by Maxim KniazkovSat Aug 19, 6:33 AM ET
The United States has named a special "manager" for its intelligence operations against Cuba and Venezuela, in effect putting the two Latin American nations on a par with "axis of evil" states confronted on multiple levels by the administration of President George W. Bush.
North Korea and Iran are the only other countries that have been assigned so-called "mission managers," who supervise intelligence operations against them on what the office of national intelligence director called "a strategic level."
In a statement released Friday, the office of National Intelligence Director John Negroponte said the manager would be responsible "for integrating collection and analysis on Cuba and Venezuela across the intelligence community" and "ensuring the implementation of strategies" that have not been disclosed.
"Such efforts are critical today, as policymakers have increasingly focused on the challenges that Cuba and Venezuela pose to American foreign policy," the statement said.
The director's office said the manager would also be asked to ensure "that policymakers have a full range of timely and accurate intelligence on which to base their decisions."
The document did not say what kind of decisions US officials could be making with regard to either of the targeted countries.
For the moment, the task of handling the Havana-Caracas axis fell to 32-year Central Intelligence Agency veteran J. Patrick Maher, whose previous job was deputy director of the CIA's Office of Policy Support.
His biographical sketch supplied in the announcement indicates he was one of the architects of the CIA's current counterterrorism strategy in violence-torn Colombia and managed the agency's operations in the Caribbean basin.
It was not immediately known whether he was directly involved in planning the 1983 US invasion of Grenada in response of a feared Cuban-backed leftist takeover of the island nation.
The statement made it clear, however, that Maher would be only an "acting" manager while search for a permanent candidate for the job was under way.
The decision to name an interim mission manager appeared to betray a sense of urgency in the Bush administration now that Cuba has entered a period of political uncertainty due to an illness of its longtime communist leader, Fidel Castro.
Castro stunned the world on July 31, when he announced he had temporary ceded his presidential powers and the Communist Party leadership to brother Raul Castro, the defense minister, following his gastrointestinal surgery.
Earlier Friday, Raul Castro announced the mobilization of tens of thousands of troops in response to activities by those he called US "war hawks."
The Bush administration has bolstered its propaganda broadcasts to the island in the wake of Castro's illness. Earlier, it announced a plan to spend 80 million dollars in new money to bring about a pro-Western government in Cuba.
On Friday, it rejected the Cuban transition plan, with State Department spokesman Tom Casey insisting that "some kind of dynastic succession on the island are certainly things that are not only not acceptable to us but we think in the long run aren't going to be acceptable to the Cuban people either."
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a key ally of Castro and the chief supplier of oil to Cuba, said he believed Maher's appointment was also linked to presidential elections that are scheduled in Venezuela for December and that Chavez is widely expected to win.
"This shows us that the empire does not rest, that it is hatching a plan for December or a period before December," the Venezuelan leader told reporters. "But whatever it is, we will thwart it."
Saturday, August 19, 2006
on the lighter side of things.....Man trapped waist-deep in chocolate
Sat Aug 19, 9:36 AM ET
It might sound like a chocoholic's dream, but stepping into a vat of viscous chocolate became a two-hour nightmare for a 21-year-old man Friday morning. Darmin Garcia, an employee of a company that supplies chocolate ingredients, said he was pushing the chocolate down into the vat at Debelis Corp. because it was stuck. But it became loose and he slid into the hopper.
"It was in my hair, in my ears, my mouth, everywhere," said Garcia, who has worked at the company for two years. "I felt like I weighed 900 pounds. I couldn't move."
The chocolate was 110 degrees, hotter than a hot tub, said Capt. Greg Sinnen of the Kenosha Fire Department.
Co-workers, police and firefighters tried to free the man but couldn't get him loose until the chocolate was thinned out with cocoa butter.
"It was pretty thick. It was virtually like quicksand," said police Capt. Randy Berner.
Garcia was treated for minor injuries and released.
After more than two hours in the chocolate, does he still have a taste for it?
"Not so much anymore," Garcia said.
It might sound like a chocoholic's dream, but stepping into a vat of viscous chocolate became a two-hour nightmare for a 21-year-old man Friday morning. Darmin Garcia, an employee of a company that supplies chocolate ingredients, said he was pushing the chocolate down into the vat at Debelis Corp. because it was stuck. But it became loose and he slid into the hopper.
"It was in my hair, in my ears, my mouth, everywhere," said Garcia, who has worked at the company for two years. "I felt like I weighed 900 pounds. I couldn't move."
The chocolate was 110 degrees, hotter than a hot tub, said Capt. Greg Sinnen of the Kenosha Fire Department.
Co-workers, police and firefighters tried to free the man but couldn't get him loose until the chocolate was thinned out with cocoa butter.
"It was pretty thick. It was virtually like quicksand," said police Capt. Randy Berner.
Garcia was treated for minor injuries and released.
After more than two hours in the chocolate, does he still have a taste for it?
"Not so much anymore," Garcia said.
A Shaken Landscape
A Shaken Landscape
With a cease-fire in place between Israel and Hezbollah, it's in neither party's interest to resume the fight. The reasons why amount to a dangerous new reality for Israel.
By Robert Padavick, Hot Zone senior producer, Thu Aug 17, 2:15 PM ET
Editor's Note: To better understand what's next for the Mideast in the aftermath of the recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Hot Zone Senior Producer Robert Padavick spoke with Yahoo! News consultant Milt Bearden. In a career spanning three decades, Bearden headed the
CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe Division and served as station chief in places like Pakistan and Sudan. He also ran the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan from 1986-1989.
With a cease-fire taking hold after over a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, parties loyal to both sides are claiming victory. For former senior CIA official Milt Bearden, the winners and losers are clear.
"Where it counts, Hezbollah is clearly the winner," Bearden says. "For Israel ... not winning is losing. And for an irregular force like Hezbollah, not losing is winning."
Now retired, Bearden serves on the board of directors of Conflicts Forum, a U.K.-based nongovernmental organization that works to foster dialogue between Islamist groups and the West. That role has included talks with Hezbollah officials about the group's transition to a more political focus.
Bearden stresses that with fighting over it is in neither Hezbollah's nor Israel's interest to restart it — but for very different reasons. Those differences could partially guide the relative strategies for Israel and Hezbollah as the dust settles in the Middle East.
Hezbollah, Bearden says, now is in prime position for further political gain in Lebanon. The group already has a strong presence in the Lebanese parliament through an alliance with another Shiite group, the Amal Party.
"[Hezbollah] executed their side of the war to the extent that they are national heroes right now," Bearden says. "I think you're going to see that Hezbollah will be a big winner politically."
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is already taking steps to seize the momentum, announcing that Hezbollah will immediately begin repairing homes in southern Lebanon and even pay a year's rent to owners of damaged homes. The move underscores the extent to which Hezbollah is ingrained religiously and culturally in Lebanon, especially in the Shiite-dominated south, where the group runs an array of social services, including hospitals and schools.
Bearden says it's also possible that Hezbollah, even after sustaining a fierce Israeli barrage, actually could emerge with an expanded military presence in Lebanon — albeit in a different form.
"It seems to me that what we'd better be on the lookout for is the absorption by the Lebanese army of the military wing of Hezbollah," he says.
After a couple false starts the Lebanese cabinet approved a plan Wednesday to deploy 15,000 Lebanese troops in the south to bolster a United Nations force. Those troops began deploying Thursday. But neither Lebanon nor the U.N. seem to be concretely addressing the issue of disarming Hezbollah, even though a previous U.N. resolution calls for it. Bearden says it's a fallacy to consider that a possibility.
"The very concept of destroying Hezbollah or dismantling it is based on a faulty belief that it is somehow external to the fiber of Lebanon. It is not," he says. "There's nobody tough enough to disarm Hezbollah, or willing to do it if they are tough enough."
The scenario of a politically empowered Hezbollah, with militia remnants integrated in the Lebanese army, would present a dangerous new reality for Israel, which Bearden says is not in a position to restart hostilities against a foe that proved able to withstand its superior military might.
Hezbollah's stand against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), long regarded as a military superpower in the region, amounts to what Bearden calls the "demystification of the IDF." The implications for Israel are serious, in that Hezbollah's success could embolden other groups in the region, particularly the Palestinians, to overcome internal differences and unite against Israel.
"Israeli rule has just taken a huge hit," Bearden says. "I would imagine right now we're going to see serious discussions among Palestinians who say, 'Why not us?'."
Israel, it seems, has few options at the moment. However, there are reports in the Israeli press that Defense Minister Amir Peretz this week hinted at one of them: renewed dialogue with Lebanon, the Palestinians, and even Syria.
Bearden, a staunch advocate for dialogue, even sees the possibility for Israeli dialogue with Iran — although the country is a prime backer of Hezbollah and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.
Still, those on the more "realist side" in Israeli politics, Bearden says, "are going to start saying, 'We need to talk with Iran; we need to talk with Syria.' But also, I can guarantee you, sooner or later they're going to want to talk with Hezbollah and Hamas." Hamas has already proven its political prowess, winning the Palestinian Authority general election in January.
The extent to which the landscape in the Middle East has been shaken is just beginning to emerge. But Israel's fight against Hezbollah, the intent of which was greater security, may have left the country even more on the defensive.
With a cease-fire in place between Israel and Hezbollah, it's in neither party's interest to resume the fight. The reasons why amount to a dangerous new reality for Israel.
By Robert Padavick, Hot Zone senior producer, Thu Aug 17, 2:15 PM ET
Editor's Note: To better understand what's next for the Mideast in the aftermath of the recent fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Hot Zone Senior Producer Robert Padavick spoke with Yahoo! News consultant Milt Bearden. In a career spanning three decades, Bearden headed the
CIA's Soviet and Eastern Europe Division and served as station chief in places like Pakistan and Sudan. He also ran the CIA's covert war in Afghanistan from 1986-1989.
With a cease-fire taking hold after over a month of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, parties loyal to both sides are claiming victory. For former senior CIA official Milt Bearden, the winners and losers are clear.
"Where it counts, Hezbollah is clearly the winner," Bearden says. "For Israel ... not winning is losing. And for an irregular force like Hezbollah, not losing is winning."
Now retired, Bearden serves on the board of directors of Conflicts Forum, a U.K.-based nongovernmental organization that works to foster dialogue between Islamist groups and the West. That role has included talks with Hezbollah officials about the group's transition to a more political focus.
Bearden stresses that with fighting over it is in neither Hezbollah's nor Israel's interest to restart it — but for very different reasons. Those differences could partially guide the relative strategies for Israel and Hezbollah as the dust settles in the Middle East.
Hezbollah, Bearden says, now is in prime position for further political gain in Lebanon. The group already has a strong presence in the Lebanese parliament through an alliance with another Shiite group, the Amal Party.
"[Hezbollah] executed their side of the war to the extent that they are national heroes right now," Bearden says. "I think you're going to see that Hezbollah will be a big winner politically."
Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah is already taking steps to seize the momentum, announcing that Hezbollah will immediately begin repairing homes in southern Lebanon and even pay a year's rent to owners of damaged homes. The move underscores the extent to which Hezbollah is ingrained religiously and culturally in Lebanon, especially in the Shiite-dominated south, where the group runs an array of social services, including hospitals and schools.
Bearden says it's also possible that Hezbollah, even after sustaining a fierce Israeli barrage, actually could emerge with an expanded military presence in Lebanon — albeit in a different form.
"It seems to me that what we'd better be on the lookout for is the absorption by the Lebanese army of the military wing of Hezbollah," he says.
After a couple false starts the Lebanese cabinet approved a plan Wednesday to deploy 15,000 Lebanese troops in the south to bolster a United Nations force. Those troops began deploying Thursday. But neither Lebanon nor the U.N. seem to be concretely addressing the issue of disarming Hezbollah, even though a previous U.N. resolution calls for it. Bearden says it's a fallacy to consider that a possibility.
"The very concept of destroying Hezbollah or dismantling it is based on a faulty belief that it is somehow external to the fiber of Lebanon. It is not," he says. "There's nobody tough enough to disarm Hezbollah, or willing to do it if they are tough enough."
The scenario of a politically empowered Hezbollah, with militia remnants integrated in the Lebanese army, would present a dangerous new reality for Israel, which Bearden says is not in a position to restart hostilities against a foe that proved able to withstand its superior military might.
Hezbollah's stand against the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), long regarded as a military superpower in the region, amounts to what Bearden calls the "demystification of the IDF." The implications for Israel are serious, in that Hezbollah's success could embolden other groups in the region, particularly the Palestinians, to overcome internal differences and unite against Israel.
"Israeli rule has just taken a huge hit," Bearden says. "I would imagine right now we're going to see serious discussions among Palestinians who say, 'Why not us?'."
Israel, it seems, has few options at the moment. However, there are reports in the Israeli press that Defense Minister Amir Peretz this week hinted at one of them: renewed dialogue with Lebanon, the Palestinians, and even Syria.
Bearden, a staunch advocate for dialogue, even sees the possibility for Israeli dialogue with Iran — although the country is a prime backer of Hezbollah and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.
Still, those on the more "realist side" in Israeli politics, Bearden says, "are going to start saying, 'We need to talk with Iran; we need to talk with Syria.' But also, I can guarantee you, sooner or later they're going to want to talk with Hezbollah and Hamas." Hamas has already proven its political prowess, winning the Palestinian Authority general election in January.
The extent to which the landscape in the Middle East has been shaken is just beginning to emerge. But Israel's fight against Hezbollah, the intent of which was greater security, may have left the country even more on the defensive.
Friday Wingnut Roundup (Saturday Edition)
Friday Wingnut Roundup (Saturday Edition)
Gee, do you suppose the wingnuts have anything to say about Judge Diggs Taylor's ruling on the Dear Leader's Terrorist Surveillance Program™? You know, the program that had absolutely nothing to do with the capture of the British terrorists? Count on it (bonus - which one is a quote?):
Ace of Spades - it's all Jimmy Carter's fault.
Ann Althouse - my goodness Judge Taylor was mean to poor President Bush! Do you think the judge is dumb?
Atlas Shrugs - there's a wiretap case? Who knew? I'm busy planning jihad against the U.N. and Kofi Enema and ... GAAAAHHHH!!!
Blue Crab Boulevard - I don't know enough to comment on Judge Taylor's decision, so I'll link to other blogs that have reached my predetermined conclusion that it's bad.
Captain's Quarters - Judge Taylor's decision is bad for Bush, so he'd better come up with evidence of another terror plot pretty quick.
Confederate Yankee - Judge Taylor is a Detroit liberal, so what did you expect? Duh!
Debbie Schlussel - it's all the ACLU's fault - well, them and their raft of Islamist, America-hating plaintiffs.
Flopping Aces - liberals made sure Judge Taylor got the wiretap case even though federal cases are assigned using a blind draw.
Free Republic - we're all gonna die!!!
GOP Bloggers - how dare Judge Taylor actually decide the wiretap case - it's not like she's a judge or anything!
Hot Air (Allahpundit) - I don't know enough to comment on Judge Taylor's decision, so I'll link to other blogs that have reached my predetermined conclusion that it's bad. YAHTZEE!
Hugh Hewitt - I still blame the fucking New York Times for this whole thing.
Instapundit - do you think that, just maybe, this could be good for the administration? Oh please oh please oh please ...
Jawa Report - you have a consitutionally-protected right to chat with Ayman al Zawahiri about the weather in Waziristan but so what - we're all gonna die!
JunkyardBlog - many of these plaintiffs who don’t deal with al Qaeda actually lack standing to bring this suit because there is no way they could have suffered any damage if they weren’t talking to someone affiliated with al Qaeda.
Little Green Footballs - we blame Muslims for this decision ... of course, we blame Muslims for everything.
Macsmind - of course al Qaeda had no idea we were trying to listen to their phone calls! Retard!
NRO - (J-Pod) - as usual I have nothing useful to add, so let me take this opportunity to attack Andrew Sullivan for going a tiny bit off-message.
NRO (K-Lo) - as usual I have nothing useful to add, so I'll just link to this DOJ statement that uses the words "Terrorist Surveillance Program" a lot.
Patterico's Pontifications - I told you this would happen ... fucking Carter-appointed moonbat lefty rule-bending idealogue judge. Geeze - I am so smart for predicting this!
Powerline - Hugh Hewitt says that any vote for any Democrat is a vote against victory and a vote for vulnerability - who am I to argue?
Protein Wisdom - even though I didn't read Greenwald's post about the decision, I hereby pronounce it really really stupid.
Real Clear Politics - Mort Kondracke says liberals think a journalist's right to talk to a terrorist trumps Bush's right to listen to terrorist phone calls - who are we to argue?
Red State - we're all gonna die!!!
Sister Toldjah - it is a tale told by an idiot left-leaning Bush-hating Democrat-loving liberal moonbat America-hating judge. Oh yeah, and it signifies nothing! Nyah!
Wizbang! - this is terrible, because the Terrorist Surveillance Program™ was instrumental in capturing those British terrorists and ... what? It wasn't? Oh.
hat tips: Liberal Catnip for some of the links; Comandante Agi - graphic.
Personal data thefts continue unabated.
Aug, 19/20, 2006 -- Personal data thefts continue unabated. The most recent thefts of personal data have been from the medical community. A regional office of Hospital Corporation of America (HCA), the firm in which Tennessee GOP Senator Bill First has a major financial interest, has reported the theft of 10 computers containing "thousands of files" on Medicare and Medicaid patients and their doctors. The time frame of the data is 1996 to 2006 and the files contain Social Security Numbers and dates of birth on individuals in Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. The California Department of Mental Health reports the theft of a computer tape containing the Social Security Numbers and dates of birth of 9,468 employees.
Additional clues point to U.S. attack on Iran.
Aug. 19/20, 2006 -- Additional clues point to U.S. attack on Iran. State Department sources report that State's Iran Desk Officer Henry Wooster has suddenly been transferred to another position. Meanwhile, Vice President Dick Cheney's office is assembling a group of neo-cons from the Pentagon, State Department, and the National Security Council to cook up intelligence and talking points that will show Iran to be an imminent nuclear threat.
ABC featured only conservatives defending "necessity" of warrantless surveillance program
Summary: An ABC World News report on a federal district judge's ruling that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional featured only Bush administration officials and a senior research fellow from the conservative Heritage Foundation defending the "necessity" of the program. The report did not note that the program's effectiveness has been called into question.
An August 17 ABC World News with Charles Gibson report on District Court Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's ruling that the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program is unconstitutional featured only Bush administration officials and a senior research fellow from the conservative Heritage Foundation defending the "necessity" of the program. While ABC did excerpt Taylor's ruling and air footage of author and journalist James Bamford, a plaintiff in the case, challenging the program's legality, they offered no challenge to the program's effectiveness, which has been called into question.
As Media Matters for America has noted, a January 17 New York Times article cited "current and former officials" in reporting that "virtually all" of the leads generated by the program "led to dead ends or innocent Americans." Rather than noting this, however, ABC aired footage of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzalez defending the "importance" of the "necessary" and "essential" program, and reported that "many national security experts ... agree that the program is essential" -- airing a clip of Heritage Foundation senior research fellow James Carafano saying: "You cannot argue that programs like this don't help."
From the August 17 broadcast of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
CHARLES GIBSON (anchor): The Bush administration suffered a major legal defeat today. A federal judge declared its surveillance program of overseas phone calls from this country conducted without warrants to be unconstitutional. The president has called the program a crucial tool in the war on terror. We turn to ABC's chief White House correspondent, Martha Raddatz.
RADDATZ: The wiretap ruling came with stinging criticism from U.S. District Court Judge Anne Diggs Taylor. "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the president such unfettered control," said the judge, "particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights." Judge Taylor said the administration's failure to obtain warrants for the eavesdropping program violated both the right to privacy and free speech.
BAMFORD: What it says is the president of the United States isn't a king. He's just like every other citizen when it comes to a law.
RADDATZ: The White House response to the ruling: "We couldn't disagree more." And the Justice Department immediately appealed the decision.
GONZALES: And we have confidence in the lawfulness of this program. And that's -- and that's why the appeal has been lodged. This is an important program.
RADDATZ: This is a significant blow to the Bush administration, which has strongly defended the legality and the necessity of the program since its disclosure last December.
BUSH: I believe what I'm doing is constitutional, and I know it's necessary.
CHENEY: I can tell you the terrorist surveillance program has been absolutely essential.
RADDATZ: And there are many national security experts who agree that the program is essential.
CARAFANO: We just saw a plot broken up. People planned to kill thousands of people. You cannot argue that there's not a serious problem out there. You cannot argue that programs like this don't help.
RADDATZ: Despite the ruling, the spying program will continue, Charlie, until the appeal has been heard. But that could take some time.
Israeli raid in Lebanon tests truce
Israeli raid in Lebanon tests truce
Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:49 AM ET
By Nadim Ladki
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Helicopter-borne Israeli commandos raided a Hizbollah bastion on Saturday in what Lebanon called a "naked violation" of the U.N.-backed truce that halted Israel's 34-day war with the Shi'ite Muslim group.
Israel said the operation in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley aimed to disrupt weapons supplies to Hizbollah from Syria and Iran. Both countries deny arming the group.
Lebanon's defense minister urged the United Nations to give "clear answers" in response to the raid and warned that if it failed to do so, he might seek to halt the deployment of Lebanese troops to the south of the country.
Lebanese security sources said three Hizbollah guerrillas were killed in a firefight with the Israelis, although Hizbollah said none of its fighters were killed or hurt.
Israel said it had suffered one dead and two wounded.
"It is a naked violation of the cessation of hostilities declared by the Security Council," Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told reporters, referring to an August 11 resolution. He said he had protested to visiting U.N. envoys.
The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon UNIFIL said it could not comment on the incident because its 2,000-force was based in the south of the country rather than the Bekaa Valley.
However, Lebanese Defense Minister Elias al-Murr said that was not good enough.
"If I don't receive clear answers today at 5:30 pm (1430 GMT) from the United Nations, I may have to ask the cabinet at the beginning of next week to halt the army deployment in the south," he told reporters before meeting the visiting envoys.
The Lebanese security sources said Israeli helicopters unloaded two vehicles carrying commandos who headed toward an office of a Hizbollah leader, Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek, in the village of Bodai. They were intercepted and withdrew under cover of air strikes, they said.
Israel's army said: "Special forces carried out an operation to disrupt terror actions against Israel with an emphasis on the transfer of munitions from Syria and Iran to Hizbollah."
Bodai is 15 km (9 miles) northwest of the ancient city of Baalbek and 26 km (16 miles) from the Syrian border.
The raid coincided with a Lebanese army drive to tighten its grip on the border with Syria. Thousands of troops deployed to block smuggling routes on Saturday, security sources said.
Nevertheless, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said continued Hizbollah arms shipments and the absence of Lebanese and international troops on the border had made the raid necessary.
"Israel reserves the right to act in order to enforce the spirit of the (U.N.) resolution," said spokesman Mark Regev. Other Israeli government officials described it as "a defensive operation" which did not breach the ceasefire.
Resolution 1701 ordered Israel to end "all offensive military actions" and Hizbollah to end all attacks. It also called for an embargo on unauthorized arms supplies to Lebanon.
"CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES"
At least 1,183 people in Lebanon and 157 Israelis were killed in the war. Israel said it had killed more than 530 Hizbollah fighters -- at least five times more than the group has acknowledged. Hizbollah buried 54 guerrillas across Lebanon on Saturday, the largest total on a single day.
The U.N. resolution also called for a strengthened U.N. force to support a Lebanese army deployment in the south.
Fifty French military engineers disembarked at UNIFIL's base in Naqoura in the south, the first reinforcements since the war.
The engineers were among 200 pledged by France, which has disappointed U.N. and U.S. hopes that it would form the backbone of the expanded force to supervise the truce, support the Lebanese army and monitor the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Bush said the U.N. force would help the Beirut government restore sovereignty and "stop Hizbollah from acting as a state within a state."
The United Nations wants to field an advance force of 3,500 troops by September 2 and the entire complement of 13,000 extra troops by November 4, as authorized by the U.N. resolution.
The Lebanese army began deploying in the south on Thursday. Hizbollah fighters have lain low, without relinquishing their weapons, including the rockets they rained on Israel in the war.
The conflict began after Hizbollah snatched two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12, saying it wanted to trade them for Lebanese and Arab prisoners held in Israel.
The Jewish state is also trying to free another soldier captured in the Gaza Strip on June 25.
Israel seized Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer, a top official of the Hamas militant group, at his home in the occupied West Bank on Saturday.
Hours later, a Palestinian gunman killed an Israeli soldier near the West Bank city of Nablus and was then shot dead by troops, the army and medics said.
(Additional reporting by Jerusalem, Paris and U.N. bureaux)
Sat Aug 19, 2006 11:49 AM ET
By Nadim Ladki
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Helicopter-borne Israeli commandos raided a Hizbollah bastion on Saturday in what Lebanon called a "naked violation" of the U.N.-backed truce that halted Israel's 34-day war with the Shi'ite Muslim group.
Israel said the operation in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley aimed to disrupt weapons supplies to Hizbollah from Syria and Iran. Both countries deny arming the group.
Lebanon's defense minister urged the United Nations to give "clear answers" in response to the raid and warned that if it failed to do so, he might seek to halt the deployment of Lebanese troops to the south of the country.
Lebanese security sources said three Hizbollah guerrillas were killed in a firefight with the Israelis, although Hizbollah said none of its fighters were killed or hurt.
Israel said it had suffered one dead and two wounded.
"It is a naked violation of the cessation of hostilities declared by the Security Council," Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told reporters, referring to an August 11 resolution. He said he had protested to visiting U.N. envoys.
The U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon UNIFIL said it could not comment on the incident because its 2,000-force was based in the south of the country rather than the Bekaa Valley.
However, Lebanese Defense Minister Elias al-Murr said that was not good enough.
"If I don't receive clear answers today at 5:30 pm (1430 GMT) from the United Nations, I may have to ask the cabinet at the beginning of next week to halt the army deployment in the south," he told reporters before meeting the visiting envoys.
The Lebanese security sources said Israeli helicopters unloaded two vehicles carrying commandos who headed toward an office of a Hizbollah leader, Sheikh Mohammed Yazbek, in the village of Bodai. They were intercepted and withdrew under cover of air strikes, they said.
Israel's army said: "Special forces carried out an operation to disrupt terror actions against Israel with an emphasis on the transfer of munitions from Syria and Iran to Hizbollah."
Bodai is 15 km (9 miles) northwest of the ancient city of Baalbek and 26 km (16 miles) from the Syrian border.
The raid coincided with a Lebanese army drive to tighten its grip on the border with Syria. Thousands of troops deployed to block smuggling routes on Saturday, security sources said.
Nevertheless, the Israeli Foreign Ministry said continued Hizbollah arms shipments and the absence of Lebanese and international troops on the border had made the raid necessary.
"Israel reserves the right to act in order to enforce the spirit of the (U.N.) resolution," said spokesman Mark Regev. Other Israeli government officials described it as "a defensive operation" which did not breach the ceasefire.
Resolution 1701 ordered Israel to end "all offensive military actions" and Hizbollah to end all attacks. It also called for an embargo on unauthorized arms supplies to Lebanon.
"CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES"
At least 1,183 people in Lebanon and 157 Israelis were killed in the war. Israel said it had killed more than 530 Hizbollah fighters -- at least five times more than the group has acknowledged. Hizbollah buried 54 guerrillas across Lebanon on Saturday, the largest total on a single day.
The U.N. resolution also called for a strengthened U.N. force to support a Lebanese army deployment in the south.
Fifty French military engineers disembarked at UNIFIL's base in Naqoura in the south, the first reinforcements since the war.
The engineers were among 200 pledged by France, which has disappointed U.N. and U.S. hopes that it would form the backbone of the expanded force to supervise the truce, support the Lebanese army and monitor the withdrawal of Israeli troops.
In his weekly radio address on Saturday, President Bush said the U.N. force would help the Beirut government restore sovereignty and "stop Hizbollah from acting as a state within a state."
The United Nations wants to field an advance force of 3,500 troops by September 2 and the entire complement of 13,000 extra troops by November 4, as authorized by the U.N. resolution.
The Lebanese army began deploying in the south on Thursday. Hizbollah fighters have lain low, without relinquishing their weapons, including the rockets they rained on Israel in the war.
The conflict began after Hizbollah snatched two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12, saying it wanted to trade them for Lebanese and Arab prisoners held in Israel.
The Jewish state is also trying to free another soldier captured in the Gaza Strip on June 25.
Israel seized Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister Naser al-Shaer, a top official of the Hamas militant group, at his home in the occupied West Bank on Saturday.
Hours later, a Palestinian gunman killed an Israeli soldier near the West Bank city of Nablus and was then shot dead by troops, the army and medics said.
(Additional reporting by Jerusalem, Paris and U.N. bureaux)
IF PEOPLE GET HELP, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON
It's a uExpress postcard!
To: wrh@whatreallyhappened.com
From: Charles Everett
Subject: UComics Postcard
Message: Hezbollah to rebuild New Orleans? That would be cool!
Ted Rall
IF PEOPLE GET HELP, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON
Why America Needs Hezbollah
NEW YORK--Surrender, already. For America's sake, let the terrorists win!
Hours after a ceasefire halted a five-week war between Israel and Iranian-backed Islamic militias in Lebanon, reported the New York Times, "hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage. Men on bulldozers were busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble. Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings are now, just a day after a ceasefire began, fully passable." Who cares if Hezbollah is a State Department-designated terrorist organization? Unlike our worthless government, it gets things done!
The citizens of New Orleans desperately need Hezbollah's can-do terrorist spirit. Outside the French Quarter tourist zone, writes Jed Horne in The New Republic, what was until 2005 our nation's most charming city and cultural center remains "a disaster zone, an area five times the size of Manhattan."
One year after the routine matter of a Gulf Coast hurricane, half the city's population remains refugees--screwed over by a government that hasn't lifted a finger to pretend that it cares. Horne describes "Vast swaths of a city emptied as if by a neutron bomb, with only the fecal brown floodline up under the eaves to suggest what went so very wrong--that, and the ghostly dried brine still coating the dead lawns and landscaping."
New Orleans is a dead city. Incredibly, the politicians don't give a damn. "Now most of the water has gone," the British Daily Mirror newspaper informed readers on the storm's anniversary, "but little else has changed. Driving through the streets, it is shocking to see how much devastation remains and how little rebuilding has taken place."
Americans watched incredulously as their government responded to the desperate pleas of sick and starving Katrina victims by herding them into internment camps, and then issued them $2000 debit cards--an insulting pittance--to compensate them for losing everything they owned. Anyone could see that the federal government had failed its obligation to protect its citizens. Not only had officials refused to shore up crumbling levies, they didn't even try to send in relief after the long-predicted flood. The United States of America, however, is led by men who see things very differently from, well, everyone else. They actually think that Hurricane Katrina victims received too much.
"If you put $2,000 in someone's hands, that's a lot of money," Federal Emergency Management Agency Director David Paulison explained during a July 23 announcement. Due to Bush Administration budget cuts, the victims of future disasters will have to make do with a mere $500.
You know the U.S. has gone Third World when bombed-out Lebanese get a better deal than we do. Remember how hurricane victims couldn't get through to FEMA's perpetually busy hotline? Promising that Hezbollah personnel "in the towns and villages will turn to those whose homes are badly damaged and help rebuild them," Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah ordered Hezbollah militants to canvass damaged neighborhoods and begin repairs at once. Hezbollah gives out "decent and suitable furniture" and a year's free rent to all Lebanese who lost their homes. Unlike the racist government officials who managed the botched response along the Gulf Coast last year, where whites were rescued while blacks were shot, the Shiite terrorist group's offer also applies to Sunnis, Christians and even Jews.
"Hezbollah's reputation as an efficient grass-roots social service network," reported the Times, "was in evidence everywhere. Young men with walkie-talkies and clipboards were in the battered Shiite neighborhoods on the southern edge of Bint Jbail, taking notes on the extent of the damage. Hezbollah men also traveled door to door checking on residents and asking them what help they needed." With terrorists like that, who needs FEMA?
A year after Katrina, officials are still pulling bodies out of the rubble. Dozens of corpses remain unidentified; the president, governor and mayor continue to pass the blame for their willful inaction. George W. Bush still refuses to accept responsibility. Just one day after the Lebanese ceasefire, however, Sheikh Nasrallah had already delivered a thorough accounting of the damage caused by Israel's bombing campaign and launched a comprehensive rebuilding program. "So far," said the Hezbollah leader, "the initial count available to us on completely demolished houses exceeds 15,000 residential units. We cannot of course wait for the government and its heavy vehicles and machinery because they could be a while."
As often occurs during emergencies in the U.S., price gouging for housing, water, gasoline and other essentials was rampant during and after Katrina. Bush did nothing. Nasrallah, by contrast, warned businesses not to exploit the situation: "No one should raise prices due to a surge in demand."
Never argue with a man who buys AK-47s by the boxcar.
"Hezbollah's strength," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a professor at the Lebanese American University in Beirut and an expert on the organization, in large part derives from "the gross vacuum left by the state."
Sound familiar? It does to the people of Ladysmith, Wisconsin. The rural town, destroyed by a tornado in 2002, has been abandoned by the government to whom its people paid taxes all their lives.
Maybe we can commission Hezbollah to rebuild the World Trade Center.
(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)
COPYRIGHT 2006 TED RALL DISTRIBUTED BY uclick, LLC/TED RALL---->
To: wrh@whatreallyhappened.com
From: Charles Everett
Subject: UComics Postcard
Message: Hezbollah to rebuild New Orleans? That would be cool!
Ted Rall
IF PEOPLE GET HELP, THE TERRORISTS HAVE WON
Why America Needs Hezbollah
NEW YORK--Surrender, already. For America's sake, let the terrorists win!
Hours after a ceasefire halted a five-week war between Israel and Iranian-backed Islamic militias in Lebanon, reported the New York Times, "hundreds of Hezbollah members spread over dozens of villages across southern Lebanon began cleaning, organizing and surveying damage. Men on bulldozers were busy cutting lanes through giant piles of rubble. Roads blocked with the remnants of buildings are now, just a day after a ceasefire began, fully passable." Who cares if Hezbollah is a State Department-designated terrorist organization? Unlike our worthless government, it gets things done!
The citizens of New Orleans desperately need Hezbollah's can-do terrorist spirit. Outside the French Quarter tourist zone, writes Jed Horne in The New Republic, what was until 2005 our nation's most charming city and cultural center remains "a disaster zone, an area five times the size of Manhattan."
One year after the routine matter of a Gulf Coast hurricane, half the city's population remains refugees--screwed over by a government that hasn't lifted a finger to pretend that it cares. Horne describes "Vast swaths of a city emptied as if by a neutron bomb, with only the fecal brown floodline up under the eaves to suggest what went so very wrong--that, and the ghostly dried brine still coating the dead lawns and landscaping."
New Orleans is a dead city. Incredibly, the politicians don't give a damn. "Now most of the water has gone," the British Daily Mirror newspaper informed readers on the storm's anniversary, "but little else has changed. Driving through the streets, it is shocking to see how much devastation remains and how little rebuilding has taken place."
Americans watched incredulously as their government responded to the desperate pleas of sick and starving Katrina victims by herding them into internment camps, and then issued them $2000 debit cards--an insulting pittance--to compensate them for losing everything they owned. Anyone could see that the federal government had failed its obligation to protect its citizens. Not only had officials refused to shore up crumbling levies, they didn't even try to send in relief after the long-predicted flood. The United States of America, however, is led by men who see things very differently from, well, everyone else. They actually think that Hurricane Katrina victims received too much.
"If you put $2,000 in someone's hands, that's a lot of money," Federal Emergency Management Agency Director David Paulison explained during a July 23 announcement. Due to Bush Administration budget cuts, the victims of future disasters will have to make do with a mere $500.
You know the U.S. has gone Third World when bombed-out Lebanese get a better deal than we do. Remember how hurricane victims couldn't get through to FEMA's perpetually busy hotline? Promising that Hezbollah personnel "in the towns and villages will turn to those whose homes are badly damaged and help rebuild them," Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah ordered Hezbollah militants to canvass damaged neighborhoods and begin repairs at once. Hezbollah gives out "decent and suitable furniture" and a year's free rent to all Lebanese who lost their homes. Unlike the racist government officials who managed the botched response along the Gulf Coast last year, where whites were rescued while blacks were shot, the Shiite terrorist group's offer also applies to Sunnis, Christians and even Jews.
"Hezbollah's reputation as an efficient grass-roots social service network," reported the Times, "was in evidence everywhere. Young men with walkie-talkies and clipboards were in the battered Shiite neighborhoods on the southern edge of Bint Jbail, taking notes on the extent of the damage. Hezbollah men also traveled door to door checking on residents and asking them what help they needed." With terrorists like that, who needs FEMA?
A year after Katrina, officials are still pulling bodies out of the rubble. Dozens of corpses remain unidentified; the president, governor and mayor continue to pass the blame for their willful inaction. George W. Bush still refuses to accept responsibility. Just one day after the Lebanese ceasefire, however, Sheikh Nasrallah had already delivered a thorough accounting of the damage caused by Israel's bombing campaign and launched a comprehensive rebuilding program. "So far," said the Hezbollah leader, "the initial count available to us on completely demolished houses exceeds 15,000 residential units. We cannot of course wait for the government and its heavy vehicles and machinery because they could be a while."
As often occurs during emergencies in the U.S., price gouging for housing, water, gasoline and other essentials was rampant during and after Katrina. Bush did nothing. Nasrallah, by contrast, warned businesses not to exploit the situation: "No one should raise prices due to a surge in demand."
Never argue with a man who buys AK-47s by the boxcar.
"Hezbollah's strength," says Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a professor at the Lebanese American University in Beirut and an expert on the organization, in large part derives from "the gross vacuum left by the state."
Sound familiar? It does to the people of Ladysmith, Wisconsin. The rural town, destroyed by a tornado in 2002, has been abandoned by the government to whom its people paid taxes all their lives.
Maybe we can commission Hezbollah to rebuild the World Trade Center.
(Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.)
COPYRIGHT 2006 TED RALL DISTRIBUTED BY uclick, LLC/TED RALL---->
Capitol Hill Blue: Israelis raid Lebanon in cease-fire violation
Capitol Hill Blue
Israelis raid Lebanon in cease-fire violation
By SAM F. GHATTAS
Aug 19, 2006, 06:09
Hezbollah fighters battled Israeli commandos who landed near the militants' stronghold deep inside Lebanon early Saturday, killing one soldier, in the first large-scale violation of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire between the sides.
Hezbollah said its guerrillas foiled the raid after a gunbattle, and the Israeli army said one soldier was killed and two were wounded, one seriously.
Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid — the first major violation of the U.N.-imposed cease-fire that took effect Monday following 34 days of fighting.
The Israeli army said the special forces operation aimed "to prevent and interfere with terror activity against Israel, especially the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah." It said the commando team completed its mission.
The army said such operations would be carried out until "an effective monitoring unit" of Lebanese or multinational troops was in place.
"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the (U.N. cease-fire) resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.
Hezbollah TV and Lebanese security officials said Israeli helicopters dropped off a commando team outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information to the media, said the Israelis apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school but had no other details. The officials also reported heavy overflights of Israeli jets.
Lebanon's foreign minister said he immediately informed a visiting U.N. delegation of Israel's violation.
Such a bold operation risked scuttling the fragile cease-fire and suggested Israel was going after a major target near Baalbek — perhaps to rescue two Israeli soldiers snatched by Hezbollah on July 12, or to try to capture a senior guerrilla official to trade for the soldiers.
Hezbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers for Arab prisoners, but the U.N. cease-fire resolution demands Hezbollah unconditionally release the soldiers.
Local media said Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa and a member of the Shura council of the group, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai.
Israeli troops have killed several guerrillas who Israel said threatened its troops in south Lebanon since the cease-fire, and warplanes have flown over the country. But the cease-fire allows military action in self-defense, and the commando raid was by far the most serious incident since Monday.
Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said Lebanese authorities found blood at the scene of the raid, indicating Israeli casualties. Salloukh, speaking to reporters after meeting with U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen in Beirut, said he informed the U.N. team of the Israeli action in Baalbek and said the U.N. team would raise the issue with Israeli authorities.
"If Israel continues its violations, it is the responsibility of the (U.N.) Security Council to take action and ask Israel to stop these violations," he said.
A provincial government official, Bekaa Valley Gov. Antoine Suleiman, confirmed the Israeli troop landing. He told the privately owned Voice of Lebanon radio station that the landing party brought with it two vehicles that were later withdrawn after clashes.
Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV said the Israeli commando force landed before dawn and was driving into Boudai when it was intercepted by guerrillas who forced it to retreat under the cover of warplanes, which staged mock raids.
Hezbollah officials on the scene said overflights from Israeli jet fighters drowned the clatter of helicopters as they flew into the foothills of the central Lebanese mountains, dropping commandos and two vehicles they used to drive into the village when the Hezbollah fighters intercepted them in a field.
The commandos identified themselves as the Lebanese army, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted, the officials said.
Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew out of the area an hour later, they said.
Witnesses saw bandages and syringes at the site. The also saw a destroyed bridge about 500 yards from the area where the landing took place, after missiles were fired by Israeli aircraft.
Overflights were reported Friday night in the same area.
Israel said late Friday its warplanes have not attacked Lebanon since the cease-fire took effect.
Baalbek is the birthplace of the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah. The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold.
The U.N. Security Council cease-fire resolution calls for an immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.
In letters to Lebanese and Israeli leaders, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned the two countries against occupying additional territory and told them to refrain from responding to any attacks "except where clearly required in immediate self-defense."
Annan also told Israel and Lebanon that once the cessation of hostilities took effect there must be no firing from the ground, sea or air into the other side's territory or at its forces.
Israelis raid Lebanon in cease-fire violation
By SAM F. GHATTAS
Aug 19, 2006, 06:09
Hezbollah fighters battled Israeli commandos who landed near the militants' stronghold deep inside Lebanon early Saturday, killing one soldier, in the first large-scale violation of the U.N.-brokered cease-fire between the sides.
Hezbollah said its guerrillas foiled the raid after a gunbattle, and the Israeli army said one soldier was killed and two were wounded, one seriously.
Witnesses said Israeli missiles destroyed a bridge during the raid — the first major violation of the U.N.-imposed cease-fire that took effect Monday following 34 days of fighting.
The Israeli army said the special forces operation aimed "to prevent and interfere with terror activity against Israel, especially the smuggling of arms from Iran and Syria to Hezbollah." It said the commando team completed its mission.
The army said such operations would be carried out until "an effective monitoring unit" of Lebanese or multinational troops was in place.
"If the Syrians and Iran continue to arm Hezbollah in violation of the (U.N. cease-fire) resolution, Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo," Israeli foreign ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.
Hezbollah TV and Lebanese security officials said Israeli helicopters dropped off a commando team outside the village of Boudai west of Baalbek in eastern Lebanon.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to release information to the media, said the Israelis apparently were seeking a guerrilla target in a nearby school but had no other details. The officials also reported heavy overflights of Israeli jets.
Lebanon's foreign minister said he immediately informed a visiting U.N. delegation of Israel's violation.
Such a bold operation risked scuttling the fragile cease-fire and suggested Israel was going after a major target near Baalbek — perhaps to rescue two Israeli soldiers snatched by Hezbollah on July 12, or to try to capture a senior guerrilla official to trade for the soldiers.
Hezbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers for Arab prisoners, but the U.N. cease-fire resolution demands Hezbollah unconditionally release the soldiers.
Local media said Sheik Mohammed Yazbeck, a senior Hezbollah official in the Bekaa and a member of the Shura council of the group, may have been the target. Yazbeck is a native of Boudai.
Israeli troops have killed several guerrillas who Israel said threatened its troops in south Lebanon since the cease-fire, and warplanes have flown over the country. But the cease-fire allows military action in self-defense, and the commando raid was by far the most serious incident since Monday.
Lebanese Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh said Lebanese authorities found blood at the scene of the raid, indicating Israeli casualties. Salloukh, speaking to reporters after meeting with U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen in Beirut, said he informed the U.N. team of the Israeli action in Baalbek and said the U.N. team would raise the issue with Israeli authorities.
"If Israel continues its violations, it is the responsibility of the (U.N.) Security Council to take action and ask Israel to stop these violations," he said.
A provincial government official, Bekaa Valley Gov. Antoine Suleiman, confirmed the Israeli troop landing. He told the privately owned Voice of Lebanon radio station that the landing party brought with it two vehicles that were later withdrawn after clashes.
Hezbollah's Al-Manar TV said the Israeli commando force landed before dawn and was driving into Boudai when it was intercepted by guerrillas who forced it to retreat under the cover of warplanes, which staged mock raids.
Hezbollah officials on the scene said overflights from Israeli jet fighters drowned the clatter of helicopters as they flew into the foothills of the central Lebanese mountains, dropping commandos and two vehicles they used to drive into the village when the Hezbollah fighters intercepted them in a field.
The commandos identified themselves as the Lebanese army, but the guerrillas grew suspicious and gunfire erupted, the officials said.
Israeli helicopters fired missiles as the commandos withdrew and flew out of the area an hour later, they said.
Witnesses saw bandages and syringes at the site. The also saw a destroyed bridge about 500 yards from the area where the landing took place, after missiles were fired by Israeli aircraft.
Overflights were reported Friday night in the same area.
Israel said late Friday its warplanes have not attacked Lebanon since the cease-fire took effect.
Baalbek is the birthplace of the Iranian and Syrian-backed Hezbollah. The area in the eastern Bekaa Valley, 60 miles north of the Israeli border, is a major guerrilla stronghold.
The U.N. Security Council cease-fire resolution calls for an immediate cessation by Hezbollah of all attacks and the immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations.
In letters to Lebanese and Israeli leaders, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned the two countries against occupying additional territory and told them to refrain from responding to any attacks "except where clearly required in immediate self-defense."
Annan also told Israel and Lebanon that once the cessation of hostilities took effect there must be no firing from the ground, sea or air into the other side's territory or at its forces.
NY Times , CNN, Fox News uncritically reported GOP suggestion that unwarranted surveillance helped foil U.K. terror p
NY Times, CNN, Fox News uncritically reported GOP suggestion that unwarranted surveillance helped foil U.K. terror plot
http://mediamatters.org/items/200608180009
In an August 18 article on a federal judge's ruling striking down as unconstitutional the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program, New York Times reporters Adam Liptak and Eric Lichtblau uncritically quoted House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) claim that the program "saved the day by foiling the London terror plot." Liptak and Lichtblau reported that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales has not said "whether the program played any role in foiling" the British terror plot, but then reported Hastert's assertion. The report went on to note that Hastert's office "declined to elaborate" on the claim, but, as Media Matters for America has noted, media reports cast considerable doubt on his assertion that intelligence gathered through the warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens and legal residents helped thwart the attack. Indeed, Lichtblau himself reported on August 15 that U.S. law-enforcement agencies found "no links" and "no direct connection" between the London plotters and anyone within the United States. In their reports on the news, CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena and Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier similarly linked the warrantless domestic surveillance program to the recently foiled plot.
On August 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the U.S. District Court in Detroit rejected the Bush administration's legal defense of the program -- which since 2001 has authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on the international communications of U.S. persons without court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). Taylor ruled that the program violates FISA, as well as the First and Fourth Amendments, and ordered that the program be halted.
In their August 18 article on the ruling, Liptak and Lichtblau reported:
Mr. Gonzales would not say whether the program played any role in foiling a plot last week to set off bombs in airliners bound for the United States from Britain. But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, suggested that it did play a role in the investigation.
In a written statement criticizing Judge Taylor's ruling, Mr. Hastert defended the wiretapping operation and said that "our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot."
His office declined to elaborate.
But Liptak and Lichtblau failed to note that the Bush administration and various news outlets -- including the Times -- have asserted that there is no evidence of any U.S. connection to the London plotters -- a fact that would seem to undermine Hastert's claim that the domestic surveillance program "saved the day." For instance, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stated in an August 11 press conference that "we do not have evidence ... that the plotting [for the attack] was done in the United States." He later added that "we did not see any U.S. internal activity in this plot." Washington Post staff writers Dan Eggen and Spencer S. Hsu reported on August 13 that U.S. law enforcement agencies found "no links" between the plotters and anyone inside the United States. And Lichtblau himself reported in an August 15 article that, according to law enforcement officials, "no links to any Americans have surfaced."
Furthermore, while it has been confirmed that U.S. authorities, once alerted to the London plot, conducted extensive surveillance of suspects within the United States, news reports indicate that the eavesdropping occurred in accordance with FISA, as Media Matters for America noted. Indeed, Lichtblau reported on August 15 that "the Justice Department sought double or triple the usual rate of court-approved wiretaps to monitor the communications of American suspects" in the plot (while, again, Lichtblau reported that U.S. officials found no direct connection to anyone in this country). Eggen and Hsu, in their August 13 article, reported that hundreds of law enforcement officials undertook "dozens of clandestine surveillance and search operations on individuals with possible links to the London plotters," including "people who had been called or e-mailed by suspects or their relatives and acquaintances." But Eggen and Hsu further noted that this surveillance "produced a noticeable surge in applications for clandestine warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
Despite the above evidence that the warrantless domestic surveillance program had little -- if anything -- to do with uncovering the London terror plot, CNN justice correspondent Kelli Arena uncritically reported on the August 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight an argument attributed to unnamed "[g]overnment officials" that the incident is "a primary example of why the U.S. government sometimes needs to listen in on international communications without a warrant." Similarly, Fox News chief White House correspondent Bret Baier noted on the August 17 edition of Special Report that Taylor's ruling "comes one week to the day after the British terror plot to blow up jetliners was thwarted." He then reported that Gonzales "called the terrorist surveillance program a critical tool to stop more terrorist plots."
From the August 17 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
ARENA: Government officials point to the alleged plot to blow up jetliners over the Atlantic as a primary example of why the U.S. government sometimes needs to listen in on international communications without a warrant. But a federal judge in Detroit says the National Security Agency's controversial wiretapping program violates free speech and privacy rights.
From the August 17 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BAIER: The ruling comes one week to the day after the British terror plot to blow up jetliners was thwarted. In a late-afternoon news conference, the attorney general called the terrorist surveillance program a critical tool to stop more terrorist plots.
GONZALES: I believe very strongly that the president does have the authority to authorize this kind of conduct and particularly in a time of war.
Friday, August 18, 2006
The Raw Story | Intelligence officials doubt Iran uranium claims, say Cheney receiving suspect briefings
The Raw Story
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published:Friday August 18, 2006
The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign policy experts and former US intelligence officials tell
RAW STORY
#
Larisa Alexandrovna
Published:Friday August 18, 2006
The Bush administration continues to bypass standard intelligence channels and use what some believe to be propaganda tactics to create a compelling case for war with Iran, US foreign policy experts and former US intelligence officials tell
RAW STORY
One former senior intelligence official is particularly concerned by private briefings that Vice President Dick Cheney is getting from former Office of Special Plans (OSP) Director, Abram Shulsky.
"Vice President Cheney is relying on personal briefings from Shulsky for current intelligence on Iran," said this intelligence official.
Shulsky, a leading Neoconservative and member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), headed the shadowy and secretive Department of Defense's OSP in the lead-up to the Iraq war -- helping to locate intelligence that would support the Bush administration's case for war with Iraq.
In an earlier report by Raw Story on an OSP spin-off dubbed the Iranian Directorate (ID), Lt. Col. Barry E. Venable -- a spokesman for the Pentagon -- confirmed that Shulsky was consulting for this new initiative as well.
"Mr. Shulsky continues in his position as Senior Advisor to the USD, focusing on Mid-East regional issues and the [global war on terror]," stated Venable.
Several foreign policy experts, who wish to remain anonymous, have expressed serious concern that much like the OSP, the ID is manipulating, cherry picking, and perhaps even -- as some suspect -- cooking intelligence to lead the U.S. into another conflict, this time with Iran.
"Cheney distrusts the information being disseminated by CIA on Iran," said one former senior intelligence official. "The reports assembled by the Iranian Directorate at the Pentagon differ significantly from the analysis produced by the Intelligence Community. The Pentagon Iranian Directorate relies on thin and unsupported reporting from foreign sources."
In the build-up to the Iraq war, Cheney relied on intelligence almost exclusively from the OSP, which leveled allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was later debunked, but no OSP or DOD officials were held accountable for what many believe was a "deliberate effort" to mislead the nation into war.
New Uranium Allegations:
Adding to the similarities between the pre-war build up to Iraq, new allegations of Uranium transactions began aggressively circulating earlier this month. For example, in an August 6th Sunday Times of London article entitled "Iran's plot to mine uranium in Africa," Iran is alleged to have purchased Uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo.
"A United Nations report, dated July 18, said there was 'no doubt' that a huge shipment of smuggled uranium 238, uncovered by customs officials in Tanzania, was transported from the Lubumbashi mines in the Congo.
"Tanzanian customs officials told The Sunday Times it was destined for the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas, and was stopped on October 22 last year during a routine check."
The UN report, however, does not mention Iran. It is only the Tanzanian official who does.
The article also quotes the Tanzanian official on his description of the uranium amounts found in each container and how it was located.
"This one was very radioactive. When we opened the container it was full of drums of coltan. Each drum contains about 50kg of ore. When the first and second rows were removed, the ones after that were found to be drums of uranium."
Experts familiar with both African mining and atomic energy have expressed serious concern about these allegations, which have been circulating for some time.
According to a source close to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the story is "highly unlikely" and "not well researched."
This source, who wished to remain anonymous given the nature of the subject, explained that the main concern in the Congolese mines is environmental waste and how it affects workers and villages near the areas where the mining is done.
A former senior US official with experience in the region also finds the story improbable, in this case regarding the Tanzanian interception of a Congo- to- Iran based shipment and the amount transferred.
"My understanding is that the Congolese mines were closed years ago and that any mining now is purely artisanal," said this official.
"[It] would take a lot of labor to produce the volume of uranium they are talking about. The reduction ratio of rock to ore is roughly one hundred to one in the Niger mines. I can't imagine the vein is any richer in the Congo."
Still other experts took issue with the description of the uranium and its suggested purpose, including the sentiment that u-238 is "highly radioactive."
Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), an organization that was formed in 1945 by atomic scientists from the Manhattan Project, is doubtful. "U-238 is one of the isotopic forms of uranium. Another isotopic form, [for example], U-235, is used in fission bombs," explained Aftergood.
"U-238 is not highly radioactive. On the contrary, it decays very slowly. It has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. That means that a given quantity of u-238 would radioactively decay by 50% in 4.5 billion years. So you could hold it in your hand without any adverse effect. On the other hand, it is a toxic metal, and you wouldn't want to inhale or ingest uranium dust if you could avoid it."
But the stories of Iran attempting to purchase uranium from abroad leave many experts highly concerned.
One official close to the United Nations Security Council explained that Iran has its own mines, making any allegations of imported uranium from abroad highly questionable.
"Why would Iran import U-238 when it mines it itself?" The official asked Raw. "This makes no sense whatsoever."
Several sources suggested that the Iranian Directorate, as did its predecessor -- the OSP, may be cherry picking, manipulating, and even planting intelligence abroad that would support a case against Iran in the minds of the public.
Expressing great frustration, one former high ranking intelligence officer said "it is all the Neocons." Asked about the allegations of the uranium transaction from Congo-to-Iran, this source remarked: "Total bullshit."
Wendy Morigi, spokeswoman for U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Vice-Chairman Jay Rockefeller, would not confirm or deny that the committee had received any information regarding the Iran uranium purchase. "We can't comment on what briefings the committee has received," Morigi stated in an email response.
Morigi did, however, explain that as with any sensitive information, "Generally speaking, it's safe to assume that the committee closely follows everything related to Iran's nuclear program."
#
Related Raw Story articles:
US military, intelligence officials raise concern about possible preparations for Iran strike
Spurious attempt to tie Iran, Iraq to nuclear arms plot bypassed U.S. intelligence channels
Cheney has tapped Iranian expatriate, arms dealer to surveil discussions with Iran, officials say
Larisa Alexandrovna is managing investigative news editor for Raw Story and regularly reports on intelligence and national security stories.
Contact: Larisa@rawstory.com
Robert Fisk: The army is back, but don't expect it to disarm Hizbollah
Independent Online Edition
Published: 18 August 2006
Now you see them, now you don't. Hizbollah weapons? None to be seen. And none to be collected by the Lebanese army. For when this august body of men crossed the Litani river yesterday, their officers made it perfectly clear that it would not be the army's job to disarm the Hizbollah. Nor was anyone in Lebanon surprised. After all, most of the Lebanese troops here are Shias - like the Hizbollah - and in many cases, the soldiers who crossed the Litani are not only from the same southern villages but are related to the guerrillas whom they are supposed to disarm. In other words, a typical Lebanese compromise. So whither UN Security Council Resolution 1701?
True, the French are on their way - or are supposed to be. It is the French - whose own General Alain Pellegrini already commands the small UN force here - who will run the new international army in Lebanon. But are they supposed to disarm Hizbollah? Or fight them? Or just sit in southern Lebanon as a buffer force to protect Israel? The French are still demanding - very wisely - a clear mandate for their role here. But Lebanon does not provide clear mandates for anyone, least of all the French.
The Lebanese gave their soldiers the traditional welcome of rice and rose water when they drove over their newly built military bridges on the Litani. But then, some of the same villagers once gave the same traditional welcome to the Israelis in 1982 - and to Hizbollah after that. But the Lebanese army represented peace in our time - at least for a while - to those who are still digging the corpses of their dead families out of the hill villages of southern Lebanon.
It looked good on television, all those clapped-out Warsaw Pact T-54 tanks and elderly Panhard personnel carriers on flatbed trucks, supposedly returning to the far south for the first time in 30 years. Of course, it wasn't true. Though not deployed on the border, thousands of Lebanese soldiers have been stationed in southern towns since the civil war, dutifully turning a blind eye to Hizbollah's activities, providing none of their fighters were rude enough to drive a truck-load of missiles through their checkpoints.
Among those Lebanese soldiers most familiar with the south were members of the 1,000-strong garrison at the southern Christian town of Marjayoun, who fled after Israel's small ground incursion a week ago. And herein, as they say, lies a tale. For their commander, the Interior Ministry Brigadier General Adnan Daoud, has just been arrested for treason after Israeli television showed him taking tea with an Israeli officer in the Marjayoun barracks. Even worse, Hizbollah's television station Al-Manar - which stayed resolutely on air throughout this latest war despite Israel's best attempts to bomb it out of existence - picked up the Israeli tape and rebroadcast it across Lebanon.
Prior to his arrest, General Daoud was even rash enough to unburden his thoughts to Lauren Frayer, an enterprising reporter for the Associated Press who arrived in Marjayoun in time to record the general's last words before his arrest. The Israelis, he said, "came peacefully up to our gate, asking to speak with me by name". An Israeli officer who introduced himself as Col Ashaya chatted to Daoud about future Israeli-Lebanese military relations.
"For four hours, I took him on a tour of our base." the general said of "Ashaya". "He was probably on an intelligence mission and wanted to see if we had any Hizballah in here." But an hour after the supposedly friendly Israeli left, Israeli tanks blasted their way with shells through the gates of the Lebanese garrison. The Lebanese soldiers did not fire back. Instead, they fled Marjayoun - only to find that their long convoy, which included dozens of civilian cars, was attacked by Israeli pilots who killed seven civilians, including the wife of the mayor, who was decapitated by a missile.
In Beirut, all this was forgotten as the Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, repeated that there would be no more "states within a state" and that the Hizbollah would leave the area south of the Litani. This statement came under the category of "a likely story". Not only do most of the Hizbollah live in villages south of the Litani but several of their officers made it clear that they had told the Lebanese army not to search for weapons. So much for the disarmament of the Hizbollah south of the Litani river. And so much for President Bush's "war on terror" which the Israelis claim to be fighting on America's behalf.
Published: 18 August 2006
Now you see them, now you don't. Hizbollah weapons? None to be seen. And none to be collected by the Lebanese army. For when this august body of men crossed the Litani river yesterday, their officers made it perfectly clear that it would not be the army's job to disarm the Hizbollah. Nor was anyone in Lebanon surprised. After all, most of the Lebanese troops here are Shias - like the Hizbollah - and in many cases, the soldiers who crossed the Litani are not only from the same southern villages but are related to the guerrillas whom they are supposed to disarm. In other words, a typical Lebanese compromise. So whither UN Security Council Resolution 1701?
True, the French are on their way - or are supposed to be. It is the French - whose own General Alain Pellegrini already commands the small UN force here - who will run the new international army in Lebanon. But are they supposed to disarm Hizbollah? Or fight them? Or just sit in southern Lebanon as a buffer force to protect Israel? The French are still demanding - very wisely - a clear mandate for their role here. But Lebanon does not provide clear mandates for anyone, least of all the French.
The Lebanese gave their soldiers the traditional welcome of rice and rose water when they drove over their newly built military bridges on the Litani. But then, some of the same villagers once gave the same traditional welcome to the Israelis in 1982 - and to Hizbollah after that. But the Lebanese army represented peace in our time - at least for a while - to those who are still digging the corpses of their dead families out of the hill villages of southern Lebanon.
It looked good on television, all those clapped-out Warsaw Pact T-54 tanks and elderly Panhard personnel carriers on flatbed trucks, supposedly returning to the far south for the first time in 30 years. Of course, it wasn't true. Though not deployed on the border, thousands of Lebanese soldiers have been stationed in southern towns since the civil war, dutifully turning a blind eye to Hizbollah's activities, providing none of their fighters were rude enough to drive a truck-load of missiles through their checkpoints.
Among those Lebanese soldiers most familiar with the south were members of the 1,000-strong garrison at the southern Christian town of Marjayoun, who fled after Israel's small ground incursion a week ago. And herein, as they say, lies a tale. For their commander, the Interior Ministry Brigadier General Adnan Daoud, has just been arrested for treason after Israeli television showed him taking tea with an Israeli officer in the Marjayoun barracks. Even worse, Hizbollah's television station Al-Manar - which stayed resolutely on air throughout this latest war despite Israel's best attempts to bomb it out of existence - picked up the Israeli tape and rebroadcast it across Lebanon.
Prior to his arrest, General Daoud was even rash enough to unburden his thoughts to Lauren Frayer, an enterprising reporter for the Associated Press who arrived in Marjayoun in time to record the general's last words before his arrest. The Israelis, he said, "came peacefully up to our gate, asking to speak with me by name". An Israeli officer who introduced himself as Col Ashaya chatted to Daoud about future Israeli-Lebanese military relations.
"For four hours, I took him on a tour of our base." the general said of "Ashaya". "He was probably on an intelligence mission and wanted to see if we had any Hizballah in here." But an hour after the supposedly friendly Israeli left, Israeli tanks blasted their way with shells through the gates of the Lebanese garrison. The Lebanese soldiers did not fire back. Instead, they fled Marjayoun - only to find that their long convoy, which included dozens of civilian cars, was attacked by Israeli pilots who killed seven civilians, including the wife of the mayor, who was decapitated by a missile.
In Beirut, all this was forgotten as the Prime Minister, Fouad Siniora, repeated that there would be no more "states within a state" and that the Hizbollah would leave the area south of the Litani. This statement came under the category of "a likely story". Not only do most of the Hizbollah live in villages south of the Litani but several of their officers made it clear that they had told the Lebanese army not to search for weapons. So much for the disarmament of the Hizbollah south of the Litani river. And so much for President Bush's "war on terror" which the Israelis claim to be fighting on America's behalf.
Bush Vows to Fight Wiretapping Ruling - New York Times
New York Times
Bush Vows to Fight Wiretapping Ruling
By ADAM LIPTAK and ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — President Bush said today that he is confident that a federal court ruling against his administration’s electronic surveillance program will be overturned, and he described those who hailed the ruling as naïve.
“I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live,” Mr. Bush said in a question-answer session at Camp David, Md. “I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree. That’s why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately. And I believe our appeals will be upheld.”
“We believe, strongly believe, it’s constitutional,” the president added. “And if Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they’re calling.”
A federal judge in Detroit ruled on Thursday that a National Security Agency program to tap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution, and she ordered it shut down.
The ruling was the first judicial assessment of the Bush administration’s arguments in defense of the surveillance program, which has provoked fierce legal and political debate since it was disclosed last December. But the issue is far from settled, and the ruling will not take effect at least until after a hearing scheduled for Sept. 7.
In a sweeping decision that drew on history, the constitutional separation of powers and the Bill of Rights, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit rejected almost every administration argument in the case.
Judge Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States. She rejected the administration’s repeated assertions that a 2001 Congressional authorization and the president’s constitutional authority allowed the program.
“It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote. “The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.”
Republicans said the decision was the work of a liberal judge advancing a partisan agenda. Judge Taylor, 73, worked in the civil rights movement, supported Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign and was appointed to the bench by him in 1979. She has ruled for the A.C.L.U. in a lawsuit challenging religious displays on municipal property. But she has also struck down a Detroit ordinance favoring minority contractors. “Her reputation is for being a real by-the-books judge,” said Evan H. Caminker, the dean of the University of Michigan Law School.
The government said it would ask Judge Taylor to stay her order at the hearing on Sept. 7.
The Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union — which brought the case in Detroit on behalf of a group of lawyers, scholars, journalists and others — agreed that her order would not be enforced until then, but lawyers for the A.C.L.U. said they would oppose any stay after that.
Administration officials made it clear that they would fight to have the ruling overturned because, they said, it would weaken the country’s defenses if allowed to stand.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, at a hastily called news conference after the decision, said he was both surprised and disappointed by the ruling on the operation, which focuses on communications of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.
Administration officials “believe very strongly that the program is lawful,” said Mr. Gonzales, a main architect of the program as White House counsel and the biggest defender of its legality in a series of public pronouncements that began after the program was disclosed by The New York Times last December.
“We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” he said, because it “has been effective in protecting America.”
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, also described the surveillance program as a vital and lawful tool. “The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out,” Mr. Snow said. “The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties.”
Democrats applauded the ruling as an important affirmation of the rule of law, while lawyers for the A.C.L.U. said Judge Taylor’s decision was a sequel to the Supreme Court’s decision in June in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that struck down the administration’s plans to try detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for war crimes.
“It’s another nail in the coffin of executive unilateralism,” said Jameel Jaffer, an A.C.L.U. lawyer.
But allies of the administration called the decision legally questionable and politically motivated.
“It is an appallingly bad opinion, bad from both a philosophical and technical perspective, manifesting strong bias,” said David B. Rivkin, an official in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. “It is guaranteed to be overturned.”
Mr. Gonzales would not say whether the program played any role in foiling a plot last week to set off bombs in airliners bound for the United States from Britain. But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, suggested that it did play a role in the investigation.
In a written statement criticizing Judge Taylor’s ruling, Mr. Hastert defended the wiretapping operation and said that “our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot.”
His office declined to elaborate.
Mr. Bush alluded to the London plot today as an example of danger in an era of terrorism, but without asserting that the surveillance program had had a role in its detection. “You might remember last week, working with people in Great Britain, we disrupted a plot,” the president said.
Mr. Gonzales said on Thursday that he expected the ruling to figure in the debate in Congress over how and whether to change federal eavesdropping laws. But he said the exact impact was “hard to predict.”
Among competing proposals, Republican leaders have proposed legislation that would specifically permit the wiretapping program. Some Democrats, however, have introduced legislation that would restrict, or in some cases ban altogether, the government from conducting wiretaps on Americans without a warrant.
The White House is backing a plan, drafted by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, with the blessing of President Bush, that would allow a secret court to review the legality of the operation.
But in the view of critics, it could also broaden the president’s authority to conduct such operations. Mr. Gonzales said it appeared to administration lawyers that the Specter legislation, if passed by Congress, “would address some of the concerns raised by the judge in her opinion.”
Another element of the Specter legislation would force other lawsuits over the program — like the one brought by the A.C.L.U. in Detroit — to be consolidated into a single action to be heard by the secret court.
Judge Taylor rejected the government’s threshold argument that she should not hear the case at all because it concerned state secrets. Dismissal on those grounds was not required, she wrote, because the central facts in the case — the existence of the program, the lack of warrants and the focus on communications in which one party is in the United States — have been acknowledged by the government.
The government also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had not suffered concrete harm from the program. Judge Taylor ruled that the plaintiffs “are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients.”
Some plaintiffs, the judge wrote, have had to incur travel expenses to visit clients and others to avoid possible monitoring of their communications.
Going beyond the arguments offered against the wiretapping program by many legal scholars, Judge Taylor ruled that it violated not only the 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but also the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether electronic surveillance of partly domestic communication violates the Fourth Amendment. Judge Taylor concluded that the wiretapping program is “obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
The president also violated the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrines, Judge Taylor ruled. Neither a September 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda nor the president’s inherent constitutional powers allow him to violate the 1978 law or the Fourth Amendment, she said.
“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she wrote, rejecting what she called the administration’s assertion that the president “has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.”
Republicans attacked the decision. “It is disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Judge Taylor did give the government a minor victory, rejecting on national security grounds a challenge to a separate surveillance program involving data mining. That ruling is consistent with recent decisions of federal courts in San Francisco and Chicago.
Judges in those cases drew a distinction between the wiretapping program, which the administration has acknowledged and defended, and the data mining program, which has not been officially confirmed.
David Stout contributed reporting for this article.
Bush Vows to Fight Wiretapping Ruling
By ADAM LIPTAK and ERIC LICHTBLAU
WASHINGTON, Aug. 18 — President Bush said today that he is confident that a federal court ruling against his administration’s electronic surveillance program will be overturned, and he described those who hailed the ruling as naïve.
“I would say that those who herald this decision simply do not understand the nature of the world in which we live,” Mr. Bush said in a question-answer session at Camp David, Md. “I strongly disagree with that decision, strongly disagree. That’s why I instructed the Justice Department to appeal immediately. And I believe our appeals will be upheld.”
“We believe, strongly believe, it’s constitutional,” the president added. “And if Al Qaeda is calling into the United States, we want to know why they’re calling.”
A federal judge in Detroit ruled on Thursday that a National Security Agency program to tap the international communications of some Americans without a court warrant violated the Constitution, and she ordered it shut down.
The ruling was the first judicial assessment of the Bush administration’s arguments in defense of the surveillance program, which has provoked fierce legal and political debate since it was disclosed last December. But the issue is far from settled, and the ruling will not take effect at least until after a hearing scheduled for Sept. 7.
In a sweeping decision that drew on history, the constitutional separation of powers and the Bill of Rights, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit rejected almost every administration argument in the case.
Judge Taylor ruled that the program violated both the Fourth Amendment and a 1978 law that requires warrants from a secret court for intelligence wiretaps involving people in the United States. She rejected the administration’s repeated assertions that a 2001 Congressional authorization and the president’s constitutional authority allowed the program.
“It was never the intent of the framers to give the president such unfettered control, particularly when his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights,” she wrote. “The three separate branches of government were developed as a check and balance for one another.”
Republicans said the decision was the work of a liberal judge advancing a partisan agenda. Judge Taylor, 73, worked in the civil rights movement, supported Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign and was appointed to the bench by him in 1979. She has ruled for the A.C.L.U. in a lawsuit challenging religious displays on municipal property. But she has also struck down a Detroit ordinance favoring minority contractors. “Her reputation is for being a real by-the-books judge,” said Evan H. Caminker, the dean of the University of Michigan Law School.
The government said it would ask Judge Taylor to stay her order at the hearing on Sept. 7.
The Justice Department and the American Civil Liberties Union — which brought the case in Detroit on behalf of a group of lawyers, scholars, journalists and others — agreed that her order would not be enforced until then, but lawyers for the A.C.L.U. said they would oppose any stay after that.
Administration officials made it clear that they would fight to have the ruling overturned because, they said, it would weaken the country’s defenses if allowed to stand.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, at a hastily called news conference after the decision, said he was both surprised and disappointed by the ruling on the operation, which focuses on communications of people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda.
Administration officials “believe very strongly that the program is lawful,” said Mr. Gonzales, a main architect of the program as White House counsel and the biggest defender of its legality in a series of public pronouncements that began after the program was disclosed by The New York Times last December.
“We’re going to do everything we can do in the courts to allow this program to continue,” he said, because it “has been effective in protecting America.”
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, also described the surveillance program as a vital and lawful tool. “The whole point is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks before they can be carried out,” Mr. Snow said. “The terrorist surveillance program is firmly grounded in law and regularly reviewed to make sure steps are taken to protect civil liberties.”
Democrats applauded the ruling as an important affirmation of the rule of law, while lawyers for the A.C.L.U. said Judge Taylor’s decision was a sequel to the Supreme Court’s decision in June in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that struck down the administration’s plans to try detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for war crimes.
“It’s another nail in the coffin of executive unilateralism,” said Jameel Jaffer, an A.C.L.U. lawyer.
But allies of the administration called the decision legally questionable and politically motivated.
“It is an appallingly bad opinion, bad from both a philosophical and technical perspective, manifesting strong bias,” said David B. Rivkin, an official in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President Bush. “It is guaranteed to be overturned.”
Mr. Gonzales would not say whether the program played any role in foiling a plot last week to set off bombs in airliners bound for the United States from Britain. But Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, suggested that it did play a role in the investigation.
In a written statement criticizing Judge Taylor’s ruling, Mr. Hastert defended the wiretapping operation and said that “our terrorist surveillance programs are critical to fighting the war on terror and saved the day by foiling the London terror plot.”
His office declined to elaborate.
Mr. Bush alluded to the London plot today as an example of danger in an era of terrorism, but without asserting that the surveillance program had had a role in its detection. “You might remember last week, working with people in Great Britain, we disrupted a plot,” the president said.
Mr. Gonzales said on Thursday that he expected the ruling to figure in the debate in Congress over how and whether to change federal eavesdropping laws. But he said the exact impact was “hard to predict.”
Among competing proposals, Republican leaders have proposed legislation that would specifically permit the wiretapping program. Some Democrats, however, have introduced legislation that would restrict, or in some cases ban altogether, the government from conducting wiretaps on Americans without a warrant.
The White House is backing a plan, drafted by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, with the blessing of President Bush, that would allow a secret court to review the legality of the operation.
But in the view of critics, it could also broaden the president’s authority to conduct such operations. Mr. Gonzales said it appeared to administration lawyers that the Specter legislation, if passed by Congress, “would address some of the concerns raised by the judge in her opinion.”
Another element of the Specter legislation would force other lawsuits over the program — like the one brought by the A.C.L.U. in Detroit — to be consolidated into a single action to be heard by the secret court.
Judge Taylor rejected the government’s threshold argument that she should not hear the case at all because it concerned state secrets. Dismissal on those grounds was not required, she wrote, because the central facts in the case — the existence of the program, the lack of warrants and the focus on communications in which one party is in the United States — have been acknowledged by the government.
The government also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue because they had not suffered concrete harm from the program. Judge Taylor ruled that the plaintiffs “are stifled in their ability to vigorously conduct research, interact with sources, talk with clients and, in the case of the attorney plaintiffs, uphold their oath of providing effective and ethical representation of their clients.”
Some plaintiffs, the judge wrote, have had to incur travel expenses to visit clients and others to avoid possible monitoring of their communications.
Going beyond the arguments offered against the wiretapping program by many legal scholars, Judge Taylor ruled that it violated not only the 1978 law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, but also the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
The Supreme Court has never addressed the question of whether electronic surveillance of partly domestic communication violates the Fourth Amendment. Judge Taylor concluded that the wiretapping program is “obviously in violation of the Fourth Amendment.”
The president also violated the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrines, Judge Taylor ruled. Neither a September 2001 Congressional authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda nor the president’s inherent constitutional powers allow him to violate the 1978 law or the Fourth Amendment, she said.
“There are no hereditary kings in America and no powers not created by the Constitution,” she wrote, rejecting what she called the administration’s assertion that the president “has been granted the inherent power to violate not only the laws of the Congress but the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution itself.”
Republicans attacked the decision. “It is disappointing that a judge would take it upon herself to disarm America during a time of war,” said Representative Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
Judge Taylor did give the government a minor victory, rejecting on national security grounds a challenge to a separate surveillance program involving data mining. That ruling is consistent with recent decisions of federal courts in San Francisco and Chicago.
Judges in those cases drew a distinction between the wiretapping program, which the administration has acknowledged and defended, and the data mining program, which has not been officially confirmed.
David Stout contributed reporting for this article.
NSA Ruling a Victory For the Constitution
truthout.org
NSA Ruling a Victory For the Constitution
By Sarah Olson
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 18 August 2006
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, of the US District Court in Detroit, Michigan, handed the American Civil Liberties Union and their supporters a stunning victory yesterday when she ruled the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional. Taylor ruled the secret program violated the First and Fourth Constitutional amendments, as well as the separation of powers principle. She also ruled the surveillance program was not sanctioned by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, nor was it protected from judicial scrutiny by the State Secrets Act as the Department of Justice had argued.
In the landmark decision yesterday, Taylor wrote: "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."
The ruling is the first federal challenge to the wiretapping program allowing the NSA to secretly listen to phone calls placed from the US to foreign countries. The Bush administration says the program is used only on a limited number of "terrorist suspects," in extreme cases when it's not convenient to wait for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant. In turn, the ACLU and other civil liberties advocates argue the program violates Constitutionally protected rights to privacy and free speech, and has a chilling effect on communication.
Citing the 1967 US v. Robel ruling, Judge Taylor wrote, "Implicit in the term ‘national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. … It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of … those liberties … which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
Ann Beeson is the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in this case. In a statement yesterday, she said, "By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty."
Virginia Kerry, with NSA Public Affairs and Communications, declined to comment on the ruling yesterday, saying, "It would inappropriate to comment on matters of litigation; therefore, we have no information to provide."
The Department of Justice said the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an essential tool for the war on terror, and the Department of Justice has appealed the ruling. "The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaeda and its allies the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people."
James Bamford is the best-selling author of Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies and many other books, and is an authority on the NSA. He joined the ACLU's lawsuit, saying: "When NSA was allowed to operate in absolute secrecy, without oversight, it became a rogue agency." Bamford disagrees with the argument that this program protects US citizens against terrorism. "I haven't heard of any great accomplishments this program has had," he said. "In fact, I think there is more legitimacy to the argument this program is more of a hindrance than a help."
Bamford says he's concerned about the possible abuses of individual rights to speech and privacy and about letting a federal surveillance program exist in secret and without public or Congressional oversight, knowledge, or discussion. "To see what happens when there is no regulation on a surveillance program, take a look at the do-not-fly list. There is something like 20,000 names on it."
It's difficult, Bamford says, to know whether or not the NSA is surveiling you. Consequently, if a person is turned down for a small business loan, or rejected from a job with the federal government, it's possible that no one would tell the applicant his name appeared on a NSA security list. "Average Americans can fall into this web and not know about it and not be able to do anything about it. Typically, we have a system of checks and balances, but here, the NSA is judge, jury, and executioner."
Larry Diamond is another ACLU plaintiff against the NSA. He is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He says: "If the President can construe the law to mean what he wants it to mean, rather than follow what the Congress intended or get the Congress to change and modernize the law, then we no longer live under a rule of law, and our democracy is at risk. We cannot fight for freedom abroad by surrendering it at home."
Diamond is concerned that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program will have an adverse impact on free academic research and communication between countries. "One reason why the United States is held in such low esteem in other parts of the world today is because we are seen as hypocritical: We say we favor the rule of law, but we violate it when it suits us. We are against torture, but we won't unequivocally commit never to practice it. We pressure regimes to adhere to international human rights standards, and then we turn over terrorism suspects to their security agencies, knowing full well these suspects will be tortured. We say we favor democracy and human rights, but we ally with abusive regimes whenever we feel we need to. We vow to promote individual freedom as the central purpose of our foreign policy, and then we violate individual freedom with this secret, warrantless surveillance."
Immigrant communities have suffered disproportionately under this program. Kareem Shora is the Director of Legal Policy at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, which also signed onto the amicus brief. He lauded the court's decision yesterday, and said that if left unchecked, programs like the NSA's surveillance and wiretapping program would eventually render the Constitution meaningless.
Shora says this program has a chilling effect on speech in immigrant communities. "People in the Arab American community who make calls to the old country typically speak to their families in Arabic. This program has had a chilling effect on that communication." Shora says the US government is not known for its cultural and linguistic sensitivity when it comes to Arab cultures. "These conversations in Arabic are pick up by intelligence personnel and translated. If these translations are off by even one word, the entire meaning of a conversation can be changed and people are detained unnecessarily." In fact, entire families and communities have been ripped apart by these types of intelligence errors, Shora says.
Shora believes it's important to look at the NSA wiretapping surveillance program within the context of a number of post-9/11 policies that have served to frighten and harass immigrant communities. These programs include the now-suspended special registration program, the voluntary interview program, and government surveillance programs.
Leading democratic politicians reacted quickly to the ruling. Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, while upholding the necessity and importance of fighting terrorism at home and abroad, said, "I don't believe we advance the cause of fighting terrorism if our government takes Constitutionally dubious shortcuts of little law enforcement value that alienate the very groups in this country whose cooperation is central to fighting this seminal battle."
Russ Feingold, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been trying to get Congressional support for censure of President Bush for his authorization of the NSA surveillance program since March. "Today's district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program," Feingold said on Thursday. "The President must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress. We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so. The administration went too far with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Today's federal court decision is an important step toward checking the President's power grab."
Numerous civil rights organizations have signed onto the ACLU lawsuit with friends-of-the-court statements. Today, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund's executive director Margaret Fung said, "We are heartened that the Michigan federal court has struck down the Bush Administration's NSA domestic spying program. This is a tremendous victory for the Asian American community and for all Americans who cherish their rights to free speech and privacy. The President is not above the law, and these governmental abuses of power must end."
For now, Judge Taylor's ruling has handed the ACLU a substantial victory. The Department of Justice has appealed the case, and has announced that both parties have agreed to a temporary stay of Judge Taylor's injunction against the warrantless wiretapping program until the court can hear the Department of Justice's motion for a stay pending appeal.
Sarah Olson is an independent journalist and radio producer. You can reach her at solson75@yahoo.com.
NSA Ruling a Victory For the Constitution
By Sarah Olson
t r u t h o u t | Report
Friday 18 August 2006
Judge Anna Diggs Taylor, of the US District Court in Detroit, Michigan, handed the American Civil Liberties Union and their supporters a stunning victory yesterday when she ruled the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional. Taylor ruled the secret program violated the First and Fourth Constitutional amendments, as well as the separation of powers principle. She also ruled the surveillance program was not sanctioned by the Authorization of the Use of Military Force, nor was it protected from judicial scrutiny by the State Secrets Act as the Department of Justice had argued.
In the landmark decision yesterday, Taylor wrote: "It was never the intent of the Framers to give the President such unfettered control, particularly where his actions blatantly disregard the parameters clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights."
The ruling is the first federal challenge to the wiretapping program allowing the NSA to secretly listen to phone calls placed from the US to foreign countries. The Bush administration says the program is used only on a limited number of "terrorist suspects," in extreme cases when it's not convenient to wait for a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court warrant. In turn, the ACLU and other civil liberties advocates argue the program violates Constitutionally protected rights to privacy and free speech, and has a chilling effect on communication.
Citing the 1967 US v. Robel ruling, Judge Taylor wrote, "Implicit in the term ‘national defense' is the notion of defending those values and ideas which set this Nation apart. … It would indeed be ironic if, in the name of national defense, we would sanction the subversion of … those liberties … which make the defense of the Nation worthwhile."
Ann Beeson is the ACLU's associate legal director and the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in this case. In a statement yesterday, she said, "By holding that even the president is not above the law, the court has done its duty."
Virginia Kerry, with NSA Public Affairs and Communications, declined to comment on the ruling yesterday, saying, "It would inappropriate to comment on matters of litigation; therefore, we have no information to provide."
The Department of Justice said the Terrorist Surveillance Program is an essential tool for the war on terror, and the Department of Justice has appealed the ruling. "The Terrorist Surveillance Program is a critical tool that ensures we have in place an early warning system to detect and prevent terrorist attacks. In the ongoing conflict with al-Qaeda and its allies the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the American people."
James Bamford is the best-selling author of Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies and many other books, and is an authority on the NSA. He joined the ACLU's lawsuit, saying: "When NSA was allowed to operate in absolute secrecy, without oversight, it became a rogue agency." Bamford disagrees with the argument that this program protects US citizens against terrorism. "I haven't heard of any great accomplishments this program has had," he said. "In fact, I think there is more legitimacy to the argument this program is more of a hindrance than a help."
Bamford says he's concerned about the possible abuses of individual rights to speech and privacy and about letting a federal surveillance program exist in secret and without public or Congressional oversight, knowledge, or discussion. "To see what happens when there is no regulation on a surveillance program, take a look at the do-not-fly list. There is something like 20,000 names on it."
It's difficult, Bamford says, to know whether or not the NSA is surveiling you. Consequently, if a person is turned down for a small business loan, or rejected from a job with the federal government, it's possible that no one would tell the applicant his name appeared on a NSA security list. "Average Americans can fall into this web and not know about it and not be able to do anything about it. Typically, we have a system of checks and balances, but here, the NSA is judge, jury, and executioner."
Larry Diamond is another ACLU plaintiff against the NSA. He is Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He says: "If the President can construe the law to mean what he wants it to mean, rather than follow what the Congress intended or get the Congress to change and modernize the law, then we no longer live under a rule of law, and our democracy is at risk. We cannot fight for freedom abroad by surrendering it at home."
Diamond is concerned that the NSA warrantless wiretapping program will have an adverse impact on free academic research and communication between countries. "One reason why the United States is held in such low esteem in other parts of the world today is because we are seen as hypocritical: We say we favor the rule of law, but we violate it when it suits us. We are against torture, but we won't unequivocally commit never to practice it. We pressure regimes to adhere to international human rights standards, and then we turn over terrorism suspects to their security agencies, knowing full well these suspects will be tortured. We say we favor democracy and human rights, but we ally with abusive regimes whenever we feel we need to. We vow to promote individual freedom as the central purpose of our foreign policy, and then we violate individual freedom with this secret, warrantless surveillance."
Immigrant communities have suffered disproportionately under this program. Kareem Shora is the Director of Legal Policy at the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee, which also signed onto the amicus brief. He lauded the court's decision yesterday, and said that if left unchecked, programs like the NSA's surveillance and wiretapping program would eventually render the Constitution meaningless.
Shora says this program has a chilling effect on speech in immigrant communities. "People in the Arab American community who make calls to the old country typically speak to their families in Arabic. This program has had a chilling effect on that communication." Shora says the US government is not known for its cultural and linguistic sensitivity when it comes to Arab cultures. "These conversations in Arabic are pick up by intelligence personnel and translated. If these translations are off by even one word, the entire meaning of a conversation can be changed and people are detained unnecessarily." In fact, entire families and communities have been ripped apart by these types of intelligence errors, Shora says.
Shora believes it's important to look at the NSA wiretapping surveillance program within the context of a number of post-9/11 policies that have served to frighten and harass immigrant communities. These programs include the now-suspended special registration program, the voluntary interview program, and government surveillance programs.
Leading democratic politicians reacted quickly to the ruling. Congressman John Conyers (D-Mich.), ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, while upholding the necessity and importance of fighting terrorism at home and abroad, said, "I don't believe we advance the cause of fighting terrorism if our government takes Constitutionally dubious shortcuts of little law enforcement value that alienate the very groups in this country whose cooperation is central to fighting this seminal battle."
Russ Feingold, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been trying to get Congressional support for censure of President Bush for his authorization of the NSA surveillance program since March. "Today's district court ruling is a strong rebuke of this administration's illegal wiretapping program," Feingold said on Thursday. "The President must return to the Constitution and follow the statutes passed by Congress. We all want our government to monitor suspected terrorists, but there is no reason for it to break the law to do so. The administration went too far with the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. Today's federal court decision is an important step toward checking the President's power grab."
Numerous civil rights organizations have signed onto the ACLU lawsuit with friends-of-the-court statements. Today, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund's executive director Margaret Fung said, "We are heartened that the Michigan federal court has struck down the Bush Administration's NSA domestic spying program. This is a tremendous victory for the Asian American community and for all Americans who cherish their rights to free speech and privacy. The President is not above the law, and these governmental abuses of power must end."
For now, Judge Taylor's ruling has handed the ACLU a substantial victory. The Department of Justice has appealed the case, and has announced that both parties have agreed to a temporary stay of Judge Taylor's injunction against the warrantless wiretapping program until the court can hear the Department of Justice's motion for a stay pending appeal.
Sarah Olson is an independent journalist and radio producer. You can reach her at solson75@yahoo.com.
South Lebanon welcomes country's army
Yahoo! News
South Lebanon welcomes country's army
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press WriterThu Aug 17, 6:20 PM ET
Villagers throwing rice and Hezbollah supporters holding banners welcomed the country's army to south Lebanon on Thursday after a nearly 40-year absence, and the first airliner landed at Beirut airport since fighting began more than a month ago.
Four days into a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, there was still no firm date for a deployment of an enhanced international force that is supposed to expand to 15,000 troops and join an equal number of Lebanese soldiers. France announced it would provide only 400, and Germany — uneasy given its Nazi past of any possible military confrontation with Israeli soldiers — said it wouldn't send any.
France was expected to lead the U.N. force, and its announcement of such a small number focused attention on its demands for a more explicit mandate, including when to use firepower, and could affect contributions by other countries.
Even though the Israel withdrawal and handover to U.N. forces has gone well thus far, some potential contributors are believed to be concerned about avoiding confrontation with Hezbollah or being caught in the middle of a future conflict.
The U.N. cease-fire resolution called for the force to keep the peace and disarm Hezbollah fighters south of the Litani River. However, the Lebanese government adopted a mandate Wednesday that requires confiscation of Hezbollah arms only if carried in public. It said nothing about the network of Hezbollah rocket bunkers across the 18-mile stretch between the river and the Israeli border.
The deep political divisions in Lebanon resurfaced with the head of the largest parliamentary bloc blasting both Israel and Syria in a fiery nationalistic speech to hundreds of supporters.
Saad Hariri, the leader of an independent, secular bloc that has opposed Syrian domination of Lebanon and is seen as an opponent of Hezbollah, accused Israel of "living off the blood" of Arabs and said Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to sow strife in Lebanon. Syria and Iran are the main international backers of Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim guerrilla group opposed to Israel.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, when asked about Hariri's speech, said: "Too often in the Arab world, people think that political legitimacy is attained by bashing Israel."
At least 845 Lebanese were killed in the 34-day war: 743 civilians, 34 soldiers and 68 Hezbollah. Israel says it killed about 530 guerrillas. On the Israeli side, 157 were killed — 118 soldiers and 39 civilians, many from the 3,970 Hezbollah rocket strikes. The figures were compiled by The Associated Press, mostly from government officials on both sides.
In Beirut, the international airport reopened to commercial traffic for the first time since July 13 when it was attacked by Israeli warplanes and gunboats. A Middle East Airlines passenger jet touched down from Amman, Jordan, ending a 36-day Israeli blockade, and a Royal Jordanian flight followed soon after.
The Israeli military said it was coordinating the arrivals, and that the air blockade had not been lifted. But Middle East Airlines Chairman Mohammed Hout said the blockade was partially lifted to allow flights between Amman and Beirut. Airport officials said full commercial traffic could resume next week.
In southern Lebanon, about 2,500 Lebanese soldiers from the 10th Brigade set up camps within a half-mile of the Israeli border — a key step toward taking control of the whole country for the first time since 1968 and a major demand of the U.N. resolution that so far has halted the fighting.
The deployment marks the first time the Lebanese army has moved in force to a region that was held by Palestinian guerrillas in the 1970s and by Hezbollah since Israeli troops withdrew from the area in 2000.
As the Lebanese troops began spreading out along the frontier at the north end of Israel's Galilee panhandle, a convoy of eight U.N. peacekeeping trucks rumbled into Kfar Kila, just south of here, to take up positions that were held by Israelis before they began withdrawing. Those posts were to be transferred to Lebanese forces, mostly likely by early Friday.
Abu Hussein Awad, a 58-year-old Shiite, claims the distinction of being the Lebanese civilian who lives closest to Israel. His house backs up against the Fatima Gate where Israeli troops withdrew in 2000, ending an 18-year occupation of south Lebanon.
"The army is good, I'm glad they're here," said Awad, who has lived here for 50 years — most of the time Israel has been in existence.
He was asked if he supported Hezbollah.
"I'm Lebanese. I don't like Hezbollah ... . I love Lebanon only — not America, not Iran and not Syria — just Lebanon," he said, listing the key backers of the combatants in the war.
The area of Lebanon's border with Israel was in ruins. In the towns of Adaisse and Taibeh, south and west of Kfar Kila respectively, it was difficult to find a building that was not blackened, pockmarked by artillery or flattened altogether.
Wreckage was strewn through the streets, but new Hezbollah flags flapped in the wind over piles of rubble. In Kfar Kila, young men hung giant yellow banners above intersections. They read: "Rice, they will not see your new Mideast" and "The Great Lebanon has defeated the murderers." Both were signed, Hezbollah.
The only traffic in the towns was young bearded men zipping around piles of wreckage on motorcycles. They spoke quietly into two-way radios, occasionally dismounted to kiss one another on both cheeks, then zipped away. One had a handgun tucked into his belt. Another threw an AK-47 rifle into the back of a pickup truck when a reporter approached.
"I am a Hezbollah fighter, and this is my town," proclaimed 35-year-old Ahmed, who declined to give his full name because he feared retribution. His voice echoed off the shells of vacant, gnarled buildings in Adaisse's main square.
Ahmed pointed to one charred building after another. "That is where 18 of them (Israeli soldiers) died, and five more there," he said, pointing to buildings off the town square. "That over there is my business, a bookshop."
"Why did they (the Israelis) come? Why did they do this?" Ahmed screamed, his cement block house in shambles. "Next time the Israelis come, we'll fight again for sure." He broke open a 6-pack of mineral water he said he snatched from next to the bodies of Israeli soldiers killed days ago here.
Among the soldiers who will be taking up positions in villages like Adaisse and Taibeh was Cpl. Muhammed Abdul Rahim. The 42-year-old Lebanese army ranger from Tripoli, in the far north of the country, said he felt "like a new man today."
"It's a difficult mission, and the times now are still dangerous. I think we have one more week of danger in this country," he said.
The arrival of Adbul Rahim and his comrades was welcomed.
"We've been waiting for 30 years for this army to come," said George Najm, a 23-year-old wedding singer from Qleia. "Today is a new beginning."
"Lebanon is a beautiful country," Najm said as he looked over the valley toward Israel. "But it's been a pretty difficult place to live for the past month."
South Lebanon welcomes country's army
By LAUREN FRAYER, Associated Press WriterThu Aug 17, 6:20 PM ET
Villagers throwing rice and Hezbollah supporters holding banners welcomed the country's army to south Lebanon on Thursday after a nearly 40-year absence, and the first airliner landed at Beirut airport since fighting began more than a month ago.
Four days into a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, there was still no firm date for a deployment of an enhanced international force that is supposed to expand to 15,000 troops and join an equal number of Lebanese soldiers. France announced it would provide only 400, and Germany — uneasy given its Nazi past of any possible military confrontation with Israeli soldiers — said it wouldn't send any.
France was expected to lead the U.N. force, and its announcement of such a small number focused attention on its demands for a more explicit mandate, including when to use firepower, and could affect contributions by other countries.
Even though the Israel withdrawal and handover to U.N. forces has gone well thus far, some potential contributors are believed to be concerned about avoiding confrontation with Hezbollah or being caught in the middle of a future conflict.
The U.N. cease-fire resolution called for the force to keep the peace and disarm Hezbollah fighters south of the Litani River. However, the Lebanese government adopted a mandate Wednesday that requires confiscation of Hezbollah arms only if carried in public. It said nothing about the network of Hezbollah rocket bunkers across the 18-mile stretch between the river and the Israeli border.
The deep political divisions in Lebanon resurfaced with the head of the largest parliamentary bloc blasting both Israel and Syria in a fiery nationalistic speech to hundreds of supporters.
Saad Hariri, the leader of an independent, secular bloc that has opposed Syrian domination of Lebanon and is seen as an opponent of Hezbollah, accused Israel of "living off the blood" of Arabs and said Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to sow strife in Lebanon. Syria and Iran are the main international backers of Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim guerrilla group opposed to Israel.
Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev, when asked about Hariri's speech, said: "Too often in the Arab world, people think that political legitimacy is attained by bashing Israel."
At least 845 Lebanese were killed in the 34-day war: 743 civilians, 34 soldiers and 68 Hezbollah. Israel says it killed about 530 guerrillas. On the Israeli side, 157 were killed — 118 soldiers and 39 civilians, many from the 3,970 Hezbollah rocket strikes. The figures were compiled by The Associated Press, mostly from government officials on both sides.
In Beirut, the international airport reopened to commercial traffic for the first time since July 13 when it was attacked by Israeli warplanes and gunboats. A Middle East Airlines passenger jet touched down from Amman, Jordan, ending a 36-day Israeli blockade, and a Royal Jordanian flight followed soon after.
The Israeli military said it was coordinating the arrivals, and that the air blockade had not been lifted. But Middle East Airlines Chairman Mohammed Hout said the blockade was partially lifted to allow flights between Amman and Beirut. Airport officials said full commercial traffic could resume next week.
In southern Lebanon, about 2,500 Lebanese soldiers from the 10th Brigade set up camps within a half-mile of the Israeli border — a key step toward taking control of the whole country for the first time since 1968 and a major demand of the U.N. resolution that so far has halted the fighting.
The deployment marks the first time the Lebanese army has moved in force to a region that was held by Palestinian guerrillas in the 1970s and by Hezbollah since Israeli troops withdrew from the area in 2000.
As the Lebanese troops began spreading out along the frontier at the north end of Israel's Galilee panhandle, a convoy of eight U.N. peacekeeping trucks rumbled into Kfar Kila, just south of here, to take up positions that were held by Israelis before they began withdrawing. Those posts were to be transferred to Lebanese forces, mostly likely by early Friday.
Abu Hussein Awad, a 58-year-old Shiite, claims the distinction of being the Lebanese civilian who lives closest to Israel. His house backs up against the Fatima Gate where Israeli troops withdrew in 2000, ending an 18-year occupation of south Lebanon.
"The army is good, I'm glad they're here," said Awad, who has lived here for 50 years — most of the time Israel has been in existence.
He was asked if he supported Hezbollah.
"I'm Lebanese. I don't like Hezbollah ... . I love Lebanon only — not America, not Iran and not Syria — just Lebanon," he said, listing the key backers of the combatants in the war.
The area of Lebanon's border with Israel was in ruins. In the towns of Adaisse and Taibeh, south and west of Kfar Kila respectively, it was difficult to find a building that was not blackened, pockmarked by artillery or flattened altogether.
Wreckage was strewn through the streets, but new Hezbollah flags flapped in the wind over piles of rubble. In Kfar Kila, young men hung giant yellow banners above intersections. They read: "Rice, they will not see your new Mideast" and "The Great Lebanon has defeated the murderers." Both were signed, Hezbollah.
The only traffic in the towns was young bearded men zipping around piles of wreckage on motorcycles. They spoke quietly into two-way radios, occasionally dismounted to kiss one another on both cheeks, then zipped away. One had a handgun tucked into his belt. Another threw an AK-47 rifle into the back of a pickup truck when a reporter approached.
"I am a Hezbollah fighter, and this is my town," proclaimed 35-year-old Ahmed, who declined to give his full name because he feared retribution. His voice echoed off the shells of vacant, gnarled buildings in Adaisse's main square.
Ahmed pointed to one charred building after another. "That is where 18 of them (Israeli soldiers) died, and five more there," he said, pointing to buildings off the town square. "That over there is my business, a bookshop."
"Why did they (the Israelis) come? Why did they do this?" Ahmed screamed, his cement block house in shambles. "Next time the Israelis come, we'll fight again for sure." He broke open a 6-pack of mineral water he said he snatched from next to the bodies of Israeli soldiers killed days ago here.
Among the soldiers who will be taking up positions in villages like Adaisse and Taibeh was Cpl. Muhammed Abdul Rahim. The 42-year-old Lebanese army ranger from Tripoli, in the far north of the country, said he felt "like a new man today."
"It's a difficult mission, and the times now are still dangerous. I think we have one more week of danger in this country," he said.
The arrival of Adbul Rahim and his comrades was welcomed.
"We've been waiting for 30 years for this army to come," said George Najm, a 23-year-old wedding singer from Qleia. "Today is a new beginning."
"Lebanon is a beautiful country," Najm said as he looked over the valley toward Israel. "But it's been a pretty difficult place to live for the past month."
Marine Corps May Have Cleansed Haditha Files
The New York Times
Inquiry Suggests Marines Excised Files on Killings
By David S. Cloud
The New York Times
Friday 18 August 2006
Washington - A high-level military investigation into the killings of 24 Iraqis in Haditha last November has uncovered instances in which American marines involved in the episode appear to have destroyed or withheld evidence, according to two Defense Department officials briefed on the case.
The investigation found that an official company logbook of the unit involved had been tampered with and that an incriminating video taken by an aerial drone the day of the killings was not given to investigators until Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-ranking commander in Iraq, intervened, the officials said.
Those findings, contained in a long report that was completed last month but not made public, go beyond what has been previously reported about the case. It has been known that marines who carried out the killings made misleading statements to investigators and that senior officers were criticized for not being more aggressive in investigating the case, in which most or all of the Iraqis who were killed were civilians. But this is the first time details about possible concealment or destruction of evidence have been disclosed.
The report's findings have been sent to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is investigating members of the unit involved in the killings, as well as higher-ranking officers in the Second Marine Division. No charges have been brought yet.
The report, based on an investigation by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, does not directly accuse marines of attempting a cover-up, but it does describe several suspicious incidents, according to the Defense Department officials.
It says that the logbook, which was meant to be a daily record of major incidents the marines' company encountered, had all the pages missing for Nov. 19, the day of the killings, and that those portions had not been found, the officials said.
No conclusions are drawn about who may have tampered with the log. But the report says that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the leader of the squad involved in the killings, was on duty at the unit's operations center, where the logbook was kept, shortly after the killings occurred, the officials said.
Neal A. Puckett, a lawyer for Sergeant Wuterich, was unavailable to comment.
Investigators were also initially told by Marine officers that videotape taken by the drone was not available, one of the officials said. The officials added that the marines produced the tape only after General Bargewell had completed his inquiry and they had been asked again to produce it by General Chiarelli.
The report has been closely held within the Defense Department, and the officials who agreed to discuss it did so because they said they thought it should receive wider public attention. They agreed to speak only if their names were not published because they had not been authorized by superiors to discuss its contents.
The deaths occurred outside the town of Haditha after a three-vehicle convoy of marines was hit by a roadside bomb, killing a lance corporal. The squad then began going through houses nearby, killing Iraqis found inside in what defense lawyers have said was a justifiable use of lethal force by marines who believed they were under concerted attack by insurgents.
The Marine Corps issued a press release the next day saying that 15 of the civilian deaths had been caused by the bomb explosion. But several officers in the unit have said they knew even then that marines had killed all 24 of the dead Iraqis, 9 of whom were suspected insurgents.
Since then, the idea that any of the victims were insurgents has been challenged, both by Iraqi survivors and by some American military officials familiar with the case, noting that the victims included 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair. They have said that evidence suggests that the marines overreacted after the death of their fellow marine and shot the civilians in cold blood.
Marines have told investigators that at least one Iraqi who was shot was brandishing an AK-47 assault rifle. But no records were found that such a weapon was recovered at the scene and turned in to the unit's headquarters, as regulations require, the officials said.
Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a Marine Corps spokesman, said: "The Marine Corps is committed to a full and thorough investigation of the events that occurred at Haditha on Nov. 19, and the actions that followed that may have contributed to any improper reporting. If allegations of wrongdoing are substantiated, the Marine Corps will pursue appropriate legal and administrative actions."
The decision about whether to take disciplinary action will be made by Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of Marine Corps units in the Middle East, based on his review of both the Bargewell report and the results of the criminal investigation still under way.
In addition to faulting officers in the Second Marine Division for not aggressively investigating the Haditha killings, the Bargewell report said the commanders had created a climate that minimized the importance of Iraqi lives, particularly in Haditha, where insurgent attacks were rampant, the officials said.
"In their eyes, they didn't believe anyone was innocent," said one of the officials, describing the attitude of the marines in the unit toward Iraqis. "Either you were an active participant, or you were complicit."
Two days after the Haditha killings, Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, then the division commander, asked his staff for a briefing on what had happened, the officials said. General Huck later told investigators that he had ordered the briefing because he was concerned about the reports of civilian casualties, one of the officials said.
But the briefing provided to General Huck contained no mention of the civilian casualties, the investigators learned. Instead, according to one of the officials, it dealt almost entirely with the roadside bomb attack and other insurgent attacks on marines in Haditha throughout the day.
General Huck and other officers from the Second Marine Division have been ordered not to talk about the case, and a telephone call to the unit was referred to Colonel Gibson, the Marine spokesman. But some senior officers have previously defended their response to the killings, saying there was no reason to doubt the account provided by enlisted marines at the time, contending that civilian killings were an unfortunate but accidental byproduct of their pursuit of insurgents.
The involved marines' battalion commander, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, and their company commander, Capt. Lucas McConnell, told investigators that they had not reviewed the scene within the houses after the killings, despite the high number of civilian casualties, one of the officials said. Colonel Chessani was relieved of his command in April; Marine officials would not say whether the Haditha case was involved in the decision but said there were several reasons.
The video taken by the overhead drone was very limited, according to one of the officials. The aircraft was not flying over the site until after the bomb attack, so it only captured the aftermath. Even so, the video appears to contradict statements by marines about what occurred, the officials said.
In particular, it has raised doubts about a claim by enlisted marines that five Iraqis were shot as they were running away after the roadside bombing.
The officials said the video showed the bodies of the five Iraqis on the ground close to the car that they had been riding in, the officials said. In one case, the video appears to show one body stacked on top of another, which the officials said was inconsistent with the account that the men had been shot while fleeing.
Inquiry Suggests Marines Excised Files on Killings
By David S. Cloud
The New York Times
Friday 18 August 2006
Washington - A high-level military investigation into the killings of 24 Iraqis in Haditha last November has uncovered instances in which American marines involved in the episode appear to have destroyed or withheld evidence, according to two Defense Department officials briefed on the case.
The investigation found that an official company logbook of the unit involved had been tampered with and that an incriminating video taken by an aerial drone the day of the killings was not given to investigators until Lt. Gen. Peter W. Chiarelli, the second-ranking commander in Iraq, intervened, the officials said.
Those findings, contained in a long report that was completed last month but not made public, go beyond what has been previously reported about the case. It has been known that marines who carried out the killings made misleading statements to investigators and that senior officers were criticized for not being more aggressive in investigating the case, in which most or all of the Iraqis who were killed were civilians. But this is the first time details about possible concealment or destruction of evidence have been disclosed.
The report's findings have been sent to the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is investigating members of the unit involved in the killings, as well as higher-ranking officers in the Second Marine Division. No charges have been brought yet.
The report, based on an investigation by Maj. Gen. Eldon A. Bargewell of the Army, does not directly accuse marines of attempting a cover-up, but it does describe several suspicious incidents, according to the Defense Department officials.
It says that the logbook, which was meant to be a daily record of major incidents the marines' company encountered, had all the pages missing for Nov. 19, the day of the killings, and that those portions had not been found, the officials said.
No conclusions are drawn about who may have tampered with the log. But the report says that Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, the leader of the squad involved in the killings, was on duty at the unit's operations center, where the logbook was kept, shortly after the killings occurred, the officials said.
Neal A. Puckett, a lawyer for Sergeant Wuterich, was unavailable to comment.
Investigators were also initially told by Marine officers that videotape taken by the drone was not available, one of the officials said. The officials added that the marines produced the tape only after General Bargewell had completed his inquiry and they had been asked again to produce it by General Chiarelli.
The report has been closely held within the Defense Department, and the officials who agreed to discuss it did so because they said they thought it should receive wider public attention. They agreed to speak only if their names were not published because they had not been authorized by superiors to discuss its contents.
The deaths occurred outside the town of Haditha after a three-vehicle convoy of marines was hit by a roadside bomb, killing a lance corporal. The squad then began going through houses nearby, killing Iraqis found inside in what defense lawyers have said was a justifiable use of lethal force by marines who believed they were under concerted attack by insurgents.
The Marine Corps issued a press release the next day saying that 15 of the civilian deaths had been caused by the bomb explosion. But several officers in the unit have said they knew even then that marines had killed all 24 of the dead Iraqis, 9 of whom were suspected insurgents.
Since then, the idea that any of the victims were insurgents has been challenged, both by Iraqi survivors and by some American military officials familiar with the case, noting that the victims included 10 women and children and an elderly man in a wheelchair. They have said that evidence suggests that the marines overreacted after the death of their fellow marine and shot the civilians in cold blood.
Marines have told investigators that at least one Iraqi who was shot was brandishing an AK-47 assault rifle. But no records were found that such a weapon was recovered at the scene and turned in to the unit's headquarters, as regulations require, the officials said.
Lt. Col. Sean Gibson, a Marine Corps spokesman, said: "The Marine Corps is committed to a full and thorough investigation of the events that occurred at Haditha on Nov. 19, and the actions that followed that may have contributed to any improper reporting. If allegations of wrongdoing are substantiated, the Marine Corps will pursue appropriate legal and administrative actions."
The decision about whether to take disciplinary action will be made by Lt. Gen. James N. Mattis, the commander of Marine Corps units in the Middle East, based on his review of both the Bargewell report and the results of the criminal investigation still under way.
In addition to faulting officers in the Second Marine Division for not aggressively investigating the Haditha killings, the Bargewell report said the commanders had created a climate that minimized the importance of Iraqi lives, particularly in Haditha, where insurgent attacks were rampant, the officials said.
"In their eyes, they didn't believe anyone was innocent," said one of the officials, describing the attitude of the marines in the unit toward Iraqis. "Either you were an active participant, or you were complicit."
Two days after the Haditha killings, Maj. Gen. Richard A. Huck, then the division commander, asked his staff for a briefing on what had happened, the officials said. General Huck later told investigators that he had ordered the briefing because he was concerned about the reports of civilian casualties, one of the officials said.
But the briefing provided to General Huck contained no mention of the civilian casualties, the investigators learned. Instead, according to one of the officials, it dealt almost entirely with the roadside bomb attack and other insurgent attacks on marines in Haditha throughout the day.
General Huck and other officers from the Second Marine Division have been ordered not to talk about the case, and a telephone call to the unit was referred to Colonel Gibson, the Marine spokesman. But some senior officers have previously defended their response to the killings, saying there was no reason to doubt the account provided by enlisted marines at the time, contending that civilian killings were an unfortunate but accidental byproduct of their pursuit of insurgents.
The involved marines' battalion commander, Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, and their company commander, Capt. Lucas McConnell, told investigators that they had not reviewed the scene within the houses after the killings, despite the high number of civilian casualties, one of the officials said. Colonel Chessani was relieved of his command in April; Marine officials would not say whether the Haditha case was involved in the decision but said there were several reasons.
The video taken by the overhead drone was very limited, according to one of the officials. The aircraft was not flying over the site until after the bomb attack, so it only captured the aftermath. Even so, the video appears to contradict statements by marines about what occurred, the officials said.
In particular, it has raised doubts about a claim by enlisted marines that five Iraqis were shot as they were running away after the roadside bombing.
The officials said the video showed the bodies of the five Iraqis on the ground close to the car that they had been riding in, the officials said. In one case, the video appears to show one body stacked on top of another, which the officials said was inconsistent with the account that the men had been shot while fleeing.
France Declines to Contribute Major Force for U.N. Mission
washingtonpost
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A16
...France on Thursday rebuffed pleas by U.N. officials to make a major contribution to a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, setting back efforts to deploy an international military force to help police a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, according to U.N. and French officials...
...France would contribute only 200 additional troops to the U.N. operation in southern Lebanon...
...several governments, including Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh, committed to send a total of nearly 4,000 troops, while Britain, Denmark and Germany agreed to send warships to patrol Lebanon's Mediterranean coast for arms smuggling. The United States pledged to provide logistical support, but not ground troops...
...Germany's ... would also provide customs officers and specialized police to help Lebanon monitor its border with Syria, a key transit point for Hezbollah's arms supplies....
...no firm commitments to contribute personnel for a crucial, well-equipped spearhead force of 3,500 troops that the United Nations is trying to get into southern Lebanon within the next 10 days...
By Colum Lynch
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 18, 2006; Page A16
...France on Thursday rebuffed pleas by U.N. officials to make a major contribution to a peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon, setting back efforts to deploy an international military force to help police a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah, according to U.N. and French officials...
...France would contribute only 200 additional troops to the U.N. operation in southern Lebanon...
...several governments, including Indonesia, Nepal and Bangladesh, committed to send a total of nearly 4,000 troops, while Britain, Denmark and Germany agreed to send warships to patrol Lebanon's Mediterranean coast for arms smuggling. The United States pledged to provide logistical support, but not ground troops...
...Germany's ... would also provide customs officers and specialized police to help Lebanon monitor its border with Syria, a key transit point for Hezbollah's arms supplies....
...no firm commitments to contribute personnel for a crucial, well-equipped spearhead force of 3,500 troops that the United Nations is trying to get into southern Lebanon within the next 10 days...
Kurds flee homes as Iran shells Iraq's northern frontier
WHATREALLYHAPPENED.COM
Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.
Frustrated by the reluctance of the US and the government in Baghdad to crack down on the PKK bases inside Iraq, Turkish generals have hinted they are considering a large-scale military operation across the border. They are said to be sharing intelligence about Kurdish rebel movements with their Iranian counterparts.
Posted Aug 17, 2006 06:30 PM PST
READ MORE
The more I think about this, the more problem I have with it.
If Israel has a right to invade Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, then by that precedent Iran has a right to invade Iraq to counter the threat of the Kurdish rebels.
But why would Iran choose to do so now, so close to the August 22nd deadline to halt their power station project? It just does not make sense.
How do we know it is Iran carrying out the shelling?
Turkey and Iran have dispatched tanks, artillery and thousands of troops to their frontiers with Iraq during the past few weeks in what appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt the activities of Kurdish rebel bases.
Frustrated by the reluctance of the US and the government in Baghdad to crack down on the PKK bases inside Iraq, Turkish generals have hinted they are considering a large-scale military operation across the border. They are said to be sharing intelligence about Kurdish rebel movements with their Iranian counterparts.
Posted Aug 17, 2006 06:30 PM PST
READ MORE
The more I think about this, the more problem I have with it.
If Israel has a right to invade Lebanon to fight Hezbollah, then by that precedent Iran has a right to invade Iraq to counter the threat of the Kurdish rebels.
But why would Iran choose to do so now, so close to the August 22nd deadline to halt their power station project? It just does not make sense.
How do we know it is Iran carrying out the shelling?
King endorses ethnic profiling - Newsday.com
Newsday.com
King endorses ethnic profiling
BY J. JIONI PALMER
Newsday Washington Bureau
August 17, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Declaring that airport screeners shouldn't be hampered by "political correctness," House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King has endorsed requiring people of "Middle Eastern and South Asian" descent to undergo additional security checks because of their ethnicity and religion.
Discussing the recent revelation of an alleged plot in England to blow up U.S.-bound airliners, the Seaford Republican said yesterday that, "if the threat is coming from a particular group, I can understand why it would make sense to single them out for further questioning."
King, who has said that all Muslims aren't terrorists but that all recent terrorists are Muslim, favors an ethnic and religious profiling scheme that would include foreign and American-born travelers. "I would give the investigators and screeners a lot of discretion as to where it ends," he said.
Despite King's endorsement of such a process, it is a technique that has been widely dismissed as a legitimate law enforcement tool.
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, a childhood friend of King's whom the congressman calls one of the nation's leading counter-terrorism officials, has previously called racial profiling "nuts" and "ineffective," and eliminated the practice when he oversaw the U.S. Customs Service.
The U.S. Justice Department issued a policy three years ago banning racial profiling and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said yesterday that he doesn't favor the practice.
"I think that, you know, taking action against someone solely because of their race and solely because of their religion I think is problematic," Gonzales said.
Bob Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies with the Washington-based Cato Institute, a conservative-libertarian think tank, said racial profiling gradually came into disfavor among law enforcement officials because "they discovered that this kind of profiling was very rarely effective in ferreting out useful information."
He said targeting people based on a range of criteria is a more operative and constitutionally legitimate tool to stop wrongdoers than relying on a blanket profile.
"Simply to profile all Muslims with nothing more than that, I think, would be considered a constitutional problem," Levy said. "Besides, if you are using a profile it doesn't follow that a profile is always effective."
Besides being ineffective, profiling ostracizes a community that could be essential in helping to combat terrorism, said Ahmed Younis of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
"In many ways, it is allowing the terrorists what they want, which is the betrayal of our constitutional principles and the disenfranchisement of the communities that we need the most in the war against extremism and terrorism," he said. "American Muslims are on the front lines in the war on terrorism and Mr. King's approach deprives America of her strongest weapon."
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
King endorses ethnic profiling
BY J. JIONI PALMER
Newsday Washington Bureau
August 17, 2006
WASHINGTON -- Declaring that airport screeners shouldn't be hampered by "political correctness," House Homeland Security Chairman Peter King has endorsed requiring people of "Middle Eastern and South Asian" descent to undergo additional security checks because of their ethnicity and religion.
Discussing the recent revelation of an alleged plot in England to blow up U.S.-bound airliners, the Seaford Republican said yesterday that, "if the threat is coming from a particular group, I can understand why it would make sense to single them out for further questioning."
King, who has said that all Muslims aren't terrorists but that all recent terrorists are Muslim, favors an ethnic and religious profiling scheme that would include foreign and American-born travelers. "I would give the investigators and screeners a lot of discretion as to where it ends," he said.
Despite King's endorsement of such a process, it is a technique that has been widely dismissed as a legitimate law enforcement tool.
NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly, a childhood friend of King's whom the congressman calls one of the nation's leading counter-terrorism officials, has previously called racial profiling "nuts" and "ineffective," and eliminated the practice when he oversaw the U.S. Customs Service.
The U.S. Justice Department issued a policy three years ago banning racial profiling and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said yesterday that he doesn't favor the practice.
"I think that, you know, taking action against someone solely because of their race and solely because of their religion I think is problematic," Gonzales said.
Bob Levy, senior fellow in constitutional studies with the Washington-based Cato Institute, a conservative-libertarian think tank, said racial profiling gradually came into disfavor among law enforcement officials because "they discovered that this kind of profiling was very rarely effective in ferreting out useful information."
He said targeting people based on a range of criteria is a more operative and constitutionally legitimate tool to stop wrongdoers than relying on a blanket profile.
"Simply to profile all Muslims with nothing more than that, I think, would be considered a constitutional problem," Levy said. "Besides, if you are using a profile it doesn't follow that a profile is always effective."
Besides being ineffective, profiling ostracizes a community that could be essential in helping to combat terrorism, said Ahmed Younis of the Muslim Public Affairs Council.
"In many ways, it is allowing the terrorists what they want, which is the betrayal of our constitutional principles and the disenfranchisement of the communities that we need the most in the war against extremism and terrorism," he said. "American Muslims are on the front lines in the war on terrorism and Mr. King's approach deprives America of her strongest weapon."
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
World Net Daily Forced To Issue 9/11 Hit Piece Retraction
World Net Daily Forced To Issue 9/11 Hit Piece Retraction
"No such comments made by Jones," admits website as another attack exposed for baseless allegations and shoddy research
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 18 2006
Following a radio show debate yesterday in which a 9/11 hit piece article written by Jonathon Moseley for World Net Daily was exposed as containing numerous flaws and baseless allegations, the online news site was later forced to issue a retraction.
One of the most glaring inaccuracies of the article was Moseley's claim that Professor Steven Jones of the 9/11 Truth Scholars, during a conference aired on C-Span, called "for the violent overthrow of the government."
After painstaking analysis of all the tapes from the conference there was no evidence whatsoever that a statement even close to this nature was ever made by Jones.
Following the radio debate, World Net Daily were pressed into issuing the following retraction on their website.
Editor's note, Aug. 17, 2006: In paragraph four of this column, the author makes an assertion about professor Steven Jones' remarks at a 9/11 symposium broadcast by C-SPAN. A review of the program online evidenced no such comments by Jones."
Despite the fact that the claim has been ridiculed and a retraction issued, it can still be read in the fourth paragraph of the article. Since the false claim is potentially damaging to Professor Steven Jones' career - it should be removed altogether.
The last major instance where a retraction to a 9/11 hit piece was issued was in the case of Cinnamon Stillwell's San Francisco Chronicle article in which she claimed that the "whole country witnessed the horrific sight of planes flying into the....Pentagon," an obviously fraudulent claim given that no clear footage of whatever hit the Pentagon was shown on 9/11 or to this day.
"Cinnamon Stillwell's column Wednesday on SFGate originally stated that images of the plane that struck the Pentagon had been seen by the American public. No such images have been made public," read the Chronicle's retraction.
Now we have forced two major websites, one being one of the biggest newspapers in the country, to eat crow and in the case of the journalists concerned, expose themselves as narrow-minded and inept in performing the most basic research skills.
Mistakes mirrored by other large newspapers who seem gung-ho about attacking 9/11 researchers yet seem to struggle when it comes to actually naming them correctly or accurately citing their work.
This latest example of ineptitude on the part of Moseley and World Net Daily only brings their other claims about 9/11 under further scrutiny. If they can't even ascribe the correct statements to the right people, yet use false allegations to try and smear the characters of respected professionals, how can we trust their assertions that 9/11 skeptics are wrong?
The agenda of these individuals is not to research the subject matter and present an honest appraisal of the evidence, it is to zealously savage and try and discredit the 9/11 truth movement. In most cases this isn't because they are on a CIA payroll, it's because any dissenting voice that challenges their cosey world view is an affront to them - and they will go to any lengths to shout us down - including inventing quotes and using them to tar people with.
Unfortunately, their faux pas are as stiflingly obvious as a turd in a punch bowl - and their credibility sinks ever deeper each time they try and pull one of these stunts.
Following a spate of editorials which sought to debunk the 9/11 truth movement and personally attack its progenitors, released on cue almost as if an order went out, this website will continue to defend our friends and colleagues from unfounded personal attacks and also counter any attempts to debunk credible 9/11 evidence.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
From Mania to Depression
From Mania to Depression
From Mania to Depression
By Uri Avnery
08/17/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Tel Aviv. --- Thirty three days of war. The longest of our wars since 1949.
On the Israeli side: 154 dead--117 of them soldiers. 3970 rockets launched against us, 37 civilians dead, more than 422 civilians wounded.
On the Lebanese side: about a thousand dead civilians, thousands wounded. An unknown number of Hizbullah fighters dead and wounded.
More than a million refugees on both sides.
So what has been achieved for this terrible price?
"GLOOMY, HUMBLE, despondent," was how the journalist Yossef Werter described Ehud Olmert, a few hours after the cease-fire had come into effect.
Olmert? Humble? Is this the same Olmert we know? The same Olmert who thumped the table and shouted: "No more!" Who said: "After the war, the situation will be completely different than before!" Who promised a "New Middle East" as a result of the war?
THE RESULTS of the war are obvious:
* The prisoners, who served as casus belli (or pretext) for the war, have not been released. They will come back only as a result of an exchange of prisoners, exactly as Hassan Nasrallah proposed before the war.
* Hizbullah has remained as it was. It has not been destroyed, nor disarmed, nor even removed from where it was. Its fighters have proved themselves in battle and have even garnered compliments from Israeli soldiers. Its command and communication stucture has continued to function to the end. Its TV station is still broadcasting.
* Hassan Nasrallah is alive and kicking. Persistent attempts to kill him failed. His prestige is sky-high. Everywhere in the Arab world, from Morocco to Iraq, songs are being composed in his honor and his picture adorns the walls.
* The Lebanese army will be deployed along the border, side by side with a large international force. That is the only material change that has been achieved.
This will not replace Hizbullah. Hizbullah will remain in the area, in every village and town. The Israeli army has not succeeded in removing it from one single village. That was simply impossible without permanently removing the population to which it belongs.
The Lebanese army and the international force cannot and will not confront Hizbullah. Their very presence there depends on Hizbullah's consent. In practice, a kind of co-existence of the three forces will come into being, each one knowing that it has to come to terms with the other two.
Perhaps the international force will be able to prevent incursions by Hizbullah, such as the one that preceded this war. But it will also have to prevent Israeli actions, such as the reconnaissance flights of our Air Force over Lebanon. That's why the Israeli army objected, at the beginning, so strenuously to the introduction of this force.
IN ISRAEL, there is now a general atmosphere of disappointment and despondency. From mania to depression. It's not only that the politicians and the generals are firing accusations at each other, as we foresaw, but the general public is also voicing criticism from every possible angle. The soldiers criticize the conduct of the war, the reserve soldiers gripe about the chaos and the failure of supplies.
In all parties, there are new opposition groupings and threats of splits. In Kadima. In Labor. It seems that in Meretz, too, there is a lot of ferment, because most of its leaders supported the war dragon almost until the last moment, when they caught its tail and pierced it with their little lance.
At the head of the critics are marching--surprise, surprise--the media. The entire horde of interviewers and commentators, correspondents and presstitutes, who (with very few exceptions) enthused about the war, who deceived, misled, falsified, ignored, duped and lied for the fatherland, who stifled all criticism and branded as traitors all who opposed the war--they are now running ahead of the lynch mob. How predictable, how ugly. Suddenly they remember what we have been saying right from the beginning of the war.
This phase is symbolized by Dan Halutz, the Chief-of-Staff. Only yesterday he was the hero of the masses, it was forbidden to utter a word against him. Now he is being described as a war profiteer. A moment before sending his soldiers into battle, he found the time to sell his shares, in expectation of a decline of the stock market. (Let us hope that a moment before the end he found the time to buy them back again.)
Victory, as is well known, has many fathers, and failure in war is an orphan.
FROM THE deluge of accusations and gripes, one slogan stands out , a slogan that must send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone with a good memory: "the politicians did not let the army win."
Exactly as I wrote two weeks ago, we see before our very eyes the resurrection of the old cry "they stabbed the army in the back!"
This is how it goes: At long last, two days before the end, the land offensive started to roll. Thanks to our heroic soldiers, the men of the reserves, it was a dazzling success. And then, when we were on the verge of a great victory, the cease-fire came into effect.
There is not a single word of truth in this. This operation, which was planned and which the army spent years training for, was not carried out earlier, because it was clear that it would not bring any meaningful gains but would be costly in lives. The army would, indeed, have occupied wide areas, but without being able to dislodge the Hizbullah fighters from them.
The town of Bint Jbeil, for example, right next to the border, was taken by the army three times, and the Hizbullah fighters remained there to the end. If we had occupied 20 towns and villages like this one, the soldiers and the tanks would have been exposed in twenty places to the mortal attacks of the guerillas with their highly effective anti-tank weapons.
If so, why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this operation after all--well after the UN had already called for an end to hostilities? The horrific answer: it was a cynical--not to say vile--exercise of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create "a picture of victory", as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33 soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed.
The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of the Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the cease-fire would come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the Litani.
For comparison: in the first Lebanon war, that of Sharon in 1982, the army crossed the Litani in the first few hours. (The Litani, by the way, is not a real river anymore, but just a shallow creek. Most of its waters are drawn off far from there, in the north. Its last stretch is about 25 km distant from the border, near Metulla the distance is only 4 km.)
This time, when the cease-fire took effect, all the units taking part had reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks, surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, without secure supply lines. From that moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place.
If a commission of inquiry is set up--as it must be--and investigates all the moves of this war, starting from the way the decision to start it was made, it will also have to investigate the decision to start this last operation. The death of 33 soldiers (including the son of the writer David Grossman, who had supported the war) and the pain this caused their families demand that!
BUT THESE facts are not yet clear to the general public. The brain-washing by the military commentators and the ex-generals, who dominated the media at the time, has turned the foolish--I would almost say "criminal"--operation into a rousing victory parade. The decision of the political leadership to stop it is now being seen by many as an act of defeatist, spineless, corrupt and even treasonous politicians.
And that is exactly the new slogan of the fascist Right that is now raising its ugly head.
After World War I, in similar circumstances, the legend of the "knife in the back of the victorious army" grew up. Adolf Hitler used it to carry him to power--and on to World War II.
Now, even before the last fallen soldier has been buried, the incompetent generals are starting to talk shamelessly about "another round", the next war that will surely come "in a month or in a year", God willing. After all, we cannot end the matter like this, in failure. Where is our pride?
THE ISRAELI public is now in a state of shock and disorientation. Accusations--justified and unjustified--are flung around in all directions, and it cannot be foreseen how things will develop.
Perhaps, in the end, it is logic that will win. Logic says: what has thoroughly been demonstrated is that there is no military solution. That is true in the North. That is also true in the South, where we are confronting a whole people that has nothing to lose anymore. The success of the Lebanese guerilla will encourage the Palestinian guerilla.
For logic to win, we must be honest with ourselves: pinpoint the failures, investigate their deeper causes, draw the proper conclusions.
Some people want to prevent that at any price. President Bush declares vociferously that we have won the war. A glorious victory over the Evil Ones. Like his own victory in Iraq.
When a football team is able to choose the referee, it is no surprise if it is declared the winner.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
From Mania to Depression
By Uri Avnery
08/17/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- Tel Aviv. --- Thirty three days of war. The longest of our wars since 1949.
On the Israeli side: 154 dead--117 of them soldiers. 3970 rockets launched against us, 37 civilians dead, more than 422 civilians wounded.
On the Lebanese side: about a thousand dead civilians, thousands wounded. An unknown number of Hizbullah fighters dead and wounded.
More than a million refugees on both sides.
So what has been achieved for this terrible price?
"GLOOMY, HUMBLE, despondent," was how the journalist Yossef Werter described Ehud Olmert, a few hours after the cease-fire had come into effect.
Olmert? Humble? Is this the same Olmert we know? The same Olmert who thumped the table and shouted: "No more!" Who said: "After the war, the situation will be completely different than before!" Who promised a "New Middle East" as a result of the war?
THE RESULTS of the war are obvious:
* The prisoners, who served as casus belli (or pretext) for the war, have not been released. They will come back only as a result of an exchange of prisoners, exactly as Hassan Nasrallah proposed before the war.
* Hizbullah has remained as it was. It has not been destroyed, nor disarmed, nor even removed from where it was. Its fighters have proved themselves in battle and have even garnered compliments from Israeli soldiers. Its command and communication stucture has continued to function to the end. Its TV station is still broadcasting.
* Hassan Nasrallah is alive and kicking. Persistent attempts to kill him failed. His prestige is sky-high. Everywhere in the Arab world, from Morocco to Iraq, songs are being composed in his honor and his picture adorns the walls.
* The Lebanese army will be deployed along the border, side by side with a large international force. That is the only material change that has been achieved.
This will not replace Hizbullah. Hizbullah will remain in the area, in every village and town. The Israeli army has not succeeded in removing it from one single village. That was simply impossible without permanently removing the population to which it belongs.
The Lebanese army and the international force cannot and will not confront Hizbullah. Their very presence there depends on Hizbullah's consent. In practice, a kind of co-existence of the three forces will come into being, each one knowing that it has to come to terms with the other two.
Perhaps the international force will be able to prevent incursions by Hizbullah, such as the one that preceded this war. But it will also have to prevent Israeli actions, such as the reconnaissance flights of our Air Force over Lebanon. That's why the Israeli army objected, at the beginning, so strenuously to the introduction of this force.
IN ISRAEL, there is now a general atmosphere of disappointment and despondency. From mania to depression. It's not only that the politicians and the generals are firing accusations at each other, as we foresaw, but the general public is also voicing criticism from every possible angle. The soldiers criticize the conduct of the war, the reserve soldiers gripe about the chaos and the failure of supplies.
In all parties, there are new opposition groupings and threats of splits. In Kadima. In Labor. It seems that in Meretz, too, there is a lot of ferment, because most of its leaders supported the war dragon almost until the last moment, when they caught its tail and pierced it with their little lance.
At the head of the critics are marching--surprise, surprise--the media. The entire horde of interviewers and commentators, correspondents and presstitutes, who (with very few exceptions) enthused about the war, who deceived, misled, falsified, ignored, duped and lied for the fatherland, who stifled all criticism and branded as traitors all who opposed the war--they are now running ahead of the lynch mob. How predictable, how ugly. Suddenly they remember what we have been saying right from the beginning of the war.
This phase is symbolized by Dan Halutz, the Chief-of-Staff. Only yesterday he was the hero of the masses, it was forbidden to utter a word against him. Now he is being described as a war profiteer. A moment before sending his soldiers into battle, he found the time to sell his shares, in expectation of a decline of the stock market. (Let us hope that a moment before the end he found the time to buy them back again.)
Victory, as is well known, has many fathers, and failure in war is an orphan.
FROM THE deluge of accusations and gripes, one slogan stands out , a slogan that must send a cold shiver down the spine of anyone with a good memory: "the politicians did not let the army win."
Exactly as I wrote two weeks ago, we see before our very eyes the resurrection of the old cry "they stabbed the army in the back!"
This is how it goes: At long last, two days before the end, the land offensive started to roll. Thanks to our heroic soldiers, the men of the reserves, it was a dazzling success. And then, when we were on the verge of a great victory, the cease-fire came into effect.
There is not a single word of truth in this. This operation, which was planned and which the army spent years training for, was not carried out earlier, because it was clear that it would not bring any meaningful gains but would be costly in lives. The army would, indeed, have occupied wide areas, but without being able to dislodge the Hizbullah fighters from them.
The town of Bint Jbeil, for example, right next to the border, was taken by the army three times, and the Hizbullah fighters remained there to the end. If we had occupied 20 towns and villages like this one, the soldiers and the tanks would have been exposed in twenty places to the mortal attacks of the guerillas with their highly effective anti-tank weapons.
If so, why was it decided, at the last moment, to carry out this operation after all--well after the UN had already called for an end to hostilities? The horrific answer: it was a cynical--not to say vile--exercise of the failed trio. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz wanted to create "a picture of victory", as was openly stated in the media. On this altar the lives of 33 soldiers (including a young woman) were sacrificed.
The aim was to photograph the victorious soldiers on the bank of the Litani. The operation could only last 48 hours, when the cease-fire would come into force. In spite of the fact that the army used helicopters to land the troops, the aim was not attained. At no point did the army reach the Litani.
For comparison: in the first Lebanon war, that of Sharon in 1982, the army crossed the Litani in the first few hours. (The Litani, by the way, is not a real river anymore, but just a shallow creek. Most of its waters are drawn off far from there, in the north. Its last stretch is about 25 km distant from the border, near Metulla the distance is only 4 km.)
This time, when the cease-fire took effect, all the units taking part had reached villages on the way to the river. There they became sitting ducks, surrounded by Hizbullah fighters, without secure supply lines. From that moment on, the army had only one aim: to get them out of there as quickly as possible, regardless of who might take their place.
If a commission of inquiry is set up--as it must be--and investigates all the moves of this war, starting from the way the decision to start it was made, it will also have to investigate the decision to start this last operation. The death of 33 soldiers (including the son of the writer David Grossman, who had supported the war) and the pain this caused their families demand that!
BUT THESE facts are not yet clear to the general public. The brain-washing by the military commentators and the ex-generals, who dominated the media at the time, has turned the foolish--I would almost say "criminal"--operation into a rousing victory parade. The decision of the political leadership to stop it is now being seen by many as an act of defeatist, spineless, corrupt and even treasonous politicians.
And that is exactly the new slogan of the fascist Right that is now raising its ugly head.
After World War I, in similar circumstances, the legend of the "knife in the back of the victorious army" grew up. Adolf Hitler used it to carry him to power--and on to World War II.
Now, even before the last fallen soldier has been buried, the incompetent generals are starting to talk shamelessly about "another round", the next war that will surely come "in a month or in a year", God willing. After all, we cannot end the matter like this, in failure. Where is our pride?
THE ISRAELI public is now in a state of shock and disorientation. Accusations--justified and unjustified--are flung around in all directions, and it cannot be foreseen how things will develop.
Perhaps, in the end, it is logic that will win. Logic says: what has thoroughly been demonstrated is that there is no military solution. That is true in the North. That is also true in the South, where we are confronting a whole people that has nothing to lose anymore. The success of the Lebanese guerilla will encourage the Palestinian guerilla.
For logic to win, we must be honest with ourselves: pinpoint the failures, investigate their deeper causes, draw the proper conclusions.
Some people want to prevent that at any price. President Bush declares vociferously that we have won the war. A glorious victory over the Evil Ones. Like his own victory in Iraq.
When a football team is able to choose the referee, it is no surprise if it is declared the winner.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
Every airport traveller 'will be fingerprinted'
Every airport traveller 'will be fingerprinted'
BY GERRI PEEV POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Airport biometric procedures to be extended after alleged terror plot
Six out of ten believe government is not exaggerating terrorism threat
Reid reaction to terror has seen his public profile soar as Blair's successor
Key quote
08/17/06 "Scotsman" -- -- BIOMETRIC testing is set to be introduced at European airports under plans for stringent new security measures revealed yesterday in the wake of last week's alleged terror plot.
Passengers would have their fingerprint or iris scanned under the measures proposed by EU interior ministers, which would also use passenger profiling to try to identify potential terrorists.
The move to beef up relaxed security procedures in Europe came as John Reid, the Home Secretary, warned that human rights would have to be balanced against the threat from terrorism and that the current terror threat was Europe-wide and needed to be tackled on an international level.
The EU minister in charge of justice, Franco Frattini, said ministers were looking at the "positive profiling" of passengers, carried out well in advance of their flights, based on "biometric identifiers" such as iris scans or fingerprints.
However, both he and Mr Reid stressed that there were no plans for profiling based on passengers' ethnic origins. Rather, the profiling would be drawn from biometric information.
This would actually speed up airport security procedures, he argued.
But the scheme could also pave the way for an EU-wide database, provoking outrage from privacy rights campaigners last night.
The plan to extend biometric procedures - already enforced in the United States, Canada and Australia - to European airports was revealed after an informal meeting of EU interior ministers in London yesterday.
Other measures agreed include a commitment to stamping out radicalism by stricter policing of the internet, replacing extremism with a "European" model of Islam, a 250 million research project into liquid explosives and a meeting of security services across Europe this month.
The details emerged after ministers from the current Finnish EU presidency, as well as future EU presidencies Germany, France, Portugal and Slovenia, were briefed along with Mr Reid and Mr Frattini yesterday by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the MI5 director general, and Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, the head of special operations at Scotland Yard.
Responding to the plans, Phil Booth, the national co-ordinator of NO2ID, a UK campaign group which lobbies against a centralised biometrics database, said the biometric scheme could not work unless Europe had the fingerprint of every international terrorist on record.
"If [interior ministers] do not have that, then what they are proposing is the construction of the largest haystack of all time to find a few needles," he said.
"This magical thinking about biometrics identifying terrorists is plainly crazy. What is more worrying is that John Reid is grandstanding and using an alleged incident to conflate our security and our freedom."
Mr Booth added that biometrics could also be used for de facto racial profiling of passengers: "Because it is a measure of the body, biometrics will often identify people's ethnic origin."
Other proposals revealed by Mr Frattini included the training of imams at EU level after concerns that extremists were taking over mosques, while radicalisation across schools and prisons would also come under closer scrutiny.
"We do want a European Islam and that is very important not only to show to the Muslim communities that we fully respect other religions ... but we also want [them to] respect national laws, European laws and fundamental rights - first of all the right to life," he said.
The bloc will look into a suggestion by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister, to set up counter-terrorism expert teams at EU level ready to help countries if needed, he said.
Meanwhile, a separate 250 million fund was announced to help to research and detect liquid explosives.
Mr Frattini said that he would make proposals in coming days on the detection of explosives.
Yesterday, Mr Reid said Europe would not allow terrorists to undermine the "common European values that bind our societies together".
The proponents of terror "would abuse our open societies, would misuse our freedoms and adapt the latest technology to their evil intent and have no regard for human life or for human rights".
"As we face the threat of mass murder, we have to accept that the rights of the individual that we enjoy must, and will be, balanced with the collective right of security and the protection of life and limb that our citizens demand," he added.
Meanwhile, a YouGov poll out today reveals that more than half of people in the UK questioned wanted a "more aggressive" foreign policy. And 55 per cent supported passenger profiling at airports.
BY GERRI PEEV POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
Airport biometric procedures to be extended after alleged terror plot
Six out of ten believe government is not exaggerating terrorism threat
Reid reaction to terror has seen his public profile soar as Blair's successor
Key quote
"As we face the threat of mass murder we have to accept that the rights of the individual that we enjoy must, and will be, balanced with the collective right of security and the protection of life and limb that our citizens demand." - JOHN REID, THE HOME SECRETARY
08/17/06 "Scotsman" -- -- BIOMETRIC testing is set to be introduced at European airports under plans for stringent new security measures revealed yesterday in the wake of last week's alleged terror plot.
Passengers would have their fingerprint or iris scanned under the measures proposed by EU interior ministers, which would also use passenger profiling to try to identify potential terrorists.
The move to beef up relaxed security procedures in Europe came as John Reid, the Home Secretary, warned that human rights would have to be balanced against the threat from terrorism and that the current terror threat was Europe-wide and needed to be tackled on an international level.
The EU minister in charge of justice, Franco Frattini, said ministers were looking at the "positive profiling" of passengers, carried out well in advance of their flights, based on "biometric identifiers" such as iris scans or fingerprints.
However, both he and Mr Reid stressed that there were no plans for profiling based on passengers' ethnic origins. Rather, the profiling would be drawn from biometric information.
This would actually speed up airport security procedures, he argued.
But the scheme could also pave the way for an EU-wide database, provoking outrage from privacy rights campaigners last night.
The plan to extend biometric procedures - already enforced in the United States, Canada and Australia - to European airports was revealed after an informal meeting of EU interior ministers in London yesterday.
Other measures agreed include a commitment to stamping out radicalism by stricter policing of the internet, replacing extremism with a "European" model of Islam, a 250 million research project into liquid explosives and a meeting of security services across Europe this month.
The details emerged after ministers from the current Finnish EU presidency, as well as future EU presidencies Germany, France, Portugal and Slovenia, were briefed along with Mr Reid and Mr Frattini yesterday by Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, the MI5 director general, and Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, the head of special operations at Scotland Yard.
Responding to the plans, Phil Booth, the national co-ordinator of NO2ID, a UK campaign group which lobbies against a centralised biometrics database, said the biometric scheme could not work unless Europe had the fingerprint of every international terrorist on record.
"If [interior ministers] do not have that, then what they are proposing is the construction of the largest haystack of all time to find a few needles," he said.
"This magical thinking about biometrics identifying terrorists is plainly crazy. What is more worrying is that John Reid is grandstanding and using an alleged incident to conflate our security and our freedom."
Mr Booth added that biometrics could also be used for de facto racial profiling of passengers: "Because it is a measure of the body, biometrics will often identify people's ethnic origin."
Other proposals revealed by Mr Frattini included the training of imams at EU level after concerns that extremists were taking over mosques, while radicalisation across schools and prisons would also come under closer scrutiny.
"We do want a European Islam and that is very important not only to show to the Muslim communities that we fully respect other religions ... but we also want [them to] respect national laws, European laws and fundamental rights - first of all the right to life," he said.
The bloc will look into a suggestion by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister, to set up counter-terrorism expert teams at EU level ready to help countries if needed, he said.
Meanwhile, a separate 250 million fund was announced to help to research and detect liquid explosives.
Mr Frattini said that he would make proposals in coming days on the detection of explosives.
Yesterday, Mr Reid said Europe would not allow terrorists to undermine the "common European values that bind our societies together".
The proponents of terror "would abuse our open societies, would misuse our freedoms and adapt the latest technology to their evil intent and have no regard for human life or for human rights".
"As we face the threat of mass murder, we have to accept that the rights of the individual that we enjoy must, and will be, balanced with the collective right of security and the protection of life and limb that our citizens demand," he added.
Meanwhile, a YouGov poll out today reveals that more than half of people in the UK questioned wanted a "more aggressive" foreign policy. And 55 per cent supported passenger profiling at airports.
Former CIA Contractor Is Found Guilty
Former CIA Contractor Is Found Guilty
By Estes Thompson
The Associated Press
Go to Original
Thursday 17 August 2006
Raleigh, North Carolina - A former CIA contractor accused of severely beating an Afghan detainee with a flashlight during questioning was found guilty Thursday of assault.
The beaten detainee later died, but David Passaro, 40, wasn't charged in his death. The federal jury found him guilty after about 8 hours of deliberations of three counts of simple assault and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
Passaro faces up to 11 1/2 years in prison. No sentencing date was immediately set.
Passaro was the first American civilian to be charged with mistreating a detainee during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was accused of beating Abdul Wali while the man was being questioned in 2003 about rocket attacks on a remote base where Passaro was stationed with U.S. and Afghan troops.
Passaro's actions were "unlawful, reprehensible, and neither authorized nor condoned by the agency," CIA Director Michael Hayden said in an e-mail sent to agency employees and shared with reporters.
Hayden said that Passaro's actions "were totally inconsistent with the normal conduct of CIA officers and contractors, who reflect the core values of our nation and, day in and day out, are risking their lives to help keep all Americans safe."
Passaro was impassive as the jury verdict was read. After jurors left the courtroom, he stood up and quietly extended his wrists so federal marshals could handcuff him.
"Dave was disappointed in the verdict. We're going to keep on fighting," said defense lawyer Joe Gilbert. He declined to say if Passaro planned to appeal.
Members of Passaro's church watched from the gallery as the verdict was read, and a retired minister leading the small group from Flat Branch Presbyterian Church in Bunn Level said they continue to support him.
"David will be strong," Bert Pitchford said. "He has good faith."
Lawyers painted vastly different pictures of the defendant during the trial.
Prosecutor Jim Candelmo said Passaro beat Wali "mercilessly for 48 hours before he died" as he tried to get information about rocket attacks on the Asadabad base in remote northeastern Afghanistan.
"This is a flashlight," Candelmo told the jury. "It is used by many of you and me to illuminate a path in the darkness.... He used it as a bludgeon.
"Why is he hitting him? To inflict pain to get him to talk."
Defense lawyer Joe Gilbert argued that Passaro tapped Wali with the flashlight.
"Basically, Dave lost the game of musical chairs," he said. "We wouldn't be here if this terrorist hadn't died."
Candelmo said fingerprints from the flashlight batteries linked Passaro to the crime. Pathologists testifying for the prosecution and the defense disagreed over whether photos of Wali's body and testimony from guards show that the prisoner probably died from beatings.
Prosecutors had charged Passaro with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent of bodily harm, and two counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The jury instead convicted him of lesser charges, an option the judge offered during jury instructions.
Passaro was tried under a provision of the USA Patriot Act, which allows charges against U.S. citizens for crimes committed on land or facilities designated for use by the U.S. government.
"The assault took place 8,000 miles away from here," acting U.S. Attorney George Holding said. "The person assaulted was an Afghan farmer. ... But because it was done at a U.S. base with an American flag flying over it, that victim found a little bit of justice here today."
By Estes Thompson
The Associated Press
Go to Original
Thursday 17 August 2006
Raleigh, North Carolina - A former CIA contractor accused of severely beating an Afghan detainee with a flashlight during questioning was found guilty Thursday of assault.
The beaten detainee later died, but David Passaro, 40, wasn't charged in his death. The federal jury found him guilty after about 8 hours of deliberations of three counts of simple assault and one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury.
Passaro faces up to 11 1/2 years in prison. No sentencing date was immediately set.
Passaro was the first American civilian to be charged with mistreating a detainee during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was accused of beating Abdul Wali while the man was being questioned in 2003 about rocket attacks on a remote base where Passaro was stationed with U.S. and Afghan troops.
Passaro's actions were "unlawful, reprehensible, and neither authorized nor condoned by the agency," CIA Director Michael Hayden said in an e-mail sent to agency employees and shared with reporters.
Hayden said that Passaro's actions "were totally inconsistent with the normal conduct of CIA officers and contractors, who reflect the core values of our nation and, day in and day out, are risking their lives to help keep all Americans safe."
Passaro was impassive as the jury verdict was read. After jurors left the courtroom, he stood up and quietly extended his wrists so federal marshals could handcuff him.
"Dave was disappointed in the verdict. We're going to keep on fighting," said defense lawyer Joe Gilbert. He declined to say if Passaro planned to appeal.
Members of Passaro's church watched from the gallery as the verdict was read, and a retired minister leading the small group from Flat Branch Presbyterian Church in Bunn Level said they continue to support him.
"David will be strong," Bert Pitchford said. "He has good faith."
Lawyers painted vastly different pictures of the defendant during the trial.
Prosecutor Jim Candelmo said Passaro beat Wali "mercilessly for 48 hours before he died" as he tried to get information about rocket attacks on the Asadabad base in remote northeastern Afghanistan.
"This is a flashlight," Candelmo told the jury. "It is used by many of you and me to illuminate a path in the darkness.... He used it as a bludgeon.
"Why is he hitting him? To inflict pain to get him to talk."
Defense lawyer Joe Gilbert argued that Passaro tapped Wali with the flashlight.
"Basically, Dave lost the game of musical chairs," he said. "We wouldn't be here if this terrorist hadn't died."
Candelmo said fingerprints from the flashlight batteries linked Passaro to the crime. Pathologists testifying for the prosecution and the defense disagreed over whether photos of Wali's body and testimony from guards show that the prisoner probably died from beatings.
Prosecutors had charged Passaro with two counts of assault with a dangerous weapon with intent of bodily harm, and two counts of assault resulting in serious bodily injury. The jury instead convicted him of lesser charges, an option the judge offered during jury instructions.
Passaro was tried under a provision of the USA Patriot Act, which allows charges against U.S. citizens for crimes committed on land or facilities designated for use by the U.S. government.
"The assault took place 8,000 miles away from here," acting U.S. Attorney George Holding said. "The person assaulted was an Afghan farmer. ... But because it was done at a U.S. base with an American flag flying over it, that victim found a little bit of justice here today."
Israel's army chief dumped stock hrs before launching war
The Truth Will Set You Free
Israel's current army chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, came under deep pressure to resign because of revelations he found time to call his broker and sell off his stocks to avoid wartime losses hours before launching Israel's largest military operation since 1982.Hmmm. Ring a bell?
Below notice director Niv Harizman was with Alex. Brown (BT for Bankers Trust): This is the firm that executed the "puts" prior to the September 11 attack that took positions the stocks of American Airlines, United Airlines, Boeing, some brokerage houses, and several reinsurance companies (some inter-locked) including AXA Assurance, Swiss Re and Munich Re would plunge ... as if portending fore-knowledge.Back to the future . . .
[H]is stock transactions [were] called insensitive and arrogant.When money is all that matters, you can do just about anything . . .
Halutz has acknowledged selling about $28,000 worth of stocks at noon on July 12, three hours after the Hezbollah raid that touched off the war.
Politicians and military commanders called for Halutz' resignation.
"This is something that makes you wonder if there is some very problematic chemistry with this person. How, in the middle of everything, could you suddenly think about your bank account? It doesn't make sense to me," dovish politician Ran Cohen, who is a reserve colonel in the paratroopers, told Israel's Channel 10 TV.
Halutz expressed no regret over the sale, saying he has finances to manage like any other Israeli. "They've turned me into Shylock," he told the Yediot Ahronot daily, referring to Shakespeare's despised Jewish "Merchant of Venice.". . . without regret.
Anger Management
AGITPROP: Version 3.0, Featuring Blogenfreude
**don't airposrts piss a lot of people off anyway? Wouldn't a LOT of people simply look annoyed?**
**don't airposrts piss a lot of people off anyway? Wouldn't a LOT of people simply look annoyed?**
Anger Management
We recently blogged on stuff you should be afraid of, like breast milk and toothpaste. Now, apparently, you should be afraid of people that look determined or angry (click image above to expand).
Let's say you've had a fight with your spouse in advance of a business trip - hey, it happens. So you get to the airport and suddenly you're pulled over, bundled into a room, and given the full rectal. Sure, you weren't going to blow up an airliner, but why not be on the safe side?
Taking a page from Israeli airport security, the transportation agency has been experimenting with this new squad, whose members do not look for bombs, guns or knives. Instead, the assignment is to find anyone with evil intent.
Doesn't that give you a warm feeling? Let's strip search the woman who just had a fight with her boyfriend - who cares about the guy with the bomb who looks cheerful because he's going to get his 72 virgins in a few minutes? As a member of the Reality Based Community, don't you want them to find the bomb or the knife instead of the middle manager who just got canned by his boss?
And if you're pissed off because you were bumped off the last flight? You'll never on that plane.
data theft--US Dept of Trans. --133,000 from Florida affected
Aug. 16, 2006 --
Another theft of personal data has been reported from the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General's office in Miami. A laptop computer containing several case files and sensitive personal information was stolen from a hotel room in Orlando. In April, an employee of the IG's office was attending a conference at the Wyndham Resort in Orlando and left her laptop in a locked conference room. When the employee returned, the computer was gone. As has been reported by WMR, most of these thefts are tied to a covert U.S. intelligence operation to populate Total Information Awareness surveillance databases. The theft was the second loss of personal data by the Transportation Department's Miami office. On July 27, another laptop was stolen from an employee's automobile. The computer contained personal information on 133,000 Floridians.
Another theft of personal data has been reported from the U.S. Department of Transportation Inspector General's office in Miami. A laptop computer containing several case files and sensitive personal information was stolen from a hotel room in Orlando. In April, an employee of the IG's office was attending a conference at the Wyndham Resort in Orlando and left her laptop in a locked conference room. When the employee returned, the computer was gone. As has been reported by WMR, most of these thefts are tied to a covert U.S. intelligence operation to populate Total Information Awareness surveillance databases. The theft was the second loss of personal data by the Transportation Department's Miami office. On July 27, another laptop was stolen from an employee's automobile. The computer contained personal information on 133,000 Floridians.
Media Matters - Imus producer on man who admitted killing Ramsey: "He looks like Ned Lamont, actually. Is that who you want representing you, Connecti
Media Matters
On the August 17 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, executive producer Bernard McGuirk said that John Mark Karr, the man who reportedly admitted to killing 6-year-old beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey in 1996, "looks like Ned Lamont, actually." McGuirk then asked: "Is that who you want representing you, Connecticut?"
McGuirk's remarks were just the latest attack against Lamont, the Democratic nominee for a Connecticut Senate seat. As the weblog Think Progress noted, on the August 16 edition of Fox News Live, former Weekly Standard deputy publisher David Bass said that a woman who caused a plane to be diverted after suffering a panic attack was "probably not a terrorist; could just be a Ned Lamont supporter." As Media Matters for America has noted, since his victory in the primary on August 8, Lamont has been cast by members of the media as a part of the "Taliban wing" of the Democratic party, "anti-American," "defeatist" and the latest example of how Democrats have become "apologists for terrorists."
From the August 17 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
McGUIRK: He was a nutjob obsessed with child slayings. He was supposedly researching a book on it, and he's clearly a pencil-necked pervert himself.
IMUS: Yeah.
McGUIRK: But, again, until they have some DNA or some hard evidence, he could be just jerking everybody's chain here.
IMUS: Now, when we -- well, this footage that I'm looking at on MSNBC, was that from yesterday?
McGUIRK: He looks like Ned Lamont, actually. Is that who you want representing you, Connecticut?
From the August 16 edition of Fox News Live:
BASS: Unfortunately, it is the new normal. I mean, there's no more shouting, you know, fire in a theater. This is serious stuff. You know, you say the wrong thing, do the wrong thing, information is conveyed in a wrong manner, you can have a plane being shot down, so it's -- People are on edge. You can't really -- she's probably not Al Qaeda affiliated, probably not a terrorist; could just be a Ned Lamont supporter, we don't know. But it's --
BOB SELLERS (host): Had to go there, didn't you?
BASS: I did.
Bush surveillance program violates Constitution, judge rules
freep.com
Bush surveillance program violates Constitution, judge rules
August 17, 2006
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program violates the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
Bush surveillance program violates Constitution, judge rules
August 17, 2006
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal judge in Detroit has ruled that the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance program violates the Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency’s program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of journalists, scholars and lawyers who say the program has made it difficult for them to do their jobs. They believe many of their overseas contacts are likely targets of the program, which involves wiretapping conversations between people in the U.S. and people in other countries.
The government argued that the program is well within the president’s authority, but said proving that would require revealing state secrets.
The ACLU said the state-secrets argument was irrelevant because the Bush administration already had publicly revealed enough information about the program for Taylor to rule.
Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq - New York Times
New York Times
August 16, 2006
Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq
THOM SHANKER and MARK MAZZETTI
**bombing the hell out of the country, torture, rape and murder, all of that will make people pissed off. Did he really expect Iraq to be GRATEFUL? Hell, he probably did...**
August 16, 2006
Bush Said to Be Frustrated by Level of Public Support in Iraq
THOM SHANKER and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Aug. 15 — President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.
**bombing the hell out of the country, torture, rape and murder, all of that will make people pissed off. Did he really expect Iraq to be GRATEFUL? Hell, he probably did...**
Those who attended a Monday lunch at the Pentagon that included the president’s war cabinet and several outside experts said Mr. Bush carefully avoided expressing a clear personal view of the new prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
But in what participants described as a telling line of questioning, Mr. Bush did ask each of the academic experts for their assessment of the prime minister’s effectiveness.
“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”
Another person who attended the session said he interpreted Mr. Bush’s comments less as an expression of frustration than as uncertainty over the prospects of the new Iraqi government. “He said he really didn’t quite have a sense yet of how effective the government was,” said this person, who, like several who discussed the session, agreed to speak only anonymously because it was a private lunch.
More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration that Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd. “I do think he was frustrated about why 10,000 Shiites would go into the streets and demonstrate against the United States,” said another person who attended.
The White House would not comment on the details of the discussion but a senior official warned against drawing conclusions on what the president thinks based on questions he asked in the process of drawing out the invited guests.
Participants said Mr. Bush appeared serious and engaged during the lunch, which lasted more than 90 minutes, as the experts went through a lengthy discussion of the political, ethnic, religious and security challenges in Iraq. And through it all, Mr. Bush showed no signs of veering from the administration’s policies to support the new government and train Iraqi security forces to take over the fight, and only then bring American troops home.
One participant in the lunch, Carole A. O’Leary, a professor at American University who is also doing work in Iraq with a State Department grant, said Mr. Bush expressed the view that “the Shia-led government needs to clearly and publicly express the same appreciation for United States efforts and sacrifices as they do in private.”
The White House began to open its doors to a wider range of views earlier this year, after acknowledging that months of complaints after Hurricane Katrina that the president and his team were isolated — “living in a bubble” was a frequent refrain — had gotten through. But that accelerated after Joshua B. Bolten became White House chief of staff in the spring.
**clearly, Bush is still living in a bubble**One of the participants at the Monday lunch, Eric Davis, a Rutgers University political science professor who previously served as director of the university’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, released a text of his remarks.
Mr. Davis said he discussed the regional upheaval that could follow if Iraq descended into chaos or was allowed to divide along ethnic lines. “I believe that the American people do not fully understand the potential domino effects that the collapse of Iraq into disorder and anarchy would have on the Middle East and the global political system,” he said.
Mr. Davis said he urged the creation of more jobs for younger Iraqis, and proposed a major reconstruction fund to be underwritten by Saudi Arabia and other Arab oil states seeking regional stability.
Although none of the academics openly criticized Bush administration policy, according to those in attendance, Mr. Davis did take issue with the administration’s order to remove Baath Party members from public service, and he urged the hiring of more qualified Baathists in Iraq or living abroad, and inviting retired army officers back into service.
Vali R. Nasr, an expert on Shia Islam, said the Pentagon meeting appeared to be an effort to give White House, Pentagon and State Department officials better insight into Iraq’s religious and ethnic mix.
“They wanted new insight, so they could better understand the arena in which they are making policy,” said Mr. Nasr, author of “The Shia Revival.” He said he got no sense that the Bush administration was contemplating a shift in its Iraq policy.
Some who have been brought into past meetings with President Bush, even fierce critics of the conduct of the Iraq war, give credit to the White House for beginning to listen to alternate viewpoints.
Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a retired Army commander who went to the White House in May, said he believed that Mr. Bolten has been largely responsible for bringing in new voices to counsel the president.
“They’re listening to new ideas and they’re listening to the reality,” said General McCaffrey, who has criticized Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and believes that the Iraq war could break the United States Army.
But one critic of the administration’s management of the war effort said he remained unconvinced that the White House was actually listening to alternative viewpoints.
The critic, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in a telephone interview that “one of the hallmarks of this administration has been stubbornness to any change of approach.”
Truthdig - Reports - Molly Ivins: Osama Hearts Lamont
Truthdig
Molly Ivins: Osama Hearts Lamont
Posted on Aug 16, 2006
By Molly Ivins
If you listen to Dick Cheney, Bin Laden & Co. were staying up late to hear the Lamont-Lieberman election returns from Darien, Conn.
AUSTIN, Texas—The most cunning refinement yet in the administration’s plot to scare the liver, lights and onions out of us with Tales of Terror Plots is the Department of Homeland Security’s brilliant move to declare Indiana the national center of terrorism, with 8,591 potential targets. Many citizens have questioned the Indiana move—some claiming it is a waste of money trying to stop attacks on the Wabash Cannonball. The Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument might merit a little more attention. This is precisely why it is better to have Michael Chertoff and Karl Rove making these Homeland Security decisions, rather than Osama bin Laden.
The defeat of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary alerted Veep Dick Cheney to the menace. Ned Lamont, the guy who beat Lieberman, said he was surprised that Cheney claimed his victory would embolden Osama bin, as we call him Texas.
“My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how we can turn this to partisan advantage,” complained Lamont. Lieberman warned that Lamont’s call for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be “taken as a tremendous victory” by the terrorists. Cheney said it would encourage “the Al Qaeda types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”
Wow. How little we realized that the fate of a single senator—especially such a whiny and sanctimonious one—meant everything to Osama bin. Must’ve pulled off his turban and danced around his cave when he got the news. The whole Al Qaeda bunch stayed up just to hear the late returns from Darien, Conn.
Give President Bush another five years or so and he’s bound to figure out that Osama bin is not in Iraq—then we’ll be right on his tail.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, The Hill newspaper reports that an Enron lobbyist (former aide to Joe Lieberman and money-raiser for him and convicted Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, whom he describes as being “like-minded guys") is demanding that Democratic senators not campaign against Lieberman. When asking other professional influence-peddlers to contribute, he tells them to come back for Lieberman, saying, “Who knows what Lamont would be like?”
For example, Lamont might use his power to make sure the Enron investigation gets serious—a task that Lieberman, ranking Democrat on the Government Affairs Committee, has avoided. No surprise that the lobbyists and insiders want to keep their guy.
In other news, we have the answer to a troubling part of the Middle East jigsaw puzzle: how to rebuild Iraq. We ought to drop Halliburton like a skillet full of rattlesnakes and get Hezbollah on the job. Did you ever see a better rebuilding bunch than this Hezbollah? The shooting hadn’t even stopped yet when the “Army of God” was hustling around with plywood and duct tape, putting everything back together. And who do they get to pay for it all but the Arabs. Now that’s what I call rebuilding!
To find out more about Molly Ivins and see works by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website, www.creators.com.
Molly Ivins: Osama Hearts Lamont
Posted on Aug 16, 2006
By Molly Ivins
If you listen to Dick Cheney, Bin Laden & Co. were staying up late to hear the Lamont-Lieberman election returns from Darien, Conn.
AUSTIN, Texas—The most cunning refinement yet in the administration’s plot to scare the liver, lights and onions out of us with Tales of Terror Plots is the Department of Homeland Security’s brilliant move to declare Indiana the national center of terrorism, with 8,591 potential targets. Many citizens have questioned the Indiana move—some claiming it is a waste of money trying to stop attacks on the Wabash Cannonball. The Statue of Liberty and the Washington Monument might merit a little more attention. This is precisely why it is better to have Michael Chertoff and Karl Rove making these Homeland Security decisions, rather than Osama bin Laden.
The defeat of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman in the Democratic primary alerted Veep Dick Cheney to the menace. Ned Lamont, the guy who beat Lieberman, said he was surprised that Cheney claimed his victory would embolden Osama bin, as we call him Texas.
“My God, here we have a terrorist threat against hearth and home, and the very first thing that comes out of their mind is how we can turn this to partisan advantage,” complained Lamont. Lieberman warned that Lamont’s call for a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq would be “taken as a tremendous victory” by the terrorists. Cheney said it would encourage “the Al Qaeda types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”
Wow. How little we realized that the fate of a single senator—especially such a whiny and sanctimonious one—meant everything to Osama bin. Must’ve pulled off his turban and danced around his cave when he got the news. The whole Al Qaeda bunch stayed up just to hear the late returns from Darien, Conn.
Give President Bush another five years or so and he’s bound to figure out that Osama bin is not in Iraq—then we’ll be right on his tail.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, The Hill newspaper reports that an Enron lobbyist (former aide to Joe Lieberman and money-raiser for him and convicted Republican Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, whom he describes as being “like-minded guys") is demanding that Democratic senators not campaign against Lieberman. When asking other professional influence-peddlers to contribute, he tells them to come back for Lieberman, saying, “Who knows what Lamont would be like?”
For example, Lamont might use his power to make sure the Enron investigation gets serious—a task that Lieberman, ranking Democrat on the Government Affairs Committee, has avoided. No surprise that the lobbyists and insiders want to keep their guy.
In other news, we have the answer to a troubling part of the Middle East jigsaw puzzle: how to rebuild Iraq. We ought to drop Halliburton like a skillet full of rattlesnakes and get Hezbollah on the job. Did you ever see a better rebuilding bunch than this Hezbollah? The shooting hadn’t even stopped yet when the “Army of God” was hustling around with plywood and duct tape, putting everything back together. And who do they get to pay for it all but the Arabs. Now that’s what I call rebuilding!
To find out more about Molly Ivins and see works by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website, www.creators.com.
Bomb Plot “Key Player” a CIA-ISI Asset
Another Day in the Empire
Thursday August 17th 2006, 8:17 am
Leave it up to the corporate media to ignore the obvious and continue to push the original Brothers Grimm fairy tale about liquid bombers taking out jetliners because they hate our freedoms.
For instance, the chief patsy in the supposed terror plot—a plot sans any compelling evidence, or for that matter any evidence, period—Rashid Rauf, “is a close relative of Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood Azhar,” according to NDTV.
Not mentioned here is the fact Jaish-e-Mohammed is a creature of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), that is to say the CIA. “During the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the CIA,” notes the decidedly less than conspiratorial Wikipedia. “A number of officers from the ISI’s Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers.”
“While collaborating in the British investigation, Pakistan’s Military Intelligence is known to have actively supported and financed the Kasmir rebel groups, which allegedly had contacts with the London bombers,” Michel Chossudovsky explained in the wake of the July 7, 2005, London bombings. “The ISI was instrumental in the creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM) in the late 1980s. (See K. Subrahmanyam, ‘Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals’, India Abroad, 3 November 1995). It has also supported the other two main Pakistan-based Kashmir rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba, (Army of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed), which claimed responsibility for the attacks on the Indian parliament in October 2001…. Moreover, according to intelligence sources and the FBI, the ISI also provided support to the alleged 9/11 hijackers.”
Naturally, in order to portray Rauf in an even more sinister light, we are told he “deserted” the ISI Kashmir operation “and joined Al Qaeda,” according to Hafiz Allah Bukhsh, the father of Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood Azhar. In effect, this may be viewed as a lateral promotion, as al-Qaeda is an ISI-CIA collaborative project as well, even though Jaish-e-Mohammed and al-Qaeda are portrayed as rivals.
In an effort to insert distance between Pakistan’s thug leader Pervez Musharraf—installed after the ISI decided the former thug-in-residence, Brig Imtiaz, had to go—and the ISI created and nurtured militant groups in Kashmir, the corporate media reported Musharraf “banned several militant groups, including Jaish, in 2002″ and as a result some “groups splintered and transformed after the ban and some members left to join Al Qaeda, experts say,” reports the International Herald Tribune.
“Pakistani intelligence officials say Rauf was arrested in Bahawalpur on Aug. 9, just hours before British police detained 24 people suspected of being part of a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for the United States,” the IHT explains. “Because of the Bahawalpur connection, suspicions in the airline bomb plot inevitably fell on Jaish and affiliated militant organizations like Jamaat-ul-Furqa, although Pakistani officials were quick to identify Rauf as a member of Al Qaeda.”
In short, Pakistan is attempting to divert attention from its pet project in Kashmir, aimed at India’s occupation of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh region. As well, shifting attention away from Jaish-e-Mohammed to al-Qaeda takes heat off the cozy relationship between the ISI and the CIA, not that the corporate media can be expected to highlight such well-established connections.
Once again, it is transparently obvious the latest supposed terrorist threat was concocted by the usual suspects, the intelligence apparatus in the United States and Britain, expressly devised to ram through yet more draconian legislation—to wit, a further undermining of the Bill of Rights, as Chertoff recently suggested (increased surveillance and longer detention of citizens without formal charge), a cynical ploy to rob Americans of their birthright, as the fascist elite has decided they can no longer tolerate constitutional law, a tradition stretching back to Magna Carta.
Thursday August 17th 2006, 8:17 am
Leave it up to the corporate media to ignore the obvious and continue to push the original Brothers Grimm fairy tale about liquid bombers taking out jetliners because they hate our freedoms.
For instance, the chief patsy in the supposed terror plot—a plot sans any compelling evidence, or for that matter any evidence, period—Rashid Rauf, “is a close relative of Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood Azhar,” according to NDTV.
Not mentioned here is the fact Jaish-e-Mohammed is a creature of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), that is to say the CIA. “During the Soviet-Afghan war of the 1980s saw the enhancement of the covert action capabilities of the ISI by the CIA,” notes the decidedly less than conspiratorial Wikipedia. “A number of officers from the ISI’s Covert Action Division received training in the US and many covert action experts of the CIA were attached to the ISI to guide it in its operations against the Soviet troops by using the Afghan Mujahideen, Islamic fundamentalists of Pakistan and Arab volunteers.”
“While collaborating in the British investigation, Pakistan’s Military Intelligence is known to have actively supported and financed the Kasmir rebel groups, which allegedly had contacts with the London bombers,” Michel Chossudovsky explained in the wake of the July 7, 2005, London bombings. “The ISI was instrumental in the creation of the militant Jammu and Kashmir Hizbul Mujahideen (JKHM) in the late 1980s. (See K. Subrahmanyam, ‘Pakistan is Pursuing Asian Goals’, India Abroad, 3 November 1995). It has also supported the other two main Pakistan-based Kashmir rebel groups, Lashkar-e-Taiba, (Army of the Pure) and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Army of Mohammed), which claimed responsibility for the attacks on the Indian parliament in October 2001…. Moreover, according to intelligence sources and the FBI, the ISI also provided support to the alleged 9/11 hijackers.”
Naturally, in order to portray Rauf in an even more sinister light, we are told he “deserted” the ISI Kashmir operation “and joined Al Qaeda,” according to Hafiz Allah Bukhsh, the father of Jaish-e-Mohammed leader Masood Azhar. In effect, this may be viewed as a lateral promotion, as al-Qaeda is an ISI-CIA collaborative project as well, even though Jaish-e-Mohammed and al-Qaeda are portrayed as rivals.
In an effort to insert distance between Pakistan’s thug leader Pervez Musharraf—installed after the ISI decided the former thug-in-residence, Brig Imtiaz, had to go—and the ISI created and nurtured militant groups in Kashmir, the corporate media reported Musharraf “banned several militant groups, including Jaish, in 2002″ and as a result some “groups splintered and transformed after the ban and some members left to join Al Qaeda, experts say,” reports the International Herald Tribune.
“Pakistani intelligence officials say Rauf was arrested in Bahawalpur on Aug. 9, just hours before British police detained 24 people suspected of being part of a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for the United States,” the IHT explains. “Because of the Bahawalpur connection, suspicions in the airline bomb plot inevitably fell on Jaish and affiliated militant organizations like Jamaat-ul-Furqa, although Pakistani officials were quick to identify Rauf as a member of Al Qaeda.”
In short, Pakistan is attempting to divert attention from its pet project in Kashmir, aimed at India’s occupation of the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh region. As well, shifting attention away from Jaish-e-Mohammed to al-Qaeda takes heat off the cozy relationship between the ISI and the CIA, not that the corporate media can be expected to highlight such well-established connections.
Once again, it is transparently obvious the latest supposed terrorist threat was concocted by the usual suspects, the intelligence apparatus in the United States and Britain, expressly devised to ram through yet more draconian legislation—to wit, a further undermining of the Bill of Rights, as Chertoff recently suggested (increased surveillance and longer detention of citizens without formal charge), a cynical ploy to rob Americans of their birthright, as the fascist elite has decided they can no longer tolerate constitutional law, a tradition stretching back to Magna Carta.
The Truth Seeker - UK airline liquid explosive plot another entrapment scheme
The Truth Seeker
Controlling the News August 13, 2006
TBR News.org – August 13, 2006
Probably the most classic example of the iron control over the American media can now be seen in the frenzy over the alleged "Liquid Explosive Bombers" in England.
From our Paris and especially, our London bureaus, we know for a fact that all of this was concocted by the British MI-6 with the grateful encouragement and assistance from the U.S. Embassy in London. What we really have, are a group of young, impressionable Pakistani Muslims who were infiltrated by at least two British agents, one of whom actually was a renegade Pakistani.
They were coaxed into thinking they were taking part in a massive plot against the evil British and Americans when in fact, like the dreadful 9/11 attacks, the actual controllers were intelligence agents. Once the British, again with the firm encourage of our leadership, had enough evidence to convince others, they pounced.
This is part and parcel of the Republican pre-election strategy to take the public's growing anger at the deadly Iraqi war and shift it to vague threats of "terror attacks" that Bush himself can take the credit for defending America against.
This is such an obvious concocted ploy that it speaks volumes towards the utter contempt the Bush/Cheney people have for the intelligence of their voters.
We in the media are flooded every day with reams of boilerplate crap from government writers that we have been "strongly requested" to publish in full to "heighten the awareness of the American people, not only to terrorism aimed at them but the successful efforts of our President and his British allies" to protect and defend them.
And because of the hype, we have to publish although this subject is causing much merriment amongst the members of the media who are in the know.
The problem with this Alice in Wonderland garbage is that the Bush people pulled it off far too soon. If, as they say, the American public is stupid beyond belief and can be led like a sheep to slaughter, they should have waited until late in October.
By November, none of this will be remembered. Who now recalls the farcical FBI essay into terrorism termination dealing with teenaged Musim boys in the Miami ghetto? "They were actually going to blow up the Sears Tower!" one "suggested" headline said.
Like the recent aircraft bombing scare with liquid shoe polish, this Miami joke passed quickly from the front pages to the truss ads and now can be found nowhere.
Instead of building up a great American cheering section for the sagacity and abilities of the shoddy Administration, all this will do, once the public realizes they have been taken to the cleaners, again, will be a very negative reaction come November. After this, the right wing Republicans can go back to torturing kittens in the microwave and leave matters to more responsible, and sane, people"
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2471.htm#002
Controlling the News August 13, 2006
TBR News.org – August 13, 2006
Probably the most classic example of the iron control over the American media can now be seen in the frenzy over the alleged "Liquid Explosive Bombers" in England.
From our Paris and especially, our London bureaus, we know for a fact that all of this was concocted by the British MI-6 with the grateful encouragement and assistance from the U.S. Embassy in London. What we really have, are a group of young, impressionable Pakistani Muslims who were infiltrated by at least two British agents, one of whom actually was a renegade Pakistani.
They were coaxed into thinking they were taking part in a massive plot against the evil British and Americans when in fact, like the dreadful 9/11 attacks, the actual controllers were intelligence agents. Once the British, again with the firm encourage of our leadership, had enough evidence to convince others, they pounced.
This is part and parcel of the Republican pre-election strategy to take the public's growing anger at the deadly Iraqi war and shift it to vague threats of "terror attacks" that Bush himself can take the credit for defending America against.
This is such an obvious concocted ploy that it speaks volumes towards the utter contempt the Bush/Cheney people have for the intelligence of their voters.
We in the media are flooded every day with reams of boilerplate crap from government writers that we have been "strongly requested" to publish in full to "heighten the awareness of the American people, not only to terrorism aimed at them but the successful efforts of our President and his British allies" to protect and defend them.
And because of the hype, we have to publish although this subject is causing much merriment amongst the members of the media who are in the know.
The problem with this Alice in Wonderland garbage is that the Bush people pulled it off far too soon. If, as they say, the American public is stupid beyond belief and can be led like a sheep to slaughter, they should have waited until late in October.
By November, none of this will be remembered. Who now recalls the farcical FBI essay into terrorism termination dealing with teenaged Musim boys in the Miami ghetto? "They were actually going to blow up the Sears Tower!" one "suggested" headline said.
Like the recent aircraft bombing scare with liquid shoe polish, this Miami joke passed quickly from the front pages to the truss ads and now can be found nowhere.
Instead of building up a great American cheering section for the sagacity and abilities of the shoddy Administration, all this will do, once the public realizes they have been taken to the cleaners, again, will be a very negative reaction come November. After this, the right wing Republicans can go back to torturing kittens in the microwave and leave matters to more responsible, and sane, people"
http://www.tbrnews.org/Archives/a2471.htm#002
No Plot To Bomb Bridge, FBI Says
wluctv6.com
Upper Peninsula, August 15
No Plot To Bomb Bridge, FBI Says
Upper Peninsula, August 15
No Plot To Bomb Bridge, FBI Says
A day after saying it was investigating a possible plot by three men to blow up the Mackinac Bridge, federal officials now say the men have no link to terrorism and there is no plot.
The news on Monday made national news and captured the attention of many in the Upper Peninsula.
"Naturally, when I heard it, I perked up and listened closer than maybe I normally do," said Karen Dubow of Marquette. "And I guess I just thought I'm glad someone's doing their job and checking it out."
As to the suspicious purchase of 36 cell phones from the Marquette Wal-Mart last week, the FBI said it is not investigating the case for a possible link to terrorism.
The cell phones aroused suspicion in Marquette and downstate because they can be used to detonate bombs, but officials also concede they can be bought in bulk and then re-sold, for a considerable profit.
Israelis hack Ahmadinejad's blog
Ynet
Israelis hack Ahmadinejad's blog
Israeli bloggers claim to have overloaded website of Iranian president, causing it to crash
Dudi Goldman
The Iranian website ahmadinejad.com, in which Iranian officials claim the Iranian President publishes a daily journal , was down for a few hours on Monday.
Following a report by Yedioth Ahronoth on Sunday about the site, Israeli hackers called for a joint effort to hack the site.
On Monday afternoon, the site was down for an hour and in the evening the site worked alternately.
Israelis bloggers claimed Monday that the site was down because of a joint effort by thousands of Israelis to enter the site simultaneously, causing it to crash.
Despite the effort, the site was operational late Sunday evening.
Israelis hack Ahmadinejad's blog
Israeli bloggers claim to have overloaded website of Iranian president, causing it to crash
Dudi Goldman
The Iranian website ahmadinejad.com, in which Iranian officials claim the Iranian President publishes a daily journal , was down for a few hours on Monday.
Following a report by Yedioth Ahronoth on Sunday about the site, Israeli hackers called for a joint effort to hack the site.
On Monday afternoon, the site was down for an hour and in the evening the site worked alternately.
Israelis bloggers claimed Monday that the site was down because of a joint effort by thousands of Israelis to enter the site simultaneously, causing it to crash.
Despite the effort, the site was operational late Sunday evening.
Telegraph | News | Prescott lets slip that some suspects won't face serious charges
Telegraph
Prescott lets slip that some suspects won't face serious charges
By Graeme Wilson and Philip Johnston
(Filed: 16/08/2006)
John Prescott let slip yesterday that some of the 24 people arrested last week over the alleged transatlantic terror plot will not face serious charges.
The Deputy Prime Minister made the admission during talks with Labour's Muslim MPs on how best to tackle Islamic extremism. During the 90-minute meeting, Mr Prescott briefed the MPs that the police only had enough evidence to bring serious charges against some suspects but not others.
His comments are likely to infuriate officers involved in the huge investigation into the alleged plans to detonate bombs on flights. They came as the police made a further arrest in the Thames Valley area under the Terrorism Act 2000. Concern had already been voiced about Government interference after the Treasury last week published the names of 19 suspects whose assets had been frozen after the arrests.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, was also accused of jeopardising a future trial by claiming that the police were confident that the "main players" were in custody.
Mr Prescott's comments came as the Muslim MPs told him that it could take a generation to tackle extremism.
They urged the Government to do more to win the "hearts and minds" of disaffected young British Muslims.
Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said Mr Prescott had briefed the MPs about the police investigation in the wake of last week's arrests. "The assessment was that there will be some people who would face reasonable charges, they have sufficient information to do that," said Mr Mahmood. "Some may face serious charges but some will not."
Neil Gerrard, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, who also attended yesterday's meeting, confirmed that Mr Prescott had briefed them about the investigation. "I would be surprised if everyone arrested was charged," he said. A huge operation is still under way in connection with the investigation. Anti-terrorism police officers have so far raided 46 residential and business premises in London, the West Midlands and Thames Valley.
Police executed two search warrants in Slough yesterday. Officers have also made an extensive search of King's Wood in High Wycombe, Bucks. Police will need to seek a court extension today to detain the suspects for a further period up to a maximum of 28 days, after which they must be charged or released.
A spokesman for Mr Prescott denied that he had discussed the investigation into the alleged terror plot.
"He did take the MPs through some general police procedures but he would not comment on an ongoing investigation," she said.
Prescott lets slip that some suspects won't face serious charges
By Graeme Wilson and Philip Johnston
(Filed: 16/08/2006)
John Prescott let slip yesterday that some of the 24 people arrested last week over the alleged transatlantic terror plot will not face serious charges.
The Deputy Prime Minister made the admission during talks with Labour's Muslim MPs on how best to tackle Islamic extremism. During the 90-minute meeting, Mr Prescott briefed the MPs that the police only had enough evidence to bring serious charges against some suspects but not others.
His comments are likely to infuriate officers involved in the huge investigation into the alleged plans to detonate bombs on flights. They came as the police made a further arrest in the Thames Valley area under the Terrorism Act 2000. Concern had already been voiced about Government interference after the Treasury last week published the names of 19 suspects whose assets had been frozen after the arrests.
John Reid, the Home Secretary, was also accused of jeopardising a future trial by claiming that the police were confident that the "main players" were in custody.
Mr Prescott's comments came as the Muslim MPs told him that it could take a generation to tackle extremism.
They urged the Government to do more to win the "hearts and minds" of disaffected young British Muslims.
Khalid Mahmood, the MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said Mr Prescott had briefed the MPs about the police investigation in the wake of last week's arrests. "The assessment was that there will be some people who would face reasonable charges, they have sufficient information to do that," said Mr Mahmood. "Some may face serious charges but some will not."
Neil Gerrard, the Labour MP for Walthamstow, who also attended yesterday's meeting, confirmed that Mr Prescott had briefed them about the investigation. "I would be surprised if everyone arrested was charged," he said. A huge operation is still under way in connection with the investigation. Anti-terrorism police officers have so far raided 46 residential and business premises in London, the West Midlands and Thames Valley.
Police executed two search warrants in Slough yesterday. Officers have also made an extensive search of King's Wood in High Wycombe, Bucks. Police will need to seek a court extension today to detain the suspects for a further period up to a maximum of 28 days, after which they must be charged or released.
A spokesman for Mr Prescott denied that he had discussed the investigation into the alleged terror plot.
"He did take the MPs through some general police procedures but he would not comment on an ongoing investigation," she said.
Reuters AlertNet - Costa Rica to move Israel embassy out of Jerusalem
Reuters AlertNet
Costa Rica to move Israel embassy out of Jerusalem
16 Aug 2006 22:56:36 GMT
Source: Reuters
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Costa Rica will move its embassy in Israel from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, its new president said on Wednesday, in a move that pleases Arab nations and is a blow to the Israeli government.
The decision will leave El Salvador as the only country in the world with an embassy in Jerusalem.
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, a former Nobel Peace Prize winner, said he made the decision to win more friends in the Middle East and comply with United Nations' resolutions.
"It's time to rectify an historic error that hurts us internationally and deprives us of almost any form of friendship with the Arab world, and more broadly with Islamic civilization, to which a sixth of humanity belongs," Arias said at an event marking his first 100 days in office.
He said Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister, had called him on Tuesday to ask him to reconsider the decision.
Israel regards East Jerusalem as part of its "undivided and eternal capital." It captured the eastern part of Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed it in a move not recognized internationally.
The 200,000 Arab residents of East Jerusalem are caught between Israel and an emerging Palestinian state which wants the eastern part of Jerusalem as its future capital.
Former Costa Rican President Luis Alberto Monge moved the embassy to Jerusalem in 1982 as a show of support for Israel.
Arias said the relocation to Tel Aviv should not, however, be interpreted as as a slight to Israel, which has had historically close ties to Costa Rica.
"As far as Costa Rica is concerned, the right to exist and live free of threat, particularly the criminal threat of terrorism, is beyond all doubt," said Arias, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end civil wars in neighboring Central American nations.
Costa Rica to move Israel embassy out of Jerusalem
16 Aug 2006 22:56:36 GMT
Source: Reuters
SAN JOSE, Costa Rica, Aug 16 (Reuters) - Costa Rica will move its embassy in Israel from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, its new president said on Wednesday, in a move that pleases Arab nations and is a blow to the Israeli government.
The decision will leave El Salvador as the only country in the world with an embassy in Jerusalem.
Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, a former Nobel Peace Prize winner, said he made the decision to win more friends in the Middle East and comply with United Nations' resolutions.
"It's time to rectify an historic error that hurts us internationally and deprives us of almost any form of friendship with the Arab world, and more broadly with Islamic civilization, to which a sixth of humanity belongs," Arias said at an event marking his first 100 days in office.
He said Shimon Peres, Israel's deputy prime minister, had called him on Tuesday to ask him to reconsider the decision.
Israel regards East Jerusalem as part of its "undivided and eternal capital." It captured the eastern part of Jerusalem in the 1967 Middle East war and annexed it in a move not recognized internationally.
The 200,000 Arab residents of East Jerusalem are caught between Israel and an emerging Palestinian state which wants the eastern part of Jerusalem as its future capital.
Former Costa Rican President Luis Alberto Monge moved the embassy to Jerusalem in 1982 as a show of support for Israel.
Arias said the relocation to Tel Aviv should not, however, be interpreted as as a slight to Israel, which has had historically close ties to Costa Rica.
"As far as Costa Rica is concerned, the right to exist and live free of threat, particularly the criminal threat of terrorism, is beyond all doubt," said Arias, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1987 for his efforts to end civil wars in neighboring Central American nations.
Lebanese Army Sends Troops to Border
truthout
Lebanese Army Sends Troops to Border
By Edward Cody and Colum Lynch
The Washington Post
Thursday 17 August 2006
Compromise will allow Hezbollah to keep arms.
Beirut - Breaking an impasse, the Lebanese government on Wednesday ordered army troops to deploy across southern Lebanon under a compromise arrangement that allows the Hezbollah militia to retain some of its arms caches near the border with Israel.
Military authorities said as many as 15,000 troops would begin taking up positions in devastated southern villages, seeking to defuse a threat to the U.N. cease-fire that went into effect Monday morning after 33 days of warfare between Hezbollah fighters and the Israeli military.
Early Thursday, the Israeli army began handing over positions to the United Nations, stepping up its withdrawal from southern Lebanon, according to the Associated Press. Hours later, Lebanon's army moved south and began deploying below the Litani River, the AP reported, citing a senior military official.
At the United Nations in New York on Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni urged Secretary General Kofi Annan to ensure the complete disarmament of Hezbollah and to prevent it from being rearmed by Iran and Syria.
This is a "moment of truth" for the international community, she said. The world cannot "allow Hezbollah to rise again and threaten the future of the region."
Hezbollah, a militant Shiite Muslim movement, had refused to disarm and withdraw its fighters as long as Israeli troops remained on Lebanese soil. That stand risked undercutting the cease-fire accord, because the Lebanese military had declared it would deploy in the border hills only if Hezbollah fighters and weapons were pulled back. And without the Lebanese army to join U.N. forces along the border, Israeli officials said, they would not order the remaining Israeli soldiers to return home.
Lebanese political leaders tried to overcome the standoff with a compromise whose contours remained indistinct.
The government said in a statement that only the army would be allowed to carry weapons in the area. "There will be no authority or weapons besides those of the state," Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said in explaining the decision. But the declaration skipped over the question of whether Hezbollah's weapons, many of them hidden underground, had to be removed or destroyed. Aridi said there would be no confrontation with Hezbollah fighters, who in any case do not carry weapons except in battle and often live in the border villages.
Hezbollah welcomed the army deployment and its ministers voted with the cabinet majority. But political sources involved in the decision said Hezbollah did so on condition that the army pledge not to look closely at whether all of the militia's armaments and missile stores were carried out of the border zone.
The jockeying over postwar arrangements reflected Hezbollah's concern about the Israeli troops still manning hilltop observer posts inside Lebanon. But it also betrayed increased sectarian tensions within Lebanon's fractured leadership, according to a number of officials participating in sometimes angry discussions.
Hezbollah, widely seen here as a victor in the month-long war, was reluctant to cede complete military control over south Lebanon to the army, which stood by as Hezbollah militiamen battled Israeli forces. On the other side, some Lebanese politicians, particularly Maronite Christians, were eager to get started on disarming Hezbollah, not only in the border zone but in the entire country. In a sign of the postwar balance of power, they did not prevail.
Hezbollah asserted itself politically as soon as the cease-fire began. Fighters put down their guns and turned into relief organizers, and the group immediately started handing out money to families for reconstructing their destroyed homes. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was outraged to see the government get outstripped in such a visible way, according to a political official who saw his display of anger.
In New York, Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, expressed concern that Hezbollah's intensified relief efforts could strengthen its political standing and future electoral prospects in Lebanon.
She said Israelis "expect" the international community to invest generously in the reconstruction of Lebanese villages "that Israel attacked." The alternative, she said, was an influx of Iranian cash to fund Hezbollah humanitarian activities. "The Iranians can send a check the next day to finance the places that were attacked by Israel," she said.
To find a long-term political settlement, the United Nations on Wednesday announced plans to send a high-level delegation to Lebanon and Israel on Thursday. The team - headed by envoys Vijay Nambiar and Terje Roed-Larsen - will try to develop a plan to ensure the eventual disarmament of Hezbollah and the demarcation of Lebanon's borders with Israel and Syria.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, has had about 2,000 soldiers posted along the border for two decades. But Israel dismissed this force as insufficient to prevent Hezbollah from building up its fighters and weapons in the area and launching attacks on northern Israel. As a result, the cease-fire agreement provides for reinforcing UNIFIL by as many as 13,000 additional troops.
France has offered to lead the reinforced UNIFIL detachment and contribute troops. The French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, after conferring with Siniora in Beirut, urged swift deployment of Lebanese army troops to provide reinforcement for the international peacekeepers as soon as possible.
Turkey also has offered to send troops. Its foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, also conferred with Lebanese officials in Beirut, along with the foreign ministers of Malaysia and Pakistan. Malaysia has said it, too, might send soldiers, along with Italy and several others. The Bush administration has said no U.S. troops will be involved.
Livni said that "Israel's enemies" should be prohibited from participating in a U.N. force. Her remarks followed reports by the Reuters news agency that the Israeli government objected to the participation of two Islamic countries, Indonesia and Malaysia, which do not have diplomatic relations with Israel.
The governments that have expressed willingness to participate have demanded that the Lebanese army first get into place in cooperation with UNIFIL and that the United Nations work out a clear mandate for the newly expanded force, Lebanese officials said. The last thing anyone wants, they added, is for the foreign troops to be regarded as a hostile force by Hezbollah fighters, many of whom will remain in place in their border villages with their weapons in storage but ready to be used again.
The Israeli military has refused to say how many Israeli soldiers were in Lebanon during the fighting and how many remain. Israeli sources acknowledged that the absence of large columns withdrawing suggested that a force closer to 10,000 - rather than the published estimate of 30,000 - had been in Lebanon at the height of the conflict. In any case, said a military spokesman in northern Israel, Capt. Mitch Pilcer, most of those leaving now are reservists who had been called up for active duty.
During his stay in Beirut, Douste-Blazy called on Israel to lift its air, sea and land blockade of Lebanon so the Beirut airport and seaport can reopen for relief shipments and commercial traffic. Lebanese security forces should reinforce their monitoring of cross-border traffic to calm Israeli fears that Hezbollah could replenish its weapons stores, he said.
Syria, which borders Lebanon on the north and east, has been the main transit point for Hezbollah weapons, most of which come from Iran, according to Lebanese intelligence.
The blockade held up relief supplies, commercial imports and fuel for Lebanon's electricity generators during the conflict. Electricity has been rationed in most of the country for the last several weeks; the distribution network was largely destroyed by Israeli bombing in the south. Lebanese authorities announced Wednesday, however, that two tanker ships were on the way after long delays to deliver much-needed fuel for the generators.
In Israel, Defense Minister Amir Peretz created a committee to investigate Israel's conduct during the war, the Associated Press reported, quoting unnamed senior defense officials.
The committee, made up of business executives and retired generals, will be chaired by former army chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and is scheduled to present its preliminary findings within three weeks, the news agency said.
Lynch reported from the United Nations. Correspondent Doug Struck in Kiryat Shemona, Israel, contributed to this report.
Lebanese Army Sends Troops to Border
By Edward Cody and Colum Lynch
The Washington Post
Thursday 17 August 2006
Compromise will allow Hezbollah to keep arms.
Beirut - Breaking an impasse, the Lebanese government on Wednesday ordered army troops to deploy across southern Lebanon under a compromise arrangement that allows the Hezbollah militia to retain some of its arms caches near the border with Israel.
Military authorities said as many as 15,000 troops would begin taking up positions in devastated southern villages, seeking to defuse a threat to the U.N. cease-fire that went into effect Monday morning after 33 days of warfare between Hezbollah fighters and the Israeli military.
Early Thursday, the Israeli army began handing over positions to the United Nations, stepping up its withdrawal from southern Lebanon, according to the Associated Press. Hours later, Lebanon's army moved south and began deploying below the Litani River, the AP reported, citing a senior military official.
At the United Nations in New York on Wednesday, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni urged Secretary General Kofi Annan to ensure the complete disarmament of Hezbollah and to prevent it from being rearmed by Iran and Syria.
This is a "moment of truth" for the international community, she said. The world cannot "allow Hezbollah to rise again and threaten the future of the region."
Hezbollah, a militant Shiite Muslim movement, had refused to disarm and withdraw its fighters as long as Israeli troops remained on Lebanese soil. That stand risked undercutting the cease-fire accord, because the Lebanese military had declared it would deploy in the border hills only if Hezbollah fighters and weapons were pulled back. And without the Lebanese army to join U.N. forces along the border, Israeli officials said, they would not order the remaining Israeli soldiers to return home.
Lebanese political leaders tried to overcome the standoff with a compromise whose contours remained indistinct.
The government said in a statement that only the army would be allowed to carry weapons in the area. "There will be no authority or weapons besides those of the state," Information Minister Ghazi Aridi said in explaining the decision. But the declaration skipped over the question of whether Hezbollah's weapons, many of them hidden underground, had to be removed or destroyed. Aridi said there would be no confrontation with Hezbollah fighters, who in any case do not carry weapons except in battle and often live in the border villages.
Hezbollah welcomed the army deployment and its ministers voted with the cabinet majority. But political sources involved in the decision said Hezbollah did so on condition that the army pledge not to look closely at whether all of the militia's armaments and missile stores were carried out of the border zone.
The jockeying over postwar arrangements reflected Hezbollah's concern about the Israeli troops still manning hilltop observer posts inside Lebanon. But it also betrayed increased sectarian tensions within Lebanon's fractured leadership, according to a number of officials participating in sometimes angry discussions.
Hezbollah, widely seen here as a victor in the month-long war, was reluctant to cede complete military control over south Lebanon to the army, which stood by as Hezbollah militiamen battled Israeli forces. On the other side, some Lebanese politicians, particularly Maronite Christians, were eager to get started on disarming Hezbollah, not only in the border zone but in the entire country. In a sign of the postwar balance of power, they did not prevail.
Hezbollah asserted itself politically as soon as the cease-fire began. Fighters put down their guns and turned into relief organizers, and the group immediately started handing out money to families for reconstructing their destroyed homes. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora was outraged to see the government get outstripped in such a visible way, according to a political official who saw his display of anger.
In New York, Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, expressed concern that Hezbollah's intensified relief efforts could strengthen its political standing and future electoral prospects in Lebanon.
She said Israelis "expect" the international community to invest generously in the reconstruction of Lebanese villages "that Israel attacked." The alternative, she said, was an influx of Iranian cash to fund Hezbollah humanitarian activities. "The Iranians can send a check the next day to finance the places that were attacked by Israel," she said.
To find a long-term political settlement, the United Nations on Wednesday announced plans to send a high-level delegation to Lebanon and Israel on Thursday. The team - headed by envoys Vijay Nambiar and Terje Roed-Larsen - will try to develop a plan to ensure the eventual disarmament of Hezbollah and the demarcation of Lebanon's borders with Israel and Syria.
The United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, has had about 2,000 soldiers posted along the border for two decades. But Israel dismissed this force as insufficient to prevent Hezbollah from building up its fighters and weapons in the area and launching attacks on northern Israel. As a result, the cease-fire agreement provides for reinforcing UNIFIL by as many as 13,000 additional troops.
France has offered to lead the reinforced UNIFIL detachment and contribute troops. The French foreign minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, after conferring with Siniora in Beirut, urged swift deployment of Lebanese army troops to provide reinforcement for the international peacekeepers as soon as possible.
Turkey also has offered to send troops. Its foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, also conferred with Lebanese officials in Beirut, along with the foreign ministers of Malaysia and Pakistan. Malaysia has said it, too, might send soldiers, along with Italy and several others. The Bush administration has said no U.S. troops will be involved.
Livni said that "Israel's enemies" should be prohibited from participating in a U.N. force. Her remarks followed reports by the Reuters news agency that the Israeli government objected to the participation of two Islamic countries, Indonesia and Malaysia, which do not have diplomatic relations with Israel.
The governments that have expressed willingness to participate have demanded that the Lebanese army first get into place in cooperation with UNIFIL and that the United Nations work out a clear mandate for the newly expanded force, Lebanese officials said. The last thing anyone wants, they added, is for the foreign troops to be regarded as a hostile force by Hezbollah fighters, many of whom will remain in place in their border villages with their weapons in storage but ready to be used again.
The Israeli military has refused to say how many Israeli soldiers were in Lebanon during the fighting and how many remain. Israeli sources acknowledged that the absence of large columns withdrawing suggested that a force closer to 10,000 - rather than the published estimate of 30,000 - had been in Lebanon at the height of the conflict. In any case, said a military spokesman in northern Israel, Capt. Mitch Pilcer, most of those leaving now are reservists who had been called up for active duty.
During his stay in Beirut, Douste-Blazy called on Israel to lift its air, sea and land blockade of Lebanon so the Beirut airport and seaport can reopen for relief shipments and commercial traffic. Lebanese security forces should reinforce their monitoring of cross-border traffic to calm Israeli fears that Hezbollah could replenish its weapons stores, he said.
Syria, which borders Lebanon on the north and east, has been the main transit point for Hezbollah weapons, most of which come from Iran, according to Lebanese intelligence.
The blockade held up relief supplies, commercial imports and fuel for Lebanon's electricity generators during the conflict. Electricity has been rationed in most of the country for the last several weeks; the distribution network was largely destroyed by Israeli bombing in the south. Lebanese authorities announced Wednesday, however, that two tanker ships were on the way after long delays to deliver much-needed fuel for the generators.
In Israel, Defense Minister Amir Peretz created a committee to investigate Israel's conduct during the war, the Associated Press reported, quoting unnamed senior defense officials.
The committee, made up of business executives and retired generals, will be chaired by former army chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak and is scheduled to present its preliminary findings within three weeks, the news agency said.
Lynch reported from the United Nations. Correspondent Doug Struck in Kiryat Shemona, Israel, contributed to this report.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Lebanese deaths, and Israeli war crimes, kept off the balance sheet
informationclearinghouse
By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth
08/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- During Israel’s war against the people of Lebanon, our media, politicians and diplomats have colluded with the aggressors by distracting us with irrelevancies, by concocting controversies, and by framing the language of diplomacy. In the fragile truce that is currently holding while Lebanon waits for Israel to withdraw, we are simply getting more of the same.
One example of the many distractions during the war that neatly reveals their true purpose is the “faked Reuters photograph” affair. The supposed scandal of a Lebanese photographer tampering with a picture to add and darken smoke from an Israeli missile attack -- to little or no effect, it should be noted -- has not only been decried by activists on Zionist websites but amplified by mainstream commentators into a debate about whether we can trust the images of this war.
Who benefits from these doubts? If we cannot be sure that this one photograph is genuine, then maybe many more that purportedly show some of the 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed by Israel’s bombardment are fake too. Maybe the dead have been airbrushed in as easily as a puff of smoke. Maybe too, were the smoke removed, we would still be able to see that Israel has “the most moral army in the world”.
The far worse photography scandal, which is not talked about, is that the images of the war we saw over the past month in our Western media were constantly doctored, day in, day out. Not by ordinary photographers who risk their lives, and hope to make their fortunes, conveying the reality of war, but by the senior executives of newspapers and TV stations who ensure we are never presented with that reality. Pictures were binned or cropped if they hinted at what suffering and death truly looked like. Western audiences were not shown the row of charred corpses lying in the street, or the agony of a son pressing a scrap of cloth to the severed arm of his mother as she bled to death, or the crushed baby pulled from the rubble.
Our news and picture editors say this is about good taste. They justify their decisions on the grounds that we should not exploit the victims of war by showing pornographic images of their death -- a useful excuse as we can never know what the dead would have chosen. More significantly, however, the exclusion of meaningful images of the human cost of war protects us from understanding the appalling consequences of Israel’s military actions, an onslaught sanctioned and supported by our Western media, politicians and diplomats, and indirectly by our taxes.
How long would Israel’s war have been allowed to continue if American audiences had seen those charred bodies or dead babies? How long would most Western viewers have remained silent if they were exposed to the kind of images shown daily on the Arabic satellite channels? Might we then start to understand why they hate us -- and more usefully why we should hate ourselves?
Much the same purpose has been satisfied in the diplomatic arena by the endless debates about whether Israel’s offensive was “disproportionate” -- a word that raises a yawn almost the second it is uttered -- rather than whether it was necessary. And by the controversy initiated by the United Nations’ Jan Egeland about the “cowardly blending” of Hizbullah fighters among Lebanese civilians, a comment he made while in Jerusalem, not Beirut, based on evidence he has never divulged. It is truly astonishing that the world’s representative on humanitarian affairs made most impact in this war -- one in which more than 1,000 Lebanese were killed and in which hundreds of thousands more were made homeless -- trying to hold Hizbullah to account for the thousands of Israeli air strikes on civilian areas of Lebanon. Such is the upside-down logic and morality of our leaders.
And we are in the same territory again with the current discussions about how Lebanon and Israel will be rebuilt after the fighting. Reconstruction -- another word that provokes instant boredom -- fits the bill perfectly: both nations, we are told, will need billions of dollars to repair the damage done to their infrastructure. The story of astronomical losses conveys reassuringly to us a sense both of technical problems that will eventually be solved and of the ultimate symmetry and justice in the suffering of these two nations. Both peoples face a terrible financial burden imposed by war, both are equally deserving of our sympathy.
But let us pause. How precisely are these two nations’ material losses equivalent? Israel’s derive mostly from the enormous costs of its attacks on Lebanon, the tens of thousands of missiles fired into its towns and villages, that killed mostly civilians, and damage to the tanks, helicopters and warships that were the machinery needed to invade another sovereign country. Most of the rest of the cost will follow from losses in tourism revenue and investment, the consequences of a fall in confidence caused by Israel waging an unnecessary war for the return of two soldiers captured by Hizbullah rather than engage in negotiations. A small share of Israel’s lost billions has been inflicted by the aggression of Hizbullah.
The material damage done to Lebanon is in a different category altogether. The bombed roads and bridges, the tens of thousands of homes in ruins, the destroyed power stations, factories and petrol stations, the oil slick across much of the Lebanese coast are the direct result of Israel’s campaign of precision bombing of Lebanese civilian infrastructure.
Think of how your local court might consider the respective claims of these two nations if this were a domestic dispute between neighbours. Would a judge view with any sympathy a claim from a man demanding compensation from his neighbour for the damage done to his expensive sledgehammer after a destructive rampage through the neighbour’s home, as well as for the loss of his reputation that followed the attack, as he found himself cast as the neighbourhood pariah? Would it make any difference if it could be proved that his neighbour had sworn provocatively at him before he went on his rampage?
Incredibly, a similar claim may yet be heard -- and possibly sympathetically -- by the US civil courts if Israeli lawyers succeed in bringing a case for damages against the Lebanese government.
But all of this, like the “faked photograph affair”, is another layer of distraction. The real issue that should be the most pressing matter at the top of the world’s agenda is not an assessment of the mutual crimes against property but the mostly one-sided crimes against human beings -- the massive Israeli war crimes that have been committed throughout the past month in Lebanon, whose effects will continue as cluster bombs blow up returning refugees, and are still being committed every day against the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank.
This urgent moral case is being quietly overlooked in favour of the material damages story, and for reasons not hard to discern. Because if we concentrated on the tally of war crimes, Israel would come out the undoubted winner in both Lebanon and Gaza.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth
08/16/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- During Israel’s war against the people of Lebanon, our media, politicians and diplomats have colluded with the aggressors by distracting us with irrelevancies, by concocting controversies, and by framing the language of diplomacy. In the fragile truce that is currently holding while Lebanon waits for Israel to withdraw, we are simply getting more of the same.
One example of the many distractions during the war that neatly reveals their true purpose is the “faked Reuters photograph” affair. The supposed scandal of a Lebanese photographer tampering with a picture to add and darken smoke from an Israeli missile attack -- to little or no effect, it should be noted -- has not only been decried by activists on Zionist websites but amplified by mainstream commentators into a debate about whether we can trust the images of this war.
Who benefits from these doubts? If we cannot be sure that this one photograph is genuine, then maybe many more that purportedly show some of the 1,000 Lebanese civilians killed by Israel’s bombardment are fake too. Maybe the dead have been airbrushed in as easily as a puff of smoke. Maybe too, were the smoke removed, we would still be able to see that Israel has “the most moral army in the world”.
The far worse photography scandal, which is not talked about, is that the images of the war we saw over the past month in our Western media were constantly doctored, day in, day out. Not by ordinary photographers who risk their lives, and hope to make their fortunes, conveying the reality of war, but by the senior executives of newspapers and TV stations who ensure we are never presented with that reality. Pictures were binned or cropped if they hinted at what suffering and death truly looked like. Western audiences were not shown the row of charred corpses lying in the street, or the agony of a son pressing a scrap of cloth to the severed arm of his mother as she bled to death, or the crushed baby pulled from the rubble.
Our news and picture editors say this is about good taste. They justify their decisions on the grounds that we should not exploit the victims of war by showing pornographic images of their death -- a useful excuse as we can never know what the dead would have chosen. More significantly, however, the exclusion of meaningful images of the human cost of war protects us from understanding the appalling consequences of Israel’s military actions, an onslaught sanctioned and supported by our Western media, politicians and diplomats, and indirectly by our taxes.
How long would Israel’s war have been allowed to continue if American audiences had seen those charred bodies or dead babies? How long would most Western viewers have remained silent if they were exposed to the kind of images shown daily on the Arabic satellite channels? Might we then start to understand why they hate us -- and more usefully why we should hate ourselves?
Much the same purpose has been satisfied in the diplomatic arena by the endless debates about whether Israel’s offensive was “disproportionate” -- a word that raises a yawn almost the second it is uttered -- rather than whether it was necessary. And by the controversy initiated by the United Nations’ Jan Egeland about the “cowardly blending” of Hizbullah fighters among Lebanese civilians, a comment he made while in Jerusalem, not Beirut, based on evidence he has never divulged. It is truly astonishing that the world’s representative on humanitarian affairs made most impact in this war -- one in which more than 1,000 Lebanese were killed and in which hundreds of thousands more were made homeless -- trying to hold Hizbullah to account for the thousands of Israeli air strikes on civilian areas of Lebanon. Such is the upside-down logic and morality of our leaders.
And we are in the same territory again with the current discussions about how Lebanon and Israel will be rebuilt after the fighting. Reconstruction -- another word that provokes instant boredom -- fits the bill perfectly: both nations, we are told, will need billions of dollars to repair the damage done to their infrastructure. The story of astronomical losses conveys reassuringly to us a sense both of technical problems that will eventually be solved and of the ultimate symmetry and justice in the suffering of these two nations. Both peoples face a terrible financial burden imposed by war, both are equally deserving of our sympathy.
But let us pause. How precisely are these two nations’ material losses equivalent? Israel’s derive mostly from the enormous costs of its attacks on Lebanon, the tens of thousands of missiles fired into its towns and villages, that killed mostly civilians, and damage to the tanks, helicopters and warships that were the machinery needed to invade another sovereign country. Most of the rest of the cost will follow from losses in tourism revenue and investment, the consequences of a fall in confidence caused by Israel waging an unnecessary war for the return of two soldiers captured by Hizbullah rather than engage in negotiations. A small share of Israel’s lost billions has been inflicted by the aggression of Hizbullah.
The material damage done to Lebanon is in a different category altogether. The bombed roads and bridges, the tens of thousands of homes in ruins, the destroyed power stations, factories and petrol stations, the oil slick across much of the Lebanese coast are the direct result of Israel’s campaign of precision bombing of Lebanese civilian infrastructure.
Think of how your local court might consider the respective claims of these two nations if this were a domestic dispute between neighbours. Would a judge view with any sympathy a claim from a man demanding compensation from his neighbour for the damage done to his expensive sledgehammer after a destructive rampage through the neighbour’s home, as well as for the loss of his reputation that followed the attack, as he found himself cast as the neighbourhood pariah? Would it make any difference if it could be proved that his neighbour had sworn provocatively at him before he went on his rampage?
Incredibly, a similar claim may yet be heard -- and possibly sympathetically -- by the US civil courts if Israeli lawyers succeed in bringing a case for damages against the Lebanese government.
But all of this, like the “faked photograph affair”, is another layer of distraction. The real issue that should be the most pressing matter at the top of the world’s agenda is not an assessment of the mutual crimes against property but the mostly one-sided crimes against human beings -- the massive Israeli war crimes that have been committed throughout the past month in Lebanon, whose effects will continue as cluster bombs blow up returning refugees, and are still being committed every day against the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank.
This urgent moral case is being quietly overlooked in favour of the material damages story, and for reasons not hard to discern. Because if we concentrated on the tally of war crimes, Israel would come out the undoubted winner in both Lebanon and Gaza.
Jonathan Cook is a writer and journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His book, “Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State” is published by Pluto Press. His website is www.jkcook.net
Robert Fisk: In the face of Bush's lies, it's left to Assad to tell the truth
Independent Online Edition > Robert Fisk
Published: 16 August 2006
In the sparse Baathist drawing rooms of Damascus, reality often seems a long way away. But it was a sign of the times that President Bashar al-Assad was able to bring the great and the good of Damascus to their feet by the simple token of telling the truth - which no other Arab leader has chosen to do these past five weeks: that the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrilla army has, in effect, won this round of their war with Israel.
There was plenty of hyperbole in the Assad speech. A conflict that has cost 1,000 Lebanese civilian lives can hardly be called a "glorious battle" but he did at least reflect more reality than his opposite number in Washington who, driven by self-delusion or his love of Israel, claimed that Hizbollah had been defeated in Lebanon.
Israel's "victory" in Lebanon presumably has to be added to our own famous "victories" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria and Iran, according to Mr Bush, were responsible for the "suffering" of Lebanon - which contains the seeds of truth since Hizbollah provoked this war by capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three others on 12 July - although it wasn't the Syrian or Iranian air force that was slaughtering the convoys of innocent refugee civilians in Lebanon. So it was that President Assad must have enjoyed his little peroration in Damascus yesterday.
"This is a [American] administration that adopts the principle of pre-emptive war that is absolutely contradictory to the principle of peace," he said. "Consequently, we don't accept peace soon or in the foreseeable future."
Mr Assad can say that again. Indeed, there is no more sign that Hizbollah intends to "disarm" under the terms of UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701 than Israel is prepared to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and withdraw from Arab territories it occupied in 1967.
However, it is clear that President Assad now sees himself back at the centre of Arab power after his army's humiliating retreat from Lebanon last year. There was no more need for defeatism among Arabs, he said - a sentiment widely held in the real Arab world but quite absent from President Bush's fantasy Middle East.
That it should be Syria, of all nations, which can state this to so much applause probably says more about Washington than it does about Damascus. And it is, of course, the return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights - see UN Resolution 242 - that lies behind this whole disastrous war.
The truth is Israel opened its attack on Lebanon by claiming the Lebanese government was responsible for Hizbollah's attack - which it clearly was not - and that its military actions would achieve the liberation of the captured soldiers.
This, the Israelis have signally failed to do. The loss of 40 soldiers in just 36 hours and the successful Hizbollah attacks against Israeli armour in Lebanon were a disaster for the Israeli army.
The fact that Syria could bellow about the "achievements" of Hizbollah while avoiding the destruction of a blade of grass inside Syria suggests a cynicism that has yet to be grasped inside the Arab world. But for now, Syria has won.
Iran, as Hizbollah's principal supporter, clearly thinks so too. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who usually talks far more than he thinks, condemned the US for supplying Israel with the weapons it used on Lebanese civilians - perfectly true. But he did not say Hizbollah's missiles come from a new-generation Iranian arsenal that did not even exist during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. While the US will be keen to assess the effectiveness of its weapons - albeit largely used on civilians - no one should doubt that Iran will also be assessing the success of its new Fajr missiles - and their effect on the Israeli army.
Published: 16 August 2006
In the sparse Baathist drawing rooms of Damascus, reality often seems a long way away. But it was a sign of the times that President Bashar al-Assad was able to bring the great and the good of Damascus to their feet by the simple token of telling the truth - which no other Arab leader has chosen to do these past five weeks: that the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrilla army has, in effect, won this round of their war with Israel.
There was plenty of hyperbole in the Assad speech. A conflict that has cost 1,000 Lebanese civilian lives can hardly be called a "glorious battle" but he did at least reflect more reality than his opposite number in Washington who, driven by self-delusion or his love of Israel, claimed that Hizbollah had been defeated in Lebanon.
Israel's "victory" in Lebanon presumably has to be added to our own famous "victories" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Syria and Iran, according to Mr Bush, were responsible for the "suffering" of Lebanon - which contains the seeds of truth since Hizbollah provoked this war by capturing two Israeli soldiers and killing three others on 12 July - although it wasn't the Syrian or Iranian air force that was slaughtering the convoys of innocent refugee civilians in Lebanon. So it was that President Assad must have enjoyed his little peroration in Damascus yesterday.
"This is a [American] administration that adopts the principle of pre-emptive war that is absolutely contradictory to the principle of peace," he said. "Consequently, we don't accept peace soon or in the foreseeable future."
Mr Assad can say that again. Indeed, there is no more sign that Hizbollah intends to "disarm" under the terms of UN Security Council resolutions 1559 and 1701 than Israel is prepared to abide by UN Security Council Resolution 242 and withdraw from Arab territories it occupied in 1967.
However, it is clear that President Assad now sees himself back at the centre of Arab power after his army's humiliating retreat from Lebanon last year. There was no more need for defeatism among Arabs, he said - a sentiment widely held in the real Arab world but quite absent from President Bush's fantasy Middle East.
That it should be Syria, of all nations, which can state this to so much applause probably says more about Washington than it does about Damascus. And it is, of course, the return of the Israeli-occupied Syrian Golan Heights - see UN Resolution 242 - that lies behind this whole disastrous war.
The truth is Israel opened its attack on Lebanon by claiming the Lebanese government was responsible for Hizbollah's attack - which it clearly was not - and that its military actions would achieve the liberation of the captured soldiers.
This, the Israelis have signally failed to do. The loss of 40 soldiers in just 36 hours and the successful Hizbollah attacks against Israeli armour in Lebanon were a disaster for the Israeli army.
The fact that Syria could bellow about the "achievements" of Hizbollah while avoiding the destruction of a blade of grass inside Syria suggests a cynicism that has yet to be grasped inside the Arab world. But for now, Syria has won.
Iran, as Hizbollah's principal supporter, clearly thinks so too. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who usually talks far more than he thinks, condemned the US for supplying Israel with the weapons it used on Lebanese civilians - perfectly true. But he did not say Hizbollah's missiles come from a new-generation Iranian arsenal that did not even exist during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. While the US will be keen to assess the effectiveness of its weapons - albeit largely used on civilians - no one should doubt that Iran will also be assessing the success of its new Fajr missiles - and their effect on the Israeli army.
The Lebanon Curse Strikes Again by Eric Margolis
Eric Margolis
The Lebanon Curse Strikes Again
As a shaky cease-fire goes into effect in Lebanon, Israel’s generals and politicians are furiously blaming one another for what many Israelis are calling a major political and military defeat.
After 31 days of fighting, Israel has nothing to show but world-wide condemnation (the US excepted), scores of dead soldiers and civilians, burned forests, displaced civilians and the expenditure of billions of dollars.
A decade ago, Israelis used to speak of their “Lebanese curse.” They were referring to their disastrous interventions there that brought them nothing but heavy casualties, billions in wasted dollars, ruined political and military careers and the historic shame of the massacres at Shatilla and Sabra, and the destruction of Beirut.
The old curse struck again. The fierce resistance of some 3,000 Hezbullah fighters to the world’s fourth most powerful military machine electrified the Muslim world, and horrified Israelis, who had foolishly dismissed Hezbullah as “a bunch of terrorists.”
According to Israeli media, Israel had apparently been planning the Lebanon invasion for the past three years and conducted a mock invasion of Lebanon only a month ago. President George Bush had strongly urged Israel’s PM Ehud Olmert to attack Hezbullah as the first stage in a US-British-Israeli campaign against Syria and Iran.
The new invasion of southern Lebanon was expected to be swift and painless. A week’s bombing would erase Hezbullah, promised Israel’s chief of staff, Dan Halutz, a sort of Israeli version of “bomb’em back to the Stone Age” Gen. Curtis LeMay. Instead, Hezbullah fought Israel’s armored juggernaut to a standstill. Israel’s huge bombing campaign killed over 1,000 civilians but very few Hezbullah fighters.
Why have Hezbullah’s mujahidin proven such fierce and skilled fighters? Many are well-educated university graduates, often around 30–40 years old. They are dedicated to driving Israeli troops from Lebanon and aiding the Palestinian cause.
Hezbullah’s Shia traditions of self-sacrifice, fearlessness, and heroism in battle play a key role. So, too, the concept of noble martyrdom in righteous battle.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has suffered grave casualties in southern Lebanon, notably near the strategic hilltop town of Marjayoun. Hezbullah claims to have knocked out nearly 20 of Israel’s superbly armored Merkava tanks. Nearby Bint Jebil, which changed hands numerous times, is being hailed as “Hezbullagrad,” after the legendary World War II battle at Stalingrad.
Many Hezbullah officers are highly skilled veterans of the 80’s war. By contrast, IDF ground forces seems to have forgotten almost all the bitter lessons previously learned in Lebanon. The 1980’s occupation cost Israel nearly 800 soldiers and billions of dollars.
Hezbullah fighters stand out among Arab military forces for proficiency in small unit combat tactics. Their squads are experts in moving and firing, setting up interlocking fields of fire, laying ambushes and anti-tank mines, and pre-registered mortar fire plans.
Hezbullah’s men wear modern body armor and helmets. They have supplies of munitions cached all over the area, and networks of bunkers, caves and trenches that partially neutralize Israel’s command of the air. Subjected to intensive, round-the-clock bombing by Israel’s Air Force and shelling by heavy 155mm guns and rockets, Hezbullah’s fighters have never wavered or retreated, and continued to resist with ferocity. No professional western troops could do better.
One of Hezbullah’s few advantages is intimate knowledge of southern Lebanon’s fractured terrain of steep hills, dry stream beds, twisting roads, and deep ravines. Israel’s vast number of tanks and armored vehicles cannot be employed to full force in such terrain as it was in the deserts of Sinai and barren Golan Heights.
Equally important, Hezbullah’s infantry has acquired sizeable amounts of anti-tank systems. These include the venerable but still destructive US TOW sourced from refurbished Iranian stocks, the Soviet Sagger, and the modern European Milan and some Russian systems, likely obtained on the arms market or from Syria. These weapons have caused the largest number of Israeli casualties and armor losses and are a fearsome threat for IDF infantry packed into vulnerable armored personnel carriers.
Had Hezbullah any effective shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons, such as the US Stinger that neutralized Soviet aviation in Afghanistan, Israel’s enormous advantage from devastating close air support would be partially neutralized.
Far from being what Israel and the US call a “terrorist group,” Hezbullah is an integrated political, social, cultural and military movement that represents the Lebanon’s Shia, who make up 40% of that nation’s people. Recent polls show 87% of Lebanese now support Hezbullah.
Even al-Qaida, which used to brand Shias traitors to the Arab cause, now hails Hezbullah as a vanguard of Arab liberation.
In spite of the cease-fire, which has already been twice violated, 40,000 Israeli troops remain poised to enter Lebanon, most of whose population has been driven out by Israeli bombing and shelling and their villages razed by Israeli bulldozers. The fate of the nearly one million refugees created by Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign remains unresolved. Much of Lebanon lies in ruins.
The Bush Administration’s encouragement of Israel’s foolish invasion and laying waste of Lebanon marks its third military disaster after Afghanistan and Iraq. This from the man who styles himself “the war president.”
Hezbullah has emerged from the Lebanon War as the new champion of the Muslim World. Its fighters held out longer against Israel’s might than did the Arab armies in the 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars, and emerged undefeated. Israel’s carefully cultivated myth of military invincibility was shattered by Hezbullah. As a result, Israel will now redouble its attempts to assassinate its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.
The repulse of Israeli forces by a few thousand Hezbullah fighters ought to give pause for thought to the Pentagon and bloodthirsty neocons who have been clamoring for war with Iran. Hezbullah was trained and armed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. American forces might face the same tough fighting in any invasion of Iran that Israel just met in Lebanon.
As this column predicted when the fighting in Lebanon began, after all the barrages of self-righteous propaganda, massive bombing and heaps of dead civilians, in the end the two sides would negotiate through third parties – which they could have easily done after the minor border skirmish that triggered this totally unnecessary war. But PM Olmert, enraged by Nasrallah’s taunting that he was “small” compared to Ariel Sharon, went to war, egged on by George Bush, who rushed Israel fuel and munitions.
The cease-fire and impending dispatch of Lebanese and UN forces to southern Lebanon will hopefully end this stupid, pointless war and afford Israel a face-saving way of withdrawing its head from a hornet’s nest. However, the war could easily re-ignite and Israel could end up bogged down in guerilla war in southern Lebanon, as it previously was for 18 years.
Israel’s politicians will now face the wrath of voters who are rightly outraged over the fiasco in Lebanon and Hezbullah’s crowing victory. Heads will surely roll.
Americans, by contrast, will not draw the same conclusions about their inept political leadership that better-informed Israelis certainly will. George Bush, the war’s leading flag-waver, has received no rebuke from the US media or voters for his latest military debacle. Nor will he from the clapping seals in Congress and the Senate.
Lebanese and Israelis are paying the heavy price for Mr. Bush’s “reborn Middle East.”
August 15, 2006
Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.
Copyright © 2006 Eric Margolis
The Lebanon Curse Strikes Again
As a shaky cease-fire goes into effect in Lebanon, Israel’s generals and politicians are furiously blaming one another for what many Israelis are calling a major political and military defeat.
After 31 days of fighting, Israel has nothing to show but world-wide condemnation (the US excepted), scores of dead soldiers and civilians, burned forests, displaced civilians and the expenditure of billions of dollars.
A decade ago, Israelis used to speak of their “Lebanese curse.” They were referring to their disastrous interventions there that brought them nothing but heavy casualties, billions in wasted dollars, ruined political and military careers and the historic shame of the massacres at Shatilla and Sabra, and the destruction of Beirut.
The old curse struck again. The fierce resistance of some 3,000 Hezbullah fighters to the world’s fourth most powerful military machine electrified the Muslim world, and horrified Israelis, who had foolishly dismissed Hezbullah as “a bunch of terrorists.”
According to Israeli media, Israel had apparently been planning the Lebanon invasion for the past three years and conducted a mock invasion of Lebanon only a month ago. President George Bush had strongly urged Israel’s PM Ehud Olmert to attack Hezbullah as the first stage in a US-British-Israeli campaign against Syria and Iran.
The new invasion of southern Lebanon was expected to be swift and painless. A week’s bombing would erase Hezbullah, promised Israel’s chief of staff, Dan Halutz, a sort of Israeli version of “bomb’em back to the Stone Age” Gen. Curtis LeMay. Instead, Hezbullah fought Israel’s armored juggernaut to a standstill. Israel’s huge bombing campaign killed over 1,000 civilians but very few Hezbullah fighters.
Why have Hezbullah’s mujahidin proven such fierce and skilled fighters? Many are well-educated university graduates, often around 30–40 years old. They are dedicated to driving Israeli troops from Lebanon and aiding the Palestinian cause.
Hezbullah’s Shia traditions of self-sacrifice, fearlessness, and heroism in battle play a key role. So, too, the concept of noble martyrdom in righteous battle.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has suffered grave casualties in southern Lebanon, notably near the strategic hilltop town of Marjayoun. Hezbullah claims to have knocked out nearly 20 of Israel’s superbly armored Merkava tanks. Nearby Bint Jebil, which changed hands numerous times, is being hailed as “Hezbullagrad,” after the legendary World War II battle at Stalingrad.
Many Hezbullah officers are highly skilled veterans of the 80’s war. By contrast, IDF ground forces seems to have forgotten almost all the bitter lessons previously learned in Lebanon. The 1980’s occupation cost Israel nearly 800 soldiers and billions of dollars.
Hezbullah fighters stand out among Arab military forces for proficiency in small unit combat tactics. Their squads are experts in moving and firing, setting up interlocking fields of fire, laying ambushes and anti-tank mines, and pre-registered mortar fire plans.
Hezbullah’s men wear modern body armor and helmets. They have supplies of munitions cached all over the area, and networks of bunkers, caves and trenches that partially neutralize Israel’s command of the air. Subjected to intensive, round-the-clock bombing by Israel’s Air Force and shelling by heavy 155mm guns and rockets, Hezbullah’s fighters have never wavered or retreated, and continued to resist with ferocity. No professional western troops could do better.
One of Hezbullah’s few advantages is intimate knowledge of southern Lebanon’s fractured terrain of steep hills, dry stream beds, twisting roads, and deep ravines. Israel’s vast number of tanks and armored vehicles cannot be employed to full force in such terrain as it was in the deserts of Sinai and barren Golan Heights.
Equally important, Hezbullah’s infantry has acquired sizeable amounts of anti-tank systems. These include the venerable but still destructive US TOW sourced from refurbished Iranian stocks, the Soviet Sagger, and the modern European Milan and some Russian systems, likely obtained on the arms market or from Syria. These weapons have caused the largest number of Israeli casualties and armor losses and are a fearsome threat for IDF infantry packed into vulnerable armored personnel carriers.
Had Hezbullah any effective shoulder-fired anti-aircraft weapons, such as the US Stinger that neutralized Soviet aviation in Afghanistan, Israel’s enormous advantage from devastating close air support would be partially neutralized.
Far from being what Israel and the US call a “terrorist group,” Hezbullah is an integrated political, social, cultural and military movement that represents the Lebanon’s Shia, who make up 40% of that nation’s people. Recent polls show 87% of Lebanese now support Hezbullah.
Even al-Qaida, which used to brand Shias traitors to the Arab cause, now hails Hezbullah as a vanguard of Arab liberation.
In spite of the cease-fire, which has already been twice violated, 40,000 Israeli troops remain poised to enter Lebanon, most of whose population has been driven out by Israeli bombing and shelling and their villages razed by Israeli bulldozers. The fate of the nearly one million refugees created by Israel’s indiscriminate bombing campaign remains unresolved. Much of Lebanon lies in ruins.
The Bush Administration’s encouragement of Israel’s foolish invasion and laying waste of Lebanon marks its third military disaster after Afghanistan and Iraq. This from the man who styles himself “the war president.”
Hezbullah has emerged from the Lebanon War as the new champion of the Muslim World. Its fighters held out longer against Israel’s might than did the Arab armies in the 1956, 1967 and 1973 wars, and emerged undefeated. Israel’s carefully cultivated myth of military invincibility was shattered by Hezbullah. As a result, Israel will now redouble its attempts to assassinate its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.
The repulse of Israeli forces by a few thousand Hezbullah fighters ought to give pause for thought to the Pentagon and bloodthirsty neocons who have been clamoring for war with Iran. Hezbullah was trained and armed by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. American forces might face the same tough fighting in any invasion of Iran that Israel just met in Lebanon.
As this column predicted when the fighting in Lebanon began, after all the barrages of self-righteous propaganda, massive bombing and heaps of dead civilians, in the end the two sides would negotiate through third parties – which they could have easily done after the minor border skirmish that triggered this totally unnecessary war. But PM Olmert, enraged by Nasrallah’s taunting that he was “small” compared to Ariel Sharon, went to war, egged on by George Bush, who rushed Israel fuel and munitions.
The cease-fire and impending dispatch of Lebanese and UN forces to southern Lebanon will hopefully end this stupid, pointless war and afford Israel a face-saving way of withdrawing its head from a hornet’s nest. However, the war could easily re-ignite and Israel could end up bogged down in guerilla war in southern Lebanon, as it previously was for 18 years.
Israel’s politicians will now face the wrath of voters who are rightly outraged over the fiasco in Lebanon and Hezbullah’s crowing victory. Heads will surely roll.
Americans, by contrast, will not draw the same conclusions about their inept political leadership that better-informed Israelis certainly will. George Bush, the war’s leading flag-waver, has received no rebuke from the US media or voters for his latest military debacle. Nor will he from the clapping seals in Congress and the Senate.
Lebanese and Israelis are paying the heavy price for Mr. Bush’s “reborn Middle East.”
August 15, 2006
Eric Margolis [send him mail], contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada, is the author of War at the Top of the World. See his website.
Copyright © 2006 Eric Margolis
FCC Cracks Down on "Fake News"
The Associated Press
FCC Cracks Down on "Fake News"
The Associated Press
Tuesday 15 August 2006
Owners of 77 TV stations queried on paid video stories.
Washington - The Federal Communications Commission has mailed letters to the owners of 77 television stations inquiring about their use of video news releases, a type of programming critics refer to as "fake news."
Video news releases are packaged news stories that usually employ actors to portray reporters who are paid by commercial or government groups.
The letters were sparked by allegations that television stations have been airing the videos as part of their news programs without telling viewers who paid for them.
FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said Tuesday the letters ask station managers for information regarding agreements between the stations and the creators of the news releases. The FCC also asked whether there was any "consideration" given to the stations in return for airing the material.
"You can't tell any more the difference between what's propaganda and what's news," Adelstein said.
The probe was sparked by a study of newsroom use of material provided by public relations firms. The study, entitled "Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed," was compiled by the Center for Media and Democracy, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit organization that monitors the public relations industry.
When stations air video news releases, they are required to disclose to viewers "the nature, source and sponsorship of the material that they are viewing," according to the FCC.
The rules were prompted by payola scandals of the past, in which broadcasters accepted money from companies to hype their products without labeling the effort as advertising.
Diane Farsetta, senior researcher with the Center for Media and Democracy and co-author of the study, said that did not appear to be the case in the study but that "the main reason is economy. These are free stories that are given to stations that are continually under-resourced."
Farsetta said despite the publicity, stations are continuing to air releases without disclosure.
Stations that received the letters have been given 60 days to respond. If the FCC decides they have violated the rules, punishment could include fines or license revocation.
FCC Cracks Down on "Fake News"
The Associated Press
Tuesday 15 August 2006
Owners of 77 TV stations queried on paid video stories.
Washington - The Federal Communications Commission has mailed letters to the owners of 77 television stations inquiring about their use of video news releases, a type of programming critics refer to as "fake news."
Video news releases are packaged news stories that usually employ actors to portray reporters who are paid by commercial or government groups.
The letters were sparked by allegations that television stations have been airing the videos as part of their news programs without telling viewers who paid for them.
FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said Tuesday the letters ask station managers for information regarding agreements between the stations and the creators of the news releases. The FCC also asked whether there was any "consideration" given to the stations in return for airing the material.
"You can't tell any more the difference between what's propaganda and what's news," Adelstein said.
The probe was sparked by a study of newsroom use of material provided by public relations firms. The study, entitled "Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed," was compiled by the Center for Media and Democracy, a Wisconsin-based nonprofit organization that monitors the public relations industry.
When stations air video news releases, they are required to disclose to viewers "the nature, source and sponsorship of the material that they are viewing," according to the FCC.
The rules were prompted by payola scandals of the past, in which broadcasters accepted money from companies to hype their products without labeling the effort as advertising.
Diane Farsetta, senior researcher with the Center for Media and Democracy and co-author of the study, said that did not appear to be the case in the study but that "the main reason is economy. These are free stories that are given to stations that are continually under-resourced."
Farsetta said despite the publicity, stations are continuing to air releases without disclosure.
Stations that received the letters have been given 60 days to respond. If the FCC decides they have violated the rules, punishment could include fines or license revocation.
Halutz: Deploy Lebanon army to south or IDF will halt pullout - Haaretz - Israel News
**Israel has no intention of leaving**
Haaretz - Israel News
Halutz: Deploy Lebanon army to south or IDF will halt pullout
By Gideon Alon and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and The Associated Press
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Wednesday that the IDF would halt its withdrawal from southern Lebanon if the Lebanese army did not deploy in the area within days.
"The withdrawal of the IDF within 10 days is dependent upon the deployment of the Lebanese army," Halutz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Commitee, according to a spokesman.
"If the Lebanese army does not move down within a number of days to the south... the way I see it, we must stop our withdrawal," Halutz added.
A senior General Staff officer said Wednesday morning that the IDF may be forced to stay in south Lebanon for months until the deployment of an international force.
"The deployment of UNIFIL troops in south Lebanon is likely to take several months. It is not clear exactly how many. Until then, IDF forces will be forced to stay in the field," the senior General Staff officer told the same committee.
The IDF withdrew some of its units from south Lebanon on Tuesday, and a senior UN official said it is technically possible to complete the Israeli withdrawal and Lebanese deployment in a week or two.
UNIFIL chief: Allow us 'strong measures' to enforce truce
The head of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) called Tuesday for the United Nations to enable his force to take "strong measures" in order to enforce UN resolution 1701, which brought about the Monday cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah after more than a month of fighting.
Speaking to Haaretz, Major General Alain Pellegrini urged the Lebanese authorities to take responsibility for the disarmament of Hezbollah in the area close to the Lebanon-Israel border, saying that the responsibility for such a move lies primarily with them.
When asked his soldiers would engage an armed Hezbollah activist, Pellegrini said that it was hard for him to answer.
It was possible, he said, but it would depend on the rules of engagement. He said that he would prefer that the UNIFIL troops had the ability to employ "strong measures" to enforce the UN resolution.
Pellegrini said he expects an advance force, most likely from France, to arrive in the region next week, in order to bolster the current deployment. Within several months, he said, another 15,000 troops would be deployed from a number of countries.
Since its inception in 1978, UNIFIL has been classed as an emergency temporary force. Israel has strongly criticized the force, whose presence has never deterred Hezbollah or Palestinian militant activity in south Lebanon against Israel.
Haaretz - Israel News
Halutz: Deploy Lebanon army to south or IDF will halt pullout
By Gideon Alon and Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondents, and The Associated Press
Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Dan Halutz said Wednesday that the IDF would halt its withdrawal from southern Lebanon if the Lebanese army did not deploy in the area within days.
"The withdrawal of the IDF within 10 days is dependent upon the deployment of the Lebanese army," Halutz told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Commitee, according to a spokesman.
"If the Lebanese army does not move down within a number of days to the south... the way I see it, we must stop our withdrawal," Halutz added.
A senior General Staff officer said Wednesday morning that the IDF may be forced to stay in south Lebanon for months until the deployment of an international force.
"The deployment of UNIFIL troops in south Lebanon is likely to take several months. It is not clear exactly how many. Until then, IDF forces will be forced to stay in the field," the senior General Staff officer told the same committee.
The IDF withdrew some of its units from south Lebanon on Tuesday, and a senior UN official said it is technically possible to complete the Israeli withdrawal and Lebanese deployment in a week or two.
UNIFIL chief: Allow us 'strong measures' to enforce truce
The head of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) called Tuesday for the United Nations to enable his force to take "strong measures" in order to enforce UN resolution 1701, which brought about the Monday cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah after more than a month of fighting.
Speaking to Haaretz, Major General Alain Pellegrini urged the Lebanese authorities to take responsibility for the disarmament of Hezbollah in the area close to the Lebanon-Israel border, saying that the responsibility for such a move lies primarily with them.
When asked his soldiers would engage an armed Hezbollah activist, Pellegrini said that it was hard for him to answer.
It was possible, he said, but it would depend on the rules of engagement. He said that he would prefer that the UNIFIL troops had the ability to employ "strong measures" to enforce the UN resolution.
Pellegrini said he expects an advance force, most likely from France, to arrive in the region next week, in order to bolster the current deployment. Within several months, he said, another 15,000 troops would be deployed from a number of countries.
Since its inception in 1978, UNIFIL has been classed as an emergency temporary force. Israel has strongly criticized the force, whose presence has never deterred Hezbollah or Palestinian militant activity in south Lebanon against Israel.
Trish Schuh: Operation "Change of Location?"
counterpunch
August 15, 2006
Operation "Change of Location"?
How Reports of the July 12th Capture of IDF Soldiers Soon Shifted From Lebanon to Israel
By TRISH SCHUH
A team of Israeli lawyers is now suing the Lebanese government for starting the war. The case, to be filed in US civil court, will sue for compensation and damages incurred by Israeli residents and businesses as a result of the war. Attorneys Yehudah Talmon, Yoram Dantziger and Nitzah Libai claim the Lebanese government violated international law because it didn't stop Hezbollah's casus belli cross-border raid against Israel.
Israel's justification for its 'self-defense' attack on Lebanon, and the placement of the original "provocation" will take on new legal significance in coming months. Who infiltrated whom, and on what territory did the initial capture of the IDF soldiers occur? Differing press accounts stating that the capture occurred in Lebanon- not Israel- are now widely known: most frequently cited are AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet. Others reflect changes of direction in the recording of basic facts.
Newsweek's Michael Hirsh of MSNBC.com, on July 12, said: "As a result, things are blowing up so quickly it's difficult to know where to focus any longer. After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war."
By July 13, the story out of MSNBC.com's Jerusalem bureau was different. In a piece titled "Crisis allows Israel to pursue strategic goals- Kidnappings give Israel excuse to neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah", Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Gutkin wrote: "Kidnappings changed everything: All that changed Wednesday, when Hezbollah guerillas crossed into Israel, seizing Goldwasser and Regev and killing eight other soldiers in the ensuing fighting."
AP also ran changed versions. On July 12, at 5:41AM Joseph Panossian wrote: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."
At 7:09 AM, Panossian had altered his report: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."
By late afternoon, at 4:13 PM, AP's Panossian had completely shifted location: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."
Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."
Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."
Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."
In his article "Casus Belli", IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated- in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah- from lands that are not under Israeli occupation." New Republic, July 31.
A quote by Hamas political bureau member Mohammad Nazzal in the July 13 edition of Haaretz said: "This is a heroic operation carried out against military targets and so it is a legitimate operation, especially as it took place in occupied Lebanese territory."
A Lebanese government official told this writer that the first information about the soldiers' capture in southern Lebanon came from the Lebanese Army Police, a source also quoted in many media accounts. "At the beginning the Lebanese Army said it was on the Lebanese side," the official told me. The verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: " 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."
Lebanon's Ambassador to the US, Farid Abboud discussed the events publicly on July 12, 2006. Because of his stance to CNN Abboud was reprimanded, and recalled to Lebanon._
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN International: "You say that you don't want any escalations, but ...
FARID ABBOUD: No, we don't.
HOLMES: ... but crossing over the border into Israel, killing and--seizing soldiers, what did you think would happen?
ABBOUD: I'm not sure where the location of the attack took place. I understand that there was another battle, also, where during which the Israelis crossed Lebanese soil and that the casualties that fell then were inside Lebanon territory ... We do not want any escalation, and I don't think we have ever attacked Israel. I mean, Israel has always occupied our territory, and we have always defended ourselves. Our position has always been very reactive, defensive.
This writer then spoke to the chief of the Lebanese Defense Cabinet General Edmond Fadel in Beirut for clarification. He said he was not authorized to speak on Hezbollah's position.
Hezbollah's position had been cited in the Jerusalem Post of July 12 : "Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the timing of the capture of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon on Wednesday would boost the position of Palestinians in Gaza."
It was a view Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi had reiterated to me on July 16 by phone. He insisted that the crisis occurred on the Lebanese side of the border "in front of the village of Ayt Al Shaab" adjacent to a military post.
On August 2, I discussed the kidnapping issue again with Hezbollah's Mousawi in Beirut.
Q: We spoke earlier on July 16, 2006 about this issue and I would like to make it official. The Lebanese Army has claimed that the Israeli soldiers captured on July 12, 2006 were captured in Lebanon, not Israel as we hear in the US. Were they caught inside Israel or Lebanon?
MOUSAWI: How can you possibly say Israel? This is an occupied land, occupied Palestine.
Q: Alright. Was it in occupied Palestine or Lebanon?
MOUSAWI: It was in Lebanon, on the border.
Q: On the border- What town? Where was it near?
MOUSAWI: There is no town. It was a military post.
Q: Did Hezbollah cross over into Israel?
MOUSAWI: This has never been claimed by Hezbollah- only on the border. And don't say Israel- its occupied Palestine.
Q: The IDF soldiers in the tank who hit the mine and were killed?
MOUSAWI: It was all in the Lebanese lands when they wanted to penetrate- to go after the resistance.... No one believes anymore that this is about the two soldiers, not with the destruction of the infrastructure. Besides, Hezbollah got information that this Israeli aggression was scheduled to take place this September or October...
According to Attorney Yehudah Talmon, Israelis will also sue to collect money from Lebanese assets and property in the United States. "No group associated in any way, shape or form to Hizbullah is immune to these claims." Never mind if the claims are based on shifting boundaries.
Trish Schuh wrote on the coming Hezbollah-IDF border crisis in Counterpunch's "Faking the Case Against Syria" in November, 2005. She was a co-founder of Military Families Support Network and is a member of Military Reporters & Editors covering the middle east.
Trish Schuh writes about Middle East politics. She can be reached at: hsvariety@yahoo.com
August 15, 2006
Operation "Change of Location"?
How Reports of the July 12th Capture of IDF Soldiers Soon Shifted From Lebanon to Israel
By TRISH SCHUH
A team of Israeli lawyers is now suing the Lebanese government for starting the war. The case, to be filed in US civil court, will sue for compensation and damages incurred by Israeli residents and businesses as a result of the war. Attorneys Yehudah Talmon, Yoram Dantziger and Nitzah Libai claim the Lebanese government violated international law because it didn't stop Hezbollah's casus belli cross-border raid against Israel.
Israel's justification for its 'self-defense' attack on Lebanon, and the placement of the original "provocation" will take on new legal significance in coming months. Who infiltrated whom, and on what territory did the initial capture of the IDF soldiers occur? Differing press accounts stating that the capture occurred in Lebanon- not Israel- are now widely known: most frequently cited are AFP, Hindustan Times, Deutsch Press Agency, Asia Times, Bahrain News Agency and Voltairenet. Others reflect changes of direction in the recording of basic facts.
Newsweek's Michael Hirsh of MSNBC.com, on July 12, said: "As a result, things are blowing up so quickly it's difficult to know where to focus any longer. After the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah in Lebanon on Wednesday, which the hard-line group linked to a similar kidnapping by Hamas the week before, the mideast seemed to be closer to all-out war."
By July 13, the story out of MSNBC.com's Jerusalem bureau was different. In a piece titled "Crisis allows Israel to pursue strategic goals- Kidnappings give Israel excuse to neutralize Hamas, Hezbollah", Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Gutkin wrote: "Kidnappings changed everything: All that changed Wednesday, when Hezbollah guerillas crossed into Israel, seizing Goldwasser and Regev and killing eight other soldiers in the ensuing fighting."
AP also ran changed versions. On July 12, at 5:41AM Joseph Panossian wrote: "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them."
At 7:09 AM, Panossian had altered his report: "The Hezbollah militant group captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes along the Lebanese border on Wednesday."
By late afternoon, at 4:13 PM, AP's Panossian had completely shifted location: "Hezbollah militants crossed into Israel on Wednesday and captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel responded in southern Lebanon with warplanes, tanks and gunboats, and said eight of its soldiers had been killed in the violence."
Israeli sources went almost unnoticed. Cybercast News Service (CNSNews.com) of July 12 said: "The abduction of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbullah militants in southern Lebanon was not a terrorist attack but an act of war, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Wednesday."
Australia's ABC News (Reuters) on July 13 quoted the IDF: "The sources say the Israeli soldiers had been seized at around 9am local time across the border from Aita al Shaab, some 15 kilometers from the Mediterranean coast. The Israeli army confirmed that two Israeli soldiers had been captured on the Lebanese frontier. Israeli ground forces crossed into Lebanon to hunt for the missing soldiers, Israeli Army Radio said."
Voice of America, Jerusalem, on July 12 said: "Speaking to reporters outside the Israeli Foreign Ministry, spokesman Mark Regev says Hezbollah is responsible for the violence. "It appears we have an escalation in the North," he said. "It is very clear that the escalation started on the Lebanese side of the border, and Israel will respond appropriately."
In his article "Casus Belli", IDF Brigadier General Moshe Yaalon wrote: "The present crisis was initiated- in Gaza by Hamas and in southern Lebanon by Hezbollah- from lands that are not under Israeli occupation." New Republic, July 31.
A quote by Hamas political bureau member Mohammad Nazzal in the July 13 edition of Haaretz said: "This is a heroic operation carried out against military targets and so it is a legitimate operation, especially as it took place in occupied Lebanese territory."
A Lebanese government official told this writer that the first information about the soldiers' capture in southern Lebanon came from the Lebanese Army Police, a source also quoted in many media accounts. "At the beginning the Lebanese Army said it was on the Lebanese side," the official told me. The verbatim Army communique' to the Lebanese government follows: " 'At 9:03 or 9:05am in the vicinity or in front of Ayt Al Shaab village the members of the resistance have abducted two soldiers. At 9:15am the resistance shelled the position of the enemy in the occupied territories. At 10:10am the Resistance and Israeli forces clashed with each other in the area of Naqoura,' on Lebanon's side of the border."
Lebanon's Ambassador to the US, Farid Abboud discussed the events publicly on July 12, 2006. Because of his stance to CNN Abboud was reprimanded, and recalled to Lebanon._
MICHAEL HOLMES, CNN International: "You say that you don't want any escalations, but ...
FARID ABBOUD: No, we don't.
HOLMES: ... but crossing over the border into Israel, killing and--seizing soldiers, what did you think would happen?
ABBOUD: I'm not sure where the location of the attack took place. I understand that there was another battle, also, where during which the Israelis crossed Lebanese soil and that the casualties that fell then were inside Lebanon territory ... We do not want any escalation, and I don't think we have ever attacked Israel. I mean, Israel has always occupied our territory, and we have always defended ourselves. Our position has always been very reactive, defensive.
This writer then spoke to the chief of the Lebanese Defense Cabinet General Edmond Fadel in Beirut for clarification. He said he was not authorized to speak on Hezbollah's position.
Hezbollah's position had been cited in the Jerusalem Post of July 12 : "Hizbullah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah said the timing of the capture of two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon on Wednesday would boost the position of Palestinians in Gaza."
It was a view Hezbollah spokesman Ibrahim Mousawi had reiterated to me on July 16 by phone. He insisted that the crisis occurred on the Lebanese side of the border "in front of the village of Ayt Al Shaab" adjacent to a military post.
On August 2, I discussed the kidnapping issue again with Hezbollah's Mousawi in Beirut.
Q: We spoke earlier on July 16, 2006 about this issue and I would like to make it official. The Lebanese Army has claimed that the Israeli soldiers captured on July 12, 2006 were captured in Lebanon, not Israel as we hear in the US. Were they caught inside Israel or Lebanon?
MOUSAWI: How can you possibly say Israel? This is an occupied land, occupied Palestine.
Q: Alright. Was it in occupied Palestine or Lebanon?
MOUSAWI: It was in Lebanon, on the border.
Q: On the border- What town? Where was it near?
MOUSAWI: There is no town. It was a military post.
Q: Did Hezbollah cross over into Israel?
MOUSAWI: This has never been claimed by Hezbollah- only on the border. And don't say Israel- its occupied Palestine.
Q: The IDF soldiers in the tank who hit the mine and were killed?
MOUSAWI: It was all in the Lebanese lands when they wanted to penetrate- to go after the resistance.... No one believes anymore that this is about the two soldiers, not with the destruction of the infrastructure. Besides, Hezbollah got information that this Israeli aggression was scheduled to take place this September or October...
According to Attorney Yehudah Talmon, Israelis will also sue to collect money from Lebanese assets and property in the United States. "No group associated in any way, shape or form to Hizbullah is immune to these claims." Never mind if the claims are based on shifting boundaries.
Trish Schuh wrote on the coming Hezbollah-IDF border crisis in Counterpunch's "Faking the Case Against Syria" in November, 2005. She was a co-founder of Military Families Support Network and is a member of Military Reporters & Editors covering the middle east.
Trish Schuh writes about Middle East politics. She can be reached at: hsvariety@yahoo.com
AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: Fox guest promotes Yellow Stars for Jews
AlterNet: Blogs
Fox guest promotes Yellow Stars for Jews
By Evan Derkacz
Posted on August 16, 2006, Printed on August 16, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/40413/
Okay, it wasn't yellow stars, it was Muslim-only lines at the airport. But you get the point. Many will see a difference because it corresponds to a contemporary fear and tickles a certain logic.
Or: racism is contextual.
According to the News Hound Judy, talk radio host and Fox contributor Mike Gallagher said: "It’s time to have a Muslims check-point line in America’s airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it, it’s time..." []
Fortunately, they also had constitutional attorney Michael Gross in the studio who was a more than adequate spokesman for the opposing view. And, in fact, I have no problem giving bigoted morons a platform when a forceful, articulate, and equally self-interested debating partner can be found.
Gross didn't mince words:
it takes courage to be free, land of the free, home of the brave. not just a coincidence. it's not just a matter of political correctness. please. it's illegal. it's than constitutional. unethical, immoral. it shouldn't be done. we do not in this country, prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, country of national origin. it is wrong to do so. in addition, it's not effective. it doesn't work. it actually per pedestrianates the problem. that is, it separates us.
(NewsHounds)
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
Fox guest promotes Yellow Stars for Jews
By Evan Derkacz
Posted on August 16, 2006, Printed on August 16, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/40413/
Okay, it wasn't yellow stars, it was Muslim-only lines at the airport. But you get the point. Many will see a difference because it corresponds to a contemporary fear and tickles a certain logic.
Or: racism is contextual.
According to the News Hound Judy, talk radio host and Fox contributor Mike Gallagher said: "It’s time to have a Muslims check-point line in America’s airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it, it’s time..." []
Fortunately, they also had constitutional attorney Michael Gross in the studio who was a more than adequate spokesman for the opposing view. And, in fact, I have no problem giving bigoted morons a platform when a forceful, articulate, and equally self-interested debating partner can be found.
Gross didn't mince words:
it takes courage to be free, land of the free, home of the brave. not just a coincidence. it's not just a matter of political correctness. please. it's illegal. it's than constitutional. unethical, immoral. it shouldn't be done. we do not in this country, prejudge a person based upon their race, creed, color, country of national origin. it is wrong to do so. in addition, it's not effective. it doesn't work. it actually per pedestrianates the problem. that is, it separates us.
(NewsHounds)
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
About Those 'Birth Pangs'- by Justin Raimondo
Justin Raimondo
About Those 'Birth Pangs'
They're really death throes…
About Those 'Birth Pangs'
They're really death throes…
"What we're seeing here, in a sense," said Condoleezza Rice at a July 21 press conference announcing her trip to the Middle East, "is the growing – the birth pangs of a new Middle East and whatever we do we have to be certain that we're pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one."
Well, that was quick, because here it is, a month later, and the Old Middle East has bounced right back – with a vengeance, as Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad was quick to note: "Their 'New Middle East,' based on subjugation and humiliation, and denial of rights and identity, has turned into an illusion," he crowed. Not that the denial of rights and identity isn't an everyday occurrence in Syria, a tightly controlled one-party state. Bashar was addressing the Syrian Journalists Union, although, given Syria's state-owned -and controlled media, what journalists in Syria do is much closer to stenography. But he's right when he says:
"Israel has been trying for decades to gain acceptance in the region. What Israel should know is that every generation has more hatred toward it than the generation before. Hatred is not a good word. We do not hate and we do not encourage hatred. But Israel did not leave room in our region except for hatred."
Which raises the question: just what were the Israelis trying to accomplish? Oh, I know what they say their war aims were, but all accounts of these have been strangely unsatisfactory. We are told that the "plan" was to strike Lebanon and incur, not a wave of hatred directed at Israel, but a reaction against Hezbollah. The Lebanese people, the Israeli strategists supposedly told themselves, would blame Hezbollah for starting the war and bringing Israeli vengeance down on their heads. As Seymour Hersh relates in his latest New Yorker piece:
"The initial plan, as outlined by the Israelis, called for a major bombing campaign in response to the next Hezbollah provocation, according to the Middle East expert with knowledge of U.S. and Israeli thinking. Israel believed that, by targeting Lebanon's infrastructure, including highways, fuel depots, and even the civilian runways at the main Beirut airport, it could persuade Lebanon's large Christian and Sunni populations to turn against Hezbollah, according to the former senior intelligence official. "
Of course, it didn't turn out that way: instead, the Lebanese people – Muslim, Christian, and Druze alike – were outraged by the viciousness of the Israeli attack, which killed over 1,000, overwhelmingly civilians, including many children, and decimated the infrastructure of a once thriving society. But what I want to know is: how could anyone have expected a different result? The Israeli "strategy" – we bomb the sh*t out of them, and then they'll hate someone else, not us – is just not believable. There's something else going on here.
As far as I can discern, there was no "strategic" reason to go after Hezbollah at this particular moment in time. As Hersh relates:
"The Pentagon consultant noted that there had also been cross-border incidents involving Israel and Hezbollah, in both directions, for some time. 'They've been sniping at each other,' he said. 'Either side could have pointed to some incident and said "We have to go to war with these guys" – because they were already at war.'"
Sure, the Shi'ite militants and the Israelis are mortal enemies and always have been, but that doesn't answer the question: why now? Let's look at the larger picture.
To begin with, the presence of 130,000-plus U.S. soldiers in the heart of the Middle East has completely changed the equation: Israel is empowered as never before, and has been using that forward momentum to extend its influence into Kurdistan as well as dispatch its enemies closer to home – Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and any semblance of a real Palestinian government in the occupied territories. This is hardly an accident. I note that "mainstream" writers, such as Sidney Blumenthal, are now acknowledging the "Clean Break" plan, put together in 1996 by several key players in the Bush administration, which called for the elimination of Iraq as a prelude to going after Syria, and this is key to understanding Israel's actions.
The important thing to remember about this scenario is that it was put together not for American policymakers, but for the benefit of then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and that it summed up the program of a powerful faction, not only within Israel but also within the highest reaches of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Its thesis, embraced by American neoconservatives as well as Israeli hawks, was that Israel needed to make a "clean break" with the peace process, which was undermining the foundations of the Jewish state. It needed to break out of its passivity and make a new start characterized by a policy of relentless aggression, and there was only one direction it could go, at least initially: north, into Lebanon.
Given the green light by the U.S., the Israelis expected to secure a "buffer zone," similar to the one they carved out of Lebanon in the 1980s and then were ignominiously expelled from by Hezbollah. But as Assad put it, Lebanon's Shi'te Muslim militia will now make Israel think twice before executing "terrorist policies" in pursuit of its goals: "Israel was defeated in its war on Lebanon. It was defeated on day one of its aggression."
I wouldn't be so sure about that, however: if I were Assad, I would save the crowing for later, or else ditch it altogether. Because the Israelis are now trying to achieve on the diplomatic and political front what they failed to accomplish on the battlefield, and that is the disarming of Hezbollah, the neutralization of Syria, and – not far down the road – a U.S. strike at Iran.
For the moment, however, things don't look so good from the Israeli perspective. Syria is now in the ascendant, and there is little support in the U.S. for a strike at Iran. On the question of disarming Hezbollah, prospects are, at best, dim. As the IDF withdraws from Lebanese territory, UN Resolution 1701 avers that "there will be no weapons without the consent of the Government of Lebanon and no authority other than that of the Government of Lebanon." It also calls for "full implementation" of the 1989 Taif Accord, which envisioned "disbanding all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and surrendering their arms to the Lebanese state."
In other words, all those rockets and other weaponry shipped to Hezbollah from Iran via Syria will now fall into the hands of the Lebanese army. In effect, Hezbollah's armed wing will be absorbed into the Lebanese armed forces, just as the Shi'ite militias in Iraq (the Badr Brigade, the Da'wa Party fighters, the Mahdi Army, etc.) have become the de facto Iraqi police and military. The only difference is that, in Iraq, this process is being resisted by the Americans; in Lebanon, it is being legitimized by 1701 and given the official imprimatur of the international community.
President Bush says democracy is impossible as long as there is "a state within a state" in Lebanon. But what about the U.S., where "a state within a state" bypassed the CIA and the State Department, and, utilizing its own parallel institutions, pulled off a massive intelligence fraud and lied us into war?
Aside from its breathtaking hypocrisy, Bush's statement reveals a massive ignorance when it comes to the reality on the ground in Lebanon. The Levant is all about states within states – that's the only reason for the period of relative peace it has enjoyed since the fratricidal 1980s. In a country riven by ancient religious, ethnic, and tribal rivalries, power has been devolved to the local level, where homogenous ethnic and religious communities are granted a large degree of self-rule and each group gets representation roughly proportional to its numbers. The Lebanese constitution reserves certain offices for particular religious groups, and the result is an uneasy peace brought about by a delicate balancing act between majority rule and minority rights. Ideally, a rough equilibrium is achieved, and social and political stability is the result – unless something or someone upsets the apple cart by demanding more than what is perceived as their fair share.
When you think about it, Hezbollah puts into practice some of the main tenets of Bush's "compassionate conservatism" – what else is Hassan Nasrallah's extensive network of social and charitable agencies other than an enormously successful "faith-based initiative"? The president parrots the Israeli line that Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organization that represents a mortal threat to Americans worldwide, but the reality is quite different, as the U.S. intelligence community recognized in a National Intelligence Estimate prepared in April, which, according to Laura Rozen, "says that Hezbollah is the only major terrorist group with global reach currently not trying to kill Americans."
By involving the U.S. as their ally in this fight, the Israelis and their American amen corner are trying to change that – whether as an unintended consequence of their actions or not is largely irrelevant, because the consequences will be just as deadly. Hezbollah, says former Senate Intelligence Committee chair Bob Graham, has more of a presence in the continental United States than al-Qaeda. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, and a regional war breaks out, Hezbollah's hands-off policy toward American targets could very well change. Yet, as Rozen suggests, this is hardly inevitable:
"Despite suggestions by some politicians that Islamic radical groups are all alike, Hezbollah is not al-Qaeda. 'President Bush and some congressmen paint Hezbollah the same way as al-Qaeda,' says Dennis Pluchinsky, who recently retired after 28 years as a State Department counterterrorism analyst. 'But I don't think [Hezbollah] has a global agenda. Al-Qaeda has initiated a global jihad. Al-Qaeda and other global jihadists really believe it's Islam's manifest destiny to rule the earth. Hezbollah is fairly pragmatic; they want to set up an Islamic state in Lebanon.'
"Pluchinsky says as esteem for Hezbollah has risen , al-Qaeda has tried to get in on the action. 'Now bin Laden has an opportunity to step forward and show support, and to try to link what's happening in Lebanon to what's happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Hezbollah says, "No, there's no link at all."'"
Bin Laden and his confreres are devotees of the Big Picture analysis, which posits a "clash of civilizations," in the Huntingtonian phrase, between Islam and the West, with the latter supposedly intent on destroying the former. This same wide-angle view – albeit stood on its head – is taken by the most radical neocons. Michael Ledeen, in his most recent polemic, inveighs against critics of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's conduct of the Lebanese campaign and Bush's execution of the neocon strategy in Iraq:
"Both campaigns and both debates suffer from the same narrow focus, the same failure of strategic vision, the same obsession with a single campaign in a single place, when the war itself – the real war – is far wider. Our leaders and our pundits are fighting single battles, and, since their strategies are not designed to win the real war, they are doomed to fail. The failure of strategic vision is not unique to politicians, or pundits, or military strategists; it seems common to them all. It is extremely rare to hear an authoritative voice addressing the real war.
"The terror masters in Syria and Iran are waging a regional war against us, running from Afghanistan and Iraq to, Gaza, Israel, and Lebanon. Alongside the ground war in the Middle East, they are conducting fifth-column operations against us from Europe to India and on to Indonesia, Australia, and the United States; the plot just dismantled in Great Britain provides the latest evidence."
The "real war" is a regional struggle, one that must be fought from Lebanon to the wilds of Central Asia and all points in between: Ledeen believes this, and so does bin Laden. It's as if they are both possessed by the ghost of Leon Trotsky, who argued that Communism had to be extended internationally because socialism in a single country was doomed to failure. Ledeen makes a similar argument – similar in form, not content – and the followers of bin Laden are also militant internationalists, who yearn for the establishment of a global Islamic caliphate.
All fanatics are fond of systematic – and simplistic – explanations: in their view, everything is part of a vast narrative telling the story of a Manichean struggle between Darkness and Light. There is no differentiation, no variety in their analysis: from the neocon perspective, all Muslims are the same, there is no distinction to be made between Sunni and Shi'ite, Hezbollah and al-Qaeda, the ayatollahs of Iraq and those of Iran, the Wahhabis and the Alawites. They are all servants of "the terror masters," as Ledeen, with his flair for melodrama, dubs the governments of the region.
The jihadist internationalists, followers of bin Laden, are also inspired by a Manichean vision: they don't want to limit the conflict, but instead seek to expand it – to America, if possible. The neocons, for their part, don't mind putting the rest of us in mortal danger: it's part of the risk of their grand strategy, which they justify by repeating endlessly, "Don't you know there's a war on?"
The jihadists and the neocons are brothers in spirit: both conjure the prospect of eternal war, and both, in their own distinctive and yet eerily similar ways, glory in the fighting of it. We are all of us caught between them, innocent civilians – and potential collateral damage. The question is: how do we get out of this untenable position?
We'll leave that for a future column: suffice to say that we ought to expect no respite from the crisis that has become a permanent condition since 9/11. Powerful forces have been unleashed, and not only in the Middle East, and we are being buffeted about like leaves in a torrent. Our response must be to live and work for the day we can recapture our fate – and take back American foreign policy from those who have hijacked it.
What we are witnessing in the Middle East is the sad spectacle of a once great nation dissipating its resources on a futile crusade to implant "democracy" in inhospitable soil. These aren't the "birth pangs" of a new, U.S.-Israeli regional hegemon, but the death throes of an American Empire that is expiring before it is even properly born.
The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
link
The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
Craig Murray
August 14, 2006
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try
and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the
so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts
doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very
highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of
professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane
ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the
UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some
time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it
could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that
individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash
stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a
year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like
me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot
to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned
up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani
dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed
in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way.
Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want,
and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't
give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for
questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt
to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors
other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much
is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy.
Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this
activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do
with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the
possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain.
Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another
9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11
they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the
rubbish they have been shovelled.
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home
Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening
us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our
traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda
machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could
be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like
all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the
night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist
with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he
was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran
Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a
business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up
those who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a
bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you
would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and
young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would
have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in
letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would
have done with the IRA.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is
deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one
thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only
twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment
of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most
of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are
not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the
Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had
shattered.
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
Craig Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan
The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
Craig Murray
August 14, 2006
I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try
and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the
so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts
doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very
highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of
professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane
ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the
UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some
time.
In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it
could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that
individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash
stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.
What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a
year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like
me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.
Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot
to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned
up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani
dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed
in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way.
Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want,
and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't
give is the truth.
The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for
questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt
to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors
other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much
is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy.
Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this
activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do
with terrorism.
We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the
possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain.
Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another
9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11
they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the
rubbish they have been shovelled.
We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home
Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening
us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our
traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda
machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could
be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like
all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the
night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.
For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist
with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he
was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran
Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a
business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up
those who deviated from the Party line.
We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a
bomb or buy a plane ticket. Most of them do not fit the "Loner" profile you
would expect - a tiny percentage of suicide bombers have happy marriages and
young children. As they were all under surveillance, and certainly would
have been on airport watch lists, there could have been little danger in
letting them proceed closer to maturity - that is certainly what we would
have done with the IRA.
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is
deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one
thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only
twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harrassment
of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most
of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are
not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the
Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had
shattered.
Be sceptical. Be very, very sceptical.
Craig Murray is the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan
Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office
Independent Online Edition > UK Politics
Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 16 August 2006
Tony Blair's government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.
The astonishing tally brought accusations last night of a "frenzied approach to law-making" that contrasts with falling detection rates and climbing levels of violent crime.
The figures emerged as police chiefs disclosed they were considering asking ministers for a set of new measures to allow them to impose "instant justice" for antisocial behaviour.
The 3,000-plus offences have been driven on to the statute book by an administration that has faced repeated charges of meddling in the everyday lives of citizens, from restricting freedom of speech to planning to issue identity cards to all adults.
In total, the Government has brought in 3,023 offences since May 1997. They comprise 1,169 introduced by primary legislation - debated in Parliament - and 1,854 by secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council.
Remarkably, Labour is creating offences at twice the rate of the previous Tory administration. During its last nine years in office, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, fewer than 500 new crimes reached the statute book via primary legislation.
And the rate at which offences are being created is accelerating the longer that Tony Blair remains in Downing Street. In 1998, Labour's first full year in power, 160 new offences passed into legislation, rising to 346 in 2000 and 527 in 2005.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, who uncovered the figures, said: "Nothing can justify the step change in the number of criminal offences invented by this Government. This provides a devastating insight into the real legacy of nine years of New Labour government - a frenzied approach to law-making, thousands of new offences, an illiberal belief in heavy-handed regulation, an obsession with controlling the minutiae of everyday life.
"The result? A country less free than before, and a marked erosion of the trust which should exist between the Government and the governed."
He said ministers had failed to grasp the simple truth that "weighing down the statute book" with new laws was "no substitute for good government".
Many offences are uncontroversial and will have widespread support, such as tougher penalties for selling contaminated food or against violent crime. But the Government has still managed to produce a surreal list of new offences.
It is now illegal to sell grey squirrels, impersonate a traffic warden or offer Air Traffic Control services without a licence. Creating a nuclear explosion was outlawed in 1998.
Householders who fail to nominate a neighbour to turn off their alarm while they are away from home can be breaking the law. And it is an offence for a ship's captain to be carrying grain unless he has a copy of the International Grain Code on board.
The Home Office, which has produced 60 Bills over a hyperactive nine-year period, is responsible for 430 of the new offences.
The flood of Bills compares with one criminal justice Bill per decade for much of the 20th century and has brought pleas for a period of calm from the department.
Terry Grange, Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys, has accused the past two home secretaries, Charles Clarke and John Reid, of making policies "on the hoof" in response to media pressure over serious crime problems, foreign offenders and the immigration service.
Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, has urged Tony Blair to "shut up" for the sake of stability in the criminal system.
Almost every other part of Whitehall has also found things to outlaw. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has brought in 640 new offences, the vast majority through secondary legislation. The Department for Trade and Industry has produced another 592, and the Foreign Office and the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister 277 each.
Each addition swells the enormous number of offences already on the statute book, some dating back to medieval times. Even the Attorney General's office said it had no idea how many existed. A spokeswoman said: "There are thousands and thousands."
Downing Street argued last night that much of the legislation it had inherited needed to be updated. A spokesman said: "Crime has fallen by 35 per cent since Labour came to power precisely because we have given the police and criminal justice system the modern laws they have asked for to tackle crime effectively.
"Among the offences we've modernised are new laws to tackle sex offences, domestic violence, antisocial behaviour and knife and gun crime. Are the Liberal Democrats saying these were a mistake?"
Mr Blair has made clear that he favours an extension of summary justice, and fresh proposals are expected in the autumn.
The Association of Chief Police Officers disclosed yesterday that it was considering asking ministers for powers of instant justice, including the authority to exclude unruly youngsters from town centres and to break up teenage gangs.
Condemning the idea, David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "We cannot bypass the court system. It is up to the justice system to scrutinise and take judicial decisions, not the police."
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty, said the figures demonstrated that politicians were becoming "addicted to law making". She said: "The next time the cry goes up to legislate our way out of a crisis, a deep breath from the Home Office might just be more inspiring than further statutory graffiti."
Enver Solomon, deputy director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, said: "It has become a New Labour trademark to criminalise a range of social harms which would be more effectively dealt with away from the clutches of the criminal justice agencies."
Twenty activities outlawed by Labour
Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998
Causing a nuclear explosion.
Scallop Fishing Order 2004
If a boat breaches the restrictions in articles 3, 4 or 5, the master, owner and charterer are each guilty of an offence.
Measuring Instruments (Automatic Rail-weighbridges) Regulations 2006
A person shall be guilty of an offence if he uses for trade an automatic rail-weighbridge to which there is affixed a disqualification sticker.
Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers) Order 1999
Unauthorised fishing in the Lower Esk.
Apple and Pear Orchard Grubbing Up Regulations 1998
Any person who (a) intentionally obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by regulation 10 above, or a person accompanying him and acting under his instructions or (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement under regulation 10 above, shall be guilty of an offence.
Protection of Wrecks (RMS Titanic) Order 2003
A person shall not enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.
Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations 1997
Failure to provide adequate facilities for crew members.
Transport Act 2003
A person commits an offence if he provides air traffic services in respect of a managed area.
Polish Potatoes (Notification) (England) Order 2004
No person shall, in the course of business, import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes.
Learning and Skills Act 2000
Obstructing an inspection by the Adult Learning Inspectorate.
Care Standards Act 2000
Obstructing the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001
Knowingly etc selling plates which are not vehicle registration plates.
London Underground (East London Line Extension) (No 2) Order 2001
Any person who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting out the lines of the scheduled works, or in constructing any authorised work or who interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus belonging to any such person shall be guilty of an offence.
Courts Act 2003
Assaulting and obstructing court security officers.
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
Part seven of the Act created offences of failing to nominate a key-holder where an audible intruder alarm is present.
Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002
If any officer appointed in accordance with regulation 30(1) reports to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked he shall be guilty of an offence.
Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005
Failing without reasonable excuse to attend a hearing held by an adjudicator, or to produce any document to an adjudicator.
Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997
Failure to rigorously separate the accounts of ground-handling activities from the accounts of other activities in accordance with current commercial practice.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
In relation to certain invasive non-native species such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed, selling any animal or plant, or eggs or seeds.
Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent
Published: 16 August 2006
Tony Blair's government has created more than 3,000 new criminal offences during its nine-year tenure, one for almost every day it has been in power.
The astonishing tally brought accusations last night of a "frenzied approach to law-making" that contrasts with falling detection rates and climbing levels of violent crime.
The figures emerged as police chiefs disclosed they were considering asking ministers for a set of new measures to allow them to impose "instant justice" for antisocial behaviour.
The 3,000-plus offences have been driven on to the statute book by an administration that has faced repeated charges of meddling in the everyday lives of citizens, from restricting freedom of speech to planning to issue identity cards to all adults.
In total, the Government has brought in 3,023 offences since May 1997. They comprise 1,169 introduced by primary legislation - debated in Parliament - and 1,854 by secondary legislation such as statutory instruments and orders in council.
Remarkably, Labour is creating offences at twice the rate of the previous Tory administration. During its last nine years in office, under Margaret Thatcher and John Major, fewer than 500 new crimes reached the statute book via primary legislation.
And the rate at which offences are being created is accelerating the longer that Tony Blair remains in Downing Street. In 1998, Labour's first full year in power, 160 new offences passed into legislation, rising to 346 in 2000 and 527 in 2005.
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, who uncovered the figures, said: "Nothing can justify the step change in the number of criminal offences invented by this Government. This provides a devastating insight into the real legacy of nine years of New Labour government - a frenzied approach to law-making, thousands of new offences, an illiberal belief in heavy-handed regulation, an obsession with controlling the minutiae of everyday life.
"The result? A country less free than before, and a marked erosion of the trust which should exist between the Government and the governed."
He said ministers had failed to grasp the simple truth that "weighing down the statute book" with new laws was "no substitute for good government".
Many offences are uncontroversial and will have widespread support, such as tougher penalties for selling contaminated food or against violent crime. But the Government has still managed to produce a surreal list of new offences.
It is now illegal to sell grey squirrels, impersonate a traffic warden or offer Air Traffic Control services without a licence. Creating a nuclear explosion was outlawed in 1998.
Householders who fail to nominate a neighbour to turn off their alarm while they are away from home can be breaking the law. And it is an offence for a ship's captain to be carrying grain unless he has a copy of the International Grain Code on board.
The Home Office, which has produced 60 Bills over a hyperactive nine-year period, is responsible for 430 of the new offences.
The flood of Bills compares with one criminal justice Bill per decade for much of the 20th century and has brought pleas for a period of calm from the department.
Terry Grange, Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys, has accused the past two home secretaries, Charles Clarke and John Reid, of making policies "on the hoof" in response to media pressure over serious crime problems, foreign offenders and the immigration service.
Lord Ramsbotham, the former chief inspector of prisons, has urged Tony Blair to "shut up" for the sake of stability in the criminal system.
Almost every other part of Whitehall has also found things to outlaw. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has brought in 640 new offences, the vast majority through secondary legislation. The Department for Trade and Industry has produced another 592, and the Foreign Office and the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister 277 each.
Each addition swells the enormous number of offences already on the statute book, some dating back to medieval times. Even the Attorney General's office said it had no idea how many existed. A spokeswoman said: "There are thousands and thousands."
Downing Street argued last night that much of the legislation it had inherited needed to be updated. A spokesman said: "Crime has fallen by 35 per cent since Labour came to power precisely because we have given the police and criminal justice system the modern laws they have asked for to tackle crime effectively.
"Among the offences we've modernised are new laws to tackle sex offences, domestic violence, antisocial behaviour and knife and gun crime. Are the Liberal Democrats saying these were a mistake?"
Mr Blair has made clear that he favours an extension of summary justice, and fresh proposals are expected in the autumn.
The Association of Chief Police Officers disclosed yesterday that it was considering asking ministers for powers of instant justice, including the authority to exclude unruly youngsters from town centres and to break up teenage gangs.
Condemning the idea, David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said: "We cannot bypass the court system. It is up to the justice system to scrutinise and take judicial decisions, not the police."
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of human rights group Liberty, said the figures demonstrated that politicians were becoming "addicted to law making". She said: "The next time the cry goes up to legislate our way out of a crisis, a deep breath from the Home Office might just be more inspiring than further statutory graffiti."
Enver Solomon, deputy director of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London, said: "It has become a New Labour trademark to criminalise a range of social harms which would be more effectively dealt with away from the clutches of the criminal justice agencies."
Twenty activities outlawed by Labour
Nuclear Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998
Causing a nuclear explosion.
Scallop Fishing Order 2004
If a boat breaches the restrictions in articles 3, 4 or 5, the master, owner and charterer are each guilty of an offence.
Measuring Instruments (Automatic Rail-weighbridges) Regulations 2006
A person shall be guilty of an offence if he uses for trade an automatic rail-weighbridge to which there is affixed a disqualification sticker.
Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers) Order 1999
Unauthorised fishing in the Lower Esk.
Apple and Pear Orchard Grubbing Up Regulations 1998
Any person who (a) intentionally obstructs an authorised person in the exercise of the powers conferred on him by regulation 10 above, or a person accompanying him and acting under his instructions or (b) without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a requirement under regulation 10 above, shall be guilty of an offence.
Protection of Wrecks (RMS Titanic) Order 2003
A person shall not enter the hull of the Titanic without permission from the Secretary of State.
Merchant Shipping (Crew Accommodation) Regulations 1997
Failure to provide adequate facilities for crew members.
Transport Act 2003
A person commits an offence if he provides air traffic services in respect of a managed area.
Polish Potatoes (Notification) (England) Order 2004
No person shall, in the course of business, import into England potatoes which he knows to be or has reasonable cause to suspect to be Polish potatoes.
Learning and Skills Act 2000
Obstructing an inspection by the Adult Learning Inspectorate.
Care Standards Act 2000
Obstructing the work of the Children's Commissioner for Wales.
Vehicles (Crime) Act 2001
Knowingly etc selling plates which are not vehicle registration plates.
London Underground (East London Line Extension) (No 2) Order 2001
Any person who, without reasonable excuse, obstructs any person acting under the authority of the Company in setting out the lines of the scheduled works, or in constructing any authorised work or who interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus belonging to any such person shall be guilty of an offence.
Courts Act 2003
Assaulting and obstructing court security officers.
Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005
Part seven of the Act created offences of failing to nominate a key-holder where an audible intruder alarm is present.
Merchant Shipping (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2002
If any officer appointed in accordance with regulation 30(1) reports to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked he shall be guilty of an offence.
Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005
Failing without reasonable excuse to attend a hearing held by an adjudicator, or to produce any document to an adjudicator.
Vehicle Excise Duty (Immobilisation, Removal and Disposal of Vehicles) Regulations 1997
Failure to rigorously separate the accounts of ground-handling activities from the accounts of other activities in accordance with current commercial practice.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006
In relation to certain invasive non-native species such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed, selling any animal or plant, or eggs or seeds.
AlterNet: Stunned, Scared and Silent
AlterNet:
Stunned, Scared and Silent
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on August 15, 2006, Printed on August 16, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40371/
We have nothing to fear but fear itself, especially since fear is now being fomented and manipulated for political purposes by a bunch of shameless hacks. Who is trying to make you afraid and why? This Karl Rove tactic is getting quite threadbare, in fact, and so much so that it is getting dangerously close to comedy.
My favorite episode, of course, was the Miami terrorists, a fearsome horde of seven described by the FBI's deputy director as, "More inspirational that operational." That means wanna-bes. An FBI informant posing as a member of al-Qaida offered to supply the plotters with material for the jihad, so they asked for boots and uniforms. Every terrorist needs a uniform.
Of course, even a nincompoop can succeed occasionally -- but the list of wanna-bes keeps growing. Seventeen people were arrested in Canada for intending to behead the prime minister. Has anyone in all of history ever cared that much about a Canadian prime minister? Their national motto is, "Now, let's not get excited."
Of the hundreds of prisoners, alleged terrorists all, who have been held at Guantanamo on the grounds that they were the worst of the worst, only 10 have ever been charged with anything. In the latest episode, shortly after announcement of a British-based plot to blow up airliners, Britain and the United States were already airing their differences over when the perpetrators should have been arrested. The administration has put itself in the position of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. If, God forbid, a serious terrorist conspiracy is uncovered, there will be a tendency to dismiss it as a backlash to these over-hyped "plots."
I personally have been sleeping more soundly at night knowing that Michael Chertoff is secretary of homeland security. Ever since Chertoff's agency brought us the stunning news that there are more terrorist targets in Indiana than in New York or Washington, I've realized this guy could find a terrorist plot anywhere. Watch out for the Amish -- they'll run right over you with those buggies, and they all have pitchforks, too. I hear they're connected to al-Qaida through Saddam Hussein.
Should you be suffering a fear shortage despite the administration's best efforts, consider the paralyzing news of the defeat of Joe Lieberman. According to none other than our very own Veep Dick Cheney, Lieberman's defeat helps the terrorists. Yes! How can this be, you ask? Well, you know Joe Lieberman has been supporting Bush's war in Iraq, and we are at war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was allied to al-Qaida and had weapons of mass destruction, see? He wasn't? He didn't? Gee, maybe that's why the Democrats were upset with Lieberman!
Lieberman's unhappy fall in electoral battle touched off a volcano of drivel in the media. Some of it should be written off as the incurable Establishment tendency to defend its own. People who have known Joe Lieberman for 18 years are naturally predisposed in his favor -- always happens. On the other had, what a bunch of codswallop from people who should know better. They're behaving as though no one had a right to challenge Lieberman, whereas given his record, I can't think of anyone who deserved challenge more.
The pusillanimous punditry announce that these fools in the Democratic Party may make the war in Iraq a major issue! Horrors! I hate to pull the old advantages-of-provincialism trick, but I do think the D.C. press corps and political establishment are painfully out of touch and need to get out into the country more. Indiana, anyone?
Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
Stunned, Scared and Silent
By Molly Ivins, AlterNet
Posted on August 15, 2006, Printed on August 16, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40371/
We have nothing to fear but fear itself, especially since fear is now being fomented and manipulated for political purposes by a bunch of shameless hacks. Who is trying to make you afraid and why? This Karl Rove tactic is getting quite threadbare, in fact, and so much so that it is getting dangerously close to comedy.
My favorite episode, of course, was the Miami terrorists, a fearsome horde of seven described by the FBI's deputy director as, "More inspirational that operational." That means wanna-bes. An FBI informant posing as a member of al-Qaida offered to supply the plotters with material for the jihad, so they asked for boots and uniforms. Every terrorist needs a uniform.
Of course, even a nincompoop can succeed occasionally -- but the list of wanna-bes keeps growing. Seventeen people were arrested in Canada for intending to behead the prime minister. Has anyone in all of history ever cared that much about a Canadian prime minister? Their national motto is, "Now, let's not get excited."
Of the hundreds of prisoners, alleged terrorists all, who have been held at Guantanamo on the grounds that they were the worst of the worst, only 10 have ever been charged with anything. In the latest episode, shortly after announcement of a British-based plot to blow up airliners, Britain and the United States were already airing their differences over when the perpetrators should have been arrested. The administration has put itself in the position of the Boy Who Cried Wolf. If, God forbid, a serious terrorist conspiracy is uncovered, there will be a tendency to dismiss it as a backlash to these over-hyped "plots."
I personally have been sleeping more soundly at night knowing that Michael Chertoff is secretary of homeland security. Ever since Chertoff's agency brought us the stunning news that there are more terrorist targets in Indiana than in New York or Washington, I've realized this guy could find a terrorist plot anywhere. Watch out for the Amish -- they'll run right over you with those buggies, and they all have pitchforks, too. I hear they're connected to al-Qaida through Saddam Hussein.
Should you be suffering a fear shortage despite the administration's best efforts, consider the paralyzing news of the defeat of Joe Lieberman. According to none other than our very own Veep Dick Cheney, Lieberman's defeat helps the terrorists. Yes! How can this be, you ask? Well, you know Joe Lieberman has been supporting Bush's war in Iraq, and we are at war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein was allied to al-Qaida and had weapons of mass destruction, see? He wasn't? He didn't? Gee, maybe that's why the Democrats were upset with Lieberman!
Lieberman's unhappy fall in electoral battle touched off a volcano of drivel in the media. Some of it should be written off as the incurable Establishment tendency to defend its own. People who have known Joe Lieberman for 18 years are naturally predisposed in his favor -- always happens. On the other had, what a bunch of codswallop from people who should know better. They're behaving as though no one had a right to challenge Lieberman, whereas given his record, I can't think of anyone who deserved challenge more.
The pusillanimous punditry announce that these fools in the Democratic Party may make the war in Iraq a major issue! Horrors! I hate to pull the old advantages-of-provincialism trick, but I do think the D.C. press corps and political establishment are painfully out of touch and need to get out into the country more. Indiana, anyone?
Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.
Capitol Hill Blue: Invasion of the fear-mongers
Capitol Hill Blue
Invasion of the fear-mongers
By PAUL CAMPOS
Aug 16, 2006, 07:28
When it comes to terrorism, much of our political leadership appears to have lost both its nerve and its mind. Consider this statement: "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil, or as evil, as Nazism, and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long cold war."
These words were not uttered by an involuntary resident of a mental hospital, or Mel Gibson after a night of perusing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and drinking single malt scotch, but by Joseph Lieberman, a man who has been a senator for the past 18 years, and who came within a handful of dangling chads of becoming vice president of the United States.
That a statement like this is treated as a reasonable observation rather than denounced as transparently hysterical nonsense indicates the extent to which hysterical nonsense now passes for clear-eyed statesmanship. And that should be far more frightening to Americans than any terrorist threat.
At the height of the cold war, the Soviet Union's explicit goal was to establish a global communist dictatorship. In the pursuit of this goal, the Soviets built an army of six million men, equipped with, among many other things, 10,000 nuclear weapons, which in a matter of minutes could have wiped the United States off the face of the earth, while killing perhaps 150 million Americans.
By contrast, Osama bin Laden is a guy hiding in a cave somewhere, armed with an AK-47 and a tape recorder, who commands the uncertain allegiance of a few thousand equally poorly armed fanatics.
As for our current enemies being "more evil" than Nazis, it's hard to imagine what that could even mean. The Nazis managed to murder perhaps 10 million people, while starting a war that killed at least 40 million others. In the universal evil sweepstakes, they set a mark that will be hard to match, although it's worth noting that our current good friend and international banker, the People's Republic of China, made an impressive effort of its own during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
Lieberman and his new best friend, Dick Cheney, would respond that the enemy isn't just al Qaeda: it's something called "Islamofascism." According to this view, despite the enormous political and religious differences that divide them, groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi insurgents, and the governments of Iran and Syria, are all part of one big terrifying conspiracy to kill each and every American because They Hate Our Freedoms.
Of course, during the cold war the enemy wasn't just the U.S.S.R., or our new best friends the Red Chinese, it was the International Communist Conspiracy. Yet for all the paranoia that marked the Red Scare, fear of the Soviet Union and international communism was far more rational than the current panic over al Qaeda and "Islamofascism."
At this moment Osama bin Laden must be howling with laughter. He's a man with no armies to command or weapons to brandish, except for the most powerful weapon of all: fear. More Americans drown in bathtubs every year than are killed by terrorists -- and indeed we've now reached the point where bin Laden doesn't actually have to kill anyone to achieve his goal of promoting military conflict between the Islamic and Western worlds.
Bin Laden and his ilk are merely taking advantage of the politics of cowardice. For example, according to the statement President Bush made on the morning of last week's arrest of terrorist suspects in London, the goal of the war against "Islamic fascists" is to make Americans "completely safe."
That absurdities of this sort still play well in the polls is a sad comment on the state of the nation.
(Paul Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado and can be reached at Paul.Campos(at)Colorado.edu.)
Copyright © 2006 Capitol Hill Blue. All rights reserved
Invasion of the fear-mongers
By PAUL CAMPOS
Aug 16, 2006, 07:28
When it comes to terrorism, much of our political leadership appears to have lost both its nerve and its mind. Consider this statement: "I'm worried that too many people, both in politics and out, don't appreciate the seriousness of the threat to American security and the evil of the enemy that faces us -- more evil, or as evil, as Nazism, and probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long cold war."
These words were not uttered by an involuntary resident of a mental hospital, or Mel Gibson after a night of perusing "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and drinking single malt scotch, but by Joseph Lieberman, a man who has been a senator for the past 18 years, and who came within a handful of dangling chads of becoming vice president of the United States.
That a statement like this is treated as a reasonable observation rather than denounced as transparently hysterical nonsense indicates the extent to which hysterical nonsense now passes for clear-eyed statesmanship. And that should be far more frightening to Americans than any terrorist threat.
At the height of the cold war, the Soviet Union's explicit goal was to establish a global communist dictatorship. In the pursuit of this goal, the Soviets built an army of six million men, equipped with, among many other things, 10,000 nuclear weapons, which in a matter of minutes could have wiped the United States off the face of the earth, while killing perhaps 150 million Americans.
By contrast, Osama bin Laden is a guy hiding in a cave somewhere, armed with an AK-47 and a tape recorder, who commands the uncertain allegiance of a few thousand equally poorly armed fanatics.
As for our current enemies being "more evil" than Nazis, it's hard to imagine what that could even mean. The Nazis managed to murder perhaps 10 million people, while starting a war that killed at least 40 million others. In the universal evil sweepstakes, they set a mark that will be hard to match, although it's worth noting that our current good friend and international banker, the People's Republic of China, made an impressive effort of its own during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.
Lieberman and his new best friend, Dick Cheney, would respond that the enemy isn't just al Qaeda: it's something called "Islamofascism." According to this view, despite the enormous political and religious differences that divide them, groups such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iraqi insurgents, and the governments of Iran and Syria, are all part of one big terrifying conspiracy to kill each and every American because They Hate Our Freedoms.
Of course, during the cold war the enemy wasn't just the U.S.S.R., or our new best friends the Red Chinese, it was the International Communist Conspiracy. Yet for all the paranoia that marked the Red Scare, fear of the Soviet Union and international communism was far more rational than the current panic over al Qaeda and "Islamofascism."
At this moment Osama bin Laden must be howling with laughter. He's a man with no armies to command or weapons to brandish, except for the most powerful weapon of all: fear. More Americans drown in bathtubs every year than are killed by terrorists -- and indeed we've now reached the point where bin Laden doesn't actually have to kill anyone to achieve his goal of promoting military conflict between the Islamic and Western worlds.
Bin Laden and his ilk are merely taking advantage of the politics of cowardice. For example, according to the statement President Bush made on the morning of last week's arrest of terrorist suspects in London, the goal of the war against "Islamic fascists" is to make Americans "completely safe."
That absurdities of this sort still play well in the polls is a sad comment on the state of the nation.
(Paul Campos is a law professor at the University of Colorado and can be reached at Paul.Campos(at)Colorado.edu.)
Copyright © 2006 Capitol Hill Blue. All rights reserved
Capitol Hill Blue: Something is lost when government calls you a terrorist
Capitol Hill Blue
Something is lost when government calls you a terrorist
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Aug 16, 2006, 06:30
The families of two men originally charged with supporting terrorism after buying large numbers of cell phones say they've lost a sense of belonging to the country they've long called home.
Ali Houssaiky and Osama Sabhi Abulhassan, both of Dearborn, Mich., headed home from jail Tuesday after prosecutors in southeast Ohio dropped the terror charges, saying they couldn't prove a terrorism link.
"I just wish that when I go onto Google and I Google my brother's name I won't see terrorist when his name pops up," said Houssaiky's sister, Diana Houssaiky.
The men still face misdemeanor counts of falsification stemming from allegations that they initially gave deputies different names than the names that appeared on their IDs. The men also initially said they were buying phones for a relative's construction business, then changed the story when deputies asked for contact information, Washington County Prosecutor James Schneider said.
The FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent bulletins early this year warning police departments nationwide to be alert for bulk purchases of prepaid TracFones, which could be used to finance terrorism.
Washington County Sheriff Larry Mincks said Tuesday that officers had been watching for cars with Michigan, Virginia and Florida license plates after receiving numerous calls from store merchants in recent weeks about men of Middle Eastern descent buying large numbers of prepaid cell phones.
Within days of the Ohio arrests, three Palestinian-American men from Texas were charged in Michigan after nearly 1,000 cell phones were found in a van they were driving. In the Michigan case, the FBI said Monday that it had no indication that the men had any ties to known terrorist groups. Local prosecutors, however, were standing by the charges.
In Ohio, Houssaiky and Abulhassan acknowledged buying about 600 phones in recent months at stores in southeast Ohio, according to an affidavit filed to support the arrest. On the current trip, they said they planned to buy up to 300 phones at $25 each. The two said the phones were for the owner of a Dearborn gas station, the affidavit said. Officials also said they found $11,000 cash, airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints in their car.
Prosecutors have not provided details about the passenger lists. Houssaiky's mother, Nada Houssaiky, said Tuesday the security information consisted of training notes for her job as an airport passenger service agent at Detroit Metro Airport.
Abulhassan said he believes the men were targeted because they are Arab-Americans. He referred to a comment by Mincks, who said last week the department did not profile based on ethnicity but said the suspects' background "caused a bit of a stir."
"If that's not profiling, I don't know what is," Abulhassan said.
Mincks said Tuesday his department profiles people based on behavior, not background.
Schneider said his office and federal authorities don't believe "the defendants pose an imminent threat at this time."
Something is lost when government calls you a terrorist
By ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS
Aug 16, 2006, 06:30
The families of two men originally charged with supporting terrorism after buying large numbers of cell phones say they've lost a sense of belonging to the country they've long called home.
Ali Houssaiky and Osama Sabhi Abulhassan, both of Dearborn, Mich., headed home from jail Tuesday after prosecutors in southeast Ohio dropped the terror charges, saying they couldn't prove a terrorism link.
"I just wish that when I go onto Google and I Google my brother's name I won't see terrorist when his name pops up," said Houssaiky's sister, Diana Houssaiky.
The men still face misdemeanor counts of falsification stemming from allegations that they initially gave deputies different names than the names that appeared on their IDs. The men also initially said they were buying phones for a relative's construction business, then changed the story when deputies asked for contact information, Washington County Prosecutor James Schneider said.
The FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent bulletins early this year warning police departments nationwide to be alert for bulk purchases of prepaid TracFones, which could be used to finance terrorism.
Washington County Sheriff Larry Mincks said Tuesday that officers had been watching for cars with Michigan, Virginia and Florida license plates after receiving numerous calls from store merchants in recent weeks about men of Middle Eastern descent buying large numbers of prepaid cell phones.
Within days of the Ohio arrests, three Palestinian-American men from Texas were charged in Michigan after nearly 1,000 cell phones were found in a van they were driving. In the Michigan case, the FBI said Monday that it had no indication that the men had any ties to known terrorist groups. Local prosecutors, however, were standing by the charges.
In Ohio, Houssaiky and Abulhassan acknowledged buying about 600 phones in recent months at stores in southeast Ohio, according to an affidavit filed to support the arrest. On the current trip, they said they planned to buy up to 300 phones at $25 each. The two said the phones were for the owner of a Dearborn gas station, the affidavit said. Officials also said they found $11,000 cash, airplane passenger lists and information on airport security checkpoints in their car.
Prosecutors have not provided details about the passenger lists. Houssaiky's mother, Nada Houssaiky, said Tuesday the security information consisted of training notes for her job as an airport passenger service agent at Detroit Metro Airport.
Abulhassan said he believes the men were targeted because they are Arab-Americans. He referred to a comment by Mincks, who said last week the department did not profile based on ethnicity but said the suspects' background "caused a bit of a stir."
"If that's not profiling, I don't know what is," Abulhassan said.
Mincks said Tuesday his department profiles people based on behavior, not background.
Schneider said his office and federal authorities don't believe "the defendants pose an imminent threat at this time."
What Does A Terrorist Preparing To Bomb 10 Airliners Do Beforehand? Buys Cakes
What Does A Terrorist Preparing To Bomb 10 Airliners Do Beforehand? Buys Cakes
Behavior of liquid bomb suspects mirrors 7/7 patsies - no evidence of terror planning
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 16 2006
The characters and behavior of the few known liquid bomb suspects are completely inconsistent with any notion that they were preparing to kill themselves in acts of mass terror - mirroring the pre-attack demeanor of the 7/7 patsies.
A CCTV image (top) shows one of the suspects, Tayib Rauf, entering a bulk order supermarket in Birmingham just two hours before anti-terror police swooped in to grab him for his alleged role in a plot to bomb ten transatlantic airliners. What were the tools of terror Rauf was acquiring before his kamikaze death mission? Knives? Peroxide to make the deadly liquid bomb? Cameras to detonate the bombs?
No - he was buying cakes.
"Does this look like the kind of person planning such a plot? He doesn't look like he's about to blow himself up," the owner of the store told the London Mirror.
Rauf chatted with the owner, who said he was more concerned about his father's confectionary business than the fact that he was about to aid in the mid-air slaughter of 3,000 people.
Any two-bit psychologist can tell you that this individual's behavior completely belies the notion that his life is about to come to an end. That in itself exposes the alleged plot for the monumental fraud it is.
Again we hear the same story over and over - they had young families, they were not political, they were active members of the community, everyone liked them whatever race, they loved football, they planned to be doctors, they had future prospects.
Is this an inside joke? MI5 can't even find some angry Muslim loners with criminal records to at least make it appear as if they would have any motive to carry out these attacks? It's such a blatant ruse you wonder if they are doing it on purpose to send a message - that everyone should live in fear of a dawn raid from the terror cops.
The evidence that the London bombers knew they were about to die was so flimsy that newspapers and even the London Metropolitan Police concluded that they were unwitting dupes.
"A Metropolitan Police counter terrorist expert told a seminar that the four terrorists - Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, Shehzad Tanweer, 22, Germaine Lindsay, 19, and Hasib Hussain, 18, - did not fit the preconceived terrorist profile."
The bombers purchased return tickets, played cricket, ate Big Macs, and had arguments with members of the public in the hours before the attacks took place. They left no suicide notes.
"I've seen the CCTV footage of these people. They do not appear to be on their way to commit any crime at all. The Russell Square bomber [Hasib Hussain] is actually seen going into shops and bumping into people [prior to his attack]," the expert said.
The bombers were described by friends as as four "nice lads", "normal kids who played basketball and kicked a ball around."
A week after the liquid bomb alert and we still have no motive and no evidence that suggests these individuals are anything other than unfortunate fall guys for Blair's latest act of psychological warfare against the British people.
But it's a battle of information that is increasingly swinging away from baseless fearmongering and in favor of the truth. BBC and British newspaper website forums have been swamped with people expressing their incredulousness about the reality of the latest so-called threat.
A London Guardian journalist in an article today highlights how he traveled the country and found widespread skepticism about the real nature of the alert amongst British citizens - with only tourists wholeheartedly trusting the government.
Assertions that the alert is nothing more than political propaganda have also been echoed by commentators and journalists themselves as well as the former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray.
New Statesman - Blood on his hands
New Statesman
Blood on his hands
Cover story
John Kampfner
Monday 7th August 2006
Blair knew the attack on Lebanon was coming but he didn't try to stop it, because he didn't want to. He has made this country an accomplice, destroying what remained of our influence abroad while putting us all at greater risk of attack. By John Kampfner
More from this section [Cover story]
Browse all articles by John Kampfner in the NS Library
At a Downing Street reception not long ago, a guest had the temerity to ask Tony Blair: "How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've been responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis?" The Prime Minister is said to have retorted: "I think you'll find it's closer to 50,000."
No British leader since Winston Churchill has dealt in war with such alacrity as the present one. Back then, it was in the cause of saving the nation from Nazism. Now, it is in the cause of putting into practice the foreign policy of the simpleton. During his nine years in power, Blair - and in this government it is he, and he alone - has managed to ensure that the UK has become both reviled and stripped of influence across vast stretches of the world. In so doing, he has increased the danger of terrorism to Britain itself.
Israel's assault on Lebanon is, in many respects, as disastrous as the war in Iraq. But at least then the pre-war hubris and deceit were played out in parliament and at the UN. This latest act of folly took place suddenly, with only the barest of attempts to justify it to global public opinion. And it stems from the core Middle East problem: the decades-old conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
I am told that the Israelis informed George W Bush in advance of their plans to "destroy" Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew. This exposes as a fraud the debate of the past week about calling for a ceasefire. Indeed, one of the reasons why negotiations failed in Rome was British obduracy. This has been a case not of turning a blind eye and failing to halt the onslaught, but of providing active support.
Blair, like Bush, had no intention of urging the Israelis to slow down their bombardment, believing somehow that this struggle was winnable. Israel has a right to self-defence, but it could have responded to the seizure of its soldiers, and to the rocket attacks, by the diplomatic route. That would have ensured greater sympathy. Now, growing numbers in Israel itself realise that military action will bring no long-term solution.
Even if the guns fall silent for a while, the damage has been done. This is the score sheet so far: roughly 800 deaths; shocking images of the slaughter of children in Qana; no clear Israeli military advance. And the transformation of Hezbollah from an organisation on the periphery of Lebanese politics into an object of admiration across the Arab world. But it is even worse than that. Is the assumption that civilians are legitimate targets if they do not flee certain areas any different from the principles that underlay the US war in Vietnam? Blair and Bush have given their blessing to the forced displacement of a large population, in violation of the guiding principles of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Lebanon will now provide a rich source of inspiration to radical Islamists in their distorted quest for martyrdom. Senior Whitehall sources involved in the fight against terrorism are gravely concerned about the consequences of the Prime Minister's failure to condemn Israel's actions. The intelligence services say it is too early to tell whether Lebanon has already contributed to radicalisation in the UK; they work from the assumption that it will, like Iraq and Afghan istan. This is not in any way to justify or suggest equivalence, but it is surely the duty of a leader to produce a risk assessment of his actions. If Blair is prepared to put Britain in greater danger, he has to persuade its citizens that he is doing so for good reason.
Blair, at his rhetorical best in front of friends in California, appears in no mood for self-doubt. "I have many opponents on the subject," he told Rupert Murdoch's elite gathering at Pebble Beach on 30 July. "But I have complete inner confidence in the analysis of the struggle we face." Either he is delusional, or he has no choice but to say what he says. One close aide recalls that when the Prime Minister was preparing a foreign-policy speech in his Sedgefield constituency in 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, he considered a mea culpa of sorts, but changed his mind, asking his team: "Do we want headlines of 'Blair: I was wrong' or 'Blair: I was right'?"
Whatever he may think alone at night, the Prime Minister is locked in a spiral of self-justification for his actions in Iraq, his broader Middle East policy and his unstinting support of Bush. His speech in Los Angeles on 1 August was spun as a rethink. If so, it is too little, too late. Historians reflecting on the Blair-Bush "war on terror" that followed the attacks of 11 September 2001 would be right to see it as a joint venture. Ultimately, his US policy is his foreign policy. It has, by his own admission, underpinned his every action.
But one part of the jigsaw that Blair claimed to be vital was never put in place. The "road map", drawn up in 2002 by the quartet of the US, EU, United Nations and Russia, has remained the best hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, yet it was never implemented, because Bush didn't really believe in it. If Blair felt so passionately about it, and if his public silence did win him the influence inside the White House that he claims to have, he could and should have stood up and been counted on that issue, if on no other. Instead, he meekly accepted American inaction. The horrific events of the past three weeks can be traced in large part to that failure. Blair's exhortations to his American audience at least to consider the Palestinian issue were lamentable.
Before taking office in 1997, Blair travelled light on foreign policy. Saddam Hussein's chemical gassing of 5,000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988 passed him by: unlike dozens of other MPs, he didn't bother to sign a motion condemning it. Once in power, and frustrated at the pace of reform in domestic politics, Blair seized upon the theory of "humanitarian interventionism" that grew out of anger over inaction, first in Bosnia and then Rwanda. His decision to back military action in Kosovo reflected that thinking, and led to tension with Bill Clinton over America's reluctance to commit ground forces.
Banalities of "good and evil"
Having spent a month in Rwanda in 1994, seeing attacks take place, I need no persuading that inaction can be as hideous as action. Sometimes it is right to fight, but - as Blair should know from his Chicago speech of 1999, in which he set out the principles of humanitarian intervention - the outcome is what matters. When I began work on my book Blair's Wars, I tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, until I realised, on speaking to many people who worked closely with him, how simplistic and impressionable he was.
Now, as Blair hides behind banalities about "good and evil" and the familiar, crude definitions of "terrorism", his ministers look on helplessly. They talk openly to journalists - in the "you can print it, but just don't name me" deal that is the coward's life at Westminster - of Blair's "Bush problem". Shortly before MPs left for their summer break, one senior member of the cabinet accosted me in the corridors of the Commons, and asked: "How much further up their arses do you think we can go?" I suggested that this was more up to him than to me.
At least over Iraq someone resigned. This time, ministers do nothing. Their private complaints have no moral or political value, because they will not stop Blair. Under cabinet rules of collective responsibility, they are endorsing the Israeli assault.
Blair's survival in power is no longer a game of cat-and-mouse with Gordon Brown; it is no longer a question of Labour's ability to stave off the Conservatives. It is far more serious than that.
A record of conflict: the death toll from wars Britain has fought under three prime ministers
Tony Blair
71,617 deaths
9 years in power
Iraq war (2003-)
115 UK troop deaths 30,000 Iraqi troop deaths (estimate by Gen Tommy Franks in Oct 2003) 39,460-43,927 civilian deaths (Iraq Body Count)
Afghanistan (2001-)
16 UK troop deaths (as of 1 August 2006)
1,300-8,000 direct civilian deaths (Guardian estimate). Unknown Taliban deaths
Sierra Leone (2000-2002)
1 UK troop death 25 foreign troop deaths (at least)
Nato bombing of Serbia (1999)
No UK troop deaths. Unknown Serbian troop deaths 500-1,500 civilian deaths (according to Human Rights Watch/Nato estimates)
Operation Desert Fox (1998)
200-300 Iraqi deaths (based on UN estimate)
John Major
22,316 deaths
7 years in power
Gulf war (1991)
16 UK troop deaths 20,000-22,000 Iraqi troop deaths 2,300 civilian deaths (according to the Iraqi government)
Margaret Thatcher
1,013 deaths
11 years in power
US bombing of Libya from UK bases (1986)
100 Libyan deaths
Falklands war (1982)
255 UK troop deaths 655 Argentinian troop deaths 3 Civilian deaths
The figures do not take into account the estimated 350,000 Iraqis who died as a result of sanctions between 1991 and 2003 - under John Major and Tony Blair.
Blair's body count is probably underestimated here because there are no figures for Taliban and Serbian military deaths.
Estimates for Iraqi deaths range between 30,000 and 300,000. The official Bush estimate is 30,000 deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates between 39,460 and 43,927, although it admits this is far below the real total, as the database counts only reported deaths. A Lancet report in 2004 estimated 100,000 deaths, although one of the authors says the total could be 300,000.
Research: Daniel Trilling
Blood on his hands
Cover story
John Kampfner
Monday 7th August 2006
Blair knew the attack on Lebanon was coming but he didn't try to stop it, because he didn't want to. He has made this country an accomplice, destroying what remained of our influence abroad while putting us all at greater risk of attack. By John Kampfner
More from this section [Cover story]
Browse all articles by John Kampfner in the NS Library
At a Downing Street reception not long ago, a guest had the temerity to ask Tony Blair: "How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've been responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis?" The Prime Minister is said to have retorted: "I think you'll find it's closer to 50,000."
No British leader since Winston Churchill has dealt in war with such alacrity as the present one. Back then, it was in the cause of saving the nation from Nazism. Now, it is in the cause of putting into practice the foreign policy of the simpleton. During his nine years in power, Blair - and in this government it is he, and he alone - has managed to ensure that the UK has become both reviled and stripped of influence across vast stretches of the world. In so doing, he has increased the danger of terrorism to Britain itself.
Israel's assault on Lebanon is, in many respects, as disastrous as the war in Iraq. But at least then the pre-war hubris and deceit were played out in parliament and at the UN. This latest act of folly took place suddenly, with only the barest of attempts to justify it to global public opinion. And it stems from the core Middle East problem: the decades-old conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians.
I am told that the Israelis informed George W Bush in advance of their plans to "destroy" Hezbollah by bombing villages in southern Lebanon. The Americans duly informed the British. So Blair knew. This exposes as a fraud the debate of the past week about calling for a ceasefire. Indeed, one of the reasons why negotiations failed in Rome was British obduracy. This has been a case not of turning a blind eye and failing to halt the onslaught, but of providing active support.
Blair, like Bush, had no intention of urging the Israelis to slow down their bombardment, believing somehow that this struggle was winnable. Israel has a right to self-defence, but it could have responded to the seizure of its soldiers, and to the rocket attacks, by the diplomatic route. That would have ensured greater sympathy. Now, growing numbers in Israel itself realise that military action will bring no long-term solution.
Even if the guns fall silent for a while, the damage has been done. This is the score sheet so far: roughly 800 deaths; shocking images of the slaughter of children in Qana; no clear Israeli military advance. And the transformation of Hezbollah from an organisation on the periphery of Lebanese politics into an object of admiration across the Arab world. But it is even worse than that. Is the assumption that civilians are legitimate targets if they do not flee certain areas any different from the principles that underlay the US war in Vietnam? Blair and Bush have given their blessing to the forced displacement of a large population, in violation of the guiding principles of the UN Commission on Human Rights.
Lebanon will now provide a rich source of inspiration to radical Islamists in their distorted quest for martyrdom. Senior Whitehall sources involved in the fight against terrorism are gravely concerned about the consequences of the Prime Minister's failure to condemn Israel's actions. The intelligence services say it is too early to tell whether Lebanon has already contributed to radicalisation in the UK; they work from the assumption that it will, like Iraq and Afghan istan. This is not in any way to justify or suggest equivalence, but it is surely the duty of a leader to produce a risk assessment of his actions. If Blair is prepared to put Britain in greater danger, he has to persuade its citizens that he is doing so for good reason.
Blair, at his rhetorical best in front of friends in California, appears in no mood for self-doubt. "I have many opponents on the subject," he told Rupert Murdoch's elite gathering at Pebble Beach on 30 July. "But I have complete inner confidence in the analysis of the struggle we face." Either he is delusional, or he has no choice but to say what he says. One close aide recalls that when the Prime Minister was preparing a foreign-policy speech in his Sedgefield constituency in 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, he considered a mea culpa of sorts, but changed his mind, asking his team: "Do we want headlines of 'Blair: I was wrong' or 'Blair: I was right'?"
Whatever he may think alone at night, the Prime Minister is locked in a spiral of self-justification for his actions in Iraq, his broader Middle East policy and his unstinting support of Bush. His speech in Los Angeles on 1 August was spun as a rethink. If so, it is too little, too late. Historians reflecting on the Blair-Bush "war on terror" that followed the attacks of 11 September 2001 would be right to see it as a joint venture. Ultimately, his US policy is his foreign policy. It has, by his own admission, underpinned his every action.
But one part of the jigsaw that Blair claimed to be vital was never put in place. The "road map", drawn up in 2002 by the quartet of the US, EU, United Nations and Russia, has remained the best hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, yet it was never implemented, because Bush didn't really believe in it. If Blair felt so passionately about it, and if his public silence did win him the influence inside the White House that he claims to have, he could and should have stood up and been counted on that issue, if on no other. Instead, he meekly accepted American inaction. The horrific events of the past three weeks can be traced in large part to that failure. Blair's exhortations to his American audience at least to consider the Palestinian issue were lamentable.
Before taking office in 1997, Blair travelled light on foreign policy. Saddam Hussein's chemical gassing of 5,000 Kurds at Halabja in 1988 passed him by: unlike dozens of other MPs, he didn't bother to sign a motion condemning it. Once in power, and frustrated at the pace of reform in domestic politics, Blair seized upon the theory of "humanitarian interventionism" that grew out of anger over inaction, first in Bosnia and then Rwanda. His decision to back military action in Kosovo reflected that thinking, and led to tension with Bill Clinton over America's reluctance to commit ground forces.
Banalities of "good and evil"
Having spent a month in Rwanda in 1994, seeing attacks take place, I need no persuading that inaction can be as hideous as action. Sometimes it is right to fight, but - as Blair should know from his Chicago speech of 1999, in which he set out the principles of humanitarian intervention - the outcome is what matters. When I began work on my book Blair's Wars, I tried to give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt, until I realised, on speaking to many people who worked closely with him, how simplistic and impressionable he was.
Now, as Blair hides behind banalities about "good and evil" and the familiar, crude definitions of "terrorism", his ministers look on helplessly. They talk openly to journalists - in the "you can print it, but just don't name me" deal that is the coward's life at Westminster - of Blair's "Bush problem". Shortly before MPs left for their summer break, one senior member of the cabinet accosted me in the corridors of the Commons, and asked: "How much further up their arses do you think we can go?" I suggested that this was more up to him than to me.
At least over Iraq someone resigned. This time, ministers do nothing. Their private complaints have no moral or political value, because they will not stop Blair. Under cabinet rules of collective responsibility, they are endorsing the Israeli assault.
Blair's survival in power is no longer a game of cat-and-mouse with Gordon Brown; it is no longer a question of Labour's ability to stave off the Conservatives. It is far more serious than that.
A record of conflict: the death toll from wars Britain has fought under three prime ministers
Tony Blair
71,617 deaths
9 years in power
Iraq war (2003-)
115 UK troop deaths 30,000 Iraqi troop deaths (estimate by Gen Tommy Franks in Oct 2003) 39,460-43,927 civilian deaths (Iraq Body Count)
Afghanistan (2001-)
16 UK troop deaths (as of 1 August 2006)
1,300-8,000 direct civilian deaths (Guardian estimate). Unknown Taliban deaths
Sierra Leone (2000-2002)
1 UK troop death 25 foreign troop deaths (at least)
Nato bombing of Serbia (1999)
No UK troop deaths. Unknown Serbian troop deaths 500-1,500 civilian deaths (according to Human Rights Watch/Nato estimates)
Operation Desert Fox (1998)
200-300 Iraqi deaths (based on UN estimate)
John Major
22,316 deaths
7 years in power
Gulf war (1991)
16 UK troop deaths 20,000-22,000 Iraqi troop deaths 2,300 civilian deaths (according to the Iraqi government)
Margaret Thatcher
1,013 deaths
11 years in power
US bombing of Libya from UK bases (1986)
100 Libyan deaths
Falklands war (1982)
255 UK troop deaths 655 Argentinian troop deaths 3 Civilian deaths
The figures do not take into account the estimated 350,000 Iraqis who died as a result of sanctions between 1991 and 2003 - under John Major and Tony Blair.
Blair's body count is probably underestimated here because there are no figures for Taliban and Serbian military deaths.
Estimates for Iraqi deaths range between 30,000 and 300,000. The official Bush estimate is 30,000 deaths. Iraq Body Count estimates between 39,460 and 43,927, although it admits this is far below the real total, as the database counts only reported deaths. A Lancet report in 2004 estimated 100,000 deaths, although one of the authors says the total could be 300,000.
Research: Daniel Trilling
Report: Mossad agents tried to kill Hamas leader in Damascus
albawaba.com
Israeli intelligence services planned to assassinate Khalid Meshaal, the head of the political wing of Hamas, sources in Gaza told Aljazeera.
According to the report, Mossad, sent last month a team to the Syrian capital to carry out the killing, Hamas sources disclosed on Wednesday quoting "Western intelligence sources". Meshaal is operating from Damascus.
Mossad agents allegedly posed as volunteers for relief organizations visiting Syria to help refugees from the war in Lebanon, the sources added. Aljazeera has learnt that the Hamas leader had stepped up his personal security since the plot.
In 1997, Meshaal survived a botched assassination attempt while he was living in Jordan. Mossad agents disguised as Canadians injected poison into his ear in the street.
© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Israeli intelligence services planned to assassinate Khalid Meshaal, the head of the political wing of Hamas, sources in Gaza told Aljazeera.
According to the report, Mossad, sent last month a team to the Syrian capital to carry out the killing, Hamas sources disclosed on Wednesday quoting "Western intelligence sources". Meshaal is operating from Damascus.
Mossad agents allegedly posed as volunteers for relief organizations visiting Syria to help refugees from the war in Lebanon, the sources added. Aljazeera has learnt that the Hamas leader had stepped up his personal security since the plot.
In 1997, Meshaal survived a botched assassination attempt while he was living in Jordan. Mossad agents disguised as Canadians injected poison into his ear in the street.
© 2006 Al Bawaba (www.albawaba.com)
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
The Los Angeles Times | Pre-Election Terrorizing
The Los Angeles Times
Pre-Election Terrorizing
The Los Angeles Times | Editorial
Tuesday 15 August 2006
The Republicans, again, play unseemly politics with terrorism.
The Bush Administration is a past master at playing politics with terrorism, portraying critics of its various antiterrorism initiatives as naive or even accusing them, in the words of former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, of giving "ammunition to America's enemies."
Vice President Dick Cheney may have provided a sneak preview of just how nasty the coming campaign will be. Speaking to reporters last week, after he learned of the British operation aimed at disrupting an alleged plot to bomb passenger planes, Cheney said that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's primary loss to an opponent of the Iraq war was proof that many Democrats wanted to return to "the pre-9/11 mind-set" and that the vote would embolden "Al Qaeda types."
Then Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman went on NBC's "Meet the Press" to suggest that the fundamental question in the November congressional elections is: "Do you believe we're at war?" Democrats, according to Mehlman, don't. That's why they "voted against the Patriot Act, against the surveillance programs similar to the kind of programs that were used in London to deal with the threat," and why some Democrats want to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, which is "central to the war on terror."
For the record, the USA Patriot Act was supported by most congressional Democrats, though with changes to the administration's original proposals that the president found acceptable. Iraq, for its part, became "central" to the war on terror only after the administration decided to invade the country and botched its occupation. Finally, it's unclear what Mehlman had in mind when referring to surveillance programs that are legal in Britain but not in the United States. One major difference between the two legal systems is that police in Britain may hold suspected terrorists without charge for 28 days. But even Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who spoke approvingly of such laws the other day, acknowledged that they might run afoul of the Constitution.
Chertoff and other administration officials are free, once they study the British investigation, to argue that Britain's success in disrupting this plot offers lessons for the United States. Even then, Congress is not as free to modify civil liberties as the British Parliament - which is not constrained by a written constitution.
But Mehlman obviously was interested less in opening a discussion of comparative antiterror strategies than in pushing the idea that what Republicans call the "Democrat Party" is really the "Defeatocrat Party." That may be election-year politics as usual, but it's unseemly, especially when the stakes in terms of national security and civil liberties are so high. You might even be tempted to call it a pre 9/11 mind-set.
Pre-Election Terrorizing
The Los Angeles Times | Editorial
Tuesday 15 August 2006
The Republicans, again, play unseemly politics with terrorism.
The Bush Administration is a past master at playing politics with terrorism, portraying critics of its various antiterrorism initiatives as naive or even accusing them, in the words of former Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, of giving "ammunition to America's enemies."
Vice President Dick Cheney may have provided a sneak preview of just how nasty the coming campaign will be. Speaking to reporters last week, after he learned of the British operation aimed at disrupting an alleged plot to bomb passenger planes, Cheney said that Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman's primary loss to an opponent of the Iraq war was proof that many Democrats wanted to return to "the pre-9/11 mind-set" and that the vote would embolden "Al Qaeda types."
Then Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman went on NBC's "Meet the Press" to suggest that the fundamental question in the November congressional elections is: "Do you believe we're at war?" Democrats, according to Mehlman, don't. That's why they "voted against the Patriot Act, against the surveillance programs similar to the kind of programs that were used in London to deal with the threat," and why some Democrats want to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, which is "central to the war on terror."
For the record, the USA Patriot Act was supported by most congressional Democrats, though with changes to the administration's original proposals that the president found acceptable. Iraq, for its part, became "central" to the war on terror only after the administration decided to invade the country and botched its occupation. Finally, it's unclear what Mehlman had in mind when referring to surveillance programs that are legal in Britain but not in the United States. One major difference between the two legal systems is that police in Britain may hold suspected terrorists without charge for 28 days. But even Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who spoke approvingly of such laws the other day, acknowledged that they might run afoul of the Constitution.
Chertoff and other administration officials are free, once they study the British investigation, to argue that Britain's success in disrupting this plot offers lessons for the United States. Even then, Congress is not as free to modify civil liberties as the British Parliament - which is not constrained by a written constitution.
But Mehlman obviously was interested less in opening a discussion of comparative antiterror strategies than in pushing the idea that what Republicans call the "Democrat Party" is really the "Defeatocrat Party." That may be election-year politics as usual, but it's unseemly, especially when the stakes in terms of national security and civil liberties are so high. You might even be tempted to call it a pre 9/11 mind-set.
VIDEO: Sean Hannity Suggests Israel Should Drop A Nuclear Bomb To ‘Obliterate’ Hezbollah
Think Progress
Yesterday on Fox News, Sean Hannity bashed Americans for Peace Now founder Mark Rosenblum for claiming that Hannity had suggested Israel should drop a nuclear bomb to destroy Hezbollah. “I never said drop a nuclear bomb,” Hannity responded. A few moments later, Hannity slipped and said, “It could have. They could obliterate them.” Hannity ended the segment by telling Rosenblum he was “full of sh*t.” Watch it:
Full transcript below:
COLMES: What do you though — let’s say Hezbollah keeps firing, though. What do you do then?
ROSENBLUM: Well, you have to fire back. And what this particular resolution allows is Israel is defined as the victim. Hezbollah is the perpetrator. Israel has the right to defend itself while it stays in southern Lebanon. There has never been a United Nations resolution so friendly to Israeli security interests and right — but it is a piece of paper, not implemented yet.
HANNITY: A lot of good 1559 did. I think anything short of the defeat of Hezbollah or crippling it to a larger extent is a waste of time.
ROSENBLUM: By dropping your nuclear bomb, is what you said.
HANNITY: No, no, I never said drop a nuclear bomb. You said that they weren’t winning, and I said they could have won it in a second if they wanted to. I’m saying Israeli forces, their generals are saying they didn’t fight it to the full extent.
ROSENBLUM: And again you’re monolithing Israel. There’s a dispute on this in Israel.
HANNITY: But don’t mischaracterize what I said. I never said drop a weapon. I said they could, they could obliterate them. And if they wanted to, they could have.
ROSENBLUM: And you said a nuclear weapon could be…
(CROSSTALK)
HANNITY: It could have. They could obliterate them.
ROSENBLUM: Again, why would Israel choose not to do that?
HANNITY: What part of that don’t you understand?
ROSENBLUM: Look at Israeli self-interest.
HANNITY: All right, you’re full of sh*t. We’ve got to break. Coming up next, “60 Minutes” chats with the president of Iran as a nuclear deadline looms. We’ll talk about that.The Blog | Arianna Huffington: And the Winner is... | The Huffington Post
The Huffington Post
And the Winner is...
The Orwell Awards for Speaking the Truth
And the Winner is...
Yesterday I wrote about accountability -- and the lack of it -- in our media (as of this post, by the way, neither Chuck Roberts, nor CNN has issued an apology). Today, I'd like to take it one step further.
Following is the first installment of the Orwell Awards for truth and lies in our political discourse.
Nobody has written more compellingly about the connection between language and politics than George Orwell. One of his central themes was that you'll never be able to recognize a problem, much less fix it, unless we are honest in the language we use to describe reality.In 1946, he wrote in Politics and the English Language: "[P]olitical chaos is connected with the decay of language... one can probably bring about some improvement by starting at the verbal end."
From "slam dunk" on WMD to "Mission Accomplished" to the insurgency being in its "last throes," the refusal to describe reality with something even approximating truth is having disastrous consequences on our political life.
We'll never be able to have a serious debate about what to do in Iraq and elsewhere if we don't describe reality accurately. Politicians are, of course, always going to try to use rhetoric to their advantage, and spin their accomplishments in the best possible light. But there is a tipping point where the debate becomes so divorced from reality that the spin becomes outright deception.
Given that the campaign season just kicked off with a CNN anchor calling Ned Lamont "the al Qaeda candidate," I'd argue we are at that point right now.
So during the campaign season (and, possibly, beyond), we'll be doing our small part by periodically giving out the Orwells.
And we'll give them not just for the most fraudulent statements, but also for speaking the truth. We'll knock them when they screw up, and we'll applaud them when they do the right thing.
So, for the first installment, the envelopes, please:
The Orwell Awards for Fraudulent Statements
To Tony Snow for blaming 9/11 on George H. W. Bush, perpetuating an outrageous lie about the connection between Iraq and 9/11, and implying that Ned Lamont and the sixty percent of the public who agrees with his position on Iraq want to "walk away" from fighting terrorism:
"There seems to be two approaches, and in the Connecticut race, one of the approaches is ignore the difficulties and walk away. Now, when the United States walked away, in the opinion of Osama bin Laden in 1991, bin Laden drew from that the conclusion that Americans were weak and wouldn't stay the course, and that led to September 11th."
To ABC's Martha Raddatz for implying that one can't support withdrawing our troops from Iraq and at the same time "support the troops":
"It's a very different kind of war. And it's a war that the Democrats don't want to say, 'This is terrible. The troops should come home,' because, you have -- the lesson from Vietnam also was you have to support the troops or there's tremendous backlash from that."
The Orwell Awards for Speaking the Truth
To former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge, for voicing his disagreement with Dick Cheney's disgraceful remark that the Lamont victory would embolden "al Qaeda types":
"That may be the way the Vice President sees it...but I don't see it that way, and I don't think most Americans see it that way."
To Senator Russ Feingold, for correcting Joe Lieberman's fraudulent statement on This Week with George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Lieberman thinks that your approach will strengthen the terrorists and it's a victory for terrorists. What's your response?FEINGOLD: Well, I like Joe Lieberman, but I support Ned Lamont, because Joe is showing with that regrettable statement that he doesn't get it. He doesn't get it. The fact is that we were attacked on 9/11 by Al Qaeda and its affiliates and its sympathizers, not by Saddam Hussein....
Post your nominations for future Orwells in the comments.
UPDATE: I woke up this morning to an email from Eric Alterman pointing out that the National Council of Teachers of English gives out every year the "George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language" (indeed, Eric doesn't point this out, but he was a recipient of the award in 1993). Last year, the recipients were Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" cast. Great choices. Great that the National council of teachers is doing this. How about we call ours just plain "The Orwells."
Last of 11 missing Egyptian students rounded up
Reuters.com
Last of 11 missing Egyptian students rounded up
Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:38 PM ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A nationwide search for 11 Egyptian students who failed to show up for an academic program in Montana has ended with the last two caught outside their rented apartment in Virginia, U.S. authorities said on Monday.
Several of the missing Egyptian students apprehended around the United States over the past week told immigration authorities they had planned to live and work in the United States, a spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said.
"Rather than seeking to attend the academic program in Montana, they actually were here to stay, get jobs, and earn money," said agency spokesman Dean Boyd.
The students did not pose "any credible or imminent threat," but the U.S. agency said it will seek to have them deported.
The last two missing students -- Mohamed Saleh Ahmed Maray, age 20, and Mohamed Ibrahim Fouaad El Shenawy, age 17 -- were arrested on Sunday on immigration violations while sitting on the front steps of the apartment they had rented in Richmond, Virginia. Agents were acting on a tip.
Two others caught near Baltimore last week had begun working at a pizza restaurant, Boyd said.
The 11 students were part of a group of 17 who arrived on July 29 in New York, supposedly en route to Bozeman, Montana, to attend a month-long academic program.
When only six students showed up in Bozeman, the school notified authorities who sent out a "be on the look out" request to police departments across the country.
The students were arrested alone or in groups of two or three in New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, and Minnesota.
The United States put in place a system to track violators of its student visa program after the September 11 attacks.
One of the 19 hijackers had entered the United States on a student visa, and authorities were embarrassed when, six months after the attacks, student visas came through for two other dead hijackers to allow them to take flight lessons. One of those was alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta.
Roughly 1 million foreign students are in the United States at any given time and thousands have been tracked down after violating the terms of their temporary visas.
Concerns about possible attacks are running high in the United States after Britain thwarted a plot last week to blow up airliners headed to U.S. cities.
Last of 11 missing Egyptian students rounded up
Mon Aug 14, 2006 12:38 PM ET
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A nationwide search for 11 Egyptian students who failed to show up for an academic program in Montana has ended with the last two caught outside their rented apartment in Virginia, U.S. authorities said on Monday.
Several of the missing Egyptian students apprehended around the United States over the past week told immigration authorities they had planned to live and work in the United States, a spokesman for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency said.
"Rather than seeking to attend the academic program in Montana, they actually were here to stay, get jobs, and earn money," said agency spokesman Dean Boyd.
The students did not pose "any credible or imminent threat," but the U.S. agency said it will seek to have them deported.
The last two missing students -- Mohamed Saleh Ahmed Maray, age 20, and Mohamed Ibrahim Fouaad El Shenawy, age 17 -- were arrested on Sunday on immigration violations while sitting on the front steps of the apartment they had rented in Richmond, Virginia. Agents were acting on a tip.
Two others caught near Baltimore last week had begun working at a pizza restaurant, Boyd said.
The 11 students were part of a group of 17 who arrived on July 29 in New York, supposedly en route to Bozeman, Montana, to attend a month-long academic program.
When only six students showed up in Bozeman, the school notified authorities who sent out a "be on the look out" request to police departments across the country.
The students were arrested alone or in groups of two or three in New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, and Minnesota.
The United States put in place a system to track violators of its student visa program after the September 11 attacks.
One of the 19 hijackers had entered the United States on a student visa, and authorities were embarrassed when, six months after the attacks, student visas came through for two other dead hijackers to allow them to take flight lessons. One of those was alleged ringleader Mohamed Atta.
Roughly 1 million foreign students are in the United States at any given time and thousands have been tracked down after violating the terms of their temporary visas.
Concerns about possible attacks are running high in the United States after Britain thwarted a plot last week to blow up airliners headed to U.S. cities.
Hours-old truce sees six Hezbollah men killed- The Times of India
The Times of India
JERUSALEM: Israeli troops killed six Hezbollah fighters on Monday in southern Lebanon in four separate skirmishes that illustrated the fragility of an hours-old ceasefire.
Despite the incidents, the UN-imposed truce ushered in a calm that the border region had not witnessed for more than a month, with the first tentative signs that people on both sides could begin rebuilding their homes and lives.
"Except for local incidents, the ceasefire is holding," defence minister Amir Peretz said 6-1/2 hours after the firing was to halt at 8 am.
No rockets fell on northern Israel in the first hours after the truce, but Israelis who deserted their rocket-battered homes remained wary of returning.
In Haifa, Israel's third largest town and a frequent Hezbollah target, stores closed for weeks began to reopen, and a few people returned to the beaches.
In Kiryat Shemona, where more than half the population fled during the final weeks of the war, streets were still mostly empty but traffic lights winked on again.
The few grocery stores that braved more than 700 rockets on the town were still the only places for food, with restaurants and cafes shut. Residents stirred from their bomb shelters, but there was no influx of returning refugees.
In a policy statement to parliament, prime minister Ehud Olmert said the war changed the strategic balance in the region, eliminated Hezbollah's "state within a state", badly damaged its arsenal and undermined its confidence.
Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the opposition Likud Party, said there were serious problems with the war.
"There were many failures, failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war."
JERUSALEM: Israeli troops killed six Hezbollah fighters on Monday in southern Lebanon in four separate skirmishes that illustrated the fragility of an hours-old ceasefire.
Despite the incidents, the UN-imposed truce ushered in a calm that the border region had not witnessed for more than a month, with the first tentative signs that people on both sides could begin rebuilding their homes and lives.
"Except for local incidents, the ceasefire is holding," defence minister Amir Peretz said 6-1/2 hours after the firing was to halt at 8 am.
No rockets fell on northern Israel in the first hours after the truce, but Israelis who deserted their rocket-battered homes remained wary of returning.
In Haifa, Israel's third largest town and a frequent Hezbollah target, stores closed for weeks began to reopen, and a few people returned to the beaches.
In Kiryat Shemona, where more than half the population fled during the final weeks of the war, streets were still mostly empty but traffic lights winked on again.
The few grocery stores that braved more than 700 rockets on the town were still the only places for food, with restaurants and cafes shut. Residents stirred from their bomb shelters, but there was no influx of returning refugees.
In a policy statement to parliament, prime minister Ehud Olmert said the war changed the strategic balance in the region, eliminated Hezbollah's "state within a state", badly damaged its arsenal and undermined its confidence.
Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the opposition Likud Party, said there were serious problems with the war.
"There were many failures, failures in identifying the threat, failures in preparing to meet the threat, failures in the management of the war."
Olmert's War, and the Next One - by Pat Buchanan
link
August 15, 2006
Olmert's War, and the Next One
by Patrick J. Buchanan
When Israel answered the Hezbollah raid that captured two soldiers with air strikes on Lebanon's airport, runways, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, buses, apartment houses, and power plants, we who questioned the wisdom and morality of what Israel was doing were denounced as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.
Turns out we were right. In private, even Israeli army generals were raging that Israel was fighting a stupid, losing war.
Ehud Olmert, who gave Chief of Staff Dan Halutz the green light to launch the shock-and-awe air campaign, cannot survive the moral, political, and strategic disaster his country has suffered.
While the Israeli air force was hammering Lebanon, Hezbollah rained down 3,000 rockets on Israel and fought off pinprick raids. When the Israeli army, after a month, moved in force against the real enemy, Hezbollah, Israel had already suffered irreparable damage to its reputation as a fighting nation and a moral country.
As the war began, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the war. But with Hezbollah's defiant resistance, as Israel smashed up Lebanon, the Arab street rallied to Nasrallah. Arab regimes followed.
The losers?
Lebanon, which suffered 800 dead, thousands injured, and 1 million made refugees, saw its infrastructure destroyed and nation set back 20 years. If the government falls or Lebanon becomes a failed state, it will be an even greater calamity for the Lebanese, and for Israel and the Middle East. For the mightiest political and military force in Lebanon, and likely heir apparent to power slipping away from Prime Minister Siniora, is now Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah.
Says Walid Jumblatt, savage critic of Hezbollah and its Syrian alliance, "Hassan Nasrallah has won militarily and politically, and has become a new leader like Nasser."
Another loser is Israel, and Olmert, who seized on the border skirmish to launch his Lebanon war. Writes Ari Shavit of Ha'aretz:
"Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeats, and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say, oops, I made a mistake."
Olmert and Halutz are history. The Kadima Party regime will fall. Left and Right are already tearing at its flanks.
What does this mean? The Sharon-Olmert policy of unilateral withdrawal from the territories is dead. The Hamas-led Palestinian authority, the creation of the freest and fairest elections ever held in Palestine, is on a death watch, after Israel's starvation blockade and ravaging of the Gaza Strip, which has left 150 Palestinians dead.
A new Israeli regime will not withdraw from any more land, nor shut down any more settlements, nor vacate any part of Jerusalem, nor negotiate with a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, or by a PLO that is unable to disarm Hamas. We are at a dead end, as George W. Bush will not push the Israelis to do anything, nor will Congress.
America is another loser.
The United States knew in advance Israel planned to attack and, if possible, destroy Hezbollah. And America approved.
But when Olmert launched an air war on Lebanon, instead, Bush cheered him on, refused to rein in attacks on civilian targets, sent smart bombs and used U.S. influence at the United Nations to block an early cease-fire. Bush-Cheney are thus morally and politically culpable for what was done to Lebanon and the democratic government there that was born of a "Cedar Revolution" George Bush himself had championed.
Congress poodled along with Bush, so Bush will not be called to account, as he would be were any other nation but Israel involved. From Morocco to the Gulf, there is probably not a country today that would welcome Bush, or where he would be safe on a state visit.
Where does this leave us? With Israel's failure to achieve its strategic objectives in Lebanon and America having failed to attain its strategic objectives in Iraq, Nasrallah emerges triumphant, and Syria and Iran emerge unscathed and gloating.
What comes next? That is obvious.
With our War Party discredited by the failed policies it cheered on in Lebanon and Iraq, there will come a clamor that Bush must "go to the source" of all our difficulty – Iran. Only thus can the War Party redeem itself for having pushed us and Israel into two unnecessary and ruinous wars. And the drumbeat for war on Iran has already begun.
"[T]he dangers continue to mount abroad," wails The Weekly Standard in its lead editorial. "How Bush deals with Ahmadinejad's terror-supporting and nuclear-weapons pursuing Iran will be the test" of his administration. Yes, the supreme test.
Bush is on notice from the neocons and War Party that have all but destroyed his presidency: Either you take down Iran, Mr. Bush, or you are a failed president.
If the president is still listening to these people, Lord help the Republic.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
August 15, 2006
Olmert's War, and the Next One
by Patrick J. Buchanan
When Israel answered the Hezbollah raid that captured two soldiers with air strikes on Lebanon's airport, runways, gas stations, lighthouses, bridges, buses, apartment houses, and power plants, we who questioned the wisdom and morality of what Israel was doing were denounced as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.
Turns out we were right. In private, even Israeli army generals were raging that Israel was fighting a stupid, losing war.
Ehud Olmert, who gave Chief of Staff Dan Halutz the green light to launch the shock-and-awe air campaign, cannot survive the moral, political, and strategic disaster his country has suffered.
While the Israeli air force was hammering Lebanon, Hezbollah rained down 3,000 rockets on Israel and fought off pinprick raids. When the Israeli army, after a month, moved in force against the real enemy, Hezbollah, Israel had already suffered irreparable damage to its reputation as a fighting nation and a moral country.
As the war began, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Bahrain all condemned Hezbollah, as did the Beirut government, for inciting the war. But with Hezbollah's defiant resistance, as Israel smashed up Lebanon, the Arab street rallied to Nasrallah. Arab regimes followed.
The losers?
Lebanon, which suffered 800 dead, thousands injured, and 1 million made refugees, saw its infrastructure destroyed and nation set back 20 years. If the government falls or Lebanon becomes a failed state, it will be an even greater calamity for the Lebanese, and for Israel and the Middle East. For the mightiest political and military force in Lebanon, and likely heir apparent to power slipping away from Prime Minister Siniora, is now Hezbollah and Hassan Nasrallah.
Says Walid Jumblatt, savage critic of Hezbollah and its Syrian alliance, "Hassan Nasrallah has won militarily and politically, and has become a new leader like Nasser."
Another loser is Israel, and Olmert, who seized on the border skirmish to launch his Lebanon war. Writes Ari Shavit of Ha'aretz:
"Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeats, and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say, oops, I made a mistake."
Olmert and Halutz are history. The Kadima Party regime will fall. Left and Right are already tearing at its flanks.
What does this mean? The Sharon-Olmert policy of unilateral withdrawal from the territories is dead. The Hamas-led Palestinian authority, the creation of the freest and fairest elections ever held in Palestine, is on a death watch, after Israel's starvation blockade and ravaging of the Gaza Strip, which has left 150 Palestinians dead.
A new Israeli regime will not withdraw from any more land, nor shut down any more settlements, nor vacate any part of Jerusalem, nor negotiate with a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas, or by a PLO that is unable to disarm Hamas. We are at a dead end, as George W. Bush will not push the Israelis to do anything, nor will Congress.
America is another loser.
The United States knew in advance Israel planned to attack and, if possible, destroy Hezbollah. And America approved.
But when Olmert launched an air war on Lebanon, instead, Bush cheered him on, refused to rein in attacks on civilian targets, sent smart bombs and used U.S. influence at the United Nations to block an early cease-fire. Bush-Cheney are thus morally and politically culpable for what was done to Lebanon and the democratic government there that was born of a "Cedar Revolution" George Bush himself had championed.
Congress poodled along with Bush, so Bush will not be called to account, as he would be were any other nation but Israel involved. From Morocco to the Gulf, there is probably not a country today that would welcome Bush, or where he would be safe on a state visit.
Where does this leave us? With Israel's failure to achieve its strategic objectives in Lebanon and America having failed to attain its strategic objectives in Iraq, Nasrallah emerges triumphant, and Syria and Iran emerge unscathed and gloating.
What comes next? That is obvious.
With our War Party discredited by the failed policies it cheered on in Lebanon and Iraq, there will come a clamor that Bush must "go to the source" of all our difficulty – Iran. Only thus can the War Party redeem itself for having pushed us and Israel into two unnecessary and ruinous wars. And the drumbeat for war on Iran has already begun.
"[T]he dangers continue to mount abroad," wails The Weekly Standard in its lead editorial. "How Bush deals with Ahmadinejad's terror-supporting and nuclear-weapons pursuing Iran will be the test" of his administration. Yes, the supreme test.
Bush is on notice from the neocons and War Party that have all but destroyed his presidency: Either you take down Iran, Mr. Bush, or you are a failed president.
If the president is still listening to these people, Lord help the Republic.
COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
UK to make new security rules permanent
rawstory
UK to make new security rules permanent
By FT Reporters
Published: August 14 2006 22:04 | Last updated: August 14 2006 22:04
Tough new restrictions coming into force on Tuesday at Britain’s busiest airports are set to become permanent, the Financial Times understands, changing the face of business travel for months and even years to come.
Ministers have told BAA, the airports operator, they do not envisage “fundamental” changes to a regime that will limit the tens of millions of passengers a year who use London’s Heathrow – the world’s busiest international airport – and other international hubs to one small cabin bag, half what they were able to take on board before last week’s terror alert.
The Department for Transport said extra restrictions would be in place for flights from the UK to the US, which account for over 40 per cent of all air travel between Europe and America.
British police on Monday extended warrants for the detention of 23 people seized in last Thursday’s anti-terrorist operation to Wednesday, as John Reid, the UK home secretary, said the terrorist threat had “not gone away” despite the downgrading on Monday of the terror threat from “critical” to “severe”.
The downgrade came after the UK, having examined further intelligence gathered during the arrests, assessed there were no other people involved in the plot that constituted an immediate threat.
The UK also found no evidence that other unrelated groups had accelerated plans for “copycat” attacks, at least imminently, officials said.
Tony Douglas, chief executive of BAA, said on Monday he did not know for how long the new airport security rules would apply, although it is thought they could last indefinitely.
The airline BA said on Monday it was seriously considering seeking compensation from BAA for costs related to the disruption at Heathrow and Gatwick, London’s second-biggest airport.
The airline is being forced to hire trucks and space in its own cargo aircraft to send baggage across Europe, after thousands of items were left at Heathrow airport rather than being flown to their destinations.
More than 500 pieces of luggage for Frankfurt failed to make it there on Sunday and were shipped out on Monday instead, and BA said many other European destinations had been affected.
Willie Walsh, BA’s chief executive, complained publicly at the weekend about the hold-ups in security checks, which he blames on BAA not providing adequate staff cover. But BAA, which described the situation as “the biggest security crisis in aviation history in this country”, said it was impossible to blame anybody.
The airports operator said the situation had increased the security burden by 400 per cent and pointed to the fact that Heathrow was already operating well beyond its capacity, even during normal operations.
BAA was scrambling to train staff to cope with the new security arrangements, which it said would be introduced at Heathrow and Gatwick.
Douglas Alexander, transport secretary, ruled out drafting in the armed forces to help BAA, partly on the grounds that they would have to be retrained. Officials said the operator had not requested assistance.
Reporting by Christopher Adams, Roger Blitz, Elizabeth Rigby and James Boxell in London and Richard Milne in Frankfurt
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
UK to make new security rules permanent
By FT Reporters
Published: August 14 2006 22:04 | Last updated: August 14 2006 22:04
Tough new restrictions coming into force on Tuesday at Britain’s busiest airports are set to become permanent, the Financial Times understands, changing the face of business travel for months and even years to come.
Ministers have told BAA, the airports operator, they do not envisage “fundamental” changes to a regime that will limit the tens of millions of passengers a year who use London’s Heathrow – the world’s busiest international airport – and other international hubs to one small cabin bag, half what they were able to take on board before last week’s terror alert.
The Department for Transport said extra restrictions would be in place for flights from the UK to the US, which account for over 40 per cent of all air travel between Europe and America.
British police on Monday extended warrants for the detention of 23 people seized in last Thursday’s anti-terrorist operation to Wednesday, as John Reid, the UK home secretary, said the terrorist threat had “not gone away” despite the downgrading on Monday of the terror threat from “critical” to “severe”.
The downgrade came after the UK, having examined further intelligence gathered during the arrests, assessed there were no other people involved in the plot that constituted an immediate threat.
The UK also found no evidence that other unrelated groups had accelerated plans for “copycat” attacks, at least imminently, officials said.
Tony Douglas, chief executive of BAA, said on Monday he did not know for how long the new airport security rules would apply, although it is thought they could last indefinitely.
The airline BA said on Monday it was seriously considering seeking compensation from BAA for costs related to the disruption at Heathrow and Gatwick, London’s second-biggest airport.
The airline is being forced to hire trucks and space in its own cargo aircraft to send baggage across Europe, after thousands of items were left at Heathrow airport rather than being flown to their destinations.
More than 500 pieces of luggage for Frankfurt failed to make it there on Sunday and were shipped out on Monday instead, and BA said many other European destinations had been affected.
Willie Walsh, BA’s chief executive, complained publicly at the weekend about the hold-ups in security checks, which he blames on BAA not providing adequate staff cover. But BAA, which described the situation as “the biggest security crisis in aviation history in this country”, said it was impossible to blame anybody.
The airports operator said the situation had increased the security burden by 400 per cent and pointed to the fact that Heathrow was already operating well beyond its capacity, even during normal operations.
BAA was scrambling to train staff to cope with the new security arrangements, which it said would be introduced at Heathrow and Gatwick.
Douglas Alexander, transport secretary, ruled out drafting in the armed forces to help BAA, partly on the grounds that they would have to be retrained. Officials said the operator had not requested assistance.
Reporting by Christopher Adams, Roger Blitz, Elizabeth Rigby and James Boxell in London and Richard Milne in Frankfurt
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2006
Bush calls for sealing of Syria's borders
The Raw Story
United States President George W. Bush late yesterday reiterated earlier statements that he believes Iran and Syria are responsible for the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, before calling for the sealing of Syria's borders, RAW STORY has learned.
In a joint appearance with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush stated that the administration is now operating a war on terror on three fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The president is hopeful that a UN Security Council resolution, calling for international troops to help the Lebanese central government gain control of Hezbollah-dominated areas, will take this over on this new "front".
"We must help people in both Lebanon and Israel return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives," Bush told reporters, "without fear of renewed violence and terror."
Bush placed the blame for the violence first on Hezbollah. "Hezbollah attacked Israel, Hezbollah started the crisis," he said, "and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis."
However, Bush also asserted his belief that Hezbollah has been armed by Iran, with weapons passing through Syria. "I know they claim they didn't have anything to do with it," the President told reporters, "but sophisticated weaponry ended up in the hands of Hezbollah fighters, and many assume and many believe that that weaponry came from Iran through Syria."
The United States and ally nations plan to call for UN troops to seal off Syrian borders and ports soon after the Hezbollah resolution is considered.
United States President George W. Bush late yesterday reiterated earlier statements that he believes Iran and Syria are responsible for the conflict between Hezbollah and Israel, before calling for the sealing of Syria's borders, RAW STORY has learned.
In a joint appearance with Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush stated that the administration is now operating a war on terror on three fronts: Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. The president is hopeful that a UN Security Council resolution, calling for international troops to help the Lebanese central government gain control of Hezbollah-dominated areas, will take this over on this new "front".
"We must help people in both Lebanon and Israel return to their homes and begin rebuilding their lives," Bush told reporters, "without fear of renewed violence and terror."
Bush placed the blame for the violence first on Hezbollah. "Hezbollah attacked Israel, Hezbollah started the crisis," he said, "and Hezbollah suffered a defeat in this crisis."
However, Bush also asserted his belief that Hezbollah has been armed by Iran, with weapons passing through Syria. "I know they claim they didn't have anything to do with it," the President told reporters, "but sophisticated weaponry ended up in the hands of Hezbollah fighters, and many assume and many believe that that weaponry came from Iran through Syria."
The United States and ally nations plan to call for UN troops to seal off Syrian borders and ports soon after the Hezbollah resolution is considered.
AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: Bush banishing the press?
AlterNet: Blogs
By Evan Derkacz
Posted on August 15, 2006, Printed on August 15, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/40361/
By Evan Derkacz
Posted on August 15, 2006, Printed on August 15, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/40361/
The White House's press corps' digs are getting a long overdue makeover but several disturbing developments and statements caught my eye.
All things being equal this would be idle chatter. But all things are not equal with this administration -- especially concerning secrecy and the press -- so I'm suspicious.
First, as the president's numbers slump, the war drags on and a potentially disastrous midterm approaches, the press was stationed "outside the iron-gated presidential compound for the first time in more than 100 years..."
A renovation during the Reagan years only had them "relocated to the Old Executive Office Building" -- still within the compound.
And then there's this (emphasis mine):
The renovations — including asbestos removal, new air conditioning and new seating in the press briefing room — are expected to take around nine months although some in the press worry the project will take longer, or that reporters might never return to the White House. It originally was envisioned as a three-month project.
On the slightly less ominous side, among the planned "improvements" are a huge "Situation Room"-style video monitor with which to give dazzling presentations. That'll at least give them a chance to re-run all those Video News Releases created for the evening news...
Evan Derkacz is a New York-based writer and contributor to AlterNet.
Did Cheney Go Too Far?
washingtonpost
By Dan Froomkin
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, August 14, 2006; 1:36 PM
By insinuating that the sizeable majority of American voters who oppose the war in Iraq are aiding and abetting the enemy, Vice President Cheney on Wednesday may have crossed the line that separates legitimate political discourse from hysteria.
Cheney's comments came in a highly unusual conference call with reporters, part of an extensively orchestrated and largely successful Republican effort to spin the obviously anti-Bush message of Ned Lamont's victory over presidential enabler Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary.
In making the case that Lieberman's defeat was actually an enormous boost for Republicans, the customarily furtive vice president let loose not with compelling argument, but unsupported invective.
Voters who supported Lamont's antiwar campaign in the Democratic primary were giving "the Al Qaeda types" exactly what they wanted, Cheney said. And as a result the Democratic Party, he asserted, now stands for a wholesale retreat in the broader campaign against terror.
Liz Sidoti writes for the Associated Press: "Senate Democratic leaders on Friday accused Vice President Dick Cheney of playing politics with terrorism and contended that voters won't buy Republican arguments that the GOP is stronger on national security.
" 'They've run this play one too many times,' Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a conference call with reporters. 'The American people simply do not recognize any validity in what they're saying.' "
Olivier Knox writes for AFP: "While some Democrats have opposed some steps in the war on terrorism, and more and more are calling for a withdrawal from Iraq, no major figures in the party have called for a wholesale retreat in the broader conflict touched off by the September 11, 2001 attacks."
Ken Herman points out in his blog for Cox News Service: "The White House's Wednesday attack on Democrats as weaklings in the war on terror came as administration officials knew of the pending British arrests of terror suspects who allegedly planned to down several planes. . . .
"The White House and the GOP, in a coordinated effort, had moved quickly on Wednesday to portray Democrats as weak on national defense. Cheney, in an extraordinary procedure, took questions from wire service reporters during a conference call as he was in Wyoming. Cheney rarely, if ever, takes questions from groups of reporters."
Evan Thomas writes in Newsweek: "White House aides insisted that Cheney was not trying to exploit the latest terror plot for political advantage."
Cheney had been briefed on the plot, but the aides "claimed that at the time he spoke, he was unaware that arrests were imminent. Even so, these officials were somewhat hard put to explain why the normally press-shy Cheney volunteered to talk to wire reporters and offer his analysis on the national-security implications of a Lamont victory."
E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in his Washington Post opinion column: "In a telephone call with journalists, Vice President Cheney came close to suggesting that there is a new political blog out there called 'al-Qaeda for Ned.' His words have not received nearly the attention they deserve."
Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy writes in a Hartford Courant op-ed: "Vice presidents are notorious for serving as an administration's chief attack dog, and time and again Dick Cheney has been unleashed to accuse anyone who is opposed to the Bush administration of aiding the terrorists. But this time he has gone too far.
"The comments he made on the result of the Connecticut Democratic primary -- that it might encourage 'the al-Qaida types' who want to 'break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task' -- are an attack not just on Democrats, but on democracy itself.
"What happened in Connecticut is in fact a model for democracies everywhere. The people of the state heard a vigorous debate between two competing visions of how to protect this country. Young citizens became deeply involved, and turnout was high. The primary reminded us of the miracle of our democracy, in which the nation is ruled by its people -- not by any entrenched set of leaders. There are few better messages we could send the world in these troubled times."
Arianna Huffington writes on her blog that "to hear Dick Cheney and company using illogical, over-the-top, fear-mongering rhetoric conflating Ned Lamont's victory with the war on terror is as deeply offensive as it is jaw-droppingly outrageous. . . .
"It would help if the MSM reacted to the GOP drivel by treating it with the contempt it deserves instead of dutifully reporting it as if it contained even an ounce of logic or sanity."
On the Editorial PagesThe Philadelphia Daily News writes: "For Cheney -- and other Republicans like GOP National Chairman Ken Mehlman -- to suggest that those Americans are encouraging terrorism is reprehensible. . . .
"To exploit a very real terror threat that could have led to major casualties, and to even indirectly implicate Americans who were exercising their democratic right by going to the polls and making a choice borders on the criminal, to say nothing of the insane.
"Has Cheney completely lost it?"
The Trenton Times writes: "Leave it to Vice President Dick Cheney to turn the results of a fair and honest election into some kind of sinister scenario. . . .
"Actually, comments such as the above are more of a sad reflection on the state of the Bush-Cheney administration, which just doesn't get it. Americans are fed up with the war in Iraq, from the false pretense for going to war to the tragically inept handling of the effort after the fall of Baghdad. Meantime, terrorist groups continue to prowl and plot, as evidenced by last week's arrest of 24 terror suspects in London, while this country spends enormous resources and sheds the blood of so many brave Americans in a war that has no end in sight."
The Minneapolis Star Tribune writes: "It's bizarre enough that a sitting vice president would decide to meddle in the politics of the opposition party and try to tell Democrats how to choose their own candidate for U.S. Senate. But it's downright outrageous that Cheney would yet again try to draw misleading parallels between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. Time and again White House officials have backed off that assertion when challenged frontally -- only to find some new way to insinuate it again a day or a week later."
The Berkshire (Mass.) Eagle writes: "Six years into the Bush-Cheney era, no one should be surprised at the levels the vice president can reduce himself to in his unending efforts to smear his political foes. Yet, he continually comes up with new approaches. . . .
"The shameful smears of patriotic American voters by Mr. Cheney and White House apologists like Mr. Lieberman can't disguise how utterly they and their ilk have failed America. Their unspoken fear is that America is finally on to them."
Irrelevant?One reaction to Cheney's comments was to simply write them off as irrelevant.
Senator Hillary Clinton told WNYC radio : "I don't take anything he says seriously anymore."
I'm not a Washington Post political reporter, but Jonathan Weisman is, and here's what he had to say in a Live Online discussion last week:
"Medford, Mass.: Exactly how is it that our sitting Vice President can get away with saying basically that people who exercised their constitutional right to vote for change (ie: Conn. primary) are helping terrorists? How is this not the headline of a story, instead of a footnote?
"Jonathan Weisman: The vice president also said the insurgency in Iraq is in its death throes, and that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators. I'm afraid to say his utterances are losing their news value."
But Still a PlayerAnd yet there is every indication that Cheney remains a seriously heavy-hitter behind the scenes.
Here's just one recent example: Helene Cooper writes in the New York Times about the travails of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who apparently was forced to stake out a position on the Middle East sufficiently unlike her own "to satisfy conservatives in the government, including Vice President Dick Cheney, who were pushing for strong American support for Israel. . . .
"On her recent trips to the Middle East, Ms. Rice was accompanied by two men with very different outlooks on the conflict: Elliott Abrams, senior director at the National Security Council, and C. David Welch, a career diplomat and former ambassador to Egypt who is assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.
"Mr. Welch represents the traditional State Department view that the United States should serve as a neutral broker in the Middle East. Mr. Abrams, a neoconservative with strong ties to Mr. Cheney, has pushed the administration to throw its support behind Israel. During Ms. Rice's travels, he kept in direct contact with Mr. Cheney's office."
Guess who won?
Operating in SecrecyAnd consider that, even as the greater press corps dutifully reports what it is told, there is an awful lot going on at the White House -- much of it revolving around Cheney -- that stays secret. Unless of course Seymour Hersh of the New Yorker is on the story.
In his latest, Hersh writes that the White House "was closely involved in the planning of Israel's retaliatory attacks. President Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney were convinced, current and former intelligence and diplomatic officials told me, that a successful Israeli Air Force bombing campaign against Hezbollah's heavily fortified underground-missile and command-and-control complexes in Lebanon could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential American preëmptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations, some of which are also buried deep underground."
Another Hersh tidbit: "[A] Pentagon consultant told me that intelligence about Hezbollah and Iran is being mishandled by the White House the same way intelligence had been when, in 2002 and early 2003, the Administration was making the case that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. 'The big complaint now in the intelligence community is that all of the important stuff is being sent directly to the top -- at the insistence of the White House -- and not being analyzed at all, or scarcely,' he said. 'It's an awful policy and violates all of the N.S.A.'s strictures, and if you complain about it you're out,' he said. 'Cheney had a strong hand in this.' "
Hersh's unauthorized version of how the White House consumes intelligence these days would seem to conflict with Evan Thomas 's authorized version. Thomas writes in Newsweek: "Have we learned anything since 9/11? President George W. Bush has apparently learned not to overreact. In the panicky days after the September 11 attacks, the president wanted to see any scrap of information, no matter how thinly sourced. As a result, raw and unfiltered intelligence gushed into the Oval Office. . . .
"Bush now 'trusts his team' to weed out such 'speculative' intelligence, said a senior Bush aide."
The two version sync up, of course, if you consider the possibility that all that unfiltered intelligence is going not to Bush's office, but to Cheney's.
Spin WatchThe job of Washington journalists should be to expose and challenge spin, not relate it admiringly. And yet the White House talking points on the foiled British terror plot have been repeated much more than refuted these past few days.
The marching orders were clear. The Chicago Tribune Web-published a National Republican Congressional Committee memo which stated: "In the days to come, you should move to question your opponent's commitment to the defeat of terror, and in turn, create a definitive contrast on the issue."
Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times that "Republican disunity eased dramatically this week with the defeat on Tuesday of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman in the Democratic primary in Connecticut and the news on Thursday that Britain had foiled a potentially large-scale terrorist plot.
"The White House and Congressional Republicans used those events to unleash a one-two punch, first portraying the Democrats as vacillating when it came to national security, and then using the alleged terror plot to hammer home the continuing threat faced by the United States. . . .
"The entire effort was swiftly coordinated by the Republican National Committee and the White House, using the same political machinery that carried them to victory in 2004. It began in the days before the anticipated loss of Mr. Lieberman, a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, to Ned Lamont, a vocal war critic whose victory Republicans used to paint Democrats as 'Defeatocrats.'
"That word originated in a White House memorandum by Mr. Bush's press secretary, Tony Snow, suggesting ways to frame the debate, that was shared with officials, including Ken Mehlman, the Republican chairman, and Karl Rove, the president's top strategist."
Kenneth T. Walsh writes for U.S. News: "The uncovering by British authorities of the terror plot is expected to strengthen President Bush's hand in campaigning for Republican candidates this fall.
"GOP strategists say that the latest developments prove that Bush's vigilance in the war on terrorism is paying off and that he is, indeed, working with allies -- particularly Great Britain -- to foil plots by the 'evildoers.' "
Mike Allen dutifully related the post-Lieberman Republican spin in his blog on Wednesday, and in time for the weekend received an exclusive look at everything the White House did brilliantly regarding the terror plot. For instance: "The President told [Frances Fragos Townsend, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism] he wanted to ensure accountability with an elaborate record of the White House response and deliberations. Townsend kept that record in a bulging red folder on her desk and a single-spaced, minute-by-minute annotation of her Outlook calendar pages."
Other Ways of Looking At ItEric Boehlert writes in the Nation: "The Beltway's simplistic, yet overheated, argument went like this: By voting out a pro-war, conservative Democrat, Connecticut voters (i.e., the 'elitist insurgents') would taint the party nationally by advertising Democrats as being soft on national security. That mindset, trumpeted by Time's Mike Allen, among others, represents an absolute refusal by MSM to divorce themselves from the notion that Republicans own the issue of national security and that Americans only trust conservatives to deal with foreign policy. That, despite the fact that a steady stream of polls indicate a majority of Americans are fed up with Bush's messianic worldview (a record-high 60 percent now disapprove of the war, according to CNN), and more Americans trust Democrats to do a better job protecting the peace as well as fighting the war on terror."
David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times about the debate over "whether five years of war declarations and war-making have helped to make the United States more secure. Or, even in the absence of a major attack on American soil since 9/11, has this strategy created greater danger by providing terror groups with exactly what they crave: the sense that they are a unified army of jihadists? And has the strategy radicalized large swaths of the Muslim world in ways that were not imaginable as recently as 2003?
"For the White House, the bomb plot last week was Exhibit A in defense of the war strategy: the plotters would go after Americans, war or no war in Iraq. But critics argue that merging the global war on terror and Iraq was creating new jihadists, from Indonesia to Walthamstow, the East London area where much of the plot was hatched."
Ivo Daalder writes on TPMCafe.com: "At the core of the administrations' war on terror are two strategies, neither of which appear to be particularly relevant in this particular case. . . .
"What appears to have cracked this case is not a war strategy or military offensive, but good intelligence, skilled detective work, and months of careful surveillance -- the kind of traditional law enforcement strategies and defensive measures that Bush and his administration have always shunned.
"This apparent success also undermines the second core element of the administration's war on terror -- the notion that effective counter-terrorism action requires ignoring established procedures and the rule of law."
Nothing to Fear but Fear ItselfWilliam Greider writes in the Nation: "An evil symbiosis does exist between Muslim terrorists and American politicians, but it is not the one Republicans describe. The jihadists need George W. Bush to sustain their cause. His bloody crusade in the Middle East bolsters their accusation that America is out to destroy Islam. The president has unwittingly made himself the lead recruiter of willing young martyrs.
"More to the point, it is equally true that Bush desperately needs the terrorists. They are his last frail hope for political survival. They divert public attention, at least momentarily, from his disastrous war in Iraq and his shameful abuses of the Constitution. The 'news' of terror -- whether real or fantasized -- reduces American politics to its most primitive impulses, the realm of fear-and-smear where George Bush is at his best. . . .
"The White House men wear grave faces, but they cannot hide their delight."
Paul Krugman writes in his New York Times opinion column (subscription required): "We now know that from the very beginning, the Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited. The story of the latest terror plot makes the administration's fecklessness and cynicism on terrorism clearer than ever. . . .
"All Mr. Bush and his party can do at this point is demonize their opposition. And my guess is that the public won't go for it, that Americans are fed up with leadership that has nothing to hope for but fear itself."
Fox News's Bill O'Reilly on Friday confronted former colleague Tony Snow with the Democratic charge that Bush is trying to frighten Americans.
Snow: "I'm not aware that the president's ever tried to frighten anybody. However, I believe that some of his opponents have tried to frighten the Americans into believing that we're weak, that we cannot win, that we do not have a plan, and that in general, everybody doesn't like us so we ought to walk away, so they will like us. . . .
"O'REILLY: You said that the president -- you weren't aware the president's trying to scare anybody. Yet yesterday, Dick Cheney said that the election of Ned Lamont to run for Senate, beating Lieberman, is a boon to Al Qaeda. Isn't that -- can you consider that scare tactics by the vice president?
"SNOW: Well, I'll let the vice president speak for himself. I speak for the president. Let me get back to my other point, which was that the president -- look, he gets up every day. He gets assessments of how scary the world really is. You want to get scared? Look at the stuff he looks at every morning."
Bill Schneider reports for CNN: "Typically, when Americans become fearful their support for the president tends to go up."
But then he asks: "Will the issue work for Republicans this year?
"In a CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corporation last week -- before the arrest of terror suspects in Britain -- terrorism topped the list of issues that voters said would be 'extremely important' to their vote this year. . . .
"But among voters concerned about terrorism, slightly more said they would vote for a Democrat (50 percent) rather than a Republican (45 percent) for Congress."
And yet early results suggest fear is having its predictable effect: Marcus Mabry writes that a new Newsweek poll conducted Thursday and Friday nights "suggests that news of a serious terror threat boosts the president's ratings. . . .
"According to the poll. . . . 55 percent disapprove of how the president is doing his job, while 38 percent approve, an increase of 3 points since the May 11-12 Newsweek Poll. But a majority, 55 percent, approve of Bush's handling of terrorism and homeland security (40 percent disapprove), an 11-point boost since May, returning the president to levels not seen since early 2005."
An Associated Press-Ipsos poll conducted just before the plot was foiled found Bush's approval rating down to 33 percent -- and public approval of Bush's handling of foreign policy and terrorism down to 40 percent, near the lowest levels of his presidency. A contemporaneous Harris Poll had Bush's approval rating at 34 percent, unchanged from July.
Cause for CynicismJohn Solomon writes for the Associated Press: "As the British terror plot was unfolding, the Bush administration quietly tried to take away $6 million that was supposed to be spent this year developing new explosives detection technology."
Aram Roston and Lisa Myers report for NBC: "NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.
"A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner."
Stranger Than FictionWhat is the least likely book you could possibly imagine Bush reading during his downtime?
Agence France Presse reports that Bush read French existential writer Albert Camus's "The Stranger."
"White House spokesman Tony Snow said Friday that Bush, here on his Texas ranch enjoying a 10-day vacation from Washington, had made quick work of the Algerian-born writer's 1946 novel -- in English."
© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive
AlterNet: Public Stoning: Not Just for the Taliban Anymore
AlterNet
By John Sugg, Church and State
Posted on August 15, 2006, Printed on August 15, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/
Two really devilish guys materialized in Toccoa, Ga., last month to harangue 600 true believers on the gospel of a thoroughly theocratic America. Along with lesser lights of the religious far right who spoke at American Vision's "Worldview Super Conference 2006," Herb Titus and Gary North called for nothing short of the overthrow of the United States of America.
Titus and North aren't household names. But Titus, former dean of TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University law school, has led the legal battle to plant the Ten Commandants in county courthouses across the nation. North, an apostle of the creed called Christian Reconstructionism, is one of the most influential elders of American fundamentalism.
"I don't want to capture their (mainstream Americans') system. I want to replace it," fumed North to a cheering audience. North has called for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and plentiful, he has observed). Both friends and foes label him "Scary Gary."
Are we in danger of an American Taliban? Probably not today. But Alabama's "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore is aligned with this congregation, and one-third of Alabama Republicans who voted in the June primary supported him. When you see the South Dakota legislature outlaw abortions, the Reconstructionist agenda is at work. The movement's greatest success is in Christian home schooling, where many, if not most, of the textbooks are Reconstructionist-authored tomes.
Moreover, the Reconstructionists are the folks behind attacks on science and public education. They're allied with proselytizers who have tried to convert Air Force cadets -- future pilots with fingers on nuclear triggers -- into religious zealots. Like the communists of the 1930s, they exert tremendous stealth political gravity, drawing many sympathizers in their wake, and their friends now dominate the Republican Party in many states.
Titus' and North's speeches, laced with conspiracy theories about the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission, were more Leninist than Christian in the tactics proposed -- as in their vision to use freedom to destroy the freedom of others. That's not surprising -- the founder of Christian Reconstruction, the late fringe Calvinist theologian Rousas J. Rushdoony, railed against the "heresy" of democracy.
A Harvard-bred lawyer whose most famous client is Alabama's Judge Moore, Titus told the Toccoa gathering that the Second Amendment envisions the assassination of "tyrants;" that's why we have guns. Tyranny, of course, is subjective to these folks. Their imposition of a theocratic state would not, by their standards, be tyranny. Public schools, on the other hand, to them are tyrannical.
North is best known to Internet users for his prolific auguring that a Y2K computer bug would cause the calamitous end of civilization. In the days prior to the advent of this millennium, North urged subscribers to his delusional economic newsletters to go survivalist and prepare for the end. Many did so, dumping investments and life savings, a big oops.
"I lost a million and a half dollars when I sold off real estate," one of North's fans, a home-schooling advocate from Florida, told me during a lunch break between lectures touting creationism and damning secular humanism. But my lunch companion still anted more than pocket change to hear North make more prophesies in Toccoa. "I believe Gary North on Bible issues," he explained. I suggested that false prophets often pocket big profits, but I was talking to deaf ears.
Hosting the "Creation to Revelation... Connecting the Dots" event was a Powder Springs, Ga., publishing house, American Vision, whose pontiff is Gary DeMar. The outfit touts the antebellum South as a righteous society and favors the reintroduction of some forms of slavery (it's sanctioned in the Bible, Reconstructionists say) -- which may explain the blindingly monochrome audience at the gathering.
The setting was the Georgia Baptist Conference Center, a sprawling expanse of woods, hills and a man-made lake in the North Georgia mountains. Four decades ago, the Southern Baptists officially declared, "no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state" and "the church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work."
Times change. The Baptists lust for power, and they demand the state to do their bidding. I guess that explains the denomination's hosting of theocrats no less rigid and bloodthirsty than the Taliban's mullahs.
DeMar christened the gathering with invective against science.
"Evolution is as religious as Christianity," he said, a claim that certainly must amaze 99.99 percent of the scientific community. Science is irrelevant to these folks.
Everything they need to know about the universe and the origin of man is in the first two chapters of Genesis. They know the answer before any question is asked. DeMar's spin is what he calls a clash of "worldviews." According to DeMar and his speakers, God sanctions only their worldview. And that worldview is a hash of enforcing Old Testament Mosaic law (except when it comes to chowing down on pork barbecue), rewriting American history to endorse theocracy and explaining politics by the loopy theories of the John Birch Society. (Christian Reconstructionism evolved, so to speak, from a radical variation of Calvinism, AKA Puritanism, and the Bircher politics of such men as the late Marietta, Ga., congressman, Larry McDonald.) For most of the four-day conference, DeMar turned the Bible over to others to thump. North blamed the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission for the success of secularists. Titus told of Jesus making a personal appearance in the rafters of his Oregon home.
At the heart of what was taught by a succession of speakers:
* Six-day, "young earth" creationism is the only acceptable doctrine for Christians. Even "intelligent design" or "old earth" creationism are compromises with evil secularism.
* Public education is satanic and must be destroyed.
* The First Amendment was intended to keep the federal government from imposing a national religion, but states should be free to foster a religious creed. (Several states did that during the colonial period and the nation's early days, a model the Reconstructionists want to emulate.)
* The Founding Fathers intended to protect only the liberties of the established ultra-conservative denominations of that time. Expanding the list to include "liberal" Protestant denominations, much less Catholics, Jews and (gasp!) atheists, is a corruption of the Founders' intent.
Education earned the most vitriol at the conference. Effusing that the Religious Right has captured politics and much of the media, North proclaimed: "The only thing they (secularists) have still got a grip on is the university system." Academic doctorates, he contended, are a conspiracy fomented by the Rockefeller family. All academic programs (except, he said, engineering) are now dominated by secularists and Darwinists.
"Marxists in the English depart
By John Sugg, Church and State
Posted on August 15, 2006, Printed on August 15, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/40318/
Two really devilish guys materialized in Toccoa, Ga., last month to harangue 600 true believers on the gospel of a thoroughly theocratic America. Along with lesser lights of the religious far right who spoke at American Vision's "Worldview Super Conference 2006," Herb Titus and Gary North called for nothing short of the overthrow of the United States of America.
Titus and North aren't household names. But Titus, former dean of TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University law school, has led the legal battle to plant the Ten Commandants in county courthouses across the nation. North, an apostle of the creed called Christian Reconstructionism, is one of the most influential elders of American fundamentalism.
"I don't want to capture their (mainstream Americans') system. I want to replace it," fumed North to a cheering audience. North has called for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and plentiful, he has observed). Both friends and foes label him "Scary Gary."
Are we in danger of an American Taliban? Probably not today. But Alabama's "Ten Commandments Judge" Roy Moore is aligned with this congregation, and one-third of Alabama Republicans who voted in the June primary supported him. When you see the South Dakota legislature outlaw abortions, the Reconstructionist agenda is at work. The movement's greatest success is in Christian home schooling, where many, if not most, of the textbooks are Reconstructionist-authored tomes.
Moreover, the Reconstructionists are the folks behind attacks on science and public education. They're allied with proselytizers who have tried to convert Air Force cadets -- future pilots with fingers on nuclear triggers -- into religious zealots. Like the communists of the 1930s, they exert tremendous stealth political gravity, drawing many sympathizers in their wake, and their friends now dominate the Republican Party in many states.
Titus' and North's speeches, laced with conspiracy theories about the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission, were more Leninist than Christian in the tactics proposed -- as in their vision to use freedom to destroy the freedom of others. That's not surprising -- the founder of Christian Reconstruction, the late fringe Calvinist theologian Rousas J. Rushdoony, railed against the "heresy" of democracy.
A Harvard-bred lawyer whose most famous client is Alabama's Judge Moore, Titus told the Toccoa gathering that the Second Amendment envisions the assassination of "tyrants;" that's why we have guns. Tyranny, of course, is subjective to these folks. Their imposition of a theocratic state would not, by their standards, be tyranny. Public schools, on the other hand, to them are tyrannical.
North is best known to Internet users for his prolific auguring that a Y2K computer bug would cause the calamitous end of civilization. In the days prior to the advent of this millennium, North urged subscribers to his delusional economic newsletters to go survivalist and prepare for the end. Many did so, dumping investments and life savings, a big oops.
"I lost a million and a half dollars when I sold off real estate," one of North's fans, a home-schooling advocate from Florida, told me during a lunch break between lectures touting creationism and damning secular humanism. But my lunch companion still anted more than pocket change to hear North make more prophesies in Toccoa. "I believe Gary North on Bible issues," he explained. I suggested that false prophets often pocket big profits, but I was talking to deaf ears.
Hosting the "Creation to Revelation... Connecting the Dots" event was a Powder Springs, Ga., publishing house, American Vision, whose pontiff is Gary DeMar. The outfit touts the antebellum South as a righteous society and favors the reintroduction of some forms of slavery (it's sanctioned in the Bible, Reconstructionists say) -- which may explain the blindingly monochrome audience at the gathering.
The setting was the Georgia Baptist Conference Center, a sprawling expanse of woods, hills and a man-made lake in the North Georgia mountains. Four decades ago, the Southern Baptists officially declared, "no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state" and "the church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work."
Times change. The Baptists lust for power, and they demand the state to do their bidding. I guess that explains the denomination's hosting of theocrats no less rigid and bloodthirsty than the Taliban's mullahs.
DeMar christened the gathering with invective against science.
"Evolution is as religious as Christianity," he said, a claim that certainly must amaze 99.99 percent of the scientific community. Science is irrelevant to these folks.
Everything they need to know about the universe and the origin of man is in the first two chapters of Genesis. They know the answer before any question is asked. DeMar's spin is what he calls a clash of "worldviews." According to DeMar and his speakers, God sanctions only their worldview. And that worldview is a hash of enforcing Old Testament Mosaic law (except when it comes to chowing down on pork barbecue), rewriting American history to endorse theocracy and explaining politics by the loopy theories of the John Birch Society. (Christian Reconstructionism evolved, so to speak, from a radical variation of Calvinism, AKA Puritanism, and the Bircher politics of such men as the late Marietta, Ga., congressman, Larry McDonald.) For most of the four-day conference, DeMar turned the Bible over to others to thump. North blamed the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission for the success of secularists. Titus told of Jesus making a personal appearance in the rafters of his Oregon home.
At the heart of what was taught by a succession of speakers:
* Six-day, "young earth" creationism is the only acceptable doctrine for Christians. Even "intelligent design" or "old earth" creationism are compromises with evil secularism.
* Public education is satanic and must be destroyed.
* The First Amendment was intended to keep the federal government from imposing a national religion, but states should be free to foster a religious creed. (Several states did that during the colonial period and the nation's early days, a model the Reconstructionists want to emulate.)
* The Founding Fathers intended to protect only the liberties of the established ultra-conservative denominations of that time. Expanding the list to include "liberal" Protestant denominations, much less Catholics, Jews and (gasp!) atheists, is a corruption of the Founders' intent.
Education earned the most vitriol at the conference. Effusing that the Religious Right has captured politics and much of the media, North proclaimed: "The only thing they (secularists) have still got a grip on is the university system." Academic doctorates, he contended, are a conspiracy fomented by the Rockefeller family. All academic programs (except, he said, engineering) are now dominated by secularists and Darwinists.
"Marxists in the English depart