees of agencies involved in national security, Representative Shays said, "Those with whom we trust the nation's secrets are too often treated like second-class citizens when it comes to asserting their rights to speak truth to power."
Go to The World According to Bill Fisher for more.
National Security Whistleblowers
By William Fisher
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 21 February 2006
Find illegal activity in the US national security agency you work for. Report it to your superiors. Get rewarded by being demoted or having your security clearance revoked - tantamount to losing your career - while those whose conduct you've reported get promoted.
This was the picture painted to a House of Representatives committee last week, as its members heard from five soldiers and civilians who say their livelihoods and reputations have been destroyed or placed in serious jeopardy by their attempts to expose and correct waste, fraud or abuse in their workplaces.
They are known as "national security whistleblowers." And, unlike whistleblowers in civilian agencies of the US government, they have little legal protection against retaliation.
The House Committee is chaired by Representative Christopher Shays, a Republican from Connecticut. But, in a rare occurrence in the current contentious political climate in Washington, he is receiving virtually unanimous bipartisan support for efforts to develop legislation to fix the problem.
Shays and his colleagues listened to a litany of retaliations taken against people who have spoken out about abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib, illicit federal wiretapping and other alleged misconduct.
The litany came from current or former employees of the FBI, the National Security Agency, the Defense Department and the Energy Department. They told the committee that after they spoke out against alleged government misconduct or criminal activity they "were retaliated against, in some cases by having their security clearances revoked or their careers ruined."
Specialist Samuel Provance said he was demoted and humiliated after telling a general investigating the Abu Ghraib scandal that senior officers had covered up detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib. He said he tried to tell the general "things he didn't want to hear," adding, "Young soldiers were scapegoated while superiors misrepresented what had happened and tried to misdirect attention away from what was really going on." Provance lost his security clearance, was placed under a "gag order," and is now stationed in Germany, where his responsibilities consist of "picking up trash and guard duty."
Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer was among the first to disclose the Pentagon's "Able Danger" data-mining program. He said he believes that the program identified Mohammed Atta before he became the lead hijacker in the 2001 terrorist attacks, though a Pentagon review found no evidence to support that conclusion. Shaffer's security clearance was revoked.
Russell Tice, a former intelligence officer at the National Security Agency (NSA), charged that there were "illegalities and unconstitutional activity" in the agency's so-called "special-access programs," but was advised that he could not discuss them even with members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees in closed session. He told the Committee the Defense Department's harassment of him included spreading rumors that he suffers from bipolar disease.
Mike German resigned as an FBI agent after reporting that other agents and managers mishandled a major counter-terrorism case in 2002 and falsified records. The Justice Department inspector general confirmed German's allegations, and that he was retaliated against - his security clearance was revoked.
Richard Levernier's job as a senior Department of Energy nuclear security specialist was to test how well prepared America's nuclear weapons sites were to defend against a terrorist attack. He testified that the tests he supervised showed a 50 percent failure rate. When he reported this to his superiors, he was demoted and his security clearance was revoked. He says he was forced into early retirement.
All these witnesses said they tried to follow the chain of command for reporting wrongdoing, but were rebuffed or stonewalled. Some started by going to their immediate supervisors; others went to the Inspector Generals of their agencies; a few eventually told their stories to congresspersons or to the media.
The defense of whistleblowers comes at a time when top Bush administration officials are turning up the pressure to stop leaks of classified information.
Two news reports in recent months, an article in The New York Times on the National Security Agency's surveillance program and a Washington Post article on secret CIA detention centers, have been referred for criminal investigation.
Sibel Edmonds, founder of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition (NSWBC) told us, "National Security employees should not have to sacrifice their careers or financial security in doing what is right. Good employees are being chased out of jobs and fired by those who either are engaged in wrongful behavior, or don't want to hear about it."
She added, "A national security employee has to choose between career and conscience when confronted with agency wrongdoing. We need to adopt protections for employees that allow them to be secure in their jobs and encourage them to report waste, fraud and abuse of power."
Ms. Edmonds, arguably the best known of recent national security whistleblowers, began working for the FBI shortly after the September 11 attacks, translating top-secret documents pertaining to suspected terrorists. She was fired in the spring of 2002 after reporting concerns about sabotage, intimidation, corruption and incompetence to superiors. In October 2002, at the request of FBI Director Robert Mueller, then Attorney General John Ashcroft imposed a gag order on Ms. Edmonds, citing possible damage to diplomatic relations or national security. Ms. Edmonds sued and appealed her case all the way to the Supreme Court. But the high court agreed with lower courts that trying her case would compromise "state secrets."
The NSWBC has drafted "model legislation for whistleblowers," which is expected to be introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg, a New Jersey Democrat. Edmonds' group is also working on a House version of this bill.
At last week's House hearing, Specialist Provance's testimony drew extraordinary attention by Committee members, as it came only days after the release by an Australian television channel of new photos and videos showing prisoner abuse by the US military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.
Investigation of the "Able Danger" datamining program of the National Security Agency has been championed by a powerful Republican, Representative Kurt Weldon of Pennsylvania, who wrote a book on the subject. He claims that Lt. Col. Shaffer reported the program to the staff director of the 9/11 Commission, Dr. Philip Zelikow, when he and other staff members traveled to Afghanistan. Later, however, commission staff told him they had all the information they required. The program was not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission's report.
Responding to a question from Congressman Weldon, Shaffer said he is convinced the Defense Department wants details of "Able Danger" buried to avoid embarrassment to defense officials. He also accused the Defense Department of conducting a "smear campaign" against him.
Shaffer was barred from testifying at an earlier Senate hearing on the program, but Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, told that hearing that the Defense Department had found no evidence that a likeness of Mohammed Atta was ever obtained through the program.
Noting that current whistleblower protection laws do not cover employees of agencies involved in national security, Representative Shays said, "Those with whom we trust the nation's secrets are too often treated like second-class citizens when it comes to asserting their rights to speak truth to power."
Go to The World According to Bill Fisher for more.
CIA's Paul Pillar: Iraq war was to shake up Middle East :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch
CIA's Paul Pillar: Iraq war was to shake up Middle East :: from www.uruknet.info :: news from occupied Iraq - ch
CIA's Paul Pillar: Iraq war was to shake up Middle East
Truth about Iraqis
February 21, 2006
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Vice President Cheney said last week that he has the authority to declassify intelligence, information like the kind that led to us to war in Iraq. Now retired Paul Pillar worked at the CIA for 28 years. From 2000 to 2005, he was in charge of coordinating the entire intelligence community's assessment of Iraq. He recently wrote that the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence before the war to support the decision they had already made to go there.
We asked the CIA for comment today and a spokesperson told us, "Mr.
Pillar is free to express his personal opinions as a private citizen." That's nice of them. Mr. Pillar, thank you very much. You're now free to speak. Let me ask you to take a look at this claim by Vice President Cheney in August of 2002 before he went to war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: That was the build-up to war and it was to scare a lot of people in the middle who hadn't decided on the war, that we would face a nuclear attack from Iraq to here on the territory of the United States, if we didn't go to war. What was that claim based on by the vice president? What intelligence?
PAUL PILLAR, FMR. DEPUTY CHIEF, CIA COUNTERTERRORIST CENTER: There was an assortment of human and technical intelligence, mainly human. But you have to remember, how much was analysis? That is to say, inference. We really didn't know anything. If you take the vice president's statement after the word "know," then that was the judgment, mistaken as it turned out, of the intelligence community.
MATTHEWS: How much of this was just put together by people who wanted us to go to war? The Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi, who's now going to be oil minister over there. They just wanted their country back.
PILLAR: I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that, Chris. I mean, all the analysts around town were reading all of the available information and Chalabi and the INC people had an angle. But most of the difficulties in the intelligence, the errors that were highlighted in the Silberman-Robb Commission, went well beyond just the INC and Chalabi's people.
MATTHEWS: Bottom line, do you believe there was a nuclear threat from Saddam before we went to war?
PILLAR: I believe and the community believed that he was in the process of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. The judgment was that Iran—or Iraq rather, was probably several years away from that. The vice president in a separate statement that he made, a major speech in August 2002, basically disagreed with that by saying he thought that they would get nuclear weapons fairly soon. That was not the community's decision.
MATTHEWS: What about the lingo that came out of the then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice when she said if you wait for a smoking gun, you'll get a mushroom cloud. Was that a fair assessment of the immediacy of the threat?
PILLAR: Well that's rhetoric. As I said, the judgment of the community was the program was being reconstituted, which turned out to be an erroneous judgment. But erroneous or not, it was probably, Iraq was probably still several years away from having a weapon.
MATTHEWS: OK, let's take a look at another claim. A warning, rather, from the vice president, also given before the war in December 2001, right after 9/11. Here he is, the vice president talking about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with the senior official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: There's the vice president saying, Mohammed Atta, the lead killer on 9/11, having met with an intelligence officer of the Iraqi government, the March of 2001, before the attack on the United States. Is that accurate? Was there any grounding in that?
PILLAR: It was never confirmed and in the subsequent investigation of that particular lead, shall we say, it did not pan out at all. Now the judgment of the FBI and the community and the 9/11 Commission, no such meeting took place.
MATTHEWS: And by the way, although we saw that tape, and he truly did make that claim on tape, as we saw, the vice president subsequently denied that having ever made that statement. Let's take a look at another one. Here's how Cheney thought we would be greeted, our forces once they arrived in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will in fact be greeted as liberators.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Was that your best intelligence, that there wouldn't be an insurgency?
PILLAR: The judgment of the intelligence community, and this is very much a judgment, since you're talking about trying to anticipate a future, was that the view toward the foreign occupation forces would depend above all on how successful they were in those first few weeks and months after invading Iraq, in restoring and establishing safety, security, a growing economy.
Of course, we did not succeed in doing that. And our anticipation was, if we did not succeed in doing that, that the foreign troops, that is to say, U.S. coalition forces would be seen as occupiers and would be seen as adversaries. And part of the response could take the form of guerrilla warfare.
[Truth About Iraqis: National Security Adviser at the time Condi Rice said no one in the US anticipated an "insurgency". She got promoted for that.]
MATTHEWS: Did you expect the Sunni population, which had benefited from the regime of Saddam Hussein, to resist our occupation?
PILLAR: We certainly expected and highlighted in prewar intelligence community assessments, that the sectarian and ethnic splits among the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds, were deep rooted. They were intense. And that the process of trying to turn Iraq into a stable and unified democracy partly for that reason, would be long and difficult and turbulent. And if an occupying force weren't sitting on it, civil war would be a possibility.
MATTHEWS: Has there ever been a country that's allowed itself to be overtaken, to be occupied without some kind of nationalistic resistance?
[Truth About Iraqis: Is Matthews calling the "insurgents" a nationalistic resistance? And by doing so, is he saying nationalistic ideals take precedent?]
PILLAR: That is always the natural tendency.
MATTHEWS: Why didn't we predict it?
PILLAR: Well in the community assessments I talked about we—well, I eschew the word prediction, since so much would depend on what the United States itself did. Certainly the clear anticipation of the community was that Iraq was no different from, indeed at least as good an example of what you just mentioned.
MATTHEWS: Well people like me predicted it based upon history. We didn't have all the intelligence needed.
PILLAR: Good for you.
MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, I think you may have well, too. Let me ask you, with all this, putting it all together, the three big cases for war, it would be relatively smooth. In fact, a slam-dunk effort to cake walk as it was said to be, that there was going to be a nuclear threat if we didn't act. And of course there was some connection to 9/11. Putting it all together, was that a firm basis for going to war?
PILLAR: I don't believe so. So much attention was given to the weapons of mass destruction given the judgments of the community, that we were still at least several years away from the most important thing, a nuclear weapon. I don't think the urgency was there. And although there, as the president and others have rightly said, there was a very widespread misperception about the state of not just nuclear weapons, but other weapons of mass destruction program.
That other issue that you touched on, relationship with al Qaeda or alleged relationship, was much more of a manufactured issue. There really wasn't anything there that the intelligence community saw that remotely resembled an alliance or something that they expected to become an alliance.
MATTHEWS: Were these elements we talked about, the nuclear case, the connection to 9/11, were they basically—were they the reason for going to war with Iraq or were they the sales pitch?
PILLAR: Well I think we've had some statements from the likes of Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Feith that they were not necessarily a real reason to go to war. I personally believe, and trying to just look at this as a student of American politics and looking at what some of the decisionmakers had written before, that the main reason for going to war was the desire to shake up the politics of the Middle East. And the hope that Iraq with this change force of the military invasion would bring about big change not just in Iraq but elsewhere in the region. I think that was the main reason.
MATTHEWS: Why didn't they admit it?
PILLAR: Because that was a lot harder to sell to the American public than the specter of mushroom clouds or dictatorial regimes giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. I mean, that has a resonance, a rhetorical value, that political sciencey type theories about political change do not.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Everything you have said I thought was happening, and I'm glad to hear it really did. I like to be right once in awhile. Thank you very much, Paul Pillar. Join us again tomorrow night at 5:30 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it's time for "THE ABRAMS REPORT" with Dan.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
CIA's Paul Pillar: Iraq war was to shake up Middle East
Truth about Iraqis
February 21, 2006
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Vice President Cheney said last week that he has the authority to declassify intelligence, information like the kind that led to us to war in Iraq. Now retired Paul Pillar worked at the CIA for 28 years. From 2000 to 2005, he was in charge of coordinating the entire intelligence community's assessment of Iraq. He recently wrote that the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence before the war to support the decision they had already made to go there.
We asked the CIA for comment today and a spokesperson told us, "Mr.
Pillar is free to express his personal opinions as a private citizen." That's nice of them. Mr. Pillar, thank you very much. You're now free to speak. Let me ask you to take a look at this claim by Vice President Cheney in August of 2002 before he went to war.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DICK CHENEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: But we now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: That was the build-up to war and it was to scare a lot of people in the middle who hadn't decided on the war, that we would face a nuclear attack from Iraq to here on the territory of the United States, if we didn't go to war. What was that claim based on by the vice president? What intelligence?
PAUL PILLAR, FMR. DEPUTY CHIEF, CIA COUNTERTERRORIST CENTER: There was an assortment of human and technical intelligence, mainly human. But you have to remember, how much was analysis? That is to say, inference. We really didn't know anything. If you take the vice president's statement after the word "know," then that was the judgment, mistaken as it turned out, of the intelligence community.
MATTHEWS: How much of this was just put together by people who wanted us to go to war? The Iraqi National Congress, Chalabi, who's now going to be oil minister over there. They just wanted their country back.
PILLAR: I wouldn't put too much emphasis on that, Chris. I mean, all the analysts around town were reading all of the available information and Chalabi and the INC people had an angle. But most of the difficulties in the intelligence, the errors that were highlighted in the Silberman-Robb Commission, went well beyond just the INC and Chalabi's people.
MATTHEWS: Bottom line, do you believe there was a nuclear threat from Saddam before we went to war?
PILLAR: I believe and the community believed that he was in the process of reconstituting a nuclear weapons program. The judgment was that Iran—or Iraq rather, was probably several years away from that. The vice president in a separate statement that he made, a major speech in August 2002, basically disagreed with that by saying he thought that they would get nuclear weapons fairly soon. That was not the community's decision.
MATTHEWS: What about the lingo that came out of the then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice when she said if you wait for a smoking gun, you'll get a mushroom cloud. Was that a fair assessment of the immediacy of the threat?
PILLAR: Well that's rhetoric. As I said, the judgment of the community was the program was being reconstituted, which turned out to be an erroneous judgment. But erroneous or not, it was probably, Iraq was probably still several years away from having a weapon.
MATTHEWS: OK, let's take a look at another claim. A warning, rather, from the vice president, also given before the war in December 2001, right after 9/11. Here he is, the vice president talking about a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: It's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and he did meet with the senior official of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: There's the vice president saying, Mohammed Atta, the lead killer on 9/11, having met with an intelligence officer of the Iraqi government, the March of 2001, before the attack on the United States. Is that accurate? Was there any grounding in that?
PILLAR: It was never confirmed and in the subsequent investigation of that particular lead, shall we say, it did not pan out at all. Now the judgment of the FBI and the community and the 9/11 Commission, no such meeting took place.
MATTHEWS: And by the way, although we saw that tape, and he truly did make that claim on tape, as we saw, the vice president subsequently denied that having ever made that statement. Let's take a look at another one. Here's how Cheney thought we would be greeted, our forces once they arrived in Iraq.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
CHENEY: I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will in fact be greeted as liberators.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTHEWS: Was that your best intelligence, that there wouldn't be an insurgency?
PILLAR: The judgment of the intelligence community, and this is very much a judgment, since you're talking about trying to anticipate a future, was that the view toward the foreign occupation forces would depend above all on how successful they were in those first few weeks and months after invading Iraq, in restoring and establishing safety, security, a growing economy.
Of course, we did not succeed in doing that. And our anticipation was, if we did not succeed in doing that, that the foreign troops, that is to say, U.S. coalition forces would be seen as occupiers and would be seen as adversaries. And part of the response could take the form of guerrilla warfare.
[Truth About Iraqis: National Security Adviser at the time Condi Rice said no one in the US anticipated an "insurgency". She got promoted for that.]
MATTHEWS: Did you expect the Sunni population, which had benefited from the regime of Saddam Hussein, to resist our occupation?
PILLAR: We certainly expected and highlighted in prewar intelligence community assessments, that the sectarian and ethnic splits among the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds, were deep rooted. They were intense. And that the process of trying to turn Iraq into a stable and unified democracy partly for that reason, would be long and difficult and turbulent. And if an occupying force weren't sitting on it, civil war would be a possibility.
MATTHEWS: Has there ever been a country that's allowed itself to be overtaken, to be occupied without some kind of nationalistic resistance?
[Truth About Iraqis: Is Matthews calling the "insurgents" a nationalistic resistance? And by doing so, is he saying nationalistic ideals take precedent?]
PILLAR: That is always the natural tendency.
MATTHEWS: Why didn't we predict it?
PILLAR: Well in the community assessments I talked about we—well, I eschew the word prediction, since so much would depend on what the United States itself did. Certainly the clear anticipation of the community was that Iraq was no different from, indeed at least as good an example of what you just mentioned.
MATTHEWS: Well people like me predicted it based upon history. We didn't have all the intelligence needed.
PILLAR: Good for you.
MATTHEWS: I'm sorry, I think you may have well, too. Let me ask you, with all this, putting it all together, the three big cases for war, it would be relatively smooth. In fact, a slam-dunk effort to cake walk as it was said to be, that there was going to be a nuclear threat if we didn't act. And of course there was some connection to 9/11. Putting it all together, was that a firm basis for going to war?
PILLAR: I don't believe so. So much attention was given to the weapons of mass destruction given the judgments of the community, that we were still at least several years away from the most important thing, a nuclear weapon. I don't think the urgency was there. And although there, as the president and others have rightly said, there was a very widespread misperception about the state of not just nuclear weapons, but other weapons of mass destruction program.
That other issue that you touched on, relationship with al Qaeda or alleged relationship, was much more of a manufactured issue. There really wasn't anything there that the intelligence community saw that remotely resembled an alliance or something that they expected to become an alliance.
MATTHEWS: Were these elements we talked about, the nuclear case, the connection to 9/11, were they basically—were they the reason for going to war with Iraq or were they the sales pitch?
PILLAR: Well I think we've had some statements from the likes of Mr. Wolfowitz and Mr. Feith that they were not necessarily a real reason to go to war. I personally believe, and trying to just look at this as a student of American politics and looking at what some of the decisionmakers had written before, that the main reason for going to war was the desire to shake up the politics of the Middle East. And the hope that Iraq with this change force of the military invasion would bring about big change not just in Iraq but elsewhere in the region. I think that was the main reason.
MATTHEWS: Why didn't they admit it?
PILLAR: Because that was a lot harder to sell to the American public than the specter of mushroom clouds or dictatorial regimes giving weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. I mean, that has a resonance, a rhetorical value, that political sciencey type theories about political change do not.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much. Everything you have said I thought was happening, and I'm glad to hear it really did. I like to be right once in awhile. Thank you very much, Paul Pillar. Join us again tomorrow night at 5:30 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL. Right now it's time for "THE ABRAMS REPORT" with Dan.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
END
CIA withdraws 55,000 pages from open view
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | CIA withdraws 55,000 pages from open view
CIA withdraws 55,000 pages from open view
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday February 22, 2006
The Guardian
The CIA has spent the last seven years covertly sifting through millions of pages of decades-old public archives and removing documents that the agency deems sensitive or embarrassing.
Matthew Aid, a historian and a visiting fellow at the National Archives and Records Administration, stumbled on the secret reclassification programme in the course of his research. He published his findings on the website of a watchdog group, the National Security Archive, saying that the CIA and military intelligence had reviewed millions of pages "at an unknown cost to taxpayers" and withdrawn more than 55,000 pages that had been in the public domain for years.
Documents taken off open shelves included a complaint by a CIA director about the bad publicity the agency had received for failing to predict anti-American riots in Colombia in 1948, and a record of which foreign magazines the state department had ordered on behalf of US intelligence agencies in the same year.
The reclassification began seven years ago as a response to an executive order signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 declassifying large quantities of old intelligence, a process in which other agencies released material without CIA approval.
"The CIA has released more than 26m pages to the national archives since 1998 - a huge amount of work by a small number of people. Other agencies also released CIA documents," Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman said. "Though the process typically works well, there will always be the anomaly."
CIA withdraws 55,000 pages from open view
Julian Borger in Washington
Wednesday February 22, 2006
The Guardian
The CIA has spent the last seven years covertly sifting through millions of pages of decades-old public archives and removing documents that the agency deems sensitive or embarrassing.
Matthew Aid, a historian and a visiting fellow at the National Archives and Records Administration, stumbled on the secret reclassification programme in the course of his research. He published his findings on the website of a watchdog group, the National Security Archive, saying that the CIA and military intelligence had reviewed millions of pages "at an unknown cost to taxpayers" and withdrawn more than 55,000 pages that had been in the public domain for years.
Documents taken off open shelves included a complaint by a CIA director about the bad publicity the agency had received for failing to predict anti-American riots in Colombia in 1948, and a record of which foreign magazines the state department had ordered on behalf of US intelligence agencies in the same year.
The reclassification began seven years ago as a response to an executive order signed by President Bill Clinton in 1995 declassifying large quantities of old intelligence, a process in which other agencies released material without CIA approval.
"The CIA has released more than 26m pages to the national archives since 1998 - a huge amount of work by a small number of people. Other agencies also released CIA documents," Paul Gimigliano, a CIA spokesman said. "Though the process typically works well, there will always be the anomaly."
EMCORE Corporation Awarded DARPA Very High Efficiency Solar Cell Program Subcontract: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
EMCORE Corporation Awarded DARPA Very High Efficiency Solar Cell Program Subcontract: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
EMCORE Corporation Awarded DARPA Very High Efficiency Solar Cell Program Subcontract
Tuesday February 21, 7:30 am ET
DARPA Program to Develop 50% Efficient Solar Cell Technology for Terrestrial Markets
Largest Development Program in the History of Solar Energy Research
SOMERSET, N.J., Feb. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- EMCORE Corporation (Nasdaq: EMKR - News), a leading provider of compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and wireless communications markets, today announced that it has signed a subcontract to participate in the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHSEC) program to more than double the efficiency of terrestrial solar cells within the next 50 months. EMCORE's Photovoltaic division was selected by the University of Delaware, the prime contractor for the DARPA VHSEC program, to develop advanced III-V multi-junction solar cells in Phase I of the program effort. In later phases, EMCORE expects to develop a technology roadmap for enabling significantly lower fabrication costs for the very high efficiency solar cells.
ADVERTISEMENT
In connection with this subcontract award, EMCORE also has joined a consortium, formed by the University of Delaware (UD), to succeed in meeting DARPA's program requirements for a high efficiency and low cost terrestrial solar product. The VHSEC program will provide up to $53 million in funding, which will be awarded to program participants in various phases over the next several years. The consortium is being led by Allen Barnett, principal investigator and research professor in UD's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Christiana Honsberg, co-principal investigator and UD associate professor of electrical and computer engineering.
The DARPA VHSEC program is the largest in the history of solar energy research, according to Rhone Resch, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Solar Energy Industries Association. "I applaud DARPA for recognizing the tremendous potential of solar energy to provide reliable electricity to our troops in the field and to improve our energy security here at home," Resch said.
Since its founding in 1998, EMCORE's Photovoltaic division has developed and manufactured high efficiency solar cells for the satellite and terrestrial markets at its Albuquerque, NM facility. EMCORE has successfully commercialized several advanced solar cell technologies, focusing initially on the demanding requirements of satellite-based solar power systems for communication, navigation, earth observation, and science applications, for commercial and government customers in the US and elsewhere around the world. EMCORE's highest efficiency solar cells that are currently operating on-orbit exceed 36% efficiency in terrestrial applications.
"EMCORE's core expertise includes the development and high-volume production of III-V compound semiconductor solar cells using gallium arsenide (GaAs) alloys and metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) growth platforms. EMCORE will use this core expertise and technology base for the demonstration of very high efficiency, as a common theme in the transition to low cost fabrication," said David Danzilio, Vice President and General Manager of EMCORE's Photovoltaic division. "In addition to leveraging the solar cell technologies that we have developed for space applications, we also will contribute our experience in deploying high efficient solar cells for terrestrial markets, where we are achieving excellent results in the concentrator solar power market with efficiencies currently topping 36%. The focus on higher efficiency and lower cost is of critical importance to DARPA, the VHSEC program sponsor, and will create new possibilities for our renewable energy product efforts." EMCORE is the only compound semiconductor manufacturer participating in the DARPA VHSEC program.
"The University of Delaware is pleased that EMCORE is part of the VHSEC consortium, and will bring its successful legacy of compound semiconductor solar cell technology development to this critical DARPA effort," Allen Barnett said. "A key part of this project also is making the transition from the laboratory to production and the marketplace. Because of the participation of corporations like EMCORE, which are already involved in solar product manufacturing, and because several team members, myself included, have experience in bringing high-technology products to market, we expect the VHSEC program to result in the development of practical and producible technology for these high value applications."
"This project requires the consortium to invent, develop, and transfer to production this breakthrough solar cell. One rarely gets an opportunity such as that," Barnett added. "Engineering is the use of science to develop products for the benefit of mankind, and this is a classic case. Furthermore, it will lead to extraordinary student experiences at all levels."
About EMCORE
EMCORE Corporation offers a broad portfolio of compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and wireless communications markets. EMCORE has three operating segments: Fiber Optics, Photovoltaics, and Electronic Materials and Devices. The Company's integrated solutions philosophy embodies state-of-the-art technology, material science expertise, and a shared vision of our customer's goals and objectives to be leaders in the transport of video, voice, and data, over copper, hybrid fiber/coax (HFC), fiber, satellite, and wireless networks. EMCORE's solutions include: optical components and subsystems for fiber-to-the-premise, cable television, and high speed data and telecommunications networks; solar cells, solar panels, and fiber optic ground station links for global satellite communications; and electronic materials for high bandwidth wireless communications systems, such as Wi-Fi Internet access and 3G mobile handsets and PDA devices. Through its joint venture participation in GELcore, LLC, EMCORE plays a vital role in providing next-generation High-Brightness LED products and solutions to the general and specialty illumination markets. For further information about EMCORE, visit http://www.emcore.com.
Disclaimer
The information provided herein may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to future events that involve risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements include but are not limited to words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," believes," and "estimates," and variations of these words and similar expressions, identify these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements also include, without limitation, (a) any statements or implications regarding EMCORE's ability to remain competitive and a leader in its industry, and the future growth of EMCORE, or the industry and the economy in general; (b) statements regarding the expected level and timing of benefits to EMCORE from its current cost reduction efforts, including (i) expected cost reductions and their impact on EMCORE's financial performance, (ii) EMCORE's continued leadership in technology and manufacturing in its markets, and (iii) the belief that the cost reduction efforts will not impact product development or manufacturing execution; (c) any statement or implication that the products described in this press release (i) will be successfully introduced or marketed, (ii) will be qualified and purchased by our customers, or (iii) will perform to any particular specifications or performance or reliability standards; (d) any and all guidance provided by EMCORE regarding its expected financial performance in future periods. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, including without limitation, the following: (a) EMCORE's cost reduction efforts may not be successful in achieving their expected benefits, (including, among other things, cost structure, gross margin and other profitability improvements), due to, among other things, shifts in product mix, selling price pressures, costs and delays related to product transfers to lower cost manufacturing locations and associated facility closures, and execution concerns; (b) the failure of the products (i) to perform as expected without material defects, (ii) to be manufactured at acceptable volumes, yields, and cost, (iii) to be qualified and accepted by our customers, and, iv) to successfully compete with products offered by our competitors and (c) other risks and uncertainties described in EMCORE's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission such as cancellations, rescheduling or delays in product shipments; manufacturing capacity constraints; lengthy sales and qualification cycles; difficulties in the production process; changes in semiconductor industry growth; increased competition; delays in developing and commercializing new products; and other factors. The forward-looking statements contained in this news release are made as of the date hereof and EMCORE does not assume any obligation to update the reasons why actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.
EMCORE Corporation Awarded DARPA Very High Efficiency Solar Cell Program Subcontract
Tuesday February 21, 7:30 am ET
DARPA Program to Develop 50% Efficient Solar Cell Technology for Terrestrial Markets
Largest Development Program in the History of Solar Energy Research
SOMERSET, N.J., Feb. 21 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- EMCORE Corporation (Nasdaq: EMKR - News), a leading provider of compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and wireless communications markets, today announced that it has signed a subcontract to participate in the Defense Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Very High Efficiency Solar Cell (VHSEC) program to more than double the efficiency of terrestrial solar cells within the next 50 months. EMCORE's Photovoltaic division was selected by the University of Delaware, the prime contractor for the DARPA VHSEC program, to develop advanced III-V multi-junction solar cells in Phase I of the program effort. In later phases, EMCORE expects to develop a technology roadmap for enabling significantly lower fabrication costs for the very high efficiency solar cells.
ADVERTISEMENT
In connection with this subcontract award, EMCORE also has joined a consortium, formed by the University of Delaware (UD), to succeed in meeting DARPA's program requirements for a high efficiency and low cost terrestrial solar product. The VHSEC program will provide up to $53 million in funding, which will be awarded to program participants in various phases over the next several years. The consortium is being led by Allen Barnett, principal investigator and research professor in UD's Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, and Christiana Honsberg, co-principal investigator and UD associate professor of electrical and computer engineering.
The DARPA VHSEC program is the largest in the history of solar energy research, according to Rhone Resch, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Solar Energy Industries Association. "I applaud DARPA for recognizing the tremendous potential of solar energy to provide reliable electricity to our troops in the field and to improve our energy security here at home," Resch said.
Since its founding in 1998, EMCORE's Photovoltaic division has developed and manufactured high efficiency solar cells for the satellite and terrestrial markets at its Albuquerque, NM facility. EMCORE has successfully commercialized several advanced solar cell technologies, focusing initially on the demanding requirements of satellite-based solar power systems for communication, navigation, earth observation, and science applications, for commercial and government customers in the US and elsewhere around the world. EMCORE's highest efficiency solar cells that are currently operating on-orbit exceed 36% efficiency in terrestrial applications.
"EMCORE's core expertise includes the development and high-volume production of III-V compound semiconductor solar cells using gallium arsenide (GaAs) alloys and metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) growth platforms. EMCORE will use this core expertise and technology base for the demonstration of very high efficiency, as a common theme in the transition to low cost fabrication," said David Danzilio, Vice President and General Manager of EMCORE's Photovoltaic division. "In addition to leveraging the solar cell technologies that we have developed for space applications, we also will contribute our experience in deploying high efficient solar cells for terrestrial markets, where we are achieving excellent results in the concentrator solar power market with efficiencies currently topping 36%. The focus on higher efficiency and lower cost is of critical importance to DARPA, the VHSEC program sponsor, and will create new possibilities for our renewable energy product efforts." EMCORE is the only compound semiconductor manufacturer participating in the DARPA VHSEC program.
"The University of Delaware is pleased that EMCORE is part of the VHSEC consortium, and will bring its successful legacy of compound semiconductor solar cell technology development to this critical DARPA effort," Allen Barnett said. "A key part of this project also is making the transition from the laboratory to production and the marketplace. Because of the participation of corporations like EMCORE, which are already involved in solar product manufacturing, and because several team members, myself included, have experience in bringing high-technology products to market, we expect the VHSEC program to result in the development of practical and producible technology for these high value applications."
"This project requires the consortium to invent, develop, and transfer to production this breakthrough solar cell. One rarely gets an opportunity such as that," Barnett added. "Engineering is the use of science to develop products for the benefit of mankind, and this is a classic case. Furthermore, it will lead to extraordinary student experiences at all levels."
About EMCORE
EMCORE Corporation offers a broad portfolio of compound semiconductor-based components and subsystems for the broadband, fiber optic, satellite, and wireless communications markets. EMCORE has three operating segments: Fiber Optics, Photovoltaics, and Electronic Materials and Devices. The Company's integrated solutions philosophy embodies state-of-the-art technology, material science expertise, and a shared vision of our customer's goals and objectives to be leaders in the transport of video, voice, and data, over copper, hybrid fiber/coax (HFC), fiber, satellite, and wireless networks. EMCORE's solutions include: optical components and subsystems for fiber-to-the-premise, cable television, and high speed data and telecommunications networks; solar cells, solar panels, and fiber optic ground station links for global satellite communications; and electronic materials for high bandwidth wireless communications systems, such as Wi-Fi Internet access and 3G mobile handsets and PDA devices. Through its joint venture participation in GELcore, LLC, EMCORE plays a vital role in providing next-generation High-Brightness LED products and solutions to the general and specialty illumination markets. For further information about EMCORE, visit http://www.emcore.com.
Disclaimer
The information provided herein may include forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to future events that involve risks and uncertainties. Such forward-looking statements include but are not limited to words such as "expects," "anticipates," "intends," "plans," believes," and "estimates," and variations of these words and similar expressions, identify these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements also include, without limitation, (a) any statements or implications regarding EMCORE's ability to remain competitive and a leader in its industry, and the future growth of EMCORE, or the industry and the economy in general; (b) statements regarding the expected level and timing of benefits to EMCORE from its current cost reduction efforts, including (i) expected cost reductions and their impact on EMCORE's financial performance, (ii) EMCORE's continued leadership in technology and manufacturing in its markets, and (iii) the belief that the cost reduction efforts will not impact product development or manufacturing execution; (c) any statement or implication that the products described in this press release (i) will be successfully introduced or marketed, (ii) will be qualified and purchased by our customers, or (iii) will perform to any particular specifications or performance or reliability standards; (d) any and all guidance provided by EMCORE regarding its expected financial performance in future periods. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those projected, including without limitation, the following: (a) EMCORE's cost reduction efforts may not be successful in achieving their expected benefits, (including, among other things, cost structure, gross margin and other profitability improvements), due to, among other things, shifts in product mix, selling price pressures, costs and delays related to product transfers to lower cost manufacturing locations and associated facility closures, and execution concerns; (b) the failure of the products (i) to perform as expected without material defects, (ii) to be manufactured at acceptable volumes, yields, and cost, (iii) to be qualified and accepted by our customers, and, iv) to successfully compete with products offered by our competitors and (c) other risks and uncertainties described in EMCORE's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission such as cancellations, rescheduling or delays in product shipments; manufacturing capacity constraints; lengthy sales and qualification cycles; difficulties in the production process; changes in semiconductor industry growth; increased competition; delays in developing and commercializing new products; and other factors. The forward-looking statements contained in this news release are made as of the date hereof and EMCORE does not assume any obligation to update the reasons why actual results could differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements.
Gillerman fingers 'axis of terror'
Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World
Gillerman fingers 'axis of terror'
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 22, 2006
Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Gillerman, in a speech before the UN Security Council Tuesday night defined Iran, Syria, and Hamas as an axis of world terror.
In the meeting that was convened to discuss the threat of worldwide terrorism, Gillerman warned that the relations between the three entities could precipitate "the first world war of the 21st century." He urged the council to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and recognize Hamas as a terrorist, not a democratic body.
The ambassador also told Israel Radio that Russia and Turkey were "acting strangely" in inviting Hamas to official visits, considering the threat those two countries from Chechen and Kurdish terrorists, respectively.
He added that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call to provide Hamas with more time [before imposing sanctions on them], was based on a false notion that it would take them three months to form their government.
Also on Tuesday, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert revealed that there have been more attempts recently by Hizbullah to kidnap IDF soldiers.
In December 2005, a group of over 20 Hizbullah gunmen infiltrated Israel through the border town of Ghajar, and launched an RPG assault on an IDF base.
Another group of gunmen fired upon security forces at the entry to Ghajar. During the incident, a sharpshooter from the Paratroopers' brigade killed four of the Hizbullah men.
Army Radio reported that the northern command increased the alert along the Lebanese border fence. The greater precautions included banning entry to army bases in the region to anyone but those having official business there.
Gillerman fingers 'axis of terror'
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 22, 2006
Israel's Ambassador to the United Nations Danny Gillerman, in a speech before the UN Security Council Tuesday night defined Iran, Syria, and Hamas as an axis of world terror.
In the meeting that was convened to discuss the threat of worldwide terrorism, Gillerman warned that the relations between the three entities could precipitate "the first world war of the 21st century." He urged the council to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and recognize Hamas as a terrorist, not a democratic body.
The ambassador also told Israel Radio that Russia and Turkey were "acting strangely" in inviting Hamas to official visits, considering the threat those two countries from Chechen and Kurdish terrorists, respectively.
He added that UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call to provide Hamas with more time [before imposing sanctions on them], was based on a false notion that it would take them three months to form their government.
Also on Tuesday, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert revealed that there have been more attempts recently by Hizbullah to kidnap IDF soldiers.
In December 2005, a group of over 20 Hizbullah gunmen infiltrated Israel through the border town of Ghajar, and launched an RPG assault on an IDF base.
Another group of gunmen fired upon security forces at the entry to Ghajar. During the incident, a sharpshooter from the Paratroopers' brigade killed four of the Hizbullah men.
Army Radio reported that the northern command increased the alert along the Lebanese border fence. The greater precautions included banning entry to army bases in the region to anyone but those having official business there.
VOA News - Venezuela Receives First Shipment of Russian Military Helicopters
VOA News - Venezuela Receives First Shipment of Russian Military Helicopters
Venezuela Receives First Shipment of Russian Military Helicopters
By VOA News
22 February 2006
Venezuela has received the first three of at least 10 military helicopters purchased from Russia.
Military officials say the three MI-17 helicopters arrived Tuesday in Caracas.
Venezuela bought the helicopters as part of a $120 million deal signed last March. Caracas also agreed last year to buy 100,000 Russian-made Kalashnikov assault rifles.
U.S. officials have criticized the deals, saying they could trigger an arms race, destabilizing the region.
MI-17s can be used in an assault role or as a transport craft. Venezuelan military officials say the helicopters will be used to patrol the border with neighboring Colombia.
The remaining helicopters bought from Russia are transport helicopters.
Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.
Venezuela Receives First Shipment of Russian Military Helicopters
By VOA News
22 February 2006
Venezuela has received the first three of at least 10 military helicopters purchased from Russia.
Military officials say the three MI-17 helicopters arrived Tuesday in Caracas.
Venezuela bought the helicopters as part of a $120 million deal signed last March. Caracas also agreed last year to buy 100,000 Russian-made Kalashnikov assault rifles.
U.S. officials have criticized the deals, saying they could trigger an arms race, destabilizing the region.
MI-17s can be used in an assault role or as a transport craft. Venezuelan military officials say the helicopters will be used to patrol the border with neighboring Colombia.
The remaining helicopters bought from Russia are transport helicopters.
Some information for this report was provided by AP and Reuters.
PINR - Saudi Arabia Looks East: Woos China and India
PINR - Saudi Arabia Looks East: Woos China and India
''Saudi Arabia Looks East: Woos China and India''
In January 2006, Saudi Arabia's monarch, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, undertook a tour of Asia that brought him to China and India (along with Malaysia and Pakistan). It was a strategically significant trip and one that may have some important long-term implications. Some have labeled the Saudi king's Asia visit "a strategic shift in the foreign policy of the country" and have argued that it "heralds a new era."
Saudi Arabia and China Improve Relations
The fact that China was the first destination on the king's list speaks volumes not only about the rising profile of China in global politics, but also about a growing intimacy between the two states. China has been working hard to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter. It was in 2004 that the two countries decided to hold regular political consultations at the same time when China's state oil company, Sinopec, signed a deal to explore gas in Saudi Arabia's vast Empty Quarter. King Abdullah's visit followed Beijing's first formal talks with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (O.P.E.C.) in December 2005.
It is instructive to note that Saudi Arabia's ties with China have been on an upswing at a time when its relationship with the U.S. has come under severe strain. While China has emerged as the Saudi Kingdom's largest customer, the United States' share in Saudi oil exports has been going down after peaking in 2002 at 1.7 million barrels per day. Saudi Arabia's traditional share of the U.S. oil market has been a function of the country's "strategic relationship" with the U.S., a tie that many think has been weakening for some time now, especially in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the Iraq war.
Saudi Arabia reacted angrily to a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit against Saudi Islamic organizations and three top Saudi royals filed by the relatives of the September 11 attack victims. Riyadh called the lawsuit political and financial blackmail aimed at undermining the country's economic strength. It also refused to grant the U.S. access to bases in the kingdom for an attack on Iraq. The unpopularity of the U.S. in the Arab world may be forcing the Saudis to weaken the U.S. hold over their economy and polity.
Additionally, Saudi Arabia itself has come under direct pressure from the U.S. to curtail extremist Islamic groups flourishing in its territory as well as to initiate political reforms, especially when democracy promotion is at the heart of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. Some have called the recent weakening of the U.S.-Saudi "special relationship" as one of the most profound changes occurring in the oil market.
China, a rising political and economic power with little interest in the domestic affairs of other states, must seem like a much more attractive option to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, being a net exporter of oil until 1995, China has emerged as the world's second largest oil market after the U.S. It has been estimated that by 2010, 95 percent of China's imported oil will come from the Middle East. China's rapidly growing economy is dependent on imports of oil and oil products, more than 51 percent of which originate in the Gulf states. China's burgeoning appetite for oil is only going to grow in the coming years and its dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy will only increase further.
In the last few years, China's exports to the Gulf countries have also been increasing. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has emerged as a major investor in China. Saudi Arabia's Aramco Overseas Company has provided US$750 million of the total US$3 billion in investment to construct a petrochemical complex in southeastern Fujian province in China that will process eight million tons of Saudi crude oil. Several members of O.P.E.C., including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, intend to build a new refinery in Guangzhou, the capital of China's Guangdong province, involving a total investment of US$8 billion.
Therefore, it was no surprise that King Abdullah decided to visit China first in his trip to Asia. It was Abdullah's first trip outside the Middle East since taking the throne in August 2005, and it was also the first trip by a Saudi ruler to China since the two countries established diplomatic relations in 1990. Saudi Arabia accounts for about 17 percent of China's imported oil and total trade between the two countries grew by a substantial 59 percent in 2005 to US$14 billion. Saudi Arabia is China's largest trading partner in the region between West Asia and North Africa. Today, China is Saudi Arabia's fourth largest importer and fifth largest exporter while Saudi Arabia is China's tenth largest importer and biggest oil supplier.
Apart from the burgeoning economic relationship, Saudi Arabia and China have also developed close military ties since the mid-1980s, an aspect of their bilateral relationship that has not received much attention. It has been reported that Saudi Arabia has imported from China CSS-2, nuclear capable intermediate range ballistic missiles with a 3,000 kilometer (1,864 miles) range. Now, with CSS-2 largely obsolete, Beijing is interested in newer, more advanced CSS-5 and CSS-6 weapons.
During Abdullah's trip, the two states signed a pact on energy cooperation that calls for increased cooperation and joint investment in oil, natural gas, and mineral deposits. Several other agreements were also signed on economic, trade, and technical cooperation, on avoiding dual taxation, on vocational training cooperation and granting of an urban development loan to the far western Chinese city of Aksu by the Saudi Arabian Development Bank. The Saudi king also invited Chinese investors to invest in his country since it is now engaged in a series of economic reforms, especially the privatization of its state-owned firms. Saudi Arabia is working toward diversifying its economy as relying on just one source of income has proved counterproductive.
Saudi Arabia and India Recognize Mutual Interests
From China, Abdullah went to India, the other emerging Asian power, where he was invited as the chief guest at the country's Republic Day celebration on January 26. It was the second visit of a Saudi monarch to India, the last one being in 1955. The Cold War precluded the development of close ties between the two states. However, once the structural constraint of the Cold War era was gone, the two states have tried to build bilateral relations on a number of complementary factors.
For instance, India is home to the second-largest Muslim population in the world; India's Muslim population has their holiest shrines at Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Numbering at around 1.5 million, Indians also constitute the largest expatriate community in Saudi Arabia. This, by itself, makes it imperative for the two states to have a deeper engagement with each other. But several other factors come into play in shaping this relationship.
For India, the issue of cultivating an Islamic state that can act as a counterweight to Pakistan in the Islamic world is very significant. India has tried to build close ties with Iran, but these ties have come under stress in recent years; Saudi Arabia has filled that gap. Riyadh agreed to support India's claim for observer status in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It has also been supportive of recent Indian moves to deescalate tensions in Kashmir. More importantly, both India and Saudi Arabia are not at all enthusiastic about the emergence of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.
The issue of terrorism also binds the two states as both face the risk of domestic turmoil if Islamic extremists are not controlled and sidelined. India and Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding dealing with terrorism, transnational crime, and subversive underworld operations during Abdullah's recent visit.
However, as with Saudi Arabia's relations with China, it is energy that has become the driving force in its relations with India; India has emerged as Saudi Arabia's fourth largest destination for oil exports and Riyadh is the largest supplier of oil to India. India, like China, is reshaping its diplomacy to serve energy needs as its booming economy also needs new supplies of oil to ensure its continued growth.
Reliance, a private Indian energy firm, has decided to invest in a refinery and petrochemicals project in Saudi Arabia. In addition, India's state-owned energy firm, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, is planning to engage Saudi Arabia as its equity partner for a refinery project in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The recent upheavals in India's relationship with Iran, and Iran's decision to renege on some of its oil supply commitments in the aftermath of India's vote against Iran at the I.A.E.A., has also alerted India to the importance of having a diversified set of suppliers.
The recent visit of the Saudi monarch to India saw the signing of the Indo-Saudi "Delhi Declaration" that calls for a wide ranging strategic partnership in the critical energy sector, putting economic cooperation on overdrive coupled with major investments in the petroleum sector as well as joining hands in dealing with the problem of terrorism. Saudi Arabia's emphasis was also on learning from an established industrialized state such as India and it invited India to either participate alone or form joint ventures with Saudi companies to bid for gas exploration and refinery projects.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding these attempts by Saudi Arabia and India to upgrade their bilateral ties, various factors are bound to play a constraining role in the future. The most important of these is the Sino-Indian energy competition that is bound to emerge sooner, rather than later. As long as Saudi Arabia is able to deal with China and India without impinging on either's interests, the present relationships can flourish. But once China and India start competing over energy resources, as they have started doing in various parts of the world, Saudi Arabia will be forced to make some complicated choices. [See: "China's Strategy of Containing India"]
If the U.S. is thrown in the matrix, the picture becomes all the more complicated. With the U.S. viewing China as the most likely potential threat to its global supremacy, while at the same time helping India to emerge as a global player, the pressures under which Saudi Arabia will have to operate will only become stronger. [See: "U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review Reveals a Strategy Void"]
What this recent visit highlights unambiguously is the growing economic and strategic importance of China and India in the new global order, and the substantial effect their growth is having on global energy demand and diplomacy.
Report Drafted By:
Dr. Harsh V. Pant
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.
''Saudi Arabia Looks East: Woos China and India''
In January 2006, Saudi Arabia's monarch, Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al-Saud, undertook a tour of Asia that brought him to China and India (along with Malaysia and Pakistan). It was a strategically significant trip and one that may have some important long-term implications. Some have labeled the Saudi king's Asia visit "a strategic shift in the foreign policy of the country" and have argued that it "heralds a new era."
Saudi Arabia and China Improve Relations
The fact that China was the first destination on the king's list speaks volumes not only about the rising profile of China in global politics, but also about a growing intimacy between the two states. China has been working hard to improve its relations with Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter. It was in 2004 that the two countries decided to hold regular political consultations at the same time when China's state oil company, Sinopec, signed a deal to explore gas in Saudi Arabia's vast Empty Quarter. King Abdullah's visit followed Beijing's first formal talks with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (O.P.E.C.) in December 2005.
It is instructive to note that Saudi Arabia's ties with China have been on an upswing at a time when its relationship with the U.S. has come under severe strain. While China has emerged as the Saudi Kingdom's largest customer, the United States' share in Saudi oil exports has been going down after peaking in 2002 at 1.7 million barrels per day. Saudi Arabia's traditional share of the U.S. oil market has been a function of the country's "strategic relationship" with the U.S., a tie that many think has been weakening for some time now, especially in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the Iraq war.
Saudi Arabia reacted angrily to a multi-trillion dollar lawsuit against Saudi Islamic organizations and three top Saudi royals filed by the relatives of the September 11 attack victims. Riyadh called the lawsuit political and financial blackmail aimed at undermining the country's economic strength. It also refused to grant the U.S. access to bases in the kingdom for an attack on Iraq. The unpopularity of the U.S. in the Arab world may be forcing the Saudis to weaken the U.S. hold over their economy and polity.
Additionally, Saudi Arabia itself has come under direct pressure from the U.S. to curtail extremist Islamic groups flourishing in its territory as well as to initiate political reforms, especially when democracy promotion is at the heart of the U.S. foreign policy agenda. Some have called the recent weakening of the U.S.-Saudi "special relationship" as one of the most profound changes occurring in the oil market.
China, a rising political and economic power with little interest in the domestic affairs of other states, must seem like a much more attractive option to Saudi Arabia. Moreover, being a net exporter of oil until 1995, China has emerged as the world's second largest oil market after the U.S. It has been estimated that by 2010, 95 percent of China's imported oil will come from the Middle East. China's rapidly growing economy is dependent on imports of oil and oil products, more than 51 percent of which originate in the Gulf states. China's burgeoning appetite for oil is only going to grow in the coming years and its dependence on Middle Eastern sources of energy will only increase further.
In the last few years, China's exports to the Gulf countries have also been increasing. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has emerged as a major investor in China. Saudi Arabia's Aramco Overseas Company has provided US$750 million of the total US$3 billion in investment to construct a petrochemical complex in southeastern Fujian province in China that will process eight million tons of Saudi crude oil. Several members of O.P.E.C., including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, intend to build a new refinery in Guangzhou, the capital of China's Guangdong province, involving a total investment of US$8 billion.
Therefore, it was no surprise that King Abdullah decided to visit China first in his trip to Asia. It was Abdullah's first trip outside the Middle East since taking the throne in August 2005, and it was also the first trip by a Saudi ruler to China since the two countries established diplomatic relations in 1990. Saudi Arabia accounts for about 17 percent of China's imported oil and total trade between the two countries grew by a substantial 59 percent in 2005 to US$14 billion. Saudi Arabia is China's largest trading partner in the region between West Asia and North Africa. Today, China is Saudi Arabia's fourth largest importer and fifth largest exporter while Saudi Arabia is China's tenth largest importer and biggest oil supplier.
Apart from the burgeoning economic relationship, Saudi Arabia and China have also developed close military ties since the mid-1980s, an aspect of their bilateral relationship that has not received much attention. It has been reported that Saudi Arabia has imported from China CSS-2, nuclear capable intermediate range ballistic missiles with a 3,000 kilometer (1,864 miles) range. Now, with CSS-2 largely obsolete, Beijing is interested in newer, more advanced CSS-5 and CSS-6 weapons.
During Abdullah's trip, the two states signed a pact on energy cooperation that calls for increased cooperation and joint investment in oil, natural gas, and mineral deposits. Several other agreements were also signed on economic, trade, and technical cooperation, on avoiding dual taxation, on vocational training cooperation and granting of an urban development loan to the far western Chinese city of Aksu by the Saudi Arabian Development Bank. The Saudi king also invited Chinese investors to invest in his country since it is now engaged in a series of economic reforms, especially the privatization of its state-owned firms. Saudi Arabia is working toward diversifying its economy as relying on just one source of income has proved counterproductive.
Saudi Arabia and India Recognize Mutual Interests
From China, Abdullah went to India, the other emerging Asian power, where he was invited as the chief guest at the country's Republic Day celebration on January 26. It was the second visit of a Saudi monarch to India, the last one being in 1955. The Cold War precluded the development of close ties between the two states. However, once the structural constraint of the Cold War era was gone, the two states have tried to build bilateral relations on a number of complementary factors.
For instance, India is home to the second-largest Muslim population in the world; India's Muslim population has their holiest shrines at Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. Numbering at around 1.5 million, Indians also constitute the largest expatriate community in Saudi Arabia. This, by itself, makes it imperative for the two states to have a deeper engagement with each other. But several other factors come into play in shaping this relationship.
For India, the issue of cultivating an Islamic state that can act as a counterweight to Pakistan in the Islamic world is very significant. India has tried to build close ties with Iran, but these ties have come under stress in recent years; Saudi Arabia has filled that gap. Riyadh agreed to support India's claim for observer status in the Organization of the Islamic Conference. It has also been supportive of recent Indian moves to deescalate tensions in Kashmir. More importantly, both India and Saudi Arabia are not at all enthusiastic about the emergence of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.
The issue of terrorism also binds the two states as both face the risk of domestic turmoil if Islamic extremists are not controlled and sidelined. India and Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding dealing with terrorism, transnational crime, and subversive underworld operations during Abdullah's recent visit.
However, as with Saudi Arabia's relations with China, it is energy that has become the driving force in its relations with India; India has emerged as Saudi Arabia's fourth largest destination for oil exports and Riyadh is the largest supplier of oil to India. India, like China, is reshaping its diplomacy to serve energy needs as its booming economy also needs new supplies of oil to ensure its continued growth.
Reliance, a private Indian energy firm, has decided to invest in a refinery and petrochemicals project in Saudi Arabia. In addition, India's state-owned energy firm, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, is planning to engage Saudi Arabia as its equity partner for a refinery project in the Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. The recent upheavals in India's relationship with Iran, and Iran's decision to renege on some of its oil supply commitments in the aftermath of India's vote against Iran at the I.A.E.A., has also alerted India to the importance of having a diversified set of suppliers.
The recent visit of the Saudi monarch to India saw the signing of the Indo-Saudi "Delhi Declaration" that calls for a wide ranging strategic partnership in the critical energy sector, putting economic cooperation on overdrive coupled with major investments in the petroleum sector as well as joining hands in dealing with the problem of terrorism. Saudi Arabia's emphasis was also on learning from an established industrialized state such as India and it invited India to either participate alone or form joint ventures with Saudi companies to bid for gas exploration and refinery projects.
Conclusion
Notwithstanding these attempts by Saudi Arabia and India to upgrade their bilateral ties, various factors are bound to play a constraining role in the future. The most important of these is the Sino-Indian energy competition that is bound to emerge sooner, rather than later. As long as Saudi Arabia is able to deal with China and India without impinging on either's interests, the present relationships can flourish. But once China and India start competing over energy resources, as they have started doing in various parts of the world, Saudi Arabia will be forced to make some complicated choices. [See: "China's Strategy of Containing India"]
If the U.S. is thrown in the matrix, the picture becomes all the more complicated. With the U.S. viewing China as the most likely potential threat to its global supremacy, while at the same time helping India to emerge as a global player, the pressures under which Saudi Arabia will have to operate will only become stronger. [See: "U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review Reveals a Strategy Void"]
What this recent visit highlights unambiguously is the growing economic and strategic importance of China and India in the new global order, and the substantial effect their growth is having on global energy demand and diplomacy.
Report Drafted By:
Dr. Harsh V. Pant
The Power and Interest News Report (PINR) is an independent organization that utilizes open source intelligence to provide conflict analysis services in the context of international relations. PINR approaches a subject based upon the powers and interests involved, leaving the moral judgments to the reader. This report may not be reproduced, reprinted or broadcast without the written permission of inquiries@pinr.com. All comments should be directed to content@pinr.com.
Newsday.com: Rice's Iran plan is heavy-handed
Newsday.com: Rice's Iran plan is heavy-handed
But public diplomacy makes sense
February 22, 2006
International pressure to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons hasn't worked. Neither have economic incentives and threats of sanctions. In that context, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's proposed $75-million initiative - to expand U.S. broadcasts in the Farsi language and fund Iranian dissidents, pro-democracy groups and labor unions opposing the rule of the mullahs - could be seen as an attempt to bring another kind of pressure to bear on Tehran.
As a form of public diplomacy to reach out to the Iranian people, this is a welcome change. Keeping a frozen official distance from Iran was always the wrong policy. But the proposal to fund dissident groups openly is a singularly ham-handed attempt at regime change that could backfire. It's long been known that pro-democracy groups and their supporters in Iran would be discredited if they were publicly linked to the Great Satan. Worse yet, that open linkage would give Iran's secret police agencies an excuse to crack down brutally on them as enemies of the state, charging their leaders with subversion.
In her proposal to spend $75 million to promote democracy in Iran, Rice should focus on improving and expanding the Voice of America's television and radio broadcasts, which have gained a considerable audience there. That's part of the funding she requested, and that's fine. But to tell the world of U.S. plans to undermine the Iranian mullahs' powerful clerocratic rule by funding dissident groups, academics and labor unions is an obtuse policy. During the Cold War, Washington funneled secret funds to anti-Soviet dissident groups like the Polish labor unions. It worked there. But those were covert support operations, never disclosed in public. Get a grip, please.
But public diplomacy makes sense
February 22, 2006
International pressure to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons hasn't worked. Neither have economic incentives and threats of sanctions. In that context, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's proposed $75-million initiative - to expand U.S. broadcasts in the Farsi language and fund Iranian dissidents, pro-democracy groups and labor unions opposing the rule of the mullahs - could be seen as an attempt to bring another kind of pressure to bear on Tehran.
As a form of public diplomacy to reach out to the Iranian people, this is a welcome change. Keeping a frozen official distance from Iran was always the wrong policy. But the proposal to fund dissident groups openly is a singularly ham-handed attempt at regime change that could backfire. It's long been known that pro-democracy groups and their supporters in Iran would be discredited if they were publicly linked to the Great Satan. Worse yet, that open linkage would give Iran's secret police agencies an excuse to crack down brutally on them as enemies of the state, charging their leaders with subversion.
In her proposal to spend $75 million to promote democracy in Iran, Rice should focus on improving and expanding the Voice of America's television and radio broadcasts, which have gained a considerable audience there. That's part of the funding she requested, and that's fine. But to tell the world of U.S. plans to undermine the Iranian mullahs' powerful clerocratic rule by funding dissident groups, academics and labor unions is an obtuse policy. During the Cold War, Washington funneled secret funds to anti-Soviet dissident groups like the Polish labor unions. It worked there. But those were covert support operations, never disclosed in public. Get a grip, please.
Iran finds Russian nuclear compromise unacceptable, newspapers report
Iran finds Russian nuclear compromise unacceptable, newspapers report
Iran finds Russian nuclear compromise unacceptable, newspapers report
Henry Meyer
Canadian Press
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
MOSCOW (AP) - Iran is not ready to accept Russia's proposal aimed at resolving the international crisis over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program, Russian newspapers reported Wednesday, citing Iranian officials.
The two countries' negotiators on Tuesday completed two days of inconclusive talks in Moscow on a Russian offer to enrich uranium for Tehran to avert suspicions that the Iranians could divert the nuclear fuel for atomic weapons. The Vedomosti daily quoted an official close to the Iranian delegation as saying that Iran insisted on the right to conduct its own enrichment activities.
"There are no reasons at this stage to resume dialogue," said the official, who the newspaper did not identify.
An Iranian diplomat cited by the Vremya Novostei daily said Iran wanted Russia to produce large-scale enriched uranium for the country, but needed a domestic uranium enrichment program to create "the basis for independence in the nuclear sphere." The diplomat also was not identified.
Tehran's top negotiator, Ali Hosseinitash, labelled the Moscow meeting "positive and constructive," but some Russians voiced concern that Iran was using the proposed Kremlin compromise to stall for time and avert international sanctions.
The Russian plan, backed by the United States and the European Union, is seen as the final opportunity to ease international concerns over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons drive. Tehran has insisted on its right to maintain domestic enrichment despite international calls for it to stop.
The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, could start a process leading to punishment by the UN Security Council, which has the authority to impose sanctions on Iran, at a March 6 meeting.
The Iranian official cited by Vedomosti said that at the talks, Iran demanded that the Russian enrichment plan function for only three to five years and insisted on the Iranian right to conduct the initial stages of uranium enrichment on its own territory.
But the Russian side, the official said, was adamant that the Iranians restore the freeze on enrichment broken last month when they resumed small-scale activities, and that Iran content itself with paying Russia for supplies of enriched fuel for its atomic power facilities.
Russia's atomic agency chief, Sergei Kiriyenko, who is to visit Iran Thursday for further talks, said after the Moscow round of negotiations that Russia would do everything to help Iran resolve the nuclear dispute.
But a senior Russian legislator expressed frustration.
"Unfortunately, Iran so far has not shown sufficient good will," Konstantin Kosachev, head of the lower house of parliament's foreign affairs committee, said Tuesday.
Russia, which has strong economic ties to Iran, is building the theocracy's first nuclear power station and is anxious to avoid sanctions and eager to win prestige by helping find a solution.
China, which like Russia has resisted strong measures against Iran, joined calls on Tuesday for Tehran to freeze enrichment. Both countries have the power to block sanctions against Tehran as veto-wielding members of the Security Council.
Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Iran says it is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy but Western countries fear it is seeking an atomic weapon.
Iran finds Russian nuclear compromise unacceptable, newspapers report
Henry Meyer
Canadian Press
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
MOSCOW (AP) - Iran is not ready to accept Russia's proposal aimed at resolving the international crisis over Tehran's suspected nuclear weapons program, Russian newspapers reported Wednesday, citing Iranian officials.
The two countries' negotiators on Tuesday completed two days of inconclusive talks in Moscow on a Russian offer to enrich uranium for Tehran to avert suspicions that the Iranians could divert the nuclear fuel for atomic weapons. The Vedomosti daily quoted an official close to the Iranian delegation as saying that Iran insisted on the right to conduct its own enrichment activities.
"There are no reasons at this stage to resume dialogue," said the official, who the newspaper did not identify.
An Iranian diplomat cited by the Vremya Novostei daily said Iran wanted Russia to produce large-scale enriched uranium for the country, but needed a domestic uranium enrichment program to create "the basis for independence in the nuclear sphere." The diplomat also was not identified.
Tehran's top negotiator, Ali Hosseinitash, labelled the Moscow meeting "positive and constructive," but some Russians voiced concern that Iran was using the proposed Kremlin compromise to stall for time and avert international sanctions.
The Russian plan, backed by the United States and the European Union, is seen as the final opportunity to ease international concerns over Iran's suspected nuclear weapons drive. Tehran has insisted on its right to maintain domestic enrichment despite international calls for it to stop.
The UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, could start a process leading to punishment by the UN Security Council, which has the authority to impose sanctions on Iran, at a March 6 meeting.
The Iranian official cited by Vedomosti said that at the talks, Iran demanded that the Russian enrichment plan function for only three to five years and insisted on the Iranian right to conduct the initial stages of uranium enrichment on its own territory.
But the Russian side, the official said, was adamant that the Iranians restore the freeze on enrichment broken last month when they resumed small-scale activities, and that Iran content itself with paying Russia for supplies of enriched fuel for its atomic power facilities.
Russia's atomic agency chief, Sergei Kiriyenko, who is to visit Iran Thursday for further talks, said after the Moscow round of negotiations that Russia would do everything to help Iran resolve the nuclear dispute.
But a senior Russian legislator expressed frustration.
"Unfortunately, Iran so far has not shown sufficient good will," Konstantin Kosachev, head of the lower house of parliament's foreign affairs committee, said Tuesday.
Russia, which has strong economic ties to Iran, is building the theocracy's first nuclear power station and is anxious to avoid sanctions and eager to win prestige by helping find a solution.
China, which like Russia has resisted strong measures against Iran, joined calls on Tuesday for Tehran to freeze enrichment. Both countries have the power to block sanctions against Tehran as veto-wielding members of the Security Council.
Enriched uranium can be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor or fissile material for a bomb. Iran says it is pursuing peaceful nuclear energy but Western countries fear it is seeking an atomic weapon.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
U.S., Bulgaria Cooperate on Narcotics Control, Law Enforcement
U.S., Bulgaria Cooperate on Narcotics Control, Law Enforcement
U.S., Bulgaria Cooperate on Narcotics Control, Law Enforcement
Signing ceremony formalizes agreement on U.S.-Bulgarian cooperation
Washington -- The United States and Bulgaria have signed an agreement to support joint law enforcement projects in Bulgaria, the U.S. State Department announced February 17.
Under the agreement, the United States is providing more than $4 million to support programs in Bulgaria aimed at strengthening institutions in the criminal justice sector, including forensics skills and laboratory equipment; combating human trafficking; enhancing the government’s ability to investigate and prosecute computer crime; and strengthening police/prosecutor cooperation.
The agreement was negotiated in May 2005. The signing ceremony, which took place at the State Department February 15, formally implemented the agreement, according to a State Department source. Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Anne Patterson and Bulgarian Minister of the Interior Rumen Petkov took part in the signing ceremony.
“By affirming its support for reforming and restructuring its judicial system and modernization of its criminal justice institutions, Bulgaria has made a significant commitment to its future democratic development and has taken a major step towards securing entry into the EU [European Union],” said the State Department announcement.
Bulgaria is “one of the United States' closest and most committed Southeast European partners” in combating the threats of corruption, transnational crime and organized crime, the State Department said. “We congratulate the people of Bulgaria on the progress they have made and the commitment they demonstrated towards achieving our common goal.”
The funds are provided through the Support for East European Democracies Act (SEED), which Congress passed in 1989 to facilitate development of democratic institutions, political pluralism and free market economies. Since 1990, Bulgaria has received more than $460 million in SEED assistance, according to the State Department.
According to the department’s International Narcotics Strategy Report for 2005, Bulgaria is a producer of synthetic drugs as well as a transit country for heroin from the Golden Crescent (Asia’s principal area of illicit opium production -- an area overlapping Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan) as well as some marijuana and cocaine.
The report says the government of Bulgaria “has emphasized its commitment to combat serious crime including drug trafficking,” but that poor interagency cooperation, inadequate equipment to facilitate narcotics searches, widespread corruption and an overall weak judicial system hamper counternarcotics efforts.
The United States supports various programs through the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, Justice Department and Treasury Department to address problems in the Bulgarian legal system. A criminal law liaison with the American Bar Association/Central and East European Law Initiative (CEELI) advises Bulgarian prosecutors and investigators on computer crime and other issues.
The State Department media note on signing of agreement and State Department background notes on Bulgaria are available on the State Department Web site.
The International Narcotics Strategy Report for 2005 discusses Bulgaria in the section on Europe and Central Asia.
The CEELI Web site has more information on its programs with Bulgaria.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
U.S., Bulgaria Cooperate on Narcotics Control, Law Enforcement
Signing ceremony formalizes agreement on U.S.-Bulgarian cooperation
Washington -- The United States and Bulgaria have signed an agreement to support joint law enforcement projects in Bulgaria, the U.S. State Department announced February 17.
Under the agreement, the United States is providing more than $4 million to support programs in Bulgaria aimed at strengthening institutions in the criminal justice sector, including forensics skills and laboratory equipment; combating human trafficking; enhancing the government’s ability to investigate and prosecute computer crime; and strengthening police/prosecutor cooperation.
The agreement was negotiated in May 2005. The signing ceremony, which took place at the State Department February 15, formally implemented the agreement, according to a State Department source. Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs Anne Patterson and Bulgarian Minister of the Interior Rumen Petkov took part in the signing ceremony.
“By affirming its support for reforming and restructuring its judicial system and modernization of its criminal justice institutions, Bulgaria has made a significant commitment to its future democratic development and has taken a major step towards securing entry into the EU [European Union],” said the State Department announcement.
Bulgaria is “one of the United States' closest and most committed Southeast European partners” in combating the threats of corruption, transnational crime and organized crime, the State Department said. “We congratulate the people of Bulgaria on the progress they have made and the commitment they demonstrated towards achieving our common goal.”
The funds are provided through the Support for East European Democracies Act (SEED), which Congress passed in 1989 to facilitate development of democratic institutions, political pluralism and free market economies. Since 1990, Bulgaria has received more than $460 million in SEED assistance, according to the State Department.
According to the department’s International Narcotics Strategy Report for 2005, Bulgaria is a producer of synthetic drugs as well as a transit country for heroin from the Golden Crescent (Asia’s principal area of illicit opium production -- an area overlapping Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan) as well as some marijuana and cocaine.
The report says the government of Bulgaria “has emphasized its commitment to combat serious crime including drug trafficking,” but that poor interagency cooperation, inadequate equipment to facilitate narcotics searches, widespread corruption and an overall weak judicial system hamper counternarcotics efforts.
The United States supports various programs through the State Department, U.S. Agency for International Development, Justice Department and Treasury Department to address problems in the Bulgarian legal system. A criminal law liaison with the American Bar Association/Central and East European Law Initiative (CEELI) advises Bulgarian prosecutors and investigators on computer crime and other issues.
The State Department media note on signing of agreement and State Department background notes on Bulgaria are available on the State Department Web site.
The International Narcotics Strategy Report for 2005 discusses Bulgaria in the section on Europe and Central Asia.
The CEELI Web site has more information on its programs with Bulgaria.
(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
News Hounds: Former CIA Spy, Wayne Simmons, Says United Arab Emirates Gaining Control of U.S. Ports "Much Ado About Nothing"
News Hounds: Former CIA Spy, Wayne Simmons, Says United Arab Emirates Gaining Control of U.S. Ports "Much Ado About Nothing"
Former CIA Spy, Wayne Simmons, Says United Arab Emirates Gaining Control of U.S. Ports "Much Ado About Nothing"
Former CIA Operative or spy (as reported by Fox), Wayne Simmons was on Studio B with Shepard Smith today in a segment covering the Bush Administration handing over control of six U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates. Simmons is a freqent guest on Fox and has spoken in the past about favoring racial profiling reported by fellow News Hound, Nancy. He's also been known for outrageous statements like "because the terrorists know that they have the press and they have the ACLU in their pocket", which was reported by fellow News Hound, Chrish. He was also on board with the Iraqi's 'greeting us with flowers' reported by fellow News Hound, Ellen.
Therefore, it came as quite a surprise to me today when Simmons said that the fact that the United Arab Emirates would be taking over the protection of six of the U.S.'s main ports and the backlash was "Much Ado About Nothing."
Maybe it shouldn't come as a surprise from Fox or Wayne Simmons since the sale has the approval of the Bush Administration.
Perhaps they ought to consider what Think Progress had to report:
Some facts about the UAE:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Here is the link for the entire article.
Simmons said that he didn't seem to think it was a problem because the government would have had the NSA do a thorough background check, while Shepard Smith said he didn't know what to think since 2% of packages received in our ports before 9/11 were checked and 2% of packages received in our ports after 9/11 were being checked.
Comments: With the lack of real Homeland Security being concentrated on since 9/11, everything seems to remain pretty much status quo. On top of that we're to trust a country who may have terrorist ties to do our port security for us, and Wayne Simmons doesn't seem to think it's a big deal? No wonder he's one of Fox's frequent guests. For a man to say that traitors should be shot by firing squad, (as reported by fellow News Hound, Ellen) he's becoming a bit meek when it comes to protecting our ports. Perhaps that's because anything the Bush Administration does comes first and foremost with Fox and its frequent guests.
Reported by Donna at February 20, 2006 05:55 PM
Former CIA Spy, Wayne Simmons, Says United Arab Emirates Gaining Control of U.S. Ports "Much Ado About Nothing"
Former CIA Operative or spy (as reported by Fox), Wayne Simmons was on Studio B with Shepard Smith today in a segment covering the Bush Administration handing over control of six U.S. ports to the United Arab Emirates. Simmons is a freqent guest on Fox and has spoken in the past about favoring racial profiling reported by fellow News Hound, Nancy. He's also been known for outrageous statements like "because the terrorists know that they have the press and they have the ACLU in their pocket", which was reported by fellow News Hound, Chrish. He was also on board with the Iraqi's 'greeting us with flowers' reported by fellow News Hound, Ellen.
Therefore, it came as quite a surprise to me today when Simmons said that the fact that the United Arab Emirates would be taking over the protection of six of the U.S.'s main ports and the backlash was "Much Ado About Nothing."
Maybe it shouldn't come as a surprise from Fox or Wayne Simmons since the sale has the approval of the Bush Administration.
Perhaps they ought to consider what Think Progress had to report:
Some facts about the UAE:
– The UAE was one of three countries in the world to recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.
– The UAE has been a key transfer point for illegal shipments of nuclear components to Iran, North Korea and Lybia.
– According to the FBI, money was transferred to the 9/11 hijackers through the UAE banking system.
– After 9/11, the Treasury Department reported that the UAE was not cooperating in efforts to track down Osama Bin Laden’s bank accounts.
Here is the link for the entire article.
Simmons said that he didn't seem to think it was a problem because the government would have had the NSA do a thorough background check, while Shepard Smith said he didn't know what to think since 2% of packages received in our ports before 9/11 were checked and 2% of packages received in our ports after 9/11 were being checked.
Comments: With the lack of real Homeland Security being concentrated on since 9/11, everything seems to remain pretty much status quo. On top of that we're to trust a country who may have terrorist ties to do our port security for us, and Wayne Simmons doesn't seem to think it's a big deal? No wonder he's one of Fox's frequent guests. For a man to say that traitors should be shot by firing squad, (as reported by fellow News Hound, Ellen) he's becoming a bit meek when it comes to protecting our ports. Perhaps that's because anything the Bush Administration does comes first and foremost with Fox and its frequent guests.
Reported by Donna at February 20, 2006 05:55 PM
A different kind of 'Beverly Hills': Pricey Canada oil fields - Marketplace by Bloomberg - International Herald Tribune
A different kind of 'Beverly Hills': Pricey Canada oil fields - Marketplace by Bloomberg - International Herald Tribune
A different kind of 'Beverly Hills': Pricey Canada oil fields
By Ian McKinnon Bloomberg News
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006
CALGARY, Alberta Canada's hottest piece of real estate is not much to look at, a mix of swamp and scattered spruce and pine trees in northern Alberta. But underneath the surface lie the oil sands, by some measures the world's largest petroleum reserves outside Saudi Arabia.
To tap the deposits, Royal Dutch Shell and other companies are paying record prices for undeveloped land. Already this year, the province of Alberta has raised more money from oil sands leases than the record amount earned in all of 2005.
The oil sands have "become the Beverly Hills of the oil patch," said Gregg Scott, president of Scott Land & Lease, which is based in Calgary and is Canada's biggest land broker.
"This is the most high-profile play I've seen in my 24 years as a broker."
Producers are searching for new sites to develop oil sands as Asian countries buy more fuel and the United States seeks alternatives to supplies from the Middle East.
Oil companies are expected to spend about 73 billion Canadian dollars, or $63 billion, over the next 20 years to increase output in Alberta, according to the Alberta Energy Ministry.
Synenco Energy, which is based in Calgary and is developing a 5.3 billion- dollar project with SinoCanada Petroleum, began the rush in September by paying what was then a record 75.9 million dollars for 22,773 acres, or 9,216 hectares. SinoCanada Petroleum is a subsidiary of the Chinese company Sinopec Group.
Todd Newton, president of Synenco, said that "we were quite nervous" about the bidding. Newton said he had learned of the outcome after hearing "loud whooping" from employees who were monitoring the government Web site.
That exuberance has not abated. Alberta's total for oil-sand land sales has reached 846.3 million dollars from three auctions so far this year, eclipsing the record of 433.1 million dollars set in 2005 from 21 auctions, according to provincial government data.
Producers and land agents, used by some companies to disguise their identities, paid 867 dollars per acre for leases this year, almost double the amount paid last year. Some clients were stunned after losing land auctions to bids triple their offer, said Scott, the land broker.
The oil sands, about 750 kilometers, or 460 miles, north of Calgary, are estimated to contain 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil, second only to the estimated 259 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The oil sands have helped Canada become the biggest supplier of oil to the United States.
Oil sands output in Alberta is forecast to triple in the next nine years, to about three million barrels a day, according to a report in December from FirstEnergy Capital, a brokerage firm in Calgary. That level would almost equal the current output from Algeria and Libya combined.
If the deposit is less than 75 meters, or 230 feet, underground, the oil can be extracted through strip mining, which can cost 25 dollars a barrel, compared with 12 dollars for traditional pumping.
If the reserves are found to be deeper, companies inject steam into the ground to soften the heavy oil, or bitumen, to extract it, driving up the price of production.
Companies are more willing to use the expensive methods because they are confident that the projects will be profitable as rising demand lifts prices, said Wilf Gobert, vice chairman of the Calgary brokerage firm Peters.
Most oil sands deposits are economically feasible as long as oil prices are higher than $30 a barrel, or about half the current price of crude.
Even if these projects are never developed, there are clear winners from the land auctions: the Alberta government and its taxpayers.
With surging revenue from oil and natural gas, Alberta has achieved budget surpluses for the past 12 years, making the province the only debt-free region in Canada. The province's premier, Ralph Klein, this month sent each person in the province a check for 400 dollars to share the wealth.
CALGARY, Alberta Canada's hottest piece of real estate is not much to look at, a mix of swamp and scattered spruce and pine trees in northern Alberta. But underneath the surface lie the oil sands, by some measures the world's largest petroleum reserves outside Saudi Arabia.
To tap the deposits, Royal Dutch Shell and other companies are paying record prices for undeveloped land. Already this year, the province of Alberta has raised more money from oil sands leases than the record amount earned in all of 2005.
The oil sands have "become the Beverly Hills of the oil patch," said Gregg Scott, president of Scott Land & Lease, which is based in Calgary and is Canada's biggest land broker.
"This is the most high-profile play I've seen in my 24 years as a broker."
Producers are searching for new sites to develop oil sands as Asian countries buy more fuel and the United States seeks alternatives to supplies from the Middle East.
Oil companies are expected to spend about 73 billion Canadian dollars, or $63 billion, over the next 20 years to increase output in Alberta, according to the Alberta Energy Ministry.
Synenco Energy, which is based in Calgary and is developing a 5.3 billion- dollar project with SinoCanada Petroleum, began the rush in September by paying what was then a record 75.9 million dollars for 22,773 acres, or 9,216 hectares. SinoCanada Petroleum is a subsidiary of the Chinese company Sinopec Group.
Todd Newton, president of Synenco, said that "we were quite nervous" about the bidding. Newton said he had learned of the outcome after hearing "loud whooping" from employees who were monitoring the government Web site.
That exuberance has not abated. Alberta's total for oil-sand land sales has reached 846.3 million dollars from three auctions so far this year, eclipsing the record of 433.1 million dollars set in 2005 from 21 auctions, according to provincial government data.
Producers and land agents, used by some companies to disguise their identities, paid 867 dollars per acre for leases this year, almost double the amount paid last year. Some clients were stunned after losing land auctions to bids triple their offer, said Scott, the land broker.
The oil sands, about 750 kilometers, or 460 miles, north of Calgary, are estimated to contain 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil, second only to the estimated 259 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The oil sands have helped Canada become the biggest supplier of oil to the United States.
Oil sands output in Alberta is forecast to triple in the next nine years, to about three million barrels a day, according to a report in December from FirstEnergy Capital, a brokerage firm in Calgary. That level would almost equal the current output from Algeria and Libya combined.
If the deposit is less than 75 meters, or 230 feet, underground, the oil can be extracted through strip mining, which can cost 25 dollars a barrel, compared with 12 dollars for traditional pumping.
If the reserves are found to be deeper, companies inject steam into the ground to soften the heavy oil, or bitumen, to extract it, driving up the price of production.
Companies are more willing to use the expensive methods because they are confident that the projects will be profitable as rising demand lifts prices, said Wilf Gobert, vice chairman of the Calgary brokerage firm Peters.
Most oil sands deposits are economically feasible as long as oil prices are higher than $30 a barrel, or about half the current price of crude.
Even if these projects are never developed, there are clear winners from the land auctions: the Alberta government and its taxpayers.
With surging revenue from oil and natural gas, Alberta has achieved budget surpluses for the past 12 years, making the province the only debt-free region in Canada. The province's premier, Ralph Klein, this month sent each person in the province a check for 400 dollars to share the wealth.
A different kind of 'Beverly Hills': Pricey Canada oil fields
By Ian McKinnon Bloomberg News
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2006
CALGARY, Alberta Canada's hottest piece of real estate is not much to look at, a mix of swamp and scattered spruce and pine trees in northern Alberta. But underneath the surface lie the oil sands, by some measures the world's largest petroleum reserves outside Saudi Arabia.
To tap the deposits, Royal Dutch Shell and other companies are paying record prices for undeveloped land. Already this year, the province of Alberta has raised more money from oil sands leases than the record amount earned in all of 2005.
The oil sands have "become the Beverly Hills of the oil patch," said Gregg Scott, president of Scott Land & Lease, which is based in Calgary and is Canada's biggest land broker.
"This is the most high-profile play I've seen in my 24 years as a broker."
Producers are searching for new sites to develop oil sands as Asian countries buy more fuel and the United States seeks alternatives to supplies from the Middle East.
Oil companies are expected to spend about 73 billion Canadian dollars, or $63 billion, over the next 20 years to increase output in Alberta, according to the Alberta Energy Ministry.
Synenco Energy, which is based in Calgary and is developing a 5.3 billion- dollar project with SinoCanada Petroleum, began the rush in September by paying what was then a record 75.9 million dollars for 22,773 acres, or 9,216 hectares. SinoCanada Petroleum is a subsidiary of the Chinese company Sinopec Group.
Todd Newton, president of Synenco, said that "we were quite nervous" about the bidding. Newton said he had learned of the outcome after hearing "loud whooping" from employees who were monitoring the government Web site.
That exuberance has not abated. Alberta's total for oil-sand land sales has reached 846.3 million dollars from three auctions so far this year, eclipsing the record of 433.1 million dollars set in 2005 from 21 auctions, according to provincial government data.
Producers and land agents, used by some companies to disguise their identities, paid 867 dollars per acre for leases this year, almost double the amount paid last year. Some clients were stunned after losing land auctions to bids triple their offer, said Scott, the land broker.
The oil sands, about 750 kilometers, or 460 miles, north of Calgary, are estimated to contain 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil, second only to the estimated 259 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The oil sands have helped Canada become the biggest supplier of oil to the United States.
Oil sands output in Alberta is forecast to triple in the next nine years, to about three million barrels a day, according to a report in December from FirstEnergy Capital, a brokerage firm in Calgary. That level would almost equal the current output from Algeria and Libya combined.
If the deposit is less than 75 meters, or 230 feet, underground, the oil can be extracted through strip mining, which can cost 25 dollars a barrel, compared with 12 dollars for traditional pumping.
If the reserves are found to be deeper, companies inject steam into the ground to soften the heavy oil, or bitumen, to extract it, driving up the price of production.
Companies are more willing to use the expensive methods because they are confident that the projects will be profitable as rising demand lifts prices, said Wilf Gobert, vice chairman of the Calgary brokerage firm Peters.
Most oil sands deposits are economically feasible as long as oil prices are higher than $30 a barrel, or about half the current price of crude.
Even if these projects are never developed, there are clear winners from the land auctions: the Alberta government and its taxpayers.
With surging revenue from oil and natural gas, Alberta has achieved budget surpluses for the past 12 years, making the province the only debt-free region in Canada. The province's premier, Ralph Klein, this month sent each person in the province a check for 400 dollars to share the wealth.
CALGARY, Alberta Canada's hottest piece of real estate is not much to look at, a mix of swamp and scattered spruce and pine trees in northern Alberta. But underneath the surface lie the oil sands, by some measures the world's largest petroleum reserves outside Saudi Arabia.
To tap the deposits, Royal Dutch Shell and other companies are paying record prices for undeveloped land. Already this year, the province of Alberta has raised more money from oil sands leases than the record amount earned in all of 2005.
The oil sands have "become the Beverly Hills of the oil patch," said Gregg Scott, president of Scott Land & Lease, which is based in Calgary and is Canada's biggest land broker.
"This is the most high-profile play I've seen in my 24 years as a broker."
Producers are searching for new sites to develop oil sands as Asian countries buy more fuel and the United States seeks alternatives to supplies from the Middle East.
Oil companies are expected to spend about 73 billion Canadian dollars, or $63 billion, over the next 20 years to increase output in Alberta, according to the Alberta Energy Ministry.
Synenco Energy, which is based in Calgary and is developing a 5.3 billion- dollar project with SinoCanada Petroleum, began the rush in September by paying what was then a record 75.9 million dollars for 22,773 acres, or 9,216 hectares. SinoCanada Petroleum is a subsidiary of the Chinese company Sinopec Group.
Todd Newton, president of Synenco, said that "we were quite nervous" about the bidding. Newton said he had learned of the outcome after hearing "loud whooping" from employees who were monitoring the government Web site.
That exuberance has not abated. Alberta's total for oil-sand land sales has reached 846.3 million dollars from three auctions so far this year, eclipsing the record of 433.1 million dollars set in 2005 from 21 auctions, according to provincial government data.
Producers and land agents, used by some companies to disguise their identities, paid 867 dollars per acre for leases this year, almost double the amount paid last year. Some clients were stunned after losing land auctions to bids triple their offer, said Scott, the land broker.
The oil sands, about 750 kilometers, or 460 miles, north of Calgary, are estimated to contain 175 billion barrels of recoverable oil, second only to the estimated 259 billion barrels in Saudi Arabia, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers. The oil sands have helped Canada become the biggest supplier of oil to the United States.
Oil sands output in Alberta is forecast to triple in the next nine years, to about three million barrels a day, according to a report in December from FirstEnergy Capital, a brokerage firm in Calgary. That level would almost equal the current output from Algeria and Libya combined.
If the deposit is less than 75 meters, or 230 feet, underground, the oil can be extracted through strip mining, which can cost 25 dollars a barrel, compared with 12 dollars for traditional pumping.
If the reserves are found to be deeper, companies inject steam into the ground to soften the heavy oil, or bitumen, to extract it, driving up the price of production.
Companies are more willing to use the expensive methods because they are confident that the projects will be profitable as rising demand lifts prices, said Wilf Gobert, vice chairman of the Calgary brokerage firm Peters.
Most oil sands deposits are economically feasible as long as oil prices are higher than $30 a barrel, or about half the current price of crude.
Even if these projects are never developed, there are clear winners from the land auctions: the Alberta government and its taxpayers.
With surging revenue from oil and natural gas, Alberta has achieved budget surpluses for the past 12 years, making the province the only debt-free region in Canada. The province's premier, Ralph Klein, this month sent each person in the province a check for 400 dollars to share the wealth.
U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Accuses Iran of Meddling - Los Angeles Times
U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Accuses Iran of Meddling - Los Angeles Times
U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Accuses Iran of Meddling
# Khalilzad suggests that Tehran is trying to divert attention from the nuclear issue by calling for the pullout of British troops.
By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD — In a scathing complaint about Washington's longtime nemesis, the top U.S. diplomat here accused Iran on Monday of fomenting trouble in Iraq's southern provinces by calling for the withdrawal of British troops.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad suggested that Iran was focusing attention on Iraq in an attempt to distract the international community from Tehran's nuclear program.
ADVERTISEMENT
<A HREF="http://adserver.trb.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=520434&AdID=201342&Custom=cedarsinai&TargetID=2423&Segments=254,685,926,1093,1268,1309,1899,1952,1953,1962,2168,2532,2776,3099,3370,3581,5644,5777,50827,51336,51385,51933,52229,52641,53126,53166,53686,53720,54113,54162,54239,54476,54832,54960,55010,55090,55173,55488,55490,55516,55613,55614,55679,55695,55868,55885,55936&Targets=58484,10772,2423,57516,57003,1309,57001,58822,55345,2337,58894,2474,2811,57888,56533,58624,57019,56362,55807,55695,55752,58553,56757,57252,57483,57567,57671,57787,58250,58253,58312,58583,58849&Values=30,46,50,60,72,82,90,100,110,150,287,289,301,328,391,533,583,591,593,998,1016,1065,1066,1093,1105,1136,1171,1212,1309,1606,1617,1648,1653,1654,1732,1837,1838,1890,1917,1978,1986,2161,2281,2283,2377,2548,2625,2806,2948,2971,3005,3047,3051,3055,3061,3088,3113,3117,3153,3242&RawValues=USERAGENTID%2CMozilla/5.0%2520(Windows%253B%2520U%253B%2520Windows%2520NT%25205.1%253B%2520en-US%253B%2520rv:1.8.0.1)%2520Gecko/20060111%2520Firefox/1.5.0.1%2CTID%2C2d18hii11lsg71&Redirect=http://www.latimes.com/extras/cedars-sinai/" target="_top"><IMG SRC="http://brt.trb.com/ads/latimes/local/cedarSinai/feb2006/LAT-300x250-WHM.jpg" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>
"It may be … that the nuclear issue is getting more serious and difficult for Iran, [and] they're trying to divert attention from that issue by getting themselves involved in things that are frankly none of their business," Khalilzad told reporters during a briefing in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. "I think their role has taken a negative turn."
The diplomat accused Iran of providing weapons and training to militias in Iraq even as it labored to build friendly diplomatic relations with the government in Baghdad, which like the leadership in Tehran is dominated by Shiite Muslims. Iran's double-edged policy is meant to nurture its goals of turning itself into a regional power, Khalilzad said.
The ambassador's remarks were unusually sharp. In the past, American diplomats in Baghdad have generally avoided overt, public criticisms of Iran. Instead, they stuck to vague grumblings about "neighboring countries" and insisted that they did not expect Baghdad to replicate the frosty U.S. relations with Iran.
But Monday, the ambassador seemed primed to criticize Iran. A reporter asked about the Islamic Republic after U.S. Embassy staffers prodded journalists to raise the issue during a news conference given by Khalilzad.
"They're using a variety of tools that to you and I would look very contradictory but to them is part of a comprehensive strategy," Khalilzad said of Iranian officials. "We are increasingly worried about the role Iran is playing."
Khalilzad also called on Iraq's disparate political groups to come together and achieve a national unity government, saying that ethnic and sectarian "polarization" was "feeding the insurgency and creating a context for terrorism." He criticized the Shiite-led government of interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, who was recently named his coalition's nominee to continue as premier, as unreflective of the country's political groups.
"The various communities of Iraq need to come together in a national compact," he said. "We've spent a lot of blood and treasure here. We regard Iraq's success to be our success. And God forbid, Iraq's failure will also be ours."
The harsher rhetoric toward Tehran comes as the standoff with the West over Iran's nuclear ambitions continued.
Iran has asserted its right to nuclear technology, saying its goal is to produce power for civilian use. In the process, it has flirted with sanctions from an international community that fears Tehran wants to build a bomb. Iranian negotiators are in Moscow this week for talks on a proposal to jointly enrich uranium on Russian soil as a way of easing those concerns.
The ambassador's remarks also came amid a war of words over the role of British troops in the southern city of Basra. A heavily Shiite Muslim city, Basra has close and ancient ties to the Shiite clerics who rule neighboring Iran. When video came to light this month showing British soldiers beating and kicking Iraqis in Basra, an incensed Iran called upon British troops to withdraw from Iraq's south.
"We believe that the presence of the British military forces in Basra destabilized the security situation and had negative effects," Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said during a visit to Beirut last week. "Iran calls for an immediate withdrawal of the British forces from Basra."
British troops, based in oil-rich southern Iraq, have encountered a host of recent troubles. Tensions have erupted with provincial governments, and followers of rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr have clashed with the soldiers.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arrived in Baghdad on Monday on an unannounced visit, ostensibly to "discuss government formation with Iraqi politicians," British Embassy spokeswoman Lisa Glover said.
Coming from Tehran, the demands for British withdrawal appear to have touched a sore spot within the U.S. administration. American officials have been fretting ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 about Iran's growing influence, particularly in the southern provinces.
"Basra is Iraqi territory the last time I checked the map," Khalilzad said during his news conference.
The Iraqi government also has brushed aside Iran's demands as "unacceptable," saying that the approximately 8,000 British troops in Iraq were stationed in the south under a United Nations mandate.
But sentiment in southern Iraq appears to be sharply divergent from that of the central government in Baghdad. On Monday, the local councils in Basra and Maysan provinces called on Iraq to cut ties with Britain.
Times staff writer Borzou Daragahi in Baghdad contributed to this report.
U.S. Ambassador in Iraq Accuses Iran of Meddling
# Khalilzad suggests that Tehran is trying to divert attention from the nuclear issue by calling for the pullout of British troops.
By Megan K. Stack, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD — In a scathing complaint about Washington's longtime nemesis, the top U.S. diplomat here accused Iran on Monday of fomenting trouble in Iraq's southern provinces by calling for the withdrawal of British troops.
Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad suggested that Iran was focusing attention on Iraq in an attempt to distract the international community from Tehran's nuclear program.
ADVERTISEMENT
<A HREF="http://adserver.trb.com/event.ng/Type=click&FlightID=520434&AdID=201342&Custom=cedarsinai&TargetID=2423&Segments=254,685,926,1093,1268,1309,1899,1952,1953,1962,2168,2532,2776,3099,3370,3581,5644,5777,50827,51336,51385,51933,52229,52641,53126,53166,53686,53720,54113,54162,54239,54476,54832,54960,55010,55090,55173,55488,55490,55516,55613,55614,55679,55695,55868,55885,55936&Targets=58484,10772,2423,57516,57003,1309,57001,58822,55345,2337,58894,2474,2811,57888,56533,58624,57019,56362,55807,55695,55752,58553,56757,57252,57483,57567,57671,57787,58250,58253,58312,58583,58849&Values=30,46,50,60,72,82,90,100,110,150,287,289,301,328,391,533,583,591,593,998,1016,1065,1066,1093,1105,1136,1171,1212,1309,1606,1617,1648,1653,1654,1732,1837,1838,1890,1917,1978,1986,2161,2281,2283,2377,2548,2625,2806,2948,2971,3005,3047,3051,3055,3061,3088,3113,3117,3153,3242&RawValues=USERAGENTID%2CMozilla/5.0%2520(Windows%253B%2520U%253B%2520Windows%2520NT%25205.1%253B%2520en-US%253B%2520rv:1.8.0.1)%2520Gecko/20060111%2520Firefox/1.5.0.1%2CTID%2C2d18hii11lsg71&Redirect=http://www.latimes.com/extras/cedars-sinai/" target="_top"><IMG SRC="http://brt.trb.com/ads/latimes/local/cedarSinai/feb2006/LAT-300x250-WHM.jpg" WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 BORDER=0></A>
"It may be … that the nuclear issue is getting more serious and difficult for Iran, [and] they're trying to divert attention from that issue by getting themselves involved in things that are frankly none of their business," Khalilzad told reporters during a briefing in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone. "I think their role has taken a negative turn."
The diplomat accused Iran of providing weapons and training to militias in Iraq even as it labored to build friendly diplomatic relations with the government in Baghdad, which like the leadership in Tehran is dominated by Shiite Muslims. Iran's double-edged policy is meant to nurture its goals of turning itself into a regional power, Khalilzad said.
The ambassador's remarks were unusually sharp. In the past, American diplomats in Baghdad have generally avoided overt, public criticisms of Iran. Instead, they stuck to vague grumblings about "neighboring countries" and insisted that they did not expect Baghdad to replicate the frosty U.S. relations with Iran.
But Monday, the ambassador seemed primed to criticize Iran. A reporter asked about the Islamic Republic after U.S. Embassy staffers prodded journalists to raise the issue during a news conference given by Khalilzad.
"They're using a variety of tools that to you and I would look very contradictory but to them is part of a comprehensive strategy," Khalilzad said of Iranian officials. "We are increasingly worried about the role Iran is playing."
Khalilzad also called on Iraq's disparate political groups to come together and achieve a national unity government, saying that ethnic and sectarian "polarization" was "feeding the insurgency and creating a context for terrorism." He criticized the Shiite-led government of interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari, who was recently named his coalition's nominee to continue as premier, as unreflective of the country's political groups.
"The various communities of Iraq need to come together in a national compact," he said. "We've spent a lot of blood and treasure here. We regard Iraq's success to be our success. And God forbid, Iraq's failure will also be ours."
The harsher rhetoric toward Tehran comes as the standoff with the West over Iran's nuclear ambitions continued.
Iran has asserted its right to nuclear technology, saying its goal is to produce power for civilian use. In the process, it has flirted with sanctions from an international community that fears Tehran wants to build a bomb. Iranian negotiators are in Moscow this week for talks on a proposal to jointly enrich uranium on Russian soil as a way of easing those concerns.
The ambassador's remarks also came amid a war of words over the role of British troops in the southern city of Basra. A heavily Shiite Muslim city, Basra has close and ancient ties to the Shiite clerics who rule neighboring Iran. When video came to light this month showing British soldiers beating and kicking Iraqis in Basra, an incensed Iran called upon British troops to withdraw from Iraq's south.
"We believe that the presence of the British military forces in Basra destabilized the security situation and had negative effects," Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said during a visit to Beirut last week. "Iran calls for an immediate withdrawal of the British forces from Basra."
British troops, based in oil-rich southern Iraq, have encountered a host of recent troubles. Tensions have erupted with provincial governments, and followers of rebel Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr have clashed with the soldiers.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arrived in Baghdad on Monday on an unannounced visit, ostensibly to "discuss government formation with Iraqi politicians," British Embassy spokeswoman Lisa Glover said.
Coming from Tehran, the demands for British withdrawal appear to have touched a sore spot within the U.S. administration. American officials have been fretting ever since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 about Iran's growing influence, particularly in the southern provinces.
"Basra is Iraqi territory the last time I checked the map," Khalilzad said during his news conference.
The Iraqi government also has brushed aside Iran's demands as "unacceptable," saying that the approximately 8,000 British troops in Iraq were stationed in the south under a United Nations mandate.
But sentiment in southern Iraq appears to be sharply divergent from that of the central government in Baghdad. On Monday, the local councils in Basra and Maysan provinces called on Iraq to cut ties with Britain.
Times staff writer Borzou Daragahi in Baghdad contributed to this report.
The Seattle Times: A bid to foment democracy in Iran
The Seattle Times: A bid to foment democracy in Iran
A bid to foment democracy in Iran
By Howard LaFranchi
The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON — With Poland's Solidarity movement of the 1980s as its model, the Bush administration wants to boost support for opposition groups inside Iran as a way to counter the actions of the government.
The implicit goal: regime change from within.
With diplomacy having so far failed to stop Iran's nuclear development, and U.S. military action seen as extremely problematic, a consensus is emerging that the only option left is a pro-democracy revolution.
But even as the U.S. urges other countries in the Middle East, or those with close ties to Iran, to join in pressuring for political change there, questions are arising over the effectiveness of internal-change-from-without programs and the degree of grass-roots support inside Iran for opposition groups. There's also the risk of such a plan backfiring.
"There's no doubt Iran has a very vibrant civil society and a growing and active youth population. But how to translate those strengths into political change — and whether the U.S. can be the external driver for that change — are big hurdles to cross," says Bahman Baktiari, a Middle East specialist at the University of Maine.
Baktiari says one problem is that because of Iranians' widespread disdain for U.S. policies — including those in Iraq — "any group identified with the U.S. loses credibility."
Beyond that, he adds, the comparison to Poland is not a good one because the Iranian regime is not as weak as Poland's dictatorship was when Solidarity challenged it.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week asked Congress for $75 million in emergency funding to immediately begin ratcheting up support for pro-democracy forces inside Iran.
The view in the administration, according to State Department officials, is that the time is ripe for such action — and for getting other countries to go along. Iran is now widely seen as having crossed "red lines," as Rice says, with its return to nuclear fuel enrichment and with repeated provocative outbursts against Israel from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The money will go toward boosting broadcasts in Farsi to Iran, support for opposition groups, and student exchanges. Rice will promote the plan this week during stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Other officials will take up the cause with Western allies — considered ready to challenge Iran after it rebuffed diplomatic efforts by Britain, France and Germany to negotiate a settlement to the nuclear crisis.
There's a risk that outside pressure for change could actually bolster the regime. U.S. efforts to build an internal opposition to Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez, for example, are widely credited with having solidified support for the populist leader by allowing him to attack his opponents as U.S. stooges.
"If the administration follows the path of putting money into opposition groups in a public way, that will only reinforce Iran's supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] and his selected president, Mr. Ahmadinejad," says Raymond Tanter, a National Security Council Middle East specialist during the first Bush administration. "They will be tarred by association" with the U.S.
The U.S. may be forced to look again, he says, at the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), a longtime opposition group to the Iran regime that is also on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
"Other opposition groups really don't exist," says Tanter, who spent four months studying Iran's opposition before reaching that conclusion. "If we are serious about working with groups from within, it will have to be with the MEK, because there's no other opposition force the regime cares about."
Last month, Rice repeated publicly the U.S. policy of not working with the MEK. The group is accused of terrorist acts, including killing American citizens working in Iran in the 1970s. But several members of Congress are pressing to remove the MEK from the terror-group list, and Tanter sees "the door opening" in the administration to renewed recognition of the group.
The Council for Democratic Change in Iran, based in Washington, welcomes signs of external support for Iran's opposition, says spokesman Mehdi Marand. But the Bush administration approach is not the most productive, he adds.
"The problem right now is not financial, it's political," he says. "If the U.S. really wants to help the democratic forces inside Iran, the only way is to remove restrictions from the opposition."
Others say U.S. association with the MEK would be unwise. The MEK lost credibility and support among Iranians when it received support and sanctuary from Saddam Hussein, says Baktiari.
A bid to foment democracy in Iran
By Howard LaFranchi
The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON — With Poland's Solidarity movement of the 1980s as its model, the Bush administration wants to boost support for opposition groups inside Iran as a way to counter the actions of the government.
The implicit goal: regime change from within.
With diplomacy having so far failed to stop Iran's nuclear development, and U.S. military action seen as extremely problematic, a consensus is emerging that the only option left is a pro-democracy revolution.
But even as the U.S. urges other countries in the Middle East, or those with close ties to Iran, to join in pressuring for political change there, questions are arising over the effectiveness of internal-change-from-without programs and the degree of grass-roots support inside Iran for opposition groups. There's also the risk of such a plan backfiring.
"There's no doubt Iran has a very vibrant civil society and a growing and active youth population. But how to translate those strengths into political change — and whether the U.S. can be the external driver for that change — are big hurdles to cross," says Bahman Baktiari, a Middle East specialist at the University of Maine.
Baktiari says one problem is that because of Iranians' widespread disdain for U.S. policies — including those in Iraq — "any group identified with the U.S. loses credibility."
Beyond that, he adds, the comparison to Poland is not a good one because the Iranian regime is not as weak as Poland's dictatorship was when Solidarity challenged it.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week asked Congress for $75 million in emergency funding to immediately begin ratcheting up support for pro-democracy forces inside Iran.
The view in the administration, according to State Department officials, is that the time is ripe for such action — and for getting other countries to go along. Iran is now widely seen as having crossed "red lines," as Rice says, with its return to nuclear fuel enrichment and with repeated provocative outbursts against Israel from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The money will go toward boosting broadcasts in Farsi to Iran, support for opposition groups, and student exchanges. Rice will promote the plan this week during stops in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Other officials will take up the cause with Western allies — considered ready to challenge Iran after it rebuffed diplomatic efforts by Britain, France and Germany to negotiate a settlement to the nuclear crisis.
There's a risk that outside pressure for change could actually bolster the regime. U.S. efforts to build an internal opposition to Venezuela's President Hugo Chávez, for example, are widely credited with having solidified support for the populist leader by allowing him to attack his opponents as U.S. stooges.
"If the administration follows the path of putting money into opposition groups in a public way, that will only reinforce Iran's supreme leader [Ayatollah Ali Khamenei] and his selected president, Mr. Ahmadinejad," says Raymond Tanter, a National Security Council Middle East specialist during the first Bush administration. "They will be tarred by association" with the U.S.
The U.S. may be forced to look again, he says, at the People's Mujahedeen of Iran (MEK), a longtime opposition group to the Iran regime that is also on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.
"Other opposition groups really don't exist," says Tanter, who spent four months studying Iran's opposition before reaching that conclusion. "If we are serious about working with groups from within, it will have to be with the MEK, because there's no other opposition force the regime cares about."
Last month, Rice repeated publicly the U.S. policy of not working with the MEK. The group is accused of terrorist acts, including killing American citizens working in Iran in the 1970s. But several members of Congress are pressing to remove the MEK from the terror-group list, and Tanter sees "the door opening" in the administration to renewed recognition of the group.
The Council for Democratic Change in Iran, based in Washington, welcomes signs of external support for Iran's opposition, says spokesman Mehdi Marand. But the Bush administration approach is not the most productive, he adds.
"The problem right now is not financial, it's political," he says. "If the U.S. really wants to help the democratic forces inside Iran, the only way is to remove restrictions from the opposition."
Others say U.S. association with the MEK would be unwise. The MEK lost credibility and support among Iranians when it received support and sanctuary from Saddam Hussein, says Baktiari.
Sino Russian Trade Soars
Sino Russian Trade Soars
Sino Russian Trade Soars
by Dmitry Kosyrev
UPI Outside View Commentator
Moscow, Russia (UPI) Feb 19, 2006
A report about the record scale of Sino-Russian trade, which reached $29 billion in 2005 -- a 37.1 percent increase -- came out in December and was supplemented in the first two months of this year. Importantly, during this period bilateral trade has been scrutinized in the context of the upcoming visit of the Russian president to China.
The report's conclusion is that during Putin's presidency Sino-Russian trade has more than tripled. The point of departure is 2000, with the volume of trade amounting to $8.3 billion. The Russian economy has also grown, but not to such an extent. In other words, Sino-Russian commerce is surpassing Russia's economic growth as a whole.
China is not the only case in point. Trade with France has also almost tripled, reaching $9 billion a year.
But these rates have not turned France into Russia's second trade partner after Germany. This place is occupied by China. It is difficult to quote accurate data because Russia and China have always engaged in border trade, which is estimated at several billion dollars on top of the official figure and makes the statistics extremely confusing.
It is no surprise that Asia's importance for Russia is rapidly growing. Asia is attracting greater attention from the rest of the world as well.
The question of who it is better to trade with -- East or West -- does not depend on political preferences but is the choice of the market's invisible hand. Otherwise, why was there so much talk under former President Boris Yeltsin about the need to cross the $10 billion mark in Sino-Russian trade, a target which seemed unrealistic and was not achieved at that time?
After the year 2000, however, the situation underwent a dramatic change. Bilateral trade virtually doubled between 2003 and 2005, a rare case in world practice.
Nevertheless, although China has become Russia's second partner after Germany, the reverse is not true. Russia's share in China's entire trade is a little over 2 percent. In other words, Moscow depends more on Beijing than the other way round. It is not easy to level out this imbalance.
Mutual economic dependence is a coveted target in international relations because it makes them stable, peaceful and predictable. Sino-U.S. relations are one example. In theory, the two countries should be extremely tense as many Americans are horrified by the prospect of China replacing the United States as the world's economic leader within the next 25-45 years. But in reality, Beijing and Washington treat each other with care.
Out of China's 863 large commercial airplanes, 534 are Boeings, for which the United States received $40 billion. A considerable portion of Boeing spare parts found all over the world are assembled in China. Moreover, China has already credited the U.S. economy with $300 billion, having bought securities from the U.S. Treasury. Even if the two countries are strategic rivals, this does not prevent them from being locked in a strong economic embrace.
Despite its trade record with China, Russia is not as economically important for China as the U.S. But China certainly needs Russia.
The latest statistics of bilateral trade show the share of raw materials (oil, timber, fish, metals) in Russia's exports to China is on the upsurge. In 2005, this figure reached almost 90 percent of Russia's overall exports to China. As for oil deliveries, Russia is China's fifth-largest partner after Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman and Angola.
But China cannot export raw materials because it has none. Instead, it has recently become the world's assembly shop. Both Moscow and Beijing are trying to find out a roundabout way of overcoming this unpleasant trend. Both sides want to make Russia's exports of raw materials more science-intensive.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao agreed to draft a program on bilateral trade and economic cooperation for 2006-2010. Today, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Chinese Ministry of Trade are working on this program. The document will be practically completed by the time of Putin's forthcoming visit to China.
The main goals of the plan are to at least double bilateral trade again to reach $60 billion by 2010, and attract $12 billion worth of Chinese investment to the Russian economy. These objectives require a change in the entire pattern of bilateral trade.
Russia will not amend its intention to increase oil supplies to China. The amount, carried by trains alone, will be brought to 15 million tons. But apart from exporting oil, Russia is capable of offering energy generation technologies and these matters are now on the agenda.
The same applies to timber exports. Chinese investments in Eastern Siberia will make it possible to process timber on the spot into products required by China, such as cellulose for paper. For Russia's eastern region this is one step up on the technological ladder.
In short, Moscow wants to focus on science-intensive and technologically advanced projects in cooperation with China, even in the sphere of raw materials. The two countries will achieve the new record targets in trade only if they make technological upgrades, which in turn will promote their political rapport.
Dmitry Kosyrev is a political commentator for the RIA Novosti news agency. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.
Source: United Press International
Sino Russian Trade Soars
by Dmitry Kosyrev
UPI Outside View Commentator
Moscow, Russia (UPI) Feb 19, 2006
A report about the record scale of Sino-Russian trade, which reached $29 billion in 2005 -- a 37.1 percent increase -- came out in December and was supplemented in the first two months of this year. Importantly, during this period bilateral trade has been scrutinized in the context of the upcoming visit of the Russian president to China.
The report's conclusion is that during Putin's presidency Sino-Russian trade has more than tripled. The point of departure is 2000, with the volume of trade amounting to $8.3 billion. The Russian economy has also grown, but not to such an extent. In other words, Sino-Russian commerce is surpassing Russia's economic growth as a whole.
China is not the only case in point. Trade with France has also almost tripled, reaching $9 billion a year.
But these rates have not turned France into Russia's second trade partner after Germany. This place is occupied by China. It is difficult to quote accurate data because Russia and China have always engaged in border trade, which is estimated at several billion dollars on top of the official figure and makes the statistics extremely confusing.
It is no surprise that Asia's importance for Russia is rapidly growing. Asia is attracting greater attention from the rest of the world as well.
The question of who it is better to trade with -- East or West -- does not depend on political preferences but is the choice of the market's invisible hand. Otherwise, why was there so much talk under former President Boris Yeltsin about the need to cross the $10 billion mark in Sino-Russian trade, a target which seemed unrealistic and was not achieved at that time?
After the year 2000, however, the situation underwent a dramatic change. Bilateral trade virtually doubled between 2003 and 2005, a rare case in world practice.
Nevertheless, although China has become Russia's second partner after Germany, the reverse is not true. Russia's share in China's entire trade is a little over 2 percent. In other words, Moscow depends more on Beijing than the other way round. It is not easy to level out this imbalance.
Mutual economic dependence is a coveted target in international relations because it makes them stable, peaceful and predictable. Sino-U.S. relations are one example. In theory, the two countries should be extremely tense as many Americans are horrified by the prospect of China replacing the United States as the world's economic leader within the next 25-45 years. But in reality, Beijing and Washington treat each other with care.
Out of China's 863 large commercial airplanes, 534 are Boeings, for which the United States received $40 billion. A considerable portion of Boeing spare parts found all over the world are assembled in China. Moreover, China has already credited the U.S. economy with $300 billion, having bought securities from the U.S. Treasury. Even if the two countries are strategic rivals, this does not prevent them from being locked in a strong economic embrace.
Despite its trade record with China, Russia is not as economically important for China as the U.S. But China certainly needs Russia.
The latest statistics of bilateral trade show the share of raw materials (oil, timber, fish, metals) in Russia's exports to China is on the upsurge. In 2005, this figure reached almost 90 percent of Russia's overall exports to China. As for oil deliveries, Russia is China's fifth-largest partner after Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman and Angola.
But China cannot export raw materials because it has none. Instead, it has recently become the world's assembly shop. Both Moscow and Beijing are trying to find out a roundabout way of overcoming this unpleasant trend. Both sides want to make Russia's exports of raw materials more science-intensive.
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao agreed to draft a program on bilateral trade and economic cooperation for 2006-2010. Today, the Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and the Chinese Ministry of Trade are working on this program. The document will be practically completed by the time of Putin's forthcoming visit to China.
The main goals of the plan are to at least double bilateral trade again to reach $60 billion by 2010, and attract $12 billion worth of Chinese investment to the Russian economy. These objectives require a change in the entire pattern of bilateral trade.
Russia will not amend its intention to increase oil supplies to China. The amount, carried by trains alone, will be brought to 15 million tons. But apart from exporting oil, Russia is capable of offering energy generation technologies and these matters are now on the agenda.
The same applies to timber exports. Chinese investments in Eastern Siberia will make it possible to process timber on the spot into products required by China, such as cellulose for paper. For Russia's eastern region this is one step up on the technological ladder.
In short, Moscow wants to focus on science-intensive and technologically advanced projects in cooperation with China, even in the sphere of raw materials. The two countries will achieve the new record targets in trade only if they make technological upgrades, which in turn will promote their political rapport.
Dmitry Kosyrev is a political commentator for the RIA Novosti news agency. This article is reprinted by permission of RIA Novosti. United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.
Source: United Press International
US Signals Trade Row With China
US Signals Trade Row With China
US Signals Trade Row With China
by Staff Writers
by Donna Borak
UPI Business Correspondent
Washington (UPI) Feb 20, 2006 The United States signaled its intent to seek "trade measures" against China if Beijing does not take steps to adequately open its market to U.S. companies.
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Karan Bhatia told the BBC's The World This Weekend the United States was "perfectly prepared" to use trade sanctions and retaliatory force to coerce Beijing into granting U.S. companies more access to China's domestic market.
While China has vigorously warned that trade sanctions by the United States would cause damage to both countries, the United States has contended that Beijing has "benefited enormously" from gaining access to U.S. markets and should be held accountable to its World Trade Organization obligations.
While Bhatia said the United States would work to ensure that Beijing treated U.S. companies fairly by offering a level playing field, he added that Washington would not directly restrict Chinese companies from accessing the U.S. market.
"We are not going to resort to protectionism. The answer is not going to be to shut down U.S. markets or to build up walls around our border," said Bhatia.
The United States indicated last week that it would be revising its strategy with China after the release of its "top-to-bottom" review of U.S. trade policies with Beijing.
"As a mature trading partner, China should be held accountable for its actions and required to live up to its responsibilities, including enforcing intellectual property rights, allowing market forces to drive economic development and opening its markets," said Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative at a news conference last week. "We will use all options available to meet this challenge."
Portman, who described Washington's trade relationship with Beijing as "out-of-balance," said the United States would pursue a new strategy with its Chinese counterparts, especially as Beijing edges closer to an imminent deadline to complete its accession agreement to the World Trade Organization. China acceded to the WTO in 2001. At the end of this year, it is expected to move out of its transition period and will be required to come into compliance with all WTO trading rules.
The Bush administration's new strategy will include increasing monitoring enforcement of intellectual property rights and setting up a task force headed by a new chief counsel for China.
While the administration has been criticized by Congress for its lax enforcement policies with China, the administration asserted last week that it would be willing to pursue WTO cases and other domestic enforcement practices to hold China responsible to its trade commitments.
Congressional members also voiced strong concern last week during both the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committee hearings over the United States' handling of intellectual property rights enforcement, China's currency manipulation and the growing bilateral trade deficit.
According to figures by the U.S. Department of Commerce released earlier this month, the U.S.-Sino trade deficit reached an all-time high of $201.6 billion last year. While the Bush administration has defended its trade policy, arguing that the growing bilateral trade deficit has been the result of macroeconomic factors like the U.S. savings rate compared to China's savings rate, congressional members called on the administration to take serious action.
"The key point is that China must live up to its commitments and to its responsibilities as a major beneficiary of the global trading system," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance committee, during a hearing last Thursday.
Grassley expressed growing frustration over the lack of progress made on China's currency, as well as, Beijing's efforts to comply on intellectual property rights and trade enforcement. The Republican senator, who has refrained from pursuing any legislation against the Chinese government for its unfair trading practices, said he would be seeking to introduce legislation soon to address the current problems in U.S.-Sino trade relations.
Aside from the growing trade deficit, trade relations between Washington and Beijing have been strained due to Beijing's unwillingness to show flexibility in its current exchange policy. U.S. pressure by the administration has been low-key since July when China agreed to revalue its currency by 2 percent, breaking its decade-long peg to the U.S. dollar.
U.S. Secretary of Treasury John Snow said last week that his department is likely to accuse China formally of being a "currency manipulator" in its next report on trade and exchange rates, arguing Beijing's reformed currency regime introduced last summer has not led to greater flexibility. The U.S. Treasury report is due out next month.
Source: United Press International
related report
U.S. Revamps China Trade Policy
Washington (UPI) Feb 14 - With Beijing edging closer to an imminent deadline to complete its accession agreement to the World Trade Organization by the end of this year, the Bush administration signaled Tuesday a new phase in its trade relationship with China.
"As a mature trading partner, China should be held accountable for its actions and required to live up to its responsibilities, including enforcing intellectual property rights, allowing market forces to drive economic development and opening its markets," Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative, told reporters at a news conference. "We will use all options available to meet this challenge."
Portman, who pledged nearly nine months ago during his nomination hearings to give a "top-to-bottom" review of U.S. trade policies with China, said the administration would be revising its trade policy with Beijing in order to level the playing field and create further market openings for U.S. businesses.
The administration unveiled a 26-page report, which was sent to members of Congress and the Chinese government, detailing its upcoming strategy which would include stepping up efforts to monitor enforcement of intellectual property rights, setting up a task force headed by a new chief counsel for China, strengthening Washington's information collection on enforcement and expanding trade negotiating capacity in Beijing.
"As China nears the end of its transition period as a new WTO member, we are entering a new phase in our bilateral trade relationship, and we must readjust our trade priorities and resources accordingly," wrote Portman, in a letter to the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Finance committee and House Ways and Means committee.
China acceded to the WTO in 2001. At the end of this year, it is expected to move out of its transition period and will be held accountable by all WTO trading rules.
Members of Congress have launched a heated debate over U.S. trade policies with China, citing a burgeoning trade deficit, which reached a record high of $725.8 billion last week and a $201.6 billion trade imbalance with China, the largest in history.
Ranking members have been calling for legislative action to force China to float its currency, enforce intellectual property rights and force China to make economic reforms in order to lower the trade deficit, which they claim has resulted in a massive job loss for the U.S. manufacturing industry.
However, the administration argues that with three consecutive years of growing U.S. exports to China averaging 20 percent and a slight decrease in the U.S.-Sino trade gap from 54 percent to 47 percent, according to numbers prepared by the administration, the U.S. trade deficit cannot solely be blamed on Washington's trade policies with Beijing without accounting for macroeconomic factors.
While Portman attempted to disavow the link between U.S. practices in China to the trade deficit, he also cautioned that the gap in the trade imbalance was in part due to China's failure to abide by its WTO commitments on intellectual property, market access and protection of domestic industries.
House Democrats were critical of the administration's top-to-bottom review. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. said the administration's report was missing "hard-headed analysis" on why the U.S.-Sino trade relationship had become "so one-sided."
Rep. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., ranking Democrat for the subcommittee on trade for the House Ways and Means committee described the administration's report as more promises by the White House, rather than a strategy to tackle China trade issues.
"The administration promises no new enforcement of trade laws, no new action in the WTO, and no further steps to combat China's unfair practices. The time for monitoring and bureaucracy has passed, we need to take action to stand up for American workers," said Cardin, in a released statement.
Portman, who described Washington's trade relationship with Beijing as "out-of-balance" and in need of more cooperation and more efficient enforcement, said he would work expeditiously on WTO cases, if it was in the best interest of the United States.
The administration was criticized last week for its lax enforcement practices and a drop in the number of WTO cases pursued. However, it asserted Tuesday it would pursue cases and other domestic enforcement practices to hold China accountable to its WTO commitments.
"If China does not take affirmative steps to address other outstanding issues, including its inadequate protection of intellectual property rights and its rules that discriminate against imported auto parts, we are prepared to pursue legal options in those cases as well," said Portman.
Source: United Press International
US Signals Trade Row With China
by Staff Writers
by Donna Borak
UPI Business Correspondent
Washington (UPI) Feb 20, 2006 The United States signaled its intent to seek "trade measures" against China if Beijing does not take steps to adequately open its market to U.S. companies.
Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Karan Bhatia told the BBC's The World This Weekend the United States was "perfectly prepared" to use trade sanctions and retaliatory force to coerce Beijing into granting U.S. companies more access to China's domestic market.
While China has vigorously warned that trade sanctions by the United States would cause damage to both countries, the United States has contended that Beijing has "benefited enormously" from gaining access to U.S. markets and should be held accountable to its World Trade Organization obligations.
While Bhatia said the United States would work to ensure that Beijing treated U.S. companies fairly by offering a level playing field, he added that Washington would not directly restrict Chinese companies from accessing the U.S. market.
"We are not going to resort to protectionism. The answer is not going to be to shut down U.S. markets or to build up walls around our border," said Bhatia.
The United States indicated last week that it would be revising its strategy with China after the release of its "top-to-bottom" review of U.S. trade policies with Beijing.
"As a mature trading partner, China should be held accountable for its actions and required to live up to its responsibilities, including enforcing intellectual property rights, allowing market forces to drive economic development and opening its markets," said Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative at a news conference last week. "We will use all options available to meet this challenge."
Portman, who described Washington's trade relationship with Beijing as "out-of-balance," said the United States would pursue a new strategy with its Chinese counterparts, especially as Beijing edges closer to an imminent deadline to complete its accession agreement to the World Trade Organization. China acceded to the WTO in 2001. At the end of this year, it is expected to move out of its transition period and will be required to come into compliance with all WTO trading rules.
The Bush administration's new strategy will include increasing monitoring enforcement of intellectual property rights and setting up a task force headed by a new chief counsel for China.
While the administration has been criticized by Congress for its lax enforcement policies with China, the administration asserted last week that it would be willing to pursue WTO cases and other domestic enforcement practices to hold China responsible to its trade commitments.
Congressional members also voiced strong concern last week during both the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committee hearings over the United States' handling of intellectual property rights enforcement, China's currency manipulation and the growing bilateral trade deficit.
According to figures by the U.S. Department of Commerce released earlier this month, the U.S.-Sino trade deficit reached an all-time high of $201.6 billion last year. While the Bush administration has defended its trade policy, arguing that the growing bilateral trade deficit has been the result of macroeconomic factors like the U.S. savings rate compared to China's savings rate, congressional members called on the administration to take serious action.
"The key point is that China must live up to its commitments and to its responsibilities as a major beneficiary of the global trading system," said Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance committee, during a hearing last Thursday.
Grassley expressed growing frustration over the lack of progress made on China's currency, as well as, Beijing's efforts to comply on intellectual property rights and trade enforcement. The Republican senator, who has refrained from pursuing any legislation against the Chinese government for its unfair trading practices, said he would be seeking to introduce legislation soon to address the current problems in U.S.-Sino trade relations.
Aside from the growing trade deficit, trade relations between Washington and Beijing have been strained due to Beijing's unwillingness to show flexibility in its current exchange policy. U.S. pressure by the administration has been low-key since July when China agreed to revalue its currency by 2 percent, breaking its decade-long peg to the U.S. dollar.
U.S. Secretary of Treasury John Snow said last week that his department is likely to accuse China formally of being a "currency manipulator" in its next report on trade and exchange rates, arguing Beijing's reformed currency regime introduced last summer has not led to greater flexibility. The U.S. Treasury report is due out next month.
Source: United Press International
related report
U.S. Revamps China Trade Policy
Washington (UPI) Feb 14 - With Beijing edging closer to an imminent deadline to complete its accession agreement to the World Trade Organization by the end of this year, the Bush administration signaled Tuesday a new phase in its trade relationship with China.
"As a mature trading partner, China should be held accountable for its actions and required to live up to its responsibilities, including enforcing intellectual property rights, allowing market forces to drive economic development and opening its markets," Rob Portman, U.S. Trade Representative, told reporters at a news conference. "We will use all options available to meet this challenge."
Portman, who pledged nearly nine months ago during his nomination hearings to give a "top-to-bottom" review of U.S. trade policies with China, said the administration would be revising its trade policy with Beijing in order to level the playing field and create further market openings for U.S. businesses.
The administration unveiled a 26-page report, which was sent to members of Congress and the Chinese government, detailing its upcoming strategy which would include stepping up efforts to monitor enforcement of intellectual property rights, setting up a task force headed by a new chief counsel for China, strengthening Washington's information collection on enforcement and expanding trade negotiating capacity in Beijing.
"As China nears the end of its transition period as a new WTO member, we are entering a new phase in our bilateral trade relationship, and we must readjust our trade priorities and resources accordingly," wrote Portman, in a letter to the chairman and ranking members of the Senate Finance committee and House Ways and Means committee.
China acceded to the WTO in 2001. At the end of this year, it is expected to move out of its transition period and will be held accountable by all WTO trading rules.
Members of Congress have launched a heated debate over U.S. trade policies with China, citing a burgeoning trade deficit, which reached a record high of $725.8 billion last week and a $201.6 billion trade imbalance with China, the largest in history.
Ranking members have been calling for legislative action to force China to float its currency, enforce intellectual property rights and force China to make economic reforms in order to lower the trade deficit, which they claim has resulted in a massive job loss for the U.S. manufacturing industry.
However, the administration argues that with three consecutive years of growing U.S. exports to China averaging 20 percent and a slight decrease in the U.S.-Sino trade gap from 54 percent to 47 percent, according to numbers prepared by the administration, the U.S. trade deficit cannot solely be blamed on Washington's trade policies with Beijing without accounting for macroeconomic factors.
While Portman attempted to disavow the link between U.S. practices in China to the trade deficit, he also cautioned that the gap in the trade imbalance was in part due to China's failure to abide by its WTO commitments on intellectual property, market access and protection of domestic industries.
House Democrats were critical of the administration's top-to-bottom review. Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich. said the administration's report was missing "hard-headed analysis" on why the U.S.-Sino trade relationship had become "so one-sided."
Rep. Benjamin Cardin, D-Md., ranking Democrat for the subcommittee on trade for the House Ways and Means committee described the administration's report as more promises by the White House, rather than a strategy to tackle China trade issues.
"The administration promises no new enforcement of trade laws, no new action in the WTO, and no further steps to combat China's unfair practices. The time for monitoring and bureaucracy has passed, we need to take action to stand up for American workers," said Cardin, in a released statement.
Portman, who described Washington's trade relationship with Beijing as "out-of-balance" and in need of more cooperation and more efficient enforcement, said he would work expeditiously on WTO cases, if it was in the best interest of the United States.
The administration was criticized last week for its lax enforcement practices and a drop in the number of WTO cases pursued. However, it asserted Tuesday it would pursue cases and other domestic enforcement practices to hold China accountable to its WTO commitments.
"If China does not take affirmative steps to address other outstanding issues, including its inadequate protection of intellectual property rights and its rules that discriminate against imported auto parts, we are prepared to pursue legal options in those cases as well," said Portman.
Source: United Press International
Metal Storm And ST Kinetics Fire High Explosive Stacked Rounds
Metal Storm And ST Kinetics Fire High Explosive Stacked Rounds
Metal Storm And ST Kinetics Fire High Explosive Stacked Rounds
by Staff Writers
Singapore (SPX) Feb 20, 2006
Metal Storm and Singapore Technologies Kinetics are pleased to announce the successful firing of a range of jointly-developed, stacked configuration low velocity 40 mm electrically ignited munitions (EIM). The firings included high explosive (HE) munitions; enhanced blast explosive (EBX) munitions and air burst munitions (ABM). Less than lethal (LTL) munitions development will be undertaken in the future.
The firings follow from a teaming agreement that was signed by both parties in September 2005 to co-develop, produce and market 40 mm munitions for Metal Storm weapon systems. The agreement also provides for a broader relationship in which ST Kinetics would market Metal Storm 40 mm weapons systems in selected markets.
The firings, which were completed last week at ST Kinetics' Bukit Timah range in Singapore, validate the compatibility between Metal Storm's stacked round technology and selected ST Kinetics' commercially available warheads.
"ST Kinetics is keen to become a total solutions provider for 40 mm munitions, encompassing both lethal and less than lethal products. We are delighted with the results of our joint developments and their compatibility with Metal Storm's weapon systems. We look forward to capitalising on these initial achievements to further the commercial opportunities between our companies under our teaming agreement." Sew Chee Jhuen, Deputy President (Operations) and President Defence Business, ST Kinetics
"The significance of these firings is that we can now take selected ST Kinetics commercially available, off the shelf warheads and combine them with our own stacked munitions technology to provide an expanding suite of explosive and less than lethal munitions. The ability to use ST Kinetics' off the shelf warheads is a major commercial step for the company. It positions us to demonstrate a range of sele
Metal Storm And ST Kinetics Fire High Explosive Stacked Rounds
by Staff Writers
Singapore (SPX) Feb 20, 2006
Metal Storm and Singapore Technologies Kinetics are pleased to announce the successful firing of a range of jointly-developed, stacked configuration low velocity 40 mm electrically ignited munitions (EIM). The firings included high explosive (HE) munitions; enhanced blast explosive (EBX) munitions and air burst munitions (ABM). Less than lethal (LTL) munitions development will be undertaken in the future.
The firings follow from a teaming agreement that was signed by both parties in September 2005 to co-develop, produce and market 40 mm munitions for Metal Storm weapon systems. The agreement also provides for a broader relationship in which ST Kinetics would market Metal Storm 40 mm weapons systems in selected markets.
The firings, which were completed last week at ST Kinetics' Bukit Timah range in Singapore, validate the compatibility between Metal Storm's stacked round technology and selected ST Kinetics' commercially available warheads.
"ST Kinetics is keen to become a total solutions provider for 40 mm munitions, encompassing both lethal and less than lethal products. We are delighted with the results of our joint developments and their compatibility with Metal Storm's weapon systems. We look forward to capitalising on these initial achievements to further the commercial opportunities between our companies under our teaming agreement." Sew Chee Jhuen, Deputy President (Operations) and President Defence Business, ST Kinetics
"The significance of these firings is that we can now take selected ST Kinetics commercially available, off the shelf warheads and combine them with our own stacked munitions technology to provide an expanding suite of explosive and less than lethal munitions. The ability to use ST Kinetics' off the shelf warheads is a major commercial step for the company. It positions us to demonstrate a range of sele