Afghan minister survives assassination

0

Afghan Interior Minister Ahmad Moqbel Zarar has survived an assassination attempt by Taliban insurgents, a ministry spokesman says.

Taliban militants ambushed and opened fire on Zarar’s convoy, as the Afghan minister was on his way to Laghman Province in the eastern part of the country, Press TV correspondents reported Wednesday.

Afghan police and Taliban insurgents exchanged fire for some 15 minutes.

Interior Ministry spokesman Zamarai Bashari confirmed the Taliban attempt on Zarar’s life adding that the minister and his entourage were unharmed.

Bashari did not disclose any information on Taliban casualties, saying a probe has been launched into the incident.

The Taliban took responsibility for the attack and claimed the Afghan police had suffered significant casualties.

MD/HGH/RE

CCTV Busting Infra-Red Headset Makes You Invisible

by Cory Doctorow

This German exibition is showcasing bright infrared LED devices that overwhelm the CCDs in security cameras, allowing you to move through modern society in relative privacy. I used this as a gimmick in my story I, Robot — now I want to own one!

The URA / FILOART developed device promises to the citizens of a more reliable protection against security measures of the state (and other Überwachenden).In addition to monitoring purposes organised systems interaction between man and machine is still IR.ASC an additional interaction between machines dar. This absurd accumulation of technology is symptomatic, because although the entire expense of the protection measures for the alleged safety of citizens is made, the person slips on the importance scale of the current security plan ever deeper down.

Link (Thanks, Bill!)

BBC 9/11 Conspiracy Files Appeal Hearing Results

No surprise that the complaint was not upheld, The finding is a joke as you would imagine. For example, the BBC’s idea of ‘investigation’ regarding Mayor Willie Brown not flying on 911 is to phone his office and ask if the reports of a tip off were true!

The entire results below:

FINDING BY THE EDITORIAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE

9/11: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 18 February 2007

Summary of finding

The Committee, in its consideration, noted that four complainants had complained

about this programme. Three complaints appeals are addressed in this finding.

The Committee noted all of the concerns raised by the appellants and from their

complaints grouped the issues raised under five broad headings:

– Did the programme consider the most significant 9/11 conspiracy theories?

– Did the programme ensure appropriate representation from both sides of

the argument?

– Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

– Were the arguments articulated clearly?

– Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy theories?

– Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

The appeals were considered against the editorial guidelines concerning accuracy and impartiality.

The Committee concluded:

– Did the programme ensure appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

· it was not a requirement for all theories to be considered in the programme;

· the programme’s purpose was not to solve what had happened on 11

September 2001or to deliver an in depth analysis of each theory or

verdict on the veracity of each theory;

· the choice of theories reflected the mainstream of theories which the

majority of the audience would have had some awareness of and, as

such, was editorially justified; and

· it was not a requirement for the programme to consider the “history

of deceit” to satisfy the guideline to “weigh all relevant facts”

– Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

· the programme had satisfied the requirement of being duly impartial

by providing sufficient information on each theory mentioned to

enable the viewer to have had enough understanding of the different

arguments to have formed an opinion as to the accuracy of the

various statements made;

· it was not required to represent every argument or every facet of

every argument to achieve due impartiality;

· the programme had provided appropriate and relevant

representatives from both sides of the argument to articulate the

various views;

· the programme team had ensured that the contributors speaking for

the ‘truth movement’ had the appropriate credentials to provide an

authoritative view of the various arguments; and

· the description of Dylan Avery as “23 year old self-confessed drop

out” was used fairly as that was a description he used to describe

himself;

– Were the arguments articulated clearly?

· that in the presentation of the various theories, including the graphic

representations, the production team had accurately put forward the

broad details of each of the theories in way that did not mislead the

audience;

· the facts, as much as they could be established, had been thoroughly

checked;

– Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy

theories?

· there was a good editorial reason for a programme looking at the

phenomenon of conspiracy theories to talk to someone who was

publicly known and associated with conspiracy theories;

· looking at the programme as a whole the views of Mr Spotnitz were

balanced as there was sufficient concerns raised by those in the truth

movement to offset those of Mr Spotnitz;

– Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

· there was no evidence to suggest that the programme had presented

the theorists in a negative way either in the way the individual

contributors were referred to or presented.

The complaints were not upheld.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files, BBC Two, 18 February 2007

Finding in full

1. The item

(taken from the press release)

The Conspiracy Files was a series of four programmes exploring the conspiracy

theories that have entered the mainstream surrounding some of the biggest Western

news stories of recent years. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files investigated the growing

number of conspiracy theories surrounding the events of 11 September 2001. The

programme travelled across the United States, speaking to eyewitnesses and

attempting to separate fact from fiction.

2. The complaint

Three complainants made a similar complaint concerning 9/11: The Conspiracy Files,

details of which are below (section 2.1). The individual complainants also made

complaints in addition to these which are captured in section 2.2.

2.1 The complainants made the following points to the BBC:

The 9/11 truth movement

· The programme showed a clear and deliberate negative bias against those who

describe themselves as the 9/11 truth movement.

· There was a deliberate intent to misrepresent the discoveries of the 9/11 truth

movement. These show beyond doubt that the official US government version of

events of that day was fraudulent. The producers of the programme had no

intention of supporting a version of events of that day which conflicted with the

official US report.

· There were 13 debunkers interviewed and only 3 9/11 truthers.

· There were many negative inferences about the truth movement such as “there

are more than fifty conspiracy theories about 9/11.”

The collapse of the twin towers

· The explanation in the programme of the collapse of the twin towers (thepancake theory) put forward by Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics has been

proven by scientists in the truth movement to be unscientific and in violation of

the laws of physics. If the towers had collapsed in pancake form, large floor

areas would have remained intact with pieces of concrete of varying sizes. There

was no mention in the programme that all three buildings fell at freefall velocity

and that no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fires prior to or since

9/11.

· If the towers had collapsed in pancake form then by the programme’s own

graphic demonstration they would have taken more than 50 seconds to fall.

· In addition the temperature of the burning jet fuel was nowhere near the

temperature needed to melt the central support columns of the twin towers.

· The graphic illustrating the collapse of the WTC was misleading

The Pentagon attack

· The programme’s computer animation of a Boeing 757 entering the Pentagon is

too simplistic to be accepted. A 757 cannot fly at ground level. It would also have

been physically impossible for any large aircraft to have hit the Pentagon without

leaving devastation in its wake. Instead there was a neat, near-perfect hole and

no traces of the large fuselage, the wings, engines or seats, luggage and passenger

remains. The programme did not explain these issues.

· The interview with Col. Steve O’Brien, pilot of the military plane flying over

Washington cannot be relied on. The programme did not mention or question

him about the Pentagon’s missile defences which failed to be deployed that day.

Flight 93

· The programme did not explain the lack of debris at the crash site of Flight 93.

The evidence of eye-witnesses lacked credibility. If the Boeing 757 had crashed at

that location there would have been substantial debris.

· The evidence of the coroner Wally Miller was unreliable because he changed his

original story.

· The programme claimed that debris was not found 8 miles away when local

officials and the FBI clearly stated that it was.

Programme interviews

· Many key interviews were not included in the programme. Professor David RayGriffin (author of The New Pearl Harbor) is widely respected by 9/11 truth

researchers as a leading analyst of the events of that day. Neither he nor

Professor Steven Jones was included in the programme.

· Other interviews were not included. There are senior military and intelligence

personnel, government officials, survivors and families of the victims who dispute

the official version of events. Witnesses who heard bombs exploding within the

buildings before and after they were hit by the aircraft weren’t mentioned.

· The use of X-Files writer Frank Spotnitz to debunk the 9/11 conspiracy claims

was an attempt to discredit the truth movement in the eyes of the audience.

· Many pieces of information were left out of the documentary. Several high

ranking people were warned not to go to work or to fly that day but this was

never mentioned.

2.2 Individual complaints from the three complainants:

· The programme used ‘classic tools of dark images’ to suggest certain individuals

were dubious or sinister.

· The sequences introducing Dylan Avery and Professor Jim Fetzer were

unnecessary and used up valuable footage time. They were shot without

additional lighting to create a negative impression. The close-up technique used

to film Professor Fetzer was disrespectful.

· The Loose Change director Dylan Avery was described as a self-confessed ‘dropout’

even though he never attended college.

· The claim that the CIA and the FBI did not have forewarning of the events is not

true. The secret services of many governments had warned the US

administration of possible attacks.

· No mention was made in the programme of the US government’s history of

deceit or operation Northwoods.

· The BBC is on record through a live interview with a BBC correspondent in

New York as having had prior warning of the collapse of Building 7. This is

further evidence that the building did not collapse as a result of structural failure.

· When Building 7 fell to the ground the programme stated there were no

casualties. However a secret service agent Craig Miller died as a result of that

collapse.

· Why wasn’t the footage of World Trade Centre owner Larry Silverstein shown

admitting that the authorities decided to ‘pull’ Building 7?

· No mention was made that two aircraft landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport

due to two separate bomb threats, and that Flight 93 was one of those reported

to have landed by locals.

· The use of the claim that 4000 Jews stayed away from work on 9/11 suggests

that those undertaking independent investigations of 9/11 are somehow anti-

Semitic.

· The programme attempted to influence viewers by ending with the phrase: “The

evidence points to a conspiracy after 9/11, not before. The other 9/11 conspiracy

theories are just that, theories. The evidence doesn’t support them. Case closed.”

· No alternative theories as to the collapse of the twin towers to the official

accounts were given, save for the view of Dylan Avery

· The programme omitted to include and investigate an “FBI report” on wreckage

found 8 miles away in New Baltimore

· The programme omitted to include interviews with police officers on duty at the

world trade centre, eye witness accounts, a conspiracy theory concerning the

Mayor of San Francisco and any interview with the head of the largest 9/11

victims group for the film.

· There was an imbalance in the interviews as there were less people for the 9/11

movement than “debunkers”.

3. Response from the BBC

3.1 Response from BBC Information

The complainants were directed to two blogs written by Mike Rudin,

series producer The Conspiracy Files and Richard Porter, Head of News,

BBC World. The following points were also made:

There was no editorial interference in the programme. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files was

determined to examine the many conspiracy theories in detail and subject them to

forensic examination.

The programme chose three prominent and influential people to make the case that

the official account of 9/11 is wrong and to propose an alternative. The programmemakers

did ask Professor Steven Jones for an interview but he declined.

The programme found much evidence which supported the official version of events

and which contradicted the various conspiracy theories.

Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover up

intelligence failures, this was included in the programme.

The programme was 59 minutes long and therefore could not deal with every issue

and every possible argument. The programme-makers chose the strongest and most

widely reported arguments for inclusion. They also spoke to and considered many

witnesses and experts but in the end made an editorial judgement as to who to

include in the programme.

Frank Spotnitz was included to help viewers understand why so many people believe

in conspiracy theories generally.

3.2 Response from the ECU

The 9/11 truth movement

The programme was in production for nine months and the producers carried out

extensive research in that time. The final programme contained a number of

interviews with leading members of the 9/11 truth movement and gave them the

opportunity to explain their theories of what happened on the day.

The programme also included interviews with people challenging these theories to

provide the necessary balance on such a controversial subject.

The programme-makers made a conscious decision to concentrate on the opinions

of three people who are well regarded in the truth movement and spend time

establishing why their views were worthy of consideration. This was considered

preferable to covering a greater variety of views in a more cursory manner.

It is true that more people were interviewed to support the official explanation of

events — but this in itself did not lead to an imbalance. Throughout the programme a

great deal of time was spent explaining the theories of the three men, often using

material which they had provided. Their contribution amounted to more than eight

minutes of the programme. This compares to just over ten minutes devoted to

those putting opposing views.

“In many cases where there was an exchange of views, the programme-makers gave

the last word to the 9/11 theorists. 9/11: The Conspiracy Files offered a balanced

analysis of the main theories and I do not believe there is evidence of bias against the

9/11 truth movement.”

The programme’s comment that there are “more than fifty different conspiracy theoriesabout 911/” is a simple statement of fact providing useful context for the viewer

rather than a negative inference about the truth movement.

The collapse of the twin towers

There are a number of explanations as to why the twin towers collapsed and some

of these were examined by the programme. Dylan Avery put forward his theory that

the buildings were brought down by a series of controlled explosions. This was

balanced by the official Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) report

that said that a combination of the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires

weakened the load-bearing beams. The programme-makers had to decide which

aspects of the collapse to investigate in the time available, and so included the two

most widely discussed explanations.

Davin Coburn has carried out his own research into the collapse and his explanation

is shared by many, including FEMA. The purpose of the graphic used to illustrate the

official explanation was to show a complicated process in a way that is simple to

understand. The programme-makers say that their intention in using the graphic was

to clarify one theory rather than to prove its validity.

The graphic was run in slow motion and was not designed to show the actual speed

at which the collapse occurred. If the graphic had been shown in ‘real time’ it would

have been too quick to understand. Therefore this was not misleading or inaccurate.

It is true to say that no other steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire but it

is equally true that no other buildings have been hit at speed by a large passenger jet

laden with fuel. It is hard to see how an analysis of other skyscraper fires would

have proved what caused the twin towers to collapse.

The Pentagon attack

Professor Hoffman’s computer animation was shown to help illustrate his

explanation for why the hole in the Pentagon wall was so small. The programme did

not endorse this view and made it clear it had been challenged by many experts.

Professor Jim Fetzer and Dylan Avery spoke at length to cast doubt on the official

version. The programme examined the evidence on both sides but did not draw any

conclusions.

The interview with Col. Steve O’Brien who explained that he saw an unidentified jet

turn and crash into the Pentagon was balanced with an interview with Professor Jim

Fetzer who highlighted a number of inconsistencies. The programme therefore

offered both sides of the argument and left the viewer to draw his own conclusion.

Flight 93

9/11: The Conspiracy Files included a number of possible explanations for the fate of

Flight 93. It accurately reflected the concerns of many people that the lack of any

substantial aircraft wreckage casts doubt on the official explanation. The coverage

included both sides of the argument.

They spoke to people directly involved in the investigation to check known facts.

The programme-makers spoke directly to the FBI in Pennsylvania to check what

claims had been made by the Bureau. The FBI confirmed that the only debris from

the plane found within an eight mile radius was light material such as paper and foam.

The programme gave the last word on this issue to Professor Jim Fetzer and Dylan

Avery, so the viewer was given plenty of opportunity to consider the sceptical view.

The coroner Wally Miller has gone on record to say that he was misquoted when it

was reported that he said he “stopped being coroner after about 20 minutes becausethere were no bodies there.” He explained this in the programme. However the

programme also included an interview with Dylan Avery in which he questioned Mr

Miller’s reliability.

Programme Interviews

The programme-makers read Professor Griffin’s book The New Pearl Harbor andtook his views into account when making 9/11: The Conspiracy Files but decided to

concentrate on three other prominent members of the 9/11 truth movement.

Professor Stephen Jones was approached to take part in the programme but was

unavailable.

The programme-makers interviewed many witnesses and experts and sought out

viewpoints on the most widely-held theories. They then made an editorial judgment

to include what they believed were the strongest and most relevant views.

Eyewitness accounts provide interesting background information but cannot be

regarded as providing conclusive evidence. The programme did however address

the issue of secondary explosions and gave Dylan Avery an opportunity to explain

his theory.

The interview with Frank Spotnitz was included to help the viewer understand why

so many people believe in conspiracy theories. In the same section of the

programme Alex Jones explained why many people are increasingly willing to

challenge the official version of events.

The programme-makers say that they could find no convincing evidence that some

senior people had been warned not to go to work at the World Trade Centre that

day. They also spoke directly to the office of Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco

who told the programme that he made no changes to his itinerary on the morning of

9/11.

3.3 ECU response to individual complaints from the three

complainants

There is no evidence to suggest that film-making techniques were used with an

‘oppressive sinister intent.’ The mood was sombre but consistent throughout the

programme.

A variety of lighting techniques and framing were used throughout the programme

and many of the interviewees who oppose the views of the truth movement were

also filmed in similar ways.

The programme sought to establish the background of the three members of the

truth movement. Far from being a ploy to waste time, this was a way to reinforce

their credibility.

The word drop-out is also defined as ‘a person who rejects conventional society.’ I

think it reasonable to suggest that Dylan Avery has rejected conventional society.

He walked away from a secure job and moved to Washington DC to pursue his

ambition to make films. There are also a number of positive descriptions to establish

Mr Avery’s credibility and explain to viewers why his views are worthy of inclusion.

He was described as “the most prominent voice in the self-styled 9/11 truth movement”

and later “the wunderkind” behind the Loose Change film.

The programme did not claim that the CIA and the FBI did not have forewarning of

the attacks. The script states:

“The FBI and CIA insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11. But it now

seems they were less than full and frank about how much information they did have before

Al Qaeda attacked.”

The programme went on to examine the failure of the intelligence services.

All three of the main interviewees made a number of claims in the programme

accusing the US government of being involved in the events of 9/11. The

programme-makers were entirely justified in letting the leading voices of the truth

movement put forward their case without referring to previous unrelated events.

BBC World’s Head of News, Richard Porter, has explained at length the sequence of

events which led to the BBC report about the collapse of Building 7. His blog had

already been sent to the complainants.

On the issue of casualties in Building 7, the programme-makers were quoting from

the official FEMA report into WTC 7. This was an independent investigation and noone

seems to have yet provided proof that on this particular point it is wrong.

9/11: The Conspiracy Files decided not to include Larry Silverstein’s comments(“We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it”) because he

has since issued a statement saying that what he was referring to was the need to

pull the fire-fighting contingent out of the building, not pull the building down itself.

The theory that Flight 93 and another aircraft were diverted to Ohio because of

bomb threats was well documented in the programme.

The claim that thousands of Jewish people stayed at home that day was examined in

the programme, but the script treated the allegations in the same dispassionate way

as other claims. The origin of this particular story was explained in the programme.

There was no suggestion that any of the conspiracy theorists in the programme

supported this claim. I do not believe that any average member of the audience

would conclude that the programme implied that anyone questioning the official

version of events on 9/11 was anti-Semitic.

It is clear that the sentence “Case closed?” is delivered as a question. The last

comment from the narrator goes even further to make it clear that the final

conclusion of the programme is that the truth of what happened on 9/11 will remain

a subject of great controversy:

“The 9/11 conspiracy file is certain to remain open for a very long time to come….however

distressing and painful that will be for the families of those who died that day.”

4. Further points made to the ESC

· Dylan Avery is not an engineering expert neither are Alex Jones nor Jim Fetzer.

Yet you give time for, and go into graphic and scientific detail of, the official

account of the twin towers collapse.

· For the truth movement, Flight 93 is the least clear evidence of a government

cover-up.

· Regardless of how it got there, it is officially acknowledged that debris from

Flight 93 was found 8 miles away — in New Baltimore, not Indian Lake. The

documentary misleads the viewer and misrepresents the 9/11 truth movement

by stating that “it’s claimed Indian Lake is nearly 7 miles from the crash site” then

stating it’s only 1 mile away as the crow flies. The truth movement though isn’t

referring to Indian lake but to New Baltimore.

5. Applicable Programme Standards

Section 1 – BBC Editorial Values

Truth and Accuracy

We strive to be accurate and establish the truth of what has happened. Accuracy is

more important than speed and it is often more than a question of getting the facts

right. We will weigh all relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output

will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in

clear, precise language. We will be honest and open about what we don’t know and

avoid unfounded speculation.

Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion

We strive to be fair and open minded and reflect all significant strands of opinion by

exploring the range and conflict of views. We will be objective and even handed in

our approach to a subject. We will provide professional judgments where

appropriate, but we will never promote a particular view on controversial matters of

public policy or political or industrial controversy.

Section 3 – Accuracy

Introduction

The BBC’s commitment to accuracy is a core editorial value and fundamental to our

reputation. Our output must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly

tested and presented in clear, precise language. We should be honest and open

about what we don’t know and avoid unfounded speculation.

For the BBC accuracy is more important than speed and it is often more than a

question of getting the facts right. All the relevant facts and information should be

weighed to get at the truth. If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as

facts may need to be considered.

We aim to achieve accuracy by:

· the accurate gathering of material using first hand sources wherever possible.

· checking and cross checking the facts.

· validating the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material.

· corroborating claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

Fact checking

We must check and verify information, facts and documents, particularly those

researched on the internet. This may include confirming with an individual or

organisation that they posted material and that it is accurate. Even the most

convincing material on the web may not be what it seems.

Misleading audiences

We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly

do anything to mislead our audiences. We may need to label material to avoid doing

so.

Section 4 – Impartiality and Diversity of Opinion

Introduction

Impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC’s commitment to its audiences. It applies

across all of our services and output, whatever the format, from radio news bulletins

via our web sites to our commercial magazines and includes a commitment to

reflecting a diversity of opinion.

The Agreement accompanying the BBC’s Charter1 …specifies that we should do all

we can to treat controversial subjects with due accuracy and impartiality in our news

services and other programmes dealing with matters of public policy or of political

or industrial controversy. It also states that the BBC is forbidden from expressing an

opinion on current affairs or matters of public policy other than broadcasting.

In practice, our commitment to impartiality means:…

· we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at

any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial

reasons for doing so.

· we can explore or report on a specific aspect of an issue or provide an

opportunity for a single view to be expressed, but in doing so we do not

misrepresent opposing views. They may also require a right of reply…

· the approach to, and tone of, BBC stories must always reflect our editorial

values. Presenters, reporters and correspondents are the public face and

voice of the BBC, they can have a significant impact on the perceptions of our

impartiality…

Achieving impartiality

Impartiality must be adequate and appropriate to our output. Our approach to

achieving it will therefore vary according to the nature of the subject, the type of

output, the likely audience expectation and the extent to which the content and

approach is signposted to our audiences.

Impartiality is described in the Agreement as “due impartiality”. It requires us to be

fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material

1 The words omitted here relate to the 1996 Agreement and Charter and are not relevant to the

2006 Agreement and Charter

facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach to a subject. It does

not require the representation of every argument or facet of every argument on

every occasion or an equal division of time for each view.

6. The Committee’s decision

The Committee considered the complaint against the relevant editorial standards,

including the BBC’s values and other standards set out in the Editorial Guidelines.

The Committee took into account all the material before it relating to the appeal;

this included submissions from all the relevant parties to the complaint who were

asked to comment on the material going before the Committee.

The Committee recognised the right to freedom of expression2 allowed

interviewees to express opinions, content producers to include information and

ideas in their output, and audiences to receive them as long as the law, regulation

and, in the BBC’s case, the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines were complied with.

The Committee at the outset noted that the programme had not been an

investigation which aimed to solve what had happened on 11 September 2001. It

recognised that it was one of a series of programmes looking at the phenomenon of

the conspiracy theory and in doing so had highlighted a number of specific events

where well publicised and popular theories had arisen to contradict the official

version of events.

The Committee also noted that it was not within its remit to come to a view as to

which, if any of the versions, may or may not have been correct. Its task was to

determine whether the programme had been in breach of the BBC’s Editorial

Guidelines on accuracy and impartiality.

In considering impartiality the Committee noted that the guidelines required that it

must be adequate and appropriate to the output. The Committee took into account

2 Freedom of Expression

1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include

freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas

without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This

Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting,

television or cinema enterprises.

2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and

responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or

penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society,

in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for

the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals,

for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing

the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the

authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

that in assessing whether the guidelines were complied with the Committee should

consider what impartiality was due to a programme about conspiracy theories taking

into account the audience expectation for such a programme and the extent to

which the content and approach was signposted to the audience.

The Committee set out five questions it would consider in its finding:

A) Were the most significant theories considered?

B) Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

C) Were the arguments articulated clearly?

D) Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy

theories?

E) Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

A) Were the most significant theories considered?

The Committee was aware that there are a number of conspiracy theories

concerning the events leading up to/on the day of /on the days after 11 September

2001. The Committee noted the six theories the programme concentrated on:

i) The attack on the Twin Towers

– Did the planes bring down the Twin Towers or were

explosives used by government agencies?

ii) World Trade Centre Building 7

– Did WTC7 collapse as a result of the damage and collapse of

the Twin Towers or was it deliberately demolished by

government agencies?

iii) Attack on the Pentagon

– Did a commercial passenger plane crash into the Pentagon or not?

Was this incident a self-inflicted attack?

iv) Flight United 93

– Did Flight United 93 crash as stated officially or was it blown

up in mid-air?

v) The Jewish community in New York

– Did the Jewish community in New York go to work as planned or

had the Jewish community been “tipped-off” by Israeli intelligence

to stay away from work?

vi) FBI/CIA Conspiracy

– Did the agencies know of the attacks in advance and ignore

them?

– Was there subsequent cover up of failures by the agencies to

act on information prior to 9/11?

The Committee noted that impartiality:

“… does not require the representation of every argument or facet of every

argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for each view”.

The Committee was satisfied that whilst some viewers would not have agreed with

the choice of theories included in the programme, the ones that had been included

reflected mainstream theories that the majority of the audience would have some

awareness of. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had complied with

the guideline on impartiality that allowed the programme:

“[..] the editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at any point

on the spectrum of debate, as long as there are good editorial reasons for

doing so.”

The Committee recognised that the inclusion of the theory regarding the absence of

members of the Jewish community from work on the day of 9/11 was not one that

was supported by the main body of conspiracy theorists. It had originated in the

Middle East and the programme accurately reflected this. However, the Committee

recognised that it was a widely known theory and was established as a theory to

those not in the main community of conspiracy theorists. The Committee was

therefore satisfied that there was a good editorial reason for considering this theory

alongside the other theories included within the programme and no anti-Semitism

was implied.

The Committee did not consider it necessary to explore the “history of deceit” of

the US government or Operation Northwood to satisfy the accuracy guideline to

“weigh all relevant facts…to get at the truth”. The Committee was satisfied that the

theories covered in the programme were sufficient to provide the audience with

enough relevant information for them to draw their own conclusions with regard to

the activities of the US government in the incidents relating to 9/11. The purpose of

the programme was to consider specific theories related to the incidents on 9/11

and not conspiracy theories relating to other events in US history.

The Committee was therefore satisfied that the programme had presented an

appropriate selection of conspiracy theories.

B) Was there appropriate representation from both sides of the argument?

The Committee considered how the programme had set about presenting the

different theories and rebuttals in looking at the various arguments and theories as

to how the event unfolded and who was to blame. In doing so the Committee

considered whether the guideline had been met that required the BBC:

“… to be fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all

the material facts, as well as being objective and even handed in our approach

to a subject. It does not require the representation of every argument or

facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for

each view.

The Committee noted how the production team had set out its proposition for the

programme:

Voice over (V/O):

We all remember where we were on the day the world changed…

….but do we know what really happened?

Look closer through the smoke and horror, say conspiracy theories…..

…..and you’ll find that not everything was as it first appeared.

Alex Jones (AJ):

The bottom line 9/11 is an inside job. It’s a self inflicted wound, it’s a false

flag…terror operation

President Bush:

Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of Sept

11th

V/O:

Many say the official account doesn’t add up…..

Overlay:

Listen, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

V/O:

…And the questions keep coming

Jim Fetzer (JF):

As Sherlock Holmes was fond of observing, “When you have eliminated the

impossible whatever remains, however improbable must be the truth.”

V/O:

There are more than 50 different conspiracy theories about 9/11- it’s the first

global event in the age of the internet.

Dylan Avery (DA):

We’re just civilians man. We’re people who have questions.

V/O:

If a large passenger jet crashed into the Pentagon…why was the hole in the exterior

wall apparently so small?

Was wreckage found miles from the crash site of one of the hijacked planes which

proved that it was shot down?

DA:

Our government will willingly kill its own citizens for whatever gain it seems

necessary and then lie as much as they need to cover it up.

V/O:

Could a controlled demolition have caused this building to collapse at the World

Trade Centre?

AJ:

I don’t believe it was a controlled demolition, I know it was a controlled demolition.

Cheryl Shames (sister of Andrew Zucker) :

If these theories were true, then why did my brother go to work that day? Did he

want to die? No.

V/O:

So why do so many people doubt what the American government tells them about

9/11?

JF:

Well there’s the old saying, just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they aren’t

out to get you.

The Committee also considered how the programme looked at the various theories

included within the programme. The Committee noted other sections of dialogue

within the programme. The first section looked at the collapse of the Twin Towers:

V/O:

In his film Dylan Avery suggests that the Twin Towers were brought down by

explosives…

Clip from Dylan Avery’s film (Loose Change):

Do you still think that jet fuel brought down the World Trade Centre?

Watch carefully: The tripod shakes 12 seconds before the North Tower begins

collapsing. In all the videos of the collapses, explosions can be seen bursting from

the building 20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave:

Here… here and here.

V/O:

The official explanation suggests that when each plane slammed into the tower it

damaged the core structure.

Then the ensuing fire weakened the building further.

Although steel needs 1,500 degrees Celsius to melt, at 650 degrees it loses half its

strength.

The load bearing beams buckled when they were unable to carry the weight

above…..

…..and the floors progressively caved in.

V/O:

This is three floors of the World Trade Centre – and everything in them —

compressed and fused together into a slab about three feet thick.

Davin Coburn (Popular Mechanics):

When those towers collapsed – remember those collapses began from the top, they

did not begin from the bottom. So when the floors began crashing down upon

themselves, the air just simply looked for the path of least resistance and generally

that went straight out the windows and a little bit of debris and smoke went with

them, and that sort of represents those puffs that some people think were some

sort of squibs, or other explosive charge.

DA:

Their authority is tractors, OK? They should stick to what they know. Popular

Mechanics is the last company that should be “investigating” 9-11.

The Committee also considered a later section of dialogue where American Airlines

flight AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. The programme stated:

V/O:

As flight AA77 descended in a wide turn over the capital and lined up with its

target, there was a military C130 plane -…..

….like this one – flying above Washington.

JF:

There’s a lot of suspicion here that that C130 may in fact have been controlling the

aircraft that hit the Pentagon.

Commentary Question

What you’re saying is that the pilot was the person who caused the crash at the

Pentagon?

JF:

I can’t say that for a certainty but there’s a lot of reason to suspect that this circling

C130 may have been the control vehicle for the plane that was approaching the

Pentagon.

V/O:

This is that aircraft.

Steve O’Brien (Lt Minnesota National Guard) (SB):

Well, here’s a chart of the Washington DC area.

V/O:

And this is the pilot.

SB:

….and here’s Andrew Air Force base right here

V/O:

Lieutenant Colonel O’Brien was on a routine flight but as he flew over central

Washington, Air Traffic Control reported an unidentified jet fast approaching on his

left hand side.

NORAD ATC RECORDING:

– Latest report, aircraft five, six miles southeast of the White House.

– Six miles southeast of the White House?

SB:

It had that distinctive silver finish. in our minds it was definitely an American airlines

aircraft.

Then as he moved to our 11 o’clock position he started his turn. And by the time

he got to our 12 o’clock position, right out the front of our aircraft, he was rolled up

into about, I would estimate, 30 -40 degrees of bank, which is considerable for

commercial airliner.

And then all of a sudden we saw this big explosion.

And I keyed the mic again and said Washington, this is Gopher 0-6. That plane has

hit the west side of the Pentagon.

V/O:

Later, when Steve O’Brien was back home in Minnesota he found himself at the

centre of a conspiracy theory.

SB:

Not having been part of a major event like this before, you’re somewhat detached.

But when you’re actually a witness to it and actually became a part of these

conspiracies, it’s a lot more personal. And concerning to me that people would

think that I would have the ability to, or want to do something like this. So it’s a

little bit disconcerting, but at the same time it gives you another insight into how

wrong a lot of these conspiracies are, but yet they continue and take on a life of

their own so to speak.

JF:

How do you know a single word of what he said is true? His story is inconsistent

with the evidence we have. It’s not even physically possible given the laws of

aerodynamics that a Boeing 757 could have taken the trajectory attributed to it,

which I presume he confirmed which is that this plane barely skimmed the ground

en route to its target. That’s not even physically possible, which is a guarantee that

what he was saying was false.

The Committee was satisfied that in these example extracts and throughout the

programme views from both sides of the argument relating to each theory set out

above were put forward in a manner that ensured that the programme had achieved

due impartiality. The Committee recognised that for those who felt strongly on

either side of the argument the programme’s treatment of each theory may have

been less detailed than they would have liked, but it was not the purpose of this

programme to deliver an in depth analysis of each theory nor a verdict on the

veracity of each theory. It was the view of the Committee that the impartiality due

to this subject matter, which had been clearly signposted to the audience, was to

give sufficient information both in support of the various theories and in support of

the official view, to enable the viewer to have a reasonable understanding of the

various arguments. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had been “fair

and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing the material facts”. As

to whether equal time should have been given to both sides of the arguments, the

Committee noted that as long as the programme was objective and even handed it

was not required to “represent every argument” or provide “an equal division of

time for each view”. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had been

objective and even handed in its presentation of the various theories.

With regard to some of the complainants’ specific complaints the Committee was

satisfied that it was not necessary to include the detail relating to the debris of Flight

93 in New Baltimore to meet the guideline on accuracy or to explore this issue

further to satisfy impartiality. The Committee was satisfied that the programme had

provided sufficient information on the spread of debris of Flight 93 without it being

necessary to consider every facet of every theory about the debris to ensure

impartiality. The Committee considered the information presented by the

production team was sufficiently accurate to have provided viewers with enough

detail to understand the general view of the dispute about the area of the debris

field. The Committee did not consider it necessary to include additional theories on

the spread of debris in order to achieve impartiality. The guidelines state that it is

not a requirement for programmes to:

“[represent] every argument or every facet of every argument on every

occasion”

The Committee considered the same guideline applied to the complainants concerns

that Larry Silverstein and the emergency workers at the scene of the collapse of the

WTC7 building were not included or the testimony of the fire-fighters or the theory

relating to the Mayor of San Francisco or an interview with Bill Coyle of the coalition

of 9/11 families. The Committee was satisfied that the programme team was entitled

to:

“produce content about any subject at any point on the spectrum of debate,

as long as there are good editorial reasons for doing so”

The Committee was, therefore, satisfied that considering the difficulty and

complexity of the programme’s subject matter the programme had provided a fair

and open minded presentation of the various theories and that it had successfully

met the guidelines on due impartiality.

As to the choice of contributors, the Committee was satisfied that the programme

had provided appropriate and relevant representatives from both sides of the

argument to articulate the various views. The Committee recognised that with such

contentious views being presented not every viewer would be pleased with the

choice of contributors. Nevertheless, the Committee was satisfied having

considered the programme as a whole that the various arguments of the theories

highlighted had been sufficiently articulated to ensure that the lay viewer would have

been provided with enough information to have had a basic understanding of the

arguments for each of the theories presented.. The Committee considered Dylan

Avery, Professor Jim Fetzer and Talk-show host Alex Jones appropriate

representatives for the “truth movement”. They had achieved a level of recognition

and authority within the pro-theorist groups to be able to articulate the views of the

movement in relation to each of the presented theories (with the exception of the

theory relating to the Jewish community which was not a view promoted or

supported by the majority of those involved in the “truth movement”). The

Committee, whilst it accepted that the individual complainants did not necessarily

agree with the choice of representative for their views, was satisfied that the

production team had ensured that the contributors had appropriate credentials to

provide an authoritative view of the conspiracy theorists arguments.

The Committee noted how the programme had introduced Dylan Avery:

V/O:

Upstate New York — home to the most prominent voice in the self-styled

9/11 truth movement.

Clip from Loose Change Dylan Avery’s internet film:

9.38, Arlington Virginia… Hani Hanjour allegedly executes a 330 degree turn at

530 miles per hour, […] to crash American Airlines flight 77 into the ground floor

of the Pentagon…explosion

V/O:

Loose Change…….is the internet film, which, more than anything else, has

fanned the flames of 9/11 conspiracies.

Dylan Avery (DA):

Come on guys…

V/O:

And Dylan Avery is the wunderkind behind that film.

DA:

That’s Jonas:

Howdy!

Luke — foot soldier – one of the best people in New York for truth

Jay Mandrish – cook slash dishwasher… Just kidding man.

This is our office. No one’s in here yet.

That’s really about it in terms of this room. And that leads us to my room.

This is it…

Interviewer:

So this is where you work?

DA:

This is where the magic happens. Yes sir!

V/O:

Loose Change has become an internet phenomenon…. viewed tens of millions of

times. To reach a global audience this big in the past, you’d have needed the

backing of a Hollywood studio. Now all you need is a modicum of technical

knowledge and a bargain basement computer.

DA:

Well Guy, this is the laptop that started it all. In February 2003 after saving up for

two months or so I went to a Radio Shack and bought this and had it the next

morning and started editing what would become Loose Change, the documentary.

V/O:

Dylan Avery is riding the crest of a wave of interest in conspiracies.

…and is being feted by Hollywood. He now has a distribution deal and is recutting

his film for cinema release later this year.

Not bad for a 23 year old self-confessed drop out.

The many questions he raises about 9/11 have proliferated through the internet

and have been picked up by mainstream media around the world…

The Committee was satisfied that it was reasonable for the programme as part of

introducing one of the most famous conspiracy theorists to explain who he is and his

background. It is a recognised technique of introducing a significant contributor to a

programme and one which was used throughout the programme, one way or

another, when introducing the other main contributors to the programme.

The Committee was also satisfied that the description of Dylan Avery as a “23 year

old self-confessed drop out” was used accurately and fairly as that was a description

he used to describe himself. The Committee also considered the introduction

appropriate as it provided specific information as to the contributor’s background

and skills as a modern film maker using the internet as a resource for his research as

well as an outlet for his film.

A) Were the arguments articulated clearly?

The Committee was satisfied that in the presentation of the various theories

referred to above, including the graphic representations, the production team had

accurately put forward the broad details of each of the theories and, therefore, did

not mislead. The facts as much as they could be established had been thoroughly

checked. The inclusion or exclusion of facts and interviewees was for the BBC to

determine as long as the guidelines were complied with. The Committee was

satisfied that the programme’s choice of contributors, whilst not to the liking of all

the viewers, had ensured that the various theories and rebuttals had been clearly and

appropriately articulated to enable the audience to come to an appropriate

understanding of the various arguments.

The Committee was also satisfied that the programme in choosing the contributors

to articulate the various arguments, both for and against each theory, had carried

out appropriate checks on the contributors suitability and understanding of the

issues to ensure that each view was presented clearly and accurately.

The complaint was not upheld.

As to the individual theories presented by the programme:

(1) ATTACK ON TWIN TOWERS:

The Committee was satisfied that the programme had provided an accurate

description of the official explanation of how the Twin Towers collapsed. The

Committee was also satisfied that the accompanying graphic had clearly set out

the official version of the Twin Towers collapse. The Committee recognised that

the explanation (which included the graphic) had, by its nature, been relatively

simple, but this had been acceptable given the time that the programme could

devote to the theory. The Committee also noted that an alternative explanation

for the collapse had been put forward by the programme. As to whether equal

time should have been given to both of these views, the Committee did not

believe it was necessary to achieve impartiality. The relevant BBC guideline

makes clear in order to achieve due impartiality:

“It requires us (the BBC) to be fair and opened minded when examining the

evidence and weighing all the material facts, as well as being objective and

even handed in our approach to a subject. It does not require the

representation of every argument or facet of every argument on every

occasion or an equal division of time for each view”

The Committee also noted that it was not a requirement for the programme to

present every argument or every facet of an argument to achieve impartiality.

The programme had put forward an opposing argument regarding the collapse of

the Twin Towers and from that the audience would have had sufficient

information to have understood that there were alternative opinions to the

official version of the event.

(2) BUILDING 7

The Committee noted that the description of this theory was similar in form to

that of the collapse of the Twin Towers with first a conspiracy theory being put

forward and then the official explanation. The Committee was satisfied that the

narrative of the theory and the official version of events were even-handed. The

Committee noted that the alternative view which was given further context by

the suggestion that a number of Government agencies had offices in the WTC 7

and was demolished to hide evidence of a deliberate policy by the US

government to bring down the Towers and blame external forces, was raised

without rebuttal. The Committee was also satisfied given the context and time

in which to provide detail of both views that the arguments had been accurately

presented.

As to the issue of whether it had been accurate for the programme to state:

“The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties”

The Committee noted that the source for this statement had been the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As such, in the face of no other

evidence to disprove this report the Committee was satisfied that this statement

was accurate as far as was known, but it did accept that others took a different

view to the official statement.

Nevertheless the Committee was satisfied that the reporting of the lack of

injuries was not evidence of bias by the programme in favour of the authorities

or part of a cover-up.

(3) ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

The Committee noted that in the programme one theory concerning the attack

on the Pentagon was presented. It noted how the two views were addressed

and was satisfied that the presentation of both arguments relating to this

particular theory was accurately and impartially portrayed. It also considered the

narrative for either view provided sufficient opportunity to ensure that the

viewer was not misled as to the explanation of the varying opinions.

The Committee noted that this was not the only theory relating to the Pentagon

attack but was one which many people viewing the programme would have been

aware of. The Committee also noted that the choice of which theory to be

considered within a programme was for the programme makers to decide, it was

not a requirement of the programme to consider all theories or issues related to

a particular event as stated in the BBC’s editorial guideline on achieving

impartiality

“[impartiality] does not require the representation of every argument or

facet of every argument on every occasion or an equal division of time for

each view”.

Therefore the Committee was satisfied that it was not necessary for the

programme to raise the question as to whether the Pentagon was protected

from attack with a missile defence or that a Boeing 757 could not physically fly at

ground level.

(4) PENTAGON PART 2

The Committee was also satisfied that the differing opinions of the official

version and “truth movement” were clearly and fairly presented in the

programme and that both views were provided with sufficient time to put their

case. The Committee considered the presentation of the theory was accurate

and impartial.

(5) FLIGHT UNITED 93

The Committee was also satisfied that the two theories presented about Flight

93, plus the official version of the events, were given sufficient time to enable the

viewer to understand each version and that the arguments had been presented

accurately and impartially.

The Committee did not agree that the programme, in looking at the incident of

Flight 93 was required to consider all theories and reports relating to the

wreckage of this plane to ensure accuracy and impartiality regarding this

particular incident. The Committee recognised that it was up to the programme

makers and BBC management to decide as to which theories it would consider

in order to provide a reasonable representation of the theories surrounding the

incidents related to 9/11 as stated in the BBC’s Editorial Guidelines:

“we exercise our editorial freedom to produce content about any subject, at

any point on the spectrum of debate as long as there are good editorial

reasons for doing so”

(6) FBI/CIA CONSPIRACY

The Committee noted how the programme considered the involvement of the

FBI/CIA with regard to the events of 9/11. It noted how the programme set out

its investigation:

Voice over:

And there’s one story where the evidence does stack up against the Government.

The FBI and CIA insist they had no specific warnings of the hijackings on 9/11.

But it no seems they were less than full and frank about how much information

they did have before Al Qaeda attacked.”

The theory being investigated was one of governmental cover up following 9/11

into what the FBI/CIA had known of the hijackers in the period before 9/11.

The Committee then noted how the programme presented this argument with

the testimonies of officers from both agencies and with the comments of Bob

Graham the Co-Chair of the Congressional inquiry into 9/11.

The Committee recognised that in the presentation of this theory a conspiracy

theorist had not been included to offset the views expressed by the officers of

the two agencies. However, the Committee did not consider it was necessary

for a theorist to be included in this section of the programme to ensure balance.

The question was whether the agencies had known of the hijackers prior to 9/11

and if they had, was the US government honest in what it said about the extent

of its knowledge after the event?

The Committee noted some of contributions made to the programme:

Dale Watson (Head of Counter Terrorism 1999-2002 FBI):

“I knew another attack was coming. I knew another attack was coming. The

obvious question behind that is why didn’t you do something about it? We had no

specific information. It was just this gut feeling… it was just they’re planning

something. We would see the planning….the communications or whatever we

were monitoring would drop off and then you would know…this is not a good

time.”

Voice over:

“17 days before 9/11, the penny dropped.

Had the two terrorists in San Diego been arrested, there was a chance that the

whole plot could have been prised open…. but they had long moved on and

disappeared.

It wasn’t a lack of intelligence; it was a failure to act on that intelligence.”

Michael Scheuer (Chief of Osama Bin Laden Unit 1996-1999 CIA):

“Certainly the idea that they couldn’t be found in the US was true but only because

the FBI is such an incompetent organisation.

There’s no intelligence problem. You can’t have an intelligence failure when you

have information and you refuse to act on it. And that’s what Americans should

understand. If there was a conspiracy, it was a conspiracy to avoid taking a risk.

Not a conspiracy to make sure America got attacked.

The Committee also noted the following exchange:

Voice over:

“In Washington after the attacks, a Congressional inquiry tried to find out what had

gone wrong at the CIA and FBI.

It uncovered that not only were there intelligence mistakes before 9/11, but also

that afterwards the government had been less than open in admitting to those

failures.”

Bob Graham (Co-Chair of the Congressional Inquiry into 9/11):

“I can just state that within 9/11 there are too many secrets. That is information

that has not been made available to the public for which there are specific tangible,

credible answers. And that that withholding of those secrets has eroded public

confidence in their government as it relates to their own security”

Voice over:

“[…] Senator Graham found that the cover-up led to the heart of the

administration.”

Bob Graham:

“I called the White House and talked with Miss Rice and said look we’d been told

that we’d get cooperation in this inquiry. And she said she’d look into it and nothing

happened.

– Was there any sense of embarrassment or apology or…?

No, embarrassment, apology, regret those are not characteristics associated with

the current White House.”

Interviewer:

So it was a conspiracy to cover up the fact that blunders had been made in the

lead up to 9/11?”

Bob Graham:

“If by conspiracy you mean more than one person involved, yes, there was more

than one person and there was some collaboration of efforts among agencies and

the administration to keep information out of the public’s hands.”

The Committee was satisfied that the theory the programme it had set out to

consider i.e. US government cover up as to what the two agencies had known of

the hijackers prior to 9/11, had been handled appropriately. Opinions from

people working with the agencies at the time of 9/11 showed the varying views

on culpability of the two agencies as to how much information was known and

what could have been done to prevent the attacks from happening. In terms of

what happened after 9/11 Senator Graham was entitled to express his opinion as

chair of the congressional inquiry as to whether the administration had been ‘less

than open’. A conspiracy theorist’s view was not required here.

The Committee recognised that this was only one of a number of theories

surrounding the possible involvement of the FBI/CIA into the events of 9/11. But

noted that the choice of which theory to be considered within a programme was

for the programme makers to decide, it was not a requirement of the

programme to consider all theories or issues related to a particular event to

ensure impartiality.

As to whether the agencies had actually been involved in masterminding the

events of 9/11 the Committee noted that the “truth movement’s” perspective on

this issue had been raised in an earlier section of the programme which referred

to the alleged deliberate demolition of both the CIA’s and FBI’s offices in WTC7.

The Committee recognised that whilst this issue had not been expounded upon

beyond the reference in the earlier part of the programme, to not mention it

further was not a breach of guidelines as the programme was left to decide what

it could and could not cover in the time it had to put forward the range of

theories surrounding 9/11.

D) Was it appropriate to include Frank Spotnitz to talk about conspiracy theories?

The Committee noted the dialogue and the introductory contribution of Frank

Spotnitz:

V/O:

Among those who understand why conspiracy theories take root are people who

make a living…. out of telling stories.

Frank Spotnitz (FS):

I, not surprisingly, have thought a lot about conspiracy theories and why they’re

popular because it was so much of our bread and butter on the X Files, which I

wrote for, for eight years.

We’re all storytellers. Narratives about who we are, about who the people in our

lives are and about the world around us, we collect the information we have and we

construct these narratives and they help us make sense of that’s going on. And I

think we still live by these narratives and there’s, there’s religious myths we live by.

But now in the modern age, particularly popular are the secular myths, there are

these conspiracy theories. And assemble bits of information and tell ourselves

stories. And I think the world is so complicated that conspiracy theories are very

appealing, cause they take only a few bits of information and string them together

in a way that seem logical, and to certain people, with a certain political or

ideological bent, pleasing in fact because it, it vindicates, it justifies what you already

believe.

The Committee was satisfied that there was a good editorial reason for a

programme looking at the phenomenon of conspiracy theories to talk to someone

who was publicly known and associated with conspiracy theories. The Committee

considered Mr Spotnitz’s contribution was relevant to the subject matter being

discussed and that his credentials as a suitable contributor spoke for themselves.

The Committee also recognised that as Mr Spotnitz was himself associated to a

specific conspiracy theory concerning the incidents of 11 September 2001 it was

reasonable for the programme to include his views on the background to the

rationale of why conspiracy theories arise. As to whether his views were balanced

the Committee was satisfied that looking at the programme as a whole there was

sufficient concerns raised by those in the truth movement to offset those of Mr

Spotnitz. His contribution had not been a breach of guidelines.

The complaint was not upheld.

E) Did the programme present the 9/11 theorists in a negative way?

The Committee was satisfied that there was no evidence to suggest that the

programme had presented the theorists in a negative way either in the way the

individual contributors were referred to or in how they were presented i.e. filmed.

The Committee was satisfied that it was appropriate to refer to Dylan Avery as a

“self confessed drop-out” as that was a description he had given himself. As to the

suggestion that the programme had filmed the conspiracy theorists in a negative

manner, the Committee was satisfied, having viewed the programme, that that there

was no evidence to support that complaint.

The complaint was not upheld.

In conclusion, the Committee did not uphold any of the complaints raised against the

programme regarding issues of accuracy or impartiality. The Committee noted that

the programme had presented some of the most well known theories in a fair and

accurate manner, ensuring that the arguments had been articulated clearly. The

choice of contributors was credible and appropriate including that of Mr Spotnitz,

who provided a relevant contribution to the understanding of the nature and

phenomenon of the conspiracy theory – the purpose of the programme. The

Committee found that there was no evidence that the editorial independence of the

BBC had been compromised.

Finding: Not upheld

Pharma spends more on marketing than development

0

S.A Ramratan

Why are pharmaceuticals so expensive? This question has been asked for many years. In fact this was the question asked by Senator Estes Kefauver (D) in the late 1950s. Senator Kefauver was the first to put together an indictment against the business practices of the pharmaceutical industry. In fact he lobbed three charges at the pharmaceutical industry at the time.

They were the following:

1) Patents sustained predatory prices and excessive margins

2) Costs and prices were extravagantly increased by large expenditures in marketing

3) Most of the industry’s new products were no more effective than established drugs on the market(1).

If you look at these charges they are much the same accusations that many people blame the pharmaceutical industry of practicing right now, fifty years later. Has anything changed in the past fifty years?

The core of this debate, especially in the U.S. where direct-to-consumer marketing is legal, is the amount pharmaceutical companies spend on marketing vs. the amount spent on research and development (R&D). Aren’t we all lead to believe that the high cost of research and development is the reason that pharmaceuticals are so incredibly expensive? The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) uses data from IMS, a firm specializing in pharmaceutical market intelligence, to conclude that pharmaceutical companies spend U.S. $29.6 billion on R&D and U.S. $27.7 billion for all promotional activities (data from 2004). Even if these numbers can be trusted, and the pharmaceutical industry is altruistic, why are these expenses so close? An investigative article in the Public Library of Science (PLoS), who used proprietary databases to construct a new, and quite possibly more accurate estimate, states the money goes to marketing twice as often than R&D.

Show me the money.

It is important to note that the PLoS is an open source publication. In fact the publication states that you may use its articles and “download, copy, distribute, and use (with attribution) any way you wish.” This means that the PLoS is not taking money from anyone and so are free to publish articles that go against the mainstream. Most importantly, they are not taking money from pharmaceutical companies and can publish content like this without fear of reprisal. What was published in “The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States” does go against the mainstream — by clearly stating that the pharmaceutical industry is spending more on marketing, much more than most people would expect.

As the U.S. represents 43% of global sales and global promotion expenditures, knowing the amount of money put into marketing is essential. It is also important to note that according to CAM, which is a global company that audits the promotional activities of the pharmaceutical industry, about 30% of promotional spending is not accounted for in their figures. The breakdown is not accurately known of unmonitored promotion, but CAM believes that approximately 10% is due to incomplete disclosure by surveyed physicians and 20% comes from promotion geared towards physicians not surveyed or unmonitored journals. Combining the information gathered from CAM, as well as IMS, the total amount of money spent on marketing by pharmaceuticals was U.S. $57.5 billion for 2004. The total spent on domestic industrial pharmaceutical R&D was U.S. $31.5 billion.

There is quite a bit of difference between the money spent on R&D and marketing. If we exclude direct-to-consumer marketing, of the U.S. $57.5 billion, CAM estimates that 80% of this money is spent on physicians. This means that, with 700,000 practicing physicians in the U.S., the pharmaceutical industry spent nearly U.S. $61,000 in promotion per physician! It is interesting to note that according to the U.S. census the real median household income (2003) was $43,318.

Is Kefauver right?

While knowing that the pharmaceutical industry spends nearly U.S. $57.5 billion on marketing and U.S. $31.5 billion on R&D, those that believe the industry is promotion based, and not entirely altruistic as the industry claims, have some proof to this claim. How can we continue to pump money into, and grant legislation to, an industry that would rather hide the truth than be honest? How far are we from formally proving Kefauver’s other claims to be true? Whether or not we can all agree on the pharmaceutical industry’s place in our society — no industry should go fifty years without ethical restrictions, while claiming they are the champions of society.

References:

1) The Cost of Pushing Pills: A New Estimate of Pharmaceutical Promotion Expenditures in the United States

The North American Union – Voting Your Rights Away?

6

Barbara L. Minton

One issue that is conspicuously absent from the rhetoric of the presidential candidates is the North American Union (NAU). The questions of immigration and border security are frequently raised and the candidates claim to realize the need for a clear immigration policy and effort to secure the borders of the United States. Yet when you begin to understand the purposes of the North American Union and the agenda of its proponents, you will understand why this will never happen. And you may also begin to see that you are being manipulated by the major candidates.

The NAU, a goal of the Council on Foreign Relations, follows a plan laid out by Robert Pastor. It is currently promoted by the Bush administration to expand the size and scope of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). Its goal is to effectively create a North American trading block by erasing the borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada resulting in free, unimpeded movement of people and goods across those borders. It is also a political union that would integrate the governments of the three countries. And clearly it is an economic union with the intention of equalizing the wages and standard of living of all but the ruling elitists.

Sounds a lot like the European Union, doesn’t it? There are even plans for a common currency called the amero. But there is one glaring difference. The people of the United States have never been asked if they want to become integrated with Mexico and Canada, two countries of enormously different laws, culture, economic systems, standards of living, and acceptance of the role of government.

The European Union followed years of open debate at all levels, intense coverage of the ramifications and implications in major media, and a vote of the people.

History and Origins of NAU

President Bush signed the Declaration of Quebec City in April, 2001, making a “commitment to hemispheric integration”. After Hugo Chavez of Venezuela voiced opposition, these plans were scaled back to include only North America.

The Independent Task Force on North America, a project organized by the Council on Foreign Relations and co-chaired by Robert Pastor, was launched in October, 2004. This group published two documents: Trinational Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010 (March, 2005), and its final report Building a North American Community (May, 2005). This Task Force had as its central recommendation the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community. The boundaries of this community would be defined by a common external tariff and outer security perimeter. Also called for is the replacing of all three branches of the US government with a North American version effectively ending U.S. representative government.

In March 2005, at their summit meeting in Waco, Texas; Bush, President Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Martin of Canada issued a joint statement announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). The creation of this agreement was never submitted to Congress for discussion or decision. The U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division implementing working groups to advance a North American Union agenda. This agenda included movement of goods, finances, e-commerce, environment, business facilitation, food and agriculture, and health. The result is an action agreement to be implemented immediately and directly by regulations, without any envisioned Congressional debate or oversight.

In September 2006, Rep. Virgil Goode (Va), Rep. Ron Paul (Tx), Rep. Walter Jones (NC), and Rep. Tom Tancredo (Co) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 487, expressing concerns about the NAU. Resolution was passed by the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring that the U.S. should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; the U.S. should not engage in the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway System, and the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the U.S.

In October 2006, Congressman Paul formally denounced the formation of the SPP and the plans for the North American Union and the SPP as “an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments”. Paul says that the real issue raised by the SPP is nation sovereignty. “Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution — which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.” In this speech Paul predicts that the NAU will become a sleeper issue for the 2008 election, stating that “any movement toward a NAU diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live.”

A report authored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIC) was presented to all three governments in September 2007. CSIC is a political influence group of internationalists who have crafted many of the government policies of the past several years. At the core of the report is its plan for America’s future, North American “economic integration” and “labor mobility”. The plan for government integration is also revealed as the report states: “to remain competitive in the global economy, policymakers must devise forward-looking, collaborative policies that integrate governments”. Also called for is the adoption of “unified North American regulatory standards”.

Features of NAU:

The Trans-Texas Corridor and the NAFTA Superhighway

The NAFTA Superhighway and its entry point at the trans-Texas corridor were first proposed in 2002. It consists of a 1,200 foot wide highway that also carries utilities such as electricity, petroleum and water as well as railway tracks and fiber-optic cables. When completed, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the U.S. through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union. With Mexican drivers and without the involvement of the teamsters union, the Mexican trucks will drive straight into the heart of the US, crossing the border in fast lanes, and checked only by a new electronic system. The first customs stop will be the new Smart Port complex in Kansas City. From there the trucks may disperse into the U.S. or continue northward into Canada, again crossing the border with only an electronic checkpoint.

Millions of acres of land for the completion of this highway will be taken under the new laws of eminent domain.

A government pilot program has allowed Mexican trucking companies to make deliveries anywhere in the U.S. since April 2007, even before the completion of the superhighway. There is no limit on the number of trucks the 100 companies in the pilot program can operate. Eventually all Mexican trucking companies are to be granted the same access. These Mexican drivers are paid substantially less that their U.S. counterparts, their operations are not regulated, and they are driving on U.S. taxpayer subsidized roads.

The Amero

This is the name of what may be the North American Union’s counterpart to the euro. It was first proposed by Canadian economist Herbert G. Grubel in his book The Case for the Amero published in 1999, the same year the euro became currency. Robert Pastor supported Grubel’s idea in his book Toward A North American Community published in 2001. If implemented, the Amero’s debut may come later in the progression of the NAU, with exchange rates that depend on market forces at the time, after the economies of the three countries have been integrated and homogenized.

The North American Plan for Avian and Pandemic Influenza

Finalized and released at the September 2007 summit of the SPP, this plan calls for a “comprehensive coordinated North American approach during outbreaks of influenza.” It gives authority to international officials “beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection,” including “border and transportation issues”.

It sets up a “senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human influenza pandemic under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).” The SPP is to act as “decision-makers.” “The chair of the SPP Coordinating Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis” resulting in foreign decision making for Americans in two out of every three years.

The plan suggests that these powers will include “the use of antivirals and vaccines… social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings, isolation and quarantine.”

Council on Foreign Relations

Since its inception in 1921, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has attracted men and women of power and influence. Its stated intentions are to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. The ultimate, declared aim of the CFR is to create a one-world government, and to make the U.S. a part of it. The stated intentions of the CFR are clearly treasonous to the U.S. Constitution.

The influence of the CFR is wide. Not only does it have members in the U.S. government, but its influence has also spread to other vital areas of American life. Members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, the New York Times, and The Washington Post, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of Time, Newsweek, Fortune, Business Week, and numerous other publications are CFR members.

The organization’s members also dominate the political world. U.S. presidents since Franklin Roosevelt have been CFR members with the exception of Ronald Reagan. The organization’s members also dominate
the academic world, top corporations, unions and military. They are on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve.

Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and Rudy Guiliani are all either members of the CFR or have close ties with it. Mike Huckabee is reportedly not a member, but following his interaction with the group in September, he has become a favored candidate in the eyes of the media. Republican Ron Paul is the only remaining significant candidate who does not have ties with the CFR. He has has voiced opposition to the NAU for several years.

Where Do You Stand on This Issue?

There is an ideological battle being waged between the forces supporting globalism and the forces supporting national sovereignty. If you plan to participate in the 2008 presidential election, you will need to answer these questions for yourself: Do you believe in the timelessness of the Constitution, or do you believe that the Constitution has served its usefulness and it’s time for another model for government? Are you in favor of international government and more regulation by the United Nations, or do you favor continuation of the institutions that have served the U.S. in the past? Do you want big government with its attendant costs and regulations, or do you favor small government that allows for self direction?

Welcome to Big Brother Britain

0

Immigrants will give fingerprints, iris scans AND personal details for ID cards … or be thrown out

By JAMES SLACK

Foreigners who repeatedly flout the rules when they are made to apply for ID cards will be thrown out, the Government said yesterday.

Immigrants will have to give two fingerprints, iris scans and a raft of personal details to the Home Office when the scheme is introduced for foreign nationals only later this year.

Ministers said that, if they fail to comply with these “primary requirements”, they could have their permission to stay in the UK revoked.

But papers released yesterday revealed that only serial offenders – who break the rules at least three times in five years – will face removal.

Initially, they will face only fines of £250 per offence. And refugees will face only fines – up to a maximum of £1,000 – as human rights laws bar them from being deported.

A consultation document on penalties under the scheme, which is a fore-runner of the national ID card for all British citizens, also said there was no power to jail anyone who failed to pay the civil fines.

But the offence of contempt, which can carry a jail term, “may be applicable”, it added.

Someone with indefinite leave to remain in Britain would only have their leave cancelled in “compelling circumstances”, the paper went on. Fines would be discounted for people on benefits.

The roll-out will begin later this year, with the children of foreign nationals also expected to carry the cards.

Opposition MPs said it offered a glimpse into how the ID card scheme for British citizens could work, when it is introduced from 2009.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: “This shows the kind of punitive measures that every British citizen can expect when ID cards are eventually rolled out nationally.

“ID cards for foreign nationals are not going to solve the problems of identity fraud and illegal working. All they will do is threaten the immigration status of hard working people who bring benefits to this country.”

But Immigration Minister Liam Byrne said: “Britain’s border security is currently undergoing the biggest shake-up in a generation, ensuring it stays among the toughest in the world.

“ID cards for foreign nationals will cement the triple ring of security protecting our shores, along with fingerprint visas abroad and a single border force here at home.”

MoD responds to Iraq abuse allegations

0

BBC

Panorama asks why the British Army in Iraq used interrogation techniques that were banned over 30 years ago.

British soldier in Basra

Panorama: On Whose Orders? BBC One 8.30pm on Monday 25 February 2008

In 1972 the techniques – hooding, stress positions, constant noise, sleep deprivation and being starved of food and water – were banned by the Heath government which said they would never be used again. Their reintroduction in 2003, whether official or unofficial, could have had serious consequences. Now solicitors are launching claims for compensation on behalf of Iraqis alleging mistreatment.Ministry of Defence (MoD) rules now specifically state the five techniques should never be used. However, immediately after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 British soldiers witnessed Iraqi prisoners hooded and made to stand for hours with no food or sleep.

The Attorney General is responsible for setting the rules under which the British Army operates. Lord Goldsmith held this position during the Iraq war and the resulting occupation.

When we asked him how it was that the ban had been side-stepped, he told Panorama:

“There is no question of anyone in my office, let alone me, advising me that it was legitimate to interrogate whilst hooding or using sleep deprivation or any of those techniques. Full stop.”

When asked why it was happening despite this, he said:

“I think the Ministry of Defence are probably the responsible department to understand with the army what actually took place, to learn the lessons from it to make sure it never happens again.”

In response to the allegations of prisoner abuse in Iraq which went beyond the five techniques and included beatings and in the case of hotel worker Baha Mousa, death, the then Chief of the Defence Staff, General Sir Michael Jackson commissioned a report.

Brigadier Robert Aitken’s findings were published last month and said that abuse was not widespread.

General Sir Michael Jackson told Panorama:

“Robert Aitken makes the point in his report that he would need another look at why that statement by the Heath government appears to have gone into a black hole… I don’t know the answer to that.”

Jackson continued:

“There was no evidence whatsoever on any endemic behaviour of that nature.”

Allegations

The programme goes on to weigh the evidence from the Battle of Danny Boy, that is at the centre of the latest legal challenge.

Iraqi prisoners have made serious allegations of abuse against the British Army that the MoD is now re- investigating despite previous inquiries that found nobody to be at fault.

Iraqi prisoners captured by the army on 14 May 2004 and taken back to Camp Abu Naji claim other prisoners taken alive with them off the battlefield were killed that night by the British in Camp Abu Naji.

Iraqi medical staff who received the bodies returned by the army the next day say some of the bodies show signs of torture.

They claim that there is evidence that people died later in Camp Abu Naji and not in the battlefield.

Battlefield injuries

The MoD deny the allegations.

They say the injuries are consistent with modern battlefield injuries and that the claims of deaths at the camp may have arisen from an unusual decision to remove bodies from the battlefield and take them to the base. A full statement from the MoD is available above.

Panorama has spent over a year talking to battlefield survivors, medical staff, and Iraqi former prisoners in Iraq, Turkey and Jordan.

The programme critically examines claims made by lawyers who are representing the Iraqis in their action against the British Government and who held a press conference last Friday.

Panorama has seen no proof that prisoners died at the hands of their captors and concludes that the case being brought by solicitors Phil Shiner and Martyn Day represents the most extreme interpretation of a troubling but confusing incident. They are asking for the bodies to be disinterred and evidence to be handed to Scotland Yard.

General Sir Michael Jackson, speaking generally and not about this incident specifically, says that the army’s best defence is the law:

“I would look… what are the facts? If they make an allegation the allegation gets investigated, people don’t always say truthfully as they might such things as I’m afraid some of the court cases revealed but I would say that any allegation of ill treatment should be investigated and the due process of law must take place.”

Whatever the outcome of any potential court case it maybe that bringing back the five techniques – banned as inhuman in 1972 – would appear to have made the army’s position more difficult.

Panorama: On Whose Orders? BBC One 8.30pm on Monday 25 February.

Ron Paul back on election trail

0

The 72-year-old congressman Ron Paul has solemnly vowed to continue his current campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

There has been confusion in recent weeks since the Texan gave the impression that he was withdrawing from the presidential campaign to refocus his political efforts on a well-funded House primary challenge.

“I will stay in as long as my supporters want me to,” the 10-term congressman promised on CNN.

Paul said students around the country believed there existed no novelty in the campaigns of other candidates.

The Texan lawmaker added that in his travels, he had found ‘something very significant going on around the country’ saying that he ‘couldn’t stop this movement’ even if he tried.

The re-affirmation of an active candidacy will be exciting news for the hundreds of thousands of Paul’s diverse supporters.

CS/HGH

Mugging the public

Harry’s Place 

Almost everybody hates paying taxes. I certainly do. But as hard as it might be to part with a wadge of one’s hard-earned cash, one still grudgingly admits that it is necessary to maintain the smooth running of our society, to provide public works and goods, to fund our common health service, and to provide for those unable to provide for themselves, the hallmark of our civilisation.

It is infuriating when those entrusted with the management and distribution of public money – through negligence, incompetence, or plain bad luck – don’t manage to get value for that money or achieve what we, as a society, expected. It is irksome when that money is spent on things we might not personally approve of, but most understand that it is ‘swings and roundabouts’ anyway.

However, the one category which is unforgivable, is when those in receipt of public money take the piss with the public purse.

If, as the tabloid press are alleging, House of Commons speaker Michael Martin, has been dipping into the public purse for bogus housing claims, taxi rides for his wife, and free flights for his family, then this is a very serious breach of trust.

As The Guardian (a ‘berliner’ not a tabloid… yet) says”

“Dozens of MPs have been accused of expenses irregularities over the years. But Martin is in a different position. As Speaker, he is the public face of the House of Commons and one of his roles is to defend its reputation. As a result, some MPs believe that it is important for him to set an example.”

Though, Michael Martin has always been hostile to watchdogs and scrutineers. The more cynical might, in light of recent events, say “duh!”. In 2001, according to the BBC, Parliament’s standards watchdog, Elizabeth Filkin, accused Martin of undermining her role (which was checking complaints about the financial declarations and interests of MPs) and threatening the independence of her office. Last year he was accused of trying to block the Freedom of Information Act being used to publish details of MP’s travel expenses. More recently, The Guardian reported that Martin, “resisted greater independent scrutiny of MPs’ expenses”, was to chair an in-house inquiry following the Derek Conway scandal last month.

And now even his PR Agent has resigned, angry at not being told the truth and consequently inadvertently telling porkies to the press.

Last year, the BBC reported that Martin spent more than £20,000 of taxpayers’ money on laywer’s fees to challenge negative press stories about him.

Tax evasion is a serious crime. If you evade your duty as a tax-payer to contribute your fair share to the public fund, you can go to jail. Is it not far worse when those entrusted with this money dip into it for private and selfish ends?

If not paying in is such a serious crime, then what is dishonestly spending what others have contributed?

If the allegations are true, Michael Martin should go to prison, and so should all the other sleazy MPs and officials from Westminster, to City Hall, to the local council, who treat yours and my money – entrusted to them – as a personal slush fund.

Indeed, as Yasmin Alibhai-Brown asks in today’s Independent, is corruption “now endemic in our political culture”?

VIDEO: The Invisible Government

0

John Pilger’s talk on “The invisible Goverment” is an education in itself about the role of the media from the 1920’s onward. Pilger explains in clear, concise terms about the role of the “corporate media”, how and why it emerged and it’s dominance as an “invisible government” at the start of the 21st century. After hearing this talk you will not be reading the NYT, Washington Post or listening to the BBC with the same naive gullibility when you realize the role of how “professional journalism” has been indirectly responible for millions of deaths since it was established. We include all 4 parts of John Pilger’s video below, each with his introduction first and his conclusion at the end.

– LMB

By John Pilger

The Invisible Government, by John Pilger

Part I

I wasn’t going to mention The Green Berets when I sat down to write this, until I read the other day that John Wayne was the most influential movie who ever lived. I a saw the Green Berets starring John Wayne on a Saturday night in 1968 in Montgomery Alabama. (I was down there to interview the then-infamous governor George Wallace). I had just come back from Vietnam, and I couldn’t believe how absurd this movie was. So I laughed out loud, and I laughed and laughed. And it wasn’t long before the atmosphere around me grew very cold. My companion, who had been a Freedom Rider in the South, said, “Let’s get the hell out of here and run like hell.”

We were chased all the way back to our hotel, but I doubt if any of our pursuers were aware that John Wayne, their hero, had lied so he wouldn’t have to fight in World War II. And yet the phony role model of Wayne sent thousands of Americans to their deaths in Vietnam, with the notable exceptions of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Last year, in his acceptance of the Nobel Prize for Literature, the playwright Harold Pinter made an epoch speech. He asked why, and I quote him, “The systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought in Stalinist Russia were well know in the West, while American state crimes were merely superficially recorded, left alone, documented.” And yet across the world the extinction and suffering of countless human beings could be attributed to rampant American power. “But,” said Pinter, “You wouldn’t know it. It never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest.” Pinter’s words were more than the surreal. The BBC ignored the speech of Britain’s most famous dramatist.

I’ve made a number of documentaries about Cambodia. The first was Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia. It describes the American bombing that provided the catalyst for the rise of Pol Pot. What Nixon and Kissinger had started, Pol Pot completed–CIA files alone leave no doubt of that. I offered Year Zero to PBS and took it to Washington. The PBS executives who saw it were shocked. They whispered among themselves. They asked me to wait outside. One of them finally emerged and said, “John, we admire your film. But we are disturbed that it says the United States prepared the way for Pol Pot.”

I said, “Do you dispute the evidence?” I had quoted a number of CIA documents. “Oh, no,” he replied. “But we’ve decided to call in a journalistic adjudicator.”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-uq7O1RqQQ[/youtube]

The Invisible Government Part II

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kA0_xV2QLs[/youtube]

The Invisible Government Part III

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TtpU2ORFyeo[/youtube]

The Invisible Government Part IV

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqff-glEqkE[/youtube]

Many people who regard themselves on the left supported Bush’s attack on Afghanistan. That the CIA had supported Osama Bin Laden was ignored, that the Clinton administration had secretly backed the Taliban, even giving them high-level briefings at the CIA, is virtually unknown in the United States. The Taliban were secret partners with the oil giant Unocal in building an oil pipeline across Afghanistan. And when a Clinton official was reminded that the Taliban persecuted women, he said, “We can live with that.” There is compelling evidence that Bush decided to attack the Taliban not as a result of 9-11, but two months earlier, in July of 2001. This is virtually unknown in the United States–publicly. Like the scale of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. To my knowledge only one mainstream reporter, Jonathan Steele of the Guardian in London, has investigated civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and his estimate is 20,000 dead civilians, and that was three years ago.

The enduring tragedy of Palestine is due in great part to the silence and compliance of the so-called liberal left. Hamas is described repeatedly as sworn to the destruction of Israel. The New York Times, the Associated Press, the Boston Globe–take your pick. They all use this line as a standard disclaimer, and it is false. That Hamas has called for a ten-year ceasefire is almost never reported. Even more important, that Hamas has undergone an historic ideological shift in the last few years, which amounts to a recognition of what it calls the reality of Israel, is virtually unknown; and that Israel is sworn to the destruction of Palestine is unspeakable.

There is a pioneering study by Glasgow University on the reporting of Palestine. They interviewed young people who watch TV news in Britain. More than 90 percent thought the illegal settlers were Palestinian. The more they watched, the less they knew–Danny Schecter’s famous phrase.

The current most dangerous silence is over nuclear weapons and the return of the Cold War. The Russians understand clearly that the so-called American defense shield in Eastern Europe is designed to subjugate and humiliate them. Yet the front pages here talk about Putin starting a new Cold War, and there is silence about the development of an entirely new American nuclear system called Reliable Weapons Replacement (RRW), which is designed to blur the distinction between conventional war and nuclear war–a long-held ambition.

US to set ‘binding’ climate goals, finally

1

By Richard Black

The US is ready to accept “binding international obligations” on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, officials say, if other nations do the same.

The comments came in a news conference in Paris given by James Connaughton and Daniel Price, environmental and economics advisers to President Bush.

The US hopes the world’s major economies will conclude a “leaders’ declaration” before the July G8 summit.

There was no indication of how much the US might be prepared to cut emissions.

But the Bush administration is clearly looking for some kind of binding commitment from major developing countries such as China, India and Brazil.

“The US is prepared to enter into binding international obligations to reduce greenhouse gases as part of a global agreement in which all major economies similarly undertake binding international obligations,” said Mr Price, the president’s deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs.

The United Nations climate process emphasises that different countries have “common but differentiated responsibilities” for climate change, which in practice has meant industrialised nations promising to cut emissions while developing countries do not.

But the US officials suggested the phrase should mean something different – supporting the poorest nations, while expecting those that are developing successfully to take on some kind of obligation to cut emissions.

“An effective framework requires the participation of all major economies, developed and developing alike,” said Mr Price.

“Europe and the US could turn out the lights today, and come 2030 or 2050 we would not have addressed the problem of climate change.”

Some countries might commit to firm emissions targets while others promised energy efficiency gains, he suggested. Commitments could cover a country’s entire economy, or just certain sectors.

Shuffling the decks

The notion that major developing countries might take on binding targets might prove politically difficult, suggested Philip Clapp, deputy managing director of the Pew Environment Group

Logo for 2008 G8 summit. Image: AFP/Getty

The US wants to conclude talks before the G8 summit in Japan

“The White House knows that taking a binding target of comparable size [to that taken by the US or EU] is neither a negotiating option nor a physical possibility for the Chinese government,” he told BBC News.

He also suggested that an acid test of a leaders’ declaration would be the timescale for making cuts.

At the last G8 summit, Japan proposed setting the goal of reducing emissions globally by 50% by 2050, a target which Daniel Price said could potentially form part of the declaration.

“It’s become increasingly apparent that the Bush administration is willing to agree to a target that would take effect 40 years from now, and wants to portray that as a major accomplishment,” said Mr Clapp.

“A key question is whether the administration is willing to accept binding targets that take effect before 2020, because a binding commitment that doesn’t take effect for 40 years is really just shuffling the problem off one more time.”

Trading plans

The US comments stem largely from a process initiated by President Bush last year, a series of talks involving 17 nations that together account for about 80% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The “major economies” or “big emitters” group had its second meeting in Hawaii last month, and the next is scheduled for Paris in April.

Environmental groups have criticised the process as a distraction from the UN negotiations, and because the developing countries involved have much lower per capita emissions than the US.

But European delegates involved in the Hawaii meeting described the mood as frank and engaging.

The EU and US are working together within the World Trade Organization (WTO) on a proposal that all countries should slash tarriffs on trade in clean energy equipment.

“Some countries, in particular the major developing countries, have tarriff schedules as high as 70%,” said Mr Connaughton, head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

“We’re trying to get the world to eliminate tarriffs, and that could increase global trade in clean energy technologies and services by up to 14% per year.

“This is the single largest step we could take immediately to transfer available technologies to the developing world at very low cost.”

Mr Price suggested the style of dialogue between the EU and US, which he categorised as “the EU berating the US to do more”, needed to change, with both blocs working together to ensure the participation of major developing countries.

Questions Remain About Rove’s CIA Leak Email

0

by Jason Leopold 

It’s been nearly five years since former White House political adviser Karl Rove sent an incriminating email to then Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley indicating that Rove had a candid conversation with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper about covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, and her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic of the Bush administration’s prewar Iraq intelligence.

Rove had insisted publicly and privately that he was not the source for a story Cooper wrote that unmasked Plame’s affiliation with the CIA in July 2003 nor, Rove said, was he the source who provided syndicated columnist with the same information for a column that was published a few days before Cooper’s. The email Rove sent to Hadley on July 11, 2003, just three months before the start of a federal probe into the leak clearly contradicted Rove’s account.

Questions about Rove’s email to Hadley resurfaced after the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) revealed last April that thousands of emails Rove sent over a four-year period via an email account maintained by the Republican National Committee might have been destroyed. Many of the emails Rove sent using his RNC account pertained to White House business and the fact that it was not archived is said to be a violation of the Presidential Records Act.

Additionally, CREW said it conducted an investigation that discovered the White House lost as many as 10 million emails. The White House said in a court document that it erased backup tapes containing the email archives, some of which relate to a wide-range of administration scandals, including the role of White House officials in the Plame leak.

In late September 2003, three months after he told Hadley in an email that he spoke with Cooper, Rove and about 1,000 other White House staffers were ordered to turn over all email correspondence that contained references to Plame and Wilson to then White House counsel Alberto Gonzales when the leak of Plame’s undercover status was referred to federal investigators.

But the Hadley email was never turned over to Gonzales during the early stages of the Plame investigation.

Robert Luskin, Rove’s attorney, had long maintained that the email was never found during the initial search because the right “search words” weren’t used. Some reporters and bloggers have opined the Rove/Hadley email did not turn up because Rove sent it using his Republican National Committee account. But according to a little known story published in The Washington Post in December 2005, Rove used his government account click here when he sent Hadley an email describing his conversation with Time’s Matthew Cooper.

Luskin stated several years ago during an interview with Newsweek that the email did not surface because “right search words weren’t used.”

In an email exchange a couple of weeks ago requesting that he clarify his position, Luskin said he “speculated that the [Hadley] email was overlooked because of a gap in search terms, but I have no direct knowledge.” That contradicts his previous statements http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5345 to Newsweek in which Luskin stated unequivocally that the email was not found because the wrong search terms were used.

“Neither Mr. Rove nor I was involved in any manner in the collection of emails or other electronic documents in response to subpoenas from the Special Counsel [Patrick Fitzgerald],” Luskin said. “Mr. Fitzgerald’s staff worked directly with the White House counsel and the IT folks from the White House. However, Mr. Fitzgerald did advise me that Mr. Rove had absolutely no responsibility for the oversight and that he has never regarded the failure to turn over the [Hadley] email as ‘culpable’ by anyone.”

That statement, or at least part of it, does not appear to be entirely accurate. In a May 10, 2007 deposition before investigators working for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Rove’s former assistant, Susan Ralston, testified that during the leak investigation she and Rove were instructed “to go and do keyword searches based on the subpoena that we got, and search all of his folders for keywords.” Ralston said during her deposition that there were “six or seven” subpoenas Rove received from Fitzgerald for documents in Plame leak. Any documents that were found were turned over to Gonzales. Yet the email Rove sent to Hadley was never turned over to Fitzgerald.

Luskin would not provide a copy of that email, which has never been released publicly. He said the contents of the exchange have been “widely reported.” Luskin added that he had no interest in providing either the Hadley email “or any other documents,” including a copy of a letter Fitzgerald sent Luskin that purportedly cleared Rove of criminal exposure in the leak case, to me because of a story I reported two years ago that stated Rove was indicted by Fitzgerald. Luskin added that I “played a despicable role in circulating false allegations concerning an indictment of Mr. Rove and persisted with the story even after it was demonstrated to be false” and he therefore would not provide documentary evidence that could demonstrate his client’s innocence.

Fair enough. But Luskin also refused to voluntarily provide Senator Patrick Leahy, the Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, with the Hadley email and other electronic messages that Rove and Luskin turned over to Fitzgerald. Last May, Leahy issued a subpoena to former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for the documents.

The subpoena covered a wide range of emails Rove sent over four years, some of which related to Congressional investigations into the firings of nine US attorneys two years ago that Rove is widely believed to have played a hands-on role in.

Gonzales never met Leahy’s May 15, 2007 deadline to turn over the emails. So on May 24, 2007, Leahy wrote to Luskin asking if he would forfeit the emails to his committee Luskin and Rove turned over to Fitzgerald. Luskin politely refused, according to a copy of a June 4, 2007 letter he sent to Leahy, obtained by this reporter.

“As you are aware, Mr. Rove cooperated fully with the investigation by the Special Counsel, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, into the disclosure of the identity of a CIA employee. As part of that cooperation, in April 2004, Mr. Rove made available to Mr. Fitzgerald two personal computers, a Blackberry, and a computer furnished to Mr. Rove by the Republican National Committee,” Luskin wrote. “Mr. Fitzgerald arranged for the FBI to image all of the data on these computers. Without any constraint by Mr. Rove, Mr. Fitzgerald reviewed all of this data and made and retained copies of any information relevant to his investigation. Because the computers also contained confidential personal information and attorney client communications, Mr. Fitzgerald returned to me for safekeeping the imaged copies made by the FBI.”

“The electronic copies made by the FBI, which I retain in their sealed form, only contain information created before early April 2004, when the FBI made the copies,” Luskin added. “I have reviewed the documents and testimony made publicly available by this and other congressional committees investigating the termination of the United States Attorneys. I am unaware of any evidence suggesting that Mr. Rove may have played any role whatsoever in this matter before April 2004. Accordingly, I have no reason to believe that the materials in my possession contain any information relevant to this Committee’s inquiry.”

So what happened? And why didn’t investigators, who searched Rove’s emails and computers during the early days of the leak probe, find a copy of the email Rove sent Hadley?

A fascinating new book provides some possible answers.

David Gewirtz, a former computer science professor, a former product management director for Symantec who also held the title of “Godfather” at Apple Computer, Inc., and has written more than 600 articles about email, is the author of “Where Have All the Emails Gone?” (at www.http://emailsgone.com <http://www.http://emailsgone.com> ), the definitive account about the circumstances that led to the loss of administration emails. A detective story that reads like a “Dummies” book for the technically challenged, “Where Have All The Emails Gone” relied upon good old fashioned shoe-leather reporting to tell the story of the missing emails and using the public record in attempting to solve the mystery.

In an interview, Gewirtz said the one possibility that the Rove/Hadley email never surfaced was that it was sent during a time when the White House had switched its email over from Lotus Notes to Microsoft Exchange, an issue in and of itself the author finds suspicious. The Rove/Hadley email may have been lost during the transition to the new email system.

“Why did they migrate at this time? The country was getting ready for war.” Gewirtz, who said he has been speaking with Senate and Congressional staffers probing the loss of White House emails. “It doesn’t make sense that you would want to yank out your communications structure when you’re building up toward war. It’s crucial for our government to have qualified communications at a critical juncture. It’s just mind bogglingly questionable that the White House would change its communication structure at that time period. Why did they need to do it then? It certainly provides a lot of plausible deniability for when emails are scrutinized.”

“Another plausible reason, and this is the conspiracy theory, if you yank out an email system there goes your compliance with the Presidential Records act and there’s the “my dog ate it” excuse,” Gewirtz said. “There’s really no net loss other than a PR loss.”

Gewirtz said his biggest concern about the loss of White House emails is the national security implications.

“There’s a separate server for political activity. The server is not located or managed by security experts,” Gewirtz said. “Emails are sent by White House staffers using an unsecured server. Hundreds of millions of emails are sent through the open Internet. An email message sent by a low level political employee says where the president is traveling. That can be seen by anyone and can put the president at risk. It’s something of a disturbing experience talking to Washington politicians Technical issue takes a back seat based on what the political goal is. The potential loss through homeland security is pretty profound.”

In addressing Luskin’s explanation that the Hadley email did not turn up because the wrong search terms were used, Gewirtz said that it’s a possibility, but a poor excuse for not locating an email.

“You can type search terms that should but won’t pick things up directly,” he said. “You can choose to spell something wrong. Especially if there is no record of what you are searching.”

Congressman Henry Waxman, the Democratic chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has been trying to unravel these complicated technical issues for the past seven months. Last July, Waxman wrote Fitzgerald seeking “transcripts, reports, notes, and other documents relating to any interviews outside the presence of the grand jury of” Rove, Hadley, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other former White House officials.

In addition to his search for documents and questions surrounding the Plame leak, Waxman is also investigating how the White House lost millions of emails and why steps were not taken to preserve the electronic messages earlier. His committee is scheduled to hold a hearing Tuesday morning on the matter.

Gewirtz says that if Congressional investigators are serious about tracking down missing White House emails, particularly emails related to the US attorney purge, then they need to start looking in the right place.

“There is a vast amount of email has gone through the Republican National Committee,” Gewirtz said. “If they’re looking for a smoking gun on the firing of US attorneys then its most likely [White House officials who played a role in the dismissals] sent the emails through the RNC system and not the EOP [Executive Office of the President] system. Meanwhile, everyone is looking for emails on the EOP sever because its sexier. I think they are looking in the wrong place. If i were a betting man I would say its in the RNC system.”

Still, Waxman said in an interview at his office in late December that he is determined to get answers to some of the lingering questions about Rove’s role in the Plame leak, why the Hadley email never turned up, and whether there is a direct connection between that and the loss of millions of White House emails.

In the first of two letters Waxman sent Attorney General Michael Mukasey in December, the congressman said, “Fitzgerald and his staff have cooperated with the Committee’s investigation and have produced a number of responsive documents to the Committee. Among the documents that Mr. Fitzgerald has produced to the Committee are “FBI 302 reports” of interviews with CIA and State Department officials and other individuals. Unfortunately, the White House has been blocking Mr. Fitzgerald from providing key documents to the Committee.”

I met with Waxman in late December during an interview conducted by Truthout executive director Marc Ash at Waxman’s West Los Angeles office. Waxman said two of the key documents his staff had been trying to obtain were a copy of the letter Fitzgerald sent to Luskin that apparently indicated that Rove was no longer under investigation as well as the email Rove sent to Hadley. At the time of our meeting, Waxman had already sent Mukasey a second letter because the attorney general never responded to his first request. Waxman set a deadline of January 8 for the Plame investigation documents to be turned over to his committee.

The documents have yet to be handed over, but an aide to Waxman said the congressman has been “working” with Attorney General Mukasey over the past several weeks in hopes that an agreement may be reached.

US intelligence to spy on virtual worlds

1

By Ryan Singel

Be careful who you frag. Having eliminated all terrorism in the real world, the U.S. intelligence community is working to develop software that will detect violent extremists infiltrating World of Warcraft and other massive multiplayer games, according to a data-mining report from the Director of National Intelligence.

The Reynard project will begin by profiling online gaming behavior, then potentially move on to its ultimate goal of “automatically detecting suspicious behavior and actions in the virtual world.”

  • The cultural and behavioral norms of virtual worlds and gaming are generally unstudied. Therefore, Reynard will seek to identify the emerging social, behavioral and cultural norms in virtual worlds and gaming environments. The project would then apply the lessons learned to determine the feasibility of automatically detecting suspicious behavior and actions in the virtual world.
  • If it shows early promise, this small seedling effort may increase its scope to a full project.

Reynard will conduct unclassified research in a public virtual world environment. The research will use publicly available data and will begin with observational studies to establish baseline normative behaviors.

The publicly available report — which was mandated by Congress following earlier concerns over data-mining programs — also mentions several other data-mining initiatives. These include:

  • Video Analysis and Content Extraction – software to automatically identify faces, events and objects in video
  • Tangram – A system that wants to create surveillance and threat warning system that evaluates known threats and finds unknown threats to issue warnings ahead of an attack
  • Knowledge Discovery and Dissemination – This tool is reminiscent of the supposedly-defunct Total Information Awareness program. It seeks to access disparate databases to find patterns of known bad behavior. The program plans to work with domestic law enforcement and Homeland Security.

The report gives no indication why the find-a-terrorist cell in Sims project is called Reynard, though that is a traditional trickster figure in literature.

Are Biometrics the Future of Credit Cards?

0

Credit and debit cards have taken the place of cash for most modern transactions. What’s next? According to research from Emme Kozloff, a Sanford Bernstein analyst, the power to buy groceries will soon be at your fingertips.

Wal Mart and Costco are looking into biometric payment systems. These work by recognizing the fingerprint of registered users. The customers place their fingertip on a pad, then select which form of payment they would like to use – check, debit, or credit. Proponents of the new system applaud its benefits to customer security and faster checkout speeds.

Critics of biometric payment point out that fingerprints are left on everything a person touches. It would be fairly easy to take a piece of tape and “lift” these latent fingerprints for fraudulent use. There is also concern about having one’s fingerprint images stored in a computer, but biometric vendors insist that the prints themselves are not stored. Instead, encrypted measurements of the prints are kept. These do not permit recreation of a full print.

Customers are advised to keep their hands clean when making biometric transactions. If hands are too dirty, the machine might not be able to read the fingerprint.

Credit Card Blog

IBM scientists look to DNA to build future chips

0

DNA strings could become the template for nanotubes and nanowires by 2028

By Sharon Gaudin

Looking for a way to continually shrink computer chips while still squeezing more transistors onto them, IBM scientists are working on a whole new way to build processors — using DNA.

For the past year and a half, researchers at IBM have been working on creating a new way to make the patterns used to lay out the transistors and wires that go on a chip. Today, semiconductor manufacturers use optical lithography, which uses light to transfer the pattern. The problem, according to Joe Gordon, senior manager for materials for advanced technology at IBM, is that it’s difficult to shrink the pattern using today’s techniques.

And since Gordon said 50% of the improvement in processor performance comes from shrinking the pattern, scientists need to come up with a new way to create the patterns.

That’s where the DNA strands come into play.

“Right now, the industry road map is [that] we’ll get down to 22 nanometer-size features on a chip,” said Gordon. “We’re looking at ways to go down beyond that. It’s very clear it will be difficult to go smaller than that using the optical lithography we know today. Using DNA will help us do that.”

Greg Wallraff, a staff scientist at IBM, explained that the researchers are laying single molecules of DNA onto the chip’s surface and using them as a template for assembling electronic components, like nanotubes and nanowires. The DNA used by the researchers comes from a virus, he added.

Wallraff said the IBM research team is working with California Institute of Technology scientist Paul Rothemund, who has developed a way to assemble single molecules of DNA into complex structures. Building on that research, the IBM scientists are trying to wrangle the DNA into usable templates.

“People say DNA is the blueprint for life,” said Wallraff. “The specific structure of DNA has unique features. It’s basically programmable. You can design DNA into unique shapes, with specific attachment sites. Then we pour this DNA solution onto a silicon substrate, and the DNA assembles itself exactly where we want it to on the chip, and then we assemble the components on top of that.”

The attachment sites on DNA, which is where the nanowires and transistors would attach on the template, can be made much closer together than with traditional pattern manufacturing techniques. With DNA, the attachment sites are 4nm to 6nm apart. Normally, they’re about 45nm apart.

“Think of it as tiling a floor. These DNA pieces are like tiles,” explained Gordon. “Each tile has some array of electronic components. Those tiles are placed on a chip in a larger array so there are thousands or millions on a chip. The second step, which we don’t know how to do yet, would be to wire them all together. We’ve got sizes well below conventional lithography.”

Once the nanotubes and wires are laid onto the template, the DNA would be extracted. Wallraff said millions of the DNA templates would be needed for a single chip.

Gordon noted that the research team is far from figuring out the whole process needed to make the DNA model work. “We don’t have a good picture of exactly how you would do everything,” he said. “How do we make the tiles stick together in the right places? Can we get the nanowires to attach to the tiles in the right places? Can we wire them up?”

Wallraff said the next steps will be connect all the tiles together and check the defect levels during assembly.

Actually using this pattern technique is probably 10 to 20 years away, he noted.

MPs must thwart the dark plans of the state

1

Parliament has never been less vigilant about the many measures to increase Home Office power. In the name of the great democrats of the past, act now

Henry Porter

Following the convictions of Steve Wright for the murder of five women in Ipswich and of Mark Dixie for the murder of Sally Anne Bowman it was inevitable that one or two MPs would seek to defy the obscurity of their careers with public calls for a full compulsory DNA collection from every living soul in Britain.

Martin Salter for Labour said a mandatory database was a logical extension of biometric passports, and a Tory foot soldier, Philip Davies, declared that he was not averse to a national database if it would help police clear up crime. With that kind of mental process it is astonishing that this pair can dress themselves in the morning let alone find their way to Parliament.

The point which must be evident to anyone who looks at the Wright and Dixie convictions for more than a few minutes is that both men had form. In Wright’s case, DNA had been collected and retained by police because of a conviction for theft. In the case of Dixie, DNA was removed after his part in a pub brawl and quickly matched with the sample he left on the body of his victim. If his previous sexual offences had been committed during the operation of the database he would have been found more quickly.

But does this support the argument for a mandatory database? Clearly not, because the damage done to the liberty and privacy of 60 million people would be out of proportion to any gain, to say nothing of the administrative nightmare of collecting everyone’s DNA and the flaws already in the system, which are obscured by the police and the Home Office.

The DNA database is not a perfect weapon. Last year 1,500 administrative mistakes were discovered and at least 100 inaccuracies pertaining to individuals. That means there is a real possibility of people being convicted of crimes they did not commit. Given the chaotic state of government databases, it must be obvious even to Salter and Davies that administrative errors would be vastly increased if the database were to be expanded by a factor of about 13, from 4.5m to 60m.

What the Wright and Dixie cases do is undermine Liberty’s argument that DNA should only be taken and retained from those who have committed sexual and violent crimes. Admirable though it is, that position is now untenable. Those that see the dangers of the database should withdraw to fight the principle that innocent people, which includes more than 100,000 children, must be allowed to have their DNA removed from the database. This issue is due to come before the European Court of Human Rights and there is real hope that Britain will be ordered to remove some 565,700 individuals on privacy grounds. At this news another Tory nincompoop, Richard Ottaway, piped up on Friday to say that we need a national database.

Maybe he was doing no more than addressing the anger of his constituency, where Dixie’s victim lived, yet his comment is evidence that the first principles of a truly free state are little understood by the run-of-the-mill MPs on both sides of the house.

We have an incorrigible, corrupt and incompetent government which – as with so much of the apparatus of the database state – has never even sought to place the DNA database on statutory basis. The principles of DNA collection have never been debated or put to the vote. How can that be? The answer is that the database state is part of a long-term project devised by the civil service and the high command of New Labour. It is far easier to allow a stealthy expansion of surveillance and data collection than bring the issues to parliament and alert us all to the profound threat to our liberty and privacy. That is why our gravest contempt must be reserved for opposition MPs such as Davies and Ottaway, whose duty must be to publicise and fight the drastic changes being wrought by New Labour on British democracy. Instead, they dance to the tune of the Murdoch press and lift their skirts to the sinister forces in the Home Office. Pathetic.

An absence of two months from these pages has made me step back and see the changes to our society with even greater anxiety. Only yesterday it was revealed in our sister paper, the Guardian, that the British government, alone among 27 members of the EU, wants the system of data collection – including mobile phone numbers and credit card details – affecting travellers in Europe to include sea and rail travel, all domestic flights and those between EU countries. The crucial point is that Britain wants this information not just for fighting terror and organised crime but for general surveillance. The phrase used by our government in the questionnaire circulated to all member states is ‘more general public policy purposes’.

I have always sought to make the distinction between the controlled state being brought about by New Labour and ideas of a police state. But the thought of these ‘general public policy purposes’ causes a shiver to pass up my spine and makes me wonder if I have mistaken the urges that lurk in the dark heart of the political establishment. So let’s be quite clear. This phrase predicates a police state.

In the name of the great democrats who have occupied the benches in the House of Commons down the ages, what right has the government to know my credit card number, my cell phone number, my destination, or even when I take a trip abroad, or catch the plane to Inverness? Has this been debated in Parliament? No. Are there plans to drag ministers and civil servants in front of the select committees to examine and expose them. Not as far as I can discover, and that is what gives me these dreadful intimations of the future. Parliament has never been less vigilant or more feckless in the face of these numerous unsanctioned measures that steadily accumulate to increase state power.

If you want to know how Britain will be in 20 years’ time, the best place to look is the legislation affecting children. An excellent report produced by, among others, Action on Rights for Children, Liberty, the Open Rights Group and No2ID, paints a horrific picture of the intensive surveillance of our children who are being conditioned to tolerate the collection of biometric data (fingerprints for library use) and the endless attention of these faceless monitors.

A new database is planned which will contain the details of every 14-year-old child in England and Wales, his or her exam results, difficulties within and outside the family – literally everything. And by the time they all reach adulthood, the databases will have merged to give the state complete access to their most personal information. No child will be able to escape his past, or the judgment and watchfulness of the bureaucrats who may decide their destiny. Little wonder that in his dim way the Martin Salter concluded that DNA ought to be added to this great pool of information. The state will know everything about us so why not allow it dominion over our biological essence too?

I estimate that we have just one chance to turn the tide on these trends – the next general election. We can rely on the Liberal Democrats but it will be important to know where the Conservatives stand. Let’s hope that real democrats in their number, such as David Davis and Dominic Grieve, will persuade the likes of Ottaway and Philip Davies to think before they speak, or at least shut the hell up.

Inside the world of war profiteers

1

| Tribune reporters

Inside the stout federal courthouse of this Mississippi River town, the dirty secrets of Iraq war profiteering keep pouring out.

Hundreds of pages of recently unsealed court records detail how kickbacks shaped the war’s largest troop support contract months before the first wave of U.S. soldiers plunged their boots into Iraqi sand.

The graft continued well beyond the 2004 congressional hearings that first called attention to it. And the massive fraud endangered the health of American soldiers even as it lined contractors’ pockets, records show.

Federal prosecutors in Rock Island have indicted four former supervisors from KBR, the giant defense firm that holds the contract, along with a decorated Army officer and five executives from KBR subcontractors based in the U.S. or the Middle East. Those defendants, along with two other KBR employees who have pleaded guilty in Virginia, account for a third of the 36 people indicted to date on Iraq war-contract crimes, Justice Department records show.

On Wednesday, a federal judge in Rock Island sentenced the Army official, Chief Warrant Officer Peleti “Pete” Peleti Jr., to 28 months in prison for taking bribes. One Middle Eastern subcontractor treated him to a trip to the 2006 Super Bowl, a defense investigator said.

Prosecutors would not confirm or deny ongoing grand jury activity. But court records identify a dozen FBI, IRS and military investigative agents who have been assigned to the case. Interviews as well as testimony at the sentencing for Peleti, who has cooperated with authorities, suggest an active probe.

Rock Island serves as a center for the probe of war profiteering because Army brass at the arsenal here administer KBR’s so-called LOGCAP III contract to feed, shelter and support U.S. soldiers, and to help restore Iraq’s oil infrastructure.

In one case, a freight-shipping subcontractor confessed to giving $25,000 in illegal gratuities to five unnamed KBR employees “to build relationships to get additional business,” according to the man’s December 2007 statement to a federal judge in the Rock Island court. Separately, Peleti named five military colleagues who allegedly accepted bribes. Prosecutors also have identified three senior KBR executives who allegedly approved inflated bids. None of those 13 people has been charged.

A common thread runs through these cases and other KBR scandals in Iraq, from allegations the firm failed to protect employees sexually assaulted by co-workers to findings that it charged $45 per can of soda: The Pentagon has outsourced crucial troop support jobs while slashing the number of government contract watchdogs.

The dollar value of Army contracts quadrupled from $23.3 billion in 1992 to $100.6 billion in 2006, according to a recent report by a Pentagon panel. But the number of Army contract supervisors was cut from 10,000 in 1990 to 5,500 currently.

Last week, the Army pledged to add 1,400 positions to its contracting command. But even those embroiled in the frauds acknowledge the impact of so much war privatization.

“I think we downsized past the point of general competency,” said subcontractor Christopher Cahill, who for a decade prepared military supply depots under LOGCAP. Now serving 30 months in federal prison for fraud, Cahill added: “The point of a standing army is to have them equipped.”

KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton Co., says it has been paid $28 billion under LOGCAP III. The firm says it quickly reports all instances of suspected fraud and has repaid the Defense Department more than $1 million for questionable invoices.

In a statement, KBR said its roughly 20,000 employees and 40,000 subcontractors have performed laudably in a war zone where Army demands shift rapidly and local suppliers don’t always maintain ledger books. Spokeswoman Heather Browne wrote: “Ethics and integrity are core values for KBR.”

But a wiretapped transcript recently released in Rock Island underscores the brazen nature of the exceptions.

In October 2005, with federal agents tailing them, three war contractors slipped through London’s posh Cumberland hotel before meeting in a quiet lounge. For the rest of that afternoon, the men sipped cognac and whiskey and discussed the bribes that had greased contracts to supply U.S. troops in Iraq.

Former KBR procurement manager Stephen Seamans, who was wearing a wire strapped on by a Rock Island agent, wondered aloud whether to return $65,000 in kickbacks he got from his two companions, executives from the Saudi conglomerate Tamimi Global Co.

One of the men, Tamimi operations director Shabbir Khan, urged him to hide the money by concocting phony business records.

“Just do the paperwork,” Khan said.

Party houses, prostitutes

In October 2002, five months before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Khan threw a birthday party for Seamans at a Tamimi “party house” near the Kuwait base known as Camp Arifjan. Khan “provided Seamans with a prostitute as a present,” Rock Island prosecutors wrote in court papers. Driving Seamans back to his quarters, Khan offered kickbacks that would total $130,000.

Five days later, with Seamans and Khan hammering out the fine print, KBR awarded Tamimi the war’s first $14.4 million mess hall subcontract, court records show.

In April 2003, as American troops poured into Iraq, Seamans gave Khan inside information that enabled Tamimi to secure a $2 million KBR subcontract to establish a mess hall at a Baghdad palace. Seamans submitted change orders that inflated that subcontract to $7.4 million.

By June, Seamans and fellow KBR procurement manager Jeff Mazon, a Country Club Hills resident, had executed subcontracts worth $321 million. At least one deal put U.S. soldiers at risk.

The Army LOGCAP contract required KBR to medically screen the thousands of kitchen workers that subcontractors like Tamimi imported from impoverished villages in Nepal, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh.

But when Pentagon officials asked for medical records in March 2004, Khan presented “bogus” files for 550 Tamimi workers, Assistant U.S. Atty. Jeffrey Lang said in a court hearing last year.

KBR retested those 550 workers at a Kuwait City clinic and found 172 positive for exposure to hepatitis A, Lang told the judge. Khan tried to suppress those findings, warning the clinic director that Tamimi would do no more business with his medical office if he “told KBR about these results,” Lang said in court. The infectious virus can cause fatigue and other symptoms that arise weeks after contact.

Retesting of the 172 found that none had contagious hepatitis A, Lang said, and Khan’s attorneys said in court that no soldiers caught diseases from the workers or from meals they prepared. It remains unclear if that is because the workers were treated or because they did not remain infectious after the onset of symptoms.

Still, the incident shows how even mundane meal contracts can put troops at risk. Similar disease-testing breaches cropped up at cafeterias outsourced to firms besides Tamimi, former KBR Area Supervisor Rene Robinson said in a Tribune interview.

“That was an ongoing problem,” Robinson said. “When the military asked for paperwork, it was spotty.” KBR was forced to begin vaccinating the employees at their work sites, he added.

Tamimi and its U.S. lawyers did not respond to requests for comment. The company has said it is cooperating with federal authorities.

By July 2005, Tamimi had secured some 30 KBR troop feeding subcontracts worth $793.5 million, records show. Khan continued to negotiate Iraq war subcontracts for Tamimi until shortly before he was arrested in Rock Island in March 2006.

He is now serving a 51-month prison sentence for lying to federal agents about the kickbacks he wired to Seamans, who pleaded guilty and served a year and a day in prison. Both declined to comment.

Seamans, a 46-year-old Air Force veteran, once taught ethics to junior KBR employees. At his December 2006 sentencing hearing, he expressed remorse for taking the kickbacks, telling the judge: “It is not the way that Americans do business.”

It was another repentant LOGCAP veteran standing before a Rock Island judge on Wednesday. Peleti, formerly the military’s top food service adviser for the Middle East, wept as he admitted taking bribes from Tamimi and three other subcontractors between 2003 and early 2006.

Ribbons and badges glittered across Peleti’s pressed green Army shirt. “I stand here before you today to convey my remorse and sincere regret,” he said, then broke down.

One subcontractor, Public Warehousing Co., took Peleti and another top Army official to the Super Bowl, a defense investigator said in court Wednesday. The firm has denied wrongdoing. Khan also bribed Peleti to influence LOGCAP contracts with cash. Peleti was arrested in 2006 while re-entering the U.S. at Dover Air Force Base with a duffel bag stuffed with watches and jewelry as well as about $40,000 concealed in his clothing.

While prosecutors documented kickbacks in only the first two of Tamimi’s mess hall subcontracts, they contend that the tone was set to corrupt the system.

“Tamimi and Mr. Khan have their hooks into Mr. Seamans, they have their hooks into KBR,” Lang said in court last year. “It is difficult to assess the kind of damage that did to the integrity of the subcontracting process when the first two subcontracts are corrupted.”

Auditors in the basement

Military auditors say they closely monitor the layers of KBR subcontractors who actually perform most of the LOGCAP work, stationing teams in Iraq. But one Rock Island search warrant said auditors working back in the U.S. could manage only limited reviews of the cascade of deals.

In the basement of one of KBR’s Houston office buildings, a 25-member team from the Defense Contract Audit Agency had “no communications” with “personnel on the ground,” so they could not confirm whether goods and services actually were delivered, the search warrant application said.

In the absence of oversight, some Middle Eastern businessmen would offer “Rolex watches, leather jackets, prostitutes, and the KBR guys weren’t shy about bragging about the fact that they were being treated to all that stuff,” said Paul Morrell, whose firm The Event Source ran several mess halls as a KBR subcontractor.

Such questionable relationships continued long after early procurement managers like Seamans had been rooted out. Early subcontractors such as Tamimi became almost indispensable in part by outfitting Army cafeterias with expensive power generators and refrigeration systems, records and interviews show.

“If you ever gave Tamimi a hard time, you’d get a call,” former KBR subcontract manager Harry DeWolf told the Tribune.

When subcontracts came up for renegotiation, DeWolf said, companies like Tamimi “would say, ‘Fine, we’re going to pull out all of our people and equipment.’ They really had KBR and the government over the barrel.”

Complicating the investigation of war-contract crimes, the government of Kuwait has denied a U.S. request to extradite two Middle Eastern businessmen accused of LOGCAP fraud. The country’s ambassador last year sent letters to the Justice Department asking the U.S. to drop its case against one of them, arguing that international agreements forbid U.S. prosecution of Kuwaiti residents for crimes allegedly committed on Kuwaiti soil. Prosecutors disagree, but a judge is considering Kuwait’s assertion.

Investigators also have faced challenges in dealing with KBR. The company has withheld some internal company documents relating to Mazon, Seaman’s fellow KBR procurement manager, the firm’s attorneys wrote in court filings.

In response to one subpoena, the firm gave agents about 2,760 of Mazon’s computer files but withheld 398 others, saying they were covered by attorney-client privilege or other protections.

Federal prosecutors say they have given KBR no special treatment and that the company has legal rights afforded to all firms whose employees have been charged with wrongdoing. “We did withhold some documents as being privileged,” a KBR spokeswoman wrote, but added that the company has provided statements and grand jury testimony.

Mazon has pleaded not guilty to charges that he inflated a fuel contract. His attorneys say the fuel subcontract was accidentally inflated when figures were converted from U.S. dollars to Kuwaiti dinars then back again. At least 22 KBR troop support subcontracts were inflated through similar errors, Mazon’s attorney J. Scott Arthur wrote in papers filed in Rock Island.

KBR attorneys said the company informed federal officials of three similar “double conversions” on other subcontracts. But KBR said it “has not undertaken an exhaustive search of its millions of pages of procurement documents” to determine whether other such errors exist.

Government wants personal details of every traveller

0

Phone numbers and credit card data to be collected under expanded EU plan

 

Passengers in line at Heathrow airport

Airline passengers will be monitored at every stage of their journey under the proposals. Photograph: David Levene

Ian Traynor

Passengers travelling between EU countries or taking domestic flights would have to hand over a mass of personal information, including their mobile phone numbers and credit card details, as part of a new package of security measures being demanded by the British government. The data would be stored for 13 years and used to “profile” suspects.

Brussels officials are already considering controversial anti-terror plans that would collect up to 19 pieces of information on every air passenger entering or leaving the EU. Under a controversial agreement reached last summer with the US department of homeland security, the EU already supplies the same information [19 pieces] to Washington for all passengers flying between Europe and the US.

But Britain wants the system extended to sea and rail travel, to be applied to domestic flights and those between EU countries. According to a questionnaire circulated to all EU capitals by the European commission, the UK is the only country of 27 EU member states that wants the system used for “more general public policy purposes” besides fighting terrorism and organised crime.

The so-called passenger name record system, proposed by the commission and supported by most EU governments, has been denounced by civil libertarians and data protection officials as draconian and probably ineffective.

The scheme would work through national agencies collecting and processing the passenger data and then sharing it with other EU states. Britain also wants to be able to exchange the information with third parties outside the EU.

Officials in Brussels and in European capitals admit the proposed system represents a massive intrusion into European civil liberties, but insist it is a necessary part of a battery of new electronic surveillance measures being mooted in the interests of European security. These include proposals unveiled in Brussels last week for fingerprinting and collecting biometric information of all non-EU nationals entering or leaving the union.

All airlines would provide government agencies with 19 pieces of information on every passenger, including mobile phone number and credit card details. The system would work by “running the data against a combination of characteristics and behavioural patterns aimed at creating a risk assessment”, according to the draft legislation.

“When a passenger fits within a certain risk assessment, he could be identified as a high-risk passenger.”

A working party of European data protection officials described the proposal as “a further milestone towards a European surveillance society.

“The draft foresees the collection of a vast amount of personal data of all passengers flying into or out of the EU regardless of whether they are under suspicion or innocent travellers. These data will then be stored for a period of 13 years to allow for profiling. The profiling of all passengers envisaged by the current proposal might raise constitutional concerns in some member states.”

The Liberal Democrat MEP Sarah Ludford said: “Where is this going to stop? There’s no mature discussion of risk. As soon as you question something like this, you’re soft on terrorism in the UK and in the EU.”

Britain is pushing for a more comprehensive system based on the experience of a UK pilot scheme that has been running for the past three years. Officials say Operation Semaphore, monitoring flights from Pakistan and the Middle East, has been highly successful and has resulted in hundreds of arrests.

The scheme has seen one in every 2,200 passengers warranting further investigation, with a tenth of those “being of interest”. British officials say rapists, drug smugglers and child traffickers have been arrested and want the EU scheme to cover “all fugitives from crown court justice”.

But Ludford said: “If you ask the UK government how many terrorists have been picked up, I don’t think you get a very straight answer.”

EU officials have asked the Home Office minister Meg Hillier for information about the arrests of suspected terrorists.

Protestors target ‘Daily Express’ offices

0

By Sarah Lagan

Journalists, anti war activists and religious groups held a protest outside the Daily Express offices today against a series of stories and headlines in the paper which they say encourage “racist stereotyping and contempt”.

Around forty protesters and journalists turned up to the event organised by Media Workers Against War and the Stop the War Coalition. They waved banners saying “stop media attacks on Muslims” while chanting slogans such as “Daily Express, Daily abuse”.

MWAW sent a letter to Northern and Shell proprietor Richard Desmond and Daily Express editor Peter Hill outlining examples of what they believe are inflammatory headlines published in the Express such as: “Over 860 migrants flood in every day”, “Muslim laws must come to Britain” and “Migrants send our crime rate soaring”.

It appealed to the company to stop “pedalling lies” and to allow journalists to refuse to write stories they believe break the Editors’’ Code of Practice.

The letter said the headlines “do nothing to inform Express readers — on the contrary they encourage racist stereotyping and contempt.”

It states: “Your ‘facts’ are highly selective, you make little attempt to give context or comparisons and you publish no opposing views.”

Chair of MWAW and FT journalist David Crouch said: “We’ve decided to protest here at the Express because since mid-January they have run a series of what we believe are inflammatory front page splashes targeting Muslims and immigrants more generally. So we decided to start with the Express but the interest that has been shown in this protest will encourage us to take the protest elsewhere.”

The Daily Express declined to comment.

Slavery in America

We had been on the road for hours, leaving the interstate and then digressing to smaller and smaller highways. Differing vistas of the Colorado landscape got wilder and more vacant the further north we drove. Driving through Maybell, we took a right and headed through Irish Canyon, on the road towards Rock Springs, Wyoming. Dropping down into Wyoming the sagebrush flats opened up on either side of the highway. Stretching into the distance and disappearing over the horizon, empty barren land devoid of anything but roads built by the gas companies and herds of sheep tended by imported slave labor.

With us on our journey were three Chilean men who had worked out here for anywhere from a year to three. Brought straight from their native land on work Visas, they had been promised food, clothing, shelter and a good paycheck to herd sheep on some of the roughest landscape in the west. Unfortunately for them, they did not receive adequate food, clothing, pay or medical attention. All they found was brutal winters with a constant wind that could cut to the bone and sweltering summer heat that would make a lizard pant.

We had originally expected to find the sheep camps worked by men from Peru, Chile and Ecuador, but the Colorado sheep ranchers had gone even further afield than expected to find workers to take advantage of, Nepal. Walking up to the first sheep camp trailer, my fingers ached to the bone in the cold, dry, wind as I held onto my camera. When no one answered our knock we turned to leave. Riding towards us on horseback was the first of three Nepali men that we found tending sheep in the Wyoming badlands.

Since sheep-herding is most likely the loneliest job within the continental United States, his happiness at visitors was almost overwhelming. In broken English and gestures, he showed us his home. A tiny tin trailer with a bed and wood stove that put out barely any heat. Its window was covered by cardboard and his pantry held nothing but rice, canned beans, tomato sauce, green beans, and a few spices. He kept track of the months by watching the dates change on his carton of eggs. Occasionally he could kill a sheep for food, but the only place to store the meat was in a cardboard box next to his bed. His clothes were ragged and well worn, his boots and gloves were held together by duct tape and his bedding was nothing but a thin sleeping bag and a blanket, hardly fitting clothing and bedding for a part of the country that can see wind chill factors in the negative 20s and whiteouts that can literally spring from nowhere.

The next couple of camps were in much the same shape, little tin trailers that should be condemned; mangy, ragged packs of dogs either starved for attention or cowering. Horses standing with their asses to the wind, shivering in huddled crowds, gaunt ribs showing through their thick winter coats and smiling Nepali men who were simply joyous to have someone visiting besides an angry boss yelling at them.

As we talked, the the true story of abuse and wage slavery came out. These men had signed a contract in Nepal (They are in the U.S. legally on a H2A work visa) to work eight hours a day, and when they landed in the U.S., the contracts were changed to 24 hours a day, 7 days a week with no vacations, ever. Adequate shelter and food were supposed to be supplied, but our own eyes showed us the falsity of that agreement. The biggest crime, however, was the 650 dollars a month these men received as compensation for their labor. When you do the math, 650 dollars a month for 24 hour shifts, 7 days a week comes 90 cents an hour. You can get paid more in, China, an hour than that, hell you could make more money an hour flying a sign on a street corner an hour than you could herding sheep.

These workers are trapped and taken advantage of. One Nepali man who had been alone and isolated on the plains of Wyoming for three years told us, in broken English, how the last visitor he had was an uncle two years before. Then he surprised me when we asked him what changes he would like to see. Laughing and slapping his knee, he answered, “Change? Change this to 21st century, this not 21st century.”

Heading out from sheep country, I asked two of our Chilean guides if they still would have come to the U.S. if they would have known what the true work conditions would have been like. They both agreed that they never would have come, work conditions in Chile were better with higher pay and less abuse. The youngest one, Juan, looked into the distance, eyes watering and said, “I never, I never would have come.”

An interesting class difference that we came across during our trip was the differences between workers from South America and those that had been imported from Asia. The last camp we ran into actually contained two men, one from Chile and one from Peru. Their trailers were newer, the dogs and horses were less ragged and worn down. They were also paid one hundred dollars a month more, to me these differences boiled down to language, a lot of people within the U.S. know enough Spanish to ask if you are okay, but good luck finding someone who can speak enough Nepali to see if a worker’s basic human rights are being met.

Jacob Carpenter is a member of Grand Junction Alternative Media and a writer/co-conspirator of The Red Pill, a bi-monthly news zine that has been produced out of Western Colorado for the last five years. It is collectively produced and created, we welcome all writers and artist to submit pieces for publication!

http://www.gjredpill.org

Insurance Fears Lead Many to Shun DNA Tests

0

By AMY HARMON

Victoria Grove wanted to find out if she was destined to develop the form of emphysema that ran in her family, but she did not want to ask her doctor for the DNA test that would tell her.

She worried that she might not be able to get health insurance, or even a job, if a genetic predisposition showed up in her medical records, especially since treatment for the condition, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, could cost over $100,000 a year. Instead, Ms. Grove sought out a service that sent a test kit to her home and returned the results directly to her.

Nor did she tell her doctor when the test revealed that she was virtually certain to get it. Knowing that she could sustain permanent lung damage without immediate treatment for her bouts of pneumonia, she made sure to visit her clinic at the first sign of infection.

But then came the day when the nurse who listened to her lungs decided she just had a cold. Ms. Grove begged for a chest X-ray. The nurse did not think it was necessary.

“It was just an ongoing battle with myself,” recalled Ms. Grove, of Woodbury, Minn. “Should I tell them now or wait till I’m sicker?”

The first, much-anticipated benefits of personalized medicine are being lost or diluted for many Americans who are too afraid that genetic information may be used against them to take advantage of its growing availability.

In some cases, doctors say, patients who could make more informed health care decisions if they learned whether they had inherited an elevated risk of diseases like breast and colon cancer refuse to do so because of the potentially dire economic consequences.

Others enter a kind of genetic underground, spending hundreds or thousands of dollars of their own money for DNA tests that an insurer would otherwise cover, so as to avoid scrutiny. Those who do find out they are likely or certain to develop a particular genetic condition often beg doctors not to mention it in their records.

Some, like Ms. Grove, try to manage their own care without confiding in medical professionals. And even doctors who recommend DNA testing to their patients warn them that they could face genetic discrimination from employers or insurers.

Such discrimination appears to be rare; even proponents of federal legislation that would outlaw it can cite few examples of it. But thousands of people accustomed to a health insurance system in which known risks carry financial penalties are drawing their own conclusions about how a genetic predisposition to disease is likely to be regarded.

As a result, the ability to more effectively prevent and treat genetic disease is faltering even as the means to identify risks people are born with are improving.

“It’s pretty clear that the public is afraid of taking advantage of genetic testing,” said Dr. Francis S. Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health. “If that continues, the future of medicine that we would all like to see happen stands the chance of being dead on arrival.”

Caught in a Bind

For Ms. Grove, 59, keeping her genetic condition secret finally became impossible. When her symptoms worsened she was told to come back to the clinic before antibiotics would be prescribed. But there had been a snowstorm that day, and she could not summon the strength to drive.

“I have alpha-1,” she remembers sobbing into the phone. “I need this antibiotic!”

The clinic called in the prescription.

Ms. Grove, who does freelance accounting from home and has health insurance through her husband’s employer, allowed herself to be identified here because she said she felt an obligation to others – including some in her own family – to draw attention to the bind she sees herself in.

“Something needs to be done so that you cannot be discriminated against when you know about these things,” she said. “Otherwise you are sicker, your life is shorter and you’re not doing what you need to protect yourself.”

Employers say discrimination is already prohibited in the workplace by the Americans with Disabilities Act and existing laws governing privacy of medical records. But employee rights advocates say nothing in those laws explicitly prevents employers hard-pressed to pay for mounting health care costs from trying to screen out employees they know are more likely to get sick.

Courts have yet to rule on the subject. When the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission sued the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway for secretly testing the blood of employees who had filed compensation claims for carpal-tunnel syndrome in an effort to discover a genetic cause for the symptoms, the case was settled out of court in 2002.

And in 2005 when Eddy Curry, then the center for the Chicago Bulls, refused a genetic test to learn if he was predisposed to a heart ailment, the team traded him to the New York Knicks.

Insurers say they do not ask prospective customers about genetic test results, or require testing. “It’s an anecdotal fear,” said Mohit M. Ghose, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, whose members provide benefits for 200 million Americans. “Our industry is not interested in any way, shape or form in discriminating based on a genetic marker.”

Still, a recent study by the Georgetown University Health Policy Institute found otherwise. In 7 of 92 underwriting decisions, insurance providers evaluating hypothetical applicants said they would deny coverage, charge more for premiums or exclude certain conditions from coverage based on genetic test results.

The Medical Cost

Regardless of whether discrimination actually occurs, many health care professionals say the pervasive anxiety over it demands legislative action. Geneticists complain that discrimination fears prevent them from recruiting research participants, delaying cures and treatments for disease. At Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, the same concern is a leading reason people cancel appointments for tests that detect cancer risk.

“We are dealing with potential lifesaving interventions,” said Dr. Kenneth Offit, chief of the center’s clinical genetics service. “It’s a tragedy that people are being scared off by this.”

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which passed the House of Representatives by a wide margin last year, would prohibit insurers from using genetic information to deny benefits or raise premiums for both group and individual policies. (It is already illegal to exclude individuals from a group plan because of their genetic profile.) The bill would also bar employers from collecting genetic information or using it to make decisions about hiring, firing or compensation. But it has yet to reach the Senate floor.

Meanwhile, a $300 genetic test for prostate cancer risk announced last month immediately drew callers to a public radio station in Washington that was discussing the test, voicing fears of insurance discrimination. Dr. Karim Kader, who made the test possible with his discovery that men who carry certain DNA variants are four to five times likelier to develop prostate cancer, assured one caller that the test would be “very private.”

For some, that is not good enough.

Linda Vahdat, director of the breast cancer research program at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, estimates that 20 percent of her patients choose to pay for the DNA test for inherited breast cancer risk with cash, to avoid submitting insurance claims.

And last year, hundreds of customers paid the start-up company DNA Direct for tests that range in cost from $175 to $3,456 to ensure that no third party, not even a doctor, had access to their results. Mary, a freelance camera assistant in Brooklyn, for instance, sent a swab of her cheek cells to DNA Direct to find out if her extreme fatigue was caused by hemochromatosis, a genetic condition in which the body retains too much iron.

“I would rather not lay out the $200 myself,” said Mary, who requested that her last name be withheld for the same reason she paid for her own test. “But it seemed safer.”

Treatment for hemochromatosis typically involves removing a unit of blood twice-weekly by phlebotomy. But that would mean disclosing the condition to a doctor, so Mary is planning on becoming a frequent blood donor.

Kathy, a financial analyst in Houston who would like to know if she, like her two sisters, has a genetic predisposition to breast cancer, said she was not going to take even an anonymous test. “Then,” she said, “I’m just in a position of having to lie.”

The culture of secrecy around genetic information is stronger in the United States, some experts say, than in countries where people are guaranteed health care. Among Americans at risk for Huntington’s disease, an incurable brain disorder, only 5 percent take the DNA test to determine if they will develop it, compared with 20 percent of Canadians in the same position, according to Michael R. Hayden, a professor of human genetics at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver.

Here, doctors often feel obligated to inform patients of the potential financial downside.

“I always warn them,” said Dr. Stephen Moll, director of the Thrombophilia Program at the University of North Carolina, who uses a genetic test to determine the best treatment for patients with blood clots. “Especially if they are self-employed, I don’t want it to be a surprise if their health insurance premium goes up.”

Unknown Risks

After receiving a similar warning from her doctor, Katherine Anderson’s parents did not allow her to be tested for Factor V Leiden, a genetic condition she might have inherited from her father that increases the risk of blood clots.

But last year, with nothing in Ms. Anderson’s record to indicate reason for concern, a gynecologist prescribed a birth control pill to regulate her uneven periods. Six weeks later, Ms. Anderson, then 16, developed a clot that stretched from her knee to her abdomen. The pill, combined with the gene she had indeed inherited, had increased her clotting risk by 30-fold.

Now largely recovered, her primary concern is whether she will be viewed as a health insurance liability for the future.

“I don’t want to have to work for a big business just to get insurance,” she said. “This could be determining what I can do for my whole life.”

For Judith Berman Carlisle, the price of privacy was forgoing the DNA test that would have convinced her not to have surgery. Ms. Carlisle, 48, who was setting up her own therapy practice, was afraid testing positive for the high-risk breast and ovarian cancer gene that runs in her family would prevent her from buying health insurance.

But her sister had developed ovarian cancer the year before, an aunt had died of it, and Ms. Carlisle was desperate not to get it herself. Her doctor agreed to remove her ovaries based on her family history – the way such decisions were commonly made before a genetic test was available.

Ms. Carlisle was convinced the surgery would be less damning than proof that she carried a defective BRCA1 gene, which also confers a very high chance of developing breast cancer.

“There’s a big difference between someone saying, ‘I have a strong family history,’ ” Ms. Carlisle said, “and saying, ‘I only have a 13 percent chance of not getting breast cancer during the time you’re insuring me.’ ”

Last fall, after the surgery to remove her ovaries, she began to consider a double mastectomy to remove any chance of breast cancer, the disease her grandmother and another aunt had died of. Having secured health insurance, she took the test for the BRCA1 mutation. It came back negative.

“The first thing they said to me,” Ms. Carlisle said, “is that I have no higher risk than anyone on the street.”

PNP chief orders probe on ‘spy cam’ in Senate

0

Director General Avelino Razon Jr., Philippine National Police (PNP) head, Sunday said he ordered a probe into the reported plans of the PNP to put a closed circuit television camera in the Senate building in Pasay City.

In an interview with radio dzMM, Razon said he has directed Deputy Director Geary Barias, National Capital Region Police Office chief, to conduct an investigation on the reports that policemen tried to put a CCTV camera in the Senate compound.

“Pinaiimbestigahan ko na yan ke Gen. Barias ng NCRPO (I’ve already ordered Gen. Barias of NCRPO to investigate it`),” Razon said.

In the same breath, the PNP chief denied that they have plans to put CCTV cameras in the Senate building since the establishment has several of surveillance cameras already.

“Bakit naman namin gagawin yun? May CCTV sa labas at kapaligiran ang Senado (Why should we do that [put CCTV cameras]? There are CCTV outside and around the Senate),” Razon stressed.

Razon suspected that there is a deliberate effort by certain groups to discredit the PNP by floating misleading information to the public.

Quoting a source, radio dzMM reporter Jun Lincoran said the plan of the PNP to place a surveillance camera in the Senate was however blocked by Senate Sgt.-At-Arms, retired Gen. Jose Balajadia.

The source also told Lincoran that a policemen recently went to the office of the Balajadia and asked some personnel at the office where they could strategically install the device.

Balajadia, however, objected to the plan and advised the PNP members to ask first the permission of Senate President Manuel Villar Jr.

The Senate’s Blue Ribbon Committee has been probing the scandal-stricken national broadband network (NBN) project with China’s ZTE Corp.

Senior Superintendent Nicanor Bartolome, PNP spokesman, said they will install 30 more CCTV cameras around Metro Manila in the coming days.

He said the cameras will be used for crime prevention and traffic monitoring.

“CCTV monitors are new techniques for crime prevention. In other countries this has been used extensively and getting good results,” said Bartolome.

He said the police plan to put up a total of 56 cameras, 26 of which have already been installed.

The CCTV cameras have been called “spy cams” due to a recent controversy.

A CCTV camera was installed in front of the La Salle Greenhills (LSGH) gate last week where the Senate witness Rodolfo Noel “Jun” Lozada is staying. It was installed by four men covered with handkerchiefs before a Thanksgiving Mass led by former president Corazon Aquino and attended by more than 5,000.

The police had initially denied installing the camera but later admitted it was theirs and was for traffic monitoring purposes.

Another “camera” was discovered outside the St. Scholastica’s College (SSC) Wednesday night.

Members of the religious organizations of LSGH and SSC suspect that the police are monitoring their campuses due to protest actions that were being held in support of Lozada.

Bartolome however clarified the device installed at a lamp post in front of SSC “was not a PNP CCTV camera but rather a photo-sensor device that is used to automatically switch off lights during the daytime.”

Copyright © ABS-CBN Interactive

Diana inquest probes world of espionage

1

Intelligence officers are facing unprecedented public scrutiny as they take the stand at the inquest into Princess Diana’s death to deny claims that the security services killed her on the royal family’s orders.Their former boss has already given a fascinating glimpse into the murky world of espionage — but this is not all about glamorous 007 figures. Theirs is a more mundane world of bureaucratic checks and balances.

With his deadly array of guns and gadgets, James Bond has a Licence to Kill in his constant battle to thwart villains plotting world domination.

In reality, the world’s most famous spy would need a Class Seven authorisation agreed by his line managers and personally signed by the Foreign Secretary.

Former spy chief Richard Dearlove gingerly lifted the lid on this secret world when giving evidence to the inquest into the 1997 deaths of Diana and her lover Dodi al-Fayed in a Paris car crash.

“His testimony made the security services sound more like a firm of accountants than a bunch of 007s,” The Daily Telegraph concluded.

Now it is the turn of 10 serving and former intelligence officers to appear in court — but their identities will be protected and they will be just referred to as numbers or letters.

The court will be cleared of the media and public on Tuesday when they start to give evidence, which will be piped by audio link to an annex. 

In an unprecedented move by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) they are going public to deny allegations from Dodi’s father, luxury storeowner Mohamed al-Fayed, that the security services killed the couple on orders from Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth’s husband and Diana’s former father-in-law.

Dearlove dismissed al-Fayed’s allegations as “utterly ridiculous” and went into a detailed description of the bureaucratic hoops a real-life James Bond would face.

“When the paperwork was completed — and this would apply to an initiative overseas as much as to one developed within head office –it would be signed off by, let’s say, the senior regional official,” he said.

But the checks do not stop there.

“It would come to me for further signature and then it would go down restricted channels to the Foreign Secretary,” Dearlove told the court.

Renegade British spies have in the past accused British intelligence of hatching plots to assassinate Serbia’s President Slobodan Milosevic and Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

But both these allegations have been officially denied and Dearlove was adamant when asked in court if he was ever aware of the Secret Intelligence Service ever assassinating anyone during his 38 years with the organisation.

“No I was not,” he told the jury which now faces a week listening to the evidence of 10 intelligence officers who could offer further intriguing insights into just how spies operate.

© Reuters 2008

White House says phone wiretaps back on “for now”

0

The Bush administration said on Saturday U.S. telecommunications companies have agreed to cooperate “for the time being” with spy agencies’ wiretaps, despite an ongoing battle between the White House and Congress over new terrorism surveillance legislation.The Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence issued a joint statement saying wiretaps will resume under the current law “at least for now.”

“Although our private partners are cooperating for the time being, they have expressed understandable misgivings about doing so in light of the ongoing uncertainty and have indicated they may well discontinue cooperation if the uncertainty persists,” the statement said.

On Friday U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey and Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell said telecommunications firms have been reluctant to cooperate with new wiretaps since six-month temporary legislation expired last weekend. As a result, they told Congress, spy agencies have missed intelligence.

Democrats accused the Bush administration of fear-mongering and blamed it for any gaps.

President George W. Bush has said he would not compromise with the Democratic-led Congress on his demand that phone companies be shielded from lawsuits for taking part in his warrantless domestic spying program.

The measure passed by the Senate would provide retroactive lawsuit immunity to firms which cooperated with warrantless wiretaps that Bush authorized after the September 11 attacks. But the House of Representatives has opposed it, and Democratic leaders of both chambers said they would try to find a compromise.

Democratic leaders of congressional intelligence and judiciary committees issued a statement on Friday saying they were committed to passing new legislation and urged Bush to support an extension of the temporary law. Bush has said he would hold out for a permanent overhaul of the 1978 surveillance law.

© Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

Threat to our privacy must be fought

0

The future security of every family and child in the country has been compromised by the recent loss of child benefit details.

News of further electronic data losses has only reinforced the threat to our privacy.

But what will the long-term consequences be?

Identity theft is a real and growing problem.

The Government would have us believe that ID cards and biometric identification will solve the problem. In fact, it will make things worse.

You can change your pin number but you can’t change your fingerprints.

Once on the National Database, not just your bank details but everything about you is vulnerable to theft.

All but three of the country’s 69 new ‘interrogation centres’ are now open.

People applying for their first adult passport are already being called in. Soon those renewing their passports will also have to attend.

Plans to simultaneously issue ID cards have been quietly shelved until after the next General Election.

However, young people (students applying for loans, for example) will be ‘persuaded’ (that is, bribed) to have an ID card in the near future.

Meanwhile, the first GP surgeries have started uploading confidential patient records on to the NHS database (“The Spine”), and increasingly, schools are fingerprinting children as young as four (for registration, lunches, library books), often without parents’ permission or even knowledge.

Children are growing up believing it is normal to be fingerprinted having done nothing wrong. This must stop.

For further information, visit http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com or www.no2id.net

Stephen Nash Washington Terrace Middle Barton

VIDEO: Globalisation and the Media

0

An award winning documentary exploring the role of the mass media during the War on ‘Terror’ & Economic trade. Consider a wide range of viewpoints from mainstream news editors, computer hackers, journalists and media activists. Discover how new technology, such as the Internet and camcorders, are challenging the role of the traditional news gatherer. This film contains graphic violence by Italian Police during the G8 summit in Genoa.

Includes contributions from
Chris Cramer- President CNN International news
George Monbiot- The Guardian, investigative reporter
Katharine Ainger- Editor New Internationalist
Mark Covell- Indymedia.org
Tony Blair- Prime Minister UK
Jesse Jackson- Civil rights campaigner
Sonali Fernadez- Media Workers against the War
Danny Schecter- Director, Mediachannel.org
Emmanuel Goldstein – Editor of 2600 The Hackers Quarterly
Amy Goodman- Producer Democracy Now radio (US)

Special thanks to Undercurrents and NN7

VIDEO: Insanely Corrupt – “Mercury is good for you!”

2

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZArebYZzdc[/youtube]
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/280.html

Now I’ve seen it all

This is how insanely corrupt the United States has become.The pharmaceutical industry that has handicapped countless children with mercury-based vaccines is able to buy a study that says a known neuro-toxin is good for the brains of infants and small children and improves their behavior!

First, “behavior” is not quantifiable and is completely subjective. There’s no science here. Just corruption of science on an inconceivable scale.

Second, mercury is a poison, a neuro-toxin that destroys the functioning of the central nervous system. There is no conceivable justification for it to be mainlined into the bloodstream of anyone for any reason ever.

You may want to watch this twice so you can be sure you really heard what you thought you heard.

McCain’s Other War Frauds

0

James Bovard

Amongst all the media teeth-gnashing over the question of whether McCain did special favors for his blondie lobbyist, his wife’s sweetheart deal for massive narcotics theft in the 1990s has been forgotten.

If a poor black woman from Anacostia had committed the crimes that Cindy McCain committed, the black woman might have been sent to prison for the duration of her life.

John McCain has never shown any courage on the drug war. As long as people like his wife don’t need to fear jail time for crimes, there is no reason to reform the law to cease the persecution of other Americans.  

Here’s an excerpt on the case from an article I did for Playboy in 1997. (Full text of the piece, which details how many congressmen’s kin escaped hard time for drug offenses, is here).

* Cindy McCain, the wife of Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), admitted stealing Percocet and Vicodin from the American Voluntary Medical Team, an organization that aids Third World countries. Percocet and Vicodin are schedule 2 drugs, in the same legal category as opium. Each pill theft carries a penalty of one year in prison and a monetary fine. McCain stole the pills over several years. She became addicted to the drugs after undergoing back surgery. 

   But rather than face prosecution, McCain was allowed to enter a pretrial diversion program and escaped with no blemish on her record. McCain did suffer from the incident, though: Shortly after the scandal broke, a Variety Club of Arizona ceremony at which she was to receive a humanitarian of the year award for her work with the medical team was canceled because of poor ticket sales. 

The new invasion of Iraq

0

Up to 10,000 Turkish troops launch an incursion which threatens to destabilise the country’s only peaceful region

By Patrick Cockburn

A new crisis has exploded in Iraq after Turkish troops, supported by attack planes and Cobra helicopters, yesterday launched a major ground offensive into Iraqi Kurdistan.

The invading Turkish soldiers are in pursuit of Kurdish guerrillas hiding in the mountains. They are seeking to destroy the camps of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party) along the border between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. “Thousands of troops have crossed the border and thousands more are waiting at the border to join them if necessary,” said a Turkish military source.

“There are severe clashes,” said Ahmed Danees, the head of foreign relations for the PKK. “Two Turkish soldiers have been killed and eight wounded. There are no PKK casualties.” Turkish television said that the number of Turkish troops involved was between 3,000 and 10,000, and they had moved 16 miles inside Iraq.

But the escalating Turkish attacks are destabilising the Kurdish region of Iraq which is the one peaceful part of the country and has visibly benefited from the US invasion.

The Iraqi Kurds are America’s closest allies in Iraq and the only Iraqi community to support fully the US occupation. The president of the autonomous Kurdistan Regional Government, Massoud Barzani, said recently he felt let down by the failure of the Iraqi government in Baghdad to stop Turkish bombing raids on Iraqi territory.

The incursion is embarrassing for the US, which tried to avert it, because the American military provides intelligence to the Turkish armed forces about the location of the camps of Turkish Kurd fighters. Immediately before the operation began, the Turkish Prime Minister, Tayyip Erdogan, called President George Bush to warn him.

The US and the Iraqi government are eager to play down the extent of the invasion. Rear Admiral Gregory Smith, a US spokesman for Iraq, said: “We understand [it] is an operation of limited duration to specifically target PKK terrorists in that region.” The Iraqi Foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, claimed that only a few hundred Turkish troops were in Iraq.

But since last year Turkey has succeeded, by making limited incursions into Kurdistan, in establishing a de facto right to intervene militarily in Kurdistan whenever it feels like it.

Many Iraqi Kurdish leaders are convinced that a hidden aim of the Turkish attack is to undermine the Kurdish region, which enjoys autonomous rights close to statehood. Ankara has always seen the semi-independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, and the Kurds’ claim to the oil city of Kirkuk, as providing a dangerous example for Kurds in Turkey who are also demanding autonomy.

Many Turkish companies carrying out construction contracts in the region have already left. And businesses that remain are frightened that Ankara will close Iraqi Kurdistan’s lifeline over the Harbour Bridge into Turkey.

During the 1990s the Turkish army carried out repeated attacks in Iraqi Kurdistan with the tacit permission of Saddam Hussein, but this is the first significant offensive since the US invasion of 2003. “A land operation is a whole new level,” said the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza, adding that the incursion was “not the greatest news”.

The Turkish army is unlikely to do much damage to the PKK, which has some 2,500 fighters hidden in a mountainous area that has few roads, with snow drifts making tracks impassable.

The Turkish ground offensive was preceded by bombing. “We were certain yesterday after this bombing that a military operation would take place and we got ready for it,” said Mr Danees, adding that bombing and artillery had destroyed three bridges on the Iraq-Turkish border as well as a PKK cemetery.

Another reason why Turkey has launched its offensive now has as much to do with Turkish internal politics as it does with any threat posed by the PKK. The PKK launched a military struggle on behalf of the Kurdish minority in eastern Turkey in 1984 which lasted until the PKK’s leader Abdullah Ocalan was seized in Kenya in 1999 and later put on trial in Turkey. The PKK has been losing support ever since among the Turkish Kurds, but at the end of last year it escalated guerrilla attacks, killing some 40 Turkish soldiers.

Limited though the PKK’s military activity has been, the Turkish army has used it to bolster its waning political strength. For its part, the mildly Islamic government of Mr Erdogan is frightened of being outflanked by jingoistic nationalists supporting the military. Mr Erdogan has pointed out that previous Turkish army incursions into Kurdistan in the 1990s all failed to dislodge the PKK.

The area which the Turkish army has entered in Iraqi Kurdistan is mostly desolate, with broken terrain in which bands of guerrillas can take refuge. The PKK says it has left its former bases and broken up into small units. The main bases of the PKK are along Iraq’s border with Iran, notably in the Kandil mountains, to the south of where the Turkish troops entered. At this time of year the villagers, many of them herders and shepherds, leave their houses and live in the towns in the plain below the mountains until the snow melts.

The DNA database that will turn us into a Police State

0

Daily Mail 

We seem to be busily building the world’s first popular police state.

Opinion polls show high levels of support for identity cards, surveillance cameras, detention without trial – and now a national DNA database covering every individual, including those who have never had any dealings with the police.

Given the growing fear of crime, such attitudes are not surprising. Events in the past week have encouraged them further. Both Suffolk serial killer Steve Wright and Mark Dixie, murderer of Sally Anne Bowman, were caught largely through DNA samples. Police officers and victims’ relatives want the change. The case seems open and shut.

Britain already has the world’s largest DNA database. Anyone arrested in England and Wales is compelled to submit to a DNA swab and the record is kept whether he is convicted or not. In Scotland this rule is restricted to violent and sex offenders, and then for only three years unless an extension is applied for.

But the operation of the scheme south of the Border has led to the beginning of serious doubts. As so often with measures aimed at greater security, people are far less enthusiastic when they are affected personally.

Many entirely innocent citizens have been disturbed by the way they or their children have been registered – for life – as potential criminals. There have also been suggestions that police have abused their arrest powers to collect DNA samples.

The European Human Rights Court has been asked to rule next week on the case of two men from Sheffield who were arrested but not charged, and want their DNA records expunged.

But just because this annoying liberal court has poked its nose into our affairs, we should not necessarily dismiss these concerns.

Some types of DNA evidence have been questioned, particularly after the recent Omagh bombing trial.

Meanwhile, professional criminals are increasingly expert at destroying their own DNA traces or polluting crime scenes with false DNA trails.

It is not the magic bullet it first appeared to be.

There is another point. As the criminal justice system increasingly fails to deal with the low-level disorder that worries most people, it trumpets its rare successes in headline-making cases, such as those involving Wright and Dixie.

Yet it can be argued that old-fashioned close-to-the-ground police work might have caught these two just as quickly, if not sooner.

And – while it is essential that justice is done on such killers – the main job of the police is to prevent crime in the first place, and no DNA database can do that half as effectively as patrolling constables on foot.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty is right to be cautious before treating the entire population as suspects.

He and Home Secretary Jacqui Smith should take the same view of equally worrying plans for ID cards, and for intrusive surveillance on travellers to Europe.

We are not all guilty, and we will lose much more than we gain if we submit ourselves to Big Brother.

It’s official: Blair’s government set out to deceive us

0

The New Statesman 

In July 2003, in the week following the death of David Kelly, a reader contacted the New Statesman and suggested that the media were missing the obvious. The Commons foreign affairs committee had just cleared the government of “sexing up” the September 2002 dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction – a claim, first made by Andrew Gilligan on the BBC’s Today programme, for which Dr Kelly may or may not have been the source.

Our caller pointed out that although the Commons committee had said it was satisfied the “first” draft dossier, produced on 10 September for a meeting of the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), was the unspun work of intelligence, it had missed the true significance of a meeting the day before, chaired by Alastair Campbell.

Our caller was Chris Ames, whose name will for ever be etched on the memory of all those in government, particularly in the Foreign Office, who have resisted making public what has become known as the Williams draft (after John Williams, the Foreign Office press officer who wrote it). Using the Freedom of Information Act, Ames has doggedly pursued the evidence that he believed would show that the September dossier was the work not of intelligence experts, but of spin doctors whose intention was to “sex up” the known intelligence.

From denying that the document existed, to seeking to have it withheld because publication threatened government confidentiality, to claiming that the Williams draft was an uncommissioned activity by a bored press officer (who just happened to come up with conclusions similar to those of the JIC), the government has ducked and dived and done its utmost to obstruct Ames in his pursuit of the truth.

Now, almost five years after he first contacted us, Ames’s efforts have borne fruit. On 18 February, just two days before the deadline set by the Information Tribunal, the Foreign Office released the Williams draft.

Interpretations of its contents will differ, but on many counts the document speaks for itself. From it we learn that the draft was, without question, intended as part of a process of producing a dossier that would persuade the British people and parliament of the case for war. And, importantly, it shows us how much of the final dossier was the work of a spin doctor. Let’s not forget that the Blair government lied repeatedly about this. The draft also reveals the extent to which Williams reworded and rewrote – and occasionally invented – intelligence assessments that were later presented to the public as the work of intelligence experts and “judgements of the JIC”.

We have also learned how raw intelligence was pumped up to make a strongly worded “executive summary”. Thus, a draft report from the JIC which claimed that Iraq had “sought to develop” mobile facilities to produce a biological agent becomes, in Williams’s draft, “has developed transportable laboratories”. The strengthened Williams version fed into the 10 September dossier (still being claimed as the unspun work of intelligence) and the final document. Williams does not attempt to disguise the fact that his task is to produce a document which will persuade. Judge for yourself whether the following is driven by spin or intelligence:

The bombs that fell on Halabja that Friday morning were equipped with (what chemical?). (what does the chemical do to the body – how does it kill? Sorry to be grisly, but this will have real impact on real people, not journalists who take it as read).

As our political editor, Martin Bright, argues on page 10, the release of the Williams draft leaves no room for doubt that the Blair government set out to deceive us. Cynics may shrug. Governments lie. But the consequences of this deception have been catastrophic and tragic. The roll-call of victims runs into tens of thousands and includes that early casualty in July 2003, the government scientist whose suicide started an angry debate over whether the case for war had been “sexed up”.

Thanks to Chris Ames, we at last have an unequivocal answer. And it shames all those involved in the process.

The saints stop marching in

You can’t get to heaven,” went the old song, “in a limousine,/ ‘Cause the Lord don’t sell no gasoline.” Perhaps not, but under the last pope some felt that transport to the upper echelons of heaven was a little too swift. So many saints were created by John Paul II that it did seem as though he was running some form of celestial limo service, or “saint factory”, as others put it: 482 people were canonised and 1,338 beatified (the first stage to sainthood) by the pontiff – more than all his predecessors put together since the current procedures were laid down in 1588.

So news that Benedict XVI is to tighten the rules is to be welcomed by those who take such matters seriously. It may also be a relief, however, that the new rigour is not to be applied retrospectively. It is just possible that not all the “miracles” performed by or attributed to some saints would withstand modern scientific scrutiny.

What, say, are we to make of the Belgian shrine to the 11th-century St Godeliva? Drinking from her well is said to have a powerful, yet curiously specific, effect on sore throats. Or the 15th-century St Francis of Paola? Fame of his miracles spread in his own lifetime, yet they were occasionally of a rather prosaic nature. One involved setting a pot of broad beans boiling: handy if you’d run out of kindling, no doubt, but surely a power more appropriate to a domestic goddess than a holy man. What next – St Nigella? Not under the new rules, thank goodness.

High-tech US border surveillance

0

Washington warns that the recently-developed high-tech virtual fence on the US-Mexican border is fully prepared to tackle any form of illegal crossings.

The $20 million ‘Project 28’ features cutting-edge sensor towers and advanced mobile communications on a 45-km stretch of the southern border near Nogales, Arizona.

“I have personally witnessed the value of this system, and I have spoken directly to the Border Patrol agents … who have seen it produce actual results, in terms of identifying and allowing the apprehension of people who were illegally smuggling across the border,” said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Chertoff anticipated the high-tech surveillance equipments would finally put a stop to the highly charged political issue of immigration.

Rep. Bennie Thompson who heads the House of Representatives Homeland Security committee, however, criticized the plan for relying too much on contractors and barring Border Patrol agents from highlighting the ‘obvious flaws’.

“I would hope that they (Homeland Security officials) have learned from these mistakes,” he said.

SBB/RA

Telecoms Backing Off Illegal Wiretaps for Bush

0

Without protection against lawsuits, are the telecoms less willing to cooperate with government spying efforts?

By Mark Hosenball | Newsweek

It’s been barely a week since the Democratic-controlled Congress allowed a temporary electronic spying law to lapse. But U.S. intelligence agencies are already encountering problems maintaining and expanding vital operations, the Bush administration claims.

In a letter sent late on Friday to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Attorney General Michael Mukasey claimed that in the six days since the temporary law expired, some “partners” in intelligence operations have “reduced cooperation.” According to two government officials, who asked for anonymity when discussing sensitive material, the “partners” referred to in the letter are (unnamed) U.S. telecommunications companies, who-with administration backing-have been aggressively lobbying Congress for a controversial clause in new electronic spying legislation. The clause would effectively wipe out a series of private lawsuits seeking damages against the telecoms for their cooperation with what civil libertarians and administration critics claim was an illegal expansion of electronic spying against targets inside the U.S.-an expansion authorized by President Bush in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

In their letter, McConnell and Mukasey claim that since the so-called Protect America Act lapsed, partners “have delayed or refused compliance with our requests to initiate new surveillances of terrorist and other foreign intelligence targets under existing directives issued pursuant to the Protect America Act.”

The letter continues: “Although most partners intend to cooperate for the time being, they have expressed deep misgivings about doing so in light of the uncertainty and have indicated that they may well cease to cooperate if the uncertainty persists.”
Mukasey and McConnell say that they are currently “working to mitigate these problems and are hopeful that our efforts will be successful.” But they add that unless Congress passes a version of a new electronic surveillance bill, approved by the Senate, which includes the controversial retroactive lawsuit immunity for telecom companies, “the broader uncertainty caused” by the temporary spy law’s expiration “will persist.” The letter adds that: “This uncertainty may well continue to cause us to miss information that we otherwise would be collecting.”

The letter amounts to a stepping-up of pressure on Democrats in Congress–and in the House in particular–to pass a surveillance bill to the liking of the White House and the telecom industry.

A majority in the Senate, with the backing of Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee chair Jay Rockefeller, approved a bill which would extend many provisions of the electronic surveillance law that recently expired. That legislation, which was opposed by a small group of liberal senators, would also give the telecoms the retroactive immunity they are seeking.

The administration and the Senate majority pressured the House to go along with the Senate bill. But the House approved a version which contained additional civil-liberties protections-and omitted any retroactive immunity for the telecoms. That left Congress deadlocked; the White House has indicated President Bush will veto any version of a new surveillance law that does not include the immunity provision.

The letter from Mukasey and McConnell does not spell out precisely what kind of new intelligence operations are being thwarted because of the congressional impasse. And administration critics, including Rep. Reyes, have recently accused the administration and its supporters of exaggerating the threat to current intelligence activities caused by the congressional standoff.

Administration critics note that eavesdropping operations undertaken under the intel law which just lapsed are allowed to continue for 12 months after they were first authorized. However, administration officials claim the telecoms are nervous that the situation leaves them with insufficient protection against new private lawsuits.

In a statement released late Friday, Reyes, Rockefeller and several other Democrats lashed out at the White House’s tactics. “Further politicizing the debate, the administration today announced that they believe there have been gaps in security since the Protect America Act expired. They cannot have it both ways; if it is true that the expiration of the PAA has caused gaps in intelligence, then it was irresponsible for the President and congressional Republicans to openly oppose an extension of the law. Accordingly, they should join Democrats in extending it until we can resolve our differences.”

© 2008 Newsweek, Inc.

Laying The Groundwork For One-World Religion?

0

A diocese of the Church of England is giving an unprecedented £250,000 towards a multifaith building in which the largest amount of worship space will be reserved for Muslims.

The Guildford diocese is one of the wealthiest in the UK. The Bishop of Guildford, the Right Rev Christopher Hill, gave the £250,000 cheque yesterday to the University of Surrey for the first multifaith building of its kind in Britain.

The £6.5 million building will contain separate worship spaces for the Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Sikh communities, along with a further shared space for Buddhists and Hindus. All faiths will share the café in the basement, with a shared staircase down from the upper floors.

Converting each other will be forbidden, an insider said, but it is hoped that the different faith members will form friendships, learn to respect each other and enhance each other’s understanding.

Abdul Mateen Sansom, a Muslim chaplain, said: “As well as being a sorely needed practical solution to student needs, I believe the design and underpinning ethos of this project have potential for notable impact nationally and internationally.”

Lesley Scordellis, lead fundraiser for the centre and development manager at the University of Surrey, defended the Muslim advantage in the space allocation. “It isn’t about giving greater provision for Muslims, it is about likely numbers using it. We certainly have a strong demand for worship space from the Muslim community,” she said.

“We sit right beside Guildford Cathedral so the relative provision in the locality is very different.”

She continued: “We think it is the first of its kind. It breaks with the tradition of having a shared space for each faith. It is all in the same building but each has a completely separate space. The Jewish space has an exclusive kosher kitchen and the Muslim space has an ablutions facility. The design of the building is to facilitate the feeling that they are in one building about faith.”

The donation from the Guildford diocese has not been funded by parishioners but from an old will, the Onslow bequest, one of a number of similar “restricted” funds within the diocese that are used to finance mission projects.

Mark Rudall, a diocesan spokesman, said: “This building has been identified as a potentially highly significant mission resource in what is seen as an unusually diverse setting.”

Christopher Snowden, the university’s Vice-Chancellor, said he was “delighted” by the support from the diocese. “Local support of this nature is crucial to our fundraising.”

Bishop Hill said: “We are proud to participate in this significant venture toward world understanding here in Surrey.”

The multifaith centre is due for completion in 2010. A fundraising campaign has begun to raise the rest of the money.

CIA Waterboarding Probe Revealed By Feds

Bush White House Maintains Waterboarding Was Legal When Used

The Justice Department has opened an internal investigation into whether its top officials improperly authorized or reviewed the CIA’s use of waterboarding when interrogating terror suspects, according to documents released Friday.

The investigation was revealed at the request of Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. A Justice Department spokesman, however, said the inquiry has been ongoing for several years. Questions about waterboarding are part of a larger Justice probe of the so-called Bybee memo, wrote Marshall Jarrett, head of the department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, in a Feb. 18 letter to the two senators. “Among other issues, we are examining whether the legal advice contained in those memoranda was consistent with the professional standards that apply to Department of Justice attorneys,” Jarrett wrote. Asked for details, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said, “This is not a new investigation, but rather has been ongoing for some time.” Waterboarding involves strapping a person down and pouring water over his or her cloth-covered face to create the sensation of drowning. It has been traced back hundreds of years, to the Spanish Inquisition, and is condemned by nations around the world. Critics call it a form of torture. The memo at the heart of the internal Justice inquiry was dated Aug. 1, 2002, and written by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee for then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales. It defined torture as recognized by U.S. law as covering “only extreme acts” causing pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure. The Bush administration maintains waterboarding was legal when it was used by CIA interrogators in 2002 and 2003 on top al-Qaida detainees Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Earlier this month, CIA Director Michael Hayden said waterboarding was used, in part, because of widespread belief among U.S. intelligence officials that more catastrophic attacks were imminent. The CIA banned its personnel from using waterboarding in 2006. Attorney General Michael Mukasey has refused to publicly discuss whether waterboarding is currently legal since it is no longer used by CIA interrogators. Durbin called the internal Justice inquiry “long overdue” and noted that the U.S. government has previously prosecuted waterboarding as a war crime. “Within the question how America could come to use interrogation techniques of the Inquisition is the question how the Department of Justice could have overlooked its own precedents to authorize waterboarding,” added Whitehouse, a former federal prosecutor. He suggested “the answer was preordained and the department was driven by politics and obedience, not law and independence.” Mukasey told Congress earlier this month that he would not pursue criminal charges against CIA officials who used waterboarding after relying on Justice Department guidance that the interrogation tactic was legal. He said Friday he did not believe the Bybee memo was politically motivated. “I have no reason to believe that politics was involved in that or any other analysis,” Mukasey said.

Copyright 2008 by The Associated Press.

Who Should be on The DNA Register?

Iain Dale

Balancing the responsibilities of the State against the rights of the individual is one ofthe most difficult things for politicians to get right. The tendency is to be all in favour of civil liberties while in opposition but to revert to authoritarian type when in government. That’s certainly happened with this Labour government. And in times of threats to national security, politicians need to be quite courageous to resist all the demands to impose authoritarian measures on the populace.

The argument surrounding DNA evidence is a perfect example of the dilemmas faced. At the moment only someone interviewed by Police has their DNA taken. If they are charged it is kept on their records, but not removed if they fail to be convicted. Some argue that if the government had everyone’s DNA on record it would make the Police’s life far easier and crimes would be solved much more quickly. It’s a similar argument to ID cards.

This week European judges will consider the case of two people who were charged with a crime but never convicted who want their DNA wiped off the national database. This case has far reaching implications and could lead to more than 500,000 other people’s DNA being wiped.

This is a really difficult one for people like me who believe that the rights of the individual must be protected from the pervasive influence of the State. In theory I would support the right of the innocent individual to have their records wiped if they had been found not guilty of a crime, or not even charged. However, the real world does not operate in this way. The individual also has the right to be protected from harm by others, and it is the role of the State to introduce laws which enable that to happen.

As I understand it the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives believe that only those convicted of a crime should be on the DNA database. It’s a consistent position and easy to argue. The fact that 100,000 innocent children are on it and should never have been, 26,000 police-collected samples have been left off it and half a million entries have been misrecorded lend weight to the view that the government is incapable of managing such sensitive data.

And yet, and yet. What worries me is that sex attackers and murderers are more difficult to find without full access to DNA records. So I wonder if a messy compromise isn’t something we should be considering. My only exceptions to the “No DNA record unless charged” rule would be for people interviewed on suspicion of rape or murder. I accept that it would mean some innocent people being added to the DNA register, but it would undoubtedly reduce the time it takes the Police to solve these two heinous crimes, and therefore prevent others from taking place. Of course one can take this further and use the same argument in favour of everyone having their DNA taken, as it would then lead to other crimes being solved more quickly. I realise that. But I’m afraid that murder and rape are crimes which merit a different and stronger approach.

UPDATE: Martin corrects me in the comments: “Actually Iain you’re wrong to say:”If they are charged it is kept on their records, but not removed if they fail to be convicted.”People who are arrested but not charged remain on the DNA database.”Before 2001, the police could take DNA samples during investigations but had to destroy the samples and the records derived from them on the Database if the people concerned were acquitted or charges were not proceeded with.The law was changed in 2001 to remove this requirement, and changed again in 2004 so that DNA samples could be taken from anyone arrested for a recordable offence and detained in a police station.”http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/science-research/using-science/dna-database/So the dataabse is already being populated with the DNA of people who have never been charged just in case they later go on to commit a crime. Either they should be removed or everyone should be added.

Wikileaks and Internet Censorship

JONATHAN WERVE

Using data from the Global Integrity Index, we put a U.S. court’s recent order to block access to anti-corruption site Wikileaks.org into context. In summary: The Wikileaks.org shutdown is unheard of in the West, and has only been seen in a handful of the most repressive regimes. Good thing it doesn’t work very well.

Starting in 2007, Global Integrity added specific questions about Internet censorship to the Integrity Indicators, which are a set of 304 questions addressing the practice of anti-corruption in national governments. We have always held that a free and critical media is an essential component of good governance; adding an analysis of Internet censorship was an overdue refinement.

We asked two questions:

  1. Are Internet users prevented from reaching political material on the Internet?
  2. Are content creators prevented from posting political material to the Internet?

The results of this work are generally encouraging. In examining a diverse group of 50 countries, a majority earn a full score on both counts. Freedom of speech is a widely held right. Moreover, Internet censorship is difficult and is often ineffective in suppressing political activity. Most governments, aside from targeted libel restrictions, don’t bother regulating online political speech at all.

The Many Flavors of Internet Censorship

A few countries, however, are deeply committed to trying to make censorship work. On this list in 2007 are Algeria, China, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Russia and Thailand. Each has it’s own flavor to the repression of online speech — Internet censorship is still in an experimentation phase, and even the most aggressive approaches don’t seem to work very well.

  • Algeria has no firewalls or filters, but outlaws hosting content critical of the government, and monitors chat rooms for political speech.

  • China is home to 1.3 billion people and has a highly scalable technological approach based onextensive content filters known satirically as the Great Firewall of China. China is also uses technology to discourage content creation, deploying cute animated police characters (pictured above) to remind Internet users they are being watched.

  • Egypt has limited technical means to discourage content creation, so it relies on an old-fashioned technique — harassment, beatings and arrests. Hala Al-Masry used to publish in a blog entitled Cops Without Boundaries” until the government harassed her, “unknown people” beat her father, and she and her husband were arrested and signed a commitment to shut down the blog. Similar techniques haveshut down websites of opposition parties.

  • Kazakhstan has little Internet capacity. The government uses this to mask censorship — rather than block sites, it slows them down, frustrating the users of political content into looking elsewhere. The KNB (formerly the KGB) has a special program called Bolat, which slows down, but does not stop, access to sites of terrorist organizations. Popular opinion holds that it is used to slow opposition party sites as well.

  • Russia has a mixed bag of state persecution and neglect, allowing a rare opening for free expression in a country with highly restricted media. However, the sophistication of the attacks that do occur is frightening, with hackers singling out individual online targets. For instance, the website of Ekho Moskvy, a liberal Moscow radio station critical of the Kremlin, was brought down by a DDoS attack last year.

  • Thailand’s military junta moved aggressively to shut down message boards and the formerly-ruling party Thai Rak Thai website after taking over the country in 2006. But the junta’s censorship cops work to keep the thinnest appearance of tolerance — message boards were allowed to reopen under the condition that they did not “provoke any misunderstandings.” Message received.

So how does the United States fit into this picture? The court order that muzzled Wikileaks.org (covered here) was prompted not by the government but by a bank registered in the Cayman Islands. The bank used American courts and a compliant domain registrar to scrub the wikileaks.org URL from the Internet. It is extremely unlikely that this decision will stand up in an appeals court, but the larger point is that there is no reason this case should even be fought. Wikileaks should not need a legal team to explain to the courts that the First Amendment requires freedom of speech.

The whole event seems to encapsulate the constant criticism of governance in the United States: that the government has been captured by corporate interests, and that the world-leading rule of law and technocratic mechanisms in place can be hijacked to serve as tools for narrow, wealthy interests.

Online Censorship: Sounds good, but it never works.

While there is much diversity in the style of Internet censorship among the world’s worst offenders, one common thread unites them: Internet censorship doesn’t work. Cut off one site, and a thousand more pop up. In China, censorship online is sparking criticism that off-line censorship has rarely seen.

So Wikileaks.org went offline, but Wikileaks mirror sites hosted overseas hold the same content, and the original site is still up and running from Sweden (http://88.80.13.160) without its easier-to-type URL. As it turns out, shutting down Wikileaks-the-website has focused our attention on Wikileaks-the-idea, which is spreading at the speed of light.

Police face DNA ban

1

European judges could strip the profiles of more than half a million people from the national DNA database on privacy grounds – undermining its growing value to police as an investigative tool.

As two sex killers caught by the database were jailed for life yesterday and a senior detective joined calls for a universal register, the European Court of Human Rights will hear a case that could mean 560,000 DNA samples being destroyed. Two people charged with offences but never convicted will ask the court next week to remove their records from the database. If they succeed, 13 per cent of the 4.3 million profiles collected since 1995 would have to be destroyed.

The category of DNA profiles facing destruction has yielded vital clues in criminal cases. Official figures seen by The Times indicate that the DNA of 8,500 people never previously charged or convicted has been matched with DNA taken from crime scenes. The cases have involved about 14,000 offences including 114 murders, 55 attempted murders and 116 rapes. Europe will rule on the legality of the database as demands grow for the entire British population to be sampled after its crucial role in catching Steve Wright, the Suffolk Strangler, and Mark Dixie, the killer of Sally Anne Bowman.

Detective Superintendent Stuart Cundy, who led the investigation into Miss Bowman’s murder, said that a universal database would have caught Dixie within 24 hours of the killing. Instead he remained at large for nine months until police took a DNA swab from him after a pub fight. Dixie, 35, was jailed for life at the Old Bailey only hours after Wright, 49, was given a whole-life sentence for the murders of five Ipswich prostitutes.

Wright had been arrested after a DNA sample from one of his victim’s bodies matched the profile loaded on the database after his arrest for a minor theft.

Mr Cundy said: “I am all for a national DNA register, with all the appropriate safeguards. If there had been one at the time of Sally Anne’s murder we would have known who it was that day. It could have protected everybody else out there. For nine months between Sally Anne’s murder and the arrest one of our biggest fears and was that this man could attack again. A national DNA register could solve that.”

Richard Ottaway, Miss Bowman’s local Tory MP, said: “A universal DNA database is necessary to solve these crimes.”

The Home Office has published proposals for extending the existing database by taking samples from people detained for minor, or non-recordable offences, such as not wearing a seatbelt.

Ministers are understood to be awaiting the outcome of the European court case before deciding whether to proceed with the expansion plans.

Human rights lawyers will argue in Strasbourg that a juvenile acquitted of attempted robbery and Michael Marper, who faced charges of harassment that were later dropped, should have their profiles removed from the database. South Yorkshire police, which arrested both, has refused to destroy their records.

Peter Mahy, their solicitor, said: “This is the most important case on the human rights implication of retaining biometric data.”

He said his clients were concerned about the uses to which the samples might be put and the lack of independent oversight of the national database.

VIDEO: The REAL McCain

0

“My friends” with John McCain… starring Vicki Iseman!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI[/youtube]

AUDIO: Tony Gosling – Behind Secret Societies

0

Tony Gosling 

[audio:http://bilderberg-mirror.org.uk/wot_and_revelation.mp3 |autostart=yes]

The Hidden Agenda Behind Secret Societies

A jaw dropping presentation by Tony Gosling. Tony is a journalist and researcher coming all the way from Bristol. He is one of the UK’s leading experts on secret societies including the Bilderbergers.

We’ve all heard of the freemasons, but what are their links to the 21st Century War on Terror and Muslim terrorism? The recent Northern Rock crisis has also revealed how fragile Britain’s financial system is.

When ex-freemasons reveal the objectives, tactics and secrets of the lodge are we listening carefully enough to their warnings? What should we be doing to stop their evil plans and help to save our country.

Truly essential information that we should all know about.

US Accused of Racial Discrimination

A coalition of human rights organizations is accusing the United States of persistent and systematic racial discrimination. The U.S.- based groups have submitted a 600-page report to the 18-member U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which begins a two-day examination of the U.S. record Thursday. Lisa Schlein reports for VOA from Geneva.

Each of the 173 states that are participating in the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination has to submit periodic reports to the U.N. watchdog committee on its efforts to comply with the Convention. This is only the second time since the United States ratified the Treaty in 1994 that the committee will examine its record on human rights and race.

The U.S. government has submitted a 115-page report and sent a 25-strong high-level delegation to Geneva to defend its record.

But, a coalition of more than 250 human rights groups charges the United States has failed to live up to its obligations.

U.S. Human Rights Network Executive Director, Ajamu Baraka weighs in.

“The persistent and systematic issues of racial discrimination have not been addressed by this government,” said Baraka. “From Katrina, the ongoing crisis of Katrina in the Gulf Coast in the south, migrant rights, the ongoing police brutality, housing issues-we find that these issues have escaped the scrutiny and the readjustment by the U.S. government in their obligation to the CERD (Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination) treaty.”

Assistant Legal Adviser for Human Rights and Refugees at the U.S. Department of State, Robert Harris, does not dismiss these charges out of hand. But, he says it is hard to imagine that racial discrimination is worse now than it was 50 years ago.

“You would have to not have a very deep understanding of American history to realize how bad racial discrimination was in the United States 50 years ago,” said Harris. “And there have been big steps that have been made to address it, which is not to say that everything is perfect in the United States by any means.”

Harris says some criticisms regarding police brutality and racial profiling after the terrorist attacks on September 11 may be justified. But, he says the United States holds police who attack people without cause criminally responsible.

And, he says, the United States does not condone racial profiling and tries to eliminate it. But, he calls charges that the government engaged in ethnic cleansing in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina exaggerated to say the least.

“Whatever one thinks of the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina, no one can seriously call it ethnic cleansing,” said Harris. “When you think of the acts that actually are ethnic cleansing around the world-in the Balkans, in Sudan. I mean, what is happening in New Orleans is not that. So, I think there is a certain element of hyperbole.”

Based on previous experience, the U.S. delegation can expect some tough questioning by the 18-member U.N. Expert Committee regarding the actions Washington is taking to eliminate racial discrimination. The United States says it takes the process seriously.

Gitmo Trials Rigged from the Start?

0

By Ross Tuttle

A damning new interview reveals that the Gitmo trials are only for show.

Secret evidence. Denial of habeas corpus. Evidence obtained by waterboarding. Indefinite detention. The litany of complaints about the legal treatment of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay is long, disturbing and by now familiar. Nonetheless, a new wave of shock and criticism greeted the Pentagon’s announcement on February 11 that it was charging six Guantánamo detainees, including alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, with war crimes — and seeking the death penalty for all of them.

As the murky, quasi-legal staging of the Bush Administration’s military commissions unfolds, a key official has told The Nation that the trials are rigged from the start. According to Col. Morris Davis, former chief prosecutor for Guantánamo’s military commissions, the process has been manipulated by Administration appointees in an attempt to foreclose the possibility of acquittal.

Colonel Davis’s criticism of the commissions has been escalating since he resigned this past October, telling the

Washington Post that he had been pressured by politically appointed senior defense officials to pursue cases deemed “sexy” and of “high-interest” (such as the 9/11 cases now being pursued) in the run-up to the 2008 elections. Davis, once a staunch defender of the commissions process, elaborated on his reasons in a December 10, 2007, Los Angeles Times op-ed. “I concluded that full, fair and open trials were not possible under the current system,” he wrote. “I felt that the system had become deeply politicized and that I could no longer do my job effectively.”

Then, in an interview with The Nation in February after the six Guantánamo detainees were charged, Davis offered the most damning evidence of the military commissions’ bias — a revelation that speaks to fundamental flaws in the Bush Administration’s conduct of statecraft: its contempt for the rule of law and its pursuit of political objectives above all else.

When asked if he thought the men at Guantánamo could receive a fair trial, Davis provided the following account of an August 2005 meeting he had with Pentagon general counsel William Haynes — the man who now oversees the tribunal process for the Defense Department. “[Haynes] said these trials will be the Nuremberg of our time,” recalled Davis, referring to the Nazi tribunals in 1945, considered the model of procedural rights in the prosecution of war crimes. In response, Davis said he noted that at Nuremberg there had been some acquittals, something that had lent great credibility to the proceedings.

“I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process,” Davis continued. “At which point, [Haynes’s] eyes got wide and he said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals, we’ve got to have convictions.'”

Davis submitted his resignation on October 4, 2007, just hours after he was informed that Haynes had been put above him in the commissions’ chain of command. “Everyone has opinions,” Davis says. “But when he was put above me, his opinions became orders.”

(Reached for comment, Defense Department spokesperson Cynthia Smith said, “The Department of Defense disputes the assertions made by Colonel Davis in this statement regarding acquittals.”)

“That he said there can be no acquittals will stain the entire [tribunal] process,” says Scott Horton, who teaches law at Columbia University Law School and who has written extensively about Haynes’s conflicts with the Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) corps, the judicial arm of the Armed Forces, which is charged with implementing the military commissions. According to Horton, Haynes tried to cut the JAG corps out of internal debates over the detention and prosecution of detainees, knowing it was critical of the Administration’s views. In private memos and in public Senate testimony, high-ranking officers of the corps have repeatedly expressed concerns about the Administration’s advocacy of “extreme interrogation techniques.”

“The JAG corps consists of a group of rigorous professionals, but Haynes never trusted them to do their job,” says Horton. “His clashes have always had the same subtext — they want to be independent, he wants them to do political dirty-work.”

Haynes, a political appointee and chief legal adviser to Defense secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Robert Gates, was nominated in 2006 by the Bush Administration for a lifetime seat as a judge in the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. But his nomination never got out of committee, primarily because of the opposition of Republican Senator (and former military lawyer) Lindsey Graham and other members alarmed over Haynes’s role in writing or supervising the writing of Pentagon memos advocating the use of harsh interrogation techniques the Geneva Conventions classify as torture.

Currently, in his capacity as Pentagon general counsel, Haynes oversees both the prosecution and the defense for the commissions. “You would think a person in that position wouldn’t be favoring one side,” says Colonel Davis.

Told of Davis’s story about Haynes, Clive Stafford Smith, a defense attorney who has represented more than seventy Guantánamo clients, said, “Hearing it makes me think I’m back in Mississippi representing a black man in front of an all-white jury.”

He adds, “It confirms what people close to the system have always said,” noting that when three prosecutors — Maj. Robert Preston, Capt. John Carr and Capt. Carrie Wolf — requested to be transferred out of the Office of Military Commissions in 2004, they claimed they’d been told the process was rigged. In an e-mail to his supervisors, Preston had said that there was thin evidence against the accused. “But they were told by the chief prosecutor at the time that they didn’t need evidence to get convictions,” says Stafford Smith.

At the time, the military wrote it off as “miscommunication” and “personality conflicts.” And then there were changes in personnel. “They told us that the system had been cleaned up … but I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same,” says Stafford Smith.

The terrible irony is that even if acquittals were possible, the government has declared that it can continue to detain anyone deemed an “enemy combatant” for the duration of hostilities–no matter the outcome of a trial. And most of the 275 men held at Guantánamo are classified as “enemy combatants” while the hostilities in the “war on terror” could be never-ending.

Says ACLU staff attorney Ben Wizner, “The trial doesn’t make a difference. They can hold you there forever until they decide to let you out.” The one person to be released from Guantánamo through the judicial process, Australian David Hicks, pleaded guilty. As Wizner wrote in the Los Angeles Times in April 2007, “In an ordinary justice system, the accused must be acquitted to be released. In Guantánamo, the accused must plead guilty to be released.”

Still, the trials serve a purpose for the government, in providing the semblance of a legitimate judicial process. According to defense attorneys involved — and many of the former prosecutors, like Davis — the process is political, not legal.

“If someone was acquitted, then it would suggest we did the wrong thing in the first place. That can’t happen,” says Horton sardonically. “When the government decides to clear someone, it calls the person ‘no-longer an enemy combatant’ instead of just saying they made a mistake.”

He adds, “For people like Haynes, justice is meant to serve the party.”

Release nears for critical report on ID-cards

0

Ian Grant

The government is close to releasing a critical report about the controversial £4.3bn ID-card plan.The report, now nearly a year behind schedule, is expected to spell out the government’s options on how it can best move forward with plans to provide everyone in Britain with a universally accepted form of identity.

Gordon Brown commissioned Sir James Crosby in July 2006 to produce a report on how the government and private sector can work together on identity management. The original deadline was Easter 2007.

Crosby chairs the Public-Private Forum on Identity Management, which drew input from the City of London Police, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, HM Revenue & Customs, the Identity and Passport Service of the Home Office and the Serious Organised Crime Agency. From the private sector, the forum heard from Barclays Bank, Boots the Chemist, British Airways, Compass Group plc, Linklaters and O2. It also heard evidence from civil society organisations such as No2ID.

Its role was to review the current and emerging use of identity management in the private and public sectors and identify best practices, consider how the public and private sectors can work together, harness the best identity technology to maximise efficiency and effectiveness, and produce a preliminary report for the chancellor of the exchequer and the Ministerial Committee on identity management by Easter 2007.

It explored how the public and private sectors might converge their respective ID management programmes, how consumers could be “encouraged” to look after their data better, and any legal barriers to sharing identity information between private and public sector bodies.

Leaked Documents Spring Up Across Web

1

By Elana Schor

 The US court order shutting down the website Wikileaks today appeared to backfire on the Swiss bank that sought the legal action, as bloggers and other fans of the site gave new life to leaked documents the bank was working to suppress.

    In addition to international Wikileaks versions that were unaffected by the shutdown order, “mirror” copies of the website sprouted like weeds thanks to supporters of its mission. Run anonymously, Wikileaks aims to publish sensitive documents that often prove incriminating for governments and corporations.

    Swiss-based Bank Julius Baer obtained the order on Friday to stop Wikileaks from disseminating internal company documents that purported to show the bank’s Cayman Islands branch involved in money laundering and tax evasion.

    But the overwhelming online response to Wikileaks’s demise made the bank – and the documents themselves – the talk of the internet.

    “Clearly, the court and Bank Julius Baer underestimated the ingenuity of the web development community,” the whistleblower protection group Project on Government Oversight wrote on its blog.

    David Ardia, director of the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard University, said the situation had “gone 180 degrees wrong for the bank”.

    “What this is done is, it’s really struck a chord for publishers, both online and offline,” Ardia said. “If a federal judge in California can, on the arguments of one party, order that an entire website be taken down, that’s a very scary proposition. What if these documents weren’t on Wikileaks [but] they were on YouTube, MySpace or Facebook?”

    US district court judge Jeffrey White, appointed in 2002 by George Bush, ordered the San Francisco-based web server for Wikileaks to block the domain name during an “ex parte” hearing, with the website not represented by counsel. The web server company, Dynadot, said today that it is remaining neutral on the bank’s lawsuit.

    “However, if Julius Baer is concerned with the posting of its confidential documents on the wikileaks.org web site, it could have sought a more narrow remedy than seeking to have the entire wikileaks.org web site shut down,” Kathryn Chow-Han, in-house counsel for Dynadot, said in a statement.

    The next hearing in the case is scheduled for February 29, although Ardia said Wikileaks could move for an earlier court date after presenting new legal representation. The bank has retained Los Angeles lawyers Lavely & Singer, the favourite firm for celebrities aiming to quash publication of unwelcome photographs.

Troops accused of Iraq ‘executions’

0

Up to 20 Iraqi civilians may have been executed by British troops in southern Iraq, it has been claimed.

Lawyers published a dossier of evidence from men taken captive after a gun battle near the southern Iraqi town of Majat-al-Kabir in May 2004, which also suggested prisoners were tortured and mutilated by UK military.

The allegations were first reported within weeks of the incident, known as the Battle of Danny Boy after a checkpoint where it took place, but lawyers for five Iraqis have issued detailed witness statements, photographs of corpses and death certificates of the men who died.

The claims – which the Ministry of Defence (MoD) strongly denies – are among the most serious yet levelled against British soldiers who served in Iraq.

Solicitor Phil Shiner said of the dossier: “We would be very surprised if it did not shock the nation.”

However, a spokesman for the BBC’s Panorama programme, which has spent a year examining the claims, said the evidence did not prove Iraqis had died at the hands of British captors, but that prisoners may have been “mistreated”.

Lawyers Mr Shiner and Martyn Day suggested that prisoners captured after the three-hour gun battle may have been taken to a British base at Abu Naji and killed.

Detailed witness statements from the five men – Hussein Jabbari Ali, Hussain Fadhil Abass, Atiyah Sayid Abdelreza, Madhi Jassim Abdullah and Ahmad Jabber Ahmood – described what they heard while in detention, when they were cuffed and forced to wear blacked-out goggles.

The statements described how they heard other men screaming, moaning in pain and choking and also the sound of gunfire.

The lawyers are bringing a damages claim in the UK courts, and say the five witnesses are labourers who have lived all their lives in Majar and had “absolutely nothing” to do with the insurgent Mehdi army, which engaged British troops at the Battle of Danny Boy.

Indonesia accuses US of bird flu plot

0

Mark Forbes

THE Indonesian Health Minister has said the United States and the World Health Organisation are part of a global conspiracy to profit from the spread of bird flu and the US may use samples to produce biological weapons.

The views of Dr Siti Fadilah Supari, outlined in her new book, threaten to undermine efforts to control the spread of avian influenza. With 104 deaths, nearly half the world total, Indonesia is the new hotspot for the virus.

Despite claims by the minister that she has agreed to share virus samples and allow all nations access to resulting vaccines, Indonesia is still blocking sharing samples from human victims.

Applications to send more than 200 samples from chickens to an Australian laboratory had also been refused, inquiries by the Herald have revealed.

In the book, Dr Supari writes that WHO laboratories forwarded influenza viruses to Western companies so they could profit by selling vaccines back to developing countries: “The system of world health management has been very exploitative. It has been controlled by inhumanly desires, based on the greediness to raise capital and to control the world.”

Some Indonesian samples had been sent to a US Defence Department laboratory, Dr Supari says, adding that “some of our seed viruses had been in a laboratory known as a facility developing biological weapons in a superpower country”.

Privately, officials said Dr Supari’s belief that she was engaged on a God-driven crusade against an evil and “neo-colonialist” world health system – on the book’s cover she describes herself as the “divine hand behind avian influenza” – had caused her to lose touch with reality.

The President, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, appears to have endorsed the book, having written its introduction.

Dr Yudhoyono supports Dr Supari’s claim that the virus is under control in Indonesia, stating the “occurrence rate and the number of affected areas are decreasing”.

The WHO declined to comment and no US officials were available.

Clintons to face fraud trial

2

Judge setting date, testimony to include ex-president, senator

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons — Bill, Hillary and Chelsea — along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul’s team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons’ longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul’s Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons’ legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Paul claims Rendell directed various illegal contributions to the DNC and Hillary Clinton’s campaign and failed to report to the Federal Election Commission more than $100,000 given for a Hollywood event for Gore’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee in 2000. McAuliffe, Paul says, counseled him in two separate meetings to become a major donor to Hillary Clinton to pave the way to hire her husband. Paul asserts top Clinton adviser Harold Ickes also directed him to give money to the Senate campaign but hid that fact in “perjured testimony” during the trial of campaign finance director David Rosen.

Rosen was acquitted in 2005 for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in a conciliation agreement that fined the campaign 35,000. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton’s campaign and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the Federal Election Commission.

Rosen, accused of concealing Paul’s in-kind contribution of more than $1 million, was acquitted, but Paul contends the Clinton staffer was a scapegoat. Paul points out chief Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson told the Washington Post he was aware of the donation, yet he never was called as a witness in the Rosen trial.

Paul contends his case will expose “the institutional culture of corruption embraced by the Clinton leadership of the Democratic Party,” which seeks to attain “unaccountable power for the Clintons at the expense of the rule of law and respect for the constitutional processes of government.”

The complaint asserts Clinton has filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul’s donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.

“Why wouldn’t that cause someone to inquire?” Paul asked. “Especially since it was days after she said she wouldn’t take any more money from me.”

Paul has the support of a new grass-roots political action group that is helping garner the assistance of one of the nation’s top lawyers

Republican activist Rod Martin says his group plans to highlight Paul’s case as it launches an organization based on the business model of the left-wing MoveOn.org but rooted in the principles and political philosophy of former President Reagan.

Martin’s group also is assisting in Paul’s complaint to the FEC asserting that unless the agency sets aside the conciliation agreement and rescinds immunity granted the senator, it will “have aided and abetted in the commission” of a felony.

Paul’s case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate “home movies” of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period.

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Oil, Gas and the New World Order

Large Potential Albanian Oil and Gas Discovery Underscores Kosovo’s Importance

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

On January 10, Swiss-based Manas Petroleum Corporation broke the news. Gustavson Associates LLC’s Resource Evaluation identified large prospects of oil and gas reserves in Albania, close to Kosovo. They’re in areas called blocks A, B, C, D and E, encompassing about 780,000 acres along the northwest to southeast “trending (geological) fold belt of northwestern Albania.”

Assigned estimates of the find (so far unproved) are up to 2.987 billion barrels of oil and 3.014 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. However, because of their depth, oil deposits may be capped with a layer of gas. If so, Gustavson calculates the potential to be 1.4 billion barrels of light oil and up to 15 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Further, if only gas is present, the discovery may be as much as 28 trillion cubic feet. In any case, if estimates prove out, it’s a sizable find.

In its statement, Gustavson reported: “The probability of success for a wildcat well in a structurally complex area such as this is relatively high (because) it is in a structurally favorable area (and) proven hydrocarbon source and analogous production exists only 20 to 30 kilometers away.”

Currently, the Balkans region has small proved oil reserves of about 345 million barrels, of which an estimated 198 million barrels are in Albania. Proved natural gas reserves are much larger at around 2.7 trillion cubic feet.

In December 2007, Albania’s Council of Ministers allowed DWM Petroleum, AG, a Manas subsidiary, to assist in the exploration, development and production of Albania’s oil and gas reserves in conjunction with the government’s Agency of Natural Resources.

This development further underscores Kosovo’s importance and the cost that’s meant for Serbia. Since the 1999 US-led NATO war, it’s been all downhill for the nation, the region and its people:

Kosovo is part of Serbia; at least it was; since 1999 it’s been a Washington-NATO occupied colony stripped of its sovereignty in violation of international law;

it’s been run by three successive US-installed puppet Prime Ministers with known ties to organized crime and drugs trafficking;

it’s the home of one of America’s largest military bases in the world, Camp Bondsteel; the province/country is more a US military base than a legitimate political entity;

its part of Washington’s regional strategic objective to control and transport Central Asia’s vast oil and gas reserves to selected markets, primarily in the West;

on February 17 during a special parliamentary session, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence; the action violates international law; Kosovo is as much part of Serbia as Illinois is one of America’s 50 states; to no surprise, Washington and dominant western countries support it; opposed are Serbia, Russia, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Slovakia, Malta, Bulgaria, Romania and Cyprus;

might makes right; the issue is a fait accompli; the February 17 declaration ignores EU division pitting one-third of its 27 members in opposition; and

unilateral western-supported independence mocks the 1999 UN Security Council Resolution 1244; it only permits Kosovo’s self-government as a Serbian province; the resolution recognizes the “sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;” only a new UN resolution in compliance with international law can change that legally; nonetheless, it happened anyway on another historic day of infamy when Washington again trashed international law and the rules and norms of civil society.

Stop The War – Mass Demo 15 March

Stop the War: a mass movement to celebrate and defend

Socialist Worker

The 15 February 2003 demonstration reminds us of the strength of the anti-war movement and shows the importance of the upcoming 15 March protest, writes Andrew Burgin

The fifth anniversary of the great anti-war march of 15 February 2003 was celebrated by the anti-war movement last week, as a high point of a truly unique mass movement that brought millions of people into political activity and ultimately led to the downfall of Tony Blair.

The anniversary was also marked by the mass media — which gave a somewhat mixed appraisal of the day.

One has to admire the Guardian newspaper for its chutzpah — on the anniversary the paper devoted a section of its editorial in praise of the march.

Not mentioned was the paper’s own support for the Iraq war nor its previous editorial position of not covering marches at all.

Nevertheless times change and now not only is the march to be considered as a wonderful event but we were also treated in the same edition to a long article on the march from quirky Guardian journalist, John Harris.

That the Guardian devoted a substantial section of their G2 supplement to the march is to be applauded and it is always good to see the photographs of the march — they show the incredible size and breadth of the anti-war movement that is difficult to express in words alone.

The article itself is a different matter. The main question Harris asks about the march is rather bizarre. He says, “Britain had never before seen a public outcry like it. So why haven’t we seen one again since?”

He states that the march and the movement which built it “failed to develop into anything with real political oomph”.

Effects

You don’t have to agree completely with former Chinese prime minister Zhou Enlai — who when asked in the 1970s to comment on the effects of the French Revolution, said that it was “too early to tell” — to believe that the effects of the largest demonstration in many hundreds of years of British political history may still be playing itself out.

After all British and US troops remain in Iraq and are now even more heavily engaged in Afghanistan than they were in 2003.

Harris rips the march from the movement which created it and tears it from what came before and what came after.

Rather than 15 February 2003 being seen as the high point in a long campaign against the “war on terror” Harris reduces the march to an isolated event which fell into the laps of the organisers by chance.

The organisers, he says, soon managed to whittle away this with “crushingly unimaginative tactics”. Presumably he means by this more marches.

Contrast this with Tony Benn’s approach — “The Stop the War movement is the most powerful and influential popular political movement of my lifetime and possibly of any period of our history.”

It is not a question of the honour of the movement or a question of defending the role of the SWP, which is criticised in the article, in building the anti-war movement, but the necessity of recognising the historic importance of this campaign — a campaign which still has some way to travel.

The marches are the backbone of our movement but they represent only a small part of our day to day activity.

Later this month the Stop the War Coalitions begins a series of nationwide rallies with Hassan Jumaa of the Iraqi oil workers’ union. We have worked closely with the Military Families Against the War campaign to support their demand for a public inquiry.

We have held a series of international peace conferences which have brought activists from across the world together to campaign against the “war on terror”.

There have been days of action against Islamophobia, in defence of civil liberties and opposing an attack on Iran. We have worked with artists and others to create events and exhibitions opposing the war.

And there has been much more — not least a campaign of direct action including sit-downs, banner drops and strikes and school walk-outs.

Lies and deceit

Where John Harris does hit the mark is in his account of the gap between the politicians (those who began the war) and the people (those who opposed it) and who exposed the lies and deceit that were used to promote it.

This week the government was forced to reveal the first draft of the “dodgy dossier” — and we will see the full extent of the “sexing up” of the intelligence by Tony Blair and Alistair Campbell.

We are in the middle of a long campaign to bring these politicians to account and to bring all the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan.

This is why we make no apology for calling for people to work as hard as possible to build the international day of action and the London and Glasgow demonstrations on Saturday 15 March.

The movement remains mobilised.

How the C.I.A. Played Dirty Tricks With Culture

0

By LAURENCE ZUCKERMAN
New York Times

Many people remember reading George Orwell’s ”Animal Farm” in high school or college, with its chilling finale in which the farm animals looked back and forth at the tyrannical pigs and the exploitative human farmers but found it ”impossible to say which was which.”

That ending was altered in the 1955 animated version, which removed the humans, leaving only the nasty pigs. Another example of Hollywood butchering great literature? Yes, but in this case the film’s secret producer was the Central Intelligence Agency.

The C.I.A., it seems, was worried that the public might be too influenced by Orwell’s pox-on-both-their-houses critique of the capitalist humans and Communist pigs. So after his death in 1950, agents were dispatched (by none other than E. Howard Hunt, later of Watergate fame) to buy the film rights to ”Animal Farm” from his widow to make its message more overtly anti-Communist.

Rewriting the end of ”Animal Farm” is just one example of the often absurd lengths to which the C.I.A. went, as recounted in a new book, ”The Cultural Cold War: The C.I.A. and the World of Arts and Letters” (The New Press) by Frances Stonor Saunders, a British journalist. Published in Britain last summer, the book will appear here next month.

Much of what Ms. Stonor Saunders writes about, including the C.I.A.’s covert sponsorship of the Paris-based Congress for Cultural Freedom and the British opinion magazine Encounter, was exposed in the late 1960’s, generating a wave of indignation. But by combing through archives and unpublished manuscripts and interviewing several of the principal actors, Ms. Stonor Saunders has uncovered many new details and gives the most comprehensive account yet of the agency’s activities between 1947 and 1967.

This picture of the C.I.A.’s secret war of ideas has cameo appearances by scores of intellectual celebrities like the critics Dwight Macdonald and Lionel Trilling, the poets Ted Hughes and Derek Walcott and the novelists James Michener and Mary McCarthy, all of whom directly or indirectly benefited from the C.I.A.’s largesse. There are also bundles of cash that were funneled through C.I.A. fronts and several hilarious schemes that resemble a ”Spy vs. Spy” cartoon more than a serious defense against Communism. Traveling first class all the way, the C.I.A. and its counterparts in other Western European nations sponsored art exhibitions, intellectual conferences, concerts and magazines to press their larger anti-Soviet agenda. Ms. Stonor Saunders provides ample evidence, for example, that the editors at Encounter and other agency-sponsored magazines were ordered not to publish articles directly critical of Washington’s foreign policy. She also shows how the C.I.A. bankrolled some of the earliest exhibitions of Abstract Expressionist painting outside of the United States to counter the Socialist Realism being advanced by Moscow.

In one memorable episode, the British Foreign Office subsidized the distribution of 50,000 copies of ”Darkness at Noon,” Arthur Koestler’s anti-Communist classic. But at the same time, the French Communist Party ordered its operatives to buy up every copy of the book. Koestler received a windfall in royalties courtesy of his Communist adversaries.

As it turns out, ”Animal Farm” was not the only instance of the C.I.A.’s dabbling in Hollywood. Ms. Stonor Saunders reports that one operative who was a producer and talent agent slipped affluent-looking African-Americans into several films as extras to try to counter Soviet criticism of the American race problem.

The agency also changed the ending of the movie version of ”1984,” disregarding Orwell’s specific instructions that the story not be altered. In the book, the protagonist, Winston Smith, is entirely defeated by the nightmarish totalitarian regime. In the very last line, Orwell writes of Winston, ”He loved Big Brother.” In the movie, Winston and his lover, Julia, are gunned down after Winston defiantly shouts: ”Down with Big Brother!”

Such changes came from the agency’s obsession with snuffing out a notion then popular among many European intellectuals: that East and West were morally equivalent. But instead of illustrating the differences between the two competing systems by taking the high road, the agency justified its covert activities by referring to the unethical tactics of the Soviets.

”If the other side can use ideas that are camouflaged as being local rather than Soviet-supported or -stimulated, then we ought to be able to use ideas camouflaged as local ideas,” Tom Braden, who ran the C.I.A.’s covert cultural division in the early 1950’s, explained years later. (In one of the book’s many amusing codas, Mr. Braden goes on in the 1980’s to become the leftist foil to Patrick Buchanan on the CNN program ”Crossfire.”)

The cultural cold war began in postwar Europe, with the fraying of the wartime alliance between Washington and Moscow. Officials in the West believed they had to counter Soviet propaganda and undermine the wide sympathy for Communism in France and Italy.

An odd alliance was struck between the C.I.A. leaders, most of them wealthy Ivy League veterans of the wartime Office of Strategic Services and a corps of largely Jewish ex-Communists who had broken with Moscow to become virulently anti-Communist. Acting as intermediaries between the agency and the intellectual community were three colorful agents who included Vladimir Nabokov’s much less talented cousin, Nicholas, a composer.

The C.I.A. recognized from the beginning that it could not openly sponsor artists and intellectuals in Europe because there was so much anti-American feeling there. Instead, it decided to woo intellectuals out of the Soviet orbit by secretly promoting a non-Communist left of democratic socialists disillusioned with Moscow.

Ms. Stonor Saunders describes how the C.I.A. cleverly skimmed hundreds of millions of dollars from the Marshall Plan to finance its activities, funneling the money through fake philanthropies it created or real ones like the Ford Foundation.

”We couldn’t spend it all,” Gilbert Greenway, a former C.I.A. agent, recalled. ”There were no limits, and nobody had to account for it. It was amazing.”

When some of the C.I.A.’s activities were exposed in the late 1960’s, many artists and intellectuals claimed ignorance. But Ms. Stonor Saunders makes a strong case that several people, including the philosopher Isaiah Berlin and the poet Stephen Spender, who was co-editor of Encounter, knew about the C.I.A.’s role.

”She has made it very difficult now to deny that some of these things happened,” said Norman Birnbaum, a professor at the Georgetown University Law School who was a university professor in Europe in the 1950’s and early 1960’s. ”And she has placed a lot of people living and dead in embarrassing situations.”

Still unresolved is what impact the campaign had and whether it was worth it. Some of the participants, like Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., who was in the O.S.S. and knew about some of the C.I.A.’s cultural activities, argue that the agency’s role was benign, even necessary. Compared with the coups the C.I.A. sponsored in Guatemala, Iran and elsewhere, he said, its support of the arts was some of its best work. ”It enabled people to publish what they already believed,” he added. ”It didn’t change anyone’s course of action or thought.”

But Diana Josselson, whose husband, Michael, ran the Congress for Cultural Freedom, told Ms. Stonor Saunders that there were real human costs among those around the world who innocently cooperated with the agency’s front organizations only to be tarred with a C.I.A. affiliation when the truth came out. The author and other critics argue that by using government money covertly to promote such American ideals as democracy and freedom of expression, the agency ultimately stepped on its own message.

”Obviously it was an error, and a rather serious error, to allow intellectuals to be subsidized by the government,” said Alan Brinkley, a history professor at Columbia University. ”And when it was revealed, it did undermine their credibility seriously.”

Ex-spy chief denies group killed Diana

1

ASSOCIATED PRESS

The former head of MI6 denied yesterday that the British intelligence agency killed Princess Diana and her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, in 1997.

Sir Richard Dearlove, who was MI6’s director of special operations at the time of Diana’s death in Paris, told a coroner’s inquest that MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service, didn’t assassinate anyone between 1994 and 1999, when he was director.

He also denied that MI6 mounted any operations against her or Fayed, including surveillance or bugging.

Dearlove also testified that an operation by rogue agents would have been impossible.

Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed, has accused MI6 of engineering the death of his son and the princess at the behest of Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizabeth II.

As director of special operations, Dearlove said it was his responsibility to sign off on any operation that would otherwise be illegal. The operation would then have to be approved by the foreign secretary, a senior member of the government.

Al Fayed’s assertion that Philip directed MI6 was “utterly ridiculous,” Dearlove said. There was no formal relationship between the agency and the prince, although Philip had visited the agency with the queen, he said.

US judge blocks CIA flight case

0

BBC

A US judge has dismissed a case alleging that a subsidiary of Boeing illegally helped the CIA fly terror suspects abroad on rendition flights.

The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case against Jeppesen Dataplan, saying it “falsified flight plans… to avoid public scrutiny”.

But a San Francisco judge halted the case, as the CIA director had urged.

“The very subject matter of this case is a state secret,” Judge James Ware wrote in a ruling.

CIA director Michael Hayden had earlier urged the judge to dismiss the case because he said that covert operations overseas could be exposed.

CIA flights

ACLU brought the case on behalf of five men who alleged the CIA had flown them to foreign prisons, where they were interrogated and tortured.

The plaintiffs were an Ethiopian living in the UK, an Italian working in Pakistan, an Egyptian citizen living in Sweden, a Yemeni, and an Iraqi who was a British resident.

The lawsuit against Jeppesen had claimed the services they provided were crucial to the flights.

However, Jeppesen had said it could not confirm if it was involved with the flights.

A report approved by a European Parliament committee last year said more than 1,000 covert CIA flights had crossed European airspace or stopped at European airports in the four years after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

Jeppesen’s participation allegedly included securing necessary landing and overflight permits for the flights between the US, Pakistan, Ireland, Cyprus, Morocco, and Afghanistan.

CIA Flights Landed on British Island

0

CIA And Britain Admit U.S. Rendition Flights Used British Territory In 2002

Reversing an earlier claim, the CIA has acknowledged that two U.S. rendition flights carrying two alleged terrorists refueled on a U.S. base in British territory in 2002. CIA Director Michael Hayden told agency employees in a message on Thursday that information previously provided to Britain that no such flights used British airspace or soil since the 9/11 attacks turned out to be wrong.Britain has confirmed the acknowledgement, as British Foreign Secretary David Miliband made a similar statement in the parliament on Thursday.

“Contrary to earlier explicit assurances that Diego Garcia had not been used for rendition flights, recent U.S. investigations have now revealed that this had in fact occurred on two occasions, both in 2002,” Miliband told the House of Lords.

“In both cases a U.S. plane with a single detainee on board refueled at the U.S. facility in Diego Garcia,” he added.

Hayden said a review of the rendition records late last year found that the refueling, conducted more than five years ago, lasted just a short time.

“We found this mistake ourselves, and that we brought it to the attention of the British government. An important part of intelligence work, inherently urgent, complex, and uncertain, is to take responsibility for errors and to learn from them,” the AP quoted Hayden as saying.

One of the prisoners was ultimately jailed at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and the other was released to his home country, Hayden revealed in the message. He insisted that neither of them was tortured and denied there has ever been a holding facility for CIA prisoners on Diego Garcia, a British island territory in the Indian Ocean.

Source

Israel is stealing Palestinian land, private or not

0

By Amira Hass

Not long ago the greengrocer in Ramallah recalled – between weighing locally grown zucchini and stripped hyssop leaves – that his family owns the land on which the gas station at the old entrance to the Jewish settlement of Beit El in the West Bank is located. He would not be surprised by the figure that the Peace Now movement has succeeded in officially extracting from the defense establishment, after more than a year of fighting for the freedom of information: About one-third of the Jewish settlements in the West Bank (44 out of 120) were built on privately owned Palestinian land that was seized, by means of confiscation orders, for “security needs.”

From the data it emerges that at least 19 of the 44 settlements were built on private land, even after prime minister Menachem Begin decided in 1979 that the construction and expansion of settlements would take place only on state-owned land.

Peace Now has revealed here another act of hypocrisy, even though the Supreme Court is no longer impressed even by this: It did, after all, legitimize the construction of the settlement of Matityahu on land owned by inhabitants of Bil’in.

The known fact that settlements are built on private Palestinian lands combines all too well with the general civic and institutional Israeli perception to the effect that Palestinian lands that are not privately owned, or that lack proof of private ownership, belong to the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora.

Under the Israeli approach, which has expanded further since the Oslo Accords, any land that is not private was and remains suitable for Israeli development – for the benefit of the Jewish citizens of the state and for those who have the right to immigrate to Israel under the Law of Return. These are exactly the lands that constitute a considerable part of Area C (which is under Israeli military and administrative responsibility, and holds 60 percent of the area of the West Bank) and prohibited for any Palestinian development. It is on these lands, which are denominated “state lands,” that two-thirds of the settlements are built. No less illegally.

The discussion of whether West Bank lands are privately owned or not reverberates far more loudly than the discussion of Israel’s takeover of the Palestinian expanse by means of the closure policy. For example, since February 5, the army has once again severed the towns of the northern West Bank from the rest of the territory by means of roadblocks, and has forbidden males between the ages of 16 and 35 from leaving their towns. The media don’t report on this.

The discussion of private land reverberates well in the Israeli (and American) media because of the exaggerated sanctification of private property. And now, Peace Now must correct its initial report of October 2006, in which it was stated that 86 percent of the area of Ma’aleh Adumim is private Palestinian land. It emerges that only .05 percent of Ma’aleh Adumim is private land.

Nonetheless, this non-ideological Jewish settlement is among the most damaging to the Palestinians, and it reinforces the regime of apartheid roads: It cuts the northern part of the West Bank off from the southern part, and prevents Palestinian territorial contiguity. The road that leads to Ma’aleh Adumim will soon be closed to Palestinians, who will be diverted to a separate, narrow and winding road. This Jewish settlement has caused the banishment of many Bedouin from their lands and their ways of life. Together with the adjacent Jewish settlements and the separation barrier, it has taken over lands that had served the Palestinian towns and villages in the area, their natural reserve for development and expansion.

And so what if this is land that was not registered as private? Because of this robbery, these villages and towns have become crowded, choking neighborhoods that are cut off from the larger expanse.

The extensive work that Peace Now has invested in exposing the private ownership of lands is a mirror image of the extensive and systematic effort of Civil Administration experts to prevent inhabitants of the villages from cultivating their lands beyond the separation barrier. They measure out for each individual his part in an inheritance and in accordance with this, they allot him the hours during which he may pass through the gate to harvest olives or to plow the land. They prevent shared cultivation of the land and calculate which of the siblings in a family is abroad so that, heaven forfend, his share of the land will not be cultivated by others.

All of this is a preliminary step to expropriate land that remains “without owners” and its transformation in the future into state land – that is, Jews’ land.

The exaggerated concentration on private ownership feeds into the Israeli denial of the fact that the Palestinians’ right is to all of the territory that has been occupied. Not as private individuals, but rather because they constitute an indigenous national group in this land.

UK in Israel WMD cover up

1

Independent Online

An early draft of a pre-war British weapons dossier on Iraq included concerns over Israel’s nuclear capability, but the government fought to suppress the reference before publication, The Guardian reported on Thursday.

The newspaper said the Foreign Office convinced a tribunal to keep secret the handwritten mention of Israel in the margin of the dossier, which was drawn up to justify going to war in Iraq.

The reference, suggesting Israel had disregarded the will of the United Nations (UN) like Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, was removed before the draft was released this week under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act.

Israel, seen as a key British government ally, is thought to have the Middle East’s only atomic arsenal.

In a witness statement to the Information Tribunal, seen by The Guardian, a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official warned that any candid reference to Israel would seriously damage bilateral relations.

“I interpret this note to indicate that the person who wrote it believes that Israel has flouted the United Nations’ authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein,” the official said, according to The Guardian.

“Unfortunately, there is a perception already in Israel that parts of the FCO are prejudiced against the country,” Foreign Office official Neil Wigan was quoted as saying.

He argued that the reference scrawled on the draft dossier “would therefore confirm this pre-existing suspicion and would increase the damage”.

Asked about the Guardian report, a Foreign Office spokesperson said: “We don’t comment on leaked documents.”

Succumbing to three years of pressure from freedom of information campaigners, the British government released the once-secret draft document on Monday.

The 32-page document, written by a former director of communications at the Foreign Office, cites intelligence sources to state that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and could easily use them since it had done so before.

The document, amended in the margins, makes no mention of Saddam Hussein being capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a false claim later used in another government dossier to make the case for going to war.

Has Homeland Security Gone Too Far with Surveillance?

2

Dell Key loggers

Normally, I’m all for what Uncle Sam needs to do in order to maintain National Security … so long as it doesn’t go too far. The question is, with this story in Hack N Mod, has Uncle Sam (and Dell Computers) gone a bridge too far in surveilling America?

Big Brother is indeed watching you, my friends … One man found a keylogger connected to the integrated Ethernet board of his Dell PC.

The story goes on to state that Dell gave him a nondescript reply and after consulting local law enforcement, he made a FOIA request regarding it. The reply is interesting, but may not be the entire story. Not everything is black helicopters and wiretaps.

On it’s face, it appears that Dell Computer may be participating in a felony by installing hardware keyloggers in their Dell Laptops. However, there are some real world applications for a hardware keylogger … such as information security on business laptops and backup potential in the event of a catastrophic software or hard drive failure. And one comfort is that according Keyghost, the makers of the keylogger, only an administrator can access the log, which only records up to 128,000 characters. Then there’s the deterrant capability that if employees know that a keylogger is installed on their business computers, they won’t use those computers for unauthorized or nefarious uses.

It could be a mistake of distribution, or deliberate design meant to accommodate their business customers. But if Dell is installing these in all their laptops and not advising their customers with an option to have it removed, then perhaps they are indeed violating a customer’s rights.

Copyright 2005-2008 Sagecroft Technologies

Assembly says no to ID card proposals

0

The London Assembly has called on the Government to abandon controversial plans to introduce ID cards and instead spend London’s share of the costs of the proposed scheme on tackling crime.

Jenny Jones AM, who proposed the motion, said:

“If the ID card scheme goes ahead it will lead to the creation of a massive database full of personal data and biometric information. There have been several incidents lately where public sector organisations have lost or misplaced huge amounts of personal data, making the information contained in an ID card database an accident waiting to happen. The money would be far better spent reducing crime in the capital.”

Bob Blackman AM, who seconded the motion, said:

“The proposals for ID cards are intrusive and serve no purpose beyond making people more vulnerable to having their personal data lost, sold or abused. If this type of comprehensive personal information were to fall into the wrong hands — which is a real possibility — it would be the average person who has done nothing wrong who would suffer most.”

The motion in full reads as follows:

“This Assembly expresses its alarm over recent government failures to protect the personal data of citizens, including many Londoners, and over major failures with government computer systems. It considers that these failures demonstrate further the huge risks of introducing a National ID Register, involving a massive accumulation of personal information, together with biometric ID cards.

The Assembly calls on the government to recognise these risks and abandon its proposals, including the introduction of ID cards by coercion as part of the passport and driving licence application process. It reiterates its call to government to redirect London’s share of the cost of the scheme to effective crime prevention and policing measures.”

New database increases power of surveillance

0

More than half the population supports the Government’s controversial identity card scheme, according to a survey for the Home Office.

Sixty-one per cent of people agree strongly or slightly with the £5.75 billion scheme, with 20 per cent disagreeing strongly or slightly. The number of people unhappy with the project because they believe it would infringe their personal freedom has fallen.

More than 2,000 people over 16 were interviewed. The researchers found that the number of people who believe that the scheme will prevent illegal immigration has jumped from 23 per cent to 32 per cent. Just 16 per cent of people believe it will prevent fraud.

The research, the most recent available, was carried out before HM Revenue and Customs lost two CDs containing the personal details of 25 million people.

The scheme is one of three huge projects that will allow the Government to keep a closer check on citizens. The national identity register will contain individuals’ full names, other names by which they have been known, date of birth, place of birth, gender, the address of principal residence in the United Kingdom and the address of every other place in Britain or elsewhere where they have a place of residence and nationality. A separate database will contain fingerprints and a person’s photograph.

Two national databases are also underway: the NHS Care Records Service and the Children’s Database.

Connecting for Health will involve uploading medical records for more than 50 million patients on to an online database, allowing information to be shared among health care professionals. The NHS Care Records Service will contain a limited amount of essential information that can be combined with locally held care information. Patients will mostly be identified by summary care records containing only a few personal details. Their full medical history will only be available to doctors involved in their treatment using chip-and-PIN cards, which require a six-digit code to access some parts of the system.

In September a national children’s database is due to be set up containing the details of every child in England and Wales. Ministers say that details on all families are needed so that children’s services can contact one another. Details held will include names, addresses, schools, GP details, and other services involving each child.

Town hall officials, charity workers and even careers advisers will have access to the database, along with doctors, social workers and teachers.

The decision to set up the database was made after the inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbié in 2000, which uncovered communication problems between schools, social workers and GPs.

Existing databases hold huge amounts of information on citizens. One of the biggest is the Department for Work and Pensions customer information system, which holds about 85 million records, including the personal details of anyone with a national insurance number. It has the full income and personal details of anyone in receipt of benefits, including 11.5 million with state pensions, 2.65 million on incapacity benefits and 4 million who claim either pension credit or income support.

A database at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency holds the names, addresses, driving licence and vehicle details of 42 million drivers.

The Passport Agency has the records of 80 million passports issued, including the 47 million that are currently valid. It holds names, addresses, date and place of birth of applicants.

Revenue & Customs holds the names and addresses of six million people who make tax credit claims, the names, addresses and national insurance and salary details of the 30.5 million people who pay income tax and the details of 25 million people who receive child benefit.

Losing streak

September 2007 GMRC lost a CD with national insurance and pension details of 15,000 people
October Laptop containing data on 2,000 ISA-holders stolen
November Two CDs with details of 25 million people lost in post
December Four CDs with court case details missing; laptop with data of 60,000 people stolen from Citizens Advice Bureau; details of three million learner-drivers lost; data on 6,500 pension-holders lost
January 2008 Laptop containing details of 600,000 people stolen; details of 1,500 students lost

Source: Times database

9 Secrets Health Insurers Don’t Want You to Know

1

They make it hard to get the money you’re entitled to. Here’s how to get them to pay.

by Suz Redfearn

Health insurance companies like to keep secrets. And they like to save money. Example: You have surgery, and weeks later you get a bill for using an out-of-network anesthesiologist. Ridiculous, right? You didn’t choose who put you under, so you shouldn’t have to pay extra. But your insurer sent the bill anyway, hoping you wouldn’t notice.

Fighting back against this kind of trickery–and winning–is a lot easier than you think, says Kevin Flynn, president of Healthcare Advocates, a Philadelphia-based firm that helps patients wrangle with their health plans. We checked with Flynn and other insurance-industry insiders, lawyers, doctors, and regulators to uncover nine little-known ways to get the health coverage you deserve–for less.

Don’t pay if you don’t have a say.
When you purposely see an out-of-network doctor, your plan usually makes it clear that it’ll cost you. But when you have surgery, the hospital chooses the anesthesiologist. If you get that annoying “out-of-network” bill, Flynn says, draft a strongly worded letter stating you had no say about the anesthesiologist–in-network or otherwise–and, therefore, won’t pay any additional fees. “If you don’t have direct control, you are not liable,” Flynn says, adding that this tack is likely to work every time, but few consumers know about it.

You may be eligible for more coverage.
Depending on your state, you could be eligible for more benefits than your plan is telling you about. Take Maryland, for instance. Health plans operating there must pay for expensive infertility coverage. But one state over, in Virginia, they don’t. It’s unlikely that your plan is trumpeting info about state-mandated coverage, though. It’s up to you to get the scoop. One good place to check is Families USA (www.familiesusa.org), a consumer group that keeps tabs on state rules, suggests Kevin Lembo, Connecticut’s official health care advocate for consumers. Another option: Contact your state’s insurance commissioner.

To get tested, talk up your symptoms.
Your insurer doesn’t want to pay for a colonoscopy if it’s not necessary. But if your best friend is diagnosed with colon cancer and you want the $675 test to put your mind at ease, here’s how to get one covered: Mention to your doctor that you’ve had some blood in your stool and a lot of gas lately–or simply that your bowel habits have changed. Your plan has to pay for the test if you have gastro complaints, health experts say. (Only 21 states require insurers to cover colonoscopies for general screening.)

Stall first, answer questions later.
When Wendy Decenzo became pregnant with twins, she wasn’t worried about health insurance. Her husband, Chris, had made sure to get a health plan that covered pregnancy well before they started trying. But when Wendy began going for prenatal visits, coverage was denied. Their plan, Blue Cross of California, wouldn’t say why. Instead, the insurer asked the Decenzos to sign release forms allowing the plan to view their medical histories, which the law says are private.

Chris believes the company was looking for any info that the Decenzos may have accidentally omitted when they applied for coverage. If an omission were found, the couple might have been denied coverage. “It seemed like a fishing expedition in order to deny us,” Chris says. So they refused to sign, and three months later the plan started paying for the prenatal appointments, even going back and paying for earlier visits that hadn’t been covered. Flynn says lots of insurers try this trick, but since their review process usually lasts only 60 to 90 days, they often drop the inquiry after that. Sometimes, procrastination pays.

Letters are your best bet.
It may seem a bit inconvenient, but the old-fashioned letter is by far the best way to communicate with your health plan. “Don’t do anything over the phone. It takes forever and when you’re done there’s no record of it, so it didn’t happen,” says Rhonda Orin, a Washington, D.C.—based attorney and author of Making Them Pay: How to Get the Most From Health Insurance and Managed Care.

Letters almost always get a response, adds Lembo, the Connecticut health care advocate. Some plans will answer e-mail, but many won’t. And to whom, exactly, should you address your mail? Experts recommend following your plan’s appeal process for letters and sending copies to your state insurance commissioner. Also, keep copies of every letter you’ve sent your plan and everything they’ve sent back. That way, when your insurer says, “We never said we’d cover that,” you can say, “I have it right here in writing.”

Doctors can be good weapons.
You just got four massage sessions, under doctor’s orders, for lower-back pain–but your insurer refuses to pay for them? Ask your doctor for help. He can tell the insurer he’s going to complain to the state board that regulates health plans.

“Health plans may not fear you, but they do respect the board,” says James Moss, a retired Kentucky surgeon. He intervened on a patient’s behalf and, by pressuring the board, helped the patient win coverage. Another option: Say you’ll call your congressman and/or state Medicare office to lodge a formal complaint, Moss says.

Caveat: Don’t actually contact your state board yourself if a claim is denied. Janice Weiss, a Jupiter, Florida—based attorney who fights health plans for consumers, says some of her clients who went this route ended up hurting their cases when the state agency ruled their claims invalid; that left them little recourse with their insurance companies. Instead, while working your plan’s appeals process, just suggest you may take the matter to your state.

A little research can go a long way.
If you want a special CT scan or MRI, your doc probably won’t authorize it unless it’s an absolute must. Persuade her with expert info from the American College of Radiology’s Appropriateness Criteria, says Anne Roberts, executive vice chair of the department of radiology at the University of California, San Diego. Used primarily by doctors but open to the public, it’s an up-to-date list of the types of imaging that are right for various conditions (Click here for a link to the radiology site.) Arming yourself with the info doesn’t guarantee coverage, but it’s a proactive step in the right direction.

There are ways to get drugs cheaper.
Doctors are often wowed by the latest and greatest drugs, which tend to be the most expensive. Make sure these newer, high-end meds are what you need before you leave the doctor’s office. Sometimes your insurance plan won’t pay for them at all; other times it’ll charge higher co-pays. In many cases, drugs have generic versions that are just as effective but cheaper than the newer ones. Always ask your doc (or the pharmacist) for generics. And if you really need a medicine that doesn’t have a generic version, order it by mail. Many plans have a less-expensive mail-order pharmacy option. Another prescription trick for people who have chronic conditions like allergies: Ask your doc to write you a prescription for two or three months’ worth of medication instead of one. Goodbye, extra co-pays.

An advocate can help you win.
Imagine being turned down for coverage after running up $125,000 in medical bills. That’s what happened to the parents of a daughter with anorexia just before they sought help from Kevin Flynn, of Healthcare Advocates. For $400, he took over the fight with their insurer and–after a year’s worth of combat–won.

Flynn is a patient advocate, part of a growing industry that makes its money from helping you. Some advo-cates help you interact with your doctor, while others specialize in insurance disputes. Most of all, firms like Flynn’s keep the letters going out on your behalf, saving you time, energy, and headaches. “The insurers know that advocates know the laws, the regulations–things a regular consumer might not know. That makes them nervous,” Flynn says.

Advocates can even get policies changed. One of Flynn’s clients, who had rectal cancer, was having trouble getting his insurance plan to pay for a new radiation therapy. The insurer claimed the treatment wasn’t ready for prime time, but Flynn found six studies showing its usefulness for the disease, got the coverage–and got the insurer to rewrite its policy.

To find an advocate, contact the Patient Advocate Foundation, says Laura Weil, interim director of Sarah Lawrence College’s Health Advocacy Program. Another helpful resource is the Society for Healthcare Consumer Advocacy. Also try checking with the medical association for a particular condition, like the Multiple Myeloma Association or the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders; many of these groups keep lists of advocates. See the links below for help:

Patientadvocate.org

SHCA_AHA.org

National Institutes of Health

Anad.org

Senate Gives Telecoms Immunity For Illegal Spying

0

Senate Passes Bill to Expand U.S. Spying Powers

The Senate rejected a series of amendments that would have restricted the government’s surveillance powers and eliminated immunity for the phone carriers, and it voted in convincing fashion – 69 to 29 – to end debate and bring the issue to a final vote. That vote on the overall billwas an almost identical 68 to 29.

The House has already rejected the idea of immunity for the phone companies, and Democratic leaders reacted angrily to the Senate vote. But Congressional officials said it appeared that the House would ultimately be forced to accept some sort of legal protection for the phone carriers in negotiations between the two chambers this week.

The Senate debate amounted to a proxy vote not only on the president’s warrantless wiretapping program, but also on a range of other issues that tested the president’s wartime authority, from secret detentions to wiretapping issues. The discussion in effect presaged the debate over national security that will play out this year in the presidential and congressional elections.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, who spoke on the Senate floor for more than 20 hours in an unsuccessful effort to stall the wiretapping bill, said the vote would be remembered by future generations as a test of whether the country heeds “the rule of law or the rule of men.”

But with Democrats defecting to the White House plan, he acknowledged that the national security issue had won the day in the Senate, even among many of his Democratic colleagues. “Unfortunately, those who are advocating this notion that you have to give up liberties to be more secure are apparently prevailing,” Mr. Dodd said. “They’re convincing people that we’re at risk either politically, or at risk as a nation.”

With resistance led by Mr. Dodd and Senators Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, critics of the administration’s plan argued that it effectively rewarded phone companies by providing them with legal insulation for actions that violated longstanding law and their own fiduciary responsibilities to their customers. Immunity would protect the phone companies from some 40 lawsuits now pending that charge the firms broke the law by taking part in the program.

But supporters of the plan said the phone carriers acted out of patriotism after the Sept. 11 attacks in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president. Republicans were able to garner the support of 19 Democrats and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut. Democratic leaders charged that the tactics the Republicans used smacked of fear-mongering.

“This, I believe, is the right way to go for the security of the nation,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who leads the intelligence committee and who was a pivotal supporter of the White House-backed plan approved Tuesday.

Beyond the immunity provision, the Senate measure would also widen the executive branch’s surveillance powers by allowing the National Security Agency and intelligence agencies to use broad orders – without getting court orders in advance – to eavesdrop on groups of overseas targets, rather than using individualized warrants.

BUSH REGIME BUILDING CONCENTRATION CAMPS

Rule by fear or rule by law?

“The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”

– Winston Churchill, Nov. 21, 1943

Lewis Seiler,Dan Hamburg

Since 9/11, and seemingly without the notice of most Americans, the federal government has assumed the authority to institute martial law, arrest a wide swath of dissidents (citizen and noncitizen alike), and detain people without legal or constitutional recourse in the event of “an emergency influx of immigrants in the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs.”

Beginning in 1999, the government has entered into a series of single-bid contracts with Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR) to build detention camps at undisclosed locations within the United States. The government has also contracted with several companies to build thousands of railcars, some reportedly equipped with shackles, ostensibly to transport detainees.

According to diplomat and author Peter Dale Scott, the KBR contract is part of a Homeland Security plan titled ENDGAME, which sets as its goal the removal of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.”

Fraud-busters such as Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, have complained about these contracts, saying that more taxpayer dollars should not go to taxpayer-gouging Halliburton. But the real question is: What kind of “new programs” require the construction and refurbishment of detention facilities in nearly every state of the union with the capacity to house perhaps millions of people?

Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. For the first time in more than a century, the president is now authorized to use the military in response to “a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, a terrorist attack or any other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order.”

The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies. The law calls for secret trials for citizens and noncitizens alike.

Also in 2007, the White House quietly issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD-51), to ensure “continuity of government” in the event of what the document vaguely calls a “catastrophic emergency.” Should the president determine that such an emergency has occurred, he and he alone is empowered to do whatever he deems necessary to ensure “continuity of government.” This could include everything from canceling elections to suspending the Constitution to launching a nuclear attack. Congress has yet to hold a single hearing on NSPD-51.

U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Venice (Los Angeles County) has come up with a new way to expand the domestic “war on terror.” Her Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007 (HR1955), which passed the House by the lopsided vote of 404-6, would set up a commission to “examine and report upon the facts and causes” of so-called violent radicalism and extremist ideology, then make legislative recommendations on combatting it.

According to commentary in the Baltimore Sun, Rep. Harman and her colleagues from both sides of the aisle believe the country faces a native brand of terrorism, and needs a commission with sweeping investigative power to combat it.

A clue as to where Harman’s commission might be aiming is the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a law that labels those who “engage in sit-ins, civil disobedience, trespass, or any other crime in the name of animal rights” as terrorists. Other groups in the crosshairs could be anti-abortion protesters, anti-tax agitators, immigration activists, environmentalists, peace demonstrators, Second Amendment rights supporters … the list goes on and on. According to author Naomi Wolf, the National Counterterrorism Center holds the names of roughly 775,000 “terror suspects” with the number increasing by 20,000 per month.

What could the government be contemplating that leads it to make contingency plans to detain without recourse millions of its own citizens?

The Constitution does not allow the executive to have unchecked power under any circumstances. The people must not allow the president to use the war on terrorism to rule by fear instead of by law.

Lewis Seiler is the president of Voice of the Environment, Inc. Dan Hamburg, a former congressman, is executive director.

President Bush is guilty of terrorism

0

 
Keith Olbermann MSNBC commentator

Keith Olbermann a MSNBC commentator has declared that President Bush is guilty of terrorism because of his warrentless eavesdropping program.

The Senate-passed eavesdropping measure unlike the earlier House-passed bill gives telecommunications company’s protection from privacy lawsuits for helping Bush conduct wiretapping without court warrants after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In a scathing commentary against President George W. Bush, MSNBC commentator Keith Olbermann declared Bush guilty of terrorism for playing what he sees as the fear card in an attempt to get the House to pass retroactive immunity for telecommunication companies that illegally helped the US government in its warrantless wiretapping program Thursday evening.

“You are a liar, Mr. Bush, and after showing some skill at it, you have ceased to even be a very good liar,” Keith Olbermann declared.

“The lot of you,” he said, speaking of those who sought to pass immunity, “are the symbolic descendants of the despotic middle managers of some banana republic, to whom ‘Freedom’ is an ironic brand name, a word you reach for, when you want to get away with its opposite.” Keith Olbermann added.

He also called Bush a fascist,

“If you believe in the seamless mutuality of government and big business – come out and say it!” he said. “There is a dictionary definition, one word that describes that toxic blend. You’re a fascist – get them to print you a T-shirt with “fascist” on it! What else is this but fascism?”

SG/HAR

Family wants answers to CIA agent’s mysterious death

1

Too many secrets: Family wants answers to CIA agent’s mysterious 1982 death
By KIM BRIGGEMAN of the Missoulian

Kent (Dan) Daniels holds a photograph of his brother Jerry Daniels at the gravesite in the Missoula Cemetery where a casket said to hold the remains of Jerry is buried. “It would be great to see inside that coffin,” says Daniels, hoping that an exhumation would answer some of the questions surrounding his brother’s death.
Photo by KURT WILSON/Missoulian

Jerry Daniels sightings pop up all around the globe. He’s been seen in London and Spain, in a bar in Whitefish and in Akron, Ohio.Most often he’s spotted in Southeast Asia, where the man known as “Hog” and “Mr. Jerry” worked for the Central Intelligence Agency during and after the Vietnam War.

His love for and allegiance to the Hmong of northern Laos is woven like golden thread throughout that people’s history of the past five decades.

“Basically, wherever Hmong are living, someone will say, ‘So-and-so saw Jerry,’ ” said Gayle Morrison, a California author who’s writing a book on Daniels’ life. “But no one I’ve talked to actually saw him.”That could be because Daniels has been officially dead and buried in the Missoula Cemetery for more than 25 years now.

According to records, he died on April 28, 1982, of carbon monoxide poisoning from a leaky propane water heater at his apartment in Bangkok, Thailand, where he worked as an ethnic affairs officer for the U.S. State Department.

The body wasn’t found for three days, which sets off the first alarm for Jerry’s brothers.

“He doesn’t show up for work for three days and no one comes looking for him?” wonders Kent (Dan) Daniels of Florence.

Because of decomposition issues, Daniels’ casket was ordered sealed after transport home to Missoula for burial.

Speculation about his “accidental” death has whirled ever since the chilly Saturday in May of 1982 when the plane carrying his casket taxied into the Missoula airport.

“Inside the terminal, Hmong eyes watched the proceedings on the tarmac,” wrote Jane Hamilton-Merritt in her 1993 book “Tragic Mountains: The Hmong, the Americans, and the Secret Wars for Laos, 1942-1992.” “Many did not want to believe Jerry Daniels was dead. They wanted to believe he was needed on another intelligence assignment and his ‘death’ in Bangkok was only a cover.”

The Hmong whispered among themselves that the coffin was too small to hold Daniels, Hamilton-Merritt reported. “Maybe he was not dead after all.”

The Hmong, most of whom had been approved by Daniels to resettle in Montana from Thai refugee camps, weren’t the only ones with suspicions.

State Department officials accompanied the body off the plane, and later the CIA helped guard the coffin.

“They stayed with it, under orders, until it was placed in the ground, so we never saw the body,” recalled Ted Lympus, a close friend of Daniels since high school. “There was some real question.”

Lympus, now a district judge in Kalispell, said he and others still doubt the official version of Daniels’ death.

“We were never satisfied that we’d been told the real cause, because no one was ever allowed to look at the remains,” he said.

This much is certain: Jerry Daniels lives on as a hero to many who knew him or know his story. In the eyes of his Hmong friends, he toes the line between legend and deity. But there were plenty of people in Southeast Asia in 1982 who would have just as soon seen Daniels dead.

And so the questions surrounding his death buzz on, among friends, family, old smokejumper colleagues and Hmong.

“I look at things scientifically,” his brother Jack Daniels said on the phone last week from Flagstaff, Ariz. “There’s either a body in that casket or there isn’t. If there’s a body, it’s his or it’s not. If it’s his, how did he die? Is there a bullet hole in the skull?”

Like Jack, Dan Daniels is ready for some answers.

“It would be great to see inside that coffin,” he said at his home in Florence recently.

A long-haul truck driver, state champion skeet shooter, and former high school wrestler for Jug Beck’s Missoula Spartans in the 1950s, Dan was two years older and at least 50 pounds heavier than Jerry, who went on “health kicks” when he edged up close to 160 pounds.

That’s why Dan’s radar went up when he heard the description of his little brother’s body.

“Jerry was supposed to look like a 300-pound black gentleman,” he said. “Jerry was only about 5-8, or something.”

Jack Daniels said the faulty water heater that caused Jerry’s demise was in the bathroom, which separated Jerry’s bedroom from another.

The American embassy official who described the circumstances to Jack said Jerry was found dead on his bed, his blood either

93 percent or 97 percent saturated with carbon monoxide.

“That’s really high,” said Jack, 74, a University of Montana graduate who is recognized as one of the world’s top distance running coaches. “My Ph.D. is in physiology, and I’ve done some work in lung function, and gases and things like that. I tell you what, if you get carbon monoxide in your system, you’re not in good shape.”

So he finds it strange, he said, that an unidentified male who was found in the other bedroom was unconscious but still breathing. When he was taken to the hospital, Jack said, the man bolted and was never found.

“To this day, I have a real bad time dealing with that,” he said.

Jack visited Jerry in Bangkok a couple of years before his death, and his mother, Louise, was there just a couple of months prior. Lympus, who was the Flathead County attorney at the time, said he had them describe the layout of the apartment to the state medical examiner.

“There was something about the apartments of Bangkok that there was a space under the door that was open four or five inches,” Lympus said. “Jerry was found dead on the bed, on the second floor, and from where the water heater was, (the examiner) said there’s no way the gas would have got that high in the room. It would have gone under the door and down the stairs, because it’s heavier than air.”

The idea of taking a look inside Jerry Daniels’ casket has been kicked around for years, by family, friends and former colleagues who knew what Daniels had gotten himself into in Laos.

He was the CIA’s personal case officer for Gen. Vang Pao, and the two of them helped direct Hmong troops in their resistance against communist forces both inside the country and from neighboring North Vietnam.

The “secret war” ended disastrously for the Hmong, many of whom fled the country after it fell in May of 1975, weeks after Saigon collapsed in South Vietnam.

Daniels orchestrated the evacuation of 2,500 people from Long Cheng, their base of operations in the hills of northern Laos. Once the refugees were in Thailand, it fell upon Daniels to screen them for resettlement to the United States, based in part on their loyalty to Vang Pao’s anti-communist cause.

Many of the Hmong, including Vang Pao for a time, wound up in the Missoula area, and to this day the region has a vibrant Hmong community.

Vang Pao subsequently moved to Southern California, where he was arrested last June and charged in federal court with plotting to overthrow the Laotian government. The 78-year-old general is currently under relaxed house arrest while awaiting trial in Sacramento.

Any number of alternate scenarios have been posed to explain Daniels’ death. They range from suicide to murder (by an array of suspects) to death by yellow rain to no death at all.

Hamilton-Merritt wrote in “Tragic Mountain” that when Daniels and friend Toby Scott were in their 20s, they made a pact to jump from the Higgins Avenue Bridge in Missoula when they reached 40.

It was not a suicide pact, she explained, “but rather a ‘marker’ on the lives and achievements of two young men determined to live life to the fullest.”

Ten years or so later, Daniels wrote to Scott and recommended they move the jump date to age 50. He was six weeks from his 41st birthday when he died in Thailand, but few who knew Daniels give credence to the suicide theory.

There’s no doubt he was in danger from those who took control of governments in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, to whom the Hmong and the U.S. were the enemy.

“I know VP and Jerry both had $10,000 rewards on their melons from the communists,” brother Dan said.

His fluency in the Hmong language and intimate knowledge of the people and their loyalties made Daniels uniquely qualified for his post-war job in Thailand. He spent his last seven years deciding who qualified for resettlement and who didn’t.

On occasional trips home, and in frequent letters to Louise and Jack, Daniels characterized the job as rewarding and challenging. It was also extremely dangerous.

“I remember him saying, ‘I’m pissing off about 1,000 people a day or a week, I don’t know which, making these decisions,’ ” Lympus said.

Meanwhile, the explosive issue of the United States’ use of chemical agents in Southeast Asia was becoming front-page news.

“Jerry was a well-known disbeliever of ‘yellow rain’ and was outspoken about it, according to several jumpers,” wrote Fred Donner, a retired Defense Intelligence Agency officer who knew Daniels when both were young smokejumpers based out of Missoula in the late 1950s.

Perhaps, some speculate, that got him into trouble with his own government.

Mary Ellen Stubb, sextant at the Missoula Cemetery, rustled through the files to find the Jerry Daniels folder a couple of weeks ago.

She produced one piece of paper. Under the letterhead of the now defunct Mountain View Cemetery, 3035 Russell St., are scribbled heavily underlined words: “Sealed casket – hermetically sealed – sealed Forever – not to be opened.”

An accompanying fax from the American Embassy in Bangkok notes, “Thai mortuary officials have informed us that the embalmment of the remains are (sic) not expected to be completely satisfactory. Remains are in an advanced state of decomposition. Container seals should be carefully examined.”

It was not uncommon for caskets in the Vietnam area to be accompanied by a “sealed forever” command due to decomposition issues. Sealed “order” or not, the next of kin have a legal right to open the lid.

Louise Daniels, who died in 1996, worked with the Hmong in Montana for years as part of the International Rescue Committee. She was not interested in an exhumation, her sons say.

Out of respect for her wishes, the idea wasn’t seriously discussed while she was alive.

Even today, the youngest of her three surviving sons doesn’t like the idea.

“I don’t believe in doing it, no,” said Alan Daniels, a military veteran and custodian at the University of Montana. “My mother wouldn’t want it done, so that’s my deal. I’m one of these people who abide by his mother’s wishes.”

Stubb said there is perhaps one exhumation a year at the Missoula Cemetery. It requires a $5 to $10 permit from the health department and another $1,260 cemetery fee.

A more prohibitive expense, however, is the forensics testing, DNA or otherwise. Though the state crime lab is less than a mile from the Missoula Cemetery, it can’t conduct forensics testing unless submitted by law enforcement.

Lympus looked into hiring a private lab a few years back. He was told the cost of disinterment and DNA testing could climb as high as $10,000.

“That’s not cheap,” Jack Daniels said. “That’s kind of been the one thing that’s prevented us from really getting serious about it in the past.”

At one time, both Jack and Louise were in touch with H. Ross Perot, the Texas billionaire and former presidential candidate.

“He called my mother two or three times, and I ended up talking to him for a half-hour about this one time,” Jack said. “We thought maybe he’d pay for the whole thing. But Louise was still alive at that time, and we just kind of dropped it.”

Not long ago, Dan looked into selling a conservation easement on the 160 acres he owns in the mountains near Ovando. Though he could have reaped $80,000, he said, he shied away after seeing the pages of restrictions he would face.

So the casket of Jerry Daniels will remain underground for now. The questions still buzz above.

“It would be fun to put some closure on this thing,” said Jack. “If there were a way to exhume the body, get it tested and prove that it’s Jerry, and prove he died of carbon monoxide poisoning, there’s nothing more I can do. That would kind of end it as far as I’m concerned.

“The older I get, the more I worry about it getting done.”

Reporter Kim Briggeman can be reached at 523-5266 or at kbriggeman@missoulian.com

Hmong allies considered Jerry Daniels a hero

The image smacks of Montana: Jerry Daniels is astride a leaping bull in the hot summer sun. Cheering onlookers are dwarfed by jagged mountains.

But this is December and those spectators wear battle gear. The bull is a Lao buffalo, and the mountains look down on a military stronghold in northern Laos.

As the story goes, it wasn’t Daniels’ finest moment. The man who came of age in Helmville and Missoula was unseated in a buck or two at the impromptu rodeo in the early 1970s.

Another American named Shep, who like Daniels had done some rodeoing back in the States, stayed on for three or four jumps. Daniels was devastated he’d been bettered.

Jerry Daniels was nuts. He made irreverence into an artform. He was a hard drinker who delighted in showing his Hmong friends how to have a good time.

Daniels, say those who knew him, was also as honest as the Vietnam War was long, unbelievably dedicated to his mother Louise and the Hmong he fought alongside, and perfect for the CIA.

“I would say he was a hero. He accomplished a whole lot more than I ever did,” said his brother, Jack, who has been called the world’s top distance running coach.

Jack Daniels won medals at both the 1956 and 1960 Olympic Games in the modern pentathlon.

“But that’s nothing compared to what Jerry did, I don’t think,” he said. “And he did it for such a long time. He was so committed to it.”

They called it Sky, the American base of operations for the secret war in Laos in the 1960s and 1970s.

“You ask what is Sky? Well, Jerry Daniels was Sky,” a Hmong officer says in the opening lines of the book, “Sky Is Falling.”

“He was raised in Montana, ‘Big Sky Country.’ Jerry was the adviser for the secret operation based in Long Cheng, Laos. So he named the American headquarters the Sky compound,” Nhia Vang (code name “Judy”) told author Gayle Morrison.

Daniels, who died mysteriously in Thailand in 1982 while working for the U.S. State Department, worked hand in hand with Gen. Vang Pao and his guerrilla army of Hmong against the Viet Cong and Pathet Lao.

Morrison, who published “Sky Is Falling” in 1999 and dedicated it to the memory of Jerry “Hog” Daniels, has since been working on a biography of Daniels.

“I’m now marching into year 11 on it. I have 41 chapters that I’m looking at scattered across the floor,” Morrison sighed last week from her home in Santa Ana, Calif.

“Sky Is Falling” told the stories of dozens of people who were in Laos the two weeks before it fell to the communists in May of 1975. Daniels and Vang Pao orchestrated the air evacuations of some 2,500 Hmong officers and their families from Long Cheng.

“Long Cheng,” wrote Morrison, “is a secluded, impossibly distant, wild and beautiful valley cut deeply into the rugged karst mountains of northern Laos.”

It was in that setting, as well as refugee camps in Thailand, that the man from Montana helped shape history.

It’s a story Montana should know.

After Jerry Daniels died, his family was beckoned to CIA headquarters in Washington, D.C. There they accepted three of the four top medals the CIA has to give.

Jack Daniels, Jerry’s oldest brother, has a photo of the family and CIA director William Casey, who has an arm hooked in Jack’s.

He said it was the only recognition that Jerry ever existed, let alone worked for the U.S. government for more than half his life. The date on one of the awards, Jack said, was “quite a few years before Jerry died. I don’t even think he knew about it.”

The family left with the request not to display the plaques for “a certain number of years. I can’t remember how many,” Jack said.

“Jerry Daniels has never been given the credit he deserves,” said Mary Ellen Stubb of Missoula. “He saved hundreds of lives and, because of the situation, he was shoved under the carpet. It was a story not to be spoken of. I think he needs some recognition for his accomplishments.”

As sextant of the Missoula Cemetery, Stubb first heard of Daniels’ heroics in 2004. One of his former smokejumper colleagues visited Daniels’ grave and talked about his life. Stubb coordinates the cemetery’s annual Stories and Stones tour, when live folks tell tales of dead ones at Halloween time. She wanted to learn more.

She located Todd Brandoff, a Vietnam veteran from Lolo who has forged friendships with some of the Hmong elders in Missoula and became acquainted with Daniels’ work through them. Brandoff and Lue Yang of Missoula, the interpretative liaison between Vang Pao and Daniels in Laos, presented the story at the cemetery in 2006.

Daniels, said Brandoff, “was there when history was made – a very, very important player in a war. Then he was a very important player in saving probably over a thousand lives after the evacuation by helping people establish their identities and flee from (Southeast Asia).”

Jerry Daniels was born in Palo Alto, Calif., in 1941, the fourth son of Bob and Louise Daniels. He was about 10 when the family moved from California to Helmville, where his parents ran a restaurant for a time and Bob had the Blackfoot telephone exchange.

The family moved to Missoula in the mid-1950s, though they’ve always maintained connections with the upper Blackfoot Valley, where Louise inherited a piece of land at Tupper Lake near Ovando.

Jerry embraced the outdoors, spending hours tromping the hills and fishing the rivers of his home state with his brothers and pals. At barely 17, he fudged his age on an application and became one of the youngest smokejumpers on record in Missoula.

Daniels graduated from Missoula County High School in 1959, and within a year was launched on his spectacular career, starting out as a “cargo kicker” for the CIA in Southeast Asia.

Bob Daniels died in 1971 and his oldest son, Ron (known as Dan), was killed in a car wreck a few years later near Missoula. Louise visited Jerry several times in Southeast Asia. She became involved locally with the refugee settlement program and was a warm friend to the displaced Hmong whom Jerry helped relocate here in the 1970s and 1980s.

Louise passed away in 1996, leaving three surviving sons – Jack, Kent (Dan) and Alan. Jack heads the running program at the Center for High Altitude Training at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. Kent and Alan both live in the Missoula area.

“Jerry just did weird, funny things. He’d come up with oddball names,” Kent recalled.

A cat in Helmville, for no discernible reason, was instantly “Roseliff.” A bad odor smelled “like karap.” Anything big was “elephant.”

As boys, Kent and Jerry were in a crawlspace under their military strip home in Kennewick, Wash., when Kent picked up something that turned out to be a light switch for an automobile.

“Give me that truckgutt,” Jerry demanded.

“I’m like, ‘Where’d that come from?’ ” Kent said, chuckling at the memory.

At Missoula County High School in the 1950s, you didn’t curse, he said. But Jerry had a way around that. He changed a pet nickname, Farthog, to Farretthoag. The abbreviated form, Hoag, turned back into Hog when Jerry got to Laos. “Hog” was his code name at Sky.

Jack Daniels and his wife visited his brother in Thailand a few years before Jerry’s death.

Jerry took them into a holding camp, where there were hundreds of Hmong who had already been cleared to immigrate to the United States.

“The moment we sat foot inside that place, he was just mobbed,” Daniels said. “They thought so highly of him and assumed there was nothing he couldn’t do for them.”

Alas, that wasn’t true. Potential refugees to America had to be screened for health reasons and for political reasons, Jack said. “He was the guy who took care of them in the political arena.”

The Hmong’s complex family structure recognized children when the United States government didn’t.

“When we went into that holding camp,” said Jack, “the main concern of the Hmong who came up to him was, ‘I’ve got children out there, please get them. They’re out there. I’m already in the camp.’ ”

Jerry was offered chickens and trinkets and money.

“He was constantly being confronted with requests to get relatives into the United States with them,” said Jack.

Though Daniels was born in California, “he was an exemplary Montanan,” Morrison said. “The unique set of skills that he had learned as a smokejumper and as an avid woodsman were exactly what the CIA was looking for so they could send him and others into a really ugly, hostile terrain and environment and know they were going to survive.”

He was, said Morrison, “the right guy in the right place at the right time – and he recognized it. He was a unique guy, really dedicated to what he was doing. He felt it was right.”

Daniels had planned to retire to Montana any number of times before his death.

“But he was just continually tapped on the shoulder to stay another six months, stay another year,” said Morrison.

He had less than a year to go when he died.

“I know he was very, very, very much looking forward to it,” Morrison said. “He was so close to retiring and coming back home to Missoula. To end up coming home in a box, that’s the saddest thing of all.”

Court says no to CSIS wiretaps overseas

1

In a judgment made public late Friday, a Federal Court judge denied a request from Canada’s spy agency to conduct electronic intercepts on 10 suspects outside Canada.The Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) was permitted to investigate the suspects – nine of whom are Canadian citizens, permanent residents or refugees – inside Canada but the Federal Court judgment denied its request to pursue the suspects through electronic surveillance when they left Canadian shores.

“I find that the court is without the jurisdiction to issue the warrant sought. Accordingly, the application will be dismissed,” Justice Edmond Blanchard wrote in the judgment.

The ruling stated that the Federal Court was not able to authorize the warrants sought for investigative activities to be conducted by agents for CSIS in a country other than Canada.

“I am not persuaded that in the national security context, the practice of intelligence gathering operations in foreign states is recognized as a customary practice in international law,” wrote Justice Blanchard.

CSIS will reportedly not appeal the decision.

Uncovering the truth about CIA torture tapes

0

Congress must remedy its abysmal record of investigating the Bush administration on prisoner abuse and torture.

By Anthony D. Romero

It’s now a matter of public record: the Central Intelligence Agency has tortured detainees held in U.S. custody.

In the past week, the Bush administration announced that it is seeking the death penalty for six men allegedly involved with the 9/11 terrorist attacks; evidence against them was gathered through coercive, brutal interrogation tactics — including waterboarding. Only days earlier, CIA director Michael Hayden publicly defended the government’s use of this abhorrent practice, while both the White House and the director of national intelligence agreed that further use of waterboarding is acceptable if the president and attorney general approve.

It has been known for months that the CIA destroyed videotapes depicting its so-called enhanced interrogations of two al-Qaida suspects. With the government’s latest disclosures, we now know that those two detainees were waterboarded, as the tapes might have revealed. The tapes’ destruction potentially constitutes the crime of obstruction. By destroying them the CIA also disregarded a request from the 9/11 Commission for documentation that could provide information about the 9/11 attacks, and it appears to have flouted court orders — one of which was issued in response to the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit demanding information about the United States’ treatment of detainees overseas. The ACLU has asked that the CIA be held in contempt for violating the judge’s order by destroying the tapes.

Both Congress and the Justice Department have taken on the necessary task of investigating the tapes’ destruction. Unfortunately, Congress’ oversight record concerning the Bush administration’s abuses of power has been abysmal. The Justice Department’s investigation is also problematic. It is neither independent nor objective, and its scope, which fails to include the potential criminality of the underlying acts depicted on the tapes, is too narrow. A special counsel is urgently needed, now more than ever.

Not just activists and pundits feel that way. According to a recent Mellman Group survey commissioned by the ACLU, Americans of all political stripes overwhelmingly support the appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate both the destruction of the CIA’s interrogation tapes and the possible use of torture by the agency. Every segment of the electorate — including clear majorities of Democrats (82 percent), independents (62 percent), and Republicans (51 percent) — want to hold this administration accountable for its role in the destruction of the torture tapes. It seems that human rights is still, thankfully, a nonpartisan concern.

Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey’s choice to head up the investigation of the tape destruction is a veteran federal prosecutor from Connecticut, John H. Durham. By all accounts, Durham has a respectable reputation. Nevertheless, he ultimately reports to Mukasey, who to this day refuses to acknowledge that waterboarding is torture and has told Congress that the use of waterboarding by CIA interrogators “cannot possibly be the subject of a criminal” investigation.

What is needed is a special counsel who is granted the same authority as the attorney general in matters pertaining to the investigation — like Patrick J. Fitzgerald on the disclosure of a CIA officer’s identity. Considering what we already know of the Bush administration’s record on torture and prisoner abuse, investigative independence is essential.

The special counsel must also focus on the core issue of whether or not the interrogation techniques depicted on the tapes were illegal. What can’t get lost in the controversy surrounding the tapes’ destruction is the underlying issue of our government’s use of abusive and unlawful interrogation techniques — including waterboarding. The tapes are gone forever, but what must not disappear along with them is accountability for what they most surely would have revealed.

The widespread international belief that the United States government is systematically and willfully breaking the law, violating international treaties, and ignoring American values by engaging in torture is a deep stain on our country’s reputation. Americans want to know the facts and the extent to which their government acted with brazen disregard for basic human rights. Naming a special counsel would be a good and necessary start.

President Bush to veto torture Bill

0

By Kerry Sheridan in Washington

US President George W. Bush plans to veto legislation passed by the Senate to bar the CIA from using harsh interrogation methods including waterboarding.

“The President will veto that Bill,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

“The United States needs the ability to interrogate effectively, within the law, captured al-Qaeda terrorists.”

“Bush doesn’t favour torture”

The Democratic-led Senate yesterday voted 51-45 in favor of a Bill calling for the Central Intelligence Agency to adopt the US Army Field Manual, which forbids waterboarding and other types of coercive interrogation methods.

However, the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to overcome a presidential veto. The House of Representatives passed similar legislation in December.

Democratic New York Senator Charles Schumer said that if Bush “vetoes intelligence authorisation, he will be voting in favour of waterboarding.”

Future techniques not ruled out

Asked by a reporter if President Bush, who leaves office in 2009, would be labelled as the first US president who favored torture, Ms Perino rejected the assertion and dismissed Senator Schumer’s argument as simplistic.

“Across the board people will see, over time, that this was a president who put in place tools to protect the country against terrorists,” Ms Perino said.

“The president does not favour torture. The president favours making sure we do all these programs within the law,” she said, adding that “all the interrogations that have taken place in this country have been done in a legal way”.

Ms Perino said the United States does not currently use waterboarding, a simulated drowning technique denounced by rights groups as torture, even though the CIA has admitted using the technique in the past.

She reiterated the administration’s assertion last week that it would not rule out the use of such techniques in the future.

“Currently under the law it is not (allowed),” she said.

“As we said last week as well, we are not going to talk about what may or may not be lawful in the future.”

Manual too weak

The Senate Bill would limit the CIA and other intelligence agencies to the 19 interrogation techniques outlined in the military’s manual. Waterboarding is not among them.

Ms Perino said the intelligence community’s view is that the Army Field Manual sets an inappropriate standard for seasoned CIA interrogators who are working to extract information from sophisticated militant operatives.

“Today with this Bill that they are sending to us they would basically repeal the terrorist interrogation program in favor of something that will definitely weaken our ability to protect the country,” Ms Perino said.

McCain votes against Bill

Rival Democratic White House hopefuls Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were on the road campaigning and did not take part in the vote Wednesday.

The likely Republican nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain, voted against the Bill. The former prisoner of war however said that his vote was consistent with his anti-torture stance.

“We always supported allowing the CIA to use extra measures,” he said.

“I believe waterboarding is illegal and should be banned,” Senator McCain said.

Open government and politics

1

Dr. Joe Harrop: Open government and politics: Who gets what, when, how

Dr. Joe Harrop

There is always a tension between the need for transparency in government and the reality of making deals; that tension is compounded by the need for informed voters, who, if presented with accurate information, will make good decisions. The market model presumes informed citizens; this model of behavior is also called the rational model because it assumes consumers/voters will make rational decisions in their own best interests. The opposite presumption is poorly informed voters will make bad decisions.

During the California presidential debates, one of the candidates made what seemed to me to be a naïve suggestion at the time. The suggestion was to have CSPAN televise the negotiations between the medical community and the government to establish a national health care program. The purpose of the public coverage was to allow us to see the positions of the “special interests,” to make it harder for them to inappropriately influence the process, and to discourage them from public embarrassment by stonewalling their position. Everyone knows how embarrassed the tobacco executives must have been to raise their right hands before the whole world and Congress and echo each other with their “no health issues with cigarettes” claim. They were embarrassed all the way to the bank.

In retrospect, I have been thinking about how that suggestion ties in with another item of contention, the spending limits on campaigns and the disclosure of campaign contributions. Sen. McCain, who appears to be the nominee-elect for one party has been besmirched by some of the more “conservative” members of his party for co-authoring the McCain-Feingold bill, which put some restrictions on campaign contributions. The contention is that his legislation would limit first amendment rights.

If you took a political science course in the last 40 years you most likely have read Harold Lasswell’s 1935 classic book, “Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How.” To simplify the plot: just follow the money. That has always been a major story line, and to the chagrin of many candidates, the money trail has led to many shady characters over the years. Recently an indicted felon had collected several hundred thousand dollars for a major candidate, who gave the money to charity after the exposure.

The McCain-Feingold bill was an attempt to plug a loophole in the law that allowed unlimited contributions of so-called “soft money” for items described as “party-building activities.” It also tried to restrict outside groups from airing “issue ads” that would support or oppose a position but not directly tell voters to vote for or against the candidate against whom the ad was clearly aimed.

In the recent campaign to approve the expansion of gambling, I mean gaming, the proponents of the referenda were very emphatic about who allegedly were the sponsors of the opposition ads. I am sure this was done as a public service, knowing we would not want to support gam(bl)ing in Nevada instead of California.

We have a tradition of public access to public decisions in our country. In California we have the Ralph M Brown Act and the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act, which try to keep the public’s business “public.”

The gist of these acts is to require decision making to take place in public, and to allow for public notice, input, and access to the process. Thus, for example, our City Council had to discuss and debate issues around the PATH shelter during a public meeting and were not allowed to discuss it between themselves before they met to make their public decision. The City Council was also required to allow for public comment before the decision. This supposedly discourages private arrangements made in “smoke-filled rooms,” and it presumes a public desirous of participation.

With politics there is always the tension between our right to know and the need for some private give and take to implement a policy or make a decision. My bias is for the right to know.

The public does not have to be privy to the discussion of combat strategy or tactics, but our current president has drawn the line farther out to increase the perimeter of the barrier to access to include such curious items as the Secret Service list of White House visitors, and even the identity of those who attended petroleum/energy policy discussions. The principle of “executive privilege” has been invoked many times. One of our current primary candidates conducted policy development on health care in closed sessions. Tip O’Neill and President Reagan conducted negotiations through surrogates in secret to develop a reform package for Social Security.

The issue of our right to know is complicated. In the O’Neill/Reagan example, the final decision was made in public, but the parameters of the decision-making process had been pretty well limited behind closed doors. In the case of the oil industry participation in energy policy, conspiracy hunters are still at work.

While the limitation of campaign donations may make sense to some, it does presume that donations can influence our elected officials. That assumption is core to the American tradition of government as “A Necessary Evil,” as portrayed in the book of that name by Garry Wills. It also underscores the low marks most surveys give our elected representatives.

If we really believe that politicians are influenced by donation, will making the source of political donations clearly available to the public counteract that? Perhaps it will, but that could be a little bit like the small print about the ingredients tucked in out of the way places on food items. We need to read that information if it is going to do us any good.

If the First Amendment protects the right of individuals and organizations to give whatever they want to candidates and issues, it presumes that they are making a public statement. In a public statement the speaker is clearly identified. Maybe that is all we can hope for.

Ron Paul: 1988

0

The Morton Downey Jr. Show

Morton Downey Jr was the pioneer of trash TV in America…before Jerry Springer, before Rush Limbaugh, before Bill O’Reilly and Fox News…Downey perfected the right wing-screamer “talk” program.Here presidential candidate Ron Paul – twenty years ago – tries to rationally discuss US drug laws. Laws which have done nothing but support the illegal drug trade on one side and a massive police state on the other.

As happens today, Paul’s unorthodox position is shouted down by the ignorant and those with vested interests in seeing the drug trade continue.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k[/youtube]
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/276.html

The EU’s control structure, inside and outside Britain

3

eutruth.org.uk

The following are all involved with building the EU dictatorship. An estimate of the percentage of members involved with this agenda or its associated corruption is shown alongside. This is not an exhaustive list.

The Bilderbergers:

A society of 140 politicians and the powerful, whose main concern is building the EU police state: 96%.

All our Prime Ministers since Ted Heath have been Bilderbergers. This society has sufficient members within the leaderships of the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties, that it can choose the candidates who stand for leader. It chose John Major, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Gordon Brown (who joined in 1991), all of whom work for the Bilderbergers and for the EU, not for the voters they pretend to represent. That is why your vote makes no difference.

Has the Queen been persuaded by the Bilderbergers to sign the five illegal treaties? She risks prosecution for treason, and has failed in her personal constitutional duties as a monarch.

Britain is the target

Amongst its 27 nations, Britain is the main target. They know from our long history the EU dictatorship cannot be built while there is a strong and freedom loving Britain on its doorstep.

For that reason the EU’s British sympathysers have been undermining us with scores of Frankfurt School subversion techniques since the 1950’s, including control of the media, the corruption of our courts, political correctness to prevent debate, undermining teachers and the family.

That is why, for example, the French don’t implement many EU regulations, but in Britain our fifth column implements the lot, and gold plates them.

The Deutsche Verteiderungs Dienst Intelligence department

Controls development of the EU. Set up by Adolf Hitler for this purpose. Recruits British politicians including Heath, Rippon and Jenkins, and major British newspapers for the EU. Some of our top politicians are DVD controlled, we may not know who until their deaths.

Inside Britain: the fifth column:

The Conservative Party

The leadership: 75%. Penetrated by a pro-EU leadership since the 1960’s, the Conservative Party is the primary instrument of the European Union in Britain. Francis Maude stated the Party founded Common Purpose in 1970.

The Conservatives say at elections they will do something minor about the EU (eg. Cameron promised to leave the European People’s Party; he didn’t). They never do – its leaders are deeply dedicated to the EU; the likes of Cameron and Francis Maude would rather be in the EU than be in power, traitors to their nation and to Conservative voters.

Labour and the Lib Dems

Their leaderships (60%) have been EU controlled for 15 years. A vote for these three parties is a vote for the EU dictatorship. We have a one party state.

The Freemasons:

The top 10% of Britain’s 400,000 freemasons. Most freemasons would be horrified if they knew what their own leadership are up to, or what their real goals are. See http://www.bilderberg.org/masons.htm to find out.

(It is difficult to be promoted above the rank of sergeant in the police if you are not a freemason, slightly higher ranks in the Army, Royal Navy and RAF).

The Legal Profession:

Law Lords 80%, Lawyers as a whole: 65%. British justice is now utterly corrupt. See our August issue. Law Lords refuse to enforce our long and written British Constitution, under which the EU is an illegal regime. They are themselves guilty of misprision of treason – the crime of refusing to act when they know treason has been committed.

Common Purpose:

The EU’s criminal local control organisation with 25,000 members: 60% involved. Many members think its all above board, and do not realise they have not been selected.

Common Purpose have penetrated the BBC, where four hundred of them control news and current affairs, our newspapers, council executives, the Church of England, the NHS which over 20 years they have deliberately destroyed from within, social services, our police and many more. Common Purpose members control the Quango budget, £124 billion, and the NHS budget, £90 billion, ie about £210 billion, or 1/3 of our taxes. See our Book Review, page 6.

Among all the above, there are about 25,000 dedicated British traitors sabotaging our nation, with 100,000 useful idiots iimplementing the EU’s corruption. and feeding off its gravy train.

17 councils to hold referendums?
Many people doubt we’ll ever be given a referendum, so the local councils of East Stoke, Purbeck, in Dorset, Charfield in South Gloucestershire, Newton and Noss Mayo, and possibly South Hams in Devon are holding their own referendums on the EU.

The Campaign Alliance for Referenda in Parishes has now got 17 other councils in the South West interested.

In our view their question “Do you want a referendum on the EU” is the wrong one. It should be “Do you want your council, county or nation to be abolished by the EU (currently by the Reform Treaty?)”

Referendums legally binding

Under our British Constitution these referendums are legally binding on the government, whose power is legally limited to implementing the wishes of the people.

This constitutional limit on government power was confirmed as recently as May 2007 in the High Court ruling in the Chagos Archipelago case. Government has been breaking the British Constitution for some time – they must be stopped.

“Do it yourself”

YOU can force a referendum on your council, using Part 3, Schedule 12, paragraph 18, sub paras 4&5 of the 1972 Local Government Act as follows:

1. Six residents must sign a letter announcing a parish or town meeting with at least 7 days notice, and it must start after 6pm. 2. Inform the press and local dignitaries. 3. At least 10 people on the electoral role must show up. Propose and second a motion that a parish poll should be held on whether or not the EU’s Reform Treaty should be ratified. At least 10 voters, and 1/3 of those present, need to vote in favour for the poll to take place. Under the Act, the council must hold the poll within 25 days.

This question gives the council the power to take direct action if our utterly corrupt Westminster Parliament continues to refuse to obey the wishes of the people.

We call upon all Britain’s 19,579 paid councillors and 20,000 unpaid councillors to propose a motion for a referendum in their council.

EU visitors to have fingerprints taken

0

BRUSSELS Every visitor to the European Union would have to provide fingerprints before being allowed to enter, under plans unveiled yesterday to clamp down on illegal immigration.

The move to record the arrival and departure of non-EU citizens and to store the data in a single European database is part of a wider overhaul of border security. It is aimed at the largest single category of illegal migrants: people who remain once their visa or permit has expired.

Franco Frattini, the EU Justice Commissioner, argued that the existence of the electronic register containing a visitor’s personal details and final destination would make it possible to identify overstayers.

The scheme, which must be approved by all 27 EU governments before it can come into force in 2013 as proposed, has been criticised by civil rights groups. They fear that it could lead to a “fortress Europe” mentality against foreigners and to identity theft if the data were lost or stolen.

Business spies for FBI eyes

0

By Jerry Mazza

In George Bush’s mania to outdo George Orwell’s 1984, we bring you more than 23,000 members of private industry working quietly with the FBI and Department of Homeland Insecurity under the banner of InfraGard, i.e., the joint government/business program to guard (not rebuild) our infrastructure. Get it? Wanta forget it? Can’t. They’ll be climbing up your nose soon. Or shooting to kill in the case of Martial Law. Argh!

It’s eerily reminiscent of Orwell’s novel, in which the superstate Oceana’s three PARTY slogans are WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.” Yes, that George was a genius, the other a nebbish. In fact Wikipedia tells us, “Each of these is of course either contradictory or the opposite of what is normally believed, and in 1984, the world is in a state of constant war, no one is free, and everyone is ignorant.”

“The slogans are analysed in Goldstein’s [a writer character’s] book. Though logically insensible, the slogans do embody the Party. If anybody (like Winston) becomes too smart, they are whisked away for fear of rebellion. Through their constant repetition, the terms become meaningless, and the slogans become axiomatic. This type of misuse of language, and the deliberate self-deception with which the citizens are encouraged to accept it, is called doublethink.” Say that again . . .

“One essential consequence of doublethink is that the Party can rewrite history with impunity, for “The Party is never wrong.” The ultimate aim of the Party is, according to O’Brien, to gain and retain full power over all the people of Oceania; he sums this up with perhaps the most distressing prophecy of the entire novel: If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever.” Get your iron mask. I hear the boot stomp.

Secret warnings of terrorist threats

The members of InfraGard receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does. In fact, former California Governor Gray Davis got a tip on so-called terrorists in California from his brother, Barry, a Morgan Stanley broker/InfraGard member. Gray, being a normal human being, phoned it in to authorities, thinking that if he knew (and his brother did as well as Enron), so should law enforcement, which pissed off the FBI abundantly. Somebody let the secret out of the bag, which is a no-no in SecretLand.

This story was also picked up by The Progressive in a report, titled “Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business. Editor Matthew Rothschild wrote, “InfraGard is ‘a child of the FBI,’ says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

“InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.

“’Then the FBI cloned it,’ says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.

“InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.

“’We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,’ says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.” Doesn’t her double-life give you a warm and fuzzy feeling inside?

FBI Director Robert Mueller spoke to an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. He suggested “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.” And so he asked InfraGard members to call the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” Personally, I find InfraGard to be both “suspicious activity and an unusual event.” Who do I call?

Mueller also suggested members could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against employers,” a sort of quid pro quid. On the InfraGard website, Mueller tells us, “It’s a great program.” Yeah, Bob, especially that “shoot to kill under Martial Law” part.

The ACLU not so enthusiastic

“This special status concerns the ACLU,” Rothschild wrote.

“The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment,” says Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program. “There’s no ‘business class’ in law enforcement. If there’s information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don’t they just share it with the public? That’s who their real ‘special relationship’ is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends. . . .

“This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s handing out ‘goodies’ to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery.

“When the government raises its alert levels, InfraGard is in the loop. For instance, in a press release on February 7, 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General announced that the national alert level was being raised from yellow to orange. They then listed ‘additional steps’ that agencies were taking to ‘increase their protective measures.’ One of those steps was to ‘provide alert information to the InfraGard program.’”

“They’re very much looped into our readiness capability,” says Amy Kudwa, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. “We provide speakers, as well as do joint presentations [with the FBI]. We also train alongside them, and they have participated in readiness exercises.”

“On May 9, 2007, George Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 entitled ‘National Continuity Policy.’ In it, he instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with ‘private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.’”

Asked if the InfraGard National Members Alliance was involved with these plans, Schneck said it was ‘not directly participating at this point.’ Hershman, chairman of the group’s advisory board, however, said that it was.”

“InfraGard members, sometimes hundreds at a time, have been used in ‘national emergency preparation drills,’ Schneck acknowledges.

“’In case something happens, everybody is ready,” says Norm Arendt, the head of the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter of InfraGard, and the safety director for the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. ‘There’s been lots of discussions about what happens under an emergency.’ Which brings us to InfraGard members’ right “to shoot to kill in a Martial Law’ situation.’” Funny, how this keeps popping up.

Shoot to kill under Martial Law

The ACLU goes on to report, Rothschild noted, “One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation — and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, ‘Partnership for Protection.’ On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.

“This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.

“’The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,’ he says. ‘From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.’ These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out. But that’s not all.

“’Then they said when — not if — martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,’ he says.

“I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistleblower is 100 percent certain of it. ‘I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,’ he adds. ‘I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.’

”Though Schneck says that FBI and Homeland Security agents do make presentations to InfraGard, she denies that InfraGard members would have any civil patrol or law enforcement functions. ‘I have never heard of InfraGard members being told to use lethal force anywhere,’ Schneck says.

“The FBI adamantly denies it, also. ‘That’s ridiculous,’ says Catherine Milhoan, an FBI spokesperson. ‘If you want to quote a businessperson saying that, knock yourself out. If that’s what you want to print, fine.’ But one other InfraGard member corroborated the whistleblower’s account, and another would not deny it.

“Christine Moerke is a business continuity consultant for Alliant Energy in Madison, Wisconsin. She says she’s an InfraGard member, and she confirms that she has attended InfraGard meetings that went into the details about what kind of civil patrol function — including engaging in lethal force — that InfraGard members may be called upon to perform.

“’There have been discussions like that, that I’ve heard of and participated in,’ she says.

Curt Haugen is CEO of S’Curo Group, a company that does ‘strategic planning, business continuity planning and disaster recovery, physical and IT security, policy development, internal control, personnel selection, and travel safety,’ according to its website. Haugen tells me he is a former FBI agent and that he has been an InfraGard member for many years. He is a huge booster. ‘It’s the only true organization where there is the public-private partnership,’ he says. ‘It’s all who knows who. You know a face, you trust a face. That’s what makes it work.’

“He says InfraGard ‘absolutely’ does emergency preparedness exercises. When I ask about discussions the FBI and Homeland Security have had with InfraGard members about their use of lethal force, he says: ‘That much I cannot comment on. But as a private citizen, you have the right to use force if you feel threatened.’

“’We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions,’ the whistleblower says. ‘It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone.” And probably most everyone else, which led probably to the following . . .

The ACLU’s ‘Surveillance-Industrial Complex”

Based on-going activities like the above, the ACLU developed a much larger, in-depth study, The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society. Its Table of Contents includes . . .

Recruiting Individuals
“Watch” programs
Citizen vigilance
Recruiting Companies
Voluntary sharing of data
Purchasing data on the open market
Plentiful legal powers to demand private-sector data
Building in surveillance
The Patriot Act: Drafting industry into the government’s surveillance net
Enlistment in the government’s surveillance web hurts business
Mass Data Use, Public and Private
Data mining
Data aggregators
The advantages of private surveillance
Pro-Surveillance Lobbying and
Six Conclusions

This study’s 47 pages detail programs that turn the US into a national spy-fest, neighbors on neighbors, business on consumers, et al. It concludes with a series of convoluted FBI rationales for a self-inflicted oppression echoing Orwell’s 1984 and then some. You wonder what else is going on as you sleep, work, spend time with your family, and try to have a life.

Bottom line, this perverse, thousand-eyed Argus is here for one reason alone, to inspire fear, which in turn will diminish questioning and independent thought or criticism, which in turn will turn us into a nation of robots, who in turn will go unquestionably to fight the Empire’s endless wars and avoid considering 9/11 as an inside job, the keystone to this arch of misery.

I personally would like to tell InfraGard right now to go to hell, which is what they are trying to create in what is my beloved America. I grew up in World War II and this crap tops “Loose lips sink ships,” and all the various “please speak low” programs. It’s more redolent of the Hitler Youth Program, which encouraged youth to turn in their parents, family members, or neighbors who might speak ill of the Reich or der Fuhrer. This is the worst garbage imaginable, posing as patriotism.

It is nothing short of WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH doublespeak. And now is the time, in the name of the Constitution of the United States of America to stop it.

Jerry Mazza is a freelance writer living in New York. Reach him at gvmaz@verizon.net.

Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal

Bin Brother is watching you

1

Eye-spy binmen will soon be knocking on doors in Wolverhampton — to tick off residents for not recycling their rubbish.

Officials are keeping records on which households do not put out their recycling boxes each fortnight and will be personally visiting addresses to ask why.

The move, which will come into force from April, has prompted concern from some councillors, who say the policy smacks of Big Brother.

Currently, council teams are placing red and white labels on the bins of addresses identified as not recycling paper, glass and cans.

Wolverhampton City Council insisted today its staff are not looking inside people’s bins to see what they are throwing away.

But they admit noting down which homes do not use their recycling boxes.

Bosses say they will now knock on doors from April to remind people to use the boxes, which are emptied every fortnight.

Wolverhampton Waste and Recycling Partnership found that use of the green boxes is “particularly poor” in areas like Bilston, The Scotlands, Low Hill, Bushbury, Whitmore Reans and Dunstall Park.

But the stickers have also been found on bins in Tettenhall.

Councillor Barry Findlay, who represents Tettenhall Regis, said: “It does seem a bit like spying and I can understand why some people will not like this.”

Councillor Wendy Thompson, who represents Tettenhall Wightwick and has been given a sticker, said: “I have raised this with the council as I think the stickers could be taken the wrong way.”

Jayne Willis, waste policy manager at the city council, said: “We do not look inside people’s bins but we carried out a survey before Christmas.

“In one area where we put the stickers out we increased the amount recycled on that round by five tons that week.

“If, on the day we did the survey the household did not put the recycling box out, we will visit them. Of course, this is not 100 per cent accurate as someone may have just forgotten that week or may have been on holiday.

“We certainly have no plans to fine anybody for not recycling but we want to do all we can to encourage them to participate.”

http://www.expressandstar.com/2008/02/14/bin-brother-is-watching-you/

Bush Spy Bill Stance Called Fear-Mongering

0

President: U.S. Could Face Attacks That Would Make 9/11 “Pale By Comparison”

CBS

President Bush, in remarks meant to spur House Democrats into accepting a controversial new bill that would expand the government’s ability to spy on Americans, warned that the country faced terror strikes that would make September 11 “pale by comparison.”

In response, critics of the new bill accused Mr. Bush of “fear mongering,” and of trying to deflect attention from the bill itself. Its most controversial provision would prevent Americans from suing phone companies that helped the administration spy on them since the White House surveillance program was instituted in 2001.

Mr. Bush has made immunity from civil prosecution for the telecoms a must-have element for revamping the nation’s surveillance laws, repeatedly saying he would veto any bill that does not exempt telecoms from lawsuits.

The battle lines are being dug in more deeply as House and Senate members prepare to meet in conference to match competing versions of the legislation, an update of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (or FISA).

The House-passed version does not include telecom immunity. This past week, the Senate approved a similar version which includes a provision that protects telecoms from civil lawsuits.

There are approximately 40 lawsuits now brought by citizens and consumer groups against companies that enabled the government to illegally eavesdrop on Americans’ phone and Internet communications.

Opponents of the administration’s program, which engaged wiretaps against any and all Americans without obtaining court-ordered warrants, say the telecoms’ participation was illegal. They say that, given the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy, lawsuits against the telecoms are the only way to obtain disclosure about the facts from the government.

Information being sought includes details about the origins of the program. The administration admitted that the sweeping domestic surveillance originated in the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks. However, declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive and testimony that is part of these lawsuits suggest the National Security Agency program was put into place shortly after Mr. Bush was inaugurated, long before 9/11.

Mr. Bush claims that unless the telecoms received assurance that they will not be sued for breaking the law (and therefore be liable for damages), those companies will not agree to enact future wiretaps, therefore undercutting the government’s intelligence capabilities:

“If these companies are subjected to lawsuits that could cost them billions of dollars, they won’t participate; they won’t help us; they won’t help protect America.”

On Wednesday, after the Senate approved a bill granting immunity, the president for the first time admitted that the telecoms participated in the wiretaps which were not authorized by court-issued warrants – a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Mr. Bush also raised the specter of what would happen if telecom immunity is not accepted by the House, by recalling the crime scene on 9/11:

“At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison.”

Yet Mr. Bush said he would choose to allow current surveillance law (which expires at midnight Saturday) to pass without an extension, rather than sign a bill that does not contain immunity. Instead, he wants the House to rubber-stamp the Senate bill so he can sign it into law immediately.

House Republicans managed to defeat a House proposal to grant a 21-day extension of current law.

Critics jumped on the president’s refusal to extend FISA.

“The President and House Republicans refused to support the extension and therefore will bear the responsibility should any adverse national security consequences result,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Expiration of the current Protect America Act would not mean an immediate end to wiretapping. Existing surveillance could continue under the law for a year from when it began – at least until August. Any new surveillance the government wants to institute could be implemented under underlying FISA rules, which may require warrants from the secret court.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused the president and Senate Republicans of being more interested in politicizing intelligence than resolving the debate.

Reid said the issue would not even be before Congress if Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, “in their unyielding efforts to expand presidential powers,” had not created a system to conduct wiretapping, including on U.S. citizens, outside the bounds of federal law.

“The president could have taken the simple step of requesting new authority from Congress … but whether out of convenience, incompetence, or outright disdain for the rule of law, the administration chose to ignore Congress and ignore the Constitution,” Reid said.

Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s legislative office in Washington, lambasted the president for scare tactics and urged the House not to pass the Senate bill.

“The House should stand up to the bullying from the president and reject the administration’s lies and fear mongering,” she said. “This administration has abused its power over and over again and it is time for the House to reject any attempts to consider the unconstitutional Senate Intelligence Committee FISA bill.

She also demanded that Americans not be denied their day in court in their suits against phone and Internet companies. “Let the American system of justice decide this case,” Frederickson said. “Do not give the phone companies a ‘get out of jail free’ card. If the companies really ‘did the right thing’ as the president said, then they have nothing to fear from going to court.

“Terrorism is a threat. But ignoring the Constitution is also a threat.”

The 68-29 Senate vote Tuesday to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act belied the nearly two months of stops and starts and bitter political wrangling that preceded it. The two sides had battled to balance civil liberties with the need to conduct surveillance on potential adversaries.

While giving the White House what it wanted on immunity for the phone companies, the Senate also expanded the power of the court to oversee government eavesdropping on Americans. An amendment would give the FISA court the authority to monitor whether the government is complying with procedures designed to protect the privacy of innocent Americans whose telephone or computer communications are captured during surveillance of a foreign target.

The Senate bill would also require FISA court orders to eavesdrop on Americans who are overseas. Under current law, the government can wiretap or search the possessions of anyone outside the United States – even a soldier serving overseas – without court permission if it believes the person may be a foreign agent.

CBSNews.com producer David Morgan contributed to this report.

Wanted By The FBI: Everyone’s Data

0

In the beginning was the fingerprint.

It was in the 19th century that scientists realized the ridged whorls on the tip of the finger constituted a unique marker that could be used to tell one person from another. And eventually, the FBI built a massive database of fingerprints.

Then came DNA. In the 20th century, scientists learned to use the double helix nucleic acid molecule as a means of identification even more definitive than the fingerprint. And the FBI built a DNA database as well.

Now the feds are building yet another database. And it has some folks worried.

Maybe you missed it in the run-up to Super Duper Tuesday when the Associated Press reported last week that the FBI will soon award a $1 billion, 10-year contract for construction of an electronic file that would store not just fingerprints and DNA, but a vast compendium of other physical characteristics. We’re talking eye scans, facial shape, palm prints, scars, tattoos and other biometrics, all for the purpose of identifying and capturing bad guys.

But at least one privacy advocate thinks even good guys – and gals – have cause for concern. Barry Steinhardt, director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Project, told CNN, “It’s the beginning of the surveillance society where you can be tracked anywhere, any time and all your movements, and eventually all your activities will be tracked and noted and correlated.”

I know what some of you are saying and it makes a certain amount of sense: If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Well, I haven’t done wrong, but it worries me just the same.

The government has for years collected fingerprints – not just of criminals, but also of certain job applicants. What’s happening now, it could be reasonably argued, is only a high-tech extension of that. Except that instead of just your fingerprints, the government will also have on file the shape of your iris, that scar from your appendectomy and the tattoo on your inner thigh.

It’s a discomfiting reminder of the totalitarian states of “Fahrenheit 451” and “1984,” oppressive regimes that saw everything, knew everything, regulated everything. Given the advances in technology and the ominous, Orwellian turn our government has lately taken, the comparison seems far less far-fetched than once it might have.

It’s not just the government, though. In recent years, the right to privacy, the right to simply be left alone, has also been eroded by the corporate community – everything from supermarket discount cards that track your buying habits to online businesses that install secret spyware in your computer. And we haven’t even mentioned that there is a camera on every street corner nowadays.

“I always feel like somebody’s watching me.” That used to be just the hook from a schlocky ’80s song. Increasingly, it is an apt description of modern life.

Now the FBI proposes to collect and collate still more personal information. It swears the information will be protected, and will be used only to ferret out criminals.

But I can’t help a certain wariness when I consider the ease with which the program could expand far beyond that mission. As Steinhardt sees it, first criminals, then job applicants and then, “Eventually, it’s going to be everybody.”

I admit, he might be wrong. But you know something? He might not.

Leonard Pitts Jr. is a syndicated writer in Washington.

9/11 accused can seek compensation

Lotfi Raissi, the Algerian wrongly accused of training pilots involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York, should be allowed to claim compensation, the Court of Appeal ruled.

Mr Raissi, a pilot, was arrested at his home under the Terrorism Act in September 2001, 10 days after the World Trade Centre atrocity.

He was released after seven days but re-arrested under an extradition warrant issued at the request of the United States government.

He remained in jail for four-and-a-half months, when he was granted bail despite objections from the Crown Prosecution Service which was representing the US. Raissi, 33, was finally released after no evidence was put before a court to support the terrorism allegations.

Lord Justice Hooper, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said: “The public labelling of the appellant as a terrorist by the authorities in this country, and particularly by the CPS, over a period of many months has had and continues to have, so it is said, a devastating effect on his life and on his health. He considers that, unless he receives a public acknowledgement that he is not a terrorist, he will be unable to get his life back together again.”

Raissi applied for compensation in March 2004 under a scheme operated by the Home Office for people who had lost their liberty because of a miscarriage of justice. His application was rejected by the Home Secretary and Raissi took his case to a judicial review at the High Court where he was unsuccessful.

Lord Justice Hooper said: “We have allowed his appeal ordering that the appellant’s application for compensation be referred back to the Home Secretary for reconsideration in the light of this judgment.”

The judge said the appeal court, which also included the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, and Lady Justice Smith, considered that there was a “considerable body of evidence” to suggest that the police and the CPS were responsible for what the scheme describes as “serious defaults”.

Speaking outside court Mr Raissi said: “I wept with relief when I heard the judgment. I have always said that I believed in British justice and I finally got it today. Surely I can expect to hear from the Home Secretary with the long-awaited apology very soon.”

Commenting on the ruling, the Ministry of Justice said: “We are considering the implications and whether or not to appeal.”

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2008, All Rights Reserved.

Banking with Hitler during World War II

thecounterpunch

This investigative film shows in detail the roles played by the Anglo-German banking Cartel (notably the Bank of England controlled by the Rothschild and the Chase National Bank controlled by the Rockfeller as well as the Harriman/Bush‘s Bank) through the BIS the Bank of International Settlement not only before the war but during the war. The BIS was originally established in May 1930 by bankers and diplomats of Europe and the United States to collect and disburse Germany’s World War I reparation payments (hence its name).

On its board were key Nazis such as Walther Funk and Hjalamar Schact The president of BIS was an American, Thomas McKittrick, who readily socialized with leading Nazis. Not only the BIS, but other allied banks worked hand in hand with the Nazis. One of the biggest American banks (Chase Bank) kept a branch open in Occupied Paris and, with full knowledge of the managers in the U.S., froze the accounts of French Jews. Deprived of money to escape France, many ended up in death camps.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YauM5dHLn1s[/youtube]

According to Investigative Journalist Edward Epstein, “even though an isolationist Congress officially refused to allow the U.S. Federal Reserve to participate in the BIS, or to accept shares in it (which were instead held in trust by the First National City Bank [owned by William Rockefeller]), the chairman of the Fed quietly slipped over to Basel for important meetings.”

4 million Iraqis struggling for food – UN

The Irish Times

Four million Iraqis are struggling to feed themselves, and 40 per cent of the country’s 27 million people have no safe water, the UN said today.

Iraq has annual economic growth of around 7 per cent, according to UN estimates, and a national budget of €33 billion, buoyed by oil exports of 1.6 million barrels per day.

But insurgency and sectarian attacks have displaced more than two million people and left nearly twice as many hungry.

“Four million Iraqis cannot guarantee they’re going to have food on their table tomorrow,” the United Nations humanitarian co-ordinator for Iraq, David Shearer, said as he unveiled a €182 million appeal to donor governments for 2008.

The United Nations says the number of displaced people has roughly doubled since 2006 to nearly 2.5 million. High unemployment has left many others unable to feed themselves.

The Iraqi government said it would for the first time give €27.5 million from its own coffers to the aid appeal.

US judge blocks CIA flight case

0

BBC

A US judge has dismissed a case alleging that a subsidiary of Boeing illegally helped the CIA fly terror suspects abroad on rendition flights.

The American Civil Liberties Union brought the case against Jeppesen Dataplan, saying it “falsified flight plans… to avoid public scrutiny”.

But a San Francisco judge halted the case, as the CIA director had urged.

“The very subject matter of this case is a state secret,” Judge James Ware wrote in a ruling.

CIA director Michael Hayden had earlier urged the judge to dismiss the case because he said that covert operations overseas could be exposed.

CIA flights

ACLU brought the case on behalf of five men who alleged the CIA had flown them to foreign prisons, where they were interrogated and tortured.

The plaintiffs were an Ethiopian living in the UK, an Italian working in Pakistan, an Egyptian citizen living in Sweden, a Yemeni, and an Iraqi who was a British resident.

The lawsuit against Jeppesen had claimed the services they provided were crucial to the flights.

However, Jeppesen had said it could not confirm if it was involved with the flights.

A report approved by a European Parliament committee last year said more than 1,000 covert CIA flights had crossed European airspace or stopped at European airports in the four years after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.

Jeppesen’s participation allegedly included securing necessary landing and overflight permits for the flights between the US, Pakistan, Ireland, Cyprus, Morocco, and Afghanistan.

US Senate votes to ban waterboarding by CIA

1

Irish Sun

The US Senate has voted to prevent the CIA from using torture-like waterboarding and other forms of coercion on prisoners, completing work on a bill already passed by the other chamber in December.

The bill, passed in a 51 to 45 vote Wednesday, will now be sent to the White House, the Washington Post reported online. US President George W. Bush has threatened to veto the measure.

The bill requires the CIA and other intelligence agencies to follow the US army regulations in questioning prisoners, the Washington Post reported online.

In intense debate over the past two weeks, the White House has refused to rule out the possibility of using waterboarding, which simulates drowning.

CIA director Michael Hayden has admitted to Congress that the agency used the technique to get information from three top Al Qaeda operatives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sep 11, 2001 terrorist attacks who was captured in Pakistan in 2003.

Congress previously banned waterboarding and other harsh tactics, but the Bush administration said the law did not apply to intelligence agencies.

The top US law enforcement official, Attorney General Michael Mukasey, has also refused to tell the Senate whether he believed waterboarding is legal or not.

‘If this were an easy question, I would not be reluctant to offer my views on this subject,’ Mukasey said.

Lawmakers have based the contents of the bill on the contents of the US Army’s handbook for interrogation techniques, which expressly prohibits mock drowning. The House version of the bill banned sexual humiliation, mock executions, the use of attack dogs and the withholding of food and medical care, the report said.

UK Legalizes Taser Use On Children

7

LRC

The Brits have taken a giant leap ahead in the race towards totalitarianism. The police have been given permission to zap all violent suspects, even if they are unarmed and even if they are children. Home Office Police Minister Tony McNulty said medical assessments had confirmed the risk of death or serious injury from Tasers was “low”. The relaxing of restrictions on the use of the weapons comes despite warnings that they could trigger a heart attack in youngsters. But it’s not just children:

The Government scientists were also asked to test whether the weapons could cause a miscarriage if used on a pregnant woman.While not saying whether police would be allowed to Taser an expectant mother, the Home Office said the DSAC committee had “specifically asked” for computer simulations to be carried out to analyse the effect on “a pregnant female”.

Men, women and children shall all face the voltage.

Jose Padilla Brings Torture to Trial

Can a DOJ lawyer be held accountable for advocating the inhumane?

By Doug Cassel

When on Jan. 22 a federal court judge sentenced Jose Padilla to 17 years in prison for conspiracy to commit terrorism, it was a one-day story. But, in fact, the Padilla case goes on.

Padilla, a U.S. citizen and former Chicago gang member, alleges that he was tortured during the more than three and a half years he spent behind bars at a Navy brig in South Carolina. He is now suing John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who reportedly devised the legal theories to justify the interrogation techniques used against him.

While Padilla’s suit raises a number of constitutional claims–including that the military violated his rights to counsel and to exercise his Muslim religion–the heart of his argument is that Yoo gave legal advice to justify his torture, in violation of due process of law as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.

Padilla, who is separately appealing his recent conviction, asks the court to rule that his treatment violated the Constitution, and to order Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, to pay him $1 in damages.

The suit raises important questions of law and fact. Are lawyers liable for giving bad legal advice to federal officials?

In August 2002, Yoo, then an attorney in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, wrote a formal opinion letter advising that interrogation techniques are not torture unless they inflict pain equivalent to “organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death.” The new head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith, later withdrew Yoo’s opinion.

Goldsmith, now a Harvard law professor, explains in his book, The Terror Presidency, that Yoo’s reasoning was “legally flawed” and “tendentious.” It seemed “more an exercise of sheer power than reasoned analysis.” Even so, was it the proximate cause of any mistreatment of Padilla?

However such questions are resolved, Padilla’s allegations of his treatment, if true, ought to shame a civilized society.

‘Measurably abnormal’

Padilla charges he was imprisoned in a seven-foot by nine-foot cell in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., for nearly four years. For the first 21 months, he says he was denied all contact with anyone outside the brig, including family and lawyers, leaving him with interrogators and guards as his only human contact.

He alleges he was allowed no watch or clock, nor any news about the outside world. The only window in his cell was blacked out. When he was allowed out of his cell, his eyes and ears were covered.

Periodically, he says, he was subjected to absolute light or darkness for periods in excess of 24 hours. He was subjected to extreme temperature variations in his cell, where his bed consisted of a cold steel slab with no mattress, pillow or blanket. He says brig guards and others deliberately banged on his walls and bars at all hours of the night. For hours at a time, he says guards kept him shackled and manacled, or forced him to sit or stand in uncomfortable and painful positions.

Worse, his interrogators allegedly threatened to cut him with a knife and pour alcohol in the wounds. He says they also threatened to kill him, or send him to a country where they said he would receive far worse treatment. Against his will, they allegedly administered chemicals, which Padilla believes were psychotropic drugs.

When his lawyers were finally allowed access to him, he was not permitted to tell them about prison conditions.

If Padilla’s allegations are true, they qualify as torture under international law: the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain for purposes such as interrogation. The U.N. Committee on Torture and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have held that incommunicado detention–even for periods far shorter than Padilla endured–is torture. They have also ruled that combinations of sensory deprivation techniques amount to torture, as well.

According to Padilla’s complaint, a “substantial body of clinical literature and expert opinion … holds that restriction of environmental and social stimulation has a profoundly deleterious effect on mental functioning, and that even a few days of solitary confinement predictably causes brain patterns to become measurably abnormal.”

It would drive anyone mad.

Waging ‘lawfare’

Yoo has castigated Padilla and his lawyers at the Yale Law School clinic for waging “lawfare,” which Yoo calls “another dimension” of the terrorist war against the United States.

In a Jan. 16 op-ed in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Yoo complained that terrorists use cases like Padilla’s to press “novel theories that have failed at the ballot box.”

If their legal theories are novel, Yoo can thank himself: Never before has the Justice Department sanctioned prolonged, mind-altering brutality on a U.S. citizen.

Still, suing a government lawyer for rendering legal advice, no matter how injudicious, ought to give pause. Such lawsuits could deter creative thinking by attorneys trying to protect the public. If allowed at all, they should be confined to rare and extreme cases, such as Yoo’s torture memo.

There are limits on what advice lawyers may give. After World War II, German government lawyers who wrote memos and orders depriving Russian prisoners of war of their Geneva Conventions protections, and authorizing the forced disappearances of political prisoners, were convicted at Nuremberg. Would authorizing torture of prisoners have made them any less guilty?

Although the suit against Yoo does not seek to convict him of a crime, it does aim to hold him civilly liable–for a symbolic $1 in damages–not only for the torture, but also for his legal advice that allegedly led to violations of Padilla’s constitutional rights. Those include the rights to counsel, access to court, due process of law, freedom of religion, rights to information and association, and his rights to be free from inhumane conditions of confinement, cruel and unusual punishment, coercive interrogations and improper military detention.

In pressing these wide-ranging claims, Padilla’s lawyers face daunting legal obstacles. Unlike most damages suits for violations of basic rights, civil rights law does not authorize their lawsuit. By necessity, Padilla’s suit rests directly on the Constitution. While the Supreme Court has authorized suits for damages based solely on violations of the Constitution, it does so sparingly–when the violations would not otherwise be subject to judicial or effective oversight and, even then, only if no special factors weigh against the wisdom of creating a new cause of action.

Only one of Padilla’s claims–under the Eighth Amendment–has arguable Supreme Court precedent. Some claims may fail on the ground that they are subject to judicial oversight in the criminal proceedings against him. Others may be rejected because they deal with gray areas of national security law, where legal mistakes should not result in damages suits.

But Padilla should probably be allowed to try at least his core claims–that the torturous confinement and interrogation techniques violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and possibly his Eighth Amendment right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. To the extent the prosecution in his criminal trial did not rely on any coerced confession by Padilla, these alleged violations have not been subject to judicial oversight.

Curbing an imperial presidency

If Padilla overcomes this hurdle, others remain. Yoo may contend that he is entitled to absolute immunity, as are prosecutors when presenting their cases to a court. But Yoo more likely will be granted only the “qualified immunity” afforded to prosecutors when they advise police on interrogation techniques, or to the attorney general when he authorizes national security wiretaps without a judicial warrant.

If Yoo is granted qualified immunity, he can be held liable for his erroneous legal advice only if it violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” In this case, his legal advice plainly did: Yoo’s memo legally authorized torture.

But the issue is not so simple.

Yoo’s overriding legal rationale is that the president’s powers give him constitutional license to override any law–including laws against torture–if he deems it necessary to wage a war. The courts may thus need to consider whether any reasonable lawyer could advise that the Constitution allows the president to disregard all law during wartime.

Finally, the government might decide to assert the “state secrets” privilege to quash Padilla’s claims, on the ground that the claims cannot fairly be adjudicated without probing secret intelligence methods and communications.

Unless barred by the state secrets privilege, Padilla’s suit will likely break new ground. Far from a case of “lawfare,” it promises to strengthen the rule of law by clarifying whether and when government lawyers can be held accountable for ill-considered legal advice.

Spy watchdog: CSIS uses torture information

Jim Bronskill

An investigation by the watchdog over the Canadian Security Intelligence Service concludes the spy agency “uses information obtained by torture” – perhaps its bluntest assessment of CSIS’s intelligence-gathering practices to date.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee, which began looking into the issue two years ago, stops short of accepting Toronto lawyer Paul Copeland’s assertion that CSIS had shown a “total lack of concern” about evidence possibly gathered through coercive means.

But it finds that CSIS’s concern has focused on the impact that torture might have on the reliability of information it uses, rather than obligations under the Charter of Rights, the Criminal Code and international treaties “that absolutely reject torture.”

Questions about Canadian reliance on information extracted from suspected terrorists through brutal methods have arisen in several high-profile cases.

Copeland’s complaint to the review committee, which reports to Parliament, stemmed from evidence CSIS entered in the case of client Mohamed Harkat who is slated for deportation to his native Algeria under a national security certificate.

CSIS contends Harkat, a former pizza delivery man, is an Islamic extremist and collaborator with Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network – a charge he denies.

During bail proceedings for Harkat in 2005, Copeland questioned a senior CSIS analyst, identified only as P.G., whether he ever asked if information he handled was obtained through torture.

P.G. insisted he would usually try to corroborate such material through independent sources.

Copeland was left with the impression the spy service made no effort to determine whether information was extracted by torture.

In its report, recently delivered to Copeland, committee member Aldea Landry noted CSIS is required, before entering a foreign liaison arrangement, to address the country’s human rights record. That includes possible abuses by its security or intelligence organizations.

In addition, arrangements with countries that do not share Canada’s respect for human rights are to be considered only when contact is necessary to protect the security of Canada.

“Based on these facts, I find CSIS is concerned with human rights, but nevertheless uses information obtained by torture.”

In an interview, Copeland said Tuesday he does not take much comfort from the review committee’s finding: “It’s nice to have them say it, but what are they doing to try and prevent CSIS from (using such information)?”

Landry called on CSIS to promptly implement the recommendations of the federal inquiry into the case of Maher Arar.

Landry said the changes – and any that might flow from an ongoing inquiry into the foreign imprisonment of three other Arab-Canadians – would ensure the use of information obtained from other countries does not violate Canadian law or treaty obligations.

Justice Dennis O’Connor, who led an inquiry into Arar’s case, made a number of recommendations in September 2006 intended to guard against Canadian complicity in torture and to safeguard the rights of those confronted with evidence that may have been gathered using extreme methods.

Arar, an Ottawa engineer, was sent to Syria and imprisoned in Damascus after being detained at a U.S. airport in September 2002. O’Connor concluded false information the RCMP provided to American officials likely led to Arar’s deportation.

In committee report, Landry said CSIS had made some strides toward ensuring compliance with O’Connor’s recommendations but that “it will take some time” to fully do so.

Manon Berube, a CSIS spokeswoman, said the intelligence service would “closely evaluate” the new review committee report as part of “its ongoing efforts to improve how it deals with this difficult issue.”

Former Supreme Court Justice Frank Iacobucci is currently probing the actions of Canadian officials in the cases of Abdullah Almalki, Ahmad El Maati and Muayyed Nureddin.

The trio maintain they were tortured in Syria – and in the case of El Maati in Egypt as well – due to flawed information from Canadian security agencies.

© The Canadian Press, 2008

Former Spy: MI6 could have killed Diana

2

Daily Mail

Diana in blue dressFormer spy Richard Tomlinson revealed that the crash that killed Diana was bore and ‘eerie similarity’ to an MI6 assassination plot

A former spy told the Diana inquest today he believed the Princess could have been murdered by MI6 officers.

Sacked secret agent, Richard Tomlinson, said he realised there could have been a conspiracy to assassinate Diana after seeing a documentary alleging there was a flash as her car entered a Paris tunnel.

The ex-MI6 officer said that after watching the film he had remembered an MI6 training session in which he was shown how a strobe gun could be used to kill targets.

He also spoke about MI6 plans to assassinate a top Balkan leader in a way that was almost identical to Diana’s fatal crash.

Speaking via videolink, Mr Tomlinson, understood to be in Marseille, spoke about a secret agent named only as “A” who had drawn up the Balkan plan.

The court heard that Mr Tomlinson, who was recruited by MI6 in 1991 after studying at Cambridge, told a Scotland Yard team investigating Diana’s death: “MI6 do have a capacity to stage accidents whether by helicopter, aeroplane or car and also that the strobe light was shown to us by the SBS at Poole during our training.”

He explained that drunk driver Henri Paul would have been the “first choice” for MI6 to recruit and that one of the paparazzi following the princess may also have been in the pay of the service.

Mr Paul died in the Paris crash that killed the princess and her lover Dodi Fayed on 31 August 1997.

Mr Tomlinson, who was jailed for a year in 1997 for breaking the Official Secrets Act, said he became aware of a possible assassination bid in mid-1998.

Richard TomlinsonRichard Tomlinson claimed that MI6 could have used a strobe light to kill Diana in a car crash

He said: “I happened to see a thing on TV about it and that made me wonder whether something that I had seen within MI6 when I was working there might have been relevant.î

He told the inquest that a colleague, referred to as “A”, had shown him a document proposing the assassination of Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic.

Mr Tomlinson claimed in his book The Big Breach – published after his dismissal from the service – that the options outlined included staging a crash in a tunnel involving a blinding flash of light from a strobe gun while Mr Milosevic was at a peace conference in Geneva, the court heard.

But the jury was told that in an earlier draft of the book he had spoken instead of a drive-by ambush.

He admitted during his evidence today that he could have become confused about the details of what was in the document but said such specifics were a “distraction” from the central issue of whether MI6 was ever involved in assassination attempts in principle.

He told the inquest it would be difficult but “not impossible” to assassinate somebody.

He also said he had read documents alleging there was a French source at the Ritz hotel. “There is no doubt that Henri Paul would have been of interest to the intelligence services. If you wanted to recruit one person within the Ritz hotel to work for you it would be a security officer. He would be your first choice,” he said. The inquest continues.

Quarter of police face conduct inquiries

1

Almost a quarter of Dyfed- Powys Police force’s 1,200 police officers have been investigated for allegations of misconduct, corruption or failure in duty in less than a year.

Over about 11 months in 2007, 283 constables, sergeants and inspectors faced a probe by the force’s professional standards department (PSD).

The shock figures were revealed after an Evening Post reporter requested details under the Freedom of Information Act.

The revelations have sparked a strong reaction from Llanelli AM Helen Mary Jones, who said the figures were disappointing.

“I am extremely concerned about these findings,” she said.

“They not only let down the public, but they let down the many honest police officers who are doing an excellent job in very difficult conditions.”

Five of the allegations were so serious that the officers involved tendered their resignation.

The research shows that six of the officers have been under scrutiny for two separate allegations, which brings the total number of accusations handled by the PSD to 289.

Around a third of the investigations were resolved by the PSD or the force division, with a number of others discontinued or found to be unsubstantiated. Some 120 of the inquiries are ongoing.

Female officers were the subject of at least 49 of the allegations, although details on gender were withheld in 30 cases.

Force spokeswoman Eleri Morris said: “To put this figure into context, the 283 officers were either the subject of a public complaint or internal misconduct procedures.

“It needs to be explained that these 283 officers were not all the subject of formal discipline.

“It has to be acknowledged that the majority of complaints against officers or internal misconduct results in either the matter being unsubstantiated or being dealt with by means of local resolution and/or managerial advice.

“It is comparatively few cases that result in formal discipline.”

The figures come after Llanelli inspectors Dyfed Bolton and Bob Price were temporarily removed from their Llanelli patches amid an investigation into alleged misconduct in an off-duty incident at the end of last year.

Source

Intelligence Says Bin Laden Might Be Dead

1

Geostrategy-Direct

U.S. intelligence agencies are beginning to suspect that Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden is dead after all, despite a recent audio tape exhorting Al Qaida terrorists in Iraq.

Undated footage from the Internet shows Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden making statements from an unknown location. Reuters

The Al Qaida leader who was the main force behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, was last heard on an audio tape released Dec. 30. The tape mentioned Iraqis who are opposing Al Qaida, but there has been no specific time referenced from his last two messages. An earlier message in October also exhorted Al Qaida to fight in Iraq.Questions about Bin Laden are being raised by intelligence officials who say that without a specific time mark with a photo of Bin Laden, his presence cannot be confirmed and the most recent statements could have been put together from older audio.

Al Qaida operates a very sophisticated propaganda operations that includes the use of audio and videotape messages to rally followers and to recruit new jihadists.

The new analysis of Bin Laden follows the death of No. 3 Al Qaida leader Abu Laith Al Libi, who was killed last week in a CIA-led operation in Pakistan that involved an armed unmanned aerial vehicle attack.

Asked about U.S. military or intelligence involving in the terrorist killing, Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters: “I’m not going to talk any more about the operational side of this, of how that in fact occurred.”

Mullen called al Libi a key figure in Al Qaida and said “elimination of someone like that is a very important outcome in terms of this long war.”

Mullen also said safe havens for Al Qaida in Pakistan remain a concern and to be able to conduct an operation in the area was “important.”

How believable are government claims on ID cards?

0

By John Oates

British people are maintaining steady levels of disbelief over goverment claims about ID cards, according to official Home Office research.

Lobby group No2ID picked up on the research this week, but a spokesman for the IPS said it had been published on ips.gov.uk in November. Google has a cache from earlier this month.

The survey asked people how important proposed benefits of the ID card would be – 74 per cent chose “disrupting the activities of terrorists and organised criminals”, but 23 per cent of people thought this was “slightly believable” and 11 per cent thought it was “not at all believable”. Seven per cent of respondents did not recognise any of the eight benefits they were offered to choose between.

Researchers from Taylor Nelson Sofres summarised views as: “Across the board, full buy-in and belief in the schemes [sic] ability to deliver the proposed benefits is weak.”

Phil Booth, NO2ID’s National Coordinator, said: “After five years of trying to get people to like ID cards, even the Home Office’s own research says that only one in four believe they’ll do what they’re claimed to. And this is supposed to be positive spin. It’s both tragedy and farce.

“Mr Brown – if he’s in control at all – should shut down the ID empire-builders before this particular legacy of Blunkett and Blair gets any more embarrassing.”

The survey also noted that: “Interestingly prevention of illegal immigration is more “top-of-mind” than it was in wave 1 which is likely to reflect media coverage at the time interviewing was being conducted.”

The Tracking Research talked to people in October, the latest update should be published in the next month – we’ll bring you more belief-beggaring government research as we get it.

It will be interesting to see what impact the recent round of data losses by the UK government has on its believability quotient.

The survey used a sample of 2,052 people weighted to reflect the UK population.

The survey report is available from this page as a pdf.®

The Database State Will Have Your Child For Life

0

All 14-year-old children in England will have their personal details and exam results placed on an electronic database for life under a plan to be announced tomorrow.

Colleges and prospective employers will be able to access students’ records online to check on their qualifications. Under the terms of the scheme all children will keep their individual number throughout their adult lives, The Times has learnt. The database will include details of exclusions and expulsions.

Officials said last night that the introduction of the unique learner number (ULN)was not a step towards a national identity card. But it will be seen as the latest step in the Government’s broader efforts to computerise personal records.

Last night teachers’ leaders, parents’ organisations, opposition MPs and human rights campaigners questioned whether this Big Brother approach was necessary and said that it could compromise the personal security of millions of teenagers.

The new database – which will store a “tamper-proof CV” – will be known as MIAP (managing Information Across Partners). To be registered on the new database every 14-year-old will be issued with a unique learner number. Unlike the current unique pupil number now given to children in school but destroyed when they leave, the ULN will be used by government agencies to track individuals until they retire. Ultimately, it will create a numbered database for every citizen aged 14-plus in the UK.

The MIAP is part of a push for more government departments to share information on ordinary citizens with each other. The new Education and Skills Bill to raise the education leaving age from 16 to 18, for example, contains sweeping powers for local authorities to access information from schools, health agencies and social services to track young people between the ages of 16 and 18.

Margaret Morrisey, of the National Association of Parent Teacher Associations, said that plans for MIAP, which will be compulsory for all 14-year-olds throughout the UK, would fill parents with horror.

“I suspect there will not be more than two parents in the land who would have faith in the Government that this information will be secure,” she said.

A spokeswoman for MIAP, which will come under the auspices of the Learning and Skills Council, said that the database had the support of more than 40 “stakeholder organisations” from across the education sector.

Original plans for MIAP drawn up by the Government in 2003 suggested that the database could be linked to identity cards, raising the prospect that once pupils were in the system they might be forced into accepting an ID card.

The spokeswoman said that this plan had been shelved for the time being. “At the moment there are no plans for the Unique Learner Number to be used by the ID Card system,” she said. She added that the purpose of the system was to support the education, training and careers guidance of the learner, “not security, taxation or access to government services”.

The database would enable students to build a lifelong record of their educational participation and achievements that can be accessed through the internet. The system would be password protected and would have two points of entry. Students could look up their full records and personal details by using one password. They could then give another password to employers to give them access to a restricted view of the information online.

John Dunford, General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said: “Given the track record of government IT disasters and the possibility that all these children’s records will end up in Iowa, this is a worry.” While accepting that it would be helpful to keep centralised records of pupil achievement, he questioned the need to put it online.

Michael Gove, the Shadow Schools Secretary, said: “The government has a terrible track record in managing complex IT programmes. Recent events have shown that sensitive personal data is not safe in ministers’ hands. There must be profound worries not just in terms of civil liberties, but also in terms of the security of young people with a project like this”.

He added that it was a “classic ministerial muddle” to press head with the new database while awaiting the outcome of a security review into a separate planned database, known as ContactPoint, containing personal details of all 11 million children in England, including names, addresses, schools, GPs and, where applicable, social worker. The ContactPoint review was ordered last year after HM Revenue and Customs lost two computer discs containing the banking and personal details of 25 million people. This was followed by the disappearance in Iowa of three million UK learner driver details, and the theft of a laptop containing personal details of 600,000 people who considered a career in the forces.

However, Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, is said to be satisfied with the security arrangements made for the new database, which is expected to go online next September.

FDA Wants Terminally Ill Patients as Guinea Pigs

0

FDA Wants Big Pharma to Use Terminally Ill Patients as Guinea Pigs for Unapproved Drugs

David Gutierrez

 The FDA has proposed allowing the testing of experimental drugs on terminally ill patients once the drugs have passed the first safety testing phase, but before they have received final approval. The plan has already sparked controversy, with physicians staking out positions both for and against the proposed rule change.

Cancer doctor Dean Gesme, of the Minnesota Oncology Hematology Professional Association, charged that the rules will engender false hope in patients, when less than 10 percent of drugs beginning phase I safety trials are eventually adopted as viable treatments. Among these, most provide only incremental benefits; few are life-savers.

Testing these drugs on terminally ill patients would be unfair to the patients, and would potentially delay approval by obscuring the drugs’ long-term effects.

“False hopes for unproved drugs can also erode the clinical trials system by substituting clinical enthusiasm and wishful thinking for evidence based medicine,” Gesme said.

But Emil Freireich, a professor of Special Medical Education Programs at the University of Texas, believes the new rule would actually speed up the process of drug development. Most cancer drugs, he says, are tested only on the healthiest patients, making more critically ill patients ineligible and making it hard to know how well the drugs would work on that demographic.

“It is tragic that regulatory bodies have created a circumstance where people have to live in an aura of hopelessness even though they have the will, the resources and the ability to expose themselves to the risk of participating in investigational studies and to enjoy the potential for benefit,” he said.

Consumer health advocate Mike Adams characterized the plan as, “…yet one more way that Big Pharma and the FDA are conspiring to exploit the terminally ill.” Adams, who is an outspoken opponent of conventional cancer drugs, said, “I find it inexcusable that the FDA would support the use of unproven, potentially deadly cancer drugs while still maintaining staunch opposition to the use of much safer and more affordable natural anti-cancer therapies based on anti-cancer phytonutrients from herbs and foods. This kind of proposal by the FDA clearly demonstrates yet again that the agency acts solely in the interests of Big Pharma while ignoring the true medical needs of cancer patients.”

In the United Kingdom, doctors can make the decision to import or prescribe unlicensed drugs on a case-by-case basis. However, investigators into a drug trial that almost led to the deaths of six young participants have recommended to the British Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency that certain drugs might be better tested on patients who are more, rather than less, ill.

Blair went to war on a lie, law lords told

1

By Nigel Morris

The mothers of two teenage soldiers killed in Iraq accused Tony Blair’s government of going to war “on a lie” as they took their fight for a public inquiry into the conflict to the House of Lords.

Beverly Clarke and Rose Gentle argue that ministers breached their duty to Britain’s armed forces by failing to ensure the invasion was lawful.

Trooper David Clarke, from Littleworth, Staffordshire, was killed by “friendly fire” near Basra in 2003, while Fusilier Gordon Gentle, from Glasgow, died in a roadside bomb attack in Basra in 2004. Both were 19.

The law lords yesterday began considering the mothers’ argument that servicemen and women have the right not to have their lives jeopardised in illegal conflicts.

Rabinder Singh QC, who is representing the women, told the court: “That duty is owed to soldiers who are under the unique compulsory control of the state and have to obey orders. They have to put their lives in harm’s way if necessary because their country demands it.”

Mr Singh said the overwhelming body of legal advice received by the Government was that the invasion would not be lawful without a second UN Security Council resolution. “These mothers … have come to court with reluctance. They are proud of their sons, who died with honour serving their country,” he said.

Mrs Clarke and Mrs Gentle base their argument on the legal advice prepared by Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, in the run-up to the war. They say 13 pages of “equivocal” advice were reduced to one page of unequivocal advice that military action would be legal in just 10 days.

The women are challenging a Court of Appeal ruling that said the Government was not obliged to order an independent inquiry under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects the “right to life”.

Mrs Gentle said: “I think Tony Blair sent our boys to war on a lie. He just agreed with George Bush right away.” Peter Brierley, whose son, L/Cpl Shaun Brierley, was killed in 2006, said: “This was not defending his country. The country was not under any threat of attack.”

Lord Bingham, sitting with eight other law lords, said they were mindful of “the human loss which underlies these proceedings”.

It’s Official: Bush family wealth is linked to Holocaust

0

By thecounterpunch

As the Guardian Newspaper wrote it: “Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades”.

Of course they were alledged to be “Conspiracy Theory” though such author as Tarpley in his book George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography did provide some material proofs when he wrote “On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush… under the Trading with the Enemy Act

But the Guardian revealed that with a multibillion dollar legal action for damages by two Holocaust survivors against the Bush family, new documents formely secret have been declassified, which reveal that the firm Prescott Bush worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH) [In their student years, Prescott Bush and “Bunny” Harriman were chosen for membership in the Elite Yale Society Skull and Bones], acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

This is not so surprising after the declassification of National Archives about the role of National Chase Bank of David Rockefeller in the confiscation of Jewish Accounts in France. It is even less surprising than the participation of the Bank of England (see BBC History Channel) controlled by the Rothschild.

Roland Harriman, Prescott Bush, Knight Woolley und R. Lovett

Nazi parallel to justify 9/11 trial

0

The US has ordered diplomats abroad to justify seeking death penalty for 6 Gitmo detainees by recalling the executions of Nazi war criminals.

The unclassified cable is written in a question-and-answer format in anticipation of inquiries that diplomats may get from foreigners about the Pentagon’s Monday announcement of the trial and charges.

In the four-page cable sent by the State Department to all US diplomatic missions worldwide late on Monday, the US state department advises American diplomats to refer to Nuremberg as a historic precedent if asked by foreign governments or media about the legality of capital punishment in the 9/11 cases.

“International Humanitarian Law contemplates the use of the death penalty for serious violations of the laws of war,” says the cable.

“The most serious war criminals sentenced at Nuremberg were executed for their actions,” it adds.

The cable makes no link between the scale of the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis and those allegedly committed by the Guantanamo detainees.

It also comments on the issue that that the key suspect, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sep. 11 attacks was subjected to interrogation tactics that critics call torture.

The cable instructs diplomats to tell foreign governments that the tribunal will not accept evidence obtained through torture and that the decisions will be up to the judge.

Twelve of Adolf Hitler’s senior aides were sentenced to death at the International Military Tribunals in Nuremberg, Germany, although not all were executed in the end.

MHE/DT

The Subversion Of The Free Press By The CIA

3

WRH 

“You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month.” – CIA operative discussing with Philip Graham, editor Washington Post, on the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. “Katherine The Great,” by Deborah Davis (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1991)

As terrible as it is to live in a nation where the press in known to be controlled by the government, at least one has the advantage of knowing the bias is present, and to adjust for it. In the United States of America, we are taught from birth that our press is free from such government meddling. This is an insideous lie about the very nature of the news institution in this country. One that allows the government to lie to us while denying the very fact of the lie itself.  

The Alex Constantine Article
Tales from the Crypt

The Depraved Spies and Moguls of the CIA’s Operation MOCKINGBIRD

by Alex Constantine

Who Controls the Media?

Soulless corporations do, of course. Corporations with grinning,
double-breasted executives, interlocking directorates, labor squabbles
and flying capital. Dow. General Electric. Coca-Cola. Disney.
Newspapers should have mastheads that mirror the world: The
Westinghouse Evening Scimitar, The Atlantic-Richfield Intelligentser .
It is beginning to dawn on a growing number of armchair ombudsmen that
the public print reports news from a parallel universe – one that has
never heard of politically-motivated assassinations, CIA-Mafia banking
thefts, mind control, death squads or even federal agencies with
secret budgets fattened by cocaine sales – a place overrun by lone
gunmen, where the CIA and Mafia are usually on their best behavior. In
this idyllic land, the most serious infraction an official can commit
__is a the employment of a domestic servant with (shudder) no
residency status.

This unlikely land of enchantment is the creation of MOCKINGBIRD.

It was conceived in the late 1940s, the most frigid period of the cold
war, when the CIA began a systematic infiltration of the corporate
media, a process that often included direct takeover of major news
outlets.

In this period, the American intelligence services competed with
communist activists abroad to influence European labor unions. With or
without the cooperation of local governments, Frank Wisner, an
undercover State Department official assigned to the Foreign Service,
rounded up students abroad to enter the cold war underground of covert
operations on behalf of his Office of Policy Coordination. Philip
Graham, __a graduate of the Army Intelligence School in Harrisburg,
PA, then publisher of the Washington Post., was taken under Wisner’s
wing to direct the program code-named Operation MOCKINGBIRD.

“By the early 1950s,” writes formerVillage Voice reporter Deborah
Davis in Katharine the Great, “Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of the
New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles, plus
stringers, four to six hundred in all, according to a former CIA
analyst.” The network was overseen by Allen Dulles, a templar for
German and American corporations who wanted their points of view
represented in the public print. Early MOCKINGBIRD influenced 25
newspapers and wire agencies consenting to act as organs of CIA
propaganda. Many of these were already run by men with reactionary
views, among them William Paley (CBS), C.D. Jackson (Fortune), Henry
Luce (Time) and Arthur Hays Sulzberger (N.Y. Times).

Activists curious about the workings of MOCKINGBIRD have since been
appalled to f__ind in FOIA documents that agents boasting in CIA
office memos of their pride in having placed “important assets” inside
every major news publication in the country. It was not until 1982
that the Agency openly admitted that reporters on the CIA payroll have
acted as case officers to agents in the field.

“World War III has begun,” Henry’s Luce’s Life declared in March,
1947. “It is in the opening skirmish stage already.” The issue
featured an excerpt of a book by James Burnham, who called for the
creation of an “American Empire,” “world-dominating in political
power, set up at least in part through coercion (probably including
war, but certainly the threat of war) and in which one group of people
… would hold more than its equal share of power.”

George Seldes, the famed anti-fascist media critic, drew down on Luce
in 1947, explaining tha__t “although avoiding typical Hitlerian
phrases, the same doctrine of a superior people taking over the world
and ruling it, began to appear in the press, whereas the organs of
Wall Street were much more honest in favoring a doctrine inevitably
leading to war if it brought greater commercial markets under the
American flag.”

On the domestic front, an abiding relationship was struck between the
CIA and William Paley, a wartime colonel and the founder of CBS. A
firm believer in “all forms of propaganda” to foster loyalty to the
Pentagon, Paley hired CIA agents to work undercover at the behest of
his close friend, the busy grey eminence of the nation’s media, Allen
Dulles. Paley’s designated go-between in his dealings with the CIA was
Sig Mickelson, president of CBS News from 1954 to 1961.

The CIA’s assimilation of old guard fascists was overseen by the
Operations Coordination Board, directed by C.D. Jackson, formerly an
executive of Time magazine and Eisenhower’s Special Assistant for Cold
War Strategy. In 1954 he was succeeded by Nelson Rockefeller, who quit
a year later, disgusted at the administration’s political infighting.
Vice President Nixon succeeded Rockefeller as the key cold war
strategist.

“Nixon,” writes John Loftus, a former attorney for the Justice
Department’s Office of Special Investigations, took “a small boy’s
delight in the arcane tools of the intelligence craft – the hidden
microphones, the ‘black’ propaganda.” Nixon especially enjoyed his
visit to a Virginia training camp to observe Nazis in the “special
forces” drilling at covert operations.

One of the fugitives recruited by the American intelligence
underground was heroin smuggler Hubert von Blücher, the son of A
German ambassador. Hubert often bragged that that he was trained by
the Abwehr, the German military intelligence division, while still a
civilian in his twenties. He served in a recon unit of the German Army
until forced out for medical reasons in 1944, according to his wartime
records. He worked briefly as an assistant director for Berlin-Film on
a movie entitled One Day …, and finished out the war flying with the
Luftwaffe, but not to engage the enemy – his mission was the smuggling
of Nazi loot out of the country. His exploits were, in part, the
subject of Sayer and Botting’s Nazi Gold, an account of the knockover
of the Reichsbank at the end of the war.

In 1948 he flew the coop to Argentina. Posing as a photographer named
Huberto von Bleucher Corell, he immediately paid court to Eva Peron,
presenting her with an invaluable Gobelin tapestry (a selection from
the wealth of artifacts confiscated by the SS from Europe’s Jews?).
Hubert then met with Martin Bormann at the Hotel Plaza to deliver
German marks worth $80 million. The loot financed the birth of the
National Socialist Party in Argentina, among other forms of Nazi
revival.

In 1951, Hubert migrated northward and took a job at the Color
Corporation of America in Hollywood. He eked out a living writing
scripts for the booming movie industry. His voice can be heard on a
film set in the Amazon, produced by Walt Disney. Nine years later he
returned to Buenos Aires, then Düsseldorf, West Germany, and
established a firm that developed not movie scripts, but anti-chemical
warfare agents for the government. At the Industrie Club in Düsseldorf
in 1982, von Blücher boasted to journalists, “I am chief shareholder
of Pan American Airways. I am the best friend of Howard Hughes. The
Beach Hotel in Las Vegas is 45 percent financed by me. I am thus the
biggest financier ever to appear in the Arabian Nights tales dreamed
up by these people over their second bottle of brandy.”

Not really. Two the biggest financiers to stumble from the drunken
dreams of world-moving affluence were, in their time, Moses Annenberg,
publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer, and his son Walter , the
CIA/mob-anchored publisher of the TV Guide. Like most American
high-rollers, Annenberg lived a double life. Moses, his father, was a
scion of the Capone mob. Both Moses and Walter were indicted in 1939
for tax evasions totalling many millions of dollars – the biggest case
in the history of the Justice Department. Moses pled guilty and agreed
to pay the government $8 million and settle $9 million in assorted tax
claims, penalties and interest debts. Moses received a three-year
sentence. He died in Lewisburg Penitentiary.

Walter Annenbeg, the TV Guide magnate, was a lofty Republican. On the
campaign trail in April, 1988, George Bush flew into Los Angeles to
woo Reagan’s kitchen cabinet. “This is the topping on the cake,”
Bush’s regional campaign director told the Los Angeles Times. The Bush
team met at Annenberg’s plush Rancho Mirage estate at Sunnylands,
California. It was at the Annenberg mansion that Nixon’s cabinet was
chosen, and the state’s social and contributor registers built over a
quarter-century of state political dominance by Ronald Reagan, whose
acting career was launched by Operation MOCKINGBIRD.

The commercialization of television, coinciding with Reagan’s
recruitment by the Crusade for Freedom, a CIA front, presented the
intelligence world with unprecedented potential for sowing propaganda
and even prying in the age of Big Brother. George Orwell glimpsed the
possibilities when he installed omniscient video surveillance
technology in 1948, a novel rechristened 1984 for the first edition
published in the U.S. by Harcourt, Brace. Operation Octopus, according
to federal files, was in full swing by 1948, a surveillance program
that turned any television set with tubes into a broadcast
transmitter. Agents of Octopus could pick up audio and visual images
with the equipment as far as 25 miles away.

Hale Boggs was investigating Operation Octopus at the time of his
disappearance in the midst of the Watergate probe.

In 1952, at MCA, Actors’ Guild president Ronald Reagan – a screen idol
recruited by MOCKINGBIRD’s Crusade for Freedom to raise funds for the
resettlement of Nazis in the U.S., according to Loftus – signed a
secret waiver of the conflict-of-interest rule with the mob-controlled
studio, in effect granting it a labor monopoly on early television
programming. In exchange, MCA made Reagan a part owner. Furthermore,
historian C. Vann Woodward, writing in the New York Times, in 1987,
reported that Reagan had “fed the names of suspect people in his
organization to the FBI secretly and regularly enough to be assigned
‘an informer’s code number, T-10.’ His FBI file indicates intense
collaboration with producers to ‘purge’ the industry of subversives.”

No one ever turned a suspicious eye on Walter Cronkite, a former
intelligence officer and in the immediate postwar period UPI’s Moscow
correspondent. Cronkite was lured to CBS by Operation MOCKINGBIRD’s
Phil Graham, according to Deborah Davis.

Another television conglomerate, Cap Cities, rose like a horror-film
simian from CIA and Mafia heroin operations. Among other
organized-crime Republicans, Thomas Dewey and his neighbor Lowell
Thomas threw in to launch the infamous Resorts International, the
corporate front for Lansky’s branch of the federally-sponsored mob
family and the corporate precursor to Cap Cities. Another of the
investors was James Crosby, a Cap Cities executive who donated
$100,000 to Nixon’s 1968 presidential campaign. This was the year that
Resorts bought into Atlantic City casino interests. Police in New
jersey attempted, with no success, to spike the issuance of a gambling
license to the company, citing Mafia ties.

In 1954, this same circle of investors, all Catholics, founded the
broadcasting company notorious for overt propagandizing and general
spookiness. The company’s chief counsel was OSS veteran William Casey,
who clung to his shares by concealing them in a blind trust even after
he was appointed CIA director by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

“Black radio” was the phrase CIA critic David Wise coined in The
Invisible Government to describe the agency’s intertwining interests
in the emergence of the transistor radio with the entrepreneurs who
took to the airwaves. “Daily, East and West beam hundreds of
propaganda broadcasts at each other in an unrelenting babble of
competition for the minds of their listeners. The low-price transistor
has given the hidden war a new importance,” enthused one foreign
correspondent.

A Hydra of private foundations sprang up to finance the propaganda
push. One of them, Operations and Policy Research, Inc. (OPR),
received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the CIA through private
foundations and trusts. OPR research was the basis of a television
series that aired in New York and Washington, D.C. in 1964, Of People
and Politics, a “study” of the American political system in 21 weekly
installments.

In Hollywood, the visual cortex of The Beast, the same CIA/Mafia
combination that formed Cap Cities sank its claws into the film
studios and labor unions. Johnny Rosselli was pulled out of the Army
during the war by a criminal investigation of Chicago mobsters in the
film industry. Rosselli, a CIA asset probably assassinated by the CIA,
played sidekick to Harry Cohn, the Columbia Pictures mogul who visited
Italy’s Benito Mussolini in 1933, and upon his return to Hollywood
remodeled his office after the dictator’s. The only honest job
Rosselli ever had was assistant purchasing agent (and a secret
investor) at Eagle Lion productions, run by Bryan Foy, a former
producer for 20th Century Fox. Rosselli, Capone’s representative on
the West Coast, passed a small fortune in mafia investments to Cohn.
Bugsy Seigel pooled gambling investments with Billy Wilkerson,
publisher of the Hollywood Reporter.

In the 1950s, outlays for global propaganda climbed to a full third of
the CIA’s covert operations budget. Some 3, 000 salaried and contract
CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts. The cost
of disinforming the world cost American taxpayers an estimated $265
million a year by 1978, a budget larger than the combined expenditures
of Reuters, UPI and the AP news syndicates.

In 1977, the Copely News Service admitted that it worked closely with
the intelligence services – in fact, 23 employees were full-time
employees of the Agency.

Most consumers of the corporate media were – and are – unaware of the
effect that the salting of public opinion has on their own beliefs. A
network anchorman in time of national crisis is an instrument of
psychological warfare in the MOCKINGBIRD media. He is a creature from
the national security sector’s chamber of horrors. For this reason
consumers of the corporate press have reason to examine their basic
beliefs about government and life in the parallel universe of these
United States.

How the Washington Post Censors the News
[Note the highlighted paragraph]

How the Washington Post Censors the News

A Letter to the Washington Post
by Julian C. Holmes
_________________________________________________________________

April 25, 1992
Richard Harwood, Ombudsman
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC 20071

Dear Mr. Harwood,

Though the Washington Post does not over-extend itself in the pursuit
of hard news, just let drop the faintest rumor of a government
“conspiracy”, and a klaxon horn goes off in the news room. Aroused
from apathy in the daily routine of reporting assignations and various
other political and social sports events, editors and reporters
scramble to the phones. The klaxon screams its warning: the greatest
single threat to herd-journalism, corporate profits, and government
stability — the dreaded “CONSPIRACY THEORY”!!

It is not known whether anyone has actually been hassled or accosted
by any of these frightful spectres, but their presence is announced to
Post readers with a salvo of warnings to avoid the tricky, sticky webs
spun by the wacko “CONSPIRACY THEORISTS”.

Recall how the Post saved us from the truth about Iran-Contra.

Professional conspiracy exorcist Mark Hosenball was hired to ridicule
the idea that Oliver North and his CIA-associated gangsters had
conspired to do wrong (*1). And when, in their syndicated column, Jack
Anderson and Dale Van Atta discussed some of the conspirators, the
Post sprang to protect its readers, and the conspirators, by censoring
the Anderson column before printing it (*2).

But for some time the lid had been coming off the Iran-Contra
conspiracy. In 1986, the Christic Institute, an interfaith center for
law and public policy, had filed a lawsuit alleging a U.S.
arms-for-drugs trade that helped keep weapons flowing to the
CIA-Contra army in Nicaragua, and cocaine flowing to U.S. markets
(*3). In 1988 Leslie Cockburn published Out of Control, a seminal work
on our bizarre, illegal war against Nicaragua (*4). The Post
contributed to this discovery process by disparaging the charges of
conspiracy and by publishing false information about the
drug-smuggling evidence presented to the House Subcommittee on
Narcotics Abuse and Control. When accused by Committee Chairman
Charles Rangel (D-NY). of misleading reporting, the Post printed only
a partial correction and declined to print a letter of complaint from
Rangel (*5).

Sworn testimony before Senator John Kerry’s Subcommittee on Terrorism,
Narcotics, and International Operations confirmed U.S. Government
complicity in the drug trade (*6). With its coverup of the arms/drug
conspiracy evaporating, the ever-accommodating Post shifted gears and
retained Hosenball to exorcise from our minds a newly emerging threat
to domestic tranquility, the “October Surprise” conspiracy (*7). But
close on the heels of Hosenball and the Post came Barbara Honegger and
then Gary Sick who authored independently, two years apart, books with
the same title, “October Surprise” (*8). Honegger was a member of the
Reagan/Bush campaign and transition teams in 1980. Gary Sick,
professor of Middle East Politics at Columbia University, was on the
staff of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter,
and Reagan. In 1989 and 1991 respectively, Honegger and Sick published
their evidence of how the Republicans made a deal to supply arms to
Iran if Iran would delay release of the 52 United States hostages
until after the November 1980 election. The purpose of this deal was
to quash the possibility of a pre-election release(an October
surprise). which would have bolstered the reelection prospects for
President Carter.

Others published details of this alleged Reagan-Bush conspiracy. In
October 1988, Playboy Magazine ran an expose “An Election Held
Hostage”; FRONTLINE did another in April 1991 (*9). In June, 1991 a
conference of distinguished journalists, joined by 8 of the former
hostages, challenged the Congress to “make a full, impartial
investigation” of the election/hostage allegations. The Post reported
the statement of the hostages, but not a word of the conference itself
which was held in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Auditorium (*10).
On February 5, 1992 a gun-shy, uninspired House of Representatives
begrudgingly authorized an “October Surprise” investigation by a task
force of 13 congressmen headed by Lee Hamilton (D-IN). who had chaired
the House of Representatives Iran-Contra Committee. Hamilton has named
as chief team counsel Larry Barcella, a lawyer who represented BCCI
when the Bank was indicted in 1988 (*11).

Like the Washington Post, Hamilton had not shown interest in pursuing
the U.S. arms-for-drugs operation (*12). He had accepted Oliver
North’s lies,and as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee he
derailed House Resolution 485 which had asked President Reagan to
answer questions about Contra support activities of government
officials and others (*13). After CIA operative John

Hull (from Hamilton’s home state). was charged in Costa Rica with
“international drug trafficking and hostile acts against the nation’s
security”, Hamilton and 18 fellow members of Congress tried to
intimidate Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez into handling
Hull’s case “in a manner that will not complicate U.S.-Costa Rican
relations” (*14). The Post did not report the Hamilton letter or the
Costa Rican response that declared Hull’s case to be “in as good hands
as our 100 year old uninterrupted democracy can provide to all
citizens” (*15).

Though the Post does its best to guide our thinking away from conspiracy
theories, it is difficult to avoid the fact that so much wrongdoing involves
government or corporate conspiracies:

In its COINTELPRO operation, the FBI used disinformation, forgery,
surveillance, false arrests, and violence to illegally harass
U.S.citizens in the 60’s (*16).

The CIA’s Operation MONGOOSE illegally sabotaged Cuba by “destroying
crops, brutalizing citizens, destabilizing the society, and
conspiring with the Mafia to assassinate Fidel Castro and other
leaders” (*17).

“Standard Oil of New Jersey was found by the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice to be conspiring with I.G.Farben…of
Germany. …By its cartel agreements with Standard Oil, the
United States was effectively prevented from developing or
producing [fo rWorld War-II] any substantial amount of
synthetic rubber,” said Senator Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin
(*18).

U.S. Government agencies knowingly withheld information about
dosages of radiation “almost certain to produce thyroid
abnormalities or cancer” that contaminated people residing near
the nuclear weapons factory at Hanford, Washington (*19).

Various branches of Government deliberately drag their feet in
getting around to cleaning up the Nation’s dangerous nuclear
weapons sites (*20). State and local governments back the
nuclear industry’s secret public relations strategy (*21).

“The National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and some
twenty comprehensive cancer centers, have misled and confused
the public and Congress by repeated claims that we are winning
the war against cancer. In fact, the cancer establishment has
continually minimized the evidence for increasing cancer rates
which it has largely attributed to smoking and dietary fat,
while discounting or ignoring the causal role of avoidable
eposures to industrial carcinogens in the air, food, water, and
the workplace.” (*22).

The Bush Administration coverup of its pre-Gulf-War support of Iraq
“is yet another example of the President’s people conspiring to
keep both Congress and the American people in the dark” (*23).

If you think about it, conspiracy is a fundamental aspect of
doing business in this country.

Take the systematic and cooperative censorship of the Persian Gulf
War by the Pentagon and much of the news media (*24).

Or the widespread plans of business and government groups to spend
$100 million in taxes to promote a distorted and truncated
history of Columbus in America (*25). along the lines of the
Smithsonian Institution’s “fusion of the two worlds”, (*26).
rather than examining more realistic aspects of the Spanish
invasion, like “anger, cruelty, gold, terror, and death” (*27).

Or circumstances surrounding the U.S. Justice Department theft from
the INSLAW company of sophisticated, law-enforcement computer
software which “now point to a widespread conspiracy
implicating lesser Government officials in the theft of
INSLAW’s technology”, says former U.S. Attorney General Elliot
Richardson (*28).

Or Watergate.

Or the “largest bank fraud in world financial history” (*29), where
the White House knew of the criminal activities at “the Bank of
Crooks and Criminals International” (BCCI) (*30), where U.S.
intelligence agencies did their secret banking (*31), and where
bribery of prominent American public officials “was a way of
doing business” (*32).

Or the 1949 conviction of “GM [General Motors], Standard Oil of
California, Firestone, and E. Roy Fitzgerald, among others, for
criminally conspiring to replace electric transportation with
gas- and diesel-powered buses and to monopolize the sale of
buses and related products to transportation companies
throughout the country” [in, among others, the cities of New
York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis, Oakland, Salt Lake
City, and Los Angeles] (*33).

Or the collusion in 1973 between Senator Abraham Ribicoff (D-CT).
and the U.S. Department of Transportation to overlook safety
defects in the 1.2 million Corvair automobiles manufactured by
General Motors in the early 60’s (*34).

Or the A. H. Robins Company, which manufactured the Dalkon Shield
intrauterine contraceptive, and which ignored repeated warnings
of the Shield’s hazards and which “stonewalled, deceived,
covered up, and

covered up the coverups…[thus inflicting] on women a
worldwide epidemic of pelvic infections.” (*35).

Or that cooperation between McDonnell Douglas Aircraft Company and
the FAA resulted in failure to enforce regulations regarding
the unsafe DC-10 cargo door which failed in flight killing all
364 passengers on Turkish Airlines Flight 981 on March 3, 1974
(*36).

Or the now-banned, cancer-producing pregnancy drug
Diethylstilbestrol (DES). that was sold by manufacturers who
ignored tests which showed DES to be carcinogenic; and who
acted “in concert with each other in the testing and marketing
of DES for miscarriage purposes” (*37).

Or the conspiracies among bankers and speculators, with the
cooperation of a corrupted Congress, to relieve depositors of
their savings. This “arrogant disregard from the White House,
Congress and corporate world for the interests and rights of
the American people” will cost U.S. tapayers many hundreds of
billions of dollars (*38).

Or the Westinghouse, Allis Chalmers,Federal Pacific, and General
Electric executives who met surreptitiously in hotel rooms to
fix prices and eliminate competition on heavy industrial
equipment (*39).

Or the convictions of Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT).
officers for fabricating safety tests on prescription drugs
(*40).

Or the conspiracy by the asbestos industry to suppress knowledge of
medical problemsrelating to asbestos (*41).

Or the 1928 Achnacarry Agreement through which oil companies “agreed
not to engage in any effective price competition” (*42).

Or the conspiracy among U.S. Government agencies and the Congress to
cover up the nature of our decades-old war against the people
of Nicaragua

a covert war that continues in 1992 with the U.S. Government
applying pressure for the Nicaraguan police to reorganize into
a more repressive force (*43).

Or the conspiracy by the CIA and the U.S. Government to interfere in
the Chilean election process with military aid, covert actions,
and an economic boycott which culminated in the overthrow of
the legitimately elected government and the assassination of
President Salvador Allende in 1973 (*44).

Or the conspiracy among U.S. officials including Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger and CIA Director William Colby to finance
terrorism in Angola for the purpose of disrupting Angola’s
plans for peaceful elections in October 1975, and to lie about
these actions to the Congress and the news media (*45). And CIA
Director George Bush’s subsequent cover up of this
U.S.-sponsored terrorism (*46).

Or President George Bush’s consorting with the Pentagon to invade
Panama in 1989 and thereby violate the Constitution of the
United States, the U.N. Charter, the O.A.S. Charter, and the
Panama Canal Treaties (*47).

Or the “gross antitrust violations” (*48) and the conspiracy of
American oil companies and the British and U.S. governments to
strangle Iran economically after Iran nationalized the
British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951. And the
subsequent overthrow by the CIA in 1953 of Iranian Prime
Minister Muhammed Mossadegh (*49).

Or the CIA-planned assassination of Congo head-of-state Patrice
Lumumba (*50).

Or the deliberate and wilful efforts of President George Bush,
Senator Robert Dole, Senator George Mitchell, various U.S.
Government agencies, and members of both Houses of the Congress
to buy the 1990 Nicaraguan national elections for the
presidential candidate supported by President Bush (*51).

Or the collective approval by 64 U.S. Senators of Robert Gates to
head the CIA, in the face of “unmistakable evidence that Gates
lied about his role in the Iran-Contra scandal” (*52).

Or “How Reagan and the Pope Conspired to Assist Poland’s Solidarity
Movement and Hasten the Demise of Communism” (*53).

Or how the Reagan Administration connived with the Vatican to ban
the use of USAID funds by any country “for the promotion of
birth control or abortion” (*54).

Or “the way the Vatican and Washington colluded to achieve common
purpose in Central America” (*55).

Or the collaboration of Guatemalan strong-man and mass murderer
Hector Gramajo with the U.S. Army to design “programs to build
civilian-military cooperation” at the U.S. Army School of the
Americas (SOA) at Fort Benning, Georgia; five of the nine
soldiers accused in the 1989 Jesuit massacre in El Salvador are
graduates of SOA which trains Latin/American military personnel
(*56).

Or the conspiracy of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant administration
to harass and cause bodily harm to whistleblower Linda Porter
who uncovered dangerous working conditions at the facility
(*57).

Or the conspiracy of President Richard Nxion and the Government of
South Vietnam to delay the Paris Peace Talks until after the
1968 U.S. presidential election (*58).

Or the pandemic coverups of police violence (*59).

Or the always safe-to-cite worldwide communist conspiracy (*60).

Or maybe the socially responsible, secret consortium to publish The
Satanic Verses in paperback (*61).

Conspiracies are obviously a way to get things done, and the Washington Post
offers little comment unless conspiracy theorizing threatens to expose a
really important conspiracy that, let’s say, benefits big business or big
government.

Such a conspiracy would be like our benevolent CIA’s 1953 overthrow of
the Iranian government to help out U.S. oil companies; or like our
illegal war against Panama to tighten U.S. control over Panama and the
Canal; or like monopoly control of broadcasting that facilitates
corporate censorship on issues of public importance (*62). When the
camouflage of such conspiracies is stripped away, public confidence in
the conspiring officials can erode — depending on how seriously the
citizenry perceives the conspiracy to have violated the public trust.
Erosion of public trust in the status quo is what the Post seems to
see as a real threat to its corporate security.

Currently, the Post has mounted vituperative, frenzied attacks on
Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK”, which reexamines the U.S. Government’s
official (Warren Commission. finding that a single gunman, acting
alone, killed President John F. Kennedy. The movie also is the story
of New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s unsuccessful
prosecution of Clay Shaw, the only person ever tried in connection
with the assassination. And the movie proposes that the Kennedy
assassination was the work of conspirators whose interests would not
be served by a president who, had he lived, might have disengaged us
from our war against Vietnam.

The Post ridicules a reexamination of the Kennedy assassination along
lines suggested by “JFK”. Senior Post journalists like Charles
Krauthammer, Ken Ringle, George Will, Phil McCombs, and Michael
Isikoff, have been called up to man the bulwarks against public
sentiment which has never supported the government’s
non-conspiratorial assassination thesis. In spite of the facts that
the Senate Intelligence Committee of 1975 and 1976 found that “both
the FBI and CIA had repeatedly lied to the Warren Commission” (*63)
and that the 1979 Report of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations found that President Kennedy was probably killed “as a
result of a conspiracy” (*64), a truly astounding number of Post
stories have been used as vehicles to discredit “JFK” as just another
conspiracy (*65).

Some of the more vicious attacks on the movie are by editor Stephen
Rosenfeld, and journalists Richard Cohen, George Will, and George
Lardner Jr (*66). They ridicule the idea that Kennedy could have had
second thoughts about escalating the Vietnam War and declaim that
there is no historical justification for this idea. Seasoned
journalist Peter Dale Scott, former Pentagon/CIA liaison chief L.
Fletcher Prouty, and investigators David Scheim and John Newman have
each authored defense of the “JFK” thesis that Kennedy was not
enthusiastic about staying in Vietnam (*67). But the Post team just
continues ranting against the possibility of a high-level
assassination conspiracy while offering little justification for its
arguments.

An example of particularly shabby scholarship and unacceptable
behavior is George Lardner Jr’s contribution to the Post’s campaign
against the movie. Lardner wrote three articles, two before the movie
was completed, and the third upon its release. In May, six months
before the movie came out, Lardner obtained a copy of the first draft
of the script and, contrary to accepted standards, revealed in the
Post the contents of this copyrighted movie (*68). Also in this
article, (*69). Lardner discredits Jim Garrison with hostile
statements from a former Garrison associate Pershing Gervais. Lardner
does not tell the reader that subsequent to the Clay Shaw trial, in a
U.S. Government criminal action brought against Garrison, Government
witness Gervais, who helped set up Garrison for prosecution, admitted
under oath that in a May 1972 interview with a New Orleans television
reporter, he, Gervais, had said that the U.S. Government’s case
against Garrison was a fraud (*70). The Post’s 1973 account of the
Garrison acquittal mentions this controversy, but when I recently
asked Lardner about this, he was not clear as to whether he remembered
it (*71).

Two weeks after his first “JFK” article, Lardner blustered his way
through a justification for his unauthorized possession of the early
draft ofthe movie (*72). He also defended his reference to Pershing
Gervais by lashing out at Garrison as a writer “of gothic fiction”.

When the movie was released in December, Lardner “reviewed” it (*73).
He again ridiculed the film’s thesis that following the Kennedy
assassination, President Johnson reversed Kennedy’s plans to
de-escalate the Vietnam War. Lardner cited a memorandum issued by
Johnson four days after Kennedy died. Lardner says this memorandum was
written before the assassination, and that it “was a continuation of
Kennedy’s policy”. In fact, the memorandum was drafted the day before
the assassination by McGeorge Bundy (Kennedy’s Assistant for National
Security Affairs) Kennedy was in Texas, and may never have seen it.
Following the assassination, it was rewritten; and the final version
provided for escalating the war against Vietnam (*74) — facts that
Lardner avoided.

The Post’s crusade against exposing conspiracies is blatantly dishonest:

The Warren Commission inquiry into the Kennedy Assassination was for
the most part conducted in secret. This fact is buried in the Post
(*75). Nor do current readers of this newspaper find meaningful
discussion of the Warren Commission’s secret doubts about both the FBI
and the CIA (*76). Or of a dispatch from CIA headquarters instructing
co-conspirators at field stations to counteract the “new wave of books
and articles criticizing the [Warren] Commission’s findings…[and]
conspiracy theories …[that] have frequently thrown suspicion on our
organization” and to “discuss the publicity problem with liaison and
friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors “and to
“employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the
critics. …Book reviews and feature articles are particularly
appropriate for this purpose. …The aim of this dispatch is to
provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the
conspiracy theorists…” (*77).

In 1979, Washington journalist Deborah Davis published Katharine The Great,
the story of Post publisher Katharine Graham and her newspaper’s close ties
with Washington’s powerful elite, a number of whom were with the CIA.

Particularly irksome to Post editor Benjamin Bradlee was a Davis claim
that Bradlee had “produced CIA material” (*78). Understandably
sensitive about this kind of publicity, Bradlee told Davis’ publisher
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich ,”Miss Davis is lying …I never produced
CIA material …what I can do is to brand Miss Davis as a fool and to
put your company in that special little group of publishers who don’t
give a shit for the truth”. The Post bullied HBJ into recalling the
book; HBJ shredded 20,000 copies; Davis sued HBJ for breach of
contract and damage to reputation; HBJ settled out of court; and Davis
published her book elsewhere with an appendix that demonstrated
Bradlee to have been deeply involved with producing cold-war/CIA
propaganda (*79). Bradlee still says the allegations about his
association with people in the CIA are false, but he has apparently
taken no action to contest the xetensive documentation presented by
Deborah Davis in the second and third editions of her book (*80).

And it’s not as if the Post were new to conspiracy work.

Former Washington Post publisher Philip Graham “believing that the function of the press was more often than not to mobilize consent for the policies of the government, was one of the architects of what became a widespread practice: the use and manipulation of journalists by the CIA” (*81). This scandal was known by its code name Operation MOCKINGBIRD. Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein cites a former CIA deputy director as saying, “It was widely known that Phil Graham was someone you could get help from” (*82). More recently the Post provided cover for CIA personality Joseph Fernandez by “refusing to print his name for over a year up until the day his indictment was announced …for crimes committed in his official capacity as CIA station chief in Costa Rica” (*83).

Of the meetings between Graham and his CIA acquaintances at which the
availability and prices of journalists were discussed, a former CIA
man recalls, “You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call
girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month” (*84). One may wish to
consider Philip Graham’s philosophy along with a more recent statement
from his wife Katharine Graham, current Chairman of the Board of the
Washington Post. In a lecture on terrorism and the news media, Mrs.
Graham said: “A second challenge facing the media is how to prevent
terrorists from using the media as a platform fortheir views. … The
point is that we generally know when we are being manipulated, and
we’ve learned better how and where to draw the line, though the
decisions are often difficult” (*85).

Today, the Post and its world of big business are apparently terrified
that our elite and our high-level public officials may be exposed as
conspirators behind Contra drug-smuggling, October Surprise, or the
assassination of President Kennedy. This fear is truly remarkable in
that, like most of us and like most institutions, the Post runs its
business as a conspiracy of like-minded entrepreneurs — a conspiracy
“to act or work together toward the same result or goal” (*86). But
where the Post really parts company from just plain people is when it
pretends that conspiracies associated with big business or government
are “coincidence”. Post reporter Lardner vents the frustration
inherent in having to maintain this dichotomy. He lashes out at Oliver
Stone and suggests that Stone may actually believe that the Post’s
opposition to Stone’s movie is a “conspiracy”. Lardner assures us that
Stone’s complaints are “groundless and paranoid and smack of
McCarthyism” (*87).

So how does the Post justify devoting so much energy to ridiculing those who
investigate conspiracies?

The Post has answers: people revert to conspiracy theories because
they need something “neat and tidy” (*88) that “plugs a gap no other
generally accepted theory fills’, (*89. and “coincidence …is always
the safest and most likely explanation for any conjunction of curious
circumstances …” (*90).

And what does this response mean? It means that “coincidence theory”
is what the Post espouses when it would prefer not to admit to a
conspiracy. In other words, some things just “happen”. And, besides,
conspiracy to do certain things would be a crime; “coincidence” is a
safer bet.

Post Ombudsman Richard Harwood, who, it is rumored, serves as
Executive Director of the Benevolent Protective Order of Coincidence
Theorists, (*91) recently issued a warning about presidential
candidates “who have begun to mutter about a press conspiracy”.
Ordinarily, Harwood would simply dismiss these charges as “symptoms of
the media paranoia that quadrennially engulfs members of the American
political class” (*92). But a fatal mistake was made by the mutterers;
they used the “C” word against the PRESS! And Harwood exploded his
off-the-cuff comment into an entire column — ending it with:”We are
the new journalists, immersed too long, perhaps, in the cleansing
waters of political conformity. But conspirators we ain’t”.

Distinguished investigative journalist Morton Mintz, a 29-year veteran
of the Washington Post, now chairs the Fund for Investigative
Journalism. In the December issue of The Progressive, Mintz wrote “A
Reporter Looks Back in Anger — Why the Media Cover Up Corporate
Crime”. Therein he discussed the difficulties in convincing editors to
accept important news stories. He illustrated the article with his own
experiences at the Post, where he says he was known as “the biggest
pain in the ass in the office” (*93).

Would Harwood argue that grief endured by journalists at the hands of editors
is a matter of random coincidence?

And that such policy as Mintz described is made independently by
editors without influence from fellow editors or from management?
Would Harwood have us believe that at the countless office “meetings”
in which news people are ever in attendance, there is no discussion of
which stories will run and which ones will find inadequate space? That
there is no advanced planning for stories or that there are no
cooperative efforts among the staff? Or that in the face of our
news-media “grayout” of presidential candidate Larry Agran, (*94) a
Post journalist would be free to give news space to candidate Agran
equal to that the Post lavishes on candidate Clinton? Let’s face it:
these possibilities are about as likely as Barbara Bush entertaining
guests at a soup kitchen.

Would Harwood have us believe that media critic and former Post
Ombudsman Ben Bagdikian is telling less than the truth in his account
of wire-service control over news: “The largely anonymous men who
control the syndicate and wire service copy desks and the central wire
photo machines determine at a single decision what millions will see
and hear. …there seems to be little doubt that these gatekeepers
preside over an operation in which an appalling amount of press
agentry sneaks in the back door of American journalism and marches
untouched out the front door as ‘news'” (*95).

When he sat on the U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington, Judge
Clarence Thomas violated U.S. law when he failed to remove himself
from a case in which he then proceeded to reverse a $10 million
judgment against the Ralston Purina Company (*96). Ralston Purina, the
animal feed empire, is the family fortune of Thomas’ mentor, Senator
John Danforth. The Post limited its coverage of the Thomas malfeasance
to 56 words buried in the middle of a 1200-word article (*97). Would
Harwood have us believe that the almost complete blackout on this
matter by the major news media and the U.S. Senate was a matter of
coincidence? Could a Post reporter have written a story about Ralston
Purina if she had wanted to? Can a brick swim?

Or take the fine report produced last September by Ralph Nader’s
Public Citizen. Titled All the Vice President’s Men, it documents “How
the Quayle Council on Competitiveness Secretly Undermines Health,
Safety, and Environmental Programs”. Three months later, Post
journalists David Broder and Bob Woodward published “The President’s
Understudy”, a seven-part series on Vice President Quayle. Although
this series does address Quayle’s role with the Competitiveness
Council, its handling of the Council’s disastrous impact on America is
inadequate. It is 40,000 words of mostly aimless chatter about Quayle
memorabilia: youth, family, college record, Christianity, political
aspirations, intellectual aspirations, wealthy friends, government
associates, golf, travels, wife Marilyn, and net worth — revealing
little about Quayle’s abilities, his understanding of society’s
problems, or his thoughts about justice and freedom, and never
mentioning the comprehensive Nader study of Quayle’s record in the
Bush Administration (*98).

Now, did Broder or did Woodward forget about the Nader study? Or did
both of them forget? Or did one, or the other, or both decide not to
mention it? Did these two celebrated, seasoned Post reporters ever
discuss together their jointly authored stories? Did they decide to
publish such a barren set of articles because it would enhance their
reputations? How did management feel about the use of precious news
space for such frivolity? Is it possible that so many pages were
dedicated to this twaddle without people “acting or working together
toward the same result or goal”? (*99) Do crocodiles fly?

On March 20, front-page headlines in the Wall Street Journal, the New
York Times, USA Today, and the Washington Post read respectively:

TSONGAS DROPPED OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE CLEARING CLINTON’S PATH

TSONGAS ABANDONS CAMPAIGN LEAVING CLINTON CLEAR PATH TOWARD SHOWDOWN
WITH BUSH

TSONGAS CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON

TSONGAS EXIT CLEARS WAY FOR CLINTON

This display of editorial independence should at least raise questions
of whether the news media collective mindset is really different from
that of any other cartel — like oil, diamond, energy, (*100) or
manufacturing cartels, a cartel being “a combination of independent
commercial enterprises designed to limit competition” (*101).

The Washington Post editorial page carries the heading:

AN INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER

Is it? Of course not. There probably is no such thing. Does the Post
“conspire” to keep its staff and its newspaper from wandering too far
from the safety of mediocrity? The Post would respond that the
question is absurd. In that I am not privy to the Post’s telephone
conversations, I can only speculate on how closely the media elite
must monitor the staff. But we all know how few micro-seconds it takes
a new reporter to learn what subjects are taboo and what are “safe”,
and that experienced reporters don’t have to ask.

What is more important, however, than speculating about how the Post
communicates within its own corporate structure and with other members
of the cartel, is to document and publicize what the Post does in
public, namely, how it shapes and censors the news.

Sincerely,

Julian C. Holmes

Copies to: Public-spirited citizens, both inside and outside the news
media, And – maybe a few others.

Notes to Letter of April 25, 1992:

1. Mark Hosenball, “The Ultimate Conspiracy”, Washington Post,
September 11, 1988, p.C1

2a. Julian Holmes, Letter to Washington Post Ombudsman Richard
Harwood, June 4,1991. Notes that the Post censored, from the
Anderson/Van Atta column, references to the Christic Institute and to
Robert Gates.

2b. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, “Iran-Contra Figure Dodges
Extradition”, Washington Merry-Go-Round, United Feature Syndicate, May
26, 1991. This is the column submitted to the Post (see note 2a)..

2c. Jack Anderson and Dale Van Atta, “The Man Washington Doesn’t Want
to Extradite”, Washington Post, May 26, 1991. The column (see note
2b). as it appeared in the Post (see note 2a)..

3a. Case No. 86-1146-CIV-KING, Amended Complaint for RICO Conspiracy,
etc., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Tony
Avirgan and Martha Honey v. John Hull et al., October 3, 1986.

3b. Vince Bielski and Dennis Bernstein, “Reports: Contras Send Drugs
to U.S.”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, November 16, 1986.

3c. Neal Matthews, “I Ran Drugs for Uncle Sam” (based on interviews
with Robert Plumlee, contra resupply pilot)., San Diego Reader, April
5, 1990.

4. Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press,
1987.

5a. Peter Dale Scott and Jonathan Marshall, Cocaine Politics,
University ofCalifornia Press, 1991, p.179-181.

5b. David S. Hilzenrath, “Hill Panel Finds No Evidence Linking Contras
to Drug Smuggling”, Washington Post, July 22, 1987, p.A07.

5c. Partial correction to the Washington Post of July 22, Washington
Post, July 24,1987, p.A3.

5d. The Washington Post declined to publish SubCommittee Chairman
Rangel’s Letter- to-the-Editor of July 22, 1987. It was printed in the
Congressional Record on August 6, 1987, p.E3296-7.

6a. Michael Kranish, “Kerry Says US Turned Blind Eye to Contra-Drug
Trail”, Boston Globe, April 10, 1988.

6b. Mary McGrory, “The Contra-Drug Stink”, Washington Post, April 10,
1988, p.B1. 6c. Robert Parry with Rod Nordland, “Guns for Drugs?
Senate Probers Trace an Old Contra Connection to George Bush’s
Office”, Newsweek, May 23, 1988, p.22.

6d. Dennis Bernstein, “Iran-Contra — The Coverup Continues”, The
Progressive, November 1988, p.24.

6e. “Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy”, A Report Prepared by
the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations
of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, December
1988.

7a. Mark Hosenball, “If It’s October … Then It’s Time for an Iranian
Conspiracy Theory”, Washington Post, October 9, 1988, p.D1.

7b. Mark Hosenball, “October Surprise! Redux! The Latest Version of
the 1980 ‘Hostage- Deal’ Story Is Still Full of Holes”, Washington
Post, April 21, 1991,p.B2.

8a. Barbara Honegger, October Surprise, New York: Tudor, 1989.

8b. Gary Sick, October Surprise, New York: Times Books, Random House,
1991.

9a. Abbie Hoffman and Jonathan Silvers, “An Election Held Hostage”,
Playboy, October 1988, p.73.

9b. Robert Parry and Robert Ross, “The Election Held Hostage”,
FRONTLINE, WGBH-TV,April 16, 1991.

10a. Reuter, “Ex-Hostages Seek Probe By Congress”, Washington Post,
June 14,1991,p.A4.

10b. “An Election Held Hostage?”, Conference, Dirksen Senate Office
Building Auditorium, Washington DC, June 13, 1991; Sponsored by The
Fund For New Priorities in America, 171 Madison Avenue, New York, NY,
10016.

11a. David Brown and Guy Gugliotta, “House Approves Inquiry Into
‘OctoberSurprise'”, Washington Post, February 6, 1992, p.A11.

11b. Jack Colhoun, “Lawmakers Lose Nerve on October Surprise”, The
Guardian, December 11, 1991, p.7.

11c. Jack Colhoun, “October Surprise Probe Taps BCCI Lawyer”, The
Guardian, February 26, 1992, p.3.

12. See note 5a, p.180-1.

13a. See note 4, p.229, 240-1.

13b. Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the
Iran-Contra Affair, Senate Report No. 100-216, House Report No.
100-433, November 1987, p.139-141.

14a. Letter to His Excellency Oscar Arias Sanchez, President of the
Republic of Costa Rica; from Members of the U.S. Congress David
Dreier, Lee Hamilton, Dave McCurdy, Dan Burton, Mary Rose Oakar, Jim
Bunning, Frank McCloskey, Cass Ballenger, Peter Kostmayer, Jim Bates,
Douglas Bosco, James Inhofe, Thomas Foglietta, Rod Chandler, Ike
Skelton, Howard Wolpe, Gary Ackerman, Robert Lagomarsino, and Bob
McEwen; January 26, 1989.

14b. Peter Brennan, “Costa Rica Considers Seeking Contra Backer in
U.S. — Indiana Native Wanted on Murder Charge in 1984 Bomb Attack in
Nicaragua”, WashingtonPost, February 1, 1990.

14c. “Costa Rica Seeks Extradition of Indiana Farmer”, Scripps-Howard
News Service,April 25, 1991.

15. Press Release from the Costa Rican Embassy, Washington DC, On the
Case of the Imprisonment of Costa Rican Citizen John Hull”, February
6, 1989.

16. Brian Glick, War at Home, Boston: South End Press, 1989.

17. John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard– The U.S. Role in the New
World Order, Boston: South End Press, 1991, p.121.

18. Hearings Before the Committee on Patents, United States Senate,
77th Cong., 2nd Session (1942)., part I, as cited in Joseph Borkin,
The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben, New York: The Free Press,
Macmillan, 1978, p.93.

19. R. Jeffrey Smith, “Study of A-Plant Neighbors’ Health Urged”,
Washington Post, July 13, 1990, p.A6.

20. Tom Horton, “A Cost Higher Than the Peace Dividend — Price Tag
Mounts to Clean Up Nuclear Weapons Sites”, Baltimore Sun, February 23,
1992, p.1K.

21. “The Nuclear Industry’s Secret PR Strategy”, EXTRA!, March 1992,
p.15.

22a. Samuel S. Epstein, MD et al, Losing the War Against Cancer: Need
for PublicPolicy Reform”, Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,
p.E947-9.

22b. Samuel S. Epstein, “The Cancer Establishment”, Washington Post,
March 10, 1992.

23a. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez, “Efforts to Thwart Investigation of the
BNL Scandal”, Congressional Record, March 30, 1992, p.H2005-2014.

23b. Hon. David E. Skaggs (CO)., White House Spin Control on Pre-War
Iraq Policy”, Congressional Record, April 2, 1992, p.H2285.

23c. Nicholas Rostow, Special Assistant to the President and Legal
Adviser, Memorandum to Jeanne S. Archibald et al, “Meeting on
congressional requests for information and documents”, April 8, 1991;
Congressional Record, April 2, 1992,p.H2285.

24a. Michio Kaku, “Operation Desert Lie: Pentagon Confesses”, The

Guardian, March11, 1992, p.4.

24b. J. Max Robins, “NBC’s Unaired Iraq Tapes Not a Black and White
Case”, Variety Magazine, March 4, 1991, p.25.

25. Emory R. Searcy Jr., Clergy and Laity Concerned, Spring 1991
Letter to”Friends”, p.1.

26. Jean Dimeo, “Selling Hispanics on Columbus — Luis Vasquez-Ajmac
Is Hired to Promote Smithsonian Project”, Washington Post, November
18, 1991, p.Bus.8.

27. Hans Koning, “Teach the Truth About Columbus”, Washington Post,
September 3,1991, p.A19.

28a. James Kilpatrick, “Software-Piracy Case Emitting Big Stench”, St.
Louis Post/Dispatch, March 18, 1991, p.3B. Elliot L. Richardson, “A
High-Tech Watergate”, New York Times, October 21,1991.

29. “BCCI — NBC Sunday Today”, February 23, 1992, p.12; transcript
prepared by Burrelle’s Information Services. The quote is from New
York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau who is running his own
independent investigation of BCCI.

30. Norman Bailey, former Reagan White House intelligence analyst;
from an interview with Mark Rosenthal of NBC News. See note 29, p.5.

31. Jack Colhoun, “BCCI Skeletons Haunting Bush’s Closet”, The
Guardian, September 18, 1991, p.9.

32. Robert Morgenthau. See note 29, p.10.

33. Russell Mokhiber, Corporate Crime and Violence, San Francisco:
Sierra ClubBooks, 1989 paperback edition, p.227.

34. See note 33, p.136-7.

35. Morton Mintz, At Any Cost: Corporate Greed, Women, and the Dalkon
Shield, NewYork: Pantheon, 1985. As cited in Mokhiber, see note 33,
p.157.

36. See note 33, p.164-171.

37. See note 33, p.172-180.

38. Michael Waldman, Who Robbed America?, New York: Random House,
1990. The quote is from Ralph Nader’s Introduction, p.iii.

39. See note 33, p.217.

40. See note 33, p.235.

41. See note 33, p.277-288.

42. See note 33, p.323.

43. Katherine Hoyt Gonzalez, Nicaragua Network Education Fund
Newsletter, March1992, p.1.

44. William Blum, The CIA — A Forgotten History, London: Zed Books
Ltd., 1986,p.232-243.

45a. John Stockwell, In Search of Enemies, New York: Norton, 1978.

45b. See note 44, p.284-291.

46. See note 17, p.18.

47a. Letter to President George Bush from The Ad Hoc Committee for
Panama (James Abourezk et al)., January 10, 1990; published in The
Nation, February 5, 1990, p.163.

47b. Philip E. Wheaton, Panama, Trenton NJ: Red Sea Press, 1992,
p.145-7.

48a. Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, Power, Inc., New York: Bantam
Books, 1977,p.521.

48b. “The International Oil Cartel”, Federal Trade Commission,
December 2, 1949. Cited in 48a, p.521.

49a. See note 44, p.67-76.

49b. See note 48a, p.530-1.

50. Ralph W. McGehee, Deadly Deceits, New York: Sheridan Square
Publications, 1983,p.60.

51. HR-3385, “An Act to Provide Assistance for Free and Fair Elections
in Nicaragua”. Passed the U.S. House of Representatives on October 4,
1989 by avote of 263 to 136, and the Senate on October 17 by a vote of
64 to 35.

52. Jack Colhoun, “Gates Oozing Trail of Lies, Gets Top CIA Post”, The
Guardian,November 20, 1991, p.6.

53. Carl Bernstein, Time, February 24, 1992, Cover Story p.28-35.

54. “The U.S. and the Vatican on Birth Control”, Time, February 24,
1992, p.35.

55. “Time’s Missing Link: Poland to Latin America”, National Catholic
Reporter,February 28, 1992, p.24.

56a. Jim Lynn, “School of Americas Commander Hopes to Expand Mission”,
Benning Patriot, February 21, 1992, p.12.

56b. Vicky Imerman, “U.S. Army School of the Americas Plans
Expansion”, News Release from S.O.A. Watch, P.O. Bo 3330, Columbus,
Georgia 31903.

57. 60 MINUTES, CBS, March 8, 1992.

58. Jack Colhoun, “Tricky Dick’s Quick Election Fix”, The Guardian,
January 29,1992, p.18.

59a. Sean P. Murphy, “Several Probes May Have Ignored Evidence Against
Police”, Boston Globe, July 28, 1991, p.1.

59b. Christopher B. Daly, “Pattern of Police Abuses Reported in Boston
Case”, Washington Post, July 12, 1991, p.A3.

59c. Associated Press, “Dayton Police Probing Erasure of Arrest
Video”, WashingtonPost, May 26, 1991, p.A20.

59d. Gabriel Escobar, “Deaf Man’s Death In Police Scuffle Called
Homicide”, Washington Post, May 18, 1991, p.B1.

59e. Jay Mathews, “L.A. Police Laughed at Beating”, Washington Post,
March 19, 1991, p.A1.

59f. David Maraniss, “One Cop’s View of Police Violence”, Washington
Post, April 12,1991, p.A1.

59g. From News Services, “Police Abuse Detailed”, Washington Post,
February 8, 1992,p.A8.

60. Michael Dobbs, “Panhandling the Kremlin: How Gus Hall Got
Millions”, Washington Post, March 1, 1992, p.A1.

61. David Streitfeld, “Secret Consortium To Publish Rushdie In
Paperback”, Washington Post, March 14, 1992, p.D1.

62a. See notes 48 and 49.

62b. See note 47b, p.63-76.

62c. “Fairness In Broadcasting Act of 1987”, U.S. Senate Bill S742.

62d. “Now Let That ‘Fairness’ Bill Die”, Editorial, Washington Post,

June 24, 1987. The Post opposed the Fairness in Broadcasting Act.

63. David E. Scheim, Contract on America — The Mafia Murder of
President John F.Kennedy, New York: Shapolsky Publishers, 1988,
p.viii.

64. See note 63, p.28.

65a. Chuck Conconi, “Out and About”, Washington Post, February 26,
1991, p.B3.

65b. George Lardner Jr., “On the Set: Dallas in Wonderland”,
Washington Post, May19, 1991, p.D1.

65c. George Lardner, “…Or Just a Sloppy Mess”, Washington Post, June
2, 1991,p.D3.

65d. Charles Krauthammer, “A Rash of Conspiracy Theories — When Do We
Dig Up BillCasey?”, Washington Post, July 5, 1991, p.A19.

65e. Eric Brace, “Personalities”, Washington Post, October 31, 1991,
p.C3.

65f. Associated Press, “‘JFK’ Director Condemned — Warren Commission
Attorney Calls Stone Film ‘A Big Lie'”, Washington Post, December 16,
1991, p.D14.

65g. Gerald R. Ford and David W. Belin, “Kennedy Assassination: How
About the Truth?”, Washington Post, December 17, 1991, p.A21.

65h. Rita Kemply, “‘JFK’: History Through A Prism”, Washington Post,
December 20,1991, p.D1.

65i. George Lardner Jr., “The Way it Wasn’t — In ‘JFK’, Stone
Assassinates the Truth”, Washington Post, December 20, 1991, p.D2.

65j. Desson Howe, “Dallas Mystery: Who Shot JFK?”, Washington Post,
December 20,1991, p.55.

65k. Phil McCombs, “Oliver Stone, Returning the Fire — In Defending
His ‘JFK’ Conspiracy Film, the Director Reveals His Rage and
Reasoning”, Washington Post, December 21, 1991, p.F1.

65l. George F. Will, “‘JFK’: Paranoid History”, Washington Post,
December 26, 1991,p.A23.

65m. “On Screen”, ‘JFK’ movie review, Washington Post, Weekend,
December 27, 1991.

65n. Stephen S. Rosenfeld, “Shadow Play”, Washington Post, December
27, 1991, p.A21.

65o. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “The Paranoid Style”, Washington Post,
December 29,1991, p.C7.

65p. Michael Isikoff, “H-e-e-e-e-r-e’s Conspiracy! — Why Did Oliver
Stone Omit (Or Suppress!). the Role of Johnny Carson?”, Washington
Post, December 29, 1991,p.C2.

65q. Robert O’Harrow Jr., “Conspiracy Theory Wins Converts —
Moviegoers Say ‘JFK’ Nourishes Doubts That Oswald Acted Alone”,
Washington Post, January 2, 1992, p.B1.

65r. Michael R. Beschloss, “Assassination and Obsession”, Washington
Post, January 5, 1992, p.C1.

65s. Charles Krauthammer, “‘JFK’: A Lie, But Harmless”, Washington
Post, January 10,1992, p.A19.

65t. Art Buchwald, “Bugged: The Flu Conspiracy”, Washington Post,
January 14, 1992,p.E1.

65u. Ken Ringle, “The Fallacy of Conspiracy Theories — Good on Film,
But the Motivation Is All Wrong”, Washington Post, January 19, 1992,
p.G1.

65v. Charles Paul Freund, “If History Is a Lie — America’s Resort to
Conspiracy Thinking”, Washington Post, January 19, 1992, p.C1.

65w. Richard Cohen, “Oliver’s Twist”, Washington Post Magazine,
January 19, 1992, p.5.

65. Michael Isikoff, “Seeking JFK’s Missing Brain”, Washington Post,
January 21,1992, p.A17.

65y. Don Oldenburg, “The Plots Thicken — Conspiracy Theorists Are
Everywhere”, Washington Post, January 28, 1992, p.E5.

65z. Joel Achenbach, “JFK Conspiracy: Myth vs. the Facts”, Washington
Post, February 28, 1992, p.C5.

65A. List of books on the best-seller list: On the Trail of the
Assassins is characterized as “conspiracy plot theories”, Washington
Post, March 8, 1992,Bookworld, p.12

66. See notes 65n, 65w, 65l, 65b, 65c, and 65i.

67a. Peter Dale Scott, “Vietnamization and the Drama of the Pentagon
Papers”. Published in The Senator Gravel Edition of The Pentagon
Papers, Volume V,p.211-247.

67b. Peter Dale Scott, The War Conspiracy — The Secret Road to the
Second Indochina War, Indianapolis/New York: Bobbs-Merrill, 1972, p.
215-224.

67c. L. Fletcher Prouty, The Secret Team, Copyright 1973. New
printing, Costa Mesa CA: Institute for Historical Review, 1990,
p.402-416.

67d. See note 63, p.58, 183, 187, 194, 273-4.

67e. John M. Newman, JFK and Vietnam, New York: Warner Books, 1992.

67f. Peter Dale Scott, Letter to the Editor, The Nation, March 9,
1992, p.290.

68a. See note 65b.

68b. Oliver Stone, “The Post, George Lardner, and My Version of the
JFK Assassination”, Washington Post, June 2, 1991, p.D3.

69. See note 65b.

70. Jim Garrison, On the Trail of The Assassins, New York: Warner
Books, 1988, 315/318.

71. Associated Press, “Garrison, 2 Others, Found Not Guilty Of Bribery
Charge”, Washington Post, September 28, 1973, p.A3.

72. See note 65c.

73. See note 65i.

74. See note 67e, p.438-450.

75. John G. Leyden, “Historians, Buffs, and Crackpots”, Washington
Post, Bookworld, January 26, 1992, p.8.

76a. Tad Szulc, “New Doubts, Fears in JFK Assassination Probe”,
Washington Star,September 19, 1975, p.A1.

76b. Tad Szulc, “Warren Commission’s Self-Doubts Grew Day by Day —
‘This Bullet Business Leaves Me Confused'”, Washington Star, September

20, 1975, p.A1.

76c. Tad Szulc, “Urgent and Secret Meeting of the Warren Commission —
Dulles Proposed that the Minutes be Destroyed”, Washington Star,
September 21, 1975,p.A1.

77. “Cable Sought to Discredit Critics of Warren Report”, New York
Times, December 26, 1977, p.A37.

78. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1979,p.141-2.

79a. Eve Pell, “Private Censorship — Killing ‘Katharine The Great'”,
The Nation, November 12, 1983.

79b. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, Bethesda MD: National Press,
1987. Davis says, “…corporate documents that became available during
my subsequent lawsuit against him [Harcourt Brace Jovanovich chairman,
William Jovanovich] showed that 20,000 copies [of Katharine the Great]
had been “processed and converted into waste paper””.

79c. Daniel Brandt, “All the Publisher’s Men — A Suppressed Book
About Washington Post Publisher Katharine Graham Is On Sale Again”
National Reporter, Fall 1987, p.60.

79d. Deborah Davis, Katharine The Great, New York: Sheridan Square
Press, 1991. “…publishers who don’t give a shit”, p.iv-v; bullying
HBJ into recalling the book, p.iv-vi; lawsuit and settlement, p..

80. Benjamin C. Bradlee, Letter to Deborah Davis, April 1, 1987. See
note 79d, p.304.

81. See note 79d, p.119-132.

82. Carl Bernstein, “The CIA and the Media — How America’s Most
Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence
Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up”, Rolling Stone,
October 20, 1977, p.63.

83a. Daniel Brandt, Letter to Richard L. Harwood of The Washington
Post, September 15, 1988. The letter asks for the Post’s rationale for
its policy of protecting government covert actions, and whether this
policy is still in effect.

83b. Daniel Brandt, “Little Magazines May Come and Go”, The National
Reporter, Fall 1988, p.4. Notes the Post’s protection of the identity
of CIA agent Joseph F.Fernandez. Brandt says, “America needs to
confront its own recent history as well as protect the interests of
its citizens, and both can be accomplished by outlawing peacetime
covert activity. This would contribute more to thesecurity of
Americans than all the counterterrorist proposals and elite strike
forces that ever found their way onto Pentagon wish-lists.”

83c. Richard L. Harwood, Letter to Daniel Brandt, September 28, 1988.
Harwood’s two- sentence letter reads, “We have a long-standing policy
of not naming covert agents of the C.I.A., except in unusual
circumstances. We applied that policy to Fernandez.”

84. See note 79d, p.131.

85. Katharine Graham, “Safeguarding Our Freedoms As We Cover Terrorist
Acts”, Washington Post, April 20, 1986, p.C1.

86. “conspire”, ß4ßRandom House Dictionary of the English Language,
Second Edition Unabridged, 1987.

87. Howard Kurtz, “Media Notes”, Washington Post, June 18, 1991, p.D1.

88. See note 65y.

89. See note 65n.

90. See note 65d.

91. William Casey, Private Communications with JCH, March 1992.

Richard Harwood, “What Conspiracy?”, Washington Post, March 1, 1992,
p.C6.

93. p. 29-32.

94a. Washington Post Electronic Data Base, Dialog Information Services
Inc., April 25, 1992. In 1991 and 1992, the name Bill Clinton appeared
in 878 Washington Post stories, columns, letters, or editorials;
“Jerry” Brown in 485, Pat Buchanan in 303, and Larry Agran in 28. In
those 28, Agran’s name appeared 76 times, Clinton’s 151, and Brown
105. In only 1 of those 28 did Agran’s name appear in a headline.

94b. Colman McCarthy, “What’s ‘Minor’ About This Candidate?”,
Washington Post, February 1, 1992. Washington Post columnist McCarthy
tells how television and party officials have kept presidential
candidate Larry Agran out of sight. The Post’s own daily news-blackout
of Agran is not discussed.

94c. Scot Lehigh, “Larry Agran: ‘Winner’ in Debate With Little Chance
For the Big Prize”, Boston Globe, February 25, 1992.

94d. Joshua Meyrowitz, “The Press Rejects a Candidate”, Columbia
Journalism Review,March/April, 1992.

95. Ben H. Bagdikian, The Effete Conspiracy And Other Crimes By The
Press, NewYork: Harper and Row, 1972, p.36-7.

96a. 28 USC Section 455. “Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the
United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” [emphasis added]

96b. Alpo Petfoods, Inc. v. Ralston Purina Co., 913 F2d 958 (CA DC
1990)..

96c. Monroe Freedman, “Thomas’ Ethics and the Court — Nominee ‘Unfit
to Sit’ For Failing to Recuse In Ralston Purina Case”, Legal Times,
August 26, 1991.

96d. Paul D. Wilcher, “Opposition to the Confirmation of Judge
Clarence Thomas to become a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court on the
grounds of his JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT”, Letter to U.S. Senator Joseph R.
Biden, October 15, 1991.

97. Al Kamen and Michael Isikoff, “‘A Distressing Turn’, Activists

Decry What Process Has Become”, Washington Post, October 12, 1991,
p.A1.

98. January 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 1992, p.A1 each day.

99. See note 86.

100. Thomas W. Lippman, “Energy Lobby Fights Unseen ‘Killers'”,
Washington Post,April 1, 1992, p.A21. This article explains that
“representatives of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National
Association of Manufacturers and the coal, oil, natural gas, offshore
drilling and nuclear power industries, whose interests often conflict,
pledged to work together to oppose amendments limiting offshore oil
drilling, nuclear power and carbon dioxide emissions soon to be
offered by key House members”.

101. “cartel”, Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1977.

——————————————————————————–

NOTES
A good source on the Washington Post and Katharine Graham’s attempt to suppress the Davis book,”Katherine The Great,”, which was largely successful, is Carol Felsenthal’s, “Power and Privilege at the Post, the Katharine Graham Story.”

For more information on Johnny Rosselli and Moses and Walter Annenberg, an excellent source is “All American Mafioso, the Johnny Rosselli Story,” by Ed Becker and Charles Rappelye.

An additional good short reference is “The CIA’s Greatest Hits” by Mark Zepezauer. There you will find the reference to Carl Bernstein’s classic “The CIA and the Media” which appeared in Rolling Stone on Oct. 20, 1977.

Still another recent example of the CIA’s control of the media is the spiking of Sally Denton’s & Roger Morris’ story,”THE CRIMES OF MENA” by Washington Post managing editor Bob Kaiser even though the story had been legally vetted and cleared for publication. Indeed the story, which details the CIA’s involvement in drug trafficing, was already typeset and ready to go when it was killed withouty explanation.

An example of media lies can be found in this example of a faked newspaper photograph.

Bush Admin Fails To Turn Over FDA Documents

0

By Justin Blum

The Bush administration failed to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking documents related to Sanofi-Aventis SA’s antibiotic Ketek.

An investigative subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee sought briefing papers used to prepare Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach for testimony he gave at a hearing on the drug in March. The administration’s response was released today by the panel.

The subcommittee last year began investigating whether von Eschenbach gave misleading testimony on Ketek at the hearing. The commissioner and the FDA are under scrutiny from lawmakers who say the agency hasn’t done enough to ensure the safety of Ketek and other medications. The subcommittee is holding a hearing today on Ketek, which has been linked to fatal side effects.

“The department has serious concerns about providing the kind of materials the committee has subpoenaed,” said officials of the FDA and its parent agency, the Health and Human Services Department, in a letter to the committee.

Providing “such highly confidential and deliberative materials used to prepare witnesses testifying before Congress risks chilling the open exchange of views that is essential to the effective conduct of agency business,” wrote Vincent J. Ventimiglia Jr. of the health department and Susan C. Winckler of the FDA.

The agency offered to brief the committee on issues concerning von Eschenbach’s testimony, and the panel hasn’t responded, according to the letter.

`Evidence of Perjury?’

Representative John D. Dingell, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce panel, said at today’s hearing that he supports holding the health secretary, Michael Leavitt, in contempt for failing to comply with the subpoena.

“What is in those briefing books that he does not want either my Republican colleagues or our side to see?” Dingell said. “Is there evidence of perjury? Are there statements embarrassing to the administration?”

The panel has been investigating the FDA’s 2004 approval of Ketek. Lawmakers have said the drug made by Paris-based Sanofi is an example of the FDA’s weak oversight. The agency approved the product even after certain data suggested safety risks and agency scientists expressed concern.

The FDA prohibited marketing Ketek for sinusitis and bronchitis last year after it was linked to liver damage and death in some patients. The drug remains on the U.S. market for pneumonia.

Accuracy of Testimony

During the March 22 hearing before the investigative subcommittee, lawmakers questioned the accuracy of von Eschenbach’s written testimony about Ketek.

People with first-hand knowledge of the FDA’s oversight of Ketek “have also raised questions about whether the commissioner or those who helped prepare his testimony intentionally misled the subcommittee,” wrote Dingell and Representative Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan, in a letter to Leavitt after last year’s hearing. Stupak is chairman of the investigative panel.

The letter from the lawmakers included an article quoting David Ross, a former FDA scientist who worked on Ketek, saying von Eschenbach’s written testimony contained erroneous comments about the agency’s handling of the medication. Ross, who detailed his objections to the testimony to reporters at the hearing, took issue with descriptions of what the FDA knew about a falsified clinical trial and what information regulators took into account when approving the drug.

Clinical Trial Scrutinized

Today’s hearing focuses on what Aventis, a predecessor company to Sanofi, knew about falsified results in a clinical trial of Ketek run by Maria “Anne” Kirkman-Campbell, a researcher who pleaded guilty to mail fraud in the case and was sent to prison. Sanofi has repeatedly said the company didn’t know about the fraud before submitting the data to the FDA.

Aventis failed to supervise properly the researchers in the Ketek trial, the FDA said in an October warning letter to Sanofi. The company didn’t “adequately investigate” reports that Kirkman-Campbell produced false data and enrolled ineligible patients, the letter said.

“Aventis was not aware of fraud until after it had submitted the study to the FDA,” Sanofi spokeswoman Emmy Tsui said last month in an e-mailed statement. The company has “learned to improve policies and procedures” and is “committed to conducting clinical trials that are rigorous, ethical and compliant,” she said.

The ‘uncensored’ history of the 9/11 Commission

2

Raw Story

Jon Stewart hosted the New York Times’ Philip Shenon on Monday night to discuss his new book, The Commission: An Uncensored history of the 9/11 Commission. The author described White House obstructionism in the course of the officially-mandated Sept. 11 investigation.

“It is remarkable the efforts that the Bush White House went through to try to prevent the 9/11 Commission from getting the information it needed,” Shenon told Stewart. “The person who was most responsible for that tension was former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales who was then the White House Counsel.”

“Well he’s really matured since then, I don’t know if you’ve seen some of his work recently,” Stewart joked in response.

Stewart also asked Shenon about Commission executive director Philip Zelikow and his relationship with Karl Rove. According to the author, “alarms” went off for the staff when they heard about multiple phone calls Rove had made to Zelikow.

“Then Zelikow calls in his secretary and apparently tells her to stop keeping phone logs of his conversations with the White House,” Shenon explained.

“I’m sure it’s all innocent stuff,” Stewart quipped.

Reached by the Associated Press, Zelikow provided a 131-page statement with information he said was provided for the book. In it, Zelikow acknowledges talking to Rove and Rice during the course of the commission’s work despite a general pledge he made not to. But he said the conversations never dealt with politics.

A video clip from Monday night’s episode of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is presented below:

(with wire reports)

Ex-private secretary denies role in Diana death

0

Lord Fellowes, Diana’s brother-in-law, told the inquest into her death that he was not in Paris on the night she died, but was listening to John Mortimer in Norfolk.

The Harrods owner Mohamed Fayed – who is convinced the car crash, in which his son, Dodi, and Diana were killed, was an MI6 murder plot – believes Fellowes was involved.

He claims Fellowes helped co-ordinate the “conspiracy” by commandeering a section of the British embassy in Paris to send messages to GCHQ shortly before the crash.

Fayed also says Diana “feared” Fellowes, who is married to her sister, Lady Jane Fellowes.

Ian Burnett QC, counsel to the Diana inquest, told him: “It had been suggested, particularly in a letter from Mr Fayed, that it was said you had been present in the British embassy at 11 o’clock on the evening of the 30th of August 1997, commandeering the communications centre to send messages to GCHQ.

“In other words, it was being suggested that you were intimately concerned in the murder of your sister-in-law. You understand that that was the allegation?”

Fellowes nodded. Asked whether he had been in Paris that night, he replied: “No.

“We were in Norfolk that evening, we had people to stay, we went to an entertainment by Mr John Mortimer in Burnham Market church.”

He also told the inquest, being held in London, that rooms at Buckingham palace were regularly swept for bugs by MI5.

He said the security service conducted the sweeps in rooms used by the Queen and her private secretary to conduct business to provide “reassurance”.

The detail emerged during questioning about the “Squidgygate” and “Camillagate” tapes – recordings of telephone calls involving Diana and the Prince of Wales.

Fellowes told the court how the recordings – which were revealed in the press – prompted high level meetings and correspondence involving the heads of MI5 and GCHQ, the government’s listening station, in early 1993.

It was also revealed that the then home secretary had blocked a full security service investigation for fear that such a move would leak out and be misrepresented in the press.

Ex-MI6 Chief to Testify at Diana Inquest

0

AP

The former head of Britain’s foreign intelligence agency said Monday he will testify that his organization had nothing to do with the death of Princess Diana when he appears at her inquest later this month.

Mohamed Al Fayed, whose son Dodi died with Diana in a car crash in Paris on Aug. 31, 1997, blames Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service for killing the couple to prevent them marrying.

Sir Richard Dearlove, who was chief of the agency also known as MI6 from 1999 to 2004, said in a statement that he welcomes the opportunity to “refute the allegations of SIS involvement in the accident which led to the deaths of the Princess of Wales” and Dodi Fayed.

Dearlove, the agency’s operations director at the time of Diana’s death, will testify on Feb. 20, Britain’s Foreign Office said.

French authorities blame the crash on driver Henri Paul, who was shown by blood tests to be over the legal limit for alcohol. Paul also died in the crash.

A British police inquiry concluded in 2006 that the three deaths were a “tragic accident” and that allegations of murder were unfounded.

The inquest into Diana’s death – required by British law when someone dies unexpectedly, violently or of unknown causes – began last year after a 10-year delay due to exhaustive investigations by French and British police.

On Monday, Britain’s former ambassador in Paris denied Al Fayed’s claim that he ordered Diana’s body to be embalmed to cover up a pregnancy.

“You are aware that it has been suggested that you personally ordered the embalming of the body of the Princess of Wales on the instructions of MI5 to conceal the fact that she was pregnant with Dodi’s child?” asked Ian Burnett, a lawyer for the coroner.

“There is no truth in this allegation whatsoever,” the former ambassador, Michael Jay, replied.

Jean Monceau, an embalmer who was called to the hospital, has said he told the British consul-general in Paris that the body should be embalmed. Other witnesses at the inquest have disputed Al Fayed’s claim that Diana was pregnant when she died.

Jay also denied Al Fayed’s claim that Diana’s brother-in-law, Robert Fellowes, had been in Paris on the night of her death to coordinate a murder plot initiated by Prince Philip. Fellowes, who is married to Diana’s sister Jane, is scheduled to testify on Tuesday.

Al Fayed was also due to testify next week, Lord Justice Scott Baker said.

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.

DNA database swabs over 100,000

0

DNA swabMore than 100,000 people in Kent have been added to the DNA database in the last five years it has been revealed. According to figures released under the Freedom of Information Act, 103,830 samples were taken and more than a quarter were from people under 18.

All DNA collected is stored permanently on the national database.

Det Supt Colin Croucher, of Kent Police, said the swab samples were regularly used in cases of burglary and vehicle crime.

“And of course it was very significant in the case of the M25 rapist a few years back,” he added.

Mr Croucher said the force was keen to ensure that it had “the best opportunity to be able to use DNA appropriately and to have DNA samples on record.

“So where the law’s allowed us to take those samples, we’ve taken them,” he said.

DNA collected ranges from people who voluntarily give police a swab in order to eliminate themselves from investigations, to convicted rapists and murderers.

Since 2004, the data of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England and Wales – all but the most minor offences – has remained on the system regardless of their age, the seriousness of their alleged offence, and whether or not they were prosecuted.

Opponents are worried about the number of innocent people whose data is still on file even though they have not been charged with a crime

Phil Booth, of the NO2ID campaign against identity cards, said: “This policy of putting on DNA samples and DNA profiles that shouldn’t necessarily be there is undermining the matching process itself.

“There’s the danger that someone may be fingered incorrectly, and it’s already beginning to happen.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7238582.stm

Surveillance in the sky

0

Air travellers face ever-more intrusive surveillance – and an increased risk of being wrongfully detained

Gus Hosein

With only months left to the Bush administration, the EU has picked up the torch and is running with ill-considered policies on border surveillance. And it will succeed. Not only because the EU decision-making processes in security affairs lack accountability. Not just because the EU has been complicit in US travel surveillance programmes for years. But because the prevailing mood in the UK and across Europe is to call for “tougher borders” without quite knowing what that means.

In a poll conducted for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust and published last week, around 50% of Britain was opposed to government surveillance plans like data-sharing, identity cards, and fingerprint databases. So far the government has not come anywhere near to convincing the population that it must interfere in their private lives. But there was one remarkable finding: only 31% opposed the government’s plans to develop border surveillance schemes at the UK border.

We don’t seem to mind border surveillance because we always imagine it applies to someone else. But there is nowhere in the world that you more powerless than at the border of another country. You are at the whim of any government official’s mood or interest. Worse yet, you’re at the whim of technology that will never quite work the way it is promised to you by governments (if they bother to tell you).

We’re all relatively familiar with the American scheme that collects fingerprints and a digital facial scan from visitors to the US. This data will be kept for between 75 and 100 years. At the time it was introduced, some governments and foreign nationals protested. Brazil even retaliated against visiting Americans.

The protests never gave US officials any cause to worry. They knew that every country would soon follow the US example and want to have its own toys to play with. Japan implemented a fingerprinting system in November, advertising with pride that it had caught up with America’s lead in the world. Russia and Britain have similar plans, and this week the EU is set to announce its own fingerprinting scheme.

The US is also leading the world in collecting data from airlines regarding your travelling behaviour (who paid for your ticket, travelling companions, who is your travel agent, travel history, and other types of information). If airlines fail to comply they could be forced to pay fines or prevented from landing. The US authorities retain this data for at least 15 years. They run data profiling algorithms to identify suspect travellers through the “Automated Targeting System”, originally designed to profile cargo. When this was discovered last year US policymakers were shocked. Yet there was an awkward silence from European governments. Again, US officials knew they need not worry because any protests would quickly subside as other countries would adopt similar techniques.

Indeed, despite fending off the Americans for three years on their requests for such data, the EU agreed to stand aside and permit EU airlines to submit this data to the US authorities on the condition that the EU could also gain access to this same data. In November 2007 the EU announced its own passenger-profiling plans. The UK has been doing this for years already, and yet no one actually knows how.

The fundamental flaw is that governments believe the more information you have and the more money you throw at a solution, then you’ve dealt with the problem. This is the idea behind CCTV surveillance, where we know that it doesn’t really work and yet can’t even begin to count how much money we have thrown at the solution, but we still aren’t quite sure of the problem we’re solving but everyone seems so darn happy about it. Same goes for ID cards and the fingerprinting of an entire population of innocent citizens. At least ID cards and other surveillance systems are receiving some form of public and parliamentary scrutiny (though it took years for this to happen).

But we hardly pay attention to the conduct of our own governments when it comes to border surveillance, so they escape scrutiny. The American people haven’t questioned the billions of dollars thrown at border surveillance in the US because they’re just happy to see their government doing something about it. Most UK voters (and political parties) would probably argue along similar lines. So we never find out whether it all works.

We do hear, when permitted, about the failures. The list of high profile border failures is long and depressing. Many already know about how Cat Stevens’s plane was diverted on a flight to the US. Senators and Congressmen were on US watchlists and were prevented from boarding planes without extensive searches. When the data profiling system crashed at LA airport in August last year 20,000 international travellers (US citizens included) were prevented from deplaning for more than 14 hours. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was extraordinarily rendered to Syria and tortured for 11 months because a border-system wrongly interpreted his file, based on information from the Canadian government under data-sharing agreements, and concluded he was a terrorist (eventually the Syrian justice system recognised the mistake and sent him back to Canada). And on Saturday the Guardian reported that six Pakistani men close to President Musharraf were wrongly arrested at Gatwick and sent to Paddington police station for fingerprinting, questioning, and DNA collection.

But these cases, and the thousands of similar cases, never come out of the woodwork when a government is hailing all the phenomenal yet unachievable successes of the systems. Does it all work? We never even bother to ask the question so we hardly deserve an answer. But we will get the answer the next time we’re detained somewhere in the world.

The supporters and opponents of vote-rigging

0

Rani Singh

Unlike in, say, American politics, pre-elections polls are bit thin on the ground in Pakistan. The results of one, however, have been published by the Dawn. Conducted during January 2008, the US-based Terror Free Tomorrow poll finds that 70 % of Pakistanis want President Pervez Musharraf to quit, and that the PPP is the most popular party this side of the elections, with 36.7% of poll voters. The PML (N) of Nawaz Sharif follows with 25.3% and the PML (Q) which supports Musharraf comes in with 12%.

Dawn’s special correspondent Mohammed Ziauddin comments:

“A clean sweep for the PPP at the elections doesn’t fall into the gameplan of Musharraf, London, Brussels and Washington. So they will go along with Musharraf if he rigs and brings in a hung Parliament.”

Mohammed Ziauddin warns of possible dangers ahead:

“The lawyers’ movement, civil society and students are still there, and they’re spoiling for a fight. If there’s the merest hint of rigging, PPP supporters will come out onto the streets and their moaning will turn into marauding and riots. The lawyers cannot be subjugated.”

When I point out that the military can always be mobilised, Ziauddin replies that the army and the rangers will not fire at their own:

“In Punjab, Lahore for instance, many of the army have family members who support the PPP; they are inter-related. With lawyers, they can be baton-charged and tear-gassed. Their numbers are only in the hundreds. PPP supporters will be in the thousands. The only way to stop them would be to fire at them with bullets.”

Discussing censorship and his own newspaper group, Ziauddin says that though Musharraf sees him as an irritant, the President doesn’t see the Dawn as much of a threat as it’s printed and published in English. The diplomats and chattering classes who read it don’t count; they’re not a substantial vote bank. Musharraf is more concerned about the Urdu-speaking channels like Geo News which, as I wrote in an earlier blog, was subject to a 78-day blackout.

Speaking of which, and completely at a tangent, Geo reporters name their cameramen with each sign-off. Considering that the latter often have a trickier job and get less recognition than on-screen reporters, I think that’s a little bit progressive…

US lawless trials menace UK ties

0

The US decision to bring death penalty charges against six men suspected of orchestrating 9/11 attacks could strain relations with UK.

UK authorities have raised their voices against US Gitmo detention camp and the legally flawed system of military tribunals.

Human rights activists have also expressed concern over the US announcement to put the six men on trial.

The decision to use Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others as guinea-pigs in a constitutionally dubious legal proceeding is likely to trigger a firestorm of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world, according to The Independent.

Concerns were raised of political interference by the White House in the military’s decision to go to trial in the middle of an election campaign in which the Republican frontrunner, John McCain, has made the fight against al-Qaeda central to his election bid.

Vincent Warren, the executive director head of Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents many Guantanamo detainees said, “What we are looking at is a series of show trials by the Bush administration that are really devoid of any due process considerations.”

Britain’s former attorney general Lord Goldsmith criticized the legally flawed system of US military tribunals, set up to try non-US citizens and which one law lord likened to “kangaroo courts”.

Human rights lawyers regard the tribunals as an affront to natural justice because the evidence against the suspects has been secured through torture or unlawful detention.

Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have called for the closure of the Guantanamo prison camp which still holds 275 inmates, many of whom have been unlawfully detained for more than five years.

Britain is opposed to capital punishment and has censured the treatment of detainees held in Guantanamo Bay.

JM/BGH

Widespread bugging by authorities

0

The inside story of how and why one MP was bugged reveals that eavesdropping by the authorities in Britain is far more widespread than suspected – and that no one is immune

The Special Branch officer’s instructions were precise, according to sources who have revealed new details of the case this weekend. Kearney was told to “keep an eye out for” Sadiq Khan, who would be making a request to visit an inmate in the next few days. The antiterrorist squad, Kearney was told, wanted Khan’s meeting to be recorded covertly.

Kearney was unhappy. He was being asked to bug the private conversations of Khan, a prominent Muslim civil rights lawyer who had recently been elected as a Labour MP. The man Khan was due to visit was one of his constituents.

Kearney attempted to complain, but his boss was away and he felt under pressure. “I did record the visit,” Kearney wrote in a statement, “but have never felt it was justified.”

When The Sunday Times revealed the incident last week, it sparked uproar. MPs believed that they were protected from such spying under an agreement established in the 1960s by Harold Wilson, then Labour prime minister. The Wilson doctrine, as it became known, was reconfirmed in 2006 when Tony Blair declared in parliament that there would be no eavesdropping on MPs.

As Jack Straw, the justice minister, promised a full inquiry into the Woodhill bugging, the authorities tried to limit the damage. They claimed that Khan had been bugged only by accident. Police sources said he was a victim of “collateral intrusion” — ie, caught up in the bugging of the prisoner he was visiting: Babar Ahmad, a suspected terrorist.

The distinction is important. Spying on a terrorist suspect is one thing; spying on an MP accused of no crime is quite another.

Khan believes he was not accidentally caught up in the monitoring of Ahmad, however. His friends believe he was deliberately targeted for being a civil rights campaigner and a thorn in the side of the police.

“It beggars belief they did not know who I was,” Khan said yesterday.

A source in the prison intelligence unit said: “This is bugging by the back door.”

Since Downing Street and the Home Office claim to have known nothing about the bugging, the implications are far-reaching. If an MP can be deliberately bugged simply on the say-so of police officers, is anyone safe in modern Britain from being spied on?

THE public are led to believe that surveillance and bugging are strictly controlled in Britain. Warrants must be obtained, permission given by ministers and safeguards met. A number of important-sounding watchdogs, such as the surveillance commissioner, report annually that the rules are being properly met and all is well.

The truth is that the law and standards for different types of surveillance vary enormously.

To bug your home telephone or e-mail in the UK, spies need a warrant authorised by a secretary of state, usually at the Home Office. About 1,800 such warrants are issued each year.

Many other methods of spying are permitted with far lower safeguards. Your car can be bugged on the authorisation of a senior officer in the security services or the police. Covert surveillance in a public place can be conducted just on the say-so of a senior officer. Informants can also be recruited on the authorisation of a senior officer.

Tens of thousands of such operations take place each year (including the recruitment of 435 informants by local authorities in 2005-6). Lesser surveillance, such as examining telephone records and other data, occurs in hundreds of thousands of cases.

In prisons the authorities have been allowed to intercept the telephone calls and mail of prisoners for years. But they have also developed far more subtle methods of spying.

In 2003, after a long career with Thames Valley police, Kearney was put in charge of what was called the police intelligence unit at Woodhill. It ran a sophisticated eavesdropping system. Prisoners and their visitors could be secretly recorded at “talking tables” in the main visitors’ room. The partition panels of eight tables had been hollowed out to hide microphones, batteries, antennae and transmitters.

In a witness statement for an unrelated court case that he is now facing, Kearney declares: “Keeping the covert recording devices [secreted into the visitor tables] working was always problematic. It involved working late quite often so that we could covertly gain access to the tables for maintenance.”

Officers were listening to as many as 10 visits a day. Kearney’s statement, seen by The Sunday Times, says: “There was continual pressure to provide investigators with products of the technical facilities available within the prisons.”

This weekend there were further claims that hundreds of lawyers had been bugged during visits to see their clients in British prisons. If it could be proved legally privileged conversations had been taped, then defence lawyers might move for cases to be retried.

While the extent of the surveillance might be surprising, it was not illegal. Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, senior police officers can authorise such bugging without a warrant from a government minister.

In 2004 Babar Ahmad, a Muslim computer expert who worked at Imperial College, London, was sent to Woodhill on remand while he faced extradition to the United States. The American authorities had accused him of running a website that raised funds for Taliban and Chechen terrorists in the late 1990s.

Although Ahmad was charged with no offence in Britain, Sir David Veness, then Scotland Yard’s head of counterterrorism, granted permission to bug his conversations. The authorisation had to be renewed every three months and was subsequently granted by Andy Hayman, who took over from Veness in 2005. Hayman recently left the Metropolitan police after a row over his expenses.

The bugging by Kearney and his team at first concentrated on visits by Ahmad’s family, who often discussed legal issues with him, and a complaint he had filed that he had been beaten when he was arrested. Yet any legal discussions are privileged and should not be recorded or, if they are recorded, no use should be made of the material.

Ahmad was also in contact with Khan, who had been a friend since childhood in south London. There was no love lost between Khan and the police. As a young lawyer he had pursued a series of cases on behalf of ethnic minority police officers who won compensation from Scotland Yard for malpractice and discrimination. He became well known to Sir Ian Blair, the Met commissioner, and other senior officers.

Although Khan did not support Ahmad’s radical views, he did believe that Ahmad was being held in prison unfairly. The 2003 Extradition Act allows the United States to extradite British citizens — such as Ahmad — without having first to prove in the UK courts that there is a case to answer.

When Khan arrived at the prison in May 2005 to see Ahmad, he signed in as normal. Last week senior sources in Scotland Yard suggested that Khan signed in as a “family friend” and did not make it clear that he was an MP. The implication again was that Khan was not deliberately targeted for bugging.

The accounts of Khan and Kearney suggest otherwise. First, Khan says that when he applied to visit Ahmad, the police vetted him at home. Visitors to category A prisons may be checked to confirm their identity — so the police knew exactly who he was.

“Met Special Branch knew he [Khan] was coming before we did,” said a prison source. “They called [Kearney] to say, ‘Over the next few days an MP called Sadiq Khan will be visiting’. We were told to keep an eye out for him and bug the meeting.” Khan had recently been elected MP for Tooting, and Kearney alleges that Special Branch was well aware that it was asking for an MP to be bugged. In his witness statement he writes that he was under “significant pressure from the Metropolitan police, requesting that we covertly record a social visit between a terrorist detainee and a member of parliament”.

When Khan entered the prison’s visiting room on a Saturday morning in late May, he was seated opposite Ahmad at one of the “talking tables”.

The conversation was beamed up to a receiver in the domed ceiling. It was then relayed to a room in the prison where Kearney was listening in through head-phones. A dual-track tape recorder was running.

At the end a master tape was removed and sealed with a unique serial number. The second tape, the working copy, was later collected by a Special Branch officer. The paperwork to go with the tapes includes details of visitors and a section for any remarks.

Khan was bugged in the same way on a second visit to the prison in June 2006. On that occasion he was seated at another talking table.

IN early December David Davis, the shadow home affairs spokesman, was contacted by an MP who had heard about the bugging operation.

Davis fired off a letter to Gordon Brown seeking further information. Last week Downing Street claimed it had never received the letter and had known nothing of the bugging operation.

By then MPs were agitated by the revelations in The Sunday Times. The bugging was raised three times during prime minister’s questions last Wednesday.

Ann Cryer, a veteran Labour MP with many Muslims in her Keighley constituency, summed up the mood of the Commons: “Our constituents must be assured that they can talk to us in confidence.”

The government blamed the police and last week the police were claiming multiple excuses. As well as saying that Ahmad was their target, not Khan, police sources also suggested that the Wilson doctrine had not been breached. They said the doctrine applied only to telephone tapping, not bugging in prisons.

This was highly disingenuous. The 2005-6 report of the interception of communications commissioner — which covers the date when Khan was bugged — discussed the Wilson doctrine at length.

It made clear that the doctrine was still in force and said: “It has been confirmed that the doctrine applies to all forms of communication, to members of the House of Lords and to electronic eavesdropping by the intelligence agencies.”

In the same report the commissioner, Sir Swinton Thomas, who was stepping down after six years, attacked MPs for putting themselves “above the law”.

He said: “The doctrine means that MPs and peers can engage in serious crime or terrorism without running the risk of being investigated in the same way as any other member of the public.”

Thomas lauded the “striking successes” and “benefits” of bugging and boasted that he could “personally ensure that there was no improper interception of the communications of any public figure”.

It appears he was mistaken. The Khan case raises questions beyond MPs. How many lawyers also have their supposedly privileged conversations bugged? Would members of the public even know if they had been improperly bugged? And do they have any meaning-ful methods of redress?

The task of unravelling what happened to Khan has been handed to Sir Christopher Rose, the chief surveillance commissioner and a former lord justice of appeal. He has been given just two weeks to report. As of last Friday he had not even approached Kearney.

You are being watched: the many forms of surveillance that make Britain ‘similar to Russia’

Targeted bugging and interception

Involves interception of private calls, e-mails, letters and other communications on public networks.

Within the UK this can be done lawfully only with a warrant authorised by the secretary of state for the purposes of national security, preventing a serious crime or protecting the economic wellbeing of the country.

Applications for warrants can be made only by or on behalf of the heads of MI5, MI6, Defence Intelligence, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the National Criminal Intelligence Service, chief constables and a few others, including overseas authorities engaged in “international mutual assistance”.

Between April and December 2006, 1,333 warrants were issued and 24 errors were recorded. They included cases where MI5 and HM Revenue & Customs bugged the wrong numbers because of administrative mistakes.

Other forms of intrusive surveillance, such as bugging in prison or covert observation in a public place, can be authorised initially by senior officials or police officers. They must then be approved by the Office of Surveillance Commissioners.

Global eavesdropping

GCHQ runs a network of listening posts and powerful computers engaged in signals intelligence. Its website says: “It’s hard for an outsider to imagine the immense size and sheer power of GCHQ’s supercomputing architecture.” The systems can search vast amounts of telecommunications for key words and locations and are believed to be capable of voice identification.

The secretary of state authorises GCHQ to target communications only outside the UK. But the line between what is internal and external is not always clear. GCHQ also works closely with America’s National Security Agency which may have no qualms about monitoring UK citizens.

Dataveillance

Many of the things we do, from communications to travel to shopping, leave records on computer databases that can be easily searched and cross-checked. The intelligence services, 52 police forces, HM Revenue & Customs, 474 local authorities and more than 100 other authorities are allowed to access communications and other data. Requests can be authorised by senior officials.

The government is intent on creating huge new databases. The National Health Service is building one to hold all patients’ health records, accessible from anywhere in the country. Contactpoint, a scheme to register every child’s name, address, gender, birth date and other details, is due to start later this year.

Since 2003 the police have had the power to take and keep fingerprints and DNA samples from everyone arrested, regardless of guilt or innocence. The fingerprint database contains more than 6m sets of prints. The DNA database contains genetic profiles of 4.2m individuals.

The government is also intent on a national identity register and ID card scheme. It will require everyone resident in the UK for more than three months to register their details on a central database.

Visual surveillance

The UK has about 4.2m CCTV cameras. The police want a comprehensive automatic numberplate recognition system. Techniques for automatically identifying individuals from photographs are improving fast. The facial images national database is due to be up and running next year.

Privacy International, a human rights watchdog, ranks Britain only fractionally below Russia and China for levels of surveillance.

US to delay Iraq troops reductions

0

The planned reduction in the number of US troops in Iraq is to be put on hold, the US defence secretary, Robert Gates, indicated today.

Under a plan set out by General David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, Washington had planned to withdraw five of the 20 brigades in the country by July.

More recently, however, Petraeus called for “period of evaluation” to assess the impact of such a move — a proposal that has now been backed by Gates.

“A brief period of consolidation and evaluation probably does make sense,” the defence secretary said, adding that the length of the evaluation was “one of the things we are still thinking about”.

His caution contrasted with remarks he made to troops in Baghdad yesterday.

“What a difference you made — al-Qaida routed, insurgents co-opted, levels of violence of all kinds dramatically reduced,” he told them.

“The situation in Iraq continues to remain fragile, but the Iraqi people now have an opportunity to forge a better, more secure, more prosperous future.”

Last year, the US president, George Bush, ordered five additional army brigades to Iraq as part of a “surge” in troop numbers.

One of those brigades left in December. The other four are due to withdraw by July, leaving 15 brigades — around 130,000 troops – the same number as pre surge levels.

Yesterday, Gates said Iraq’s political leaders faced hard choices about how to stabilise the country, but praised them for showing recent signs of progress towards reconciliation.

“They seem to have become energised over the last few weeks,” he added.

He said he would ask Iraqi politicians to assess the prospects for other measures including a law that would spell out power-sharing between the provinces and the national government.

Yesterday, insurgent attacks killed at least 50 people across northern Iraq.

Today, Reuters reported that two car bombs had exploded in southern Baghdad, killing at least two people and wounding five others.

‘MI6 team in Paris at time of Diana crash’

1

An MI6 team was operating at the British Embassy in Paris at the time of Princess Diana’s death, her inquest has heard.

But former ambassador Lord Jay told the High Court hearing he had no reason to believe their presence had anything to do with Diana’s death in a car crash in the French capital.

Lord Jay – then known as Sir Michael Jay – said that the first he was even aware of her presence in Paris was when he was awoken with news of the crash just over an hour after the smash in the early hours of August 31, 1997.

Mohamed al Fayed, whose son Dodi Fayed was also killed in the Alma Tunnel, is convinced the crash was staged as part of an MI6 murder plot to eliminate the couple to prevent them marrying.

Mr al Fayed believes spies based at the Embassy were operating at the behest of the Duke of Edinburgh.

Asked by counsel to the inquest Ian Burnett whether the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) – better known as MI6 – had a presence at the Embassy in 1997 he confirmed that it had.

He added that there had also been a representative of the Security Service MI5 working there at the time.

He agreed with a passage from his earlier police statement which said: “There was such a team at the British Embassy in Paris staffed by members of the Secret Intelligence Service and one member of the Security Service.”

He explained: “It’s to liaise with the French authorities on issues such as counter terrorism, anti-drugs work, security issues and to share intelligence on matters of foreign policy.”

Asked if he had to be kept informed about MI6 operations in Paris he said: “Yes, if it had been a major operation which was likely to raise particular sensitivities then I would expect to have been told.”

Mr Burnett continued: “You have indicated that you would have been aware of anything significant going on, was there anything significant going on of which you were aware?”

He replied: “No”.

Mr Burnett said: “You are aware that it has been suggested that you personally ordered the embalming of the body of the Princess of Wales on the instructions of MI5 to conceal the fact that she was pregnant with Dodi’s child.”

Lord Jay replied: “There is no truth in this allegation whatsoever.”

Mr Burnett: “It has also been suggested that Lord Fellowes, who was at the time the Queen’s private secretary and also a brother-in-law of the Princess of Wales, was in Paris on the night of August 30 and had commandeered the operations room in the Embassy essentially to oversee and organise the murder of his sister-in-law. Was he in Paris?”

Lord Jay: “No. He was not.”

Earlier, the inquest heard that Mr Fayed had hinted that he and Diana were engaged.

Just days before the fatal crash, the 42-year-old rang his father’s legal adviser, Stuart Benson, to tell him he had “very exciting news”, which the lawyer interpreted to mean that the couple had decided to get married.

No other details were given during the brief call made as Mr Fayed and the Princess cruised around the Mediterranean on a luxury yacht.

But Mr Benson was asked if he was free the following Monday to discuss issues arising from the news.

The inquest has already heard that a ring was bought for the royal by Mr Fayed at the Repossi jewellers hours before their deaths on August 31, 1997.

© Independent Television News Limited 2008.

Nutrition Secrets They Don’t Want You to Know About

2

Rich Stacel | Newstarget

Today we know more about vitamins, minerals and nutrition in general then ever before, but at the same time there are various elements of the media and medical community that want to keep everyone in the dark about the true role and power that vitamins play in our health and life.

As many who study natural health, nutrition and those who subscribe to various newsletters such as this, the pharmaceutical companies are a major front in the war against nutrition. That’s because it’s been known since the turn of the last century that the cause of nearly all degenerative diseases as well as the weakening of the immune system that makes one susceptible to communicable diseases are deficiencies of various key nutrients or total lack of them altogether.

Of course this knowledge has been carefully and cleverly hidden from the public for over one hundred years now since they can’t have people learning that they can be healthy merely by taking the right nutrients and the right amounts of each. That’s why as is the case with vitamin C and many other vitamins, the RDA for most nutrients is pathetically low and barely enough to keep you alive, let alone for you to be healthy and strong.

Since the mid 1800’s, the naturopathic doctor has ceaselessly and constantly come under attack by the MD’s and organized medical community. As the mechanized view of the body and the germ theory of disease began to become more accepted along with the belief that chemicals and drugs were the way of the future, the attacks became more frequent, bold and progressed to outright lies at times. That’s because the MD, with his surgical procedures, chemical drugs, fancy concoctions and useless medical terminology had much more potential for financial gain than did the naturopath or “country doctor”. They saw the country doctor as a threat to their growing influence and livelihood as well. In fact the medical terminology that doctors use was created precisely to make the average person feel ignorant and stupid and to keep people from ever trying to diagnose or cure themselves.

The AMA was formed in 1847 specifically to protect the profits and practices of doctors, the MD, not the “country doctor” who they came to view as backwards and outdated. Of course they know that the methods and cures of the country doctor were far better, cheaper and safer than the drugs and surgery approach of the “medical doctor”, also known as the “Slash and Burn” method, but it was all about the profits, so if the AMA was going to represent any group they knew that the MD’s offered them the greatest chance at profits, growth and power. The AMA is a union created specifically for doctors, NOT patients, not to find cures, not to prevent disease, but to protect the profits of doctors. Just like any union, its job is to protect the jobs and income of its members. The AMA is not the wonderful, benign or righteous agency that it tries to convince the world that it is.

The western allopathic medical establishments knows that nutrition prevents disease and cures most non-communicable and even many communicable diseases as well. That’s why they work so hard to suppress this knowledge and why they keep trying to get nutrients like vitamin C labeled as a “drug”. They haven’t yet, but they’re not giving up on this either.

In the book “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration”, Dr. Weston A. Price details his discoveries in the 1920’s of primitive tribes and cultures around the world that were models of health and free of dental caries and degenerative diseases. Since he was a dentist searching for the cause of cavities (caries), that was the main focus of his book. However, he also discovered in his research and travels that a solid and irrefutable link existed between those who had cavities, crowded teeth, and “malformed” faces, and those that lacked nutrition. When the native peoples began to eat the modern processed foods devoid of real nutrients and loaded with chemicals and artificial ingredients, they too suffered the same dental and health problems as those raised on such diets. When the native peoples went back to their traditional whole foods diet, cavities that were progressing ceased and the next generation of children were born with perfect teeth and greatly improved immunity as had the previously untouched generations.

Knowledge such as this is powerful, and it’s this kind of knowledge that the “powers that be” don’t want too many people knowing about. The less real knowledge and truth that you have about how to prevent and eliminate disease and degenerative conditions with the power of nutrition, herbs, exercise, deep breathing, meditation, relaxation and many other natural and alternative methods, the more people will suffer needlessly while the people who control these organizations, including pharmaceutical companies, doctors and hospitals all get richer. The rest of us will continue to get poorer while trying to pay for this system of useless, dangerous and deadly so-called “medicines” and procedures.

The inexpensiveness and effectiveness of natural cures and the cultures that practice them, such as the Chinese, are a direct threat to the stranglehold that the western medical system has on this country and most of the world. That is one of the main reasons why many aspects of Chinese medicine were so strongly suppressed, laughed at, made fun of, ridiculed and ignored in the past thirty or so years.

It was through the actions of the patients themselves, who kept going to Chinese doctors and other natural doctors and spreading the word of how effective these methods were, that finally got the western medical establishment to start taking notice of Chinese medicine and other natural treatments. They realized that since they couldn’t suppress this any longer, they might as well admit how well it works so that they can control it, regulate it, license it and at least make some money off of it. This is especially the case with acupuncture. Even though they reject the Chinese explanations of Chi flow and balance and prefer to believe that it’s just effecting the nerves of the body or it’s an out of control placebo effect, they still allowed it to be practiced and covered by insurance as a valid and effective cure for certain illnesses.

Getting proper nutrition is vitally important, which is why I juice several times a week to make sure that I’m getting plenty of vital nutrients into my body and I can feel this as I drink the life in the juice down. What’s also interesting is that this is also a great way to help one lose weight, since juicing delivers tons of nutrients into the body; hunger often disappears for several hours or more afterward and it seems to also raise metabolism since the body is getting tons of nutrients and enzymes to function with greater efficiency and at a higher level.

I lost over twenty pounds when I started juicing about five times a week. As my appetite decreased and my taste for carrots, celery, broccoli, spinach and such increased, I no longer wanted to put pastries, pizza and doughnuts or other junk food into my body and certainly not fast food. After juicing at lunch time each day at one of my jobs, I often ate my last meal at 3 pm in the afternoon, had no dinner and was not even hungry till about 8 am the next morning. Even then I was not ravenous at all and could have easily gone till lunch without eating anything at all. That’s because when you’re hungry, your body is not so much craving the solid matter. . . it’s craving the nutrients in foods, real nutrients from natural, whole foods. Since juicing delivers large amounts of these nutrients to the body in liquid form, your body has plenty of nutrients in reserve to produce what it needs, so hunger simply goes into a stand-by mode until the cells tell the liver and brain once again that more nutrients are needed, at which point you start to feel hungry again.

You’re also getting these nutrients in a more readily bioavailable form since the nutrients are also being delivered with tons of natural plant enzymes, which again take a great load off the pancreas since the body does not have to produce large quantities of enzymes to digest solid matter. Of course juicing is never a long term substitute for real, solid whole foods, but doing short term juice fasts and juicing daily or at least several times a week is a vital and fantastic way to ensure that you’re getting large amounts of necessary nutrients in an unadulterated form each time you juice.

I mentioned above a little about the liver and brain receiving signals from the cells. The cells communicate with the rest of the body using energies very similar to light. A physicist by the name of Popp has demonstrated this in his many experiments with cellular communication. He started this work because the modern idea that the cells are all communicating via chemical messages simply did not hold up. Cells were receiving various signals far too quickly to be explained by chemical reactions. His research showed that in fact the whole body is communicating via energy in the light spectrum and that this communication goes on at nearly the speed of light. We are indeed all “luminous beings”. This is also why getting out into the sun for 10-15 minutes a day is absolutely vital, not only for the production of vitamin D, but so that your cells can properly communicate with each other and especially the brain. The Chinese and particularly the Taoists practice visual exercises called “Administering Sunbeams” early in the morning and late in the afternoon to ensure that the brain and body get adequate amounts of UV rays from the sun. I’ll talk more about this in a later article. The body does talk and has its own language of communication, it’s absolutely amazing!

In regards to the liver, in Chinese medicine it’s been known for centuries that the liver and spleen are very important for digestion. They are given a special relationship in the five element theory of Chinese medicine which teaches that each organ has solid ties with the others and that there is a definite cause and effect relationship at work. For example, the Chinese have known that the stomach and spleen are linked pairs. This is one of the strongest inter-organ relationships in the body. When the body needs nutrients and even more then just nutrients, but Chi, the liver, which is the vitamin storehouse of the body, sends a signal to the spleen (and stomach by extension) that it requires energy. The spleen, which gives its energy to the mind and is responsible for concentration and faith in Chinese medicine, then signals the stomach and brain that nutrients are needed and the brain interprets this and starts to send out a signal back to the stomach. We feel this as the beginnings of hunger. So naturally, we grab something to eat. When we were all eating real foods from nature, we got lots of nutrients, fiber, bulk matter, sunlight and earth energy in those natural foods and the various physical and energy systems of the human body were satisfied. This kept intense foods craving and bingeing to a minimum because those cravings simply never manifested themselves to the degree that we see today. This is precisely because so many people are consuming nutrient-, energy- and enzyme-dead foods, that the body is in a constant state of nutritional and energy deficiency. Because of this, the liver is not being given the nutrients, enzymes or bio-energy (chi) that it needs, so the feeling of hunger or of never feeling satisfied is nearly always “on” to some degree in most people today.

When you follow a whole foods diet, which includes juicing with lots of fresh vegetables that are nutrient and enzyme dense, you’re giving your body not only the physical nutrients and enzymes that it needs, but because such foods are alive, there is also the vital and indisputable non-physical element of Chi present in the foods that the body also requires to convert all those nutrients into other chemical compounds, hormones and enzymes to carry out all its functions. When we eat processed foods such as sugar, which leeches calcium from the bones and teeth and nutrients from the liver, we’re stripping away the nutrients needed and not giving the body what’s truly needed for us to be healthy, feel great and live long and happy lives.

See, the body is very smart. It knows what is natural and good for it and what is not. It knows that real foods have nutrients, vitamins, minerals and energy present in them. Most other man-made garbage is treated as a toxin by the body. The liver takes care of the nutrient part and the spleen extracts the Chi or energy from foods. But when we consume man-made junk foods and useless stomach fillers such as doughnuts, cakes, candies, cookies, refined white breads, pastries and more, the body senses the various non-organic and foreign chemicals in these foods and the almost total lack of nutrients. The body must have nutrients to digest those foods, so it must somehow “borrow” the nutrients that it needs to digest this “food” from the liver, because the body can’t digest them without these nutrients present.

Chemicals that the body cannot digest are considered foreign and toxic by the body and are moved to the eliminatory organs for excretion and elimination from the body. If it can’t eliminate it, it does the next best thing, which is to “isolate” it away from the vital internal organs. It mostly does this by storing such foreign matter in the fatty tissues, the fascia between the muscles and the joints. In the case of the latter, this becomes one of the main causes of arthritis which is the body’s attempt to store dangerous crystalline structures formed from the consumption of dangerous and unnatural chemical compounds away from the organs. Interesting that your computer anti-virus software also does the same thing when it can’t eliminate a virus from the system, it “quarantines” it away so it does not damage the operating system or other critical files.

Getting proper amounts of vitamins, minerals and nutrients is absolutely vital for health, regeneration, strength, happiness and longevity. Just as a lack of vitamin C causes rickets and scurvy, just as a sufficient lack of the “B” vitamins can cause severe illness and eventually death, so too the lack of nutrients in our bodies causes slow degeneration of the body and eventual premature death. Very famous fitness gurus of the 1950’s once said “If man makes it, don’t eat it” and “It’s not what you do some of the time that counts, it’s what you do all of the time that counts.”

We have to be aware of our nutrient intake every day, not just some days and not others. In this modern, fast-paced world it’s hard to make sure we’re getting all that we need. That’s why taking a good multi-vitamin on a daily basis is very important. A good multi is not your “once a day” vitamins popularly advertised. I recommend the “Alive-Whole Food Energizer” as my number one multivitamin. That’s because this product, made by Nature’s Way is a whole food vitamin, meaning its not synthesized by man, but merely whole natural foods compressed into a tablet form. Some of the ingredients are even organic. It has tons of great stuff such as all the main vitamins and minerals in very good amounts for most, plus the following: “Green food/Spirulina blend, Digestive enzyme blend, Amino Acid complex, Garden Veggie blend, Orchard fruit blend, Myco defense mushroom blend with about a dozen mushrooms known to increase immunity including Reishi and Shiitake, Omega fatty acid blend and a vitamin C complex all from natural sources”. Always remember that it’s never a substitute for consuming real, healthy and preferably organic natural raw foods from nature, untouched by man.

For some further reading on the topic of nutrition and its relationship to health and degeneration, read “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston A. Price and “Pottenger’s Cats: A study in nutrition” by Francis Marion Pottenger.

More NWO Inside Trading Pre-9/11

1

Jim Hogue | Baltimore Chronicle

Had an investigation been done into the crime of failing to file the “currency transaction reports” in August 2001, then we would know who made the cash withdrawals in $100 bills amounting to the $5 billion surge.

When reviewing the record of July and August of 2001, Bill Bergman noticed a $5 billion surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply–the third largest such increase since 1947. Bergman asked about this anomaly–and was removed from his investigative duties.

It’s been over six years since 9/11, but U.S. regulatory entities have been slow to follow through with reports about the complex financial transactions that occurred just prior to and following the attacks. Such research could shed light on such questions as who was behind them–and who benefited–and could help lay to rest the rumors that have been festering.

Warning bells about anomalies in the fiscal sector were sounded in the summer of 2001, but not heeded.

Among those who has since raised questions was Bill Bergman. As a financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve, he was assigned in 2003 to review the record of July and August of 2001. He noticed an unusual surge in the currency component of the M1 money supply (cash circulating outside of banks) during that period. The surge totaled over $5 billion above the norm for a two-month increase.

The increase in August alone was the third largest single monthly increase since 1947, even after a significantly above-average month in July.

Surges in the currency component of M1 are often the result of people withdrawing their cash to protect themselves lest some anticipated disaster (such as Y2K) befall the economy. In January of 1991 a surge was recorded (the then second-largest since ’47), which could be attributed to “war-time hoarding” before the Iraq I invasion, but could also be attributed to financial maneuverings and liquefying of assets relating to the BCCI enforcement proceedings.

Bergman points out that the August 2001 withdrawals may have been, to a large extent, caused by the Argentinian banking crisis that was occurring at the time. However, he raises the point that no explanation has yet fully answered the important question: Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before the 9/11 attacks never investigated?

It’s possible that the answer to this question is also the answer to the other follow-the-money questions surrounding 9/11; and despite an embarrassing heap of evidence, neither the press, nor Congress, nor any agency with investigative responsibility has done its job on our behalf. On the contrary, their inaction might reasonably be construed as a cover-up.

Bergman “followed the money,” including developing a framework for working with money-laundering data and “suspicious activity” reports for monitoring and investigating terrorism. The questions he asked about what happened during the summer of 2001 should have led to investigations, which should have resulted in the prosecution of those with foreknowledge of the attacks.

Those who follow the history of the 9/11 fact-finding movement know that there is a laundry-list of unanswered questions that are just as compelling as those put forth by Bergman.

And there is also a laundry-list of whistle-blowers who have been fired and subsequently ignored. So it is not at all surprising that Bergman was removed from his investigative duties, and that his concerns were not publicly addressed.

Bergman’s supervisor instructed him to follow up on an unanswered question he had raised pertaining to an August 2, 2001 letter from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve to the 12 Reserve Banks. This letter urged scrutiny of suspicious activity reports. Bergman learned of the pervasiveness of the warnings of the 9/11 attacks, and wondered how thoroughly these warnings had permeated the financial system.

In this capacity as Federal Reserve investigative point-man, and with his money-laundering portfolio being guided by his supervisor’s directive, he asked the Board why they had issued their August 2, 2001 directive, and whether this related to any heightened intelligence of a terrorist threat. His position was then eliminated, and a crucial investigation was terminated before it could even begin.

Another 9/11 Commission Misrepresentation

Footnote 28 of the Staff Monograph on Terrorist Financing from the official 9/11 Commission Report states that the National Money-laundering Strategy Report for 2001 “didn’t mention terrorist financing in any of its 50 pages.”

True? No. The NMLS Report mentions it 17 times.

One gets the impression that the commission staff (under Philip Zelikow) was trying to paint the picture that there wasn’t a lot of co-operation between those involved in counterterrorism and the banking regulators in 2001.

Why do they paint this picture, inasmuch as the contrary is the case? In fact, anti-terrorism was an important element of the National Money Strategy, and it was included and emphasized in its Report annually. It may have been part of the reason why the August 2, 2001 letter urging scrutiny of suspicious activity reports was issued in the first place.

In turn, the billions in currency shipments of July and August 2001 are completely omitted in the 9/11 Commission Report.

I make bold to point out that the official story-line is that the attacks were accomplished by “the evil-doers” on a shoe-string budget with little money changing hands. Therefore, according to Zelikow et al., it is pointless to look at large flows of money in an investigation of the attacks. That makes perfect sense–unless you happen to have a brain.

To state the obvious, there are two reasons why Zelikow et al. made the false statement regarding there having been no references to terrorism in the National Money-laundering Strategy Report.

One reason could be to justify and encourage more scrutiny (legal or otherwise) of small transactions generally, e.g. via USAPA, and the other could be to establish (read: invent) a reason for missing the evidence pertaining to the attacks. (‘Transactions too small. No one could find.’) And since the real money trail points to foreknowledge within the financial community at large, and, possibly, the Federal Reserve specifically, the “low-budget terrorism” story-line that the 9/11 Commission had established needed to be protected.

If such a lack of attentiveness to a financial transaction of $5 billion goes unnoticed in August 2001, then a reason had to be established for this lack of attention. And Bergman’s attentiveness to the Board of Governor’s August 2 letter was the fly in the ointment, as this letter proves that the Board was indeed attentive to suspicious transactions, even very, very large ones. Bergman’s question of “Why” is therefore key to yet another avenue of inquiry.

All the News that’s Permissible to Print

Note that a few dollars sent to an Islamic charity could warrant arrests, investigations, front-page stories, and, sometimes, torture and many years in jail. That’s Propaganda 101: ‘Large amounts of money do not fund major acts of terrorism. Small amounts do. Small amounts covered the 9/11 tab, therefore large amounts didn’t.’ The news coverage, creating high-profile prosecutions for relatively small transactions, reinforces this scenario.

With this in mind, we suggest that the reader follow the story of Mark Siljander (major coverage) on the one hand, and also follow the Times UK reports from Sibel Edmonds (verboten in the US mainstream press) on the other hand. Edmonds told me recently of the major foreign media outlets that had offered to report her story. Not one major outlet did so in the US.

R.T. Naylor suggests, in his wonderful book Satanic Purses, that any major terrorist event that involves a lot of money is ‘state terrorism,’ and this is independently confirmed by Sibel Edmonds’ statements as to the enormous sums changing hands at the time of the 9/11 attacks. I suggest that her testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee (Leahy and Grassley) gave the lie to the official financial myth of 9/11.

If Bergman had been allowed to continue his investigation, I suggest that he would have uncovered the same thing. Note that the drug money and other illicit transactions described by Edmonds occurred during the same time period, and the amounts in the billions are comparable.

The Law

To members of the constabulary: the operable statutes are

1) The 1970 Bank Secrecy Act that imposed new financial reporting requirements to facilitate the tracing of questionable transactions and

2) the 1986 Money Laundering Control Act that criminalized the act of money-laundering.

Also operable, and of particular relevance in a historical context, is the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act that was relied upon in October of 1942 to seize the assets of “Hitler’s Bankers in America,” Union Banking, (involving bank vice president Prescott Bush under his father-in-law and bank president, George Walker).

The law is not always followed, and the required “currency transaction reports” are sometimes not filed. The 9/11 Commission Report and the National Money-laundering Strategy Report for 2001 did not identify those who are involved with large cash transactions. Had the paperwork been done in August of 2001, or an investigation done into the crime of failing to file the “currency transaction reports,” then we would know who made the cash withdrawals in $100 bills amounting to the $5 billion surge.

Information about what transpired took years to develop after the fact. For example, the Federal Reserve fined United Bank of Switzerland and Riggs Bank in 2004.

Mr. Bergman states that he doesn’t want to be a dog barking up the wrong tree, but the authorities, apparently under orders from our top officials, are preventing a standard investigation and the most obvious prosecutorial methodology from going forth.

Congress could step in; a prosecutor could step up. But don’t hold your breath.

Jim Hogue, a former teacher, is now an actor who tours his performance of Ethan Allen. He also operates a small farm in Calais, VT. His seminal articles about Sibel Edmonds and CIA Whistleblower “Miss Moneypenny” may be found in this newspaper’s archives. Bill Bergman currently works in Chicago as an equity analyst for a private sector firm. From 1998 to 2004 he was a senior financial market analyst for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, where his areas of expertise included Insolvency Issues in Derivatives Markets, Money Laundering, and Ethics and Payment System Policy. He holds an M.B.A. in Finance and an M.A. in Public Policy from the University of Chicago.

How Karl Rove and Torture Influenced the 9/11 Report

0

Alternet 

A 9/11 commission chief answers to allegations that he let Karl Rove influence the probe investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.

The following is a two-part transcript on the 9/11 Commission Report recently conducted by Democracy Now!. The first explores the role that Karl Rove may have played in influencing the report’s findings, and the second looks at how information gained through torture form a major part of of the 9/11 Commission Report.

Former 9/11 Commission Chief Philip Zelikow on Allegations He Secretly Allowed Karl Rove & White House to Influence 9/11 Probe

Philip Shenon, author of The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, recently suggested on Democracy Now! that Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, sought to minimize the Bush administration’s responsibility for failing to prevent the September 11th attacks. Shenon also revealed that Karl Rove repeatedly called Zelikow during the probe. In the following interview, Zelikow responds in his first broadcast interview since the publication of Shenon’s book.

Democracy Now! Co-host Juan Gonzalez: I’d like to ask you, Philip Zelikow, on the issue of — the book by Philip Shenon, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, raises obviously some disturbing criticism, in addition, about the Commission’s work. I was struck in particular by the questions he raised about your communications with Karl Rove during that period and also that the issue of whether you sought to have your secretary remove the logs of your phone calls with Karl Rove during that period. Could you respond to those issues raised by Shenon?

Philip Zelikow: Well, not only can I respond to them, the commissioners actually have responded and will respond to anyone who asks them, because I was authorized by the Commission to talk to White House officials regularly, as was the general counsel, Dan Marcus. But on this business of Rove, it’s a little ironic, since I don’t even really know Rove. We had two brief contacts that had to do with University of Virginia business, because I used to direct a presidential research center. In both cases, we handed off the issues to others. The university actually has records on this matter. I told Shenon all of this.

The business about phone logs, actually two of the three people who took my calls don’t even remember the story. This appears to be a garble having to do with whether the message slips would be left out on the counter. I mean, this —

Amy Goodman: Well, let me ask you directly this very straightforward allegation of Philip Shenon, that he said that you called in your secretary, shut the door, informed her she was no longer to keep phone logs of your contacts with the White House. She got so alarmed that she — thinking it was improper, that she went to the chief lawyer for the Commission to alert him about what’s happened. Did you tell her not to keep logs of your White House calls?

Zelikow: Yes, well, if someone will just go talk to the chief lawyer of the Commission, you don’t have to rely on my account of this. I mean, there other people who have knowledge of these facts. And there’s no there there.

Goodman: You did not tell her not to keep logs.

Zelikow: There are no phone logs for the Commission. There are no phone — the Commission had no phone logs. So I couldn’t tell her not to keep logs in a situation where the Commission didn’t have phone logs.

Goodman: She kept your logs.

Zelikow: No, I did not have any phone logs.

Goodman: So you’re saying you did not — this is a completely fabricated story?

Zelikow: I did not have phone logs. This is a garble of something that’s probably come second — you know, two or three layers removed from people who don’t actually understand the way our office worked. But no one in the office thought that I was concealing anything from the commissioners, and the commissioners don’t think I was concealing anything from them, because they were briefed on all these contacts.

And they also knew very well what my relationship with the White House was, since, as the commissioners have recently put it, Zelikow was the White House’s biggest problem. And they, the commissioners, if you will just call them and ask them, will point out that I was actually a source of constant trouble for the White House, and the White House had hoped that the Commission would put someone else in my job. And in fact, the White House’s biggest supporters, like Bill Safire, were slamming me in their columns during 2004, because I was leading the Commission to knock down the theories they supported.

Gonzalez: There appears to be, at least according to Shenon, one commissioner, Max Cleland, who did raise questions about what was happening on the Commission, and he was removed, according to Shenon, because of his — or shortly after raising his criticisms of what he thought were cover-ups occurring in the Commission. He was removed. Is there any accuracy to that Shenon claim?

Zelikow: He was not removed. Max resigned from the Commission. There are commissioners who know very well the circumstances of Max’s resignation. And if anyone wants to know more about this, he should talk to either Max or Tom Daschle or the commissioners involved, because Max resigned on his own and quite voluntarily for very personal reasons that commissioners know about, but which I was not a part of at all.

Goodman: One of the points that Philip Shenon makes in his book, The Commission, is not only your relationship — your ongoing relationship with Rove, but with Condoleezza Rice, which went way back before the Commission, of course, that you co-authored a book with her.

Zelikow: May I just stop you, though? When you say my “ongoing relationship with Karl Rove,” I had no ongoing relationship with Karl Rove. I’ve never worked with Karl Rove. I’ve never had any political dealings with Karl Rove at all in my life. So this is — your question just kind of assumes things that just aren’t true.

Goodman: He talks about —

Zelikow: Now, I have had a relationship with Condi Rice, sure.

Goodman: — conversations that you had with Karl Rove at the White House and also a longtime relationship with Condoleezza Rice and talks about —

Zelikow: Sure.

Goodman: In the book, he talks about how the staff felt pressured and that any negative references to Condoleezza Rice in her role in the lead-up to the 9/11 attacks was whitewashed in the report, because of pressure from you, her friend, her co-author, longtime colleague.

Zelikow: But, you know, Shenon doesn’t say that.

Goodman: Well, he does argue —

Zelikow: Shenon doesn’t say the report was — excuse me, Shenon does not say the report was “whitewashed,” quote/unquote, in any way at all.

Goodman: Well, let me say that he talks about the pressure that high-level staffers felt when talking — when writing about Condoleezza Rice.

Zelikow: Oh. Well, why don’t you — you or any journalist should call up the high-level staffers and ask them. And ask them whether or not they felt that they were bullied or pressured. The leader of that team, who worked in the Clinton White House, I’ll add, has gone on the record with the Associated Press saying that their team did not feel bullied in any way at all. He is happy to talk to any reporter about this. Another member of the staff who plays a very prominent role in Shenon’s account wrote to all the commissioners, reached out to all of them, and described Shenon’s account as, quote, “a case study in hype,” close quote. But journalists — so journalists who want to check this out, go talk to them. You don’t have to take my word for it. Go ask them if they felt pressured.

Of course, the irony in all of this was, at the time, the White House’s supporters were denouncing me, and here, three-and-a-half years later, I’m being attacked from the other side. The commissioners themselves don’t feel that they were — the commissioners feel that they understood exactly how I was running the Commission staff and how I was doing the work. They had transparency into what was going on. And I think they can speak for themselves now on the final product. But Shenon never alleges —

Goodman: What Shenon argues, what he argues —

Zelikow: — that any key facts were left out of the report.

Goodman: What he argues is that you sought to intimidate staff to avoid damaging findings for President Bush, who at the time was running for reelection, as well as references to Condoleezza Rice in any damaging way.

Zelikow: He — you’re saying he says “sought to intimidate,” quote/unquote?

Goodman: Yes.

Zelikow: I don’t think so.

Goodman: This is what Shenon alleges in The Commission, in his new book.

Zelikow: Well, as I — I mean, anyone who was in the White House at the time would find that accusation ridiculous. But, as I say, talk to the staffers. Ask them. Ask them if they thought that I was trying to intimidate them. The leader of the team is happy to talk to any reporters who will ask. So what I’m trying to do is, I don’t want to get into an argument where I’m saying, you know, Shenon says this, Zelikow says that. You don’t have to trust me or take my word for it. Go to the commissioners, go to the staffers, many of whom worked for Democratic administrations. I worked for one month on a transition team. Our general counsel had been the number three person in Janet Reno’s Justice Department.

*****

The 9/11 Commission & Torture: How Information Gained Through Waterboarding & Harsh Interrogations Form Major Part of 9/11 Commission Report

A new analysis by NBC News reveals that more than a quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report refer to controversial interrogation techniques. Yet, Commission staffers did not question the CIA about its techniques. They even ordered a second round of interrogations in early 2004 to get more information from the detainees.

Democracy Now! Co-host Juan Gonzalez: CIA Director Michael Hayden acknowledged Tuesday that the Agency had used the interrogation technique known as waterboarding on three individuals since the attacks of September 11th. Hayden also claimed the CIA has practiced what he called “enhanced interrogation techniques” on one-third of the around 100 prisoners he says have been detained. Hayden made the admission in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Continue

Secrecy: Update laws on openness

2

The Clarion-Ledger

“It being essential to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of representative government and to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner, and that citizens be advised of and be aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy, it is hereby declared to be the policy of the State of Mississippi that the formation and determination of public policy is public business and shall be conducted at open meetings except as otherwise provided herein.”

– Open Meetings Act, 1975

The legislative declaration at the beginning of Mississippi’s Open Meetings Act is a practical statement for the need for open government.

It is “essential” to the operation of our government that citizens be aware of the actions of public officials in determining the policies that affect their lives. While this idea is generally accepted, it is not always practiced.

Public officials, facing controversial decisions, or even worse, taking action they intentionally want to hide, shut the public out. Documents that detail the actions of government, often involving the use of taxpayer money, are hidden from public view.

Mississippi’s Open Meetings Act and the Open Records Act state the intention of openness, but do not adequately provide the practical requirements under law to ensure it.

The Open Meetings Act has a list of exceptions. While some are valid, including sensitive personnel issues and proprietary matters such as the purchase of land, the exemptions are too many and too broad.

Worse, exemptions and procedures that were intended for specific valid purposes are interpreted so broadly as to make the law useless. One example is that some law enforcement agencies close their records under the guise of protecting investigative material. Basic incident reports on crimes – information that involves public safety – are often hidden.

Agencies close meetings based on broad definitions of “personnel matters,” or possible “litigation.” Too often, the law is only as valid as the good intentions of the public officials.

Often, seeking enforcement of the laws requires expensive litigation, which puts a chilling effect on private citizens seeking open government.

Open government is promoted by the media, but it is not a media issue – it is a public issue. Any citizen should be able to observe the action of government officials or have access to public records. It’s that simple.

Today begins a series of reports on Mississippi’s problems with secrecy. There are various improvements that should be made to the state’s open meetings and records laws. Exemptions should be tightened and procedures improved to aid citizens seeking to know how their tax money is used, what their government is doing and how their lives are impacted.

Openness is “essential” to good government. The doors should open on Mississippi’s secrecy.

Six Gitmo detainees face death, officials say

0

WILLIAM GLABERSON
The New York Times

Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantanamo detainees who are to be charged with central roles in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the charges said Sunday.

The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as soon as today and were likely to include numerous war-crimes charges against the six men, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the former al-Qaida operations chief who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people.

A Defense Department official said prosecutors were seeking the death penalty because, “if any case warrants it, it would be for individuals who were parties to a crime of that scale.” The officials spoke anonymously because no one in the government was authorized to speak about the case.

NEW CHALLENGES

A decision to seek the death penalty would increase the international focus on the case and present new challenges to the troubled military commission system that has yet to begin a single trial.

“The system hasn’t been able to handle the less-complicated cases it has been presented with to date,” said David Glazier, a former Navy officer who is a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

In addition to Mohammed, the other five to be charged include detainees officials say were coordinators and intermediaries in the plot, among them a man labeled the “20th hijacker,” who was denied entry to the United States in the month before the attacks. Under the rules of the Guantanamo war-crimes system, the military prosecutors can designate charges as capital when they present them, and it is that first phase of the process that’s expected this week. The military official who then reviews them, Susan Crawford, a former military appeals court judge, has the authority to accept or reject a death-penalty request.

A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment Sunday.

QUESTION OF CARRYING OUT EXECUTION

But some of those briefed on the case have said the prosecutors view their task in seeking convictions for the Sept. 11 attacks as a historic challenge. A special group of military and Justice Department lawyers has been working on the case for several years.

Even if the detainees are convicted on capital charges, any execution would be many months or, perhaps years, from being carried out, lawyers said, in part because a death sentence would have to be scrutinized by civilian appeals courts.

Federal officials have said in recent months that there’s no death chamber at the detention camp at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and that they knew of no specific plans for how a death sentence would be carried out.

The last military execution was in 1961, when an Army private, John A. Bennett, was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder.

Continued prosperity for war contractors

0

Muscular Defense Plan Buoys Contractors
Proposed Budget Would Benefit Area Companies

By Dana Hedgpeth

A run of healthy profits for defense contractors that has lasted nearly a decade will continue for at least another year, analysts and company executives said after the Bush administration last week submitted its new defense budget.

The $515.4 billion defense spending proposal for fiscal 2009 is 7.5 percent higher than the current year’s and promises to fund some of the armed forces’ largest and most costly weapons programs. It includes $104.2 billion for weapons procurement and nearly $80 billion for research and development, testing and evaluation.

That would mean big new opportunities and more funding for major projects for local defense and technology contractors, including Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, General Dynamics of Falls Church, SI International of Reston, CACI International of Arlington and Northrop Grumman, which is based in Los Angeles but has a large presence in the Washington area.

“The expectation has been that it can’t continue to increase as it has,” Phil Finnegan, a defense analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax, said of defense spending. “But it has surprised everyone to see how long this increase has continued. This budget was a great budget for all defense contractors. It includes continuing growth — not as fast as last year, but it enabled everyone’s programs to be funded.”

Finnegan, other analysts and executives at contracting companies said they don’t expect the party to last indefinitely.

“The fiscal year 2009 budget may be about as good as it gets for defense contractors,” said Steve Kosiak, vice president of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “We have had eight years of quite dramatic growth in [the Defense Department‘s] weapons acquisition accounts. Whoever the next president is, it is unlikely that we are going to continue a major buildup.

“The major area contractors have all done reasonably well, but they all also have major programs that are likely to face growing scrutiny in coming years, especially if budgets begin to get tighter, which seems likely.”

In the proposed budget, the Air Force plans to spend $3.4 billion on 20 F-22 Raptors, which are made by Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney. It also sets aside large sums to buy pilot-less planes such as Northrop Grumman’s Global Hawk and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems’ Predator.

The proposed budget sets aside $6.7 billion for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — the Pentagon‘s most expensive weapons program which is being built by Lockheed Martin. The Pentagon has tried to save money on the $300 billion fighter program by eliminating a backup engine being developed by General Electric. The president’s proposed budget does not include such funding, however, Congress is expected to reverse that provision.

The White House moved $1 billion that was supposed to be used to buy more presidential helicopters from Lockheed Martin into research and development. The program has had problems with costs, changes the government wanted to make to the aircraft’s features and staying on schedule.

Lockheed Martin’s C-130 cargo plane is proposed to get $956.6 million, down slightly from what it got the year before.

The Army’s Future Combat Systems, a program that will use a wireless network to connect battlefield equipment overseen by SAIC and Boeing, would get $3.56 billion. And the White House asked for more than $21 billion for space and missile-defense initiatives, areas where Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop have strong roles. .

The demand for armored vehicles continues to benefit General Dynamics, which makes the Stryker and a version of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle, or MRAP. The Stryker program got $1.2 billion and upgrades of the company’s Abrams tank was funded at $727 million, though no funding was allocated for MRAPs, which are being built by several contractors.

The Navy reduced the number of littoral combat ships being developed to operate close to shore — a reduction that is going to have “negative consequences” for Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, which are involved in building the ships, said defense consultant Loren Thompson. The fiscal 2009 budget proposes spending $1.3 billion for two such ships, but the long-term future of the program is uncertain.

Bush’s budget postpones decisions on some big-ticket items.

The Pentagon had been preparing to shut down the production lines of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, analysts said, and the C-17 transport plane, made by Boeing. But no money was set aside in the fiscal 2009 budget to do so. Without funding, analysts said, it effectively defers the decision of whether to buy more planes or to shut down the lines to the next administration.

“These are politically contentious,” said Finnegan. With elections coming up, he said, the White House “is saying, ‘Why deal with them? Why take the pain for them of shutting down the lines? Let the next administration decide.’ ”

CACI’s president and chief executive, Paul M. Cofoni, said that when the Pentagon shifts from wartime expenses to other programs that have been put on hold, he nevertheless sees opportunities for contractors. He expects that as the military draws down troops in Iraq, the “expenses necessary to house them, to feed them, to provide ammunition for them, all get reduced.

“Those funds can be redeployed to other needs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines,” he said. “So the money’s going to go to things like intelligence and homeland security. That’s where we’re well positioned.”

Your doctor, your dealer

5

Once it was cocaine, speed or heroin, but now the fashion is for legal pills, washed down by spirits. Last week’s news that actor Heath Ledger, right, died from an overdose of prescription tablets shed light on a startling new trend – misuse of over-the-counter pills now kills more Americans than illegal drugs.

Elizabeth Day in New York

Alex is a man who prides himself on sticking to routine. He likes to start the day with a large cappuccino from Starbucks and to end it with a handful of anti-depressants washed down with vodka. ‘It’s my treat after coming home from work,’ he says. ‘I guess it just chills me out a little.’

In many ways Alex, 31, is a typical well-heeled young New Yorker. He works in finance, holidays in the Hamptons and enjoys partying at the sort of exclusive nightclubs where having your name on the guest list is a prerequisite to entry. He also likes to get high on prescription drugs.

Tonight he is celebrating a friend’s birthday at Marquee, one of the city’s hippest nightspots. The main bar, lined with leather banquettes, is cast in a shadowy half-light. In the upstairs lavatory there is a small framed sign on the back of the door reminding guests the use of illegal drugs will not be permitted.

But Alex would not consider himself a drug abuser. For him, those small white Xanax tablets on his bathroom shelves are simply a recreational accompaniment to the $15 Grey Goose vodka martini he has just been served. And, what’s more, they’re entirely legal.

Over the past five years the United States has seen a ferocious increase in prescription drug abuse. According to the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 49.8 million Americans over the age of 12 have reported non-medical use of illicit drugs in their lifetime, 20.3 per cent of the population. Among teenagers aged 12-17, prescription drugs are second only to marijuana in popularity, and in the past 15 years there has been a 140 per cent increase in painkiller abuse. It is the fastest-growing type of drug abuse in the US. Even more worryingly, prescription drugs have made it on to the party scene as a legal, seemingly safe, way to recreate an illicit high.

Until last month this was a largely silent epidemic. But the death of Heath Ledger, a regular at Marquee and other nightclubs, thrust it into the spotlight. The 28-year-old actor died from ‘acute intoxication’ caused by an accidental overdose of anti-anxiety medication and prescription painkillers.

‘Americans love to get pills for everything that ails them,’ says Dr Howard Markel, a professor of paediatrics and psychiatry at the University of Michigan. ‘The misuse of those drugs has become one of the major health problems of our time.’ The UK has less of a prescription culture than the US, although many experts believe the advent of internet pharmacies means it is only a matter of time. In the US, where pharmaceuticals are advertised on prime-time television, pill-popping has become normalised, a socially acceptable means of alleviating stress, sleeplessness or anxiety.

The most commonly abused prescription medications fall into three categories: opiate-based painkillers (OxyContin and Percocet); central nervous system depressants prescribed for anxiety and sleep disorders (Valium and Xanax); and stimulants, used to treat attention deficit disorders (Ritalin and Adderall).

Within these categories, the pharmaceutical industry has provided a full set of substitutes for just about every illegal narcotic available. Methylphenidate, the active chemical in Ritalin, targets the brain’s pleasure-producing centres in the same way as cocaine. Antidepressants can act as serotonin-boosting ‘uppers’. A few years ago OxyContin, an extremely powerful painkiller developed for cancer patients, became known as ‘hillbilly heroin’ after an epidemic of abuse took root in poor rural communities.

Such mishandled drugs now kill 20,000 a year, nearly twice as many as 10 years ago.

Dependence on legal drugs is not a new problem – during the American Civil War morphine abuse was labelled ‘the soldiers’ disease’ – but the practice of prescribing drugs has metamorphosed from a medical treatment of last resort to a way of life. ‘The problem has been greatly worsened by the internet, and that affects all countries – including Britain,’ says Susan Foster, of the National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University, New York. ‘As long as you have a credit card, anyone can log on and have potentially lethal drugs delivered to their door. You don’t even need a prescription. You have what’s called an “online consultation” where you are asked how old you are, how bad your pain is.’

The substances most commonly traded over the internet are tranquilisers such as diazepam and stimulants like Ritalin. However, the most dangerous are the opiates, which include codeine and morphine.

The painkiller fentanyl can act like heroin and traffickers get hold of supplies by forging stolen prescriptions, breaking into pharmacies and stealing stocks or buying the drugs from patients who have been prescribed it. Another opiate painkiller, buprenorphine – prescribed for heroin addicts trying to kick their habit – is peddled in countries as diverse as India, Iran, Finland and France. From 2001-05, the global consumption of buprenorphine more than tripled to 1.5 billion daily doses.

Doctors are woefully ignorant of the dangers; a 2005 study by Casa found that 43.3 per cent of them did not ask about drug abuse when taking histories. Even if they do, the seasoned drug abuser will go from one doctor to the next until they get the quantities they want – a practice known as ‘doctor-shopping’.

This was Jeana Hutsell’s experience. A petite 35-year-old from Canton, Ohio, with cropped peroxide blonde hair and square-framed glasses, Hutsell became hooked on Percocet, an opiate-based painkiller, when she was prescribed it 12 years ago after an operation for Crohn’s disease. ‘I went to the doctor with abdominal cramps and he began writing me copious prescriptions,’ she says. Within a year, her habit had escalated to 60 pills a day and she was sewing emergency stashes into the lining of her handbag. ‘I felt they gave me personality. They made me chattier, friendlier.’

Hutsell began forging prescriptions, sometimes walking into hospital casualty departments over the weekend and saying she had run out. ‘I felt justified and safe because my doctor was giving them to me. I wasn’t getting them on the streets – I was going to a pharmacy.’

Whereas illegal street narcotics – heroin or crack cocaine – are more likely to be used by the poorer socio-economic classes, prescription drugs have become the preserve of the rich. In the privatised American healthcare industry, these pills do not come cheaply: an antidepressant like Wellbutrin can cost from $1,000 to $2,400 a year.

Wealthy individuals also enjoy the luxury of paying private physicians – known as ‘script doctors’ – to provide them with prescriptions. And often, because the drugs are viewed as performance-enhancers, they will be taken by those at the higher end of the social strata: by the college students and Wall Street traders. In the 1980s cocaine was the glamour yuppie drug. Now, the line of white powder is being overtaken by the little white capsule.

Phoenix House is a tall, grey stone building on the Upper West Side, a former 19th-century hotel with mosaic-tiled floors in the hall. The genteel appearance belies its gritty purpose: Phoenix House is a rehabilitation centre for drug and alcohol abusers, treating 6,000 people a day. In recent years, such centres have seen a substantial increase in prescription drug admissions – some counsellors say that they account for 90 per cent of new patients.

Professor David Deitch, the chief clinical officer, does not want to use the word ‘epidemic’, but he concedes that ‘the genie is out of the bottle’. ‘You see prescription drug abuse in the same circles that you saw cocaine abuse – the high-performing executive class. They might have a big day, so they take some something to get to sleep. Then they’ll take another pill the next morning to enhance their performance. Then they’ll go out and use all kinds of drugs at a party, and then to recover from the party the next morning they’ll take a different pill. It’s pervasive.’

Celebrities who have admitted their own struggles with prescription medication include Elizabeth Taylor, the talkshow host Rush Limbaugh, and Cindy McCain, the wife of the Republican presidential candidate John McCain. More recently, there have been rumours that Britney Spears has been self-medicating. The impact has percolated down to impressionable adolescents. One of the most popular forms of recreation among high-school students is the ‘pharm party’. Teenagers raid their parents’ medicine cabinets, then pool their resources. ‘You throw your drugs into a bowl in the middle of the room, then people pick pills out and chase them with alcohol,’ says Susan Foster. ‘We’ve seen these internet recipe sites where you go online to find out how to mix drugs for a certain effect. You can trade drugs online – in fact, at one college the students reported that they had a prescription drug trade forum on the university website.’

Markel tells the story of one of his patients, a 16-year-old student called Mary, who liked to down a few tablets of OxyContin with a single shot of vodka. She called the combination ‘the sorority girl’s diet cocktail’ because it gave a stronger kick of inebriation with fewer calories than alcohol alone.

‘There’s a cachet to this sort of drug abuse, encouraged by the Paris Hiltons and the Lindsay Lohans going into rehab, so it becomes a really cool druggy, party culture,’ Markel says. ‘Now teenagers don’t want to smoke and drink, they want to take a pill because it’s so easy to get and some of them can really make you feel good.’

But it is easy to overdose on prescription drugs, partly because your consciousness is impaired and it can be difficult to remember how many you’ve taken, and partly because mixing medication without specialised knowledge can produce fatally toxic results. And however legal these drugs might be, their misuse carries the same consequences as illegal narcotics: the familiar, dispiriting tale of the addict losing their family, friends, job, home and, sometimes, their life. After two years of Percocet addiction, Jeana Hutsell took stock of the wreckage her life had become: ‘I was homeless, I didn’t have a car, my family didn’t like me. I realised that I was the cause of all my problems. That was the turning point.’

Others are not so lucky. Randy Colvin, an abuser of Valium, Xanax and Percocet, died of a drug overdose on his 35th birthday. ‘We tried to save him and we lost,’ says his older brother Rod. ‘For 15 years we tried to get him into treatment and each time he would be in denial, he would be furious with us. My mother and I even tried to get a court order so that he could be sectioned. We did everything we possibly could. Addiction is a family disease. His death was very painful. ‘

For Heath Ledger’s parents, the grieving process is still in the rawest stages. Their son cemented his fame for reasons that were nothing to do with his talent. Instead he is for ever associated with a seedy death on the floor of a Manhattan apartment, just one more victim of the pill-popping epidemic that has become America’s secret illness.

IRAQ – Children Starved of Childhood

1

By Ahmed Ali

The violence around the continuing U.S. military operations in this city has robbed children of their childhood.

Only two provincial schools and one private kindergarten school are functioning in this city of 280,000, located 50 km north of Baghdad. Most children know neither school nor play.

Or even the food they want. “We parents can hardly meet the basic requirements of food,” Mahdi Hassan, a father of four, told IPS.

“Nobody even mentions chocolate or pastries or anything else because Iraqis know they are not important,” Baquba resident Wissam Jafar told IPS. “Children eat what the other members of the family eat. Toys and games are offered only at festivals and on special occasions.”

Baquba city, capital of Diyala province, has been at the centre of major U.S. military operations to fight al-Qaeda like forces. People have suffered from the violence from both sides.

By now Iraq has seen a generation of children pass with just survival a major issue. During the period of economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s, more than half a million children died, according to the United Nations.

In 1996, former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl on the CBS ླྀ Minutes’ show if she thought the price of half a million dead children was worth it. She replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it.”

One in eight children in Iraq died during that period of malnutrition, disease, and lack of medicine.

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq during March 2003 brought hope that things might change, but that change has only been for the worse.

“During the nineties, they were malnourished but they could find a place to play in the streets,” Khalid Ali, a local economist, told IPS. “Nowadays, they cannot even get out of their home because of the violence. And a large number of children have been killed through the violence.”

There is one park in Baquba with some basic swings for children; another was recently renovated by an Iraqi NGO. Both get overcrowded on festivals and holidays. Parents feel obliged to take their children out on these days, despite the risk.

On other days, no more than two or three families visit the parks.

Sajid Asim who earns 175 dollars a month from his job in the water department says the money is barely enough for food for the family. “Surely, there won’t be any extra money to bring the children special food or clothes, or games, or even taking them to picnics.” For those without work — and there are many — the situation is worse.

Schoolteachers and managers spoke to IPS of the problems facing children who do manage to go to school.

“Teaching has been hit by the political situation in Iraq,” said Salma Majid, manager of a local primary school. “Children can often not get to the school, and we may have more than three days off in a week. The whole academic year may be delayed because the violence has been so extreme this year.”

Schools can provide children a chance to play but sometimes it is not safe,” she said. “A number of school buildings have been hit by mortar.”

According to an Oxfam report on Iraq released Jul. 30, “92 percent of children had learning impediments that are largely attributable to the current climate of fear. Schools are regularly closed as teachers and pupils are too fearful to attend. Over 800,000 children may now be out of school, according to a recent estimate by Save the Children UK — up from 600,000 in 2004.”

The Oxfam report also said that child malnutrition rates in Iraq have risen from 19 percent before the invasion in 2003, to 28 percent. “More than 11 percent of newborn babies were born underweight in 2006, compared with 4 percent in 2003.”

Scarcity has brought all sorts of difficulties for children. “I put a sandwich in the bag for my son to take to school,” said a mother who declined to give her name. “When he got back home, he said he could not have it because his classmates do not bring their own sandwiches; their parents do not give them sandwiches.”

A local primary school teacher, Ali Abbas, said it is common now for students to arrive at school without breakfast.

“One day, one of the children suddenly passed out,” Abbas said. “We immediately took her to the administration room. When she regained consciousness, I asked her why she fainted. She told me that she did not have breakfast because there was no breakfast at home.”

(*Ahmed, our correspondent in Iraq’s Diyala province, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region)

‘A Century of War’ Part I

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who’s written on issues of energy, politics and economics for over 30 years. He contributes regularly to publications like Japan’s Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine, Grant’s Investor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International. He’s also a frequent speaker at geopolitical, economic and energy related international conferences and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization where he’s a regular contributor.

Engdahl wrote two important books. This writer reviewed his latest one in three parts called “Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation.” It’s the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms. They aim to control food worldwide, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

The book is a sequel to Engdahl’s first one and subject of this review – “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order.” It’s breathtaking in scope and content, and a shocking and essential history of geopolitics and strategic importance of oil. The book is reviewed in-depth so readers will know the type future Henry Kissinger had in mind in 1970 when he said: “Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people.” Engdahl recounts the story in his two masterful books, both critically essential reading.

The story line in his first one began late in the 19th century when oil’s advantage was first realized, and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill told Parliament in 1919:

“We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the supply (of oil) which we require….and obtain our oil supply, so far as possible, from sources under British control, or British influence.”

After defeating Napoleon in 1815, Britain was supreme until America emerged predominant during WW II. Engdahl explains how: through two pillars and one commodity – unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency combined with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.

Engdahl calls his book “no ordinary history of oil” because what he recounts is suppressed in the mainstream and what passes for education in America. It settles for mediocrity, ignorance, and a barely literate public by design. As a result, people don’t know that US manipulators arranged “the greatest confidence game the world had ever seen” – a “special hegemony” to:

— print limitless dollar paper certificates to buy every imaginable product;

— accumulate endless trade deficits;

— “inflate (the) currency beyond imagination;”

— have the government pay interest on its own money; and

— create an unprecedented public and private debt to enrich an elite few at the expense of the greater good.

So far it’s worked because people haven’t caught on, other nations need our markets, fear our might, and countries like China, Japan and petrodollar recyclers remain lenders of last resort. Combined, it let America rule the world, control its energy, and crush all upstart competition. Washington had a good role model, and that’s where the story begins.

The Three Pillars of the British Empire

Geopolitical history for the last 100 years was shaped around the quest for what Big Oil acolyte Daniel Yergin called “The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power” with two countries at its epicenter – first Britain and now America with its UK junior partner that built its rule on three essential pillars:

— controlling the seas and setting the terms of trade;

— dominating world banking and manipulating the world’s largest gold supply; and

— controlling world raw materials with oil the key one at the turn of the century; with these working, it devised an “informal empire” to loot world wealth and maintain a balance of power on the continent.

Britain’s “genius” was being able to shift alliances without letting sentiment interfere with its interests. Post-Waterloo, it operated “on an extremely sophisticated marriage between top (London) bankers and financiers, government cabinet ministers,” key industrialists and espionage chiefs. By keeping everything secret, it “wielded immense power over credulous and unsuspecting foreign economies.” By the late 19th century, however, things began to change, and a new strategy was needed. Key to it was oil geopolitics as a vital naval supremacy ingredient.

The Lines are Drawn: Germany and the Geopolitics of the Great War

The importance of oil and emergence of continental economies (especially in Germany) provided the backdrop to WW I. By the late 19th century, British bankers and political elites were alarmed that German industrial and technological development began surpassing its own that was in decline. Included was a modern German merchant and naval fleet and an ambitious railway project linking Berlin with Baghdad, then part of the Ottoman empire. At stake was British hegemony, and preserving it led to war.

Prior to its outbreak, coal was king, German output was impressive and so was its growth:

— its steel production increased 1000% in 20 years, leaving Britain far behind by 1900;

— its state-backed rail infrastructure doubled in track kilometers from 1870 to 1913;

— with the advent of centralized electric power generation and long-distance transmission, its electrical industry exploded to dominate half the world’s trade by 1913;

— impressive research built the country’s chemical industry and made Germany the world leader in analine dye production, pharmaceuticals and chemical fertilizers;

— German agriculture thrived; it made “astonishing” gains from the introduction of “scientific agriculture chemistry” and produced an 80% grain harvest increase from 1887 to 1914;

— population growth was dramatic – 75% to 67 million between 1870 and 1914;

— Germany’s merchant fleet rocketed to second place in the world behind Britain and at a pace to overtake it;

— steel and engineering advances were achieved; and consider another British concern:

— early in the century, British Dreadnought battleship leadership was surpassed; Germany’s super model was superior and that spelled trouble for UK sea power supremacy; by 1910, “dramatic remedies” were needed; Germany’s economic emergence had to be confronted, its growing naval strength as well, and for the first time oil was a factor.

A Global Fight for Control of Petroleum Begins

By 1882, British Admiral Lord Fisher saw oil’s potential as qualitatively superior to coal. It required one-quarter the tonnage, one-third the engine weight, and expanded a fleet’s “radius of action” fourfold. It was first used in 1885 after Gottlieb Daimler developed the internal combustion engine. Another 20 years passed, however, before its importance was realized, and that created a problem. Britain had no oil and needed a supply.

Up to then, its Middle East presence was limited, but that changed after oil was discovered in Masjed Soleiman, Persia (now Iran) in 1908. It secured Britain an “extraordinarily significant exclusive right (to potential) vast untapped petroleum deposits” for the country’s newly formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC).

Earlier in 1899, German industrialists and bankers got Ottoman approval for a Berlin-Baghdad railway. The aim – to establish strong economic ties to Turkey and develop new markets in the East. Once extended to Kuwait, it would be the fastest, cheapest rail link to the Indian subcontinent, and that spelled trouble for Britain. It would challenge UK supremacy and had to be confronted.

The project was costly and needed help to complete, so Germany turned to Britain. London, for its part however, used “every device known to delay and obstruct progress. The game lasted” until war began in 1914 and after Britain secured an exclusive oil development “lease in perpetuity” in what today is Iraq and Kuwait. Yet competition remained because Germany got the Ottoman emperor to grant its Baghdad Railway Company full rights to all oil and minerals on a parallel 20 kilometers of land on either side of the rail line. By 1912, oil’s importance was apparent, and geologists discovered it between Mosul and Baghdad.

WW I stalled efforts for a German-owned oil company, independent of Rockefeller interests. At a time, the US produced over 63% of world supply, Russia’s Baku 19% and Mexico 5%. Britain’s new APOC was barely a player when First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill convinced the government to buy a majority interest in what today is British Petroleum (BP). “From that point, oil was at the core of British strategic interests,” and the game was this – secure its own supplies, deny them to key rivals like Germany, and do it if necessary by war.

That became London’s scheme early in the century when Britain, France and Russia allied in a Triple Entente against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian powers. By 1907, it was solidified, effectively encircled Germany, and it laid the foundation for the coming showdown with Kaiser Wilhelm II. From then until 1914, preparations were made for the “final elimination of the German threat.” Included was a “series of continuous crises and regional (Balkans) wars (in) the ‘soft underbelly’ of Central Europe.” Three months after the alliance, Austria’s heir to the throne was assassinated in Sarajavo, and it “detonated the Great War.”

Oil Becomes the Weapon, the Near East the Battleground

WW I was no different from other wars. Imperial, territorial and economic rivalries were at its root. It lasted from July 28, 1914 to November 11, 1918 and at a time Britain was effectively bankrupt, had big plans along with other combatants, plus a “secret weapon” that later emerged: the special relationship of “His Majesty’s Treasury” with The House of Morgan.

The conflict matched the Allied powers of Britain, France, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Montenegro, Italy, Portugal, Japan and for its last seven months the US against the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Ottoman Turkey. The timeline was as follows:

— on June 28, Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated;

— on July 28, Austria declared war on Serbia;

— on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia;

— on August 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium on August 4; and

— on August 4, Britain declared war on Germany, and the world was at war. Four years later, its toll was horrific, and four empires were destroyed – Ottoman Turkey, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia. Later on, so would Britain’s, but in 1914 schemes and intrigue drove the winners to reallocate the spoils, especially where it was thought large oil deposits lay.

Well before 1914, Britain’s geostrategy was threefold:

— create and preserve an unchallengeable global empire;

— defeat its main rival Germany; and

— secure and control the most strategically important resource – oil that was crucial to winning the war.

At its end, Britain’s Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon commented: “The Allies were carried to victory on a flood of oil.” Germany ran short and lost because it couldn’t mount a decisive offensive in 1918. In 1915, however, Britain gambled and lost. It failed to defeat Turkey in the Battle of Gallipoli, and the stakes involved were high – to secure Russia’s rich Baku oil fields at a time they supplied almost a fifth of world production. It was early in the war, Britain ultimately prevailed, and in no small measure by preemptively occupying Baku in August, 1918 to deny Germany its vital resources.

Throughout the war, oil’s importance was key and the reason for the Allies’ secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement. It spelled “betrayal and Britain’s intent to….control….the undeveloped petroleum reserves of the Arabian Gulf after the war.” Britain was devious. While France and Germany clashed along the Western Front, London moved 1.4 million troops to the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean on the pretext of bolstering Russia. After 1918, a million forces remained on what became a “British Lake” by 1919 with access to the region’s oil. Its potential was later learned, France was cheated out of its share, Saudi Arabia’s value was unknown, and turned out to be a major British blunder that didn’t elude America in the 1930s.

Partitioning the Ottoman Empire proceeded post-war and included an “extraordinary new element.” Now known as the Balfour Declaration, it was a classified British policy statement supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine at a time Jews comprised 1% of the population. It came on November 2, 1917, a year of conflict remained, and it was the basis for the post-1919 British mandate over Palestine that gave London “strategic possibilities of enormous importance.” British elites and its principal think tank (the Royal Institute for International Affairs or Chatham House) supported a “Jewish-dominated Palestine, beholden to England for its survival (and) surrounded by a balkanized group of squabbling Arab states.”

The scheme was to link England’s colonial possessions from South Africa’s gold and diamond mines, north to Egypt and the Suez canal, through Mesopotamia (Iraq and Kuwait), Persia (Iran) and East into India and what today is Pakistan and Bangladesh. Controlling this territory became crucial. It meant dominating the world’s most strategically valuable resources before their vast potential was realized.

Combined and Conflicting Goals: The United States Rivals Britain

Britain was the world’s major post-WW I power, its territorial winner, and borrowed Wall Street money secured the victory, but with a problem. The country was deeply in debt, mired in depression, and the US now loomed as the world’s economic power. In the 1920s, a rivalry ensued pitting America against Britain’s three imperial pillars: control of world sea lanes, its banking and finance, and its strategic raw materials. At stake was whether London or Washington would be the world’s new capital, with no assured winner at the time. Later, it was very clear that WW II’s seeds were planted in a place called Versailles and a 1919 treaty in its name.

Its terms were outrageous and onerous. They made unimaginable demands, and therein lay the problem. In May 1921, Germany got an ultimatum with six days to accept or the industrial Ruhr Valley would be militarily occupied. Even worse, the country lost its colonial possessions and all their raw material resources. In the end, all combatants were losers. Their combined debt overwhelmed world finance and monetary policy from 1919 to the 1929 Wall Street crash. The entire pyramid was built on punitive war debts with Morgan and other major New York banks uncompromising on the terms. They was so burdensome that yearly payments exceeded America’s annual 1920s foreign trade. In addition, paying it took precedence over rebuilding and modernizing war-torn European economies.

At the same time, oil’s importance grew as Britain exploited the spoils at France and America’s expense. In March 1921, Winston Churchill was UK secretary of state for colonial affairs, the British Colonial Office Middle East Department was established, and Mesopotamia was renamed Iraq and became a British colony. Anglo-Persian Oil officials got administrative control, American companies gained no British Middle East concessions, and a fierce battle raged over the region’s oil throughout the 1920s. Then it moved to Latin America.

In the 19th century, US Senator Henry Cabot Lodge stated “commerce follows the flag” and by it meant economic progress requires expansion. In 1912, it got Mexico targeted after oil was discovered in Tampico in 1910. Woodrow Wilson sent in troops to seize control from Britain and the UK-connected Mexican Eagle Oil Company that had concessions for half the country’s oil at the time. As war in Europe loomed, Britain backed off, and America secured Tampico’s enormous potential.

Britain, nonetheless, pressed on, and by the early 1920s controlled “a formidable arsenal of apparently private companies” that, in fact, let His Majesty’s government “dominate and ultimately control all” major world oil-containing regions. Four companies were empowered that were also an “integral part of British secret intelligence activities:”

— Royal Dutch Shell that rivaled Rockefeller’s Standard Oil, even in America through California Oil Fields and Oklahoma-based Roxana Petroleum;

— the Anglo-Persian Oil Company that became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and is now British Petroleum;

— the little-known d’Arcy Exploitation Company; it was tied to the Foreign Office and British intelligence, and its agents showed up wherever there was oil development potential; and

— the nominally Canadian company called British Controlled Oilfields (BCO); it was secretly government- owned as were Shell and the others.

In 1912, British companies controlled about 12% of world oil production. By 1925, it was most of it, America noticed, but in 1922, London and Washington united against a common threat and called a truce to their post-Versailles conflict.

The Anglo-Americans Close Ranks

In April 1922, Germany and Russia stunned the West by their bilateral Rapello Treaty. Under it, Russia waived its war reparations claims in return for Germany’s industrial technology. The news shocked the continent, especially as it emerged from a British-organized Genoa meeting with other strategic aims in mind.

While secretly financing an anti-Soviet counterrevolution, London approached Russia regarding Baku’s oil fields, hoping to arrange lucrative deals for Royal Dutch Shell and other UK oil companies. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil also eyed them, but was disadvantaged by Britain’s favored position and its own unsavory reputation. Yet it proceeded through Harry Sinclair of Sinclair Petroleum as a perceived independent middleman with no Rockefeller taint.

Moscow was interested because Sinclair had ties to President Harding, and a deal meant US diplomatic recognition and an end to Russia’s international isolation post-1917. Sinclair agreed, Harding approved, but events then intervened.

It was scandal in Wyoming in a place called Teapot Dome. It involved political influence and the awarding of no-bid oil leases to Sinclair Oil (then called Mammoth Oil) and a whole lot more with illegal payoffs and no-interest loans as part of the deal. Harding, though not directly involved, was implicated, a year later he was dead (“under strange circumstances”), Coolidge became President, dropped the Baku project, and ended plans to recognize Russia. At the time, it was thought British intelligence was involved, blocked the bid to give UK oil companies an edge, but Germany’s deal with Russia intervened.

It was Germany’s second option at a time its onerous debt made dealing with Britain preferable. Efforts failed because London was hard-line, stuck to its punitive repayment process, and imposed stiff tariffs to make things worse with Germany already on its knees.

The looting ruined the country’s economy and forced the Reichsbank to print enormous amounts of money to survive. Inevitable inflation followed and by 1923 was catastrophic. In January, the mark dropped to 18,000 to the dollar. By July, it was at 353,000, by August 4,620,000, and by November an astonishing 4,200,000,000,000. It was effectively worthless in the greatest ever (before or since) inflation that destroyed the country’s savings and made further calamitous events inevitable.

The misery was compounded when Germany lost its assets. Britain took its colonies, and also seized was Alsace-Lorraine and Silesia with its rich mineral and agricultural resources. Gone was 75% of the country’s iron ore, 68% of zinc ore, 26% of coal as well as Alsatian textile industries and potash mines. In addition, Germany’s entire merchant fleet was taken, a portion of its transport and fishing fleet plus locomotives, railroad cars and trucks – all justified as war debts that were fixed at an impossible to pay 132 billion gold marks at 6% annual interest, and with it an ultimatum. Agree in six days or Allied troops would occupy the Ruhr. Unsurprisingly, the Reichstag approved.

It made dealing with Russia essential as Germany sought practical ways to survive. It proved impossible, France objected to a minor treaty obligation and occupied the Ruhr anyway. In the meantime, inflation soared, German industrial activity was erased, Reichsbank and other German bank assets were seized, and the currency became worthless.

In 1923, a so-called Dawes Plan (named for US banker Charles Dawes) was adopted. It was the Anglo-American banking community’s way to reassert fiscal control over Germany, assure reparations were paid, and continue the state-sponsored looting. It continued until 1929 when the debt pyramid collapsed, an ensuing banking crisis followed, capital flowed out of the country, its economy crashed, the world headed into depression, and radical political elements gained prominence.

Reichbank president, Hjalmar Schacht, was a key figure. He resigned his post to organize financial support for the man he and Bank of England governor Montagu Norman wanted as chancellor. From 1926, Schacht secretly backed the radical National Socialist German workers party, the NSDAP Nazis. Britain also favored the “Hitler Project,” support for it went right to the top and included figures like Prime Minister Chamberlain and the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII in 1936 until he abdication later in the year).

Throughout the period, Wall Street and Washington were comfortable with the Nazis, and a key government official met Hitler in 1922. He came away saying he “was deeply impressed by his personality and thought it likely he would play an important part in German politics.”

By this time, the Anglo-American power struggle was resolved. So, too, the oil wars with the creation of an “enormously powerful Anglo-American oil cartel,” later called the “Seven Sisters.” British and American companies struck a deal. They ended competition, kept existing market shares, and secretly set prices with governments of both countries arranging a Red Line agreement. From then to now, Big Oil ruled the energy world and devised how to deal with “outsiders.”

Later, the consequences from Baron Kurt von Schroeder’s January 4, 1932 meeting would have to be faced after he, Heinrich von Papen and Hitler secretly arranged a Nazi takeover. A year later, another meeting followed preparatory to acting. The Weimar government was weak, the scheme was to topple it, and it made Hitler Reichschancellor on January 30, 1933. On August 2, 1934 he seized absolute power as Fuhrer. British interests backed him, Royal Dutch Shell financed him, and the Bank of England “moved with indecent haste to reward” him with a vital line of credit. The rest, as they say, is history, and from it would emerge a new world order.

Oil and the New World Order of Bretton Woods

In 1945, the world had changed. Post-WW I, Britain was preeminent with an empire spanning one-fourth the globe. Thirty years later, it was disintegrating and “in the throes of the largest upheaval of perhaps any empire in history” (although it happened most prominently to Rome, but it took longer). It wasn’t from “beneficence” or a matter of principle. It was unavoidable because the war took its toll. It shattered Britain’s financial power, its industry was decaying, its housing stock was dilapidated, and its people exhausted. Britain was “utterly dependent on America,” so the baton passed to the only major power left standing in a ravaged post-war world.

A “special relationship” between them emerged post-Versailles. Britain led it then, it hoped post-1945 to continue indirectly, and a new element was added – the post-war CIA that worked with Britain in the war as the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). The relationship continued as the two countries have mutual interests and jointly share intelligence, except that Britain now is junior in a US-dominated world.

Post-war, Anglo-American oil interests had enormous power. It was assured by the 1944 Bretton Woods system that was built around three dominant pillars – the IMF, World Bank and managed “free trade” from GATT. Clauses were built into each to ensure Anglo and especially American dominance over monetary and trade issues. Both countries have voting control, and the arrangement created a “gold exchange system.” Under it, each member country’s currency was pegged to the dollar that, in turn, was set at a fixed $35 an ounce gold price. It suited Big Oil fine as America by then had the bulk of world gold reserves.

They also benefitted from the Marshall Plan as more than 10% of it went for American oil, and five US companies supplied over half of western Europe’s supply at a dear price (that was pennies on the dollar compared to today). They profited enormously, nonetheless, as oil became the key commodity fueling world growth that without which would halt.

Partnered with Big Oil and its trade were Wall Street and New York international banks. They profited hugely from its capital inflows, and it ensured their advantage that was built into the Bretton Woods system. They also had cartel power by having consolidated to hold disproportionate control over world finance.

Britain, as well, had its post-war priorities in the wake of its lost empire. Its leadership regrouped around the power and profits of oil and other strategic raw materials with US help. It made Iran a target, Britain humiliated its nationalist elements, occupied the country, and demanded concessions for its government-linked Royal Dutch Shell. Finally in December, 1944, nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh introduced a bill to bar foreign country oil negotiations. A bitter fight ensued, by 1948 foreign troops were withdrawn, but the country remained under UK control through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company at a time Iran’s southern region had the world’s richest known reserves.

In late 1947, the Iranian government demanded an increase in its oil revenue share (meager at the time) and cited Venezuela where Standard Oil had a 50 – 50 arrangement. London wasn’t pleased, talks dragged on, and the strategy was to stall and delay. In late 1949, Mossadegh headed a parliamentary commission, a 50 – 50 split was demanded, Britain refused, and by 1951 Mossadegh was Prime Minister. Around the same time, Iran’s parliament nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and paid fair compensation for it. Britain, nonetheless, was outraged and reacted.

Full economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. In addition, Iranian assets in British banks were frozen, and major Anglo-American oil companies supported London. Iran’s economy was devastated. Its oil revenues plummeted from $400 million in 1950 to less than $2 million from July 1951 to August 1953 when Mossadegh was ousted by a CIA-British SIS coup. Shah Reza Pahlevi returned to power, sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained their client state until 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and deposed him. More on that below.

An Italian company defied the sanctions at the time – Azienda Generale Italiana Petroli (AGIP). Its founder and head was Enrico Mattei, a man to be reckoned with. He sought indigenous energy resources for Italy that Anglo-American oil interests wouldn’t co-opt. It was no simple task, yet he got a new law passed that established a central semi-autonomous state energy company called Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI). AGIP became a subsidiary.

As its leader in 1957, he negotiated an unprecedented deal with Iran – 75% of profits to the National Iranian Oil Company and 25% to ENI. Washington, London and Big Oil weren’t pleased. If unchecked, this type arrangement would upset their entire world oil order benefitting them at the expense of host countries. Mattei had to be stopped, and the US and Britain pressured the Shah to opt out – to no avail.

Mattei became a major irritant. He challenged Big Oil with low gasoline prices. He also offered deals with former colonies on more favorable terms than the majors, including the prospect of local refineries so supplier countries could be more than just raw material sources.

Finally, in October 1960 he went too far and enraged Washington and London. He negotiated a deal with Moscow they opposed. In 1958, he contracted to buy one million annual tons of Soviet crude. He then signed an exchange agreement for 2.4 million tons for five years but not to be paid in cash. Instead it would be in large-diameter oil pipe that Russia badly needed to construct a huge pipeline network bringing Volga-Urals oil to Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary – 15 million tons annually when completed. The deal helped both sides with Mattei getting Russian oil at below market price and the Soviets getting a pipe works plant completed for them in September, 1962.

A month later, Mattei was dead. His private plane crashed on takeoff killing him and two others on board. To this day, deliberate sabotage was suspected, and why not. Mattei was at the peak of his powers, he’d already signed deals with Iran, Russia, Morocco, Sudan, Tanzania, Ghana, India and Argentina and upset the established order. He also planned to meet President Kennedy who, at the time, was pressing Big Oil to reach accommodation with him. A year later, Kennedy was also dead, and the finger pointed to “US intelligence, through a complex web of organized crime cutouts.”

A Sterling Crisis and the Adenauer-De Gaulle Threat

In 1957, western European countries headed by France, West Germany and Italy signed the Treaty of Rome. It established the European Economic Community (EEC) that came into force on January 1, 1959. Germany was recovering from the war, and Charles De Gaulle regained power in France with vigorous restructuring plans – to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, expand its devastated industrial and agricultural economy, and restore fiscal stability.

It was already under way in continental Europe, the result of unprecedented EEC trade-driven growth. De Gaulle and Germany’s Konrad Adenauer led the effort with the French President exerting a strong independent voice. The two leaders bonded, and the Treaty Between and French Republic and Federal Republic of Germany was concluded on January 22, 1963. It assured close cooperation and coordination of economic and industrial policy. Washington and London were alarmed at the prospect of an independent alliance that included Italy under Aldo Moro.

An Anglo-American alliance was hatched to counter it. It targeted Europe and took the form of pushing the EEC to open to US imports and be firmly part of a Washington-London-dominated NATO. Britain also demanded inclusion in the six nation Common Market. De Gaulle strongly opposed it, but was denied when Atlanticist Ludwig Erhard became Germany’s Chancellor in April 1963. He favored admitting Britain and agreed to support London’s 19th century “balance of power” strategy against continental Europe. Though formally ratified, the Franco-German accord was lifeless, and the culmination of Adenauer’s work was lost – stolen by the America and Britain at the last moment.

Washington supported the EEC but not as an independent alliance. It might have become that in 1957 at a time recession hit America and lasted into the 1960s. It led to debate in the US with the New York Council of Foreign Relations and Rockefeller Brothers Fund drafting options at a time Henry Kissinger emerged. It was also when Big Oil and New York banks (the East Coast establishment) were dominant and viewed the world as their market. They also controlled the media and used it to promote their interests over what was best for the nation and greater good.

Rebuilding US infrastructure, investing in modern factories, improving the national economy and developing a skilled labor force were ignored. Instead, investment flowed abroad for greater returns. Cheating on quality also became fashionable, and productive pride lost out to bottom line priorities to please Wall Street.

It came with a cost, however, and part of it was the state’s financial health. As dollars flowed abroad, US gold reserves plunged enough to threaten the Bretton Woods system. The problem was a “fatal flaw” in its design. Its rules established a “gold exchange standard” requiring IMF countries to fix the value of their currencies to the US dollar and indirectly to gold at $35 an ounce.

By the 1960s, European growth outpaced the US, and domestic investment sought to take advantage of double the returns it could get domestically. It was the beginning of the Eurodollar market, and the start of a decade of “ever worsening international monetary crises.” By the late 1970s, it became a cancer that “threatened to destroy its entire host – the world monetary system.” It also influenced the Johnson administration to believe that a full-scale southeast Asian conflict could stimulate a stagnant economy and show the world who was still boss.

In the 1960s, New York bankers, Big Oil and the defense establishment advocated war and a homeland garrison state to boost profits, but consider the strategy. DOD Secretary Robert McNamara and Pentagon planners obliged. They designed a protracted “no-win war from the outset” to rev up spending and secure the defense component of the economy. Deficits resulted, the dollar inflated, and Washington forced its trading partners to accept war costs in the form of cheapened greenbacks.

It led to European central banks accumulating large Eurodollars reserves they then earned interest on from US treasuries. The net effect was continental bankers funded US deficits the way they do now, along with China and Japan. Engdahl quoted futurist Herman Kahn saying: “We’ve pulled off the biggest ripoff in history (running) rings around the British empire.” Nonetheless, London planned a comeback with “expatriate American dollars.” More on that below.

Lyndon Johnson waged war on two fronts, and failed at both. Vietnam cost him his presidency while his War on Poverty and Great Society barely made a difference but amassed huge European-financed deficits. At the same time, industrial and scientific investment declined, financial speculation grew, a service-oriented economy was favored, and America headed down the same “road to ruin” Britain followed earlier.

Few understood that Johnson’s domestic policy had little to do with alleviating poverty. It was a corporate scheme to exploit economic decay, curb wage growth and back a 19th century colonial-style looting. Inciting “race war” was part of the plan. Engdahl described it as a domestic Vietnam pitting blacks against whites, unemployed against employed, and high wage earners against lower paid ones in a “new Great Society, while Wall Street bankers benefited from slashed union wages and cuts in infrastructure investment.” They, in turn, recycled their profits into cheap Asian and South American labor markets for still greater profits. It’s the same scheme writ large today.

By 1967, trouble was evident. The Bretton Woods system was threatened as US external debt soared and the nation’s gold reserves plummeted to one-third their liability. At the same time, Britain’s economy was “a rotting mess and getting worse.” Faith in the pound sterling was eroding because the UK, like America, neglected its industrial base, amassed large trade deficits, and was a net currency exporter. Something had to give, and it was the pound.

At this time, De Gaulle withdrew from the gold pool, and “the entire Bretton Woods edifice (shook) at its weakest link, the pound sterling.” The crisis highlighted the core vulnerability of the international monetary system, the US dollar. Things came to a head on November 18, 1967. Britain devalued the pound by 14% for the first time since 1949. It abated the sterling crisis, but the dollar one was just beginning as international holders of the currency demanded gold in exchange.

Crisis built in 1968, and Business Week magazine devoted an astonishing nine articles and feature editorial to it in its March 23 issue headlined “Gold crisis jolts the West” on its front cover. A publisher’s memo also addressed it and quoted Virgil’s Aeneid, Book III: “Oh cursed lust for gold, to what dost thou not drive the hearts of men!” It affected Charles De Gaulle as well. His independence made him a target for removal that succeeded. It got him voted out of office a year later. For Washington and London, however, it was a Pyrrhic victory.

“A Century of War” will continue in Part II of this review to complete the story to the present era under George Bush.
 

SOCIAL SCIENCE FOR A NON-FREE SOCIETY

2

Erica Carle

Social Science was created to destroy human freedom The French philosopher/mathematician, Auguste Comte (1798-1857) devoted his entire intellectual life to perfecting plans for a WORld Management System (WORMS) , He believed human activities should be controlled by an intellectual elite whom he called ’social scientists.’

In the early Nineteenth Century two of the most important influences on human behavior were science and religion. If the WORld Management System could gain control in these two areas, Comte reasoned, it could establish a non-free society with a permanent world government that could never be overcome. He wrote and lectured about his plans and attracted a following of many who considered themselves to be among the intellectual elite.

To gain power over science, and of human behavior Comte claimed that his plan was scientific, and therefore not to be disputed. He invented the term, ’sociology’ for his new master science. In every instance methods of social control would be contrived and used to replace self control.

To gain power over religion he decided that all religions should eventually be united to form a single world religion which he called the ‘Religion of Humanity’ or ‘Positive Religion’. The object of worship would be humanity as the Great Being, symbolically represented as a woman of thirty with a child in her arms. The religious leaders would be called ‘Priests of Humanity.’

Comte published Positive Philosophy (PPC) in six volumes (1828-1842), System of Positive Polity (SPP), four volumes (1851-1854), and Catechism of the Positive Religion, (CPR) (1852). Throughout the generations others have been instructed by Comte’s works, and some have published instructions of their own. The following are among the steps deemed necessary and used to establish a sociologically-controlled non-free world management system (WORMS):

1. Replace Christianity With Positive Religion
2. Abolish Monarchy
3. Institute & Expand Communistic Principle
4. Limit Education & Establish Sociological Control
5. Control Environment to Control Mankind & Claim Land
6. Destroy Moral Authority & Crush Personality
7. Control Public Opinion
8. Liberalize Sexual Attitudes and Behavior
9. Destroy the Natural Family & Diminish Male Role
10. Establish Evolutionary Theory & Control Sciences
11. Promote Global Integration
12. Invest Political Power in Wealthy & Industry Leaders
13. Establish cities as Humanity’s Centers of Operation
14. Replace Constitution With World Management System (WORMS)

This is the introduction to an organized file of quotes which I hope you will download and use. Why? Because we can never regain our free society so long as the social sciences are accepted as true sciences. In the file that follows all the above subjects begin with Comte quotes related to the years 1830 to 1860. The development of Comte’s plan is then followed to the present day. For example, here is the beginning of the first section describing how Comte’s Religion of humanity was to destroy and replace all other religions. The entire file comering all 14 goals is more than 100 pages when downloaded or printed.

1. Replace Christianity With Positive Religion—1830-1860

EXCLUDE SERVANTS OF GOD – In the name of the past and of the future, the servants of humanity – both its philosophical and its practical servants come forward to claim as their due the general direction of this world. Their object is to constitute at length a real providence in all departments,—moral, intellectual, and material. Consequently they exclude once for all from political supremacy all the different servants of God – Catholic, Protestant, or Deist – as being at once behindhand, and a cause of disturbance. – Comte quote from Encyclopedia Britannica, Fourteenth Edition, “Auguste Comte,” Volume 6, Page 191.

UNIVERSAL RELIGIION – We have founded the new Science of Sociology, and as a deduction from Sociology, the Universal Religion. SPP, Vol.2, 344.

WOMEN BECOME GODDESSES – By substituting goddesses for gods, we sanction the legitimate preeminence of women. SPP, Vol 4, 446.

CATHOLICISM WILL ADAPT – Direct attacks upon Catholicism will not be necessary. The new religion will simply put itself into competition with the old by performing in a better way the same functions that Catholicism fulfils now, or has fulfilled in past times. SPP, Vol. 1, 217.

SOCIOLOGY WILL DIRECT SOCIETY – The final blow was inevitably given to Theology. . . when the establishment of my system of Sociology cut from under it its old title to teach Morality and direct Society. . .SPP, Vol. 2, 290.

SPIRITUAL REORGANIZATION – The object of our philosophy is to direct the spiritual reorganisation of the civilised world. . . A new basis for morality is being gradually laid down. . . No important step in the progress of Humanity can now be made without totally abandoning the theological principle. . . Positivism proves more efficient than theology. SPP, vol. 1, P35,14,15,28.

POLITICAL RECONSTRUCTION —It is true that Positivism has just supplied us with a philosophical basis for political reconstruction. But its principles are still so new and underdeveloped, and besides are understood by so few, that they cannot exercise much influence at present on political life. Ultimately, and by slow degrees, they will mould the institutions of the future, but meanwhile they must work their way freely into men’s minds and hearts, and for this at least one generation will be necessary. Spiritual organisation is the only point where an immediate beginning can be made; difficult as it is, its possibility is at last as certain as its urgency. SPP, Vol. I., P. 89

WOMAN PRIESTESS – Woman is the spontaneous priestess of Humanity. . . All classes must be brought under women’s influence, for all require to be reminded constantly of the great truth that reason and activity are subordinate to feeling. SPP, Vol. I, P.183.

WORSHIP OF WOMEN – In a word the new doctrine will institute the worship of Woman, publicly and privately, in a far more perfect way than has ever before been possible. It is the first permanent step towards the worship of Humanity. SPP, Vol. I, 205.

POSITIVE RELIGION – Thus in the conception of Humanity the three essential aspects of Positivism, its subjective principle, its objective dogma, and its practical object, are united. Towards Humanity, who is for us the only true Great Being, we, the conscious elements of whom she is composed, shall henceforth direct every aspect of our life, individual or collective. Our thoughts will be devoted to the knowledge of Humanity, our affections to her love, our actions to her service. . .

Thus Positivism becomes, in the true sense of the word, a Religion; one more real and more complete than any other, and therefore destined to replace all imperfect and provisional systems resting on the primitive basis of theology. SPP, Vol. I. P. 264.

END REVOLT OF INTELLECT – Consequently it is the primary condition of social reorganization to put an endto the state of utter revolt which the Intellect maintains against the Heart. . . Positivism has at last overcome the immense difficulties of this task. . . every part of our nature is brought under the regenerating influence of the worship of Humanity. Thus a new spiritual power will arise. . . better calculated than Catholicism to engage the support of women which is so necessary to its efficient action on society. SPP, Vol. I, P. 285-287

CLOSING COMMENTS

With more than 2000 Non Governmental Organizations involved and submitting to the United Nations requirements, there is every possibility that you, are, without your knowledge, a member of one or more organizations sanctioning the non-free sociological New World Order. There are few national or international organizations, that have not been taken in. Elected officials are intimidated by members of these national and international non governmental organizations and are allowing themselves to be replaced by Regional Government bureaucrats.

The SOCIAL SCIENCE FOR A NON-FREE SOCIETY collection of quotes is still a work in progress. Much more could have been included because everything concerning the new world order or WORld Management System (WORMS) can be traced back to Comte and his social science. Every child or young adult who is enrolled in social science courses is being trained to manage and be managed for the new world order.

In the 1940’s a system for managing people was developed at HARvard University and taught to many top business executives and university professors, etc. The HARvard Management System (HARMS) is now widely used in many kinds of endeavor. Instead of talking about owners or executives of businesses or various enterprises, they more frequently are referred to as managers of men or peoople managers.

Articles which fit in the framework of Social Science For A Non-Free Society appear in the media every day. We suggest you clip or record them, note the aource, and file them for future reference under one of the fourteen categories . If you would like to share the information or suggest categories which might be added and traced back to Comte, send quotes and details to ericacarle@sbcglobal.net.

If the social sciences are treated as true sciences there can be no freedom. All people everywhere and forever become no more than objects of social management and experimentation.

Download the entire SOCIAL SCIENCE FOR A NON-FREE SOCIETY AT: http://idisk.mac.com/ericacarle-Public?view=web

Via the awesome Revolution Radio, another great site for your bookmarks

More delegates for Obama, Huckabee

0

The Democrat sweeps Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins. Huckabee takes Kansas and Louisiana.

By Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Sen. Barack Obama narrowed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s lead in the fight for Democratic presidential delegates Saturday, sweeping three states, while Sen. John McCain hit a detour on his march to the Republican nomination.

Obama won Louisiana, Nebraska and Washington by wide margins as former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee won Kansas and Louisiana, and McCain won a tight race in Washington.

None of the results reconfigured the delegate counts that will settle the nominations, but for Democrats they set the stage for the Maine caucuses today and the so-called Potomac primaries Tuesday in Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C.

Clinton and Obama remain locked in a showdown that might not be settled until the August convention in Denver, and each sought to make the case on the trail Saturday that each is better situated to defeat McCain.

“If our nominee is running against someone with the legendary background of John McCain — Democrats need to think about this,” Clinton said in Orono, Maine. “Because we’re picking a nominee we expect to win. We cannot take four more years of more of the same.”

In addressing an audience in Virginia after his sweep Saturday, Obama sought to cast Clinton and McCain as part of the same Washington establishment, and said the defining issue of the Democratic campaign was which candidate is most likely to effect political change.

“That’s a debate we can win,” Obama said.

Despite McCain’s setbacks Saturday, the table remained set for the Arizona senator to eventually gather the 1,191 delegates he needs for the Republican convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul beginning on Labor Day.

After last week’s Super Tuesday slate of contests — which effectively ended the campaign of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — McCain faces only Huckabee, who swept the Kansas caucuses and the state’s 36 available delegates Saturday, and U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who has managed to win a sliver of the total needed.

Huckabee narrowly beat McCain on Saturday in Louisiana, but with less than a majority of the vote.

Under the state party’s rules, that means the primary might not lead to any candidate being awarded delegates.

The results show that despite McCain’s commanding lead for the Republican nomination, social conservatives are still willing to back someone else.

And they reflect the continuing divide within the party.

Huckabee celebrated the Kansas win and vowed to continue his campaign until someone receives enough delegates to seal the nomination.

“Earlier this morning, I said I didn’t major in math, I majored in miracles. It looks like my victory in Kansas is one of them,” Huckabee said. “Clearly I am pleased by these results, but it is onward and upward to Virginia and Maryland.”

McCain, who was endorsed by Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas after Brownback ended his own Republican presidential run, campaigned in Kansas with a single news conference in Wichita, said Corrie Kangas, the state party’s political director. McCain did not campaign Saturday.

Huckabee made four stops in Kansas on Friday, helping him win his sixth state in less than a week.

“Huckabee held several rallies, and I think that weighed in on the results,” Kangas said.

Campaign manager Chip Saltsman said in a statement: “It was an important victory, especially after the pundits spent the past few days saying this campaign is over. Kansas said, ‘Not so fast.’ ”

On the Democratic side, Obama celebrated his sweep in a speech before the party’s Jefferson-Jackson fundraising dinner in Richmond, Va.

“Today the voters from the West Coast to the Gulf Coast to the heart of America stood up to say ‘Yes, we can,’ ” Obama told the enthusiastic crowd. “We won North, we won South, we won in between, and I believe that we can win Virginia on Tuesday.”

The Obama campaign cast the three-state sweep as part of a broader endorsement by rank-and-file Democrats. He also won caucuses in the U.S. Virgin Islands, with three delegate votes at stake.

“They see in Barack Obama the best chance to beat John McCain in the fall, unite our country, take on the special interests, and confront the challenges facing working families,” said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe.

Interest ran so high in Washington that the state party’s online caucus-finder overloaded. The party diverted some traffic to the Obama campaign website and three other sites run by local Democratic groups.

Party spokesman Kelly Steele described the turnout as “record-shattering,” perhaps double the previous record of 100,000 set in 2004.

The interest apparently centered mostly on Obama: He won two-thirds of the vote.

The Democratic Party allots delegates under a complex formula based on both statewide vote and the vote within congressional districts, so the number of delegates Obama won was not immediately known.

But the margins made it clear that he had gained ground on Clinton.

The day’s lineup of states played to Obama’s electoral strengths: an organization that gets supporters to caucuses, and in Louisiana a large base of African American voters who support his historic run for the nomination.

Clinton, of New York, and Obama, of Illinois, were already looking ahead to the next contests.

Clinton, who also addressed the Jefferson-Jackson dinner, asked the audience to look to inauguration day.

“Someone standing on the steps of the Capitol will place his or her hand on the Bible and be sworn in as the 44th president of the United States,” Clinton said.

“Our task tonight is to make sure that president is a Democrat.”

Calls for probe into prison bugging

0

An inquiry has been demanded into claims lawyers’ legally-protected conversations with clients in jail are routinely bugged.

Opposition parties said such a practice would strike “at the heart” of the justice system and suggested it could only have been sanctioned by ministers. And one leading QC warned that the courts could let violent offenders walk free if it was shown their meetings with lawyers had been taped.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has already launched an inquiry into claims a Labour MP’s jail meetings with a terror suspect constituent were bugged at Woodhill Prison, Milton Keynes.

Sadiq Khan’s case sparked particular controversy amid suggestions it breached a ban on bugging MPs – and is being examined by Chief Surveillance Commissioner Sir Christopher Rose.

Now the Tories and Liberal Democrats are demanding a fresh probe into claims by an unnamed whistleblower that it was part of a wider practice nationwide.

The individual, said to have “detailed knowledge” of the operation at Woodhill, told the Daily Telegraph “hundreds” of meetings with lawyers had been eavesdropped. Murderers and other category-A prisoners – including Soham murderer Ian Huntley – were said to have been targeted as well as terror suspects.

The Ministry of Justice said covert listening operations were “a matter for the police and are undertaken in line with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000”.

But Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said the allegations were so serious they merited a new inquiry.

“If it is… a widespread practice it is very hard to imagine that could have happened without ministerial approval because the risks are so great – it goes so close to the heart of our justice system and it puts the whole trial process at risk,” he said.

“That is why I have called for Mr Straw to set up a second inquiry – not to stretch the first one, we need the answer to the Rose inquiry in a couple of weeks’ time – to actually establish what the real practice is, how common this is and what needs to be done about it.”

© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2008, All Rights Reserved.

Hillary’s $5 Million Dump Truck

0

Marc Cooper

Now that’s what one might call a heckuva coincidence. A handful of weeks ago, Bill Clinton disentangles his investment partnership with billionaire Ron Burkle, producing an estimated $20 million windfall. And now we learn that the suddenly flush Clintons are loaning Hillary’s campaign $5 million from their joint assets to bridge it through a funding rough patch.

Talk about windfalls. This is a veritable bonanza not only for enterprising reporters and snoopy researchers, but also for any Republican candidate that could potentially face Hillary in November — if she wins the nomination. That is, if she doesn’t first drown in a sea of sleaze of her own making.

This newest episode in the Clinton finances opens up a field of questions that could make Whitewater and Hillary’s long-forgotten but near-magical touch in commodity trading look like kid’s stuff. And with a lot of time to kill between now and November, there’s going to plenty of opportunity to rake through it all. Make that, parse through it, as it is the Clintons we’re talking about.

It puts front and center the question of just how rich are the Clintons, and how did they get so rich? Current estimates of their joint wealth range from $10 million up to $50 million or more, a long way to come from when they first got married and they struggled to make the $14,000 mortgage on their first modest Arkansas home.

Quite a nice pay-off for a supposed career of 35 years, as Hillary repeats every day, “working to bring positive change to people’s lives.” While Clinton touts her decision to come out of law school and work not for Wall Street but rather for the Children’s Defense Fund, the truth is that she spent only a year there. (And then omitted her mentor Marian Wright Edelman from among the 400 others she mentions in the acknowledgemets of her autobiography because Edelman had broken with her when Bill Clinton abolished the federal welfare saftey net in 1996).

For half of her professional career Clinton really worked not at all for The Little People, but rather for Arkansas’most elite business-connected law firm, representing big corporations and serving on their boards.

In fairness, though, the bulk of the money earned by the Clintons has been acquired since Big Dawg left office and started socking away huge book, speaker and, um, consulting fees. Indeed, their entire fortune has been made since leaving the White House. Renting out the Lincoln Bedroom was but a Ma and Pa operation compared to what came in its wake.

Let’s be very clear about this. We’re not just talking about Bill cashing in by smoking some cigars and telling some good stories to a bunch of banquet goers. It also means such smelly deals as him serving as an “advisor” to Dubai, when he coached their government on how to swing a port deal with the U.S. (that failed). That’s after the oil sheiks shelled out $300,000 in 2002 to have Bill address one of their summits (There was also a direct link between Dubai and the investment fund with which Burkle and Clinton were partnered).

Then there was that revoltingly sleazy little deal revealed by The New York Times in which the former president served as a broker/fixer between a Canadian mining entrepreneur and the dictator of Kazakhstan, greasing through a multi-billion dollar uranium deal. Mr. Clinton’s fee? A previously undisclosed “donation” of more than $30 million to his charitable Clinton Foundation from the grateful Canadian capitalist.

A honcho at a Canadian bank specialized in mining said the deal was a result of a “fantastic network” with Bill Clinton at its top.

None of this illegal, we think. And the money given to Clinton’s foundation is not supposed to be the same personal funding that was used as a bridge loan to Hillary’s campaign. And there’s nothing against the law about a former president serving as a high-end errand boy for Arab Sheiks. Nor is it illegitimate to make a stack of dough fronting for dictators, pushing ghost-written books, or serving as hired jester for private corporate banquets. Except with the Clintons, of course, there’s always the slippery questions of definition. Whose money is whose? Where does Bill’s end and Hillary’s begin? What’s the line between personal funding and political funding? Charitable versus political donations?

One might also argue that what Bill does is not necessarily what Hillary does. Except that Hillary has based her entire campaign on being a faithful offshoot of his legacy.

What we know for certain is this: When Barack Obama said yesterday that we can expect Republicans to find a “whole dump truck” of dirt on Hillary, he knew what he was talking about. She just pumped $5 million worth of fuel into its tank.

Our best guard against a surveillance society?

0

Times Online 

Life without privacy is intolerable. Behind the Iron Curtain and in Mao Tse-tung’s China people lived in constant dread that anything they said would be recorded or reported, even by close family members. The best way to survive was not merely to say nothing but to think nothing, too. That was the grim success of state terror.

In the past week our growing awareness of the extent of surveillance in the United Kingdom has invited comparison with the former East Germany. In fact there is little similarity – for now at least. The British state does not forbid political debate nor stifle dissent.

However, even where the motivation is not political, depriving a person of privacy still renders their life miserable. In Britain those who have so far found themselves in that position are victims not so much of MI5 as of the press.

Yet there has been little public concern because those who are violated are often celebrities – for example, members of the royal family. Those who occupy the limelight (even if only because they are unwittingly born into it) are widely thought to deserve all that is coming to them.

Most of us would be devastated if we had to endure for a day or two what such people experience on a daily basis. For instance, if the transcripts of our telephone calls were printed in newspapers – as the Prince of Wales’s once were – which of us would not regret things that we had said, believing the conversation was private?

A recent book on press intrusion has even shocked many journalists because it reveals that access to our bank accounts and telephone records can easily be bought by unscrupulous investigators. Quite often someone who is not a celebrity but who strays into the public gaze for 15 minutes of infamy finds his or her private life exposed to criticism and ridicule. Because attention moves on quickly to other people and things, we never know what lasting damage has been caused.

In the rumpus over the bugging of an MP’s conversation with a constituent detained in prison we should not conclude that the biggest current threat to our privacy comes from the state. For the time being it does not. Our media will always be vigilant on our behalf against government encroachment into our lives. But none is likely to defend us from intrusion by other organs of the media.

Nor is the danger confined to the media. Today shops openly sell spy equipment. It is not difficult for people to penetrate our lives in order to steal our identities, blackmail us or simply make our lives hell.

The government does not take the issue seriously, perhaps because it is embarrassed at having massively extended the reach of its own surveillance. Its own carelessness with our personal data demonstrates that it does not grasp what damage can be done when sensitive personal material is diverted.

We viewed the communist regimes of Europe with both horror and amusement. It was not only monstrous that vast numbers of citizens had their conversations recorded, it was also ludicrous.

Eavesdropping on such a scale was a symptom of an inefficient state. How many people were employed typing transcripts? Who had time to read the volumes of material produced, let alone make judgments about their significance? At what economic cost were thousands or millions of workers switched to spy on each other?

It is in that area that the comparison with modern Britain is more apt. Now that about 800 public agencies have the right to carry out surveillance, the British state is evidently mushrooming. For the moment it is at least as comic as it is sinister.

The issue about recording the conversation of Sadiq Khan, the MP, with Babar Ahmad is precisely about whether the surveillance process is properly controlled. Apparently ministers had not given their consent and did not know of it. Evidently, then, the system works badly.

Much nonsense has been written that MPs should not be placed above the law. The real points are quite different. First, constituents with serious problems and often justified grievances against government agencies will worry, reasonably or not, about speaking to their MP if they think the conversation might be bugged.

Second, any government finds a number of MPs a real nuisance because they ask awkward questions. The public relies on MPs to do just that. So we need safeguards against the executive using bugging as a way to discredit its political opponents.

The best guarantee is to require the prime minister personally to authorise any interception against an MP. That can be effective because prime ministers still fear cross-examination in parliament and are reluctant to tell a blatant lie in case it is later found out.

Democracy does not function if ministers can answer in every case that things occurred without their knowledge and beyond their control. Then nobody is accountable. Recently ministers have pleaded ignorance about almost everything that matters: financing scandals in the Labour party, the lost records of 25m child benefit claimants and now the bugging of Khan.

Indeed, ministers have responded to the public’s declining trust in politicians by arranging to know about and decide upon ever fewer issues. They subcontract an ever larger number of decisions to quangos and committees of experts.

If the public thinks that this improves the quality of decision-making, it is wrong. Politicians may be slimy or mendacious, but at least they are public figures operating in the glare of publicity.

The experts to whom they devolve the decisions they fear to take are often little more than jumped-up vested interests operating behind closed doors. They do not fear accountability as ministers must. If voters understood their own interests better, they would demand that every decision of consequence be taken by a minister and that all the paraphernalia of anonymous decision-making bodies be dismantled.

To make matters worse, ministers’ fear of parliament is declining. The scandal over MPs’ allowances further diminishes the public’s respect for the House of Commons. The cry goes up that the house must cease to regulate itself.

It is easy to see that self-governance has not been a total success — to put it mildly. Nonetheless the house is much more transparent than it used to be and more transparent than other institutions are today: MPs now declare their outside interests, for example.

Do journalists or broadcasters reveal what financial interests may have helped to shape their views? Having moved from one camp to the other, I can say that it is a great relief no longer to have to tell the public exactly how I earn my living.

The Commons needs to reform much more and do it quickly. But our democracy rests upon parliament being sovereign. If MPs are merely state employees, and if the executive can tell them what to do, then parliament will surrender that sovereignty and we the public will be the principal losers.

For instance, it is understandably awkward for MPs to have to vote on their own salaries. They loathe the bad press that it brings them. But still it is extraordinary that most are ready to accept instead that the government should dictate their pay. If the executive directs parliament, then the relationship upon which our representative democracy is based will be inverted. The government should depend on parliament, not the other way around.

Of course the executive is happy to see parliament weakened, to change it from being its boss to being its client. Although Gordon Brown and David Cameron appreciate better than the Speaker that Commons reform is urgent, we should not trust them because their interest is to give the executive an easier ride.

In a surveillance society, life would be unbearable. Neither the government nor the media will protect us against its development. Parliament provides our best defence. We must hope, against the odds, that it can autonomously bring its standards up to date. We need it to retain responsibility for its own affairs. We depend upon its remaining sovereign.

Simon Jenkins is away

Guantánamo detainees said to face 9/11 trial

0

By Colin Freeman | The Telegraph

US military prosecutors are putting the finishing touches to the first major case against Guantanamo Bay inmates suspected to have helped plot the September 11 attacks.

 
Khalid Shaik Mohammed
Khalid Shaik Mohammed was subjected to “waterboarding” while in detention

The charges are expected to involve six detainees currently held at the Cuban detention camp, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former senior aide to Osama bin Laden, who claims to have been the main architect of the plot.

  • Faithful still cheer for George W Bush
  • Full US elections coverage

    The prosecution, which will permit a crucial trial in the US-led war on terror, is intended to bolster Washington’s argument that the 275 remaining inmates at Guantanamo would pose a threat to US national security were they to be freed, the New York Times reported today.

    One US official familiar with the case told the newspaper: “The thinking was 9/11 is the heart and soul of the whole thing. The thinking was: go for that.”

  •  

    However, any trial will put the spotlight once again on claims of mistreatment and torture brought by some of the inmates, who as designated “enemy combatants” of the US were denied basic legal rights that would normally afforded to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.

    Last week, for example, the CIA confirmed that Mr Mohammed had at times been subjected to the interrogation technique known as “waterboarding”, in which suspects have water poured into their breathing passages in order to simulate a sense of drowning.

    The CIA claimed it was carried out on him in the belief that he had knowledge about further large-scale terrorist attacks. A second suspect thought to be among the six, Mohammed al-Qahtani, was subjected to sleep deprivation, forced to wear a bra, and led around Guantanamo Bay on a leash, according to a 2005 Pentagon investigation into claims of abusive treatment.

    Al-Qahtani, who been held at Guantanamo since 2002, is said to have been the so-called “20th hijacker”, whose plans were thwarted when he was denied entry into the United States by an immigration official.

    Gitanjali Gutierrez, a lawyer acting for Mr al-Qahtani, told The New York Times that she had no information about whether he would be charged.

    “But if he is,” she added, “I can assure you that his well-documented torture and the controversy over secret trials will be the focus.”

    Prosecutors are understood to be considering charges of murder, conspiracy and providing material support for terrorism against the defendants, although it is thought that any trial is still many months away.

    The only person who has so far been tried in a US court over the September 11 plot is Zacarias Moussaoui, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy in 2005 and is serving a life jail term.

    All the British inmates held in Guantanamo Bay have been released.

    Former IRA driver spy ‘worked for MI5’

    0

    AP

    A man who served as a driver for Sinn Fein leader and former IRA commander Gerry Adams secretly worked as a British spy, a party official says.

    Roy McShane, 58, was once part of the security team that looked after transportation arrangements for the Irish Republican Army leadership.

    But he also worked for MI5, Britain’s domestic spy agency, for several years, and left his home in west Belfast early Friday, apparently out of concern for his safety after his alleged role had been disclosed, the official told AP.

    The official spoke on condition of anonymity, saying he had not been authorised to be the party’s spokesman about McShane.

    But he confirmed reports in British newspapers quoting Alex Maskey, a Sinn Fein member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, as saying McShane had told his family on Thursday about his alleged role as an MI5 agent. Maskey said the former IRA member had left the country after being taken into “protective custody”.

    Police refused to comment on the reports, which would be embarrassing for Adams, who has steered his IRA movement from a 1997 ceasefire to 2005 disarmament.

    Two years ago Denis Donaldson, one of Adams’ closest administrative aides, admitted having secretly worked as a double agent for MI5. Five months later, Donaldson, 56, who had led a Sinn Fein support team, was shot dead in Ireland.

    As a driver, McShane worked for senior IRA officials, including at the time of the developing peace process which led to the signing of the Good Friday Agreement 10 years ago.

    He would have been privy to highly sensitive information as he drove senior IRA members back and forth to Castle Buildings, where the intense negotiations took place.

    McShane would have been on a first-name basis with all the top men and women in Sinn Fein, including Martin McGuinness, who is now deputy first minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

    VIDEO: Mr. Doubletalk

    2

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI[/youtube] 
    http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/272.html

    President McCain?

    Giuliani – the 9/11 ghoul – has been eliminated.So has Mitt Romney, a high ranking member of a church that until relatively recently was officially racist.

    Which leaves us with…this guy.

    The Republicans managed to fraudulently put Bush in the White House – twice –
    and McCain is clearly a water boy for the War Party.

    So, are we looking at the next president of the United States?

    Police chief Orde backs use of wire-tap evidence

    0

    Henry McDonald and Gaby Hinsliff

    Police chief Sir Hugh Order confirmed this weekend he had asked the Secretary of State Shaun Woodward to have Gordon Brown’s plans for the introduction of wire-tap evidence in court extended to Northern Ireland.

    Asked if Orde regarded wire-taps as bona fide evidence, a spokesman for the PSNI Chief Constable said: ‘In principle, yes. However, as the Prime Minister has said, it is important all the safeguards are in place before it is introduced.

    ‘It would allow further evidence to be placed before the courts which could help in the prosecution of terrorists and those involved in criminality.’

    Senior PSNI officers and retired top policemen involved in major investigations such as the Omagh bombing inquiry have backed the use of intercept evidence. One officer involved in the original Omagh investigation said that if they had been able to use wire-taps they could have brought a number of Real IRA suspects to court for the atrocity.

    But the current Chief Constable’s lobbying for wire-tap evidence will be fiercely resisted on the Northern Ireland Policing Board. Sinn Fein member Alex Maskey said yesterday that his party was ‘instinctively opposed’ to the use of such evidence.

    ‘We would oppose it because it’s not suitable for the new climate in the north of Ireland, and because of the historic abuses of power by the state again and again throughout Irish history,’ he said.

    The South Belfast assembly member added that, if policing and justice powers were devolved to the Northern Ireland Executive, then Sinn Fein would seek to block the use of wire-taps in court. Under the 2006 Saint Andrew’s agreement that led to the present power-sharing government at Stormont, the British government promised to hand over policing and justice powers to ministers elected by the assembly in Belfast this May. However, due to opposition from the Democratic Unionists, it is unlikely that these powers will be devolved until later in the year.

    Meanwhile, the Rev William McCrea, the Democratic Unionist MP, entered the row over wire-tapping of MPs this weekend by claiming he had been systematically bugged by the security services. The South Antrim MP said he had ‘no doubt’ that both his home and office phones were tapped at the height of negotiations during the peace process. He said he and his colleagues had their offices swept for bugs. ‘We got private persons in to do tests and they found that at that time it seemed very evident that this was going on,’ he said.

    ‘There is no doubt whatsoever that the authorities were doing it. If you were opposing what was government policy, or were seen as an obstacle or standing in the way, it happened.’

    McCrea said that he had routinely taken ‘corrective measures’, such as avoiding using the phone for sensitive political conversations.

    The British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has already ordered an inquiry into revelations that the Muslim Labour MP Sadiq Khan was taped when he visited a constituent in prison, contravening the Wilson doctrine that supposedly protects elected politicians from secret surveillance.

    The threat of a police state looms over us

    6

    By

    The FBI is planning to announce the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract in an increased effort to “protect the borders to keep the terrorists out, protect our citizens, our neighbors, our children so they can have good jobs, and have a safe country to live in,” in the words of FBI Biometric Services Section Chief Kimberly Del Greco.

    This seems to be a noble cause and something everyone can agree is important, but how exactly does the FBI plan on doing this? The FBI wants to create a database which compiles various types of biometric data, such as palm prints, eye scans, facial structures and even data regarding scars and tattoos.

    And certainly this won’t only be used to track terrorists and criminals, as many of the FBI background checks (which already compile some of this data) are for people who are involved in such things as teaching and elder care.

    While one can make the argument that this does not necessarily mean the system will affect every American citizen, regardless of his or her activities or standing in the criminal justice system, one has to admit that the potential is certainly there.

    In this day and age, when government is too vast and too many operations and actions are being undertaken in secret in the name of “national security,” we must realize that this is potentially opening the door for a very Orwellian state and system in this country.

    While it is probably impossible to find people who disagree with the notion that we need to implement new measures to combat and prevent terrorism and crime, it seems far-fetched to assume that these same people would agree with actions such as these, which have far greater impacts on society as a whole.

    Certainly I’m not out committing atrocious crimes such as rape and murder, and would have no reason to be fearful of the government having my biometric data on file to link me to these crimes, but is it wrong to want, or even expect, some reasonable amount of privacy in my daily life?

    This revelation, coupled with other actions and discussions on the part of the government, is leading us in a direction that just doesn’t seem too comfortable and compatible with our notions of liberty, privacy and freedom. In the past few years the government has discussed and implemented plans for a National ID Card.

    There is ongoing discussion about fencing off our borders to keep outsiders out (but perhaps also to keep insiders in?). And who can ignore the depth and secrecy of the NSA’s wiretapping program, which has caused considerable controversy even within the government.

    We must be aware of the potential for mistakes to be made with systems such as this. How can we know for certain that the government won’t suspect a person of having ties to a terrorist or terrorist organization, only to later find out that they don’t and that all the private and personal information which has been collected about this person does not aid the government in its endeavors? And what would become of this information? Surely the government wouldn’t want to simply destroy it, because it may help them later, should they ever have a reason to identify or track this person down.

    Now why couldn’t they just use this same justification for everyone, as an excuse to know where anyone is at any time? The truth is, they could, and this is why this system should be frightening to many people, not just to so-called “privacy advocates.” Do you really want the government to know when you’re engaging in … ahem … marital relations with your spouse? Even worse, would you want the government to know if you’re doing the same with someone other than your spouse (not that I advocate this at all, but we’re speaking hypothetically here)? I didn’t think so.

    Based on these new revelations, we need to ask ourselves how much of our liberties and freedoms we are willing to give up in the name of “national security.”

    It is wise to remember the words of Benjamin Franklin when considering this situation: “They that give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Are we moving towards a “more secure” and “safer” society, or are we moving towards the end of “society” as we know it?

    25% of police under scrutiny

    1

    This is Swansea

    Almost a quarter of the Dyfed-Powys force’s 1,200 police officers have been investigated for allegations of misconduct, corruption or failure in duty in less than a year.Over around 11 months in 2007, 283 constables, sergeants, and inspectors faced a probe by the force’s Professional Standards Department (PSD).

    The shock figures were revealed after a Post reporter requested details under the Freedom of Information Act.

    The revelations have sparked a strong reaction from Llanelli AM Helen Mary Jones, who said the figures were disappointing.

    “I am extremely concerned about these findings,” she said.

    “They not only let down the public, but they let down the many honest police officers who are doing an excellent job in very difficult conditions.”

    Five of the allegations were so serious that the officers involved tendered their resignation.

    The research shows that six of the officers have been under scrutiny for two separate allegations, which brings the total number of accusations handled by the PSD to 289.

    Around a third of the investigations were resolved by the PSD or the force division, with a number of others discontinued or found to be unsubstantiated. Some 120 of the inquiries are ongoing.

    Female officers were the subject of at least 49 of the allegations, although details on gender were withheld in 30 cases.

    Force spokeswoman Eleri Morris said: “To put this figure into context, the 283 officers were either subject of a public complaint or internal misconduct procedures.

    “It needs to be explained that these 283 officers were not all the subject of formal discipline.

    “It has to be acknowledged that the majority of complaints against officers or internal misconduct results in either the matter being unsubstantiated or being dealt with by means of local resolution and/or managerial advice.

    “It is comparatively few cases that result in formal discipline.”

    The figures come after Llanelli inspectors Dyfed Bolton and Bob Price were temporarily removed from their Llanelli patches amid an investigation into alleged misconduct in an off-duty incident at the end of last year.

    Ron Paul Will Fight On

    2

    Message from Ron

    Whoa! What a year this has been. And what achievements we have had. If I may quote Trotsky of all people, this Revolution is permanent. It will not end at the Republican convention. It will not end in November. It will not end until we have won the great battle on which we have embarked. Not because of me, but because of you. Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you. I can never possibly repay your generous donations, hard work, whole-hearted dedication and love of freedom. How blessed I am to be associated with you. Carol, of course, sends her love as well.

    Let me tell you my thoughts. With Romney gone, the chances of a brokered convention are nearly zero. But that does not affect my determination to fight on, in every caucus and primary remaining, and at the convention for our ideas, with just as many delegates as I can get. But with so many primaries and caucuses now over, we do not now need so big a national campaign staff, and so I am making it leaner and tighter. Of course, I am committed to fighting for our ideas within the Republican party, so there will be no third party run. I do not denigrate third parties — just the opposite, and I have long worked to remove the ballot-access restrictions on them. But I am a Republican, and I will remain a Republican.

    I also have another priority. I have constituents in my home district that I must serve. I cannot and will not let them down. And I have another battle I must face here as well. If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas. I cannot and will not let that happen.

    In the presidential race and the congressional race, I need your support, as always. And I have plans to continue fighting for our ideas in politics and education that I will share with you when I can, for I will need you at my side. In the meantime, onward and upward! The neocons, the warmongers, the socialists, the advocates of inflation will be hearing much from you and me.

    Sincerely,

    Ron

    Brian Haw Marches From London To Oxford

    Oxford Times

    PARLIAMENT Square peace protester Brian Haw took his campaign on the road by walking 60 miles from London to Oxford.

    Mr Haw, who began a peace camp outside the Houses of Parliament in 2001, reached the city last night, pictured, to address the Oxford Union.

    In a recreation of the famous 1933 debate entitled This house would under no circumstance fight for its King and country, Mr Haw spoke in favour of the motion.

    A group of about 20 supporters, aged from eight to 61, walked with Mr Haw since Monday, staying in churches and with Quakers along the way.

    Mr Haw said: “Oxford is an important city and a great place to come for a debate. I want to get people together and walking for peace all over the country – hopefully this will be the first of many.

    “We’ve all had blisters but everyone does when you do a walk like this.

    “I’ve had a very pleasant reaction from people passing by and it has been a lovely walk along the A40, although the footpaths need to be upgraded.”

    Lies, Damn Lies and the Murdock Empire

    By Stephen Lendman
    RINF Alternative News

    For Big Media, truth is a scare commodity and in times of war it’s the first casualty, or as esteemed journalist John Pilger noted: “Journalism (not truth) is the first casualty (of war). Not only that: it(‘s)….a weapon of war (by its) virulent censorship….by omission (and its) power….can mean….life and death for people in faraway countries, such as Iraq.”

    Famed journalist George Seldes put it another way by condemning the “prostitution of the press” in an earlier era when he covered WW I, the rise of fascism, and most major world and national events until his death in 1995 at age 104. He also confronted the media in books like “Lords of the Press.” In it and others, he condemned their corruption, suppression of the truth, and news censorship before the television age, and said “The most sacred cow of the press is the press itself, (and the press is) the most powerful force against the general welfare of the majority of the people.”

    Orwell also knew a thing or two about truth and said telling it is a “revolutionary act in times of universal deceit.” Much else he said applies to the man this article addresses and the state of today’s media. He was at his allegorical best in “Animal Farm” where power overwhelms freedom, and “All animals are equal but some….are more equal than others.” And he observed in “Nineteen Eighty-Four” that “Those who control the present control the future (and) Those who control the future control the past.”

    Today’s media barons control the world as opinion makers. Like in Orwell’s world, they’re our national thought control police gatekeepers sanitizing news so only the cleansed residue portion gets through with everything people want most left out – the full truth all the time. They manipulate our minds and beliefs, program our thoughts, divert our attention, and effectively destroy the free marketplace of ideas essential to a healthy democracy they won’t tolerate.

    None more ruthlessly than Murdoch and the infoentertainment empire he controls. Its flagship US operation is Fox News that Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) calls “the most biased name in news….with its extraordinary right-wing tilt.” In response, Murdock defiantly “challenge(s) anybody to show me an example of bias in Fox News Channel” because in his world the entire political spectrum begins and ends with his views. For him and his staff, “fair and balanced,” we report, you decide” means supporting the boss. Alternative views are biased, verboten and rarely aired. But they’re hammered when they are as the “liberal” mainstream that’s code language for CNN and other rivals at a time all media giants match the worst of Fox and are often as crude, confrontational and unprofessional.

    Distinguished Australian-raised journalist Bruce Page wrote the book on Murdock called “The Murdock Archigelago.” It’s about a man he calls “one of the world’s leading villains (and) global pirate(s)” who rampages the mediasphere putting world leaders on notice what he expects from them and what he’ll offer in return. It’s “let’s make a deal,” Murdock-style that’s uncompromisingly hardball. Acquiesce or get hammered in print and on-air with scathing innuendo, misinformation and outright lies. Few politicians risk it. Others with alternative views have no choice, and world leaders like Hugo Chavez are used to this type character assassination.

    He mostly worries about the other kind and with good reason as long-time Latin American expert James Petras reported November 28. Four days before a crucially important constitutional reform referendum, he published an article headlined: “Venezuela’s D-Day – The December 2, 2007 Constituent Referendum: Democratic Socialism or Imperial Counter-Revolution.”

    In it, he reported that the Venezuelan government “broadcast and circulated a confidential (US embassy) memo to the CIA” revealing “clandestine operations….to destabilize (the referendum) and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the elected Chavez government.” It’s because independent polls predicted the referendum would pass even though they proved wrong. The dominant media readied to pounce on the results but instead went into gloat mode on a win Chavez called a “phyrric victory” but Murdock headlines trumpeted “Chavez’s president-for-life-bid defeated.” This is the type vintage copy Page covers with reams of examples in his book.

    Its central theme is that the media baron wants to privatize “a state propaganda service (and manipulate it) without scruple (or) regard for the truth.” In return he wants “vast government favors such as tax breaks, regulatory relief, and monopoly” market control free from competitors having too much of what he wants solely for himself and apparently feels it’s owed to him.

    Because of his size and media clout, he usually gets his way and mostly in places mattering most – in the biggest markets with greatest profit potential in a business where truth is off the table and partnering with government for a growing revenue stream and greater influence is all that counts.

    The Murdock Empire from Inception

    Murdock’s empire is vast and is part of his News Corporation that was incorporated in Australia in 1979 (Murdock’s home). It was then reincorporated in 2004 in the US in the corporate-friendly state of Delaware with its headquarters in New York. The company was huge when media experts Robert McChesney and Edward Herman wrote about it in their 1997 book, “The Global Media Giants.” Back then, it ranked fifth in size among the giants (it’s now third after Time Warner and Disney) with $10 billion in 1996 sales when the authors called the company “the archetype for the twenty-first century media firm….and the best case study (example) for understanding global media firm behavior.”

    Gross revenue today tops $28 billion, operating income is nearly $4.5 billion, the company has over 47,000 employees, it operates on six continents, 75% of its business is in the US, and one industry analyst told McChesney and Herman 10 years ago “Murdock seems to have Washington in his back pocket” as he keeps getting favorable rulings to do what he wants. And that was under Bill Clinton who signed the outrageous 1996 Telecommunications (giveaway) Act for Big Media and Big Telecom that let them consolidate further through mergers and acquisitions and be able to squash competition and diversity.

    In those days and earlier, Murdock aimed high to control “multiple forms of programming – news, sports, films and children’s shows–and beam them via satellite or TV stations to homes (around the world with) Viacom CEO Sumner Redstone (once saying) Murdock ‘want(ed) to conquer the world.’ ” Other media chiefs said he was doing it, and he’s “the one media executive they most respect and fear, and the one whose moves they study.”

    Murdock inherited his father’s Australian News Limited newspapers in 1952. He had no journalistic background but compensated by cultivating political influence through favorable electoral coverage. He became managing director of News Limited in 1953 and then took over running Adelaide News in 1954. He founded News Corporation in 1979 but years earlier concentrated on acquisitions and expansion to build his business. In 1964, he launched Australia’s first national daily, The Australian, later acquired The Daily Telegraph in Sydney, and in the late 1960s entered the UK market by snaring The News of the World. In 1950, it was the world’s most popular English language newspaper with a peak circulation of around 8.4 million. It was about six million when Murdock got it in 1968.

    More acquisitions followed. They included The (London) Times and The Sunday Times in 1981, and by the 1980s he was a dominant force in the US. He bought the film studio, Twentieth Century Fox, that launched Fox Television and now notorious Fox News.

    Today, the company is in everything media-related (except music) and describes itself on its web site as “Creating and distributing top-quality news, sports and entertainment around the world.” That’s in the eye of the beholder where there’s considerable disagreement with the official company position. Nonetheless, the site lists a vast array of News Corporation operations:

    — Filmed entertainment: 20th Century Fox, 20th Century Fox Espanol, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 20th Century Fox International, 20th Century Fox Television, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Fox Studios Australia, Fox Studios Baja, Fox Studios LA, Fox Television Studios, and Blue Sky Studios;

    — Television: Fox Broadcasting, Fox Sports Australia, Fox Television Stations, FOXTEL, MyNeworkTV, STAR; and the newest entry, Fox Business, to compete with CNBC and Bloomberg;

    — Cable: Fox Business Network (just launched), Fox Movie Channel, Fox News Channel, Fox Sports Channel, Fox College Sports, Fox Sports Enterprises, Fox Sports En Espanol, Fox Sports Net, Fox Soccer Channel, Fox Reality, Fuel TV, FX, National Geographic, Channel United States, Channel Worldwide, Speed, and Stats, Inc.;

    — Direct broadcast satellite television: BSkyB, DirectTV, and Sky Italia;

    — Magazines and Inserts: Big League, Inside Out, donna hay, ALPHA, News America Marketing, Smart Source, The Weekly Standard, and Gemstar – TV Guide International Inc.;

    — Newspapers: 21 in “Australasia” including the Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph, Herald Sun and Sunday Herald Sun, Post-Currier, Sunday Mail, Sunday Times, The Australian, The Mercury, and the Weekly Times; 6 in the UK including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Sun, and News International; and two in the US – the New York Post (the Columbia Journalism review calls “a force for evil”) and Wall Street Journal as of December 13 when News Corporation announced the completion of its acquisition of Dow Jones & Company;

    — Books: HarperCollins Publishers, Australia, Canada, Children’s Books, United States, United Kingdom, Zondervan;

    — Other assets: 25 are listed including Broadsystem, Fox Interactive Media, IGN Entertainment, FoxSports.com, Fox.com, News Outdoor and others.

    News Corp. even claims to be addressing climate change, says it’s “committed” to “lowering the energy use of its businesses” across the globe, will “switch to renewable sources of power when economically feasible,” and will “become carbon neutral by 2010.” True or false, it’s likely the company does address its energy consumption to cut costs as most other businesses also do, climate change or not.

    Bruce Page picks up the story in “The Murdoch Archipelago” published in 2003. Even while attacking the media baron, he says he and others do some good. Murdock, for instance, “exposes numberless sexual peccadilloes, and much lesser crime – but not dud military campaigns or Enronesque frauds.” He specializes in sensationalist pseudo-journalism that distorts the truth on the news and loads it with juiced-up reports on murder, mayhem, mishaps, celebrity gossip and soft porn. Page goes on to say “the world would be better off without News Corp.” and before he ever bought it “There’s certainly a good case that he should not own The Wall Street Journal.”

    Too late, now that the Bancroft family sold it to him for the billions he offered and muscle he applied to get it like he always does. They might have considered former Chicago columnist Mike Royko’s comment when he left the Sun-Times after Murdock bought it (and later sold it Hollinger, Inc.’s fraud convicted Conrad Black). Moving to the Tribune, he remarked “no self-respecting fish would (want to be) wrapped in a Murdock paper….His goal is not quality journalism (it’s) vast power, political power.” Murdock’s own private joke also should have scared them off that “God doesn’t trust (him) in the dark.” Nor should anyone anywhere, anytime.

    Page’s polemic traces Murdoch’s history in his lengthy book covering his rise from early beginnings to his unrivaled status in today’s media world. It’s the story of power and a man who wields it ruthlessly as a world class predator – with deception and chicanery, arrogance and artfulness, charm and cunning and sheer muscle, will, intimidation, poisonous influence and toadying to get his way as he generally does. Whatever Rupert wants, Rupert gets, and nothing stands in his way. That goes for governments and his editors as well as reporters in print and on-air. No one crosses Murdoch. Anyone practicing real journalism gets dispatched elsewhere to pursue it.

    Page explained from firsthand accounts that Murdock newsrooms aren’t fun places to work. He upbraids editors and interferes with their work. Also, as explained above, he uses his operations for power play politics to bend governments to his will. As his influence grows, so does the bending, and along with it, fake journalism bearing no resemblance to the real kind. It’s a Murdock specialty by a world class pariah in a media world beset with them, but Murdoch’s the worst. He’s bereft of ethics, an authoritarian boss, and the book is full of examples of how he throws his weight around, bullies people and prevails. It also expresses particular displeasure about the way he cozied up to the Chinese in 1994 by removing BBC World News (no media paragon, just classier than Murdock) from Satellite TV Asia Region in return for special favors he got.

    Page also exposes Murdock’s absurd claim to be an enemy of the establishment, a populist, and battler for the common man. This from someone raised in privilege, courts the powerful, represents entrenched wealth, is now a billionaire, benefitted from nepotism, is passing his empire to his children, smashes print unions, runs a “bordello of papers” as the Sunday Times called it before he bought it, and has easy access to Number 10, the White House and other seats of power.

    Page worries that media barons cause serious harm by undermining democracy, and Murdoch’s the worst of the bunch. He targets the vulnerable, attacks disenfranchised minorities and bashes gays, Muslims, innocent victims of war and oppression, and anyone getting in his way. Page warns that unless we see his threat and confront it, all free societies are at risk.

    Page also exposes the Murdock myth of an archetypical entrepreneur whose “journalistic (and business) genius” got him where he is. Nonsense about a man, like his father, who uses press power for business favors to gain more power. Yet he audaciously told his biographer, William Shawcross, to “Give me an example. When have we ever asked for anything?” Page has reams of it exposing Murdoch’s guile and mendacity about wanting a “level (media) playing-field.” Just the opposite. He’s obsessed with monopoly control and smashes competition for it.

    He also smashes editors who disobey him. One observer called him unhinged, out of control and completely amoral while a former Sunday Times editor, Andrew Neil, describes the “terrorism” Murdoch spreads throughout his empire to get his way. Neil also wrote: “Rupert expects his papers to stand broadly for what he believes – a combination of right-wing Republicanism from America mixed with undiluted Thatcherism from Britain.”

    Murdoch’s US Fox News Flagship

    Fox News smoothes the way for him as a round-the-clock Bush administration commercial imitating real news. It debuted in 1996 and one of its on-air hosts explained the “Channel was launched (because) something was wrong with news media….somewhere bias found its way into reporting….Fox….is committed to being fair and balanced (covering) stories everybody is reporting–and….stories….you will see only on Fox.”

    Later, the Columbia Journalism Review had a different view. It reported “several” former Fox employees “complained of ‘management sticking their fingers’ in the writing and editing of stories to cook the facts to make a story more palatable to right-of-center tastes.” One of them complained about never running into that before before while FAIR reported “Fox’s signature political news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, was originally created as a daily one-hour update devoted to the 1998 Clinton sex scandal.” So much for “fair and balanced” real news.

    This type attack never happens to a Republican and hasn’t for Fox’s presidential favorite, Rudy Giuliani, who was sinking fast, fared poorly in early primaries and now has withdrawn from the race. Nonetheless, his leadership failures and marital transgressions were ignored, and so were his ties to friend, business partner and former New York City Police Commissioner, Bernard Kerik. He was indicted on 16 counts of federal corruption, including bribery, conspiracy, tax fraud, and lying on his federal disclosure forms for not reporting a $250,000 “loan” (a likely payoff) from an Israeli billionaire that may have been sent to him for Giuliani for favors rendered.

    An added twist is that a former Kerik lover, Judith Regan, sued Murdock’s News Corp. and accused the company of pressuring her to commit perjury to protect Giuliani’s presidential hopes. Fox News won’t explain or cover it, but it daily airs preferential bias for Giuliani in its slanted reporting. It’s a blatant example of unethical coverage to manipulate news for its own purpose.

    FAIR also blasted one of Hume”s regular features – “The Political Grapevine” that’s billed as “the most scintillating two minutes in television” as a sort of right-wing “hot-sheet.” It features anchor Hume “reading off a series of gossipy items culled from other (generally) right-wing” sources. It’s not subtle and is blatantly partisan calling Democrats, environmentalists, the liberal media, civil rights groups, anti-war activists and Hollywood and other liberals “villians” while Republicans are good guys or “heros who can do no wrong.” When critics jump on Fox, it hits back claiming a responsibility to correct the “liberal media’s bias” with Bill O’Reilly saying Fox “gives voice to people who can’t get on other networks.” What it does, of course, is slant the news its way to please the boss, and that means a distorted hard-right point of view only.

    It also means the more people watch it, the less informed they are as News Dissector Danny Schechter explained about all TV news in his candid insider’s book “The More You Watch, The Less You Know.” That doesn’t bother Murdock who spends millions for lobbying and hundreds of thousands more for political contributions – mostly to Republicans but also to friendly Democrats to buy and keep his growing influence. It pays off with senators like Trent Lott once telling the Washington Post: “If it hadn’t been for Fox, I don’t know what I’d have done for the news.” He means a right-wing echo chamber pretending to be unbiased.

    Long-time Republican operative Roger Ailes runs it for Murdock with FAIR once quoting former senior Bush aide Lee Atwater saying he operates on “two speeds – attack and destroy.” He also called Clinton a “hippie president,” refers to liberals as “bigots,” and assures all on-air programming conforms to his views. Only Republicans get hired to air them and those screened for jobs are asked to be sure.

    As for punditry and political debate, here’s how FAIR characterizes it: on shows like Hannity & Colmes, The O’Reilly Factor and The Beltway Boys it’s like watching “a Harlem Globetrotters game (knowing) which side is supposed to win.” Or maybe pro wrestling. The discussion is so lopsided, it’s impossible hiding Fox’s partisanship, and it shows with on-air hosts like Tony Snow endorsing Republican Bob Dole for President in 1996 and then seamlessly becoming White House press secretary from May, 2006 to September, 2007. Other Fox “journalists” are as bad and collect handsome fees addressing Republican gatherings and corporate interest groups with big name ones like O’Reilly reportedly charging $50,000 per engagement on the lecture circuit delivering red meat to audiences that love it.

    So do hard core Fox viewers who swallow the channel’s pro-Bush, pro-war, pro-occupation America uber alles type journalism combined with juiced-up infotainment reports imitating real news. It makes it hard knowing where one ends and the other begins. In the mainstream, much of it is the same, and all of it defiles what journalism should do –

    — be the principle source of political information to create an informed citizenry Jefferson said was “the bulwark of a democracy;”

    — provide a wide range of opinion and analysis of all key issues affecting everyone;

    — hold governments accountable to the public interest and not just the privileged elite part of it; and generally

    — “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.”

    Murdock and the rest of the dominant media fail the test. Their concentrated power blunt democracy by destroying its essential free marketplace of ideas. Today, social control substitutes for diversity, free expression, and an informed electorate; pro-business ideology trumps the greater good; and the single-minded pursuit of profit triumphs over beneficial social change. Combatting it means confronting the media barons who are as determined as Murdoch to squash us.

    Organizations like Free Press are doing it. It’s a “national nonpartisan organization working to increase informed public participation in crucial media policy debates.” It aims to “generate policies that will produce a more competitive and public interest-oriented media system with a strong nonprofit and noncommercial sector” promoting greater diversity. The more democratic our media, the more accountable government will be to public concerns. Free Press focuses on four broad areas to help: “media ownership” for greater competition and diversity; “independent and public media” free from the single-minded pursuit of profit; “internet freedom” from corporate control; and “media reform” of a corrupted system aided by government that must end.

    To happen, public participation is essential, and for that organizations like Free Press are crucial. Corporate media control is the core issue of our time along with overall corporate dominance with governments as their handmaiden. Democracy and a free society are impossible unless that changes. It’s we the people vs. the Murdochs of the world, and we’ve only just begun fighting back.

    Some Of The Outrageous Lies About 9/11

    118

    By Joseph A. Lopisi

    It is hard to pick a place to start in terms of talking about the most outrageous lies that the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission have presented to the people in this country as a reason to attack Afghanistan and Iraq and to launch a “fake war on terror”.

    The reason I say this is that I have been reading articles and watching videos about the lies and deceptions surrounding 9/11 for the past three years. If anything, there are so many obvious unanswered questions about 9/11. However, not only has no one answered any of these questions but in fact no one in the mainstream media nor anyone in the United States Congress except for Representative Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney have even asked these questions.

    Some of these questions are:

    1. How is it that at the crash site of Flight 93, NBC and Fox News on September 11, 2001 reported on the scene with video coverage that there was no sign of a jetliner, engines, bodies or luggage? You can go to my website which is www.911insidejob.net and watch this video report which is on my home page. It has never been shown again on the mainstream media.

    2. How is it that three steel framed buildings on September 11, 2001 fell in freefall time on their footprint? If you watch the two Towers collapse, it is obvious that they are being blown up. No steel framed building prior to this date or after this date has ever collapsed due to fire. Many steel framed buildings have experienced burning infernos for many hours and never collapsed. WTC 7, a 50 story steel framed building, had two small fires in it with no noticeable structural damage when it collapsed on his footprint in freefall time at about 5:40 p.m. on September 11. You can watch this building collapse on the homepage my website.

    3. How is it that the most protected building in the world, the Pentagon, was hit by a commercial jetliner that was being tracked by Vice President Cheney in the basement of the White House for over one hour? Transportation Secretary Mineta testified under oath that he witnessed a member of the United States military ask Vice President Cheney several times whether the order still stood relative to not shooting down the oncoming plane. Vice President Cheney’s answer was that the order still stands. You can watch Secretary Mineta’s testimony on the home page of my website. The Pentagon is protected by a battery of antiaircraft guns that would automatically shoot down any plane that does not have a United States military transponder on it.

    4. How is it that only five frames have been presented by this government to show supposedly what hit the Pentagon on that date. The Pentagon has surveillance cameras ringing the top exterior ring of the building. The FBI within 10 minutes of the attack were confiscating surveillance films from local businesses around the Pentagon. None of these confiscated surveillance films have been released. I would bet that a satellite sits above Washington, DC 24 hours every day and would have very good video images showing what hit the Pentagon.

    5. How is it that a large commercial jetliner was able to crash into the first floor of the Pentagon and punch a round hole through three rings of the Pentagon which is constructed of steel reinforced concrete? The nose of a commercial jetliner is made of aluminum.

    6. Why is it that Jamie McIntyre of CNN reported on the front lawn of the Pentagon on September 11 that from his vantage point it did not look like a commercial jetliner had crashed into the Pentagon? Why is it that this report has never been shown on mainstream media but can be seen on my website? Why is it that we have not heard another word from Jamie McIntyre or CNN regarding this report?

    7. How was it that four commercial airliners were able to roam at will the northeastern sector of the United States without being intercepted? Of course, Flight 93 was intercepted and shot down by the US military. The northeastern sector of the United States is the most protected airspace in the world. There are several Air Force bases very close to Washington, DC and no jets from these Air Force bases came close to intercepting the plane that hit the Pentagon, despite the fact that Vice President Cheney knew the plane was heading towards Washington, DC for almost an hour.

    I could go on and on but I will leave that to those who consider the truth about what happened on 9/11 to be important. You can go to my website or many other 9/11 websites and start reading about how outrageous the official 9/11 story is. You can go to www.youtube.com and watch five videos that I have produced under my call name which is “bushguiltyof911”.

    Vice President Cheney met with the heads of the various oil companies right after Bush took office. When the public wanted to know who was there and what they were talking about, Vice President Cheney fought this request to the United States Supreme Court (the same court that elected George Bush in 2000) where he won. They were talking about attacking Iraq in order to gain control of their oil fields. They were talking about attacking Afghanistan to take over the construction of a gas pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban, prior to September 11, 2001, had already said no to the Bush administration’s request that an American company, Unical, construct the gas pipeline and in response President Bush said to the Taliban that the United States would attack them in October 2001. We did.

    The Bush administration’s purpose in planning and orchestrating 9/11 was to create an atmosphere of fear in this country so that the military/industrial/oil/private central banking complex could start their fake war on terror which included attacking Afghanistan and Iraq and probably Iran in the near future. None of this would have been possible without the United States Congress and the corporately owned mainstream media being complicit in so far as not questioning the official 9/11 conspiracy theory but in fact labeling anyone who does question the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as a “conspiracy nut”.

    Why is it that neither the United States Congress nor the mainstream media question the counting of our votes by electronic voting machines made by companies owned and controlled by neoconservative Republicans? It has been shown extensively and publicly that these electronic voting machines are completely hackable, even remotely, by a high school student. Nevertheless, these machines count approximately 80% of our votes. Why is it that the United States Congress does not require the manufacturers of these machines to make the internal software available for inspection by us before and after these machines count our votes.

    Why is it that only Ron Paul speaks out about the scam of the Federal Reserve Bank? Go to my website where I have several streaming videos on my homepage that simply and clearly explain the scam that the Federal Reserve Bank perpetrates on all of us and has done so since its creation. What they call a “business cycle” is actually an intentional manipulation of the money supply for the sole benefit of the cartel of private banks that own the Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank prints money and then lends it to this government at interest. Much of our income tax payments go to paying the interest on this loan of paper money that has no backing.

    We must not vote for anyone who does not speak out about the lies and deceptions regarding 9/11, the removal of all electronic voting machines from the election process and the termination of the Federal Reserve Bank. Of course, there must be term limits and only public financing of national elections.

    Joseph A. Lopisi is an attorney and the webmaster of www.911insidejob.net. He is the cofounder of the Massachusetts 9/11 Truth Group and is a member of the Coalition against Election Fraud. You can contact him through the e-mail function on his website.

    Yes, we do torture: White House finally comes clean

    0

    PETER URBAN

    Connecticut federal prosecutor John Durham can clear at least one task off his full plate. His criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA interrogation videotapes won’t touch waterboarding.

    Attorney General Michael Mukasey told the House Judiciary Committee last week that his lawyers concluded that the CIA’s use of waterboarding in 2002 and 2003 was legal. So the department cannot investigate whether a crime occurred.

    Two months ago, Mukasey called on Durham to lead an investigation into the destruction of videotapes that showed CIA officers using tough interrogation methods while questioning two al-Qaida suspects.

    Mukasey suggested at the time that Durham would follow the investigation wherever it took him.

    The waterboarding question came up after the Bush administration revealed earlier in the week that the CIA had indeed used the technique on a few occasions.

    CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed Tuesday that the CIA waterboarded al-Qaida prisoners Khalid Sheik Mohammed; Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Husseing and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri at a secret detention site. He defended the use of waterboarding as necessary to obtain information about potential terrorist attacks.

    Vice President Dick Cheney also hit the Republican speakers’ circuit last week to defend the practice.

    “It’s a tougher program for a very few tougher customers,” Cheney told the Conservative Political Action Convention and the Pennsylvania State Victory Committee. “The program is run by highly trained professionals who understand their obligations under the law.

    “And the program has uncovered a wealth of information that has foiled attacks against the United States.”

    House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers asked Mukasey straight up about the program during an oversight hearing last week.

    “Are you ready to start a criminal investigation into whether this confirmed use of waterboarding by United States agents was illegal?” asked Conyers, D-Mich.

    “That’s a direct question, and I will give a direct answer. No, I am not,” Mukasey said.

    Here’s his torturous reasoning.

    At the time of the waterboarding, it was done “as part of a CIA program” that had been cleared as “permissible under the law as it existed then” by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel.

    To launch a criminal investigation of a technique used by someone who relied on a Justice Department opinion as legal would put in question not only that opinion “but also any other opinion from the Justice Department,” Mukasey said.

    “Essentially, it would tell people: ‘You rely on a Justice Department opinion as part of a program, then you will be subject to criminal investigation when and if the tenure of the person who wrote the position changes or, indeed, the political winds change.’ And that’s not something that I think would be appropriate and it’s not something I will do,” he said.

    Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass., a former state attorney general, seemed skeptical of that logic, noting that the “law is the law” and that relying on bad legal opinions to shield oneself from prosecution would be a new legal doctrine.

    “You know, this is brand-new legal theory, at least in terms of my own legal scholarship,” he said.

    Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., wasn’t satisfied with Mukasey’s answer either.

    “If we don’t establish a bright line, in this country, that we don’t torture, then it makes it very hard for us to argue to other countries that they shouldn’t torture our people, period,” he said.

    Mukasey countered that there is a bright line: “We bar the torture.”

    Simple? Well, then he adds the legal footnote: “The evaluation of whether a particular practice constitutes torture could be presented to me only in a particular situation, namely, whether it was defined, part of a proposed program, in which case I would pronounce on it one way or the other.”

    “That’s a bright line that we can hold up to the rest of the world?” Schiff asked.

    “We have and do defend our position before the rest of the world. We have people in the State Department who do a superb job at that. And we will continue to do that,” Mukasey explained.

    Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd issued a statement urging a brighter line than Mukasey’s.

    “There is no such thing as ‘simulated’ drowning. When a person is strapped to a board and water is poured into their mouth and nose with no way to get air, that is drowning; that is torture,” he said.

    Dodd said that President Bush should make clear that “all forms of torture – including waterboarding – are always wrong and always illegal.”

    l

    Speaking of torture

    Sen. Joe Lieberman offered some insights into hostilities that afflict moderates from both ends of the political spectrum. Lieberman gets the brunt from liberal Democrats while his conjoined twin John McCain takes it from conservative Republicans.

    “I do see some similarities. It is part of what is wrong in American politics today,” Lieberman said. “At the margins of either party there is a significant group of people who seem to really want to be more in a fight than to get things done.”

    Lieberman says the majority is in the middle looking for Democrats and Republicans to find common ground for the good of the nation.

    “John McCain is a conservative Republican but it is important to say that he is his own man and he will do what he thinks is right. As devoted a Republican as he is, if party interest conflicts with what he thinks is in the national interest he will always go with the national interest.”

    (Yes, it seems Lieberman can’t make the connection between getting things done and getting out of Iraq – something two-thirds of Americans have consistently said they believe is in the nation’s interest.)

    Drip. Drip. Drip.

    New Charges of Guantanamo Torture

    0

    By Adam Zagorin | Time Magazine

    Majid Khan is seen in 1999 during his senior year in high school in Baltimore, Maryland.  Khan, 26, is now jailed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Majid Khan is seen in 1999 during his senior year in high school in Baltimore, Maryland. Khan, 27, is now jailed at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    The Khan Family / Center for Constitutional Rights / AP

     In 2005, CIA officials ordered the destruction of videotapes depicting the harsh interrogation of prisoners in the agency’s secret overseas prisons. CIA Director Michael Hayden admitted that in December 2007 amid a public debate over the use of “waterboarding” on detainees and whether or not the technique – which simulates drowning – constituted torture. At that time, Hayden said that only a few prisoners were ever subjected to “special interrogation techniques,” which can include waterboarding, and that nothing was recorded on video after 2002. That claim is now coming under additional scrutiny, in part due to a classified briefing that will be delivered to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence this Friday. Lawyers representing one current Guantanamo detainee tell TIME that they plan to present evidence that he was subjected to videotaped interrogation, in addition to unspecified “systematic torture” when he was held in secret CIA prisons. The lawyers, from the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based legal non-profit with a long record of advocacy for prisoners at Guantanamo, note that their client has said the videotaping occurred after his arrest in 2003.

        Majid Khan, 27, a former suburban Baltimore high school student, was first seized by authorities in Pakistan, where he said he was visiting his brother. Khan then spent more than three years in a secret overseas CIA “black site” before President Bush ordered his transfer to Guantanamo along with 13 other high-value detainees. Also transferred was alleged 9/11 mastermind Khaled Sheik Mohammed, who had allegedly ordered Khan to research attacks on American water reservoirs and gas stations.

        Khan’s lawyers are armed with more than 500 pages of top-secret notes taken during recent sessions with their client at Guantanamo; they will use the material to describe his interrogation and detention to the Intelligence Committee. Though details are highly classified, his lawyers claim that he and others were tortured and videotaped, charges that Hayden and other CIA officials deny. On Feb. 5, Hayden admitted to Congress that the CIA had used waterboarding on Khaled Sheik Mohammed and two others. The CIA continues to assert that it does not engage in torture.

        Rising to Hayden’s defense, the White House this week made clear its view that waterboarding has saved American lives, is legal – and does not constitute torture, as critics insist. A spokesman for Bush said the President would authorize waterboarding for use on future terror suspects if certain standards are met, a spokesman said. Hayden himself banned the technique in 2006 for use in CIA interrogations, and the Pentagon and FBI have done likewise.

        A White House spokesman said the CIA could use waterboarding again if it had specific approval from the President. That authorization would depend on a variety of factors, such as the “belief that an attack might be imminent” the spokesman explained. “The President will listen to the considered judgment of the professionals in the intelligence community and the judgment of the attorney general in terms of the legal consequences of employing a particular technique,” he said.

        Khan is one of very few Guantanamo prisoners whose claim to U.S. residency has been legally established. He has close relatives in the Baltimore area who are American citizens; Khan’s lawyers have appealed to members of Congress on his behalf, including Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, who sits on the Intelligence Committee. After years of isolation in prison, Khan was recently allowed to mix with at least one other prisoner at Guantanamo, Abu Zubaydah, a top alleged terrorist who, Hayden has said, was one of those prisoners to be waterboarded.

        Khan’s lawyers have said their client has gone on a hunger strike to protest the conditions of his confinment, and appears pale and gaunt. In the course of meetings with counsel and the Red Cross, Khan also handed over neatly penned, handwritten letters. Several have been made public, after heavy redactions imposed by U.S. military censors. One of Khan’s messages begins: “In this letter I am going to mention some of the things I have been through.” Then the next 19 lines of text are blacked out.

        But Khan’s private declarations to his lawyers cannot be censored, and it is those that the Intelligence Committee will hear on Friday. His allegations come at a time when Congress is considering passage of a new intelligence bill that would effectively outlaw many of the CIA’s interrogation methods by forcing the Agency to use only those techniques permitted in the U.S. Army Field Manual.

        The bipartisan ban in the intelligence bill, put forward by Senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, still faces Republican opposition, while the intelligence bill as a whole could face a presidential veto because if it does not grant amnesty to telephone companies who participated in possibly illegal wiretapping of Americans, as requested by the Bush Administration.

        “The national debate over torture will end if this amendment to place the CIA under the Army Field Manual becomes law,” Senator Feinstein said. “At that point, all U.S. government interrogations – military and civilian – would be conducted under the same rules and regulations, and eight specific techniques, including waterboarding, would be prohibited.”

    CIA Veteran Calls for Bush’s Impeachment

    1

    Ray McGovern says there is enough evidence to impeach Bush, Cheney over torture, Iraq and Iran

    Chris Gelken

    After 27 years as an analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency, Ray McGovern is now one of the most vocal critics of the government he once served. A founder member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, McGovern is highly critical of the way the Bush administration manipulated or fabricated intelligence to justify its war on Iraq.

    McGovern spoke to PressTV on a range of issues, including the recent scandal over waterboarding.

    You are on record as saying you had no desire to be associated, however remotely, with an organization that engaged in torture. You say the agency bowed to political pressure, who was responsible in the administration and the agency for giving the go-ahead for torture?

    Ray McGovern: Well that’s really no secret. If you look at Richard Clarke for example, the head of the counter terrorism operation at the White House. He wrote that on the very evening of 9/11 the President convened his top national security advisers in the bunker under the White House and said to them, “We’re at war. There are no restrictions. We will need to do what we have to do, and there will be nothing in the way here.”

    And when someone objected and said there is international law that applies to attacking a country, for example like Iraq, the president turned on him and shouted, “I don’t care what the international lawyers say, we’re going to kick some ass.”

    That set the tone and the torture followed very quickly after. Actually the first person tortured was an American citizen, John Walker Lindh, who was captured in Afghanistan and was subjected to very harsh treatment.

    You have called for the impeachment of George Bush — on what grounds exactly, and what prospects to you see for impeachment in the final eleven months of his presidency?

    We are strong devotees of the Constitution of the United States. The people who drafted that document had a very foresighted view, given that human nature was at work here.

    I think they would be surprised that it took 240 years before a President started acting like a King.

    You see, they were used to the King experience in England, and they were hell-bent and determined that this would not happen here in this country. So they made a provision in this basic document that were a President to start acting like a King, were he to accrue powers that were not due him, were he to diss the Congress, then there would be an orderly process to remove that President and it’s called impeachment.

    The clause that pertains here says that the President or the Vice President shall be removed from office upon impeachment for and conviction of high crimes and misdemeanors.

    It would be hard for me in five minutes to detail all the high crimes and misdemeanors, but let’s just take one, one that I feel very close to, and that is the deliberate falsification, the deliberate forgery, the deliberate manufacture of intelligence to “justify” an unjustifiable war of aggression.

    That’s what we had with respect to Iraq, and it’s very clear in retrospect that the President knew exactly what he was doing.

    If you add to that the torture, the warrantless eavesdropping, and a whole string of other abuses you have quite enough to impeach the President and the Vice President.

    The problem is there is a political season here and the opposition party, the Democrats, are reluctant to cause any waves. The President’s polling numbers are very low, the Vice President’s are even lower, and their political advisers are telling them don’t make any waves now, just hang on there, don’t do anything for eleven months now, and we’ll have a sweeping victory in November, then we can do what we want.

    That is not what the Constitution says, that is not what will get our troops out of Iraq, it is really a cave in to political maneuvering rather than doing the proper thing in conscience. They should impeach the President, and they could easily do it.

    They say there’s not enough time, but you don’t need a lot of time when you have the evidence that we have against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. It’s a matter of political will and the people in charge now don’t have that political will. They are more cowardly than determined to protect the Constitution.

    You have accused the Bush administration of manipulating or fabricating intelligence before the War in Iraq. Why didn’t more people in the agency “come out” if you will and publicly denounce the administration for going to war — as you have said for oil, Israel and logistics — that is permanent bases in the Middle East?

    It is very difficult to do that, and the tone set by the Director, George Tenet, was very mischievous. He was the worst example of an intelligence officer that I can imagine. He saw it as his duty to help the President do whatever the President wanted. And when you set that tone at the highest level it’s very difficult for people at lower levels to speak out and say “this isn’t right, we shouldn’t be doing it.”

    There still should be some who do that, but it didn’t happen.

    Now, the good news is, there have been at least four National Intelligence Estimates that have told the truth. They have been rather courageous in telling the truth. For example the most recent one which said that according to our analysts Iran stopped its nuclear weapons related program four years ago and as far as we can tell, has not restarted it.

    Why is that courageous? Because Dick Cheney and George Bush himself were saying just the opposite in the months prior to the release of that estimate.

    So there is a lot of hope that there are good people left in the intelligence community, and that not only are they inclined to tell the truth, but some of their superiors are making sure that the truth does get out.

    You’ve said Israel should not be considered an ally of the United States — and critical discussion of Israel comes with the risk of being tagged an anti-Semite. Just how strong is the Israeli lobby in the United States — and who is doing whose bidding?

    Well, it is very difficult to sort it all out, but it is very clear that the state of Israel has inordinate influence over our body politic. There is nothing that can happen in our country that is not conditioned by the worry about the reaction of the Israel lobby. This is just a fact of life here. It is a matter of courage to speak out and say that this doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense for Israeli interests over the long term.

    Last August I believe you published an article that asked the pertinent question: Do we have the courage to stop a war with Iran? Well, does the American public and military have the courage?

    I think the National Intelligence Estimate that says that Iran does not have an active nuclear weapons program helps, but I count on the senior military, Admiral Fallon and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who have been responsible, so far, in my view in preventing the President and the Vice President from doing what they want to do, and actually what they have promised the state of Israeli they would do, and that is deal with the Iranian nuclear problem.

    Is George Bush losing control of the military, are they acting in a way to protect the best interests of the United States and not the Commander in Chief?

    I think this time they have insisted on sitting down with the President and saying we can do this, but look what will happen on week one. Look what will happen on month two, look what we can expect in terms of retaliation three months down the road. That is very scary because it is not like the situation in Iraq. And I think the President is chastened by his experience in Iraq and has had to listen to the senior military on this one and I hope he continues to listen.

    The above interview was conducted by the author and first broadcast on PressTV News on Feb. 9, 2008.

    FBI sought approval to use spyware

    0

    By John Leyden

    Analysis The FBI has reportedly sought the go-ahead to use a custom spyware package to bug terrorists and other national security suspects. Indirect evidence suggests that the request was likely to have been approved.

    An application to use the Computer and Internet Protocol Address Verifier (CIPAV) spyware program was sought from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in 2005, according to papers obtained by Wired after filling a Freedom of Information Act request.

    The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court rubber-stamps surveillance orders and covert entries in cases involving national security or terrorism. The court, established by the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, is based at the Justice Department’s headquarters. FISC hearings are closed.

    Among the reams of papers released in response to Wired’s request (largely composed of internal emails and technical documents) are affidavits submitted by the FBI to the FISC star chamber to use the CIPAV package. The software is designed to log a target’s internet use, recording every IP address a suspect computer communicates with. It also performs an inventory of operating systems, installed and running applications and logs open ports, IP addresses and Mac addresses of targeted PCs.

    The existence of CIPAV came to light in July when it emerged in affidavits that feds used the package to trace the perpetrators of high school bomb hoaxes. The FBI declined to answer Wired’s follow-up questions on its use of the surveillance tool.

    FISC approved 2,072 warrants it considered in 2005 and 2,181 in 2006, rejecting none. Five requests were withdrawn before a ruling was made. Given this track record it seems more than probable that FISC approved the use of CIPAV.

    Law Enforcement Trojan ploy

    US authorities are far from alone in seeking approval for the use of “remote forensic software” (AKA a law enforcement Trojan) to bug the PCs of terrorist suspects. The German government is reportedly in the process of hiring coders to develop “white hat” malware capable of covertly hacking into PCs ahead of plans to change German law to allow the practice. Proposals by German firm Digitask to develop software to intercept Skype VoIP communications and SSL transmissions leaked onto the net last month.

    The wider use of encryption and VoIP is creating problems for law enforcement agencies. Law enforcement use of spyware tactics might, according to some law enforcement officials at least, level the playing field by providing a vital extra tool in the fight against terrorism.

    However, the scheme is fraught with difficulties.

    Reality Bites

    Would-be terrorists need only use Ubuntu Linux to avoid the ploy. And even if they stuck with Windows their anti-virus software might detect the malware. Anti-virus firms that accede to law enforcement demands to turn a blind eye to state-sanctioned malware risk undermining trust in their software, as evidenced by the fuss created when similar plans for a “Magic Lantern” Trojan for law enforcement surfaced in the US some years ago.

    Graham Cluley, senior technology consultant at Sophos, said that its policy remained that it not give “special treatment” to malware written by the authorities.

    “If CIPAV came into our labs we would add detection. The software would be unlikely to have a ‘copywriter FBI’ notice on it so it may be that we already detect it,” Cluley told El Reg.

    A seminal academic paper written by Fred Cohen in 1984 showed that it was mathematically impossible to write something that was undetectable, or by similar reasoning, to write a perfect antivirus scanner. Faced with that possibility law enforcement officials would have little option but to request security vendors to deliberately ignore their spyware, an approach Sophos reckons is unworkable.

    “If a customer suspects they may be under surveillance and sends a Trojan horse to us, we’re going to provide protection against it. We have no way of knowing if it was written by the German or US authorities and, even if we did, we wouldn’t know whether it was being used by the police or if it had been commandeered by a third party wishing to spy on our customer,” Cluley explained.

    The picture gets even more complex if different nations develop their own law enforcement snooping software.

    Cluley went on: “The Americans could theoretically write a piece of spyware to spy on criminals in its country and ask us not to detect it. The French may then ask us to detect the American spyware (in case the Americans use it against them). Who should we obey?”

    “Security vendors can’t play favourites,” he added.

    It would only require one security vendor (or indeed individual) to write a program which detects the authority’s spyware and the idea of convincing the world to turn a blind eye to detecting would fall down like a house of cards, Cluley concluded.

    Tapping a phone line and installing malicious code on a user’s computer are sometimes compared as equivalent but important differences exist, according to Cluley. “Malicious code on a user’s computer can be copied, archived, adapted and – potentially – used by people who do not work for the authorities to spy on completely innocent victims,” he explained. ®

    Choosing secrecy over the public’s rights

    0

    JAMES H. SMITH

    The Bush administration, the most secretive society since Skull & Bones, has shut out the American people once again.

    After President Bush signed into law just a few weeks ago modest changes to the federal Freedom of Information Act, his administration took one of its best innovations and shuffled it off to Buffalo.

    The administration’s plan “violates both the explicit text of the Open Government Act and its legislative intent,” said U.S. Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and John Cornyn, R-Texas, the sponsors of the act.

    The law created a new ombudsman’s office that can mediate disputes between citizens and the government over the release of information. The law signed by Mr. Bush placed that office in the national Archive and Records Administration. But lo and behold last week the administration squirreled away that new office in the Justice Department, which would effectively gut its very purpose. This latest outrage against open government was discovered on page 239 of the appendix to the president’s massive budget proposal. It formally eliminates the new Office of Government Information Services within the National Archives and moves it to Justice.

    To put an ombudsman’s office charged with mediating secrecy issues in the Justice Department is quite simply a bad joke, or more precisely a slap in the face of the people’s right to know. The Justice Department argues to keep government documents secret.

    Congress “sought to make the FOIA ombudsman independent of the Department of Justice … to enhance the office’s independence, as well as to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest,” Sens. Leahy and Cornyn wrote last week to the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

    They “strongly oppose” the administration’s unannounced effort to alter “the essential character of (the ombudsman) as an independent, disinterested office serving FOIA requestors.”

    The Sunshine in Government Initiative advocated for the changes to the FOI act. It is a consortium of 10 news media organizations: the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Associated Press, Association of Alternative Newsweeklies, Coalition of Journalists for Open Government, National Association of Broadcasters, National Newspaper Association, Newspaper Association of America, Radio-Television News Directors Association, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the Society of Professional Journalists.

    The Sunshine Initiative has written the bipartisan leaders of the House Appropriations Committee seeking to reverse the administration’s attempt to thwart the new reform. The independent ombudsman office creates “a potentially valuable and effective tool to help the public reduce long delays and avoid costly litigation by mediating disputes that can arise when the public seeks documents held by government,” it said.

    The White House claims that the Department of Justice’s office of Information and Privacy serves some functions applicable to the new ombudsman’s functions, but Justice can’t act as an advocate for FOIA requesters, or even a neutral mediator, because that creates an obvious conflict with Justice’s role as the government’s lawyer defending FOI denials.

    I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised that with one hand George Bush signs a new law helping citizens to see the workings of government and with the other hand tries to snuff out the new modicum of light it would shed.

    Secret prisons, secret meetings, secret historical documents. He is the most secretive president we have ever elected. He makes a mockery of “we the people.”

    Whether you love his war or don’t, whether you think he’s a draft-dodging chickenhawk or the reincarnation of George Patton, whether you are liberal or conservative, as a citizen of a democracy you cannot condone his efforts to keep the people at bay and in the dark.

    Was Jefferson writing gibberish as we threw off the yoke of England’s George III? Do we not believe that “all men” are “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights”? Did he not write, “to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”?

    How can the people give consent if we don’t know what the government is doing? The president receives his power from us – “the governed.”

    Be wary of a president or a governor or a mayor or any public official who thwarts your basic right to know what he is doing.

    At the very least, write U.S. Reps. Chris Shays and Rosa DeLauro and tell them not to approve the president’s budget until this skullduggery is pulled out of there.

    Mr. Shays:

    1126 Longworth Building

    Washington, DC 20515

    Online at: www.house.gov/shays/

    Ms. DeLauro

    2262 Rayburn House Office Building

    Washington, DC 20515

    Online at: www.house.gov/delauro/

    Opposition to ID cards reaches 50%

    1

    Anthony Wells

    A new ICM poll for the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust suggests 50% of people now think ID cards would be a bad idea, with 47% thinking them a good idea.

    The wording in the question was the same as used in the series of polls done for No2ID by ICM, so it is directly comparable to previous questions – back in September before the loss of benefit data the same question was showing 54% in favour and only 42% against, though it should be pointed out that the opposition isn’t unprecedented, a poll in July 2007 found a majority against cards.

    Despite the drop in support for ID cards and the recent data loss incidents, the public still seem positive about other proposals whee data security would be an issue – 51% said they would be comfortable with the government building a database of everyone in the country including their fingerprints (48% were uncomfortable), 67% were happy with the government collecting travel information on British citizens going in and out of the country (31% were uncomfortable), 53% were comfortable with the idea of the government making a database with information on every child in the UK (45% uncomfortable). Only with the idea of allowing government departments to share information provided to one of them to others were a majority (52%) uncomfortable.

    Tagging Alzheimer Patients

    0

    Alzheimer Tagging Labelled an ‘Excuse’ for Shocking Care-Home Standards

    Michael Jolliffe | Newstarget

    A controversial new scheme to electronically tag the elderly has been blasted by critics as a ‘gimmick’ and as an excuse for negligence, by civil liberties campaigners. The plan, which would involve tracking dementia patients by utilising the same high-powered satellite technology used to control criminal offenders, has received widespread criticism, despite the backing of a dementia care charity, Alzheimer’s Society.

    The idea was first introduced by British science minister Malcolm Wickes who argued that the use of tags, both at home and in residential care, would prevent the worry caused to loved ones of elderly family members prone to wandering. The National Pensioners Convention described the proposal as ‘shocking’ and ‘inhumane’.

    This most recent debate follows a string of high profile care home abuse reports, both in Britain and the US. In early December 2007, the Wall Street Journal dedicated a front page to a story on the overmedication of nursing home residents in which it exposed the use of antipsychotic medication to control distressed residents.

    Reports included an 84-year-old Alzheimer’s disease patient at the Orchard Manor nursing home in Medina, New York who, after repeatedly tapping her foot nervously, was given the powerful anti-schizophrenia drugs Haldol and Seroquel. Another agitated resident at a nursing home in Massapequa was given 90 doses of injectable Haldol, despite staff being able to calm her with ice cream and soft toys. Dr. Jeffrey Nichols, vice president for medical services at the Cabrini Eldercare Consortium in New York, described the use of such drugs as being “like hitting a TV on the side”.

    Similarly, early in 2007 British liberal Member of Parliament Paul Burstow attempted to introduce a Human Rights bill into the House which, he hoped, would protect the elderly from negligent care. The move came in response to an inquiry that had found residents forced to live on a diet of Angel Delight and beans on toast.

    “One in 10 care home residents lose up to 5% of their body weight within a month of being admitted to the home and 10% of their body weight within six months”, Mr. Burstow told a Commons Select Committee, before expressing his horror at the “culture of convenience… maltreatment and neglect” that included the misuse of drugs to make managing the elderly easier.

    Most recently and most damningly, a report by the British Commission for Social Care Inspection discovered a number of horrifying examples of abuse, including the use of ‘cocoon’ sheets to tie elderly residents into beds, dementia sufferers being dragged around by the hair and incontinent patients being kept from using a lavatory despite being wet and soiled.

    In an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live, Dr. Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics expressed concern that the new tagging scheme would be used as a way of “making life easier for carers” rather than as a way of making life safer or more pleasant for those in need of care. With the nursing home industry under pressure from an exponentially increasing elderly population, campaigners have called for the government to stop investigating such methods, described as “substitutes for proper resources”. Instead, they argue, it must look to overturn the culture of neglect, and protect the rights and dignity of its citizens.

    About the author

    Michael Jolliffe is a health writer, and an expert on nutritional and environmental influences on health and disease.
    He is a member of the British Association for Nutritional Therapy, International Society for Orthomolecular Medicine and the Life Extension Foundation.
    To make contact, email michael@healthrevolutions.com or visit www.healthrevolutions.com.

    Schwarzenegger Backed Immoral Spraying

    1

    Governor Schwarzenegger Backed Immoral Sex Pheromone Spraying Continues

    Rami Nagel | Newstarget

    Sometimes bad dreams do come true. My bad dream was that the government issued quarantine, and forced everybody to be vaccinated for some fake disease. In my dream, I took my family, and fled to the hills to avoid being vaccinated.

    Now, nine months later, this dream has come true. In an emergency, I relinquished my rental contract and moved my pregnant partner and three and a half year old daughter out of Santa Cruz, CA, to avoid being exposed to potentially deadly chemicals.

    The chemicals, known by their trade names as Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F, have been sprayed via state owned airplanes in September and October in Monterey County California. These same aerial chemicals, despite their known health risks, were sprayed on two nights (11-8, 11-9) over the people of Santa Cruz County. The purpose of this spray is to control the mating/reproductive habits of the light brown apple moth (LBAM). The prevailing belief is that the mating habits of this moth needs to be controlled because the USDA believes that the moth might cause 100 million dollars of damage (Realize that this figure is not a fact, but based on a government guess).

    The way Checkmate works is by attempting to disrupt the mating habits of the LBAM, by cluster bombing infested cities with billions of miniature time-release plastic microcapsules filled with synthetic moth sex pheromone. The pheromone gives of a scent, which supposedly confuses the male moths who then cannot find the female moths and instead will attempt to mate with other moth’s or anything that gives off that pheromone smell.

    Government’s Pesticide Experiment Program

    The California Department of Food and Agriculture’s own doctor acknowledges, in court documents, that the aerial application of this chemical has not been tested. Let me repeat this so you understand, chemicals are being sprayed on young children, nursing mother’s, people with asthma, lung problems, heart problems, the elderly, the disabled, the homeless and the chemically sensitive – and this chemical formulation has NEVER been tested on even a piece of dirt, let alone, humans. The newly designed Faroes Statement, the consensus of over 200 scientists, calls for a precautionary approach with respect to exposure of fetuses and children to environmental toxins. The consensus is that exposure of fetuses or children to chemicals can cause increased susceptibility to disease and disability later in life. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has specific directives and codes that state that they should not experiment with pesticides on pregnant women, or infants. It is a fact, since this aerial pesticide has not been proven to control the moth’s mating habits and has not been proven safe to animals or humans, that this is an experiment.

    In Monterey, approximately 100,000 residents were exposed to untested chemicals to control the mating habits of less than 750 moths. In Santa Cruz County, over 100,000 residents will be exposed between 11/06/07 — 11/09/07 to untested chemicals to control the mating habits of less than 9,000 moths. This is not a one time application, but will continue monthly beginning again in February, for nine months, and then repeated for up to a total of three years. Again, this program designed to eradicate the moth at best will only control the moth’s mating habits; it will not eliminate the moth. At worst, the program will be ineffective, cost tax payers millions of dollars, and cause permanent disability to residents and their pets. All this harm is over a little moth that has yet to cause even $1.00 of damage in California.

    Did you know that each aerial application of Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F costs approximately $3.5 million and that $3 million is paid directly to the manufacturer Suterra, LLC of Bend, Oregon?

    The projected expense of this eradication “attempt” will cost tax payers over $70 million dollars just to spray Monterey and Santa Cruz counties the proposed 9 times. These monthly sprays are already scheduled for next year to begin in March. The California Department of Food and Agriculture has created a map which shows the spray area to grow and encompass various portions of the entire San Francisco Bay Area, click on the Central Coast (www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/maps.html) . The United States EPA has authorized an emergency permit which could allow the CDFA to aerially spray the state of California until the year 2010. This Light Brown Apple Moth Eradication could cost California tax payers more than $500 million dollars when all is said and done, which is five times the projected amount of losses to the agricultural industry if the moth were to infest the state. Ridiculous and frivolous spending on untested, unproven and toxic methods of “attempted” pest eradication are unacceptable actions taken by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the California Department of Food and Agriculture. This is not a state plan, but is a plan that is sponsored, endorsed, and largely funded by the EPA and the USDA.

    Documented and Undocumented Pesticide Damage to Humans

    While the moth may cause an estimated $100 million of crop damage, one cannot put a price tag on the damage that Checkmate’s chemicals cause to humans. In Monterey County, the first county in California to be sprayed with Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F, documented affidavits show that citizens got sick, ill or suffered life threatening reactions to the toxic spray. One infant in the City of Monterey nearly died from inhalation of the experimental biochemical, and now has permanent lung damage. Dozens of women in cities throughout the Monterey Peninsula are reporting problems with their reproductive systems after exposure to the pesticide, including: sudden, severe and irregular menstrual cycles, extreme cases of tender and swollen breasts, and the recurrence of menopause symptoms in older women. Other side effects of both Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F include: asthma and sudden breathing difficulties, chest pain, vomiting, lethargy, fatigue, and extreme mood swings. Some people have coughed up blood and have gotten bloody noses from Checkmate exposure.

    If you are familiar with chemical exposure, then there is something to note which is of great alarm. If you have ever smelled paint, bleach, or something toxic like that, it takes a significant and potent amount of the chemical to make one sick. It is not typical that such small and minute amounts of chemicals can cause such severe damage as described above. The explanation for the severe side effects, is that the chemicals are in miniature balls of volatile plastic called microcapsules; thus chemicals can be introduced deeply into the body through swallowing or inhalation of the micro-sized particles. It is as if this “agricultural” product acted more like a drug on humans, than as a pesticide on moths.

    Thousands of residents, including myself, have undocumented pesticide damage. I lived forty miles from the October-Monterey spray zone, and on the last day of aerial spraying, my entire family became ill. My three and a half year old daughter vomited. I had severe intestinal distress and could not eat for several days. I felt nervous and anxious, as if I had the caffeine equivalent of 10 cups of coffee. And for the first time in my life, I had for two days orange/red colored urine (I am now recovered). I did not link these symptoms to pesticide exposure until days later upon talking and hearing about dozens of other Santa Cruz residents who were experiencing the same or similar symptoms, on or near the same day. Their symptoms included severe vomiting and dark yellow/red colored urine. Recently I learned that this exposure may not have been from pesticide drift, but from a rogue plane releasing chemicals where it was not supposed to. Witnesses have recently linked the red color to the Checkmate formulations, seeing small red droplets where the Checkmate has contacted metallic objects.

    The questions I ask myself are: What type of chemical, in such small doses, causes such profound harm? Why does a chemical claimed to be harmless to humans by the EPA, the CDFA and Governor Schwarzenegger have a significant and severe effect on the female reproductive system?

    Microcapsules = Microwarfare

    The aerial application of Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F are pheremone filled miniature plastic sphere-like particles (microcapsules), generally the same size as the width of a human hair. Each capsule is a biologically “loaded gun” due to its own chemical make-up and that of the pheromones held inside. Research indicates that the capsules are likely made out of a urea-formaldehyde polymer, the industry standard. This is an extremely volatile plastic which, under UV rays, degrades over a time period estimated to be anywhere from 30-90 days. These “agricultural” microcapsules have never been tested safe for humans. Thus, the life of these microcapsules inside our bodies is truly unknown as are the health risks of inhaling or swallowing them. Preliminary research on the microcapsules has revealed that some of them are as small as 10 microns, a size known to be dangerous to humans, with an average capsule size of 25-30 microns. Another investigation suggested that the large capsules may be made up of a cluster of smaller 3-4 micron size capsules.

    Many of the chemicals used to make the Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F products have been deemed harmful for human consumption, like butelated hydroxyl tolune (BHT). For example: on the label for BHT it says (in big letters) “Do not inhale this product. Dangerous to respiratory health.” Yet people in the spray zones in California to this day are still being exposed to BHT via the microcapsules. The symptoms documented by Monterey County residents can be directly correlated to the warning labels of BHT, and several other chemicals. BHT, is also known as DBCP, a dangerous pesticide known to cause sterility in men. Recently, Dole Food Company lost a lawsuit in which Nicaraguan Banana farmers were exposed to DBCP. In pending lawsuits, thousands of South American Farmers are claiming that they were harmed by exposure to DBCP.

    Within these microcapsules is an endocrine disrupter which attaches itself to estrogen receptors and forces the activation and constant production of estrogen to occur in the human body. This happens for men, women and children. This chemical is called 2 hydroxy 4n octyloxybenzophenone. The warnings surrounding the exposure to this toxic chemical can be directly correlated to the documented symptoms of women living within the spray zone in Monterey County. These are health concerns which CANNOT be overlooked or swept under the carpet. The projected long term effects of exposure to Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F are unknown, undocumented and until now – not even a thought in the minds of those who are authorizing the spraying, and manufacturing the chemical.

    In addition to the horrible documented health effects of coming into contact with Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F, there is a great chance that it will not even prove to be an effective investment. The EPA’s own documents state that such a microcapsule cannot successfully release pheromone, and that “The studies show that only a small proportion of the microcapsules actually release any pheromone or only a portion of the total pheromone loaded into the capsule is capable of ever being released.” Science and competent intelligence does not seem to be the methodology of this spray program; in light of such statements made, the technology cannot work.

    The EPA masks their “emergency approval” of Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F behind the assertion that the pheromones in the products are safe. They then make the scientific leap and pronounce the entire pesticide is safe to be sprayed on residential neighborhoods, schools and water ways. This arrogant assertion by the CDFA and the EPA comes, again, without ANY LEGITIMATE TESTING. Under the “emergency exemption” (also known as Section 18), regulations allow the EPA to disregard the important 3% of “inert” ingredients. The “emergency exemption” allows this disregard even though many of those ingredients are not even inert, and are actually part of the “active” ingredients. The EPA then reaches the conclusion, “EPA believes use of these pheromone products, including aerial application over residential areas, presents negligible risks to human health and the environment.” Again, these exemption laws are designed for agricultural fields like a field of apple orchards, or grapes, not for cities. This is another case of ridiculous, frivolous and blatant disregard for human health by Governor Schwarzenegger, the CDFA and the EPA.

    In addition to the aerial application which focuses on the agriculture industry, microcapsules are used in medical and military technology. In medical technology, microcapsules are used to time-release drugs into the body. The medical capsules are made out of a bio-compatible material that the body can easily absorb. Director of Public Affairs at the CDFA Steve Lyle claims that their capsules are bio-compatible too because they are made largerly from urea. Mr. Lyle contents that this urea is equivelent to the urea our body produces and is thus a “basic biodegradable building block..” The material saftey data sheet for urea (www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/u4725.htm) clearly shows that “Supersensitive individuals with skin or eye problems, kidney impairment or asthmatic condition should have physician’s approval before exposure to urea dust.” It further explains how urea is a noxious chemical to humans. In military technology, microcapsules they can be used for chemical shields, or for experimental “non-lethal” weapons (That means the weapon does not cause immediate death). These thoughts do not leave one with a pleasant taste about how these microcapsules are being used in our neighborhoods and communities, especially for just a moth.

    The over 30 billion microcapsules sprayed over Monterey County last month are not bio-compatible; and yet children are playing in them, dogs are rolling around in them, and people are inhaling them. And the state plans to continue to spray more communities over and over again begining early in 2008.

    Like pollen, the miniature capsules can float in the air and they can stick to surfaces people touch. Imagine hundreds of synthetic microscopic plastic balls floating in the environment and then entering your nose, mouth, eyes and ears. Is this safe? What happens when those minuscule plastic balls are inhaled? We know what happens. They get lodged in your lungs, you cough profusely to expel them, and you go into respiratory distress. Some Monterey County residents report asthma attacks increasing, others report coughing so hard and for such long durations that they cough up blood. One healthy adult male in the sprayed Salinas area, who jogs five miles daily, now has developed asthma since the last two aerial sprays. For the first time in his life, he must use an inhaler to help him breathe. The local doctor he sees is out of inhaler samples because he has given them all away.

    These and other serious side effects associated with the aerial application of Checkmate OLR-F and Checkmate LBAM-F are being captured by citizen groups daily. Local doctors are refusing to document that their patients’ symptoms have any relation to the aerial spraying. One doctor even told his patient (who was very ill from the spraying) that he would have to consult with this lawyer before discussing the matter further. An attorney representing the CDFA declared to a judge in Monterey County superior court during a hearing where a local environmental organization was suing the CDFA to stop the aerial spraying, that the CDFA has no intention on monitoring or following up on any of the health concerns or complaints that have been or will be filed in association with this aerial application. This is another blatant disregard for the health and well being of citizens. The CDFA can pay $3.5 million dollars to spray the residents of Monterey County, but cannot and will not spend a penny to assure citizens and residents that their health is of consequence to this program. This is repulsive! This is a crime!

    Cities Are the Targets!

    If you examine the CDFA reports (www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/PDEP/lbam/maps.html) you will see the cause for grave alarm. The LBAM aerial spraying program does not target agricultural fields with this agricultural technology, but rather targets mostly residential and urban areas that are great distances from crops and fields.

    It does not take a rocket scientist to connect the dots:

    1) A biochemical never tested before is being sprayed on cities and not agriculture.

    2) The chemical has never been tested on moths, animals, or humans for safety or efficacy.

    3) An emergency exemption is used for a moth which is not dangerous to humans; nor does it cause significant crop damage, especially in California’s warm climate regions.

    4) Minute doses of the chemical causes reproductive effects on women, and likely men.

    5) Some of the chemical ingredients have no material safety data sheets regarding human exposure, and samples of the pesticide have never been independently scrutinized except by the EPA.

    6) The majority of the funding of this project comes from the USDA and Commodity Credit Corporation funds, these funds are managed by George W. Bush appointees.

    7) Plans are being put in place to continue aerial spraying over other populated portions of California, including San Mateo, San Francisco, Oakland, and many regions in Southern California. The moth has a peculiar habit of living in cities.

    8) The spray plan does not include all the moth finds, but rather mostly moth finds in cities. For a spray plan to work to control these insects, a buffer zone should be created around all the moths; such that none escape the spray, but this is not what is being done.

    9) People who have been sprayed feel significantly impacted, physically and emotionally.

    10) People who understand the situation respond to it, as if they are being attacked.

    11) Preliminary research shows the microcapsule particles to be of a dangerous size.

    12) Microcapsules are used to deliver drugs deep into the human body.

    For me, I felt like the airplanes spraying chemicals were attacking my very right to exist and be here. What do you conclude?

    Is the Government Negligent, Or Sinister?

    The urgent question that I must bring your attention to, is this: Is the government just the biggest, dumbest entity on the planet; where they haphazardly declare an emergency, which this is not one, and then over eagerly dose whole cities with untested chemicals?

    Or,

    Is what we are experiencing part of a sinister plan to poison (or worse) a large populace, who more and more, is choosing an alternative and chemical free lifestyle? It is unclear how much the government is aware of this plan, but it is clear that the government goes out of their way to deny and hide all serious reported health claims.

    These may be scary questions to consider or you may find them amusing and absurd. But if you lived in the spray zone and experienced what we have, you might be asking yourself the same questions too.

    It is likely that both of these statements are true, that the government is acting in a negligent, and sinister way.

    A Time for Mourning

    Even if we do not know for sure the intention of the aerial spray, we must begin to acknowledge the great human tragedy that is now playing out before us.

    Over 200,000 fellow residents of California, USA, are being exposed, needlessly, to biologically active time-release chemicals. Pregnant women, infants, and the sick will be the most effected, because we know that even the most minute dose of the chemical can find its way into fetuses and affect them, and can find its way into human breast milk. These residents are being exposed to chemicals against their will. Some of them have had to rush to the emergency room for treatment. Others, like myself, have literally fled to protect their lives. Many businesses are and will be devastated as owners decide to move out if their business is affected. Many children’s hopes will be dashed when their parents decide to leave the area and the only homes they’ve ever known, and many sick and elderly people will be torn from their own homes to avoid becoming gravely ill.

    There is a war happening right here, on our own soil; as citizens try desperately to assert their right to survive, to exist, and to do so without this obscene government intrusion.

    Today is a day to mourn. A day to mourn the ignorance and the violence perpetuated on our own soil. Today is a day to acknowledge the profound and sad fact that our government seems hell bent on turning this world into a war zone. Today is a day to mourn for the children whose growing bodies are being affected by this spray and for the countless people who were not even informed about what the spray means or when it will take place. Today is a day to mourn the liars in the government, who use our tax money to test chemicals on the public and then use our money, again, to pay lawyers to defend their negligent actions in court case after court case.

    Today is not a good day, but a day when we are being called upon to surrender our greater reality that includes all of our feelings and experiences, good ones and bad ones. We must look now on what we have become as a nation, and what we have allowed to happen.

    I sincerely believe that only through looking at the outer and inner experience and through accepting our own feelings, can we find a way to both make peace within and to take effectual action in the world to stop this violence once and for all.

    The Earth is in mourning. She wants to protect her children from harm so badly.

    Recent Checkmate Aerial Spray Research Confirms Its Harm

    A recently released study about Checkmate LBAM-F by the Aquatic Toxicology Laboratory at
    The University of California, Davis confirms the danger of this aerial application. The authors state on page three that, “the microcapsules ranged in size from approximately 10 microns to 190 microns..”

    Microcapsules circa the 10 micron size range fall under the category of “particle pollution” according to the American Lung Association (ALA). On the ALA’s website they state, “”Particle pollution, called particulate matter or PM, is a combination of fine solids and aerosols that are suspended in the air we breathe… The ones of most concern are small enough to lodge deep in the lungs where they can do serious damage. They are measured in microns. The largest of concern are 10 microns in diameter.”

    Particle pollution has well documented short and long term health effects, including: death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes, including strokes; inflammation of lung tissue in young, healthy adults; increased severity of asthma attacks in children; slowed lung function growth in children and teenagers; significant damage to the small airways of the lungs; and increased risk of dying from lung cancer. Children under 18 and adults over the age of 65 will be the ones most harmed by this chemical assault.

    A Call to Action

    Aerial application of chemicals, whether supposed safe or not, violates the very roots of our democracy and the free will of the people of the United States of America. What choices will residents of this democracy have left if they choose to not be sprayed with potentially deadly chemicals and are then denied that right? If you continue to stand by and let this happen, do you think your city and your county will be immune from the next senseless government incursion? Now there are court cases and legal presidents being set, which our government can use, to justify further hostile actions against its own people.

    You cannot continue to sit around and think that you will not be affected by the actions that our government is taking today. You must act because the people here need your help. Every action you take has the potential to help. Your friends and family need you. Your country needs you. This world needs everyone of you to stand up and say loudly and clearly that you have had enough and you will not take this governmental bullying anymore!

    Here are suggestions for action:

    Call Governor Schwarzenegger who supports the biochemical aerial spraying that harms children and tell his staffers that you order the Governor to immediately halt the spraying.
    (916) 445-2841 2841 (press #1, #5, #0)
    Fax: (916) 445-4633

    See my related story: (www.NaturalNews.com/022158.html)

    Call your local senator and congressional representative. And I encourage you to call these California Senators. Federal offices will say that this is a state matter. You tell them that this LBAM eradication plan is funded by the USDA and that this is certainly a federal problem.

    (Both California US Government Senators have been sitting on the fence, even though a congressional investigation as to why the USDA and EPA are so eager to spray chemicals on people, in plain violation of their own laws, is called for.)

    Senator Diane Feinstein
    San Fransisco Office – (415) 393-0707

    Senator Barbara Boxer
    San Fransisco Office – (415) 403-0100

    Democracy Now!
    They want to here our stories,
    (www.democracynow.org/storyidea.pl)

    Send them this link with this article, or post a summary of this article to their e-mail.

    The American Civil Liberties Union
    The ACLU is a pioneer in human and civil rights, yet they claim that this is an environmental issue. Think again, this is a human rights issue, let them know (www.aclu.org/contact/general/index.html)

    The Sierra Club
    They should be suing to stop this but rather have laid back in their support, claiming that pheromones are a safer alternatives than insecticides according to the information they are receiving from the EPA. Think Again, pheromones in microcapsules, never tested before on animals or people, could be deadly. The Sierra Club is being intentionally misled into supporting a substance that they know very little about.
    Let them know your opinion. National Headquarters 415-977-5500

    The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
    They are a lead environmental organization who usually has a fabulous track record in fighting against such atrocities as spraying chemicals. However, they have been ardent supporters of pheromone use, stating that the pheromone is safe because the EPA says it is better than traditional pesticides. Note that we were also told that they have not done ANY independent research into the toxic side effects of pheromones and do not have the resources to have their own scientists do any testing. Basically they are taking the EPA and USDA’s word that it is safe, even though there are no tests available to show that it is safe or effective.

    Call them and let them know how you feel. And ask them why they aren’t doing their own tests.
    National Headquarters Telephone: (212) 727-2700
    Or the San Francisco, CA Office: (415) 875-6100

    Personal Action
    Talk to your friends about this and other government abuses.

    If you can provide us legal, scientific, medical or other expert support contact the author of this article immediately.

    Write Articles relating to this topic or to human rights in the United States.

    Alert national and international media organizations, use your personal contacts to help the cause; spread this article.

    Feel your feelings, let your feelings be present.

    Pray, Meditate, Dance, Dream, Act for peace.

    Boycott Roll International, owner of Suterra the maker’s of Checkmate
    Companies include: Fiji Water, Paramount Farms, Paramount Citrus, POM Wonderful, The Franklin Mint, and Teleflora

    Some of Checkmate’s Published Ingredients:

    Here are three published Checkmate ingredients, of particular concern, which have been and will continue to be sprayed upon humans and their environment.

    Butylated hydroxytoluene

    The Material Saftey Data Sheet States:
    “Mutagenic for mammalian somatic cells. Mutagenic for bacteria and/or yeast” “The substance may be toxic to blood, liver, central nervous system(CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substances can produce target organs damage.”

    Tricaprylmethyammonimum chloride

    There is no information or documentation about this substance or how chronic exposure to it can effect human health. That means we cannot be certain that even small doses are safe.

    2-hydroxy-4-n-octyloxybenzophenone

    This is a Xenochemical that binds to estrogen receptors not just in animals, but in humans. In other words, even in small doses, it signals people’s bodies to take a specific biological action. Even small doses could affect hormonal functions by causing the constant production of estrogen. Prolonged exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals is the cause of breast cancer.

    Legal Cases

    Helping Our Peninsula’s Environment sued for a restraining order to stop aerial spraying in Monterey and lost because the disputed Checkmate ingredient was not in the EPA’s documents; even though the pesticide manufacturer, Suterra, reported that they did use the disputed ingredient in the manufacture of Checkmate. The lawsuit included a document by a former EPA chemist showing how such an aerial spray program is dangerous to both humans and the environment. The lawsuit continues. Text of HOPE’s lawsuit is at (www.1hope.org/SPRAYTRO.PDF)

    The City and County of Santa Cruz voted to sue the California Department of Food and Agriculture, they too lost their request for a restraining order of the spray, even with a rock-solid case which stated that the county could not perform its functions; such as school, police, protect, and administer the city while aerial spraying continued. They too did not get a restraining order, as their case continues. You can read the court case here
    (www.santacruzcourt.org/News/lbam.htm)

    A group of local residents filed suit in Federal Court and also did not get a restraining order, but did get a November 21st, 2007 Federal Court date to have their case more fully considered. Please consider attending this monumental hearing as citizens will stand and defend their civil liberties and right to a healthy life. Docket #0705587

    Conclusion

    Telling you this truth, about this atrocity, is my prayer and hope for peace.

    I leave you with part of this press release by a strong opponent to the aerial spraying, California State Senator John Laird.

    “Of greatest concern to me is the notion that speculative economic impacts may be outweighing the need to protect human health. In Monterey County there are reports of more than 200 health complaints associated with aerial spraying. Yet, to date there is no evidence that reports have been analyzed, and a promised ‘white paper’ on the toxicological data on the pheromone product and the health complaints taken as a whole has not been released. In fact, in his October 26th letter to me, CDFA Secretary Kawamura indicated there are no plans to either study long term effects of the spraying or conduct an epidemiological analysis of the complaints CDFA has received.

    In light of the unresolved health complaints and unanswered scientific questions, the “precautionary principle” should serve as a guide. It has been described as a political and moral principle that says if an action or policy could harm the public or the environment, the burden of proof falls on the proponent of the action — rather than on the public.

    It was determined in Superior Court that the County of Santa Cruz failed to meet the burden of proof required to obtain a temporary restraining order against the state. However, in the court of public opinion, the burden of proof ought to be on CDFA to prove LBAM-F and OLR-F are safe prior to spraying it on residential populations monthly for an open-ended period of time.”

    (http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/MEMBERS/A27/press/20071103AD27PR01.htm)

    Further information and research about the Light Brown Apple Moth Aerial Spray program is available at: Hope For Truth

    About the author

    Rami Nagel is a father who cares about the way we affect each other, our children, and our planet through our lifestyle choices. His health background is in hands-on energy healing, Hatha & Bhakti yoga and the Pathwork.
    Rami is author of several health resources:
    www.curetoothdecay.com – Heal and Prevent Cavities with Nutrition!
    www.healingourchildren.net – Learn the Cause and Prevention of the Diseases of Pregnancy and Childhood
    www.preconceptionhealth.org – A Program for Preconception Health based on Indigenous Wisdom
    www.yourreturn.org – The cause of disease and the end of suffering of humanity.

    How will Real ID affect you?

    0

    By Declan McCullagh  

    A May deadline looms as just one flash point in a political showdown between Homeland Security and states that oppose Real ID demands. This is the last in a four-part series examining the confrontation. Today’s installment is a set of frequently asked questions, or FAQ, that we hope explains how the Real ID law affects you.

    The Real ID law is touted by Homeland Security officials as an anticrime and antiterror measure, but is steadfastly opposed by some state governments on privacy and sovereignty grounds. Computer scientists also have raised concerns about how its creation of a national interlinked database would work in practice. Keep reading for more on Real ID.

    Q: When does the Real ID Act take effect?
    On May 11, a little more than three months from now. But states like California that have agreed to comply and ones like Pennsylvania that have requested a deadline extension are not affected–driver’s licenses from those states will continue to work for entering federal buildings and flying commercially.

    Some states seem to have requested an extension as a tactical maneuver with little intention of ever complying. Washington and Idaho may fall into this category. A spokesman for Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter told us: “We’ve asked for an extension, but we still have serious concerns and reservations about it and its future here is to be determined.”

    Q: Who’s going to have trouble flying or entering federal buildings starting May 11?
    Residents of the five states–Maine, South Carolina, Montana, Oklahoma, and New Hampshire–that have firmly rejected Real ID. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have not decided yet, meaning they could fall into this category too.

    Q: So if I live in Maine, South Carolina, Montana, Oklahoma, or New Hampshire, and I want to fly out of any U.S. airport starting May 11, what happens?
    The Bush administration has not answered that question. The Transportation Security Administration referred our questions to the Department of Homeland Security. A Homeland Security spokesman told us: “That’s an operational, ongoing issue at this point in time. We’ll need to be a bit closer in.”

    One likely situation is that starting May 11, security checkpoints at all U.S. airports will have a Real ID and a non-Real ID line. Non-Real ID would be in the slow line, which Homeland Security predicts will involve “delays” and “enhanced security screening.” (One official with the Portland International Airport even joked about a mandatory “full body cavity search.”)

    Q: Can I use a U.S. passport instead to get in the fast line?
    Yes. If you don’t have one, you’d better apply soon. The State Department estimates four to six weeks for processing.

    Q: If I live in one of those noncompliant states, how do I access federal buildings, including courthouses, veteran’s hospitals, Social Security offices, and so on?
    At airports, at least, you can get in the slow lane and eventually get past security. There’s no equivalent option for federal buildings that require ID: it appears that you’ll simply be denied access unless you have a passport or military ID. (Remember, of course, that not all federal buildings require ID.)

    Ironically, one option for federal agencies is to stop requiring photo ID completely. Another is to be liberal in what they accept as valid identification; you could always try your Sam’s Club card or library card instead. Homeland Security already has relaxed supposedly strict rules about what ID is accepted at border crossings.

    Q: Will the federal government issue more regulations about when I have to show a Real ID license?
    Probably. One Homeland Security official told Congress last year that Real ID could be used for “reducing unlawful employment, voter fraud, and underage drinking.” Another recently suggested that Americans buying cold medicines like Sudafed with pseudoephedrine could be required to show Real ID.

    Q: Does Homeland Security have the authority to do that kind of expansion, or can only Congress expand Real ID?
    Homeland Security has the authority. The text of the law says that, starting May 11, “a federal agency may not accept, for any official purpose, a driver’s license or identification card issued by a state to any person unless the state is meeting the requirements of this section.” Official purpose is defined to include “any other purposes” that Homeland Security thinks is wise.

    The potential list of “purposes” could be long. Real ID could in theory be required for traveling on Amtrak, collecting federal welfare benefits, signing up for Social Security, applying for student loans, interacting with the U.S. Postal Service, entering national parks, and so on.

    Q: What about buying firearms?
    That’s an open question. Homeland Security last month refused to rule out requiring Real ID for firearm purchases in the future.

    When asked about requiring Real ID to buy a firearm, Homeland Security replied: “DHS will continue to consider additional ways in which a Real ID license can or should be used and will implement any changes to the definition of ‘official purpose’ or determinations regarding additional uses for Real ID consistent with applicable laws and regulatory requirements. DHS does not agree that it must seek the approval of Congress as a prerequisite to changing the definition in the future.”

    Q: Which presidential candidates voted for Real ID?
    All of them who were members of Congress at the time voted for Real ID except Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican.

    The vote in Congress was overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal, part of a broader government spending and tsunami relief bill that was approved unanimously by the Senate and by a vote of 368 to 58 in the House of Representatives. Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain voted for it.

    Q: What kind of information about me is going to be stored on the Real ID card?
    This hasn’t changed substantially since our earlier FAQ published nearly three years ago. At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a “common machine-readable technology” that Homeland Security approves. The card must also sport “physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes.”

    Q: Does “common machine-readable technology” mean RFID?
    Not at this point. Homeland Security has said it is not requiring that states use RFID chips, or radio frequency ID chips, in Real ID licenses. Instead, what’s required is a two-dimensional barcode called PDF417. Many states already print this or a similar barcode on their driver’s licenses.

    Q: Will the information about me on the PDF417 barcode, such as my home address, be encrypted to prevent a bank or a bar or any other business from swiping it and adding me to their database?
    No. Homeland Security said it would be too much work “given law enforcement’s need for easy access to the information.” It is, however, “open to considering technology alternatives to the PDF417 2D bar code in the future to provide greater privacy protections,” which could mean RFID chips in the future. U.S. passports already have RFID chips embedded.

    Q: What kind of data will states share under Real ID?
    Real ID will require states to share detailed information about anyone with a state ID card or driver’s license, perhaps through a network called AAMVAnet, which the Department of Transportation is paying to expand in hopes of supporting the massive amount of data that will be exchanged. Databases owned by Social Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services will also be integrated. The idea is that this will allow documents such as birth certificates to be validated online.

    Many of the details remain unclear because Homeland Security has not made final decisions, including about whether to build on top of AAMVAnet or expand a centralized federal database already used for commercial driver’s licensing. Computer scientists and privacy advocates unsuccessfully urged Homeland Security to reject Real ID as “unworkable” because of the security and scalability concerns.

    Q: If there’s no encryption, is there at least a federal law saying that banks and bars and so on are prohibited from compiling databases of personal information based on Real ID licenses?
    No. Some states like California and Texas have passed laws restricting the use of information from a swiped driver’s license. But there is no federal law.

    Q: I heard something about Homeland Security giving states more time to issue Real ID-compliant licenses. What is the absolute deadline for all of this to be finished?
    To make Real ID more palatable to state governments, Homeland Security extended the final deadline beyond what the text of the statute says.

    In the final rule released last month, DHS said the deadline for all states to comply would be December 1, 2017. Only states that can prove they are well on their way to implementing Real ID qualify for this deadline extension.

    Q: What does this mean for me if I live in one of the states that will eventually comply with Real ID?
    It’s difficult to answer this question because state governments told us they haven’t had enough time to digest the final rules that Homeland Security published last month.

    In general, state motor vehicle agencies will be required to verify that you are who you claim to be, which could require that you provide additional paperwork and original documents. This could mean higher costs and longer wait times at the DMV.

    Q: Why do we have Real ID, anyway?
    It depends on who you ask. The Bush administration will tell you that it stems from the 9/11 Commission’s suggestions, and it’ll make the country safer. The administration will also point out that some of the September 11 hijackers had fake driver’s licenses.

    Critics respond by saying the September 11 hijackers could have just as easily boarded those flights using foreign passports. Another criticism is that Real ID licenses are tantamount to a national ID card, something unique in American history.

    Q: What about religious objections?
    Thousands of Americans do not have photographs on their driver’s licenses or state ID cards, usually because of religious objections. Approximately a dozen states currently allow this, but Real ID does not. Therefore, those licenses without photos will not be valid for flying or federal buildings starting May 11.

    Q: Is there any chance that the next administration or Congress will roll back these requirements before they kick in?
    It’s a little early to tell. Obama and Clinton have both expressed some concerns about Real ID, while McCain enthusiastically supports it.

    Q: Is all this really going to happen? Or could Homeland Security change its mind?
    Yes, it’s possible that something could change. But neither Homeland Security nor the non-Real ID states show any signs of blinking. In addition, any legal changes would probably have to originate with Congress–where a proposal to amend Real ID has been stuck in a Senate committee since February 2007.

    FBI Private Contractors With ‘Shoot to Kill’ Powers

    0

    FBI Deputizes Private Contractors With Extraordinary Powers, Including ‘Shoot to Kill’

    The FBI has a new set of eyes and ears, and they’re being told to protect their infrastructure at any cost. They can even kill without repercussion.

    Matthew Rothschild

    Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does — and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law. InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

    InfraGard started in Cleveland back in 1996, when the private sector there cooperated with the FBI to investigate cyber threats.

    “Then the FBI cloned it,” says Phyllis Schneck, chairman of the board of directors of the InfraGard National Members Alliance, and the prime mover behind the growth of InfraGard over the last several years.

    InfraGard itself is still an FBI operation, with FBI agents in each state overseeing the local InfraGard chapters. (There are now eighty-six of them.) The alliance is a nonprofit organization of private sector InfraGard members.

    “We are the owners, operators, and experts of our critical infrastructure, from the CEO of a large company in agriculture or high finance to the guy who turns the valve at the water utility,” says Schneck, who by day is the vice president of research integration at Secure Computing.

    “At its most basic level, InfraGard is a partnership between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the private sector,” the InfraGard website states. “InfraGard chapters are geographically linked with FBI Field Office territories.”

    In November 2001, InfraGard had around 1,700 members. As of late January, InfraGard had 23,682 members, according to its website, www.infragard.net, which adds that “350 of our nation’s Fortune 500 have a representative in InfraGard.”

    To join, each person must be sponsored by “an existing InfraGard member, chapter, or partner organization.” The FBI then vets the applicant. On the application form, prospective members are asked which aspect of the critical infrastructure their organization deals with. These include: agriculture, banking and finance, the chemical industry, defense, energy, food, information and telecommunications, law enforcement, public health, and transportation.

    FBI Director Robert Mueller addressed an InfraGard convention on August 9, 2005. At that time, the group had less than half as many members as it does today. “To date, there are more than 11,000 members of InfraGard,” he said. “From our perspective that amounts to 11,000 contacts . . . and 11,000 partners in our mission to protect America.” He added a little later, “Those of you in the private sector are the first line of defense.”

    He urged InfraGard members to contact the FBI if they “note suspicious activity or an unusual event.” And he said they could sic the FBI on “disgruntled employees who will use knowledge gained on the job against their employers.”

    In an interview with InfraGard after the conference, which is featured prominently on the InfraGard members’ website, Mueller says: “It’s a great program.”

    The ACLU is not so sanguine.

    “There is evidence that InfraGard may be closer to a corporate TIPS program, turning private-sector corporations — some of which may be in a position to observe the activities of millions of individual customers — into surrogate eyes and ears for the FBI,” the ACLU warned in its August 2004 report The Surveillance-Industrial Complex: How the American Government Is Conscripting Businesses and Individuals in the Construction of a Surveillance Society.

    InfraGard is not readily accessible to the general public. Its communications with the FBI and Homeland Security are beyond the reach of the Freedom of Information Act under the “trade secrets” exemption, its website says. And any conversation with the public or the media is supposed to be carefully rehearsed.

    “The interests of InfraGard must be protected whenever presented to non-InfraGard members,” the website states. “During interviews with members of the press, controlling the image of InfraGard being presented can be difficult. Proper preparation for the interview will minimize the risk of embarrassment. . . . The InfraGard leadership and the local FBI representative should review the submitted questions, agree on the predilection of the answers, and identify the appropriate interviewee. . . . Tailor answers to the expected audience. . . . Questions concerning sensitive information should be avoided.”

    One of the advantages of InfraGard, according to its leading members, is that the FBI gives them a heads-up on a secure portal about any threatening information related to infrastructure disruption or terrorism.

    The InfraGard website advertises this. In its list of benefits of joining InfraGard, it states: “Gain access to an FBI secure communication network complete with VPN encrypted website, webmail, listservs, message boards, and much more.”

    InfraGard members receive “almost daily updates” on threats “emanating from both domestic sources and overseas,” Hershman says.

    “We get very easy access to secure information that only goes to InfraGard members,” Schneck says. “People are happy to be in the know.”

    On November 1, 2001, the FBI had information about a potential threat to the bridges of California. The alert went out to the InfraGard membership. Enron was notified, and so, too, was Barry Davis, who worked for Morgan Stanley. He notified his brother Gray, the governor of California.

    “He said his brother talked to him before the FBI,” recalls Steve Maviglio, who was Davis’s press secretary at the time. “And the governor got a lot of grief for releasing the information. In his defense, he said, ‘I was on the phone with my brother, who is an investment banker. And if he knows, why shouldn’t the public know?’ ”

    Maviglio still sounds perturbed about this: “You’d think an elected official would be the first to know, not the last.”

    In return for being in the know, InfraGard members cooperate with the FBI and Homeland Security. “InfraGard members have contributed to about 100 FBI cases,” Schneck says. “What InfraGard brings you is reach into the regional and local communities. We are a 22,000-member vetted body of subject-matter experts that reaches across seventeen matrixes. All the different stovepipes can connect with InfraGard.”

    Schneck is proud of the relationships the InfraGard Members Alliance has built with the FBI. “If you had to call 1-800-FBI, you probably wouldn’t bother,” she says. “But if you knew Joe from a local meeting you had with him over a donut, you might call them. Either to give or to get. We want everyone to have a little black book.”

    This black book may come in handy in times of an emergency. “On the back of each membership card,” Schneck says, “we have all the numbers you’d need: for Homeland Security, for the FBI, for the cyber center. And by calling up as an InfraGard member, you will be listened to.” She also says that members would have an easier time obtaining a “special telecommunications card that will enable your call to go through when others will not.”

    This special status concerns the ACLU.

    “The FBI should not be creating a privileged class of Americans who get special treatment,” says Jay Stanley, public education director of the ACLU’s technology and liberty program. “There’s no ‘business class’ in law enforcement. If there’s information the FBI can share with 22,000 corporate bigwigs, why don’t they just share it with the public? That’s who their real ‘special relationship’ is supposed to be with. Secrecy is not a party favor to be given out to friends. . . . This bears a disturbing resemblance to the FBI’s handing out ‘goodies’ to corporations in return for folding them into its domestic surveillance machinery.”

    When the government raises its alert levels, InfraGard is in the loop. For instance, in a press release on February 7, 2003, the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General announced that the national alert level was being raised from yellow to orange. They then listed “additional steps” that agencies were taking to “increase their protective measures.” One of those steps was to “provide alert information to InfraGard program.”

    “They’re very much looped into our readiness capability,” says Amy Kudwa, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security. “We provide speakers, as well as do joint presentations [with the FBI]. We also train alongside them, and they have participated in readiness exercises.”

    On May 9, 2007, George Bush issued National Security Presidential Directive 51 entitled “National Continuity Policy.” In it, he instructed the Secretary of Homeland Security to coordinate with “private sector owners and operators of critical infrastructure, as appropriate, in order to provide for the delivery of essential services during an emergency.”

    Asked if the InfraGard National Members Alliance was involved with these plans, Schneck said it was “not directly participating at this point.” Hershman, chairman of the group’s advisory board, however, said that it was.

    InfraGard members, sometimes hundreds at a time, have been used in “national emergency preparation drills,” Schneck acknowledges.

    “In case something happens, everybody is ready,” says Norm Arendt, the head of the Madison, Wisconsin, chapter of InfraGard, and the safety director for the consulting firm Short Elliott Hendrickson, Inc. “There’s been lots of discussions about what happens under an emergency.”

    One business owner in the United States tells me that InfraGard members are being advised on how to prepare for a martial law situation — and what their role might be. He showed me his InfraGard card, with his name and e-mail address on the front, along with the InfraGard logo and its slogan, “Partnership for Protection.” On the back of the card were the emergency numbers that Schneck mentioned.

    This business owner says he attended a small InfraGard meeting where agents of the FBI and Homeland Security discussed in astonishing detail what InfraGard members may be called upon to do.

    “The meeting started off innocuously enough, with the speakers talking about corporate espionage,” he says. “From there, it just progressed. All of a sudden we were knee deep in what was expected of us when martial law is declared. We were expected to share all our resources, but in return we’d be given specific benefits.” These included, he says, the ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out. But that’s not all.

    “Then they said when — not if — martial law is declared, it was our responsibility to protect our portion of the infrastructure, and if we had to use deadly force to protect it, we couldn’t be prosecuted,” he says.

    I was able to confirm that the meeting took place where he said it had, and that the FBI and Homeland Security did make presentations there. One InfraGard member who attended that meeting denies that the subject of lethal force came up. But the whistleblower is 100 percent certain of it. “I have nothing to gain by telling you this, and everything to lose,” he adds. “I’m so nervous about this, and I’m not someone who gets nervous.”

    Though Schneck says that FBI and Homeland Security agents do make presentations to InfraGard, she denies that InfraGard members would have any civil patrol or law enforcement functions. “I have never heard of InfraGard members being told to use lethal force anywhere,” Schneck says.

    The FBI adamantly denies it, also. “That’s ridiculous,” says Catherine Milhoan, an FBI spokesperson. “If you want to quote a businessperson saying that, knock yourself out. If that’s what you want to print, fine.”

    But one other InfraGard member corroborated the whistleblower’s account, and another would not deny it.

    Christine Moerke is a business continuity consultant for Alliant Energy in Madison, Wisconsin. She says she’s an InfraGard member, and she confirms that she has attended InfraGard meetings that went into the details about what kind of civil patrol function — including engaging in lethal force — that InfraGard members may be called upon to perform.

    “There have been discussions like that, that I’ve heard of and participated in,” she says.

    Curt Haugen is CEO of S’Curo Group, a company that does “strategic planning, business continuity planning and disaster recovery, physical and IT security, policy development, internal control, personnel selection, and travel safety,” according to its website. Haugen tells me he is a former FBI agent and that he has been an InfraGard member for many years. He is a huge booster. “It’s the only true organization where there is the public-private partnership,” he says. “It’s all who knows who. You know a face, you trust a face. That’s what makes it work.”

    He says InfraGard “absolutely” does emergency preparedness exercises. When I ask about discussions the FBI and Homeland Security have had with InfraGard members about their use of lethal force, he says: “That much I cannot comment on. But as a private citizen, you have the right to use force if you feel threatened.”

    “We were assured that if we were forced to kill someone to protect our infrastructure, there would be no repercussions,” the whistleblower says. “It gave me goose bumps. It chilled me to the bone.”

    US woman abused by police

    11

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq3jV1_GOTs[/youtube]

    This is common treatment
    for women in US jails

    The is absolutely nothing unusual about women being stripped naked and left without covering of any kind in cold jail cells for hours at a time.

    It’s a popular humiliation technique used in corrupt police departments throughout the country.

    If it weren’t for this video, a TV local station’s news report, and the Internet, no one would know that this particular event ever happened.

    Keep in mind that this woman was a crime victim who called the police for help after she was assaulted.

    The piece of self-propelled human garbage who runs this Sheriff’s Department is Timothy A. Swanson.

    He says – and I quote – that the thugs who work for him “did everything by the book.

    Here’s his web site: http://www.sheriff.co.stark.oh.us/
    http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/270.html

    FOX-5 Foreknowledge of WTC-7 Collapse

    Lee Rogers UPDATE2: Upon further review, it looks as if this was reported a few minutes after the actual collapse at 5:20 PM, so it might not have been a live shot. So it isn’t as damning as the BBC and CNN clips are, but it is still strong evidence indicating that someone was feeding the media with the structural damage story in advance. The fact that they were parroting the official story of the WTC-7 collapse minutes after the event is ridiculous even after they watched the building come down at free fall speed.

    UPDATE: I might have rushed to get this out a bit too quickly last night without verifying the time stamp on the clip. I’ll review the archives again and double check to see if the timestamp matches up with the actual building collapse. The thumbnails indicate that this might have been reported a few minutes past 5:20 PM EST. If it doesn’t match up with the actual time of the event than they might have been looking at a taped version of the collapse. Either way, there is no disputing the BBC and CNN clips of foreknowledge and there is no doubt that Fox-5, the BBC and CNN were being fed the same information for the cover story of the collapse. Even if they are watching a taped version, it is ridiculous that they already had a prepared report that mirrors the official story of the collapse minutes right after the building fell.

    It is a known fact that both CNN and the BBC reported on September 11th, 2001 that WTC-7 a 47-story building had collapsed despite the fact that the building was still standing in their own video footage. These video clips are proof that someone fed information to the media with a cover story for the WTC-7 building collapse knowing full well that the building was going to be brought down in advance. The only way that they could know that the building was coming down in advance, is if the building was to be intentionally brought down with explosives. How could anyone predict a building coming down that had very little fire damage unless they knew that a controlled demolition was set to take place? The official story of structural failure just doesn’t add up. Amazingly, it appears now that CNN and the BBC weren’t the only news agencies to have been fed and reported on this information prior to WTC-7’s actual collapse. Video footage straight from the September 11th, 2001 Internet archives shows the news anchors from Fox’s Washington DC affiliate Fox-5 reporting that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown New York City and just moments later their own video footage shows the same building they said already collapsed, collapse at free fall speed. The video clip is surreal. Watch the approximately three-minute long segment below. The raw WMV file can be downloaded here, or view the full clip from the Internet Archive, here.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwUJ9MhzgKI[/youtube]

    The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.

    Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.

    “We are seeing video today that only Hollywood could have produced at another time. We have seen the Twin Towers come apart right in front of our eyes. We have seen aircraft smashing in the side of them. Just now, we saw another building as a part of that complex go down. It is so unbelievable; it is so surreal, that it is very hard for most Americans, most anyone in the world to be able to grasp what is really taking place here. The folks running who are running things however do have a grasp of it.”

    Below are the other known clips of media foreknowledge of the WTC-7 collapse from both CNN and the BBC.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc[/youtube]

    BBC Reports WTC-7 Collapses Before Actual Event

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o[/youtube]

    CNN Reports WTC-7 Had Collapsed Before Actual Event

    Can there be any doubt at this point in time that WTC-7 was brought down in a controlled demolition? We now have three major news networks reporting that WTC-7 collapsed before the event took place indicating that people had foreknowledge of the building collapse. The building fell in 6.5 seconds at free fall speed despite the building only have minor fire damage. Demolition experts have also watched the collapse of WTC-7 and have concluded that it was a controlled demolition.

    Being that WTC-7 is a clear cut case of a controlled demolition, there is no way that a 47-story building could be wired with explosives in 8-hours worth of time right after the planes hit the Twin Towers. WTC-7 must have been wired with explosives in advance, indicating that someone knew what was going to happen on 9/11, meaning that the events of 9/11 were an inside job. This is just one of many pieces of evidence that indicate the official story is a complete and total fraud. The 9/11 Commission was formed to white wash the official story with establishment cronies like Phillip Zelikow placed on it to ensure that the investigation didn’t get too close to the Bush administration. This video clip is more proof that high profile individuals like Willie Nelson and Charlie Sheen who have come out questioning the official story of 9/11 are the true patriots and people like Bill O’Reilly who refuse to investigate this information and name call those who do are the real pinheads.

    Father Jailed For 0.01g Of Cannabis

    0

    By BETH HALE

    Briton jailed for four years in Dubai after customs find cannabis weighing less than a grain of sugar under his shoe

    A father-of-three who was found with a microscopic speck of cannabis stuck to the bottom of one of his shoes has been sentenced to four years in a Dubai prison.

    Keith Brown, a council youth development officer, was travelling through the United Arab Emirates on his way back to England when he was stopped as he walked through Dubai’s main airport.

    A search by customs officials uncovered a speck of cannabis weighing just 0.003g – so small it would be invisible to the naked eye and weighing less than a grain of sugar – on the tread of one of his shoes.

    Dubai International Airport is a major hub for the Middle East and thousands of Britons pass through it every year to holiday in the glamorous beach and shopping haven.

    But many of those tourists and business travellers are likely to be unaware of the strict zero-tolerance drugs policy in the UAE.

    One man has even been jailed for possession of three poppy seeds left over from a bread roll he ate at Heathrow Airport. Painkiller codeine is also banned.

    If suspicious of a traveller, customs officials can use high-tech equipment to uncover even the slightest trace of drugs.

    Mr Brown was detained and arrested in September last year and has been held in a cell with three other men in the city prison ever since.

    This week the youth worker, who has two young children and a partner at home in Smethwick, West Midlands, was sentenced to four years in prison.

    A 25-year-old Briton who was found with a similar speck in one pocket as he arrived on holiday has been awaiting sentence since November.

    Meanwhile a Big Brother TV executive has so far been held without charge for five days after being arrested for possessing the health supplement melatonin.

    The authorities claim to have discovered 0.01g of hashish in his luggage.

    Last night Mr Brown’s brother Lee said his case “defied belief”.

    “For that sort of amount common sense should prevail, from where it was found it was obviously something that had been crushed on the floor – it could have come from anywhere.”

    Rastafarian Mr Brown had been returning from a short trip to Ethiopia, where one of his children lives and where he owns property.

    He was travelling with his partner Imani, who was also stopped and detained for more than a week.

    Normally he flew direct to and from the UK, but decided to stop off in Dubai.

    “He was incensed when he called me,” said driving instructor Lee, 57. “It would be funny if the circumstances weren’t so unpleasant.

    “Bugs are crawling out of his mattress when he’s sleeping. His family are frantic with worry and can’t call him.”

    Last night campaign group Fair Trials International advised visitors to Dubai and Abu Dhabi to “take extreme caution”.

    Chief Executive Catherine Wolthuizen said: “We have seen a steep increase in such cases over the last 18 months.

    “Customs authorities are using highly sensitive new equipment to conduct extremely thorough searches on travellers and if they find any amount – no matter how minute – it will be enough to attract a mandatory four-year prison sentence.”

    Mrs Wolthuizen added: “We even have reports of the imprisonment of a Swiss man for ‘possession’ of three poppy seeds on his clothing after he ate a bread roll at Heathrow.

    Cat Le-HuyHeld: A campaign is underway to secure the release of Cat Le-Huy from a Dubai jail

    “What many travellers may not realise is that they can be deemed to be in possession of such banned substances if they can be detected in their urine or bloodstream, or even in tiny, trace amounts on their person.”

    Only two months after Mr Brown was stopped economics graduate Robert Dalton was detained in almost identical circumstances.

    Mr Dalton, from Gravesend, on Kent was with two friends when he was stopped and asked to empty his pockets.

    Officials found 0.03g of cannabis in a small amount of fluff. He is currently on trial and if convicted, is likely receive a four-year prison sentence.

    Last night his brother Peter, 26, told how it took 24 hours to find out why he had been stopped.

    “As we understand, the amount of cannabis was barely visible to the human eye and was at the bottom of the pocket of an old pair of jeans.

    “He’s not a drug user, but he goes clubbing and the speck was so small.”

    Last week Cat Le-Huy, a London-based German national, was arrested on arrival at the airport.

    Mr Le-Huy, 31, head of technology with Big Brother production company Endemol, was arrested on suspicion of possessing illegal drugs after customs officers found melatonin, a health supplement used for jet lag available over the counter both in Dubai and in the US.

    Authorities also claim they discovered fragments in one of his bags which they believe to be hashish. Fair Trials International said the amount was 0.01g.

    DARPA 2009: Brains-on-a-Chip, Transparent Displays

    By Noah Shachtman

    Brains-on-a-chip, robotic rescue choppers, see-through displays — those are just a few of the projects that the Pentagon’s mad science division has hatched up for next year. 

    Earlier this week, DARPA, the Defense Department’s way-out research arm, submitted its $3.29 billion budget for the 2009 fiscal year. In it are dozens of new programs — one more far-reaching than the next.

    A particularly wild project is Systems of Neuromorphic Adaptive Plastic Scalable Electronics, or SyNAPSE. “The program will develop a brain inspired electronic ‘chip’ that mimics that function, size, and power consumption of a biological cortex,” DARPA promises us. “If successful, the program will provide the foundations for functional machines to supplement humans in many of the most demanding situations faced by warfighters today” — like getting usable information out of video feeds, and starting tasks.  The agency is looking to spend $3 million next year, to get started on its faux brain effort.  My guess is that it will take considerably more cash to get it done.

    The “Nightingale” program aims to put together the building blocks for a “fully autonomous” flyer that could some day serve as both an unmanned ambulance-in-the-sky and as a robotic search-and-rescue chopper. Looking for, picking up and stabilizing the wounded are dangerous, complicated jobs. But, by squeezing “integrated life support capabilities into a small unmanned (or optionally piloted) air vehicle,” DARPA thinks Nightingale could keep some soldiers out of harm’s way. Not only would the drone search for the missing and wounded. This “low cost, high availability air ambulance” could be deployed near the warzone, to get casualties to combat hospitals in a hurry.  

    Of course, making this a reality won’t be easy. “Technical challenges include intelligent autonomous flight behavior, sensor integrated guidance and control to enable flight in complex terrain, fully autonomous selection…of suitable landing locations, dual mode (ground and flight) propulsion, collaboration/coordination with human combat medics and safe and rapid autonomous launch and return to advanced medical facilities.”

    Just about everything, in other words.

    And that isn’t the only new robot project DARPA has in mind for 2009. There’s a $4 million effort to start work on a “robotic naval vessel to operate for years with minimal human interaction.” $4.5 million to build a teeny-tiny, unmanned Osprey that can perch on a rooftop, and silently spy on foes. Another $4 million to arm small drones with an “inexpensive, low weight precision munition that is effective against soft targets,” including individual people. And $2 million for a walking “tetrapod” to carry soldiers’ gear. (That sounds like our favorite robot, the eerily lifelike, four-legged BigDog.)

    DARPA is also looking to spend $5 million next year on laser-guided bullets — ammo steered by beams of coherent light, and able to turn on a dime. If the program works as planned, the agency promises, “it will make every shooter with any .50-caliber weapon” into “a precision sniper at greater than 2 kilometer range.”

    Another $3 million will go towards spotting rocket-propelled grenades — before they’re launched, somehow. DARPA doesn’t elaborate how the trick would be pulled off, only that it would involve “cognitive swarm recognition technology.” In phase one of the program, DARPA boasts, the system will be capable of “detection rates greater than 95%.”

    DARPA is also looking to spend $3 million next year on “transparent displays.” How would you make those? Simple… By “exploiting the optical plasmon phenomenology characteristics of nanoscale structures.” (Contact DANGER ROOM HQ immediately in you can translate.) These new gadgets will replace existing models “in a host of applications, such as canopy- windshield- window-integrated… and new, light-weight avionics displays.” Soldiers today have to use clunky monocles or PDAs — if they use anything at all — to get data on the run. DARPA figures this project might lead to “integrated helmet display visors, bringing the digital battle space to the individual warfighter.” 

    White House Defends ‘Waterboarding’ Torture

    0

    The White House is defending the use of the interrogation technique known as waterboarding in certain, rare circumstances when suspects are believed to have knowledge of an imminent threat. VOA’s Paula Wolfson reports the Central Intelligence Agency now admits it used the technique roughly five years ago on three top terror suspects.

    Tony Fratto, 04 Jan 2008
    Tony Fratto, 04 Jan 2008

    White House spokesman Tony Fratto says President Bush personally authorized the disclosure – breaking with the long-standing practice in the administration of refusing comment on specific interrogation techniques.

    He says the decision to have Central Intelligence Agency chief Michael Hayden go before a Congressional committee and reveal the use of waterboarding in the past was difficult, because it could provide the enemy with information about the CIA’s program for questioning terror suspects.

    “This decision to allow General Hayden to talk about the technique wasn’t taken lightly,” Fratto said. “There was discussion of great concern about starting to talk about something we don’t ordinarily do for reasons that we feel very strongly about.”

    Fratto says so much misinformation has been disseminated about the interrogation program, that the White House felt it was time to set the record straight.

    Fratto says waterboarding – which simulates drowning – was approved in a few specific instances and with certain safeguards in place.

    The CIA banned the practice in 2006. Fratto says interrogators might be able to use it again, but emphasized they would need authorization from the president to do so.

    He noted that any CIA request to use the technique would have to be declared legal by the Justice Department before consideration at the White House. He says approval depends on the circumstances, adding one important factor would be the belief that an attack might be imminent.

    “Any change to the enhanced interrogation technique that may be used will follow the process that I outlined which includes a legal review and notification of Congress,” he said.

    Critics have called waterboarding a form of torture. But Fratto says its use in the past under the conditions approved by the attorney general and the president was legal.

    On Capitol Hill, a senior Democrat – Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois – denounced the use of waterboarding under any circumstances. He noted that in its annual human rights report, the U.S. State Department is quick to condemn other nations that use harsh interrogation techniques on prisoners.

    “So once a year we stand in judgment of the world, and condemn them for engaging in waterboarding and torture techniques on their prisoners,” he said. “And yet it is clear from the testimony yesterday of General Hayden, that we have engaged in some of those own techniques.”

    The U.N.’s torture investigator also responded to the CIA disclosure, calling on the Bush administration to give up its defense of enhanced interrogation methods such as waterboarding. Manfred Nowak told the Associated Press in Geneva that these techniques are totally unacceptable under international law.

    FBI to build $1Bn biometrics database

    0

    The FBI is expected to announce this week the awarding of a $1 billion, 10-year contract to develop the largest and most comprehensive government biometrics database in history — with information on the palm prints, eye scans, tattoos, and other identifying physical data of citizens and those who pass through.

    First up (…) are palm prints [said Thomas Bush, the FBI official in charge of the Clarksburg, West Virginia, facility where the FBI houses its current fingerprint database.] The FBI has already begun collecting images and hopes to soon use these as an additional means of making identifications. Countries that are already using such images find 20 percent of their positive matches come from latent palm prints left at crime scenes, the FBI’s Bush said.The FBI has also started collecting mug shots and pictures of scars and tattoos. These images are being stored for now as the technology is fine-tuned. All of the FBI’s biometric data is stored on computers 30-feet underground in the Clarksburg facility.

    In addition, the FBI could soon start comparing people’s eyes — specifically the iris, or the colored part of an eye — as part of its new biometrics program called Next Generation Identification.

     

    Was bugging carried out for the FBI?

    0

    The inquiry into the bugging of a terrorist prisoner and his MP has been asked to examine whether the eavesdropping was carried out at the request of the FBI.

    The Times has learnt that two weeks after the taped conversation with Sadiq Khan, MP, in June 2006, Babar Ahmad was visited in Woodhill jail by Metropolitan Police Special Branch detectives who told him: “We could help you if you will help us.”

    Lawyers for Mr Ahmad, 33, who is fighting extradition to the United States, believe the approach was an attempt to persuade him to negotiate a plea-bargain deal before a trial in the US on terror charges.

    Mr Ahmad was arrested in London in 2004 on a US extradition warrant over his alleged involvement with websites said to be recruiting for Taleban and Chechen Mujahidin groups.

    Searches of his home and office at Imperial College London, where he was an IT technician, were carried out by the Metropolitan Police and material was passed to the US authorities. “Why were they scratching around when the decision had been made a long time ago that Babar Ahmad was not going to be prosecuted in Britain?” asked Gareth Peirce, Mr Ahmad’s solicitor. “Were they trying to exploit some perceived vulnerability in the bugged conversation?”

    Ms Peirce said she has written to Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, and Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, raising issues she wants the inquiry into the bugging to look at. She said: “Very serious questions have to be asked about who this eavesdropping was being carried out for.”

    Mark Kearney, a former police intelligence officer at the prison in Milton Keynes, has claimed he was put under pressure by the Met to carry out the bugging. Mr Kearney, 48, is being prosecuted for allegedly leaking unrelated information to a local newspaper journalist. The former officer wants to give evidence to the inquiry into the bugging incident but has yet to hear from Sir Christopher Rose, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, who is conducting it.

    CIA Monitors YouTube For Intelligence

    3

    By Thomas Claburn

    In keeping with its mandate to gather intelligence, the CIA is watching YouTube.

    U.S. spies, now under the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), are looking increasingly online for intelligence; they have become major consumers of social media.

    “We’re looking at YouTube, which carries some unique and honest-to-goodness intelligence,” said Doug Naquin, director of the remarks to the Central Intelligence Retirees’ Association last October. “We’re looking at chat rooms and things that didn’t exist five years ago, and trying to stay ahead. We have groups looking at what they call ‘Citizens Media’: people taking pictures with their cell phones and posting them on the Internet.”

    In November 2005, the OSC subsumed the CIA’s Foreign Broadcast Information Service, which housed the agency’s foreign media analysts. The OSC is responsible for collecting and analyzing public information, including Internet content.

    Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists project on government secrey, posted transcript of Naquin’s remarks on his blog. “I found the speech interesting and thoughtful,” he said in an e-mail. “I would not have thought of YouTube as an obvious source of intelligence, but I think it’s a good sign that the Open Source Center is looking at it, and at other new media.”

    Not everyone in the intelligence community sees the value in open source intelligence. “[W]e still have an education problem on both ends, both with the folks who are proponents of open source but perhaps don’t know exactly why, and folks internally who are still wondering why I am sitting at the same table they are,” said Naquin.

    But further acceptance of open source intelligence, of the Internet and social media, seems inevitable in the intelligence community if only because traditional media is becoming less relevant. “What we’re seeing [in] actuality is a decline, a relatively rapid decline, in the impact of the printed press — traditional media,” said Naquin. “A lot more is digital, and a lot more is online. It’s also a lot more social. Interaction is a much bigger part of media and news than it used to be.”

    Despite its name the Open Source Center hasn’t proven to be particularly open with its findings. “One area where Mr. Naquin’s Center falls short, in my opinion, is in public access to its products, which is very limited,” said Aftergood. “I know that there are some copyright barriers to open publication of foreign media items. But there shouldn’t be any such barriers to release of the Center’s own analytical products. And yet they are hard to come by. I hope this is one aspect of the Center’s activities that will be reconsidered.”

    One in four against ID cards

    1

    By Nick Heath

    Support for the UK’s national ID card programme continues to plummet as one quarter of people say they are strongly opposed to the scheme.

    According to the ICM poll, 25 per cent of those surveyed thought it was a “very bad” idea – up from 17 per cent in September last year.

    Opponents of the ID card scheme said the survey of just over 1,000 people, commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, showed the government would be “unable to impose” the cards on the population.

    But while 50 per cent said the cards were a bad idea in the ICM poll, 47 per cent of those questioned still thought they were a good idea. And 12 per cent of that group thought they were a ‘very good’ idea.

    Phil Booth, national co-ordinator with pressure group NO2ID, said: “It shows that more people don’t want ID cards than do, as is clearly the case across the population.”

    He said: “The number of people who look like they will refuse to have one has gone up massively, a quarter of the population are vehemently against them.”

    The idea of the government taking data submitted for one use and sharing it between departments also made 52 per cent of respondents uncomfortable.

    The poll found the majority support creating a separate database about every child in the UK, creating a central identity register and collecting personal travel details on everyone coming in and out of the UK.

    The first ID cards will be introduced for foreign nationals by the end of this year.

    The widespread rollout to UK citizens, known as ‘Borders phase II’, is now slated to begin in 2012 – two years later than indicated in an earlier government action plan.

    ID cards ‘in intensive care’

    0

    National identity cards will be given to British citizens two years later than planned, it has emerged.

    Leaked Home Office documents given to the Conservatives show the planned rollout of ID cards to British citizens has been delayed until 2010.

    It was originally planned British citizens should be given ID cards from 2010, with foreign nationals subject to the legislation later this year.

    Shadow home secretary David Davis said the delay showed the planned ID card scheme was “in the intensive care ward”.

    Gordon Brown is reportedly less enthusiastic about ID cards than his predecessor Tony Blair, who promised to include legislation for compulsory ID cards in Labour’s next election manifesto.

    Earlier this month, Mr Brown appeared to show more tentative support for compulsory ID cards, describing it as simply “an option” and pointing out it would be subject to further parliamentary approval.

    It is thought the delay has also been prompted by security concerns as ministers grapple with the logistics of gathering and safely storing vast amounts of data.

    Shadow immigration minister Damian Green told the BBC: “It’s clear that there are enormous practical difficulties in putting 50 different pieces of personal information including addresses of 60 million British citizens plus lots of foreigners into a single database.

    “I think the reality is just beginning to bite ministers on this, so this delay is the first sign of reality intruding, let’s hope there are more to come.”

    The leaked Home Office documents show Borders Phase 1, where ID cards will be rolled out to foreign nationals, is set to begin this year. From 2009 cards will also be issued to people “in positions of trust”.

    But Borders Phase 2, when the cards will be introduced to all British Citizens, is schedule to begin in 2012, two years later than previously thought.

    An Identity and Passport Service spokesman said: “We have always said that the sheme will be rolled out incrementally.”

    But Mr Davis said the delay was intended to stop ID cards becoming an issue at the next election, planned for 2009 or 2010.

    http://www.politics.co.uk

    Hackers Steal Data From Former CU

    0

    FORT WORTH, Texas — OmniAmerican Bank, an institution that started life as OmniAmerican Credit Union before converting to a bank charter in 2005, has suffered a date security breach that allowed some of the bank depositors to have money stolen, according to local press reports.

    The local media quoted Tim Carter, president of the former CU bank, as saying that the scheme was “pretty sophisticated.” Carter is quoted in the Fort Worth Star Telegram as calling the amount stolen minimal and that the former CU had fewer than 100 accounts compromised.

    Nevertheless the bank has placed limits on some ATM and debit card transactions, particularly those outside the state of Texas and had reported to have reissued 40,000 debit cards.

    According to the bank, the criminals were able to hack into the bank records and obtain card numbers and personal identification numbers as well as create new PINs. They then fabricated debit cards and withdrew cash from ATMs across Eastern Europe, including Russia.

    New court can silence captives who tell secrets

    0

    A new court at Guantánamo would allow the U.S. military to keep its secrets by cutting off terror suspects’ testimony from the ears of observers at the flick of a switch.

    BY CAROL ROSENBERG

    GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba — On the eve of the resumption of its war crimes trials, the military on Sunday unveiled a new state-of-the-art court capable of trying six alleged terrorists simultaneously — and silencing them from the outside world, if they try to spill state secrets.

    The military offered a comprehensive look at its new court, part of a $12 million razor-wire-ringed legal complex that arrived by cargo plane and barge in prefabricated parts. Unlike a more ambitious plan to build a $125 million compound on the site overlooking Guantánamo Bay, the new compound can be dismantled and shipped back stateside once trials are done.

    ”We got it up in six months at a fraction of the cost,” said Army Col. Wendy Kelly, director of operations at the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions.

    Architecturally, the bunker-style building is a bland structure impenetrable to electronic eavesdropping.

    Inside, it has an up-to 20-seat jury box for the U.S. military officers who will be assembled from around the world, case by case, to sit in judgment; typical judges and prosecution tables, plus a bank of defense tables where six captives can sit at computers on faux leather chairs, unshackled but guarded by soldiers.

    KILLING THE SOUND

    It also has a 30-seat adjacent room, behind a tempered-glass window, where observers can hear the proceedings on a broadcast basis — and a kill-switch where a security officer or the judge can cut the sound in case someone divulges a state secret.

    There is no blackout capacity or curtain, meaning the media, legal observers, dignitaries and family members who might attend a trial could watch but not listen.

    Such measures could be necessary if the Pentagon presses ahead with plans to try alleged 9/11 architect Khalid Sheik Mohammed or any of the other 14 high-value detainees who arrived at this base in September 2006 from three-plus years of secret CIA custody.

    The agency has classified the interrogation techniques it used on the men — in secret sites, somewhere overseas — as national security secrets. Were one to blurt out his treatment at trial, the judge or security officer could simply stifle their voices.

    It is inside razor wire along with five separate windowless cells where lawyers can meet clients who could some day include the alleged architects of the 9/11 attacks and other suspected senior al Qaeda leaders.

    On Monday, lawyers return to the old court to argue, again, for dismissal of terror charges against Guantánamo’s youngest detainee, Toronto-born Omar Khadr, who was captured at age 15 in Afghanistan. Khadr’s Pentagon-appointed attorneys argue before an Army judge Monday that all war crimes charges should be dismissed against the Canadian man, now 21.

    He is charged in the grenade killing of a U.S. Army medic, Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer, 28, of Albuquerque, N.M., who was part of a Special Forces unit that attacked a suspected al Qaeda compound in Khost, Afghanistan, in July 2002.

    Khadr is from a fundamentalist Muslim family, which sometimes celebrated Muslim feasts with the bin Ladens in Afghanistan, and he is also accused of conspiring with and supporting al Qaeda, attempted murder of other members of Speer’s unit and spying by scouting on U.S. forces.

    Conviction could carry life in prison because, in consideration of his youth, the Pentagon waived an option to seek the death penalty.

    Khadr’s lawyers claim he should have been treated as a ”child soldier,” not equally responsible to an adult, in part because he was 15 at the time of his capture.

    ”If jurisdiction is exercised over Mr. Khadr, the military judge will be the first in Western history to preside over the trial of alleged war crimes committed by a child,” Navy Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler wrote in a 15-page motion.

    Moreover, Kuebler argued that the United States failed his client — who has grown into beefy, bearded adulthood behind the razor wire here at Camp Delta.

    But the chief prosecutor, Army Col. Larry Morris, disputes the defense characterization of the captive as a child soldier — saying Khadr did not meet the definition under international law.

    ”The conventions on child soldiers establish the minimum age for conscripting soldiers,” he said in a statement, adding, “They do not provide amnesty for war crime activities on the battlefield.”

    DETAINED SINCE 16

    Khadr arrived at this remote prison camp at age 16, saw his first attorneys two years later and has periodically fired the lawyers who have volunteered to work on his case.

    He has spent long portions of detention in special segregation for war-court candidates but more recently was moved to a POW-style compound where about 60 of the 275 or so detainees live in communal bunkhouses.

    Bush threatens to veto surveillance bill

    1

    Bush threatens to veto surveillance bill lacking telecom protections

    By LARA JAKES JORDAN

    WASHINGTON – President Bush threatened a veto Tuesday in the debate to update terrorist surveillance laws, assailing Democratic plans to deny protection from lawsuits for telecommunications providers that let the government spy on U.S. residents after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

    The threat came in a 12-page letter to Senate leaders from Attorney General Michael Mukasey and National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. It was issued as lawmakers prepare to vote on legislation seeking to update a 1978 surveillance law without violating privacy rights.

    “If the president is sent a bill that does not provide the U.S. intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect the nation, the president will veto the bill,” wrote Mukasey and McConnell.

    The letter was sent to Senate leaders and the top Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the letter was premature since there still isn’t any legislation yet.

    “It’s a little early to have a veto threat,” he said.

    The existing surveillance law will expire Feb. 15. Bush has said he would resist extending it again.

    After nearly two months of legislative wrangling, Reid announced the Senate would begin voting on amendments today. Debate began Tuesday evening.

    The administration’s veto threat was aimed at amendments that would bar retroactive immunity to phone companies and other telecom providers that have given the government access to e-mails and phone calls linked to people in the United States.

    “Private citizens who respond in good faith to a request for assistance by public officials should not be held liable for their actions,” Mukasey and McConnell wrote.

    A bill already approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee “is not perfect,” Mukasey and McConnell wrote. But since it provides the legal shields, they said they would support it if the amendments are dropped.

    The Senate could vote on the surveillance bill and amendments this week.

    Some 40 civil lawsuits have been filed against telecommunications companies. They carry with them a threat of crippling financial penalties, which the White House says could bankrupt the companies.

    Congress has struggled to strike a balance between catching terrorists and improperly spying on U.S. residents since last summer, when it sought to update the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. That law requires the government to get approval from a secret court when it seeks to electronically eavesdrop on suspected terrorists or spies in the United States. The law does not apply to government wiretaps on people outside the country.

    Over the years, however, foreign communications have been routed through technology based in the United States – raising the question of whether the government should have FISA court approval to listen in on those conversations. The bill being debated now seeks to resolve that issue.

    Civil rights and privacy advocates say current law, which Congress approved in August in a hasty attempt to update the 1978 version, still allows the government to eavesdrop on Americans without court oversight. That law was set to expire Feb. 1 but was extended for two weeks as Congress works to hammer out a compromise.

    The administration also rejected proposals to have the secret FISA court decide whether to give immunity to telecom firms, arguing that doing so could merely result in lengthy legal battles.

    “It is for Congress, not the courts, to make the public policy decision whether to grant liability protection to telecommunication companies who are being sued simply because they are alleged to have assisted the government in the aftermath of the September 11th attacks,” Mukasey and McConnell wrote.

    Judge indicates he won’t allow ‘torture flights’ suit

    0

    By HOWARD MINTZ

    SAN JOSE – Faced with the Bush administration’s argument that a lawsuit over alleged CIA torture flights could expose state secrets, a federal judge Tuesday appeared reluctant to allow the case to proceed against a San Jose-linked company accused of carrying out the trips on the government’s behalf.

    U.S. District Judge James Ware said he would rule soon on the government’s attempt to block the lawsuit on national security grounds, but indicated that the state secret privilege could derail the American Civil Liberties Union’s lawsuit against Jeppesen International Trip Planning, a San Jose-based subsidiary of Boeing.

    The ACLU brought the case last year on behalf of five alleged victims of the CIA’s so-called “extraordinary rendition” program, which civil rights lawyers say involves kidnapping terrorism suspects and secretly flying them to U.S.-run or foreign prisons for interrogation and torture.

    The lawsuit alleges that Jeppesen knowingly participated in the CIA program for profit, and provided the flight planning and crew support for the flights. A former Jeppesen employee has submitted a declaration in the case saying that top Jeppesen officials openly discussed “torture flights” and their profitability.

    The Bush administration intervened in the case several months ago, asserting that allowing the suit to proceed would reveal information that could jeopardize national security. The government has raised similar arguments in lawsuits against telecommunication companies accused of participating in domestic spying programs.

    ACLU attorney Ben Wizner said after the hearing that it is crucial for the courts to address the legality of the CIA flight program.

    “This is another attempt by the CIA to ensure that no judge, no place, at no time has a chance to rule on the legality of its interrogation and torture program,” he said.

    Justice Department lawyers left the hearing without comment. But in court papers and in arguments before Ware, they warned the case “attempts to probe the most sensitive details of intelligence operations.”

    The Bush administration has invoked the state secrets privilege with more regularity than past administrations, and it is difficult for federal judges to interfere when it is asserted. Ware, while conceding the privilege is strong, did express concern about preventing a case to proceed that involves civil liberties.

    “It does seem to me that the duty I have is to walk the line between those interests,” the judge said during the hearing.

    Ware’s ruling is expected to be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which already is considering a similar issue in a lawsuit pending against AT&T over the government’s domestic surveillance program.

    Willie Nelson: Twin Towers Were Imploded on 9/11

    1

    Willie Nelson appeared Monday, February 4, 2008, on the nationally-syndicated Alex Jones Show in a ground breaking interview where the country music legend said the twin towers were imploded on 9/11. “I saw those towers fall and I’ve seen an implosion in Las Vegas – there’s too much similarities between the two, and I saw a building fall that didn’t get hit by nothing,” added Nelson, referring to WTC Building 7, which collapsed in the late afternoon of September 11.

    Nelson said he was not surprised by the recent revelations concerning the impartiality of the 9/11 Commission – namely Phillip Zelikow, who has close ties to the Bush Administration.

    “How naive are we – what do they think we’ll go for?” asked Nelson, pointing out that his doubts began on the very day of 9/11 during an appearance on the Alex Jones Show.

    The audio and full story can be found at: prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/020408_towers_imploded.htm

    Willie joins the ranks of many celebrities who have spoken out to question the official 9/11 story on the Alex Jones Show, including such notables as: Charlie Sheen (see: prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm), Ed Asner (see: prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306asnershares.htm) and rapper Paris.

    Other celebrities who have questioned 9/11 include Ed Asner, Rosie O’Donnell, Martin Sheen, James Brolin, David Lynch former Dallas Cowboys lineman Mark Stepnoski, actor Mark Ruffalo and many others.

    Alex Jones is syndicated over the GCN Radio Network and airs on over 80 AM and FM stations across the country. Jones has been called the father of the 9/11 Truth Movement and has produced several films on September 11th and orchestrated terrorism, including, TerrorStorm and End Game. Both of these films reached the top 10 on Amazon.com’s best-selling list for documentary films.

    No celebrity endorsement claimed or implied.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1en0rUx_s0[/youtube]

    CIA admits using waterboarding for first time

    0

    Human Rights Watch says CIA director’s remarks were ‘explicit admission of criminal activity’.By Jim Mannion

    CIA director Michael Hayden for the first time admitted publicly Tuesday that the agency had used “waterboarding,” or simulated drowning, in interrogations of three top Al-Qaeda detainees nearly five years ago.

    The technique, which critics say is tantamount to torture, was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim al-Nashiri at a time when further catastrophic attacks on the United States were believed to be imminent, Hayden said.

    “Let me make it very clear and to state so officially in front of this committee that waterboarding has been used on only three detainees,” he told members of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

    “It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on Nashiri.”

    Mohammed has claimed to be the operational mastermind of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Abu Zubaydah is alleged to have been an aide to Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. And al-Nashiri is alleged to have been the operational commander of the suicide attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

    All three were initially held and interrogated at secret CIA-run detention centers overseas before being transferred in 2006 to a military-run facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

    Hayden’s remarks were the first direct official admission that agency interrogators had used “waterboarding” in questioning “war on terror” detainees.

    The admission came amid a long-running battle between the administration and members of Congress over so-called “enhanced” or coercive interrogation techniques used by the CIA.

    Senator Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, sent a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey Tuesday, demanding a Justice Department investigation into whether the use of waterboarding violated the law.

    Human Rights Watch said Hayden’s remarks were “an explicit admission of criminal activity.”

    “General Hayden’s testimony gives the lie to all of the administration’s past protestions that the CIA has not employed torture,” said Joanne Mariner, a spokeswoman for the New York-based rights monitor.

    “Waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime.”

    Mukasey told Congress last week that the CIA no longer uses “waterboarding” and that it was not “currently” an authorized interrogation technique.

    But he refused to say whether waterboarding is torture.

    “There are some circumstances where current law would appear clearly to prohibit waterboarding’s use. Other circumstances would present a far closer question.”

    The New York Times disclosed in December that videotapes of interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Al-Nashiri were destroyed in 2005 on orders of a senior agency official.

    In his testimony, Hayden suggested that the CIA no longer needed to use “waterboarding” in interrogations because circumstances had changed since the period following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

    “We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time. Very critical to those circumstances was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were imminent.

    “In addition to that, my agency and our community writ large had limited knowledge about Al-Qaeda and its workings. Those two realities have changed,” he said.

    He said the technique had not been used in almost five years.

    But Hayden defended the CIA’s use of coercive interrogation techniques as lawful and opposed moves by Congress to make the agency follow rules of interrogation set forth in the Army Field Manual.

    He said “it would make no more sense to apply the Army Field Manual to CIA — the Army Field Manual on interrogations — than it would be to take the Army Field Manual on grooming and apply it to my agency, or the Army Field Manual on recruiting and apply it to my agency, or, for that matter, take the Army Field Manual on sexual orientation and apply it to my agency.”

    Retired Admiral Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, likewise suggested that the circumstances determine whether waterboarding is lawful.

    “If there was a reason to use such a technique, you would have to make a judgment on the circumstances and the situation regarding the specifics of the event,” he said.

    MP first probed by MI5 over 9/11

    1

    By NICK PARKER
    THOMAS WHITAKER
    and GRAEME WILSON

    BUGGING scandal MP Sadiq Khan was first probed by security services over his association with a 9/11 terrorist, The Sun can reveal.

    And it has emerged that Justice Secretary Jack Straw knew of concerns over the Muslim MP’s visits to another jailed terror suspect TWO MONTHS ago.

    Security sources told yesterday how 9/11 plotter Zacarias Moussaoui asked lawyer Mr Khan to represent him after being accused of being the ‘20th hijacker’.

     

    Concerns ... Straw

    Concerns … Straw

    The Labour whip was not allowed to see Moussaoui and was barred from seeing court papers in the run-up to the trial.

    But the MP for Tooting, South London, acted as a consultant to the self-confessed al-Qaeda agent – jailed for life in 2006.

    Human rights lawyer Mr Khan, 37, who says he loathes terror groups, was the only practising Muslim on Moussaoui’s team. It brought him to the attention of MI5 and MI6.

    One security source said last night: “It is hardly surprising he came to the attention of security services in view of the people he was associated with.”

    Extremists

     

    Mr Khan later defended extremists and Brits held in Guantanamo Bay.

    Last year it was revealed that five members of his family belonged to fundamental group Hizb ut-Tahrir.

    Meanwhile, it has emerged that Mr Straw knew on December 14 of concerns over Mr Khan’s jail visits to another terror suspect.

    His private office was told then that Press inquiries suggested Mr Khan’s meetings with Babar Ahmad, 33, at Woodhill Prison in Milton Keynes, Bucks, were being bugged.

     

    Named ... Kearney

    Named … Kearney

    Mr Straw told the Commons on Monday that the first he knew of the bugging allegations was on Saturday afternoon.

    He insisted last night: “I was aware in December of inquiries from a newspaper concerning visits by Mr Khan to Babar Ahmad.

    “But at no stage before last Saturday was I aware of any information that these inquiries concerned any covert recording or anything like that and I confirm what I told the House.”

    Mr Straw is believed to have told officials that he thought someone was trying to “smear” Mr Khan.

    Computer boffin Ahmad has been held since his arrest in August 2004 under anti-terror laws.

    Tory MPs yesterday voiced fury that Mr Straw had not told the Commons the full story.

    Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: “We are told Jack Straw has been briefed by officials on Press inquiries relating to Sadiq Khan’s visits to HMP Woodhill yet, despite his officials knowing of the allegations of bugging, they still failed to brief him.

    “If true, this is frankly extraordinary and raises enormous questions about the leadership of this department.”

    Tories said the issue was raised with Mr Straw just three days after Mr Davis wrote to Gordon Brown, on December 11, warning him a Labour MP was being bugged.

    Number 10 has said the letter was never received. Mr Straw’s officials insist they had been alerted on December 14 by the Press, not Mr Davis’s letter.

    One senior insider said: “Jack knew there was some sort of story but he did not know the details. He should have been told about claims the visits were being recorded.”

    Earlier, Mr Davis argued the eavesdropping breached the Wilson Doctrine, which says MPs should not be bugged. He added: “This is a serious issue. It makes the PM a liar, basically.”

    Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman called on Mr Davis to apologise for that remark. Mr Straw has ordered an inquiry to be headed by Whitehall’s chief surveillance commissioner and former judge Sir Christopher Rose.

    Ahmad is facing extradition to the US over claims he raised cash for the Taliban and Chechen terrorists.

    The man behind the bugging has been named as retired cop Mark Kearney, 48. He worked at Woodhill jail as a police intelligence officer.

    Satellite Spotters Glimpse Secrets

    When the government announced last month that a top-secret spy satellite would, in the next few months, come falling out of the sky, American officials said there was little risk to people because satellites fall out of orbit fairly frequently and much of the planet is covered by oceans.

    But they said precious little about the satellite itself.

    Such information came instead from Ted Molczan, a hobbyist who tracks satellites from his apartment balcony in Toronto, Ontario, in Canada, and fellow satellite spotters around the world. They have grudgingly become accustomed to being seen as “propeller-headed geeks” who “poke their finger in the eye” of the government’s satellite spymasters, said Molczan, taking no offense. “I have a sense of humor,” he said.

    Molczan, a private energy conservation consultant, is the best known of the satellite spotters who, needing little more than a pair of binoculars, a stop watch and star charts, uncover some of the deepest of the government’s expensive secrets and share them on the Internet.

    Thousands of people form the spotter community. Many look for historical relics of the early space age, working from publicly available orbital information. Others watch for phenomena like the distinctive flare of sunlight glinting off bright solar panels of some telephone satellites. Still others are drawn to the secretive world of spy satellites, with about a dozen hobbyists who do most of the observing, said Molczan.

    In the case of the mysterious satellite that is about to plunge back to earth, Molczan had an early sense of which one it was, identifying it as USA-193, which gave out shortly after reaching space in December 2006. It is said to have been built by the Lockheed Martin Corporation and operated by the secretive National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). 

    Another hobbyist, John Locker, of Britain, posted photos of the satellite on a Web site, galaxypix.com .

    John E. Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a private group in Alexandria, Virginia, that tracks military and space activities, said the hobbyists exemplified fundamental principles of openness and of the power of technology to change the game.

    “It has been an important demystification of these things,” said Pike, “because I think there is a tendency on the part of these agencies just to try to pretend that they don’t exist, and that nothing can be known about them.”

    The spotters are also pursuing a thoroughly unusual pastime, one that calls for long hours outside, freezing in the winter and sweating in the summer, straining to see a moving light in the sky and hoping that a slip of the finger on the stopwatch does not delete an entire night’s work. And for the adept, there is math. Lots of math.

    “It’s somewhat time consuming and tedious,” said Molczan, acknowledging that the precise and methodical activities might seem, to the uninitiated, “a close approximation to work.”

    When a new spy satellite is launched, the hobbyists will collaborate on sightings around the world to determine its orbit, and even guess at its function, sharing their information through the e-mail network SeeSat-L, which can be found via the Web site satobs.org

    From his 23rd-floor balcony, or the roof of his 32-floor building, Molzcan will peer through his binoculars at a point in the sky he expects the satellite to cross, which he locates with star charts. When the moving dot appears, he determines its direction and the distance it travels across the patch of sky over time, which he can use to calculate its speed.

    Molzcan declined a request to visit him in Toronto and to be photographed for this article, saying: “No offense intended, but this is beginning to sound like more of a human interest story than one about the substance of the hobby. My preference is for the latter. Also, I prefer not to have photos of myself published.”

    Locker, who favors a telescope for his camera work, said that people like him and Molczan were not, as he put it, “nerdy buffs who lie on our backs and look into the sky and try to undermine governments.” Spotting, he said, is simply a hobby.

    “There are people who look at train timetables and go watch trains,” he said. People are drawn to what interests them, he said, and “it’s what draws people to any hobby.”

    While recent news coverage has focused on the current satellite’s threat to people when it falls from above, that threat is, statistically, very small. Even when the space shuttle Columbia broke up over Texas five years ago and rained debris over two states, no one on the ground was injured.

    Gordon Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, noted that 328 satellites had come down in the past five years without injury to anyone. While Johndroe declined to divulge much about the current satellite aside from the fact that it carries no nuclear material, he said that the government would take responsibility in the remote chance of damage or injury.

    The government’s relationship with the hobbyists is not a comfortable one. Spokesmen for the National Reconnaissance Office have stated that they would prefer the hobbyists not publish their information, and suggest that foreign countries try to hide their activities when they know an eye in the sky will be passing overhead.

    The satellite spotters acknowledge that this may be so, though they doubt that such tactics are effective. Molczan said he believed that the hobbyists hurt no one but that “you can’t say with absolute certainty what effect you’re having.”

    Pike said the officials who complained about the hobbyists “don’t like it, but they’ve got to lump it.” Despite the many clever ways that the spy agencies try to minimize the likelihood that their satellites will be spotted, he said, they will be. And that, he said, is a valuable warning: a world with so many eyes on the skies renders deep secrets shallow.

    “If Ted can track all these satellites,” said Pike, “so can the Chinese.”

    http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=15189

    US government misrepresent Human Rights Watch

    US: Don’t Misrepresent Human Rights Watch to Justify Guantanamo Trials
    Contrary to US Claims, Human Rights Watch Opposes Khadr Prosecution

     The US government fundamentally misrepresented Human Rights Watch’s position to justify its prosecution of Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen facing charges for war crimes allegedly committed when he was just 15, Human Rights Watch said today.

    Responding to Khadr’s argument that the military commissions do not have legal authority to prosecute child offenders, the US government in a court filing Monday invoked Human Rights Watch to support its claim that the military commissions should go forward. “Not only is this position wrong, it’s absurd,” said Clive Baldwin, senior legal advisor at Human Rights Watch. “Human Rights Watch has called the military commissions fundamentally unfair from the start — and even more egregious that Khadr was a child when he allegedly committed the crimes.” In making the claim, the government cited a document that the US Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers — a coalition that includes Human Rights Watch — submitted to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in November 2007. The government argued that because the submission did not explicitly condemn the use of military commissions to try Khadr, it amounted to implicit support. However, the submission cited Khadr’s case as an example of the United States’ failure to meet its obligations to rehabilitate and otherwise treat child soldiers in accordance with their age. “To read the campaign’s submission as implicitly supporting Khadr’s trial before military commissions indicates at best the government’s desperation, and at worst a disingenuous attempt to pervert Human Rights Watch’s well known position on this,” Baldwin said. “The document the government cites actually uses the Khadr case as an example of the United States’ failure to respect its obligatios on the treatment of child soldiers.” Human Rights Watch said that Khadr’s trial should either be dismissed or moved to civilian courts that take into account his status as a child at the time of his offense. Human Rights Watch also reiterated its call on Canada to intervene on behalf of one of its citizens and urge the United States to transfer Khadr to a fair process or repatriate him to Canada for rehabilitation.

    Data losses put UK at foot of privacy league

    0

    J. Mark Lytle

    If you’re already concerned by the gradual erosion of our personal privacy in the 21st century, then the latest report from a pair of privacy watchdogs might make uncomfortable reading.

    Privacy International from the UK and the Electronic Privacy Information Center in the US regularly assess how nations treat the rights of their citizens to live without government intervention. According to the 2007 report, both Britain and America are rock bottom “endemic surveillance societies.”

    ID cards a risk

    Not only does the UK have far more CCTV surveillance cameras than any other country, but it also has suffered a rash of electronic data leaks and placed its citizens even more at risk with plans for a national identity card.

    Across the Atlantic, US residents continue to lose freedoms in the so-called ‘war on terror’ that has seen legalised spying introduced through warrantless phone taps and email snooping by the state.

    Should you wish to continue an existence, whether online or off, that is free from fear of intrusion, then the report suggests Greece – the only country deemed to have adequate privacy-protection safeguards in place.

    tech.co.uk

    Growing opposition to ID cards

    0

    Poll shows growing opposition to ID cards over data fears

    · 25% now strongly against their use, says ICM survey
    · Majority concerned about sharing of personal details

    Alan Travis, home affairs editor
    Wednesday February 6, 2008
    The Guardian

    The number of people strongly opposed to the introduction of a national identity card scheme has risen sharply, according to the results of an ICM poll to be published today.Those campaigning against ID cards said last night that the poll, with results showing that 25% of the public are deeply opposed to the idea, raises the prospect that the potential number of those likely to refuse to register for the card has risen. If the poll’s findings were reflected in the wider population, as many as 10 million people may be expected to refuse to comply.

    The ICM survey also shows that a majority of the British people say they are “uncomfortable” with the idea that personal data provided to the government for one purpose should be shared between all Whitehall-run public services.

    The poll, commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, shows that British public opinion is deeply split over the introduction of identity cards, with 50% against the idea and 47% in favour.

    Recent disputes over the further delays to have hit the project have strengthened opposition to the scheme, with those who think it is “a very bad” idea rising from 17% last September to 25% now. This compares with only 12% who think that pressing ahead with ID cards, which will cost around £93 per person when combined with a passport, is a “very good idea”.

    In the aftermath of the government’s recent embarrassing losses of confidential personal data, public opinion appears to have turned sharply against the idea of sharing information within Whitehall and the creeping introduction of the “Big Brother” state.

    A majority – 52% – say they feel uncomfortable with allowing “personal information that is provided to one government department to be shared between all government departments that provide public services”.

    However, the poll does show that clear support exists among the public for setting up a central identity register and collecting personal travel details on everyone coming in and out of Britain. It also reveals some support for the creation of a separate database about every child, including details about their parents and carers.

    Phil Booth, of the No2id campaign, said: “With a quarter of the country deeply opposed to ID cards, and a clear majority reluctant to have their personal information shared even for public services, the government needs to fundamentally rethink its database state.

    “These figures suggest that millions will simply refuse to comply.”

    He said the results showed that between 10 million and 15 million could refuse to register for the card.

    The Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesman, Chris Huhne, said that public opinion was moving sharply away from the government’s ID card scheme as more people understood how intrusive it was going to be, and the more they saw that officials were unable to keep confidential and personal data secure.

    Huhne said: “These polling figures are a body-blow to the government’s hopes of introducing ID cards and the associated personal database, as they suggest a large pool of people who may refuse to cooperate.”

    Leaked Home Office documents suggested last month that the planned large-scale voluntary rollout of national identity cards for British nationals had been delayed by two years until beyond the next general election.

    The first ID cards will be introduced in December this year for foreign nationals resident in the country. It will follow a pilot scheme to be run in London from April to test the technology. The prime minister, Gordon Brown, has confirmed that legislation will have to be introduced before it becomes compulsory for British nationals to register for the ID cards scheme.

    · The ICM poll interviewed a represent-ative sample of 1,008 people between February 1 and 3, 2008

    Britain is becoming a police state

    0

    The pretence of oversight has been ripped aside by the Khan bugging affair: the security apparat has become a law unto itself

    Simon Jenkins
    Wednesday February 6, 2008
    The Guardian

    The machine is out of control. Personal surveillance in Britain is so extensive that no democratic oversight is remotely plausible. Some 800 organisations, including the police, the revenue, local and central government, demanded (and almost always got) 253,000 intrusions on citizen privacy in the last recorded year, 2006. This is way beyond that of any other country in the free world.

    The Sadiq Khan affair has killed stone dead the thesis, beloved of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, that any accretion of power to the state is sustainable because ministers are in control. Whether this applies to phone tapping, bugging devices, ID cards, NHS records, childcare computer systems, video surveillance or detention without trial, it is simply a lie. Nobody can control this torrent of intrusion. Nobody can oversee a burst dam.

    Khan, an MP and government whip, was allegedly targeted by the police for having been a “civil rights lawyer” and thus a nuisance, though the recording of his meetings with a constituent in prison was supposedly directed at the inmate. Either way, the bugging destroyed the “Wilson doctrine”, that MPs cannot be bugged. It appears that they can if ministers, or the police, so decide.

    Security machismo claims that in the “age of terrorism”, real men bug everyone and everything. The former flying squad chief and BBC dial-a-quote, John O’Connor, implied this week that it would be negligent of the police not to bug anyone they – repeat they – thought a threat. The Blair thesis that “9/11 changes everything” has been a green light to every security consultant, surveillance salesman and Labour minister wanting to flex his – or her- muscles in the tabloids.

    Years ago a lawyer gave me unassailable evidence that a call with a client had been tapped by the police and handed to the prosecution. Such tapping allegedly required a personal warrant from the home secretary who, when tackled on the subject, flatly denied it could have happened without his approval, which he would never give in such a case. I checked back with a police chief, who roared with laughter. “The home secretary is absolutely right. He must authorise all taps sent to him for authorisation. But not, of course, the rest.” Orwell’s cuttlefish were squirting ink.

    The grim reality of the past week alone is that it has seen a substantial section of the British establishment allowing itself to believe that private dealings between lawyer and client, and between MP and constituent, should no longer be considered immune from state surveillance. A cardinal principle of a free democracy is thus coolly abandoned. It is not a victory for national security. It is a victory for terrorism.

    The monitoring organisation Privacy International now gives Britain the worst record in Europe for such intrusion, indeed the worst among the so-called democratic world and on a par with “endemic surveillance societies”, such as Russia and Singapore. The Thames Valley policeman, Mark Kearney, who bugged Khan’s conversation in Woodhill prison, claims to have protested that it was “unethical” but was overruled and placed under “significant pressure” from the Metropolitan police. He has since had to leave the force. The saga reads like a script from the film about East German espionage, The Lives of Others.

    Britain’s poor record is the result of government weakness towards the security apparat. Even among supposed liberals, the response is to demand not less surveillance but more oversight. David Davis, the Tory spokesman, said yesterday: “It’s got to be controlled; it’s got to be accountable.” Civil rights champion Liberty wants “simpler and stronger surveillance laws, with warrants issued by judges, not policemen nor politicians”.

    People have been saying this for years. Britain has a Kafkaesque oversight bureaucracy ranking with the one it purports to oversee. Some six separate surveillance monitors trip over themselves. All operate in secret and appear to be one gigantic rubber stamp. The distinction drawn by the justice secretary, Jack Straw, between “intrusive” and “directed” bugging, illustrates the prevailing mumbo-jumbo. The chief surveillance monitor, Sir Christopher Rose, has been asked by Straw to investigate the Khan affair, which appears to be a failure by the chief surveillance monitor. Is this to be taken seriously?

    When the council can bug you for fly-tipping, when prisons can record conversations with defence lawyers, when any potentially criminal act can justify electronic intrusion – and when ministers resort to the dictator’s excuse, “The innocent need not fear” – warning bells should sound.

    There is no “balance” to be struck between civil liberty and national security. Civil liberty is absolute, security its handmaid. Measures are needed to protect the public, but a firm line needs to be drawn round them. The line must accept a degree of risk, or a police state is just around the corner.

    A quarter of a million surveillances in Britain are beyond all power of politicians or overseers to check. It is state paranoia, justified only by that catch-all, the “war on terror”. In truth it is not countering terror, but promoting it. Mass surveillances one of the poisons that the terrorist seeks to inject into the veins of civil society.

    It is clear the overseers have gone native. Even the “independent” security watchdog, Lord Carlile, has bought 42-day detention. More oversight will not cure surveillance but mask its spread. The extension from terrorism to benefit fraud, fly-tipping and trading standards demonstrates how the official mind flips to Stasi mode at the least excuse.

    To claim that Britain is a police state insults those who are victims of real ones. But I have no doubt that feeble ministers are slithering down just this road, pushed by the security/industrial complex. It is not oversight that must be increased, but rather the categories and boundaries of surveillance that must be drastically curbed.

    Of course there are people who want to explode bombs in Britain. Taxpayers spend a fortune trying to stop them. But how often must we remind ourselves that the bomber need not kill to achieve his end when we appease his yearning for the martyrdom of repression? The amount of surveillance in Britain is grotesque. It is a sign of the corruption of power, and nothing else.

    VIDEO: Bhutto said Omar Sheikh murdered bin Laden

    AlJazeera

    Sir David speaks to former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto about her controversial return to Pakistan, who she thinks is behind the deadly bombing of her convoy in Karachi last month, and whether she and Musharraf can forge a powersharing agreement 

    Bhutto said Omar Sheikh murdered Osama bin Laden In 2006, Musharraf wrote a book in which he stated that Omar Sheikh, one of the primary financers of the 9/11 attacks, may have worked for British intelligence during the 1990s.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIO8B6fpFSQ[/youtube]

    U.S. forces kill Iraq family

    Xinhua

    The U.S. forces allegedly killed three people and wounded a fourth from one family in a town in Salahudin province, north of Baghdad, on Tuesday, a source from the U.S. and Iraqi liaison office said.

        The incident took place at dawn in the town of al-Dowr, 30 km north of the provincial capital of Tikrit, the source from the provincial Joint Coordination Center (JCC) told Xinhua on condition of anonymity.

        He said that an interpreter working for the U.S. troops informed the branch of the JCC in the town of the killing and asked them to collect two bodies in a house in one of the town’s neighborhoods.

        An Iraqi police force headed to the scene and found three bodies–those of a man and his wife in their 40s as well as their18-year-old son. All of the three were killed with gunshots in the head, he said.

        The police also found many spent cartridges of weapons used by U.S. troops at the scene, he added.

        Residents at the neighborhood told the police force that they heard gunshots at dawn and saw U.S. military vehicles leaving the neighborhood later, the source said.

        He also said that a 16-year-old daughter of the family made a call with a mobile phone for help as she was injured and taken by the U.S. troops to a medical facility in a U.S. base in the province.

        The three bodies were transported to the main hospital of Tikrit, some 170 km north of Baghdad, he said.

        The U.S. military did not confirm the incident yet.

        On Monday, the U.S. military conceded in a statement that its troops had killed accidentally nine Iraqis and wounded three others, including two children, in a military operation against al-Qaida, near the town of Iskandariyah, about 50 km south of Baghdad.

    Secret CIA flights to face top-level court inquiry

    Prosecutors from Spain’s National Court are seeking key witnesses in relation to alleged secret CIA flights in which dozens of Islamist prisoners were transported via Spain to Guantanamo Bay.

    The National Court suspects that dozens of prisoners captured in Kandahar, Afghanistan by US forces were transported to Guantanamo via Spanish airports or using Spanish airspace between January 2002 and October 2006.

    According to the Spanish daily El Pais, about 47 flights headed to or came from the US base at Guantanamo in Cuba and landed or flew over Spanish airports.

    A document submitted to the court by the Spanish Airports and Air Navigation (AENA) authority, refers to eight flights in 2002, seven in 2003, twelve in 2004, nine in 2005, nine in 2006, and two in February 2007.

    The National Court also wants to know why in 2002, just months after the deadly September 11 attacks against the twin towers, ex-premier Jose Maria Aznar and US president George W. Bush, updated a bilateral defence treaty, which had been in place in 1989.

    The updated treaty made it more flexible for American planes to land at the US bases of Rota and Moron de la Frontera.

    The court wants to know if these ‘more flexible’ terms were used to transfer the first 23 prisoners sent from the city of Kandahar in Afghanistan to Guantanamo.

    Flight and airport officials as well as military and civilian air traffic controllers in the US bases located at Moron de la Frontera, Rota and Torrejon de Ardoz will be asked to give their testimony.

    The flights took place under the leadership of former prime minister Jose Maria Aznar and the current prime minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero.

    © GMC Group Ð all rights reserved

    The CIA op that should have prevented Iraq war

    0

    AFP

    When Saad Tawfiq watched Colin Powell’s presentation to the United Nations on February 5 2003 he shed bitter tears as he realised he had risked his life and those of his loved ones for nothing.

    As one of Saddam Hussein’s most gifted engineers, Tawfiq knew that the Iraqi dictator had shut down his nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes in 1995 — and he had told his handlers in US intelligence just that.

    And yet here was the then US secretary of state — Tawfiq’s television was able to received international news through a link pirated from Saddam’s spies next door — waving a vial of white powder and telling the UN Security Council a story about Iraqi germ labs.

    “When I saw Colin Powell I started crying. Immediately. I knew I had tried and lost,” Tawfiq told AFP five years later in the Jordanian capital Amman.

    Now in his fifties, a round-faced man with a small moustache and lively eyes behind delicate spectacles, Tawfiq described how the CIA set up an elaborate operation to recruit Iraqi weapons scientists and then ignored the results.

    From the end of 2002 the US spy agency had sources inside Iraq’s weapons plants telling them clearly what the whole world now knows — that Saddam had ended efforts to produce weapons of mass destruction.

    Nevertheless in March 2003 the United States and Britain invaded Iraq to disarm Saddam of this non-existent arsenal and in the process triggered the effective collapse of the Iraqi state, plunging it into chaos and bringing thousands of deaths.

    Saad Tawfiq’s role in this drama began in June 2002 with calls from his sister Sawsan, a doctor who lives with her husband Ali in Moreland Hills, a pleasant suburb of Cleveland, Ohio, in the mid-western United States.

    “Our Abu Mahmuds are putting pressure on me,” she told him, using the nickname they shared for Saad’s secret police minder as a makeshift code for the US intelligent agent who had contacted her, “Chris.”

    “Chris was very nice, very polite,” Sawsan, a small energetic woman, told AFP. Chris wanted Sawsan’s help to discover the status of Saddam’s weapons programme, and in particular his efforts to build a nuclear bomb.

    She joined one of the most successful attempts by the CIA to penetrate Saddam’s Iraq, a programme dreamt up by agency veteran Charlie Allen to target Iraqi weapons technicians through their relatives.

    The scientists were well known to the UN weapons inspectors who had been keeping tabs on Iraq’s arms plants since 1991, and the Americans were able to draw up a list of 30 who had relatives in the United States.

    The American relatives were to be sent to Iraq and ask about weapons.

    “I was nervous, and we even discussed with Ali what to do if something happened to me,” Sawsan said. “It was a very emotional visit back home, because I had not been there for years and I had not seen my brother for years.”

    Sawsan was right to be nervous. Saddam’s notorious secret police dealt with spies mercilessly. She was taking a risk with her life and that of her brother, but was determined to help rid her original homeland of a tyrant.

    The CIA provided her with a detailed questionnaire about Iraq’s weapons programmes. Fearing she would forget it, Sawsan disguised it in sketches and crosswords in a kind of homemade code.

    Tawfiq picked his sister up from Baghdad airport on September 9, 2002. Her homecoming was emotional, but the pair had work to do. They met secretly at night in the family garden and took walks together in the city.

    The weapons engineer was astonished by the CIA’s questions, which he thought showed the depths of the agency’s ignorance about events in his country.

    “I went crazy. The questions were dumb. She was telling me: ‘They know you have a programme,’ and I was saying: ‘There is nothing. Tell them there is nothing, absolutely nothing. They have left us with nothing’,” Tawfiq said.

    “She was taking notes. There were 20 major questions, and to all of them the answer was: ‘No, no, no…’ I kept swearing on the grave of my mother.”

    According to Tawfiq, Saddam Hussein gave the order to dismantle Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes in 1995, after his brother-in-law and arms chief Hussein Kamel defected and briefed the UN inspectors.

    “I was Saddam’s scientist,” Tawfiq declared, with an ironic smile. “In 1991 if you exposed something you were killed. In 1995 if you hid something you were killed!”

    Sawsan dutifully gathered this information and returned to the United States to pass it on to her handlers. But the CIA was unimpressed.

    “Saad told me there was nothing left,” she told AFP. “That everything had been either destroyed or dismantled by the UN and the regime has abandoned its nuclear programme. And he begged me to explain all that back in the States.

    “I went back and I reported what he had told me in full detail. I even went personally to Washington. In the beginning they listened to me but then they told me that my brother was lying,” she said.

    Of course Tawfiq and other colleagues approached by the CIA were telling the truth, as the United States would discover after it had launched a bloody war that has cost tens of thousands of lives.

    Paul R. Pillar, the CIA’s national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia at the time of the operation to question Tawfiq, said weapons scientists had not been ignored, but had been contradicted by other sources.

    “To the extent that the debriefings did not have more of an effect in Washington, it probably was not because the effort came too late but instead because there were other indications that seemed to contradict what the individuals were saying, and that suggested Iraqi unconventional weapons programmes were continuing,” he told AFP.

    But as Saddam’s scientist lamented five years later: “You don’t have to destroy a country for that.”

    Illegal bug uncovered in second UK prison

    0

    A prison officer on B-wing at Wakefield Prison, West Yorkshire

    Bugging devices planted in a prison telephone were illegally used to record privileged conversations between an inmate and his solicitor, The Times has learnt.

    Defence lawyers said last night that the breach confirms long-held suspicions that the recording of legal visits is widespread. Security experts told The Times that they believed that dozens of prisoners are routinely the subject of covert surveillance.

    The revelation comes days after it emerged that an MP’s meeting with a jailed constituent had been recorded. However the taping of legal meetings is considered far more serious because it may breach a defendant’s rights and has the potential to collapse criminal trials.

    The full transcripts of the taped conversations with a 71-year-old man who is serving life for murder only came to light because they were disclosed to Simon Creighton, the solicitor who was caught up in the surveillance.

    The revelation will bring demands for Jack Straw to widen the official inquiry into the bugging of Sadiq Khan, a Muslim MP visiting a terror suspect, to investigate the extent of covert surveillance in Britain’s prisons.

    Mr Straw, the Justice Secretary, told MPs yesterday that Sir Christopher Rose, the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, is to head an inquiry into the bugging of a conversation involving Mr Khan and Babar Ahmad when the MP visited him in Woodhill jail.

    Mr Creighton’s case involves Harry Roberts, who was convicted of the murder of three police officers in Shepherd’s Bush, West London, in 1966. Last night the solicitor said: “If they are prepared to go to these lengths in this case, it makes one wonder what they are prepared to do with other prisoners, particularly those convicted of serious offences.”

    Roberts, currently in Littlehey prison in Cambridgeshire, is involved in a long battle to be released on parole. His 30-year minimum term expired 11 years ago.

    His parole hearings have been held in secret but in documents sent to his solicitor, a government-appointed lawyer included transcripts of bugged telephone conversations. Two transcripts of discussions betweeen Mr Creighton and Roberts when he was in Channings Wood jail were found with other legal documents.

    The transcripts of calls made in 2005 and 2006 include every word spoken from the moment that a receptionist at Mr Creighton’s firm answers the phone to Roberts and he asks: “Can I speak to Simon”.

    Mr Creighton said that the transcripts included discussions of legal tactics that he was going to employ in court proceedings planned as part of Roberts’s struggle to win parole. They also included discussions about problems that Roberts was having in jail.

    Mr Creighton, of Bhatt Murphy solicitors in London, said: “I am deeply shocked by this breach of such an important and fundamental right. It is especially worrying that it occurred in this case where there were already heightened sensitivities because of the decision made by the parole board to receive secret evidence.

    “Had the secrecy order not been lifted it would never have come to light and it makes me wonder whether this is a more common practice than anyone has previously dared to imagine.”

    He said that the bugging of legal telephone calls was a breach of common law and the European Convention of Human Rights.

    It is not clear whether the bugging operation was being operated by the police or prison service.

    The telephone calls of all prisoners are subject to monitoring but the recording or monitoring of calls to legal advisers is banned.

    Prisoners have expressed concerns frequently that telephone calls with their lawyers and legal visits are being bugged. Mr Creighton said: “There has always been a degree of paranoia among prisoners that their calls are recorded. Sometimes they say that clicks heard during conversations are recordings being switched off. Whenever this has been raised with the authorities they have always denied it.”

    Gareth Peirce, Mr Ahmad’s solicitor, said that defence lawyers had written to the governors of Woodhill and Belmarsh prisons on a number of occasions seeking assurances that legal visits were not being bugged.

    Ms Peirce said: “Many prisoners . . . believe that their visits are being listened to and defence lawyers are concerned that they are not able to reassure them on that score.

    “The position is very disturbing. Bugging of legal visits would be a serious intrusion. There is an absolute right to confidentiality when it comes to legal visits. To justify such a thing happening would need the Home Secretary to authorise it. If it were found to have happened, that would have the most enormous consequences.”.

    The Ministry of Justice said last night: “The Justice Secretary was not previously aware of this matter.

    We will consider what further steps are needed once we have more information.”

    British plan to build Taliban training camp

    Revealed: British plan to build training camp for Taliban fighters in Afghanistan

    By Jerome Starkey in Kabul

    Britain planned to build a Taliban training camp for 2,000 fighters in southern Afghanistan, as part of a top-secret deal to make them swap sides, intelligence sources in Kabul have revealed. The plans were discovered on a memory stick seized by Afghan secret police in December.

    The Afghan government claims they prove British agents were talking to the Taliban without permission from the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, despite Gordon Brown’s pledge that Britain will not negotiate. The Prime Minister told Parliament on 12 December: “Our objective is to defeat the insurgency by isolating and eliminating their leaders. We will not enter into any negotiations with these people.”

    The British insist President Karzai’s office knew what was going on. But Mr Karzai has expelled two top diplomats amid accusations they were part of a plot to buy-off the insurgents.

    The row was the first in a series of spectacular diplomatic spats which has seen Anglo-Afghan relations sink to a new low. Since December, President Karzai has blocked the appointment of Paddy Ashdown to the top UN job in Kabul and he has blamed British troops for losing control of Helmand.

    It has also soured relations between Kabul and Washington, where State Department officials were instrumental in pushing Lord Ashdown for the UN role.

    President Karzai’s political mentor, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, endorsed a death sentence for blasphemy on the student journalist Sayed Pervez Kambaksh last week, and two British contractors have been arrested in Kabul on, it is claimed, trumped up weapons charges. The developments are seen as a deliberate defiance of the British.

    An Afghan government source said the training camp was part of a British plan to use bands of reconciled Taliban, called Community Defence Volunteers, to fight the remaining insurgents. “The camp would provide military training for 1,800 ordinary Taliban fighters and 200 low-level commanders,” he said.

    The computer memory stick at the centre of the row was impounded by officers from Afghanistan’s KGB-trained National Directorate of Security after they moved against a party of international diplomats who were visiting Helmand.

    A ministry insider said: “When they were arrested, the British said the Ministry of the Interior and the National Security Council knew about it, but no one knew anything. That’s why the President was so angry.”

    Details of how much President Karzai was told remain murky. Some analysts believe Afghan officials were briefed about the plan, but that it later evolved.

    The camp was due to be built outside Musa Qala, in Helmand. It was part of a package of reconstruction and development incentives designed to win trust and support in the aftermath of the British-led battle to retake the stronghold last year.

    But the Afghans feared the British were training a militia with no loyalty to the central government. Intercepted Taliban communications suggested they thought the British were trying to help them, the Afghan official said.

    The Western delegates, Michael Semple and Mervyn Patterson, were given 48 hours to leave the country. Their Afghan colleagues, including a former army general, were jailed. The expulsions coincided with a row within the Taliban’s ranks which saw a senior commander, Mansoor Dadullah, sacked for talking to British spies. One official claimed the camp was planned for Mansoor and his men.

    The computer stick contained a three-stage plan, called the European Union Peace Building Programme. The third stage covered military training.

    Curiously, the European Union says the programme did not exist and there were no EU funds to run it.

    Afghan government officials insist it was bankrolled by the British. UK diplomats, the UN, Western officials and senior Afghan officials have all confirmed the outline of the plan, which they agree is entirely British-led, but all refused to talk about it on the record. President Karzai’s office claimed it was “a matter of national security”.

    The memory stick revealed that $125,000 (£64,000) had been spent on preparing the camp and a further $200,000 was earmarked to run it in 2008, an Afghan official said. The figures sparked allegations that British agents were paying the Taliban.

    President Karzai’s spokesman, Humayun Hamidzada, accused Mr Semple and Mr Patterson of being “involved in some activities that were not their jobs.”

    The camp would also have provided vocational training, including farming and irrigation techniques, to offer people a viable alternative to growing opium. But the Afghan government took issue with plans to provide military training, to turn the insurgents into a defence force.

    Afghan government staff also claimed the “EU peace-builders” had handed over mobile phones, laptops and airtime credit to insurgents. They said the memory stick revealed plans to train the Taliban to use secure satellite phones, so they could communicate directly with UK officials.

    Mr Patterson, a Briton, was the third-ranking UN diplomat when he was held. Mr Semple, an Irishman, was the acting head of the EU mission. Officially, the British embassy remains tight-lipped, fuelling speculation that the plan may have been part of a wider clandestine operation.

    A spokesman repeated the line used since Christmas: “The EU and UN have responded to inquiries on this. We have nothing further to add.”

    But privately, the UN maintains it had no role in setting up the camp. Meanwhile, Mr Semple’s EU boss, Francesc Vendrell, admitted he had very little idea what was going on.

    Yet the British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, cut short his Christmas holiday to meet President Karzai and “spell out the Foreign Office paper-trail” which diplomats claim proves his government had agreed. They met twice, but it was not enough to stop Mr Semple and Mr Patterson being forced to leave.

    Gordon Brown has also said Britain would increase its support for “community defence initiatives, where local volunteers are recruited to defend homes and families modelled on traditional Afghan arbakai”.

    Background to the proposal

    * December 11

    British and Afghan troops take Musa Qala, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand, after President Hamid Karzai reveals that a senior Taliban commander swapped sides.

    * December 23-24

    The acting head of the EU mission, Michael Semple, and the third-ranking UN diplomat in Afghanistan, Mervyn Patterson, hold talks with local dignitaries and Taliban sympathisers in Helmand. Afghan secret police arrest their colleague, General Stanikzai, and seize a memory stick containing plans for training camps.

    * December 25

    Semple and Patterson are given 48 hours in which to leave Kabul.

    * December 27

    The two diplomats fly out of the Afghan capital, despite international appeals to let them stay.

    ‘Basic rules ignored in war on terror’

    0

    The White House has overlooked the basic rule of ‘know your enemy’ in its anti-terrorist strategy in the ‘war on terror’, an analyst says.

    “The attention of the US military and intelligence community is directed almost uniformly towards hunting down militant leaders or protecting US forces, [and] not towards understanding the enemy we now face,” AFP quoted Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University as saying.

    “Al-Qaeda’s ability to continue this struggle is based absolutely on its capacity to attract new recruits and replenish its resources,” Hoffman continued.

    He noted that through ignorance of the enemy, the Bush administration faces ignorance of the nature of its policies against al-Qaeda, its goals, strengths and weaknesses.

    “Without knowing our enemy, we cannot fulfill the most basic requirements of an effective counter-terrorist strategy: pre-empting and preventing terrorist operations and deterring their attacks,” he concluded.

    MD/HGH/DT

    Mass Psychology and Education

    Brent Jessop

    “For some reason which I have failed to understand, many people like the system [scientific totalitarianism] when it is Russian but disliked the very same system when it was German. I am compelled to think that this is due to the power of labels; these people like whatever is labelled ‘Left’ without examining whether the label has any justification.”- Bertrand Russell, 1952 (p56)

    What exactly is the purpose of education? Does the government want to teach young people how to think and reason for themselves or is it a form of mass psychology aimed at propagandising the young? These questions are examined through Bertrand Russell’s 1952 book entitled The Impact of Science on Society*.

    Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell (1872-1970) was a renowned British philosopher and mathematician who was an adamant internationalist and worked extensively on the education of young children. He was the founder of the Pugwash movement which used the spectre of Cold War nuclear annihilation to push for world government. Among many other prizes, Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1950 and UNESCO’s (United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization) Kalinga prize in 1957.

    Part 1 of this series examines the impact of “scientific technique” on society. The second part explores Bertrand Russell’s views on the stability of a worldwide scientific society. Part 3 deals with population control and the scientific breeding of humans.

    Education, a Modern Method of Propaganda

    From Bertrand Russell’s The Impact of Science on Society:

    “I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study… This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government. It is, of course, as a science, founded upon individual psychology, but hitherto it has employed rule-of-thumb methods which were based upon a kind of intuitive common sense. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called ‘education’. Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the Press, the cinema and the radio play an increasing part.

    What is essential in mass psychology is the art of persuasion. If you compare a speech of Hitler’s with a speech of (say) Edmund Burke, you will see what strides have been made in the art since the eighteenth century. What went wrong formerly was that people had read in books that man is a rational animal, and framed their arguments on this hypothesis. We now know that limelight and a brass band do more to persuade than can be done by the most elegant train of syllogisms. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.

    This subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship. Anaxagoras maintained that snow is black, but no one believed him. The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakeable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark grey.” [emphasis mine] – 40

    The Intended Result of Education

    “The completeness of the resulting control over opinion depends in various ways upon scientific technique. Where all children go to school, and all schools are controlled by the government, the authorities can close the minds of the young to everything contrary to official orthodoxy. Printing is impossible without paper, and all paper belongs to the State. Broadcasting and the cinema are equally public monopolies. The only remaining possibility of unauthorised propaganda is by secret whispers from one individual to another. But this, in turn, is rendered appallingly dangerous by improvements in the art of spying. Children at school are taught that it is their duty to denounce their parents if they allow themselves subversive utterances in the bosom of the family. No one can be sure that a man who seems to be his dearest friend will not denounce him to the police; the man may himself have been in some trouble, and may know that if he is not efficient as a spy his wife and children will suffer. All this is not imaginary, it is daily and hourly reality. Nor, given oligarchy, is there the slightest reason to expect anything else.” [emphasis mine] – 58

    “Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. It may be worthwhile to spend a few moments in speculating as to possible future developments of those that are oligarchies.

    It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.” [emphasis mine] – 61

    That is really worth repeating.

    “Diet, injections, and injunctions [a command, admonition, etc.] will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”

    Some Miscellaneous Uses of Education

    “…result from the elimination of war [and the establishment of a world government]. A great deal, also, is to be hoped from a change in propaganda. Nationalist propaganda, in any violent form, will have to be illegal, and children in schools will not be taught to hate and despise foreign nations. Active instruction in the evils of the old times and the advantages of the new system would do the rest. I am convinced that only a few psychopaths would wish to return to the daily dread of radioactive disintegration.” – 108

    “The nations which at present increase [their populations] rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation.” [emphasis mine] – 116

    The idea of using education or rather sex education to reduce the population of the west was further promoted in 1968 by Paul Ehrlich in his book The Population Bomb**:

    “We need a federal law requiring sex education in schools – sex education that includes discussion of the need for regulating the birth rate and of the techniques of birth control. Such education should begin at the earliest age recommended by those with professional competence in this area – certainly before junior high school.

    By “sex education” I do not mean course focusing on hygiene or presenting a simple-minded “birds and bees” approach to human sexuality. The reproductive function of sex must be shown as just one of its functions, and one that must be carefully regulated in relation to the needs of the individual and society.” – 133

    For more on Paul Ehrlich’s views on the use of education and other means of population control please read this previous article, Population, Religion and Sex Education.

    The Governing Classes Only

    Most people reading this article are the products of a state run educational system. If the above is not enough to make you reflect on the merits of universal education and on all of the things you were ‘taught’ as a child (and since then), hopefully the following quote will.

    “Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen…” [emphasis mine] – 41

    *Quotes from Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society (1952). ISBN0-415-10906-X
    **Quotes from: Paul R. Ehrlich. The Population Bomb: Revised & Expanded Edition (1968, 1971). SBN 345-24489-3-150.

    Pentagon Panel: U.S. Must Sell ‘Good News’

    By Sharon Weinberger

    “The strategic communication problem is to make good news as entertaining as bad news,” says a new report by the Defense Science Board, a senior-level Pentagon advisory panel that normally looks at science and technology issues.

    Though the panel has done other reports on strategic communication, this one is significant in that the panel reaches beyond the Pentagon to make recommendations about how strategic communication should be handled by other parts of the government, such as State Department and the White House. While the panel does not mention Donald Rumsfeld’s idea of a new global communications agency, it does suggest a senior White House position for strategic communication.

    Some of the recommendations are interesting, such as the proposed creation of a RAND-like organization to study “strategic communication.” But what is strange about this report (and perhaps the majority of reports I’ve seen on strategic communication) is that it discusses the issue as if convincing people to like the United States is a matter of simply crafting the right messages. While more effective strategic communication is a worthy goal, it’s mystifying that there is little or no discussion in reports such as this about that actual implications of policy choices for how the rest of the world perceives the United States.

    How Anti-Terror Laws Threaten Free Speech

    By JOANNE MARINER

    Restrictions of all sorts have multiplied in the heightened security environment of the last six-and-a-half years, so it should be no surprise that, around the world, legal restrictions on speech have tightened. Since 2001, there has been a clear trend toward prohibiting speech perceived as supporting terrorism, and toward barring the dissemination of materials–including books, videos, and other forms of written and graphic communication–that are believed to be of use for terrorist activity.

    International protections on free expression in no way restrict governments from criminally prosecuting direct incitement to terrorism–speech that directly encourages the commission of a crime, is intended to result in criminal action, and is likely to result in criminal action–whether or not criminal action does, in fact, result. (In the United States, where the Constitution imposes stricter protections for expression than found elsewhere, the courts have required that the prohibited incitement present a risk of “imminent” criminal action.) Yet the legal trend globally is not only to criminalize direct incitement to terrorist activity, but to criminalize indirect incitement–to prohibit speech perceived as justifying, defending, or “glorifying” terrorism. This, from the standpoint of free expression, is problematic.

    The British government has been a leader in this effort. Not only has it passed new domestic laws to regulate speech, it has pressed international institutions to take up the issue. In September 2005, the U.N. Security Council adopted a UK-sponsored resolution that purported to repudiate “attempts at the justification or glorification (apologie) of terrorist acts that may incite further terrorist acts.” Although the resolution used the term incitement, rather than indirect incitement, its references to justification and glorification suggested a broad understanding of the term.

    Earlier that year, the Council of Europe, a European human rights body, adopted a Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism with similarly expansive language. The treaty requires states to criminalize “public provocation” of terrorism, a crime that could include indirect incitement. The convention defines public provocation as the public dissemination of a message “with the intent to incite the commission of a terrorist offence, where such conduct, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences, causes a danger that one or more such offences may be committed.” Note the clear erosion of the incitement standard: There’s no need for the message to directly encourage terrorism, and rather than having to be “likely” to result in criminal action, it’s enough that the message may “cause a danger” of such action.

    A Global Survey

    Let’s review a few examples from different countries to get a better sense of what kinds of statements these laws tend to cover:

    . The UK’s 2006 counterterrorism law criminalizes any public statement that is intended to encourage, or that recklessly encourages, acts of terrorism, if the statement takes the form of “glorif[ying] the commission or preparation (whether in the past, in the future or generally) of such acts or offences” and is such that the audience “could reasonably infer” that what is being glorified should be emulated. (A 2000 UK law already specifies that “inciting another person to commit an act of terrorism” is a criminal offense, one punishable in the same manner as the offense that was incited.)

    . Under Zimbabwe’s 2006 counterterrorism law, a person who “solicits, invites, or encourages moral or material support” for a designated terrorist organization commits an offense.

    . The United Arab Emirates’ 2004 counterterrorism law reportedly provides for up to five years of imprisonment for anyone who promotes verbally or in writing any of the offenses set out in the law.

    . Bahrain’s 2006 counterterrorism law includes extremely broad and vaguely-drafted restrictions on expression. The law provides that: “Whoever uses religion, religious buildings, public places or religious festivities to propagate provocative appeals or extremist ideas, or holds notices/posters, or puts up graphics, pictures, slogans or signs that might create fitna [disorder] or insult monotheist religions, their symbols or their believers, or harm the national unity or social peace, or destabilize security or public order shall be punished by imprisonment and fine or one or both penalties.” The legislation also provides that anyone who “promotes or approves, in any way” of a terrorist act faces imprisonment.

    . El Salvador’s 2006 counterterrorism law prescribes a five- to ten-year prison sentence for anyone who publicly justifies terrorism.

    . In Australia, the 2005 Anti-Terrorism Act bars organizations from advocating terrorism. An organization is understood to advocate a terrorist act if it: 1) “directly or indirectly counsels or urges” such an act; 2) “provides instruction” on how to commit such an act, or 3) “directly praises the doing of a terrorist act in circumstances where there is a risk that such praise might have the effect of leading a person Ö to engage in a terrorist act.”

    . Turkey’s 2006 counterterrorism law imposes criminal penalties on those who “make propaganda for a terrorist organization or for its aims.” The law provides for harsher penalties for those who do so using the media. A Council of Europe expert committee has criticized the provision, finding it to be “ambiguous and written in wide and vague terms.”

    . Under French and Spanish counterterrorism laws, which predate the September 11 terrorist attacks, the act of justifying terrorism (apologie or apolog’a) is a crime. The difference between the two countries is that such prosecutions are quite common in Spain, whereas they are extremely rare in France.

    What these laws generally have in common is broad language, which may in some instances cover legitimate political speech, and which gives prosecutors enormous discretion in deciding when and if to bring a case.

    Possession of a Map Without an Excuse

    In some countries, moreover, not only is it illegal to express views deemed to support terrorism, it is illegal to possess materials that support terrorism. Again, the UK has taken the lead in this area, both in passing legislation to restrict the possession and dissemination of such materials, and in prosecuting alleged offenders.

    . Under the UK’s 2000 counterterrorism law, the possession of articles connected to terrorism–including terrorism-related publications or videos–is a criminal offense, as long as there is some minimal showing that the person’s possession of the items may be related to plans to commit terrorism. Specifically, the law provides that: “[a] person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.”

    . Another provision of the same UK law criminalizes the possession of documents containing information “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.” This extremely broad provision–which could otherwise bar, for example, possessing a map of London–also provides that a person charged with violating the law may defend against prosecution by proving that he has “a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.”

    . Finally, the 2006 UK counterterrorism law criminalizes the distribution of “terrorist publications,” defined as publications that either glorify terrorist acts or are made available “wholly or mainly” because they would be useful in the commission or preparation of terrorist acts.

    Preemptive Action against Terrorism

    The reasoning behind such laws is understandable. Governments want to stop terrorism before it occurs; indeed, they would prefer to deal with the problem before the potential terrorist gets anywhere near the stage of actually planning violent acts. Some proportion of the people who communicate support for terrorism, or who read terrorist publications, may one day be moved to action.

    Still, a spate of recent prosecutions in the UK does little to instill confidence in these laws. Defendants have included a couple of 17-year-olds, and a young woman known (for her poems) as the “lyrical terrorist.” Are such people really a threat? It’s hard to tell; the problem with preemptive action is that it’s based on prediction. And while some number of adolescents may go from downloading Al Qaeda videos to actively supporting terrorism, the gap between the two activities is large.

    By wasting scarce legal and prosecutorial resources going after speech, rather than action, governments may be doing more harm than good. The defendants in such cases no doubt see them as political and religious persecution, and their families, neighbors and larger communities may agree.

    Joanne Mariner is a human rights attorney based in New York.

    VIDEO: Israeli Soldiers Speak Out

    1

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37MFa7ZKQWo[/youtube] 

    A searing interview with Avichai Sharon and Noam Chayut, both veterans of the Israeli Defense Forces and members of Breaking the Silence. Sharon and Chayut served during the second intifada, an on-going bloodbath that has claimed the lives of over three thousand Palestinians and nine-hundred-fifty Israelis. After thorough introspection, these young men have chosen to speak out about their experiences as self-described “brutal occupiers of a disputed land.” Producer: Sat Gwin

    Alternate Focus is available on the Dish Network, Free Speech TV, Channel 9415, Saturdays at 8:00pm EST and on cable stations near you. Check www.alternatefocus.org for details.

    VIDEO: MEP Exposes The EU Lisbon Treaty

    1

    We Are Change Ireland attended the Training Day on the Lisbon Treaty on Jan 2008 in Dublin. This was organized by Irish MEP Kathy Sinnott. Danish MEP Jens-Peter Bonde exposes the lies and manipulations by the EU elites to hide the significance of the treaty by making it unreadable.

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kr0Foq3CQE[/youtube]

    The United Nations Coming For Our Children?

    0

    Dana Gabriel

    A global transformation is being manifested through corporations, the media, entertainment, and the educational system. The social engineers and the agents of change wish to purge our children’s beliefs, value system, their independence, and their individuality. They are being replaced with more global beliefs, universal values, and interdependence. Their fragile little minds are being molded and shifted into group-think, while parental authority and influence is being undermined. The United Nations, through its numerous agencies and treaties, is undermining national sovereignty, and further dictating family policy. This is not to say that there aren’t well meaning people working for the UN, but at its very core, it has been hijacked by some wishing to use it for their own agenda. Under the guise of human rights, these cleverly worded and crafted treaties are anti-family and are about control and fail to honor, respect, or adhere to our own Constitution. It is through the educational system that they wish to correct any perceived errors in home training. As a result, children’s love and loyalty to their family and country is being systematically destroyed.

    Children are being indoctrinated to view everything from a world perspective, and are being conditioned to conform to universal values, environmental standards, and a whole new global management system. This is all part of training children to be good little slaves, I mean good global citizens. In schools, collective thinking is strongly encouraged, and children are taught that there must always be unity and consensus. Group interaction is important, but it doesn’t always have to end with everyone agreeing. Children are being made to see themselves as a group, where personal worth depends solely on service to the community and to the state. They are being desensitized to contrary values, and teaching is now more focused on feelings and emotions rather than facts and logic. They are being taught that morals and values are constantly changing, and that they need to establish a system that best suits them. There is no room for those who uphold their morals, including their parents. They are all viewed as intolerant and trying to impose their values on others. In this new system, a strong family unit is a threat, and there is no place for nationalism or individuality.

    Founded in 1945, the United Nations Educational and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has been described as a propaganda machine for the UN and world government. In 1984, the late President Reagan withdrew from UNESCO and stated., �It has exhibited a hostility toward institutions of free society, especially a free market and a free press.� In 2003, President Bush brought the U.S. back into UNESCO, promising they had reformed for the better. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, who opposed the decision, said, �UNESCO meddles in the education affairs of its member-countries and has sought to construct a UN-based school curriculum for American schools.� Much of our education system is already UNESCO-orientated and in fact an almost worldwide curriculum has been archived. UNESCO seeks to be the school board of the world and is indoctrinating children for world government. Its first director, Julian Huxley, said of UNESCO, �The task is to help the emergence of a single world culture with its own philosophy and background of ideas and with its own broad purpose.� In order to truly achieve this goal, they will have to destroy any feelings of nationalism and loyalty to one’s country, and undermine any traditional family values, biblical principles, and other influences at home and in the confides of the family structure. To further acclimate itself, the UN has entered into partnership with Marvel Comics, where superheroes will be depicted working side by side with the world body. Millions of American school children will receive these comics for free.

    The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is based on the same principles of the UN charter that rights and freedoms are granted by governments and institutions, and are conditional. In an article from 15 years ago, Phyllis Schlafly states that the convention, �is based on the concept that a child’s rights originate with the UN Treaty itself or with the government. The logical conclusion is that a child would have no rights except those in the Treaty, and what government gives, government also can take away.� The whole UN framework and philosophy runs contrary to the Bill of Rights and to the Constitution. The UNCRC fails to cement a parent’s right to make decisions for their own children. It is an assault on parental authority, and is a blank check for governmental interference in family affairs. It states that the government shall uphold and ensure children’s rights to freedom of thought, religion, conscience, privacy, and rest and leisure. In Article 13 it says that, �The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or though any other media of the child’s choice.� This clearly undermines parental authority and seemingly grants children radical new rights. It is meant to further promote a child’s autonomy and freedom from parental guidance. This was never about protecting the children, and has given the UN more power over our lives. It is being selectively enforced in countries where the convention has been signed and ratified.

    In Belgian, homeschool parents must sign a document stating that they promise to rear their children in accordance with the UNCRC. Government inspectors decide whether or not families are complying to UN training. Those not following the criteria have their children sent to government schools. It appears as if homeschooling has become a UN-sponsored activity. In Germany, the state views homeschooling as a violation of a child’s well being. The UNCRC gives the government the power to define and determine what is in a child’s best interests. If it does not pertain to abuse or neglect, it has no business otherwise. The UNCRC transfers parental rights and responsibilities to the state and grants children dangerous freedoms. It was signed by the Clinton administration in 1995, but has yet to be ratified. It lies dormant, but when the time is right, it could be dusted off much like the Law of the Sea Treaty was.

    Parents need to understand that the moment they send their children to public schools, they are surrendering a certain amount of authority and influence over their children. Values and principles installed by parents are being manipulated and pushed aside. The ideology of globalism and world government is at the very core of the educational system. Many are choosing to homeschool, but they are being demonized and are under attack. In places like Germany, homeschool parents are being fined, jailed, and in some cases are having their children taken away. There is a battle going on for the hearts and minds of our children. The social architects know that if they can shape and mold our children’s minds, they will undoubtedly control the future.

    VIDEO: Sibel Edmonds – Kill The Messenger

    2

    Documentary about Sibel Edmonds’ case called Kill The Messenger (“Une Femme à Abattre”) premiered in France. The documentary focuses on both Ms. Edmonds’s personal struggle to expose the criminality that she claims to have uncovered while at the FBI, and also the alleged ‘secret’ itself – the network of nuclear black-market, narcotics and illegal arms trafficking activities.

    [googlevideo]http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1991080575212848283&q=Kill+the+Messenger&total=364&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0[/googlevideo]

    ..

    Bush Allowed To Continue Violating Laws

    1

    Conyers Staffer Says They Are Choosing to Let Bush Continue Violating Laws

    By Donna Norton, Sonoma County PDA

    On January 25th, I had a telephone conversation (40 mins +) with a legislative assistant in Conyers’ office regarding impeachment. He had obviously been well-instructed on how to express their current policy. Our conversation included both Bush and Cheney, and took some strange turns, but this is basically the stand they’re taking:

    * Impeachment’s not necessary. The next election will take care of EVERYTHING. Just ELECT DEMOCRATS. (This chorus was repeated throughout our discussion.)

    * A sitting President is not subject to court actions. Nothing in the Constitution says a President is subject to the law. He finally conceded this remains an “unsettle” question in the courts. (I insisted on documentation to support his statements, and he emailed me a Congressional report, 1978 “CRS Report for Congress” #98-186 A, on impeachment, about 30 pgs.)

    * Congress does not have an OBLIGATION or duty to investigate or take any action to prevent a President from breaking the law or abusing his powers. It’s totally up to THEIR DISCRETION.

    * It’s okay for their decision to be based on party politics rather than Constitutional considerations because the decision is solely theirs to make.

    * The courts can follow up with any illegal acts of the President or Vice-President AFTER they’re out of office, and all will be fine.

    * Correcting power-abuse really has no meaning because power is what it’s all about. They all abuse it. So what? It’s just politics.

    We both agreed that according to what he was telling me, it boils down to the following:

    A sitting President is not subject to the law as long as he remains in office. He can CONTINUE to break laws as long as he remains in office. He can only be removed DURING his term of office (and therefore become subject to the law) through impeachment. Only Congress can impeach, and it’s solely up to their DISCRETION. So, as long as Congress successfully blocks the impeachment process, they are willfully allowing the President to remain completely outside the law, condoning that principle, and, in effect, shielding him from being removed from office so that he will be subject to the law and can be prosecuted. Congress has no OBLIGATION to intervene.

    The aide seemed not the least bit disturbed by the gravity or import of my conclusions. It is, after all, just politics. And, by the way, electing Democrats to office will take care of everything (just in case I forgot to mention that).

    Illegal bugging of Muslim MP

    2

    Sunday Times: illegal bugging of Muslim MP – Wilson Doctrine breached ?

    Spy Blog

    The Sunday Times leads with an interesting scoop, involving two topics about which we have written about here on Spy Blog, namely the Wilson Doctrine executive administrative prohibition on tapping or bugging the communications of Members of Parliament, and the controversial attempt by the US government to extradite British Muslim IT technician Babar Ahmad to the USA, without presenting any prima facie evidence to a British Court.

    From The Sunday Times February 3, 2008 Police bugged Muslim MP Sadiq KhanInsight: Michael Gillard and Jonathan Calvert

    SCOTLAND YARD’S anti-terrorist squad secretly bugged a high-profile Labour Muslim MP during private meetings with one of his constituents.

    Sadiq Khan, now a government whip, was recorded by an electronic listening device hidden in a table during visits to the constituent in prison.

    Sadiq Khan MP for Tooting has an almost perfect record of supporting and voting in the most repressive Labour legislation e.g. Terrorism, Extradition, and ID Cards etc.

    A document seen by The Sunday Times shows there was internal concern about the propriety of bugging an MP, who was also a lawyer, but the operation nevertheless went ahead.The disclosure will put further pressure on Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, who will be asked to explain why his officers apparently breached government rules by bugging the MP — and if he authorised it.

    The bugging of MPs is a breach of a government edict that has barred law agencies from eavesdropping on politicians since the bugging scandal of Harold Wilson’s government. There was no suspicion of criminal conduct by Khan to justify the operation.

    The original Wilson Doctrine only applied to to landline telephone conversation of Members of the House of Commons (mobile phones and internet email had net yet even been invented back in 1966).

    However the Wilson Doctrine seems to have been extended slightly under Tony Blair in 2000 to also cover electronic surveillance i.e. “bugging”, as well.

    Written answers Wednesday, 27 September 2000Lord Roper (Liberal Democrat)

    asked Her Majesty’s Government:

    […]

    Whether they will extend the prohibition on tapping the telephones of Members of Parliament to the interception of any form of electronic communication.
    Lord Bassam of Brighton (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office) |

    […]

    Further, pursuant to the answers given to the Lord Balfour of Inchrye by The Lord Privy Seal on 22 November 1966 (Official Report, col. 122) stating that, exceptionally, the statement made by the Prime Minister extends to the House of Lords, the Government can confirm that the policy described in previous answers applies in relation to the use of electronic surveillance as well as to telephone interception.

    See our Wilson Doctrine category archive for more blog articles and transcripts.

    […]

    Last night Jack Straw, the justice secretary, said that he had ordered an immediate inquiry and added that it would be “unacceptable” for such a bugging operation to take place.

    Jack Straw’s Ministry of Justice is in charge of Prisons (see below), but he has no power of the Police, especially not over the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, as they are now called.

    There was no mention of this intrusive electronic surveillance of a Member of Parliament in the relevant Annual Reports of the then Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the Rt. Hon. Sir Andrew Leggatt, whose office is supposed to sanction each request to use such bugging devices.

    If the bugging was done without informing the Office of the Chief Surveillance Commissioner, then it was illegal under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

    Will the current Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the Rt Hon Sir Christopher Rose investigate these Sunday Times allegations ?

    Will the Independent Police Complaints Commission conduct an investigation ?

    Will the House of Commons investigate this breach of Parliamentary Privilege ?

    Will anyone actually shoulder the responsibility for this scandal ?

    […]The bugging operation recorded conversations with his constituent, Babar Ahmad, who is facing deportation to the United States under new extradition laws. Khan has been a friend of Ahmad since childhood and has been a prominent campaigner against his extradition. He met the home secretary to discuss the case and handed over a petition of 18,000 signatures calling for Ahmad’s release.

    The US government has accused Ahmad of running a website that raised funds for Taliban and Chechen terrorists in the late 1990s. He faces no charges in Britain but is wanted in the United States because his website was registered there.

    Neither the Chechen rebels nor the Taliban were illegal organisations in the UK at the time, and even today, scandalously, they are still not on the List of Proscribed Terrorist Groups under the Terrorism Act 2000 !

    See also

    Khan made two visits to Ahmad in 2005 and 2006 while he was on remand at Woodhill prison in Milton Keynes. Both meetings were secretly recorded. Ahmad’s family say he arranged the meetings because he was no longer free to go Khan’s constituency office in Tooting, south London, and wanted to see his MP.Knowing that Khan was coming, the antiterrorist squad requested the bugging. Senior officers had already granted authori-sation to bug Ahmad’s guests before Khan first visited. The officers had previously recorded family members who were leading the campaign to free him.

    On what grounds was the bugging of Babar Ahmad’s family visits authorised by the anti-terrorism Police ?

    The meetings took place in the main visitors’ hall where each inmate is allocated an identical wooden table. Underneath the tables is a solid wood partition that separates prisoners from their visitors.However, The Sunday Times has learnt that at least six of the tables have had their panels hollowed out to hide bugging equipment. They are known as “talking tables” . Inside each panel is a microphone, a battery, an antenna and a transmitter.

    Such is the secrecy surrounding these tables that even the prison officers are said to be unaware of them. They are operated and maintained by specialist detectives permanently based at the prison.

    The second meeting between Khan and Ahmad took place on the Saturday morning of June 24, 2006, during a crucial period for his campaign and legal case. Khan bought cups of tea and chocolate bars and joined Ahmad who had already been seated at one of the “talking tables”.

    Every word was transmitted to a receiver in the domed ceiling above them and then routed to a nearby office. The digital recording was picked up by an antiterrorist branch officer the next Monday morning.

    If there was nobody bothering to listen in to the conversations “live””, they cannot have suspected any sort of imminent criminal conspiracy such as a prison escape or some terrorist attack

    During the conversation the two men discussed the latest developments in the campaign against extradition. Khan up-dated Ahmad on a meeting in the House of Commons against the 2003 Extradition Act.The Commons gathering had drawn support from politicians of all parties who had objected to changes in the law that allowed the United States to extradite suspects without first testing the case in a British court.

    The antiterrorist officers would have heard Khan and Ahmad discussing tactics for his appeal, which was due to start shortly. The two men also talked about the civil case he was taking against the police, alleging that he was physically assaulted by officers when he was first arrested in December 2003 and released without charge.

    […]

    Meanwhile, Khan was promoted to assistant government whip in the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for prisons.

    The Sunday Times told him about the bugging operation last week. A friend said the disclosure might further undermine the government’s attempt to “reengage” the Muslim community. He said: “If he was not a Muslim MP would they be doing this? If it had been some ordinary white middle-class MP, would they have been bugged?” He added that this was a violation of an MP’s relationship with his constituent: “If you have not got the confidence to see your MP and know it is privileged, then that raises serious questions. It is f****** outrageous.”

    The bugging is a probable breach of the Wilson doctrine that has protected politicians from eavesdropping by the security services for more than 40 years. It was introduced by Harold Wilson, then prime minister, and was reaffirmed in the Commons by Tony Blair as recently as March 2006.

    That is poor research by the Sunday Time’s supposedly elite investigative journalism Insight team. They should have mentioned that the Wilson Doctrine was also reaffirmed by Prime Minister Gordon Brown on 17th July 2007 and again on 17th September 2007

    Yesterday a senior Scotland Yard officer said Khan’s work as a defence lawyer had generated “ill feeling” in the Metropolitan police and questioned whether the force had legitimate grounds for the bugging. The officer said: “To do this you have to suspect the MP of being involved in some sort of conspiracy.”He added that the operation may have breached Ahmad’s legal privilege: “The officers in charge would have known that because Khan is an MP and a lawyer there was a grave danger that the legal professional privilege would be breached.”

    Ahmad remains in jail having lost his appeals in Britain and is awaiting a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights. He has also lodged a civil claim against Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner. Ahmad’s wife Maryam has called for the home secretary to investigate the police bugging operation.

    Last week an official report suggested that authorities, including local councils, were launching bugging operations against 1,000 people a day.

    More poor research by the Insight team !

    There is a big difference between “bugging operations” like the one described in this article, involving hidden microphones or video cameras and radio transmitters, and the interception of electronic or postal communications e.g. the contents of telephones calls or emails etc.

    Last week’s “official report” was the delayed Report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner for 2006 by the Rt. Hon. Sir Paul Kennedy.

    That report does not make any such claim, it gives a figure for requests for Communications Traffic Data by local councils end other Government quangos and the Police and intelligence agencies, but the vast majority of these are for telephone number subscriber details, not for the contents of the conversations, – this is not “bugging”.

    […]

    Will the medium level (Superintendent) Police officers who authorised this bugging, or the junior operatives who carried it out, be made to take the blame for this scandal, or will someone senior actually do the honourable thing and resign ?

    Tony Blair eyes ‘president of Europe’ job

    0

    Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is reportedly eying a new political office — president of Europe.

    Blair has been discussing the post of president of the council of the European Union, a post created by the revised E.U. treaty, The Guardian reported. The president is to be the permanent head of the council of ministers.

    French President Nicolas Sarkozy would like Blair to have the job, the report said.

    Blair’s interest in the post reportedly depends on whether the president has power to take an active role in defense and trade. He currently represents the Quartet — the United States, Russia, European Union and United Nations — in the Middle East.

    If Blair attains the new office, he would have to give up private sector positions he has acquired since leaving 10 Downing St.

    Copyright 2008 by UPI

    FBI whistleblower spills secrets

    1

    Philip Giraldi

    Most Americans have never heard of Sibel Edmonds, and if the U.S. government has its way, they never will. The former FBI translator turned whistleblower tells a chilling story of corruption at Washington’s highest levels–sale of nuclear secrets, shielding of terrorist suspects, illegal arms transfers, narcotics trafficking, money laundering, espionage. She may be a first-rate fabulist, but Edmonds’s account is full of dates, places, and names. And if she is to be believed, a treasonous plot to embed moles in American military and nuclear installations and pass sensitive intelligence to Israeli, Pakistani, and Turkish sources was facilitated by figures in the upper echelons of the State and Defense Departments. Her charges could be easily confirmed or dismissed if classified government documents were made available to investigators.

    But Congress has refused to act, and the Justice Department has shrouded Edmonds’s case in the state-secrets privilege, a rarely used measure so sweeping that it precludes even a closed hearing attended only by officials with top-secret security clearances. According to the Department of Justice, such an investigation “could reasonably be expected to cause serious damage to the foreign policy and national security of the United States.”

    After five years of thwarted legal challenges and fruitless attempts to launch a congressional investigation, Sibel Edmonds is telling her story, though her defiance could land her in jail. After reading its November piece about Louai al-Sakka, an al-Qaeda terrorist who trained 9/11 hijackers in Turkey, Edmonds approached the Sunday Times of London. On Jan. 6, the Times, a Murdoch-owned paper that does not normally encourage exposés damaging to the Bush administration, featured a long article. The news quickly spread around the world, with follow-ups appearing in Israel, Europe, India, Pakistan, Turkey, and Japan–but not in the United States.

    Edmonds is an ethnic Azerbaijani, born in Iran. She lived there and in Turkey until 1988, when she emigrated to the United States, where she received degrees in criminal justice and psychology from George Washington University. Nine days after 9/11, Edmonds took a job at the FBI as a Turkish and Farsi translator. She worked in the 400-person translations section of the Washington office, reviewing a backlog of material dating back to 1997 and participating in operations directed against several Turkish front groups, most notably the American Turkish Council.

    The ATC, founded in 1994 and modeled on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, was intended to promote Turkish interests in Congress and in other public forums. Edmonds refers to ATC and AIPAC as “sister organizations.” The group’s founders include a number of prominent Americans involved in the Israel-Turkey relationship, notably Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and former congressman Stephen Solarz. Perle and Feith had earlier been registered lobbyists for Turkey through Feith’s company, International Advisors Inc. The FBI was interested in ATC because it suspected that the group derived at least some of its income from drug trafficking, Turkey being the source of 90 percent of the heroin that reaches Europe, and because of reports that it had given congressmen illegal contributions or bribes. Moreover, as Edmonds told the Times, the Turks have “often acted as a conduit for the Inter-Services Intelligence, Pakistan’s spy agency, because they were less likely to attract attention.”

    Over nearly six months, Edmonds listened with increasing unease to hundreds of intercepted phone calls between Turkish, Pakistani, Israeli, and American officials. When she voiced concerns about the processing of this intelligence–among other irregularities, one of the other translators maintained a friendship with one of the FBI’s “high value” targets–she was threatened. After exhausting all appeals through her own chain of command, Edmonds approached the two Department of Justice agencies with oversight of the FBI and sent faxes to Sens. Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy on the Judiciary Committee. The next day, she was called in for a polygraph. According to a DOJ inspector general’s report, the test found that “she was not deceptive in her answers.”

    But two weeks later, Edmonds was fired; her home computer was seized; her family in Turkey was visited by police and threatened with arrest if they did not submit to questioning about an unspecified “intelligence matter.”

    When Edmonds’s attorney filed suit to obtain the documents related to her firing, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft imposed the state-secrets gag order. Since then, she has been subjected to another federal order, which not only silenced her, but retroactively classified the statements she eventually made before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the 9/11 Commission.

    Charismatic and articulate, the 37-year-old Edmonds has deftly worked the system to get as much of her story out as possible, on one occasion turning to French television to produce a documentary entitled “Kill the Messenger.” Passionate in her convictions, she has sometimes alienated her own supporters and ridden roughshod over critics who questioned her assumptions. But despite her shortcomings in making her case and the legitimate criticism that she may be overreaching in some of her conclusions, Edmonds comes across as credible. Her claims are specific, fact-based, and can be documented in detail. There is presumably an existing FBI file that could demonstrate the accuracy of many of her charges.

    Her allegations are not insignificant. Edmonds claims that Marc Grossman–ambassador to Turkey from 1994-97 and undersecretary of state for political affairs from 2001-05–was a person of interest to the FBI and had his phone tapped by the Bureau in 2001 and 2002. In the third-highest position at State, Grossman wielded considerable power personally and within the Washington bureaucracy. He had access to classified information of the highest sensitivity from the CIA, NSA, and Pentagon, in addition to his own State Department. On one occasion, Grossman was reportedly recorded making arrangements to pick up a cash bribe of $15,000 from an ATC contact. The FBI also intercepted related phone conversations between the Turkish Embassy and the Pakistani Embassy that revealed sensitive U.S. government information was being sold to the highest bidder. Grossman, who emphatically denies Edmonds’s charges, is currently vice chairman of the Cohen Group, founded by Clinton defense secretary William Cohen, where he reportedly earns a seven-figure salary, much of it coming from representing Turkey.

    After 9/11, Grossman reportedly intervened with the FBI to halt the interrogation of four Turkish and Pakistani operatives. According to Edmonds, Grossman was called by a Turkish contact who told him that the men had to be released before they told what they knew. Grossman said that he would take care of it and, per Edmonds, the men were released and allowed to leave the country.

    Edmonds states that FBI phone taps from late 2001 reveal that Grossman tipped off his Turkish contact regarding the CIA weapons proliferation cover unit Brewster Jennings, which was being used by Valerie Plame, and that the Turk then informed the Pakistani intelligence service representative in Washington. It is to be assumed that the information was then passed on to the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network.

    Edmonds also claims that Grossman was instrumental in seeding Turkish and Israeli Ph.D. students into major American research labs by godfathering visas and enabling security clearances. She says that she reviewed transcripts in which the moles in the U.S. military and academic community involved in nuclear technology reportedly carried out several “transactions” involving the sale of nuclear material or information relating to nuclear programs every month, with Pakistan being a primary buyer. In the summer of 2000, the FBI recorded a meeting between a Turkish official and two Saudi businessmen in Detroit in which nuclear information stolen from an Air Force base in Alabama was offered: “We have a package and we’re going to sell it for $250,000,” the wiretap allegedly recorded. “The network appeared to be obtaining information from every nuclear agency in the United States,” Edmonds told the Times.

    She further reports that beginning in 1999, the FBI was investigating senior Pentagon officials who were assisting agents of foreign governments, including Turkey and Israel. Edmonds has not publicly named names at the Pentagon, but a website linked to her appears to be a non-incriminating instrument for identifying suspects without doing so directly. Its “rogues gallery” includes photos of Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Perle was chief of the Pentagon’s prestigious Defense Policy Board when Edmonds was working at the FBI, and Feith was undersecretary of defense for policy. If either were being investigated, it would be a matter of record, as would any reasons for dropping the investigation. “If you made public all the information that the FBI have on this case, you will see very high-level people going through criminal trials,” Edmonds told the Times.

    She claims to have also learned that corrupt officials in the Turkish and Israeli Ministries of Defense falsified end-user certificates on weapons purchased in the United States to enable sales to third countries not allowed access to the technology. Principal recipients include the five “Stans” in central Asia–Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Kazakhstan.

    Furthermore, Edmonds says that former House speaker Dennis Hastert and at least two other congressmen were investigated as suspected recipients of illegal political contributions or even bribes from Turkish sources. Her website gallery includes photos of Congressmen Roy Blount, Dan Burton, and Tom Lantos, though she has not otherwise implicated any of the three directly.

    A low-level contractor might seem poorly positioned to expose major breaches of national security, but the FBI translators’ pool, riddled with corruption and nepotism, was key to keeping these secrets from surfacing. Edmonds’s claims that the section was infiltrated by translators who should never have received security clearances and who were deliberately failing to translate incriminating material are supported by the Justice Department inspector general investigation and by an FBI internal investigation, which concluded that she had been fired after making “valid complaints.” One translator, Melek Can Dickerson, who had worked for three Turkish front organizations under investigation–she failed to reveal this when applying for employment–allegedly stamped many documents of interest “not pertinent,” removed classified documents from FBI premises, and forged signatures on classified documents relating to 9/11 detainees. An Urdu translator was the daughter of a Pakistani Embassy employee who worked for Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of the Pakistani intelligence service who is accused of authorizing a $100,000 wire transfer to Mohammed Atta’s Dubai bank account immediately before 9/11. The Justice Department IG report confirmed Edmonds’s charge that translators’ section managers issued a go-slow order shortly after the terrorist attacks to create an artificial backlog that would justify an increase in budget and manpower. Those managers are reportedly still in place. Some have been promoted.

    Edmonds’s revelations have attracted corroboration in the form of anonymous letters apparently written by FBI employees. There have been frequent reports of FBI field agents being frustrated by the premature closure of cases dealing with foreign spying, particularly when those cases involve Israel, and the State Department has frequently intervened to shut down investigations based on “sensitive foreign diplomatic relations.” One such anonymous letter, the veracity of which cannot be determined, cites transcripts of wiretaps involving Marc Grossman and a Turkish Embassy official between August and December 2001, described above, in which Grossman warned the Turk that Brewster Jennings was a CIA cover company. If the allegation can be documented from FBI files, the exposure of the Agency cover mechanism took place long before journalist Robert Novak outed the company in his column on Valerie Plame in 2003. The anonymous informant conveniently provides the FBI file number containing the transcripts of the recorded conversations: FBI Washington Field Office, Counterintelligence Division, Turkish Unit File 203A-WF-210023. According to the source, the FBI also recorded a subsequent conversation in which a Turkish official contacted the Pakistani Embassy to inform an ISI officer of Grossman’s warning. The FBI also reportedly informed the CIA of the Grossman conversations to determine if there was any “conflict of interest,” presumably to determine if the CIA was running its own operation that might be compromised as a result of the phone tap.

    Curiously, the states-secrets gag order binding Edmonds, while put in place by DOJ in 2002, was not requested by the FBI but by the State Department and Pentagon–which employed individuals she identified as being involved in criminal activities. If her allegations are frivolous, that order would scarcely seem necessary. It would have been much simpler for the government to marginalize her by demonstrating that she was poorly informed or speculating about matters outside her competency. Under the Bush administration, the security gag order has been invoked to cover up incompetence or illegality, not to protect national security. It has recently been used to conceal the illegal wiretaps of the warrantless surveillance program, the allegations of torture and the CIA’s rendition program, and to shield the telecom industry for its collaboration in illegal eavesdropping.

    Both Senators Grassley and Leahy, a Republican and a Democrat, who interviewed her at length in 2002, attest to Edmonds’s believability. The Department of Justice inspector general investigation into her claims about the translations unit and an internal FBI review confirmed most of her allegations. Former FBI senior counterintelligence officer John Cole has independently confirmed her report of the presence of Pakistani intelligence service penetrations within the FBI translators’ pool.

    Edmonds wasn’t angling to become a media darling. She would have preferred to testify under oath before a congressional committee that could offer legal protection and subpoena documents and witnesses to support her case. She claims that a number of FBI agents would be willing to testify, though she has not named them.

    Prior to 2006, Congressman Henry Waxman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee promised Edmonds that if the Democrats gained control of Congress, he would order hearings into her charges. But following the Democratic sweep, he has been less forthcoming, failing to schedule hearings, refusing to take Edmonds’s calls, and recently stonewalling all inquiries into the matter. It is generally believed that Waxman, a strong supporter of Israel, is nervous about exposing an Israeli lobby role in the corruption that Edmonds describes. It is also suspected that Waxman fears that the revelations might open a Pandora’s box, damaging Republicans and Democrats alike.

    Edmonds’s critics maintain that she saw only a small part of the picture in a highly compartmentalized working environment, that she was privy to only a fragment of a large operation to penetrate and disrupt the groups that have been stealing U.S. weapons technology. She could not have known operational details of what the FBI was doing and why.

    That criticism is serious and must be addressed. If Edmonds was indeed seeing only part of a counterintelligence sting operation to entrap a nuclear network like that of A.Q. Khan, the government could now reveal as much in general terms, since any operation that might have been running in 2002 has long since wound down. Regarding her access to operational information, Edmonds’s critics clearly do not understand the intimate relationship that develops between FBI and CIA officers and their translators. Operations run against a foreign target in languages other than English require an intensive collaboration between field officers and translators. The translators are invariably brought into the loop because it is up to them to guide the officers seeking to understand what the target, who frequently is double talking or attempting to conceal his meaning, is actually saying. That said, it should be conceded that Edmonds might sometimes have seen only a piece of the story, and those claims based on her own interpretation should be regarded with caution.

    Another objection is that Edmonds would only have seen “raw intelligence” that does not provide nuance and does not really indicate whether someone is guilty. That argument has merit, and it is undeniable that many intercepted communications lack context. But it ignores the fact that someone recorded in the act of taking a bribe or interceding to have a suspect in a criminal investigation released is behaving with a certain transparency. One either takes money or does not. There is very little interpretation that can change that reality.

    Sibel Edmonds makes a number of accusations about specific criminal behavior that appear to be extraordinary but are credible enough to warrant official investigation. Her allegations are documentable: an existing FBI file should determine whether they are accurate. It’s true that she probably knows only part of the story, but if that part is correct, Congress and the Justice Department should have no higher priority. Nothing deserves more attention than the possibility of ongoing national-security failures and the proliferation of nuclear weapons with the connivance of corrupt senior government officials. 

    Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy.

    Hillary Clinton: A Bilderberg Presidency

    6

    European elite back Democratic frontrunner

    By Daniel Taylor

    “…Hillary will be good for America… we’ll be very pleased that she’s president.” — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Portfolio magazine, October 5, 2007

    While President Bush’s approval rating falls to record lows, the torch is being prepared to pass on to Hillary Clinton, with full endorsement from the global elite. With support from European nobility, Clinton has been selected as the candidate of choice for the continuation of globalist policies. Bill Clinton, being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, as well as the secretive Bilderberg group, was the creme de la creme establishment candidate. His wife, Hillary, who likely attended the 2006 Bilderberg conference in Ottawa Canada, now promises to follow in his path.

    In an October 5th interview conducted by Lloyd Grove of Portfolio magazine, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of Sir Evelyn Rothschild, openly proclaimed support for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Lloyd Grove begins by commenting on Lynn’s influence, writing of her first meeting with her future husband Evelyn Rothschild which took place at the 1998 Bilderberg conference in Turnberry, Scotland,

    “When 67-year-old British banking scion Sir Evelyn Rothschild first set eyes on 44-year-old Lynn Forester at the 1998 Bilderberg conference–the matchmaker was none other than Henry Kissinger–she was already a woman of major means.”

    When asked by Grove if Clinton will be “good for business,” Rothschild replies,

    “First of all, Hillary will be good for America. And so if we care about our country –which all of my fellow capitalists do –we’ll be very pleased that she’s president.”

    Writing in the Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton outlines her agenda if elected president. Iran is in Clinton’s sights, along with regional government, and likely support of the North American Union – and possibly a Pan-American union – with a “policy of vigorous engagement” with Latin America.

    Regarding Iran, Clinton echoes the rhetoric coming from President Bush and the Neo-cons,

    “Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”

    Clinton’s “vigorous engagement” stance toward Latin America would make North American integration proponent Robert Pastor and the CFR proud. Regional government, as well as regional currencies have been a long term goal of Bilderberg globalists and the Council on Foreign Relations. Clinton, if elected president would pursue further integration of Africa into the African Union,

    “We should target these countries for aid and other forms of support and work with them to strengthen regional institutions such as the African Union. The AU seeks to emulate the European Union by requiring and supporting democracy among its members…”

    Hillary Clinton congratulated Walter Cronkite in 1999 for his global governance award, given to him by the World Federalist Association for his support for a system of world government. “For decades you’ve told us the way it is, and tonight we honor you for fighting for the way it could be,” said Clinton.

    Watch this video to see Clinton’s statement:

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heegk07026I[/youtube]

    The thin veil covering the almost indistinguishable difference between the two major parties has all but disappeared. The good Congressman from Texas named Ron Paul is the only candidate that comes with no strings attached leading to globalist puppeteers. Paul’s popular yet simple message of freedom is spreading, while the establishment scrambles to scare up support from ever more skeptical Americans for their increasingly un-popular candidates.

    Daniel Taylor

    How the Media Messes with Your Mind

    0

    Statements made in the media can surreptitiously plant distortions in the minds of millions. Learning to recognize two commonly used fallacies can help you separate fact from fiction

    By Yvonne Raley and Robert Talisse

    In 2003 nearly half of all Americans falsely assumed that the U.S. government had found solid evidence for a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What is more, almost a quarter of us believed that investigators had all but confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a 2003 report by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, a polling and market research firm. How did the true situation in Iraq become so grossly distorted in American minds?

    Many people have attributed such misconceptions to a politically motivated disinformation campaign to engender support for the armed struggle in Iraq. We do not think the deceptions were premeditated, however. Instead they are most likely the result of common types of reasoning errors, which appear frequently in discussions in the news media and which can easily fool an unsuspecting public.

    News shows often have an implicit bias that may motivate the portrayal of facts and opinions in misleading ways, even if the information presented is largely accurate. Nevertheless, by becoming familiar with how spokespeople can create false impressions, media consumers can learn to ignore certain claims and thereby avoid getting duped. We have detected two general types of fallacies–one of them well known and the other newly identified–that have permeated discussion of the Iraq War and that are generally ubiquitous in political debates and other discourse.

    Spinning Straw into Fool’s Gold
    One common method of spinning information is the so-called straw man argument. In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. In a November 2005 speech, for example, President George W. Bush responded to questions about pulling troops out of Iraq by saying, “We’ve heard some people say, pull them out right now. That’s a huge mistake. It’d be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis.” The statement that unnamed “people” are advocating a troop withdrawal from Iraq “right now” is a straw man, because it exaggerates the opposing viewpoint. Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal. Most proposed that the soldiers be sent home over several months, a more reasonable and persuasive plan that Bush undercut with his straw man.

    The straw man is used in countless other contexts as well. In his acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention, for instance, Bill Clinton opined: “… with all respect [to Bob Dole], we do not need to build a bridge to the past. We need to build a bridge to the future.” Dole did discuss restoring the values of an earlier America, but Clinton falsely implied that Dole was only looking backward (whereas Clinton was looking forward). People may use a straw man to discredit theories to which they do not subscribe. Characterizing evolution, for example, as “all random chance” is a straw man argument; it misrepresents a complex theory that only partly rests on the randomness of mutations that may lead to better chances of survival.

    Recently, in a 2006 paper co-authored with Scott F. Aikin, one of us (Talisse) documented a twist on the straw man tactic. In what Talisse dubs a weak man argument, a person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does. In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that  “the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum.” (The editorial actually said that “some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat,” but let us assume that O’Reilly’s characterization was correct.)

    O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat:  “The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The U.S.A. can’t control that country. No nation could…. Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.” Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible–and possibly more likely–reasons for “defeat” in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the “U.S.A. can’t control that country” and that “no nation could” deflected blame from the U.S. government.

    Weak man arguments are pervasive. In a 2005 editorial in Denver’s Rocky Mountain News, conservative writer and activist David Horowitz picked on ethnic studies scholar Ward Churchill, formerly at the University of Colorado at Boulder, whose views he described as “hateful and ignorant.” Horowitz then went on to claim that Churchill’s radical “hate America” convictions  “represent” those of a “substantial seg­ment of the academic community.” Thus, he used the example of Churchill (the weak man) to argue that “tenured radicals” have made universities into leftist political institutions and subverted the academic enterprise, thereby failing to acknowledge the presence of more highly regarded and politically mainstream scholars in academia.

    Trolling for Truth
    Weak man tactics are harder to detect than those of the straw man variety. Because straw man arguments are closely related to an opponent’s true position, a clever listener might be able to spot the truth amid the hyperbole, understatement or other corrupted version of that view. A weak man argument, however, is more opaque because it contains a grain of truth and often bears little similarity to the stronger arguments that should also be presented. Therefore, a listener has to know a lot more about the situation to imagine the information that a speaker or writer has cleverly disregarded.

    Nevertheless, an astute consumer of the news can catch many straw man and weak man fallacies by knowing how they work. Another strategy is to always consider a speaker’s or writer’s motivation or agenda and be especially alert for skewed statements of fact in editorials, television opinion shows, and the like. It is also wise to obtain news from more balanced news sources. An alternative approach is to try to construct, in your own mind, the best argument against what you have heard before accepting it as true. Or simply ask yourself: Why should I not believe this?

    VIDEO: What really happened in New Orleans?

    0

    Big Easy to Big Empty

    [googlevideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7029031334565008156&hl=en[/googlevideo]
    http://www.brasschecktv.com

    A video from GregPalast.com

    This excerpt of Greg Palast’s “Big Easy to Big Empty” also appears on “Food Music Justice”, a web site for people who care about the people of New Orleans.

    If you want to know what’s really going on in New Orleans and how you can help, please visit:

    http://www.FoodMusicJustice.com

    Does the US fund energy projects in Iran?

    0

    The World Bank is reportedly using US monetary contributions to help Iran build up and develop its various industries and gas sector.

    The World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) has issued $122.2 million in guarantee coverage for three foreign companies which have in turn invested a total of $42.8 million in Iran’s Mehr Petrochemical Company, Fox News reported.

    The three companies are Cementhai Chemicals Company and National Petrochemical Public Company Ltd., both from Thailand, and Itocho Corporation, from Japan, with the latter providing the Iranian company with an additional $96 million shareholder loan, which is also underwritten by MIGA.

    MIGA uses contributions to provide financial guarantees to secure foreign investments in developing countries. It is the first time, however, that the Agency has provided such coverage for foreign investments in Iran.

    According to Fox News, The US has provided the World Bank with nearly $24 million since 2000.

    These projects have helped Iran ‘diversify its exports away from oil’ and ‘contribute to government revenues’, Fox News quoted MIGA as saying.

    AKM/AA

    Ron Paul: Purpose of Constitution forgotten

    0

    Republican hopeful Ron Paul says although America is falling from the purpose of the Constitution, it is not too late to change pace.

    “What is frightening today is the war on terrorism, which has instilled fear in us,” Paul said Friday night at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver.

    “They tell us that because the war is going to go for a long time, we have to sacrifice our liberties for a long time, and we have to say no to that. We have to take our civil liberties back,” expounded the 10-term congressman.

    Paul, who has campaigned as a ‘true Republican’ urging American politicians to abide by the Constitution, also claimed he would withdraw US troops and end the war in Iraq if elected president.

    The libertarian turned Republican then suggested that Washington has adopted policies that contradict the Constitution.

    “The truth is [that] not everybody in the country understands what we do. A lot of people don’t understand and they just go with the flow… [But] once you know the truth, you have to act on it. You can’t sit on your hands any longer,” continued the 72-year-old Texas congressman.

    Ron Paul’s supporters – Paulenteers – say the Republican congressman’s message of ‘freedom, peace and prosperity’ resonates with them and that time has come to repair the bad image of the United States in the international arena.

    MD/AA

    Germany rejects US demand to increase troops

    0

    By Tony Paterson in Berlin

    A bitter diplomatic row between Germany and the United States deepened yesterday after Berlin flatly rejected demands from Washington that it deploy troops in war-torn southern Afghanistan and angrily dismissed the request as “impertinent” and a “fantastic cheek”.

    Germany currently has some 3,200 soldiers stationed in comparatively tranquil northern Afghanistan and the capital Kabul as part of the current Nato peacekeeping mission. It has been urged to deploy troops in the south before but has consistently refused. Yesterday however, it became clear that Washington had stepped up pressure on Berlin to commit troops to the south.

    The move followed increased Taliban attacks and threats from Canada that it would withdraw its Afghanistan contingent completely unless more Nato troops were sent south. Canada has lost 77 combat troops in the region.

    Two US non-governmental studies released this week warned that Afghanistan could once again become a failed state and terrorist haven.

    Details of what was described as an “unusually stern” letter written by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, to Franz Josef Jung, his German counterpart, were leaked to the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper yesterday.

    The letter described Germany’s performance as “disappointing” and asked it to consider a new Afghanistan mandate which would enable its paratroopers and helicopter units to be sent to the south of the country. It said the US wanted German soldiers to help replace an American contingent of 2,200 troops which is to be withdrawn this autumn.

    Germany’s response was a mixture of outrage and surprise. Initial comments leaked from an unnamed defence ministry source described the Gates’ letter as “impertinent”, and as a “fantastic cheek”. One official accused Mr Gates of trying to inflict “psychological torture” on Germany.

    Chancellor Angela Merkel let it be known through her spokesman that the issue was “not up for discussion”. Franz-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign minister, also flatly rejected the idea. “I think we must continue to focus our attention on the north,” he said.

    Mr Jung later justified the German position insisting that there were “clear regional divisions” regarding troop deployment in Afghanistan. “Our current mandate only allows for German soldiers to be sent to the south in emergencies,” he said. The issue is expected to come to a head next week when Nato defence ministers meet in Lithuania to discuss Afghanistan. Social Democrat MPs in Ms Merkel’s conservative-led grand coalition government also argued strongly against the idea of sending troops south. Rainer Arnold, the party’s defence spokesman, warned that the idea risked undermining the already shaky public support for Germany’s entire Afghanistan mission.

    “I cannot see broad acceptance for this idea coming from parliament or from the public”, he said “This is a precondition for our continued presence in Afghanistan.” Germany’s presence in the relatively peaceful north of Afghanistan is already unpopular. An opinion poll last year suggested that more than 50 per cent of Germans wanted a complete withdrawal of troops. Ms Merkel’s government is currently facing opposition to plans to deploy a 200-strong unit of combat forces in the north to replace a Norwegian unit which is currently policing the region.

    Germany has already been afforded a special Nato caveat which in effective prohibits its troops from going on the offensive unless they are first attacked. At next Thursday’s Nato summit in Vilnius, Germany is expected to come under intense pressure to lift the caveat.

    Several German commentators attacked the government for rejecting the American request. The left-leaning Süddeutsche Zeitung accused politicians of being afraid of the voters.

    * The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, will visit London next week to discuss strategy on Afghanistan, Iran and other issues with the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Ms Rice, who arrives on Wednesday, will also meet the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

    How The Clintons Played The Race Card

    The Clinton Game: America shouldn’t fall for it this time

    I’m disgusted with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Not merely because they played the race card on Barack Obama, but because they’ve done it before.

    It worked to perfection for them in 1992. I saw it up close when I was a part of the Los Angeles Times‘ political team covering Bill Clinton’s successful bid for the White House. Clinton entered the race a decided underdog, backed by a fragile coalition of black believers and disaffected white Reagan Democrats. As we crisscrossed the country, it became increasingly clear how he intended to keep the two disparate constituent groups in his corner: He would send mixed messages. In Southern churches filled with pious African-American worshipers, he sounded like a black Baptist preacher. In rural white communities, he did not hesitate to use racially coded rhetoric.

    Early in the campaign, Clinton told a largely white audience that he represented the “new Democrats” who “should no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent” victims of crime. Then he interrupted his campaign appearances to fly home to Little Rock, Ark., to demonstrate his willingness to let the execution of mentally retarded Ricky Ray Rector proceed without interruption. Rector’s execution allowed Clinton to distance himself from political rival the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who had publicly urged Clinton to spare Rector’s life. Second, it made him look tough on crime, especially crimes committed by black men on white victims. Together, these acts solidified Clinton as a “new Democrat” in the eyes of white voters.

    Then came Sister Souljah.

    On a blisteringly hot Saturday in June, I covered a Clinton speech at Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition at a downtown Washington, D.C., hotel. Relations between Jackson and Clinton were frosty. The civil rights leader had run unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988. He was withholding his support of Clinton and was toying with the idea of joining forces with third-party hopeful H. Ross Perot.

    I didn’t realize it immediately, but Clinton had come primed for a fight with Jackson. He brought in the heavy guns for his appearance before some 300 African-Americans. In the media gallery, the candidate’s heavy-hitting advisers milled about. Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulos, and James Carville stayed behind the scenes plotting strategy. The fact that all three were there suggested that something big was going on.

    Clinton gave a well-received speech that roused the crowd with a full-throated attack on President Bush’s policies. Then, in what seemed to all to be an unscripted moment, Clinton said he felt compelled to discuss racism with the audience because, he declared, all Americans must speak out against it.

    Then, he turned his full attention to Sister Souljah, a young rapper who had expressed solidarity with the rioters in Los Angeles who attacked white motorists following acquittals in the Rodney King police-beating case. A few days earlier, Sister Souljah had been quoted in a Washington Post profile saying: “I mean if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? … So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?”

    The day before Clinton’s speech, Sister Souljah had been invited to speak at the Rainbow Coalition forum where Jackson had praised her for contributions to his organization’s work. Clinton knew Jackson was vulnerable. “If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech,” Clinton said, drawing audible gasps in the predominately African-American audience of Jackson supporters. He went on to take notice of her presence at the meeting the day before.

    Jackson was embarrassed and outraged. Visibly shaken, he told me, “I do not know why he used this platform to address those issues. It was unnecessary. It was a diversion. … Perhaps he was aiming for an audience that was not here.”

    Indeed, he was. Suddenly, I understood it perfectly. That’s why the team from Little Rock was at the ready. They were there to spin the story for the fat Sunday papers and well-watched talking-head shows.

    Knowing that the second day story would be reaction from black leaders to the candidate’s comments, I (joined by Gwen Ifill, then of the New York Times) rushed to grab a quote or two from black congressional leaders. I wanted to know if they were as offended by Clinton’s comments as Jackson was.

    Comparing notes, Ifill and I realized that Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., had made almost identical comments to us. Clinton had given them his talking points in advance, covering himself beautifully.

    You don’t have to strain to see the parallels.

    Faced with the prospect of losing, the Clintons tried to marginalize Obama by making him nothing more than the black people’s candidate.

    After the results were announced in South Carolina, Bill Clinton added the kicker: “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ’84 and ’88,” Clinton said in a speech on his wife’s behalf. “Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here. … Now we go to February 5 when millions of Americans finally get in the act.”

    See why I’m so disgusted? I know which Americans Clinton is talking about.

    Sam Fulwood III is a writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and lecturer at Case Western Reserve University.

    Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked

    Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous

    By Mick Meaney
    RINF Alternative News

    In late 2007 a British academic, Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge, published a new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre — however the paper contains several ridiculous claims. Now a formal request has been made by Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI, who recently debunked the paper, to Dr. Chris Burgoyne, the Head of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, highlighting these errors and appealing for the misleading paper to be corrected.

    The request points out that Dr Seffen’s paper defies several key laws of physics, i.e. conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

    Mr Blacker’s request also states:

    “All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance, when in fact each had different construction characteristics, is beyond any logic as the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.”

    Such glaring errors should be an embarrassment to one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious universities.

    Dr Seffen’s paper essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity.

    Another inaccuracy in the paper is the fact it does not take into account the energy needed to convert the 300,000 tons of concrete and steel to dust.

    “The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. What about cross bracing?” states Mr Blacker.

    “The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?”

    Simply put, for the University of Cambridge to continue supporting this absurd theory is to present a fictional view of physics.

    Download the request here in PDF format.

    Ron Paul: Secretive elite controls America

    1

    Presidential candidate Ron Paul says he traces America’s problems to the flawed monetary policy of the wealthy and secretive elite.

    During a speech at the University of Washington on Thursday, Paul said the Congress and the Federal Reserve will not be able to stem the recession spurred by the home mortgage meltdown.

    “The most important thing you can do is nothing,” said the Texas congressman, who voted against the recent $146 billion economic stimulus package passed by the US House of Representatives.

    The 10-term Texas congressman maintained that a series of wrong economic decisions by the Bush administration has led to a recession.

    The government should allow the market to correct itself, Paul added.

    Although the mainstream media attempts to keep a low profile on the 72-year-old presidential hopeful, he has managed to find a staunch group of supporters who say he has captured their hearts with his ‘message of freedom’ and constitutionalism.

    “The Constitution was written for one specific purpose and that was to restrain the government, not to restrain the people,” Paul has said.

    MD/AA

    9/11 Truth – New Study Raises More Questions

    New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

    A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building, said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission:

    The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

    According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

    a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
    b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
    c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense 5 Frames video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
    d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
    e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

    As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, Pandora’ss Box: Chapter 2, available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearchq=Pandora’ss+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

    According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. We have developed four lines of argument that prove–conclusively, in my judgment–that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot’ss study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon.

    Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot’ss results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building, including these four:

    (1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

    (2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’sReilly admitted when one was shown on The Factor. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

    (3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level–physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

    (4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a smoking gun proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

    Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government’ss official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

    Don’st be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

    James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact. Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

    The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11, Fetzer said. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless, he added, they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue ‘sbeyond a reasonable doubt’s. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

    Leaked UK Government Document on National ID

    0

    Leaked UK gov’t doc reveals plan to “coerce” Brits into national ID register

    If you mirror this document, please add a link to it in the comments for the post.

    UK campaigners NO2ID this morning enlisted the help of bloggers across the world to spread a leaked government document describing how the British government intends to go about “coercing” its citizens onto a National Identity Register. The ‘ID card’ is revealed as little more than a cover to create a official dossier and trackable ID for every UK resident – creating what NO2ID calls ‘the database state’.NO2ID’s national coordinator, Phil Booth, exhorted bloggers, freedom lovers and anyone who gives a damn about personal privacy to mirror the annotated document on their site.

    “The charade is over. While ministers try to bamboozle the British public with fairytales about fingerprints, officials are plotting how to dupe and bully the population into surrendering control of their own identities.”

    “Biometric ID cards are a sham; a magician’s flourish to cover the biggest identity fraud there has ever been.”

    1.2MB PDF Link (mirror this file!)

    Chomsky: US acts like Nazi Germany

    2

    Prominent linguist Noam Chomsky bashes the ‘imperialistic’ foreign policies of the US, likening Washington to the Nazis in Germany.

    Chomsky compared US foreign policies to the conduct of Nazis within Germany, citing the Nuremberg trials as an example of the contradictions between US political speech and government-sanctioned actions.

    “I think the ironies of United States deployed treacheries in Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are self-evident,” The Daily Free Press quoted the Pulitzer-Prize winning author as saying at Roxbury Community College.

    He also condemned the abusive actions of General David Petraeus and US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, against the Iraqi nation.

    “Lord Petraeus has initiated tyrannically destructive policies, including, but not limited to, the surge proposed on Sept. 11, 2007 in a despicably theatrical manner before Congress,” exclaimed the MIT professor.

    Chomsky also referred to the ill deeds of other US administrations, slamming Ronald Reagan for causing the overthrow of the legally elected Sandinista government in Nicaragua in 1984.

    “Reagan was a thug and a coward, he managed to physically diminish a democratically-elected government and throw a nation into civil chaos for well over a decade . . . because the Sandinistas didn’t back US trade policies,” he expounded.

    MT/AA

    Terrorists benefit from US wiretaps?

    1

    Top US computer security experts believe terrorists can derive huge benefits from the Bush administration’s domestic wiretapping program.

    The six experts warned that the US domestic spying program houses vital information in data centers which can be penetrated, putting national security at risk.

    By diverting the flow of so much domestic data into a few massive pools, the administration may have “[built] for its opponents something that would be too expensive for them to build for themselves,” said the IT gurus.

    “A system that lets them see the US’ intelligence interests…[and] that might be turned to exploit conversations and information useful for plotting an attack on the United States,” they explained.

    The top security experts say although the top secret data is buried in ‘secure’ rooms within the US National Security Agency’s highly classified facilities, Washington’s past security breaches indicate that this system could also be penetrated.

    They also add that the FBI’s poorly-designed surveillance technology relies on a ‘primitive’ system which creates a ‘real risk’ of an insider attack.

    Months after the September 11 attacks, President George W. Bush secretly authorized warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency; Washington claimed it to be a ‘vital weapon against terrorism’.

    SBB/AA

    Iraq oil production rises to 2.4m barrels a day

    0

    Oil production in Iraq is at its highest level since the US-led invasion of 2003, reaching 2.4 million barrels a day, thanks largely to improved security measures in the north.

    The country’s Oil Ministry will shortly invite international oil companies to bid for contracts to help Iraq to boost output at its investment-starved “super-giant” oilfields. Production is expected to pass the prewar level of 2.6 million barrels by the end of the year, and Hussain al-Shahristani, the Iraqi Oil Minister, told The Times that he expected production to reach six million barrels a day within four years.

    The International Monetary Fund predicts that Iraq’s economy, boosted by rising oil revenues, will grow by more than 7 per cent this year, compared with 1.3 per cent last year.

    A new report from the US Inspector-General says that the Iraqi Government will receive a $15 billion (£7.5 billion) windfall to help its reconstruction efforts thanks to soaring oil prices.

    Mr al-Shahristani said that the Government would not wait for Iraq’s fractious parliament to approve long-delayed legislation providing a legal framework for foreign investment in the oil industry. The Government is to invite foreign companies to help Iraq to develop new fields.

    Jeroen van de Veer, the chief executive of the Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell, confirmed yesterday that it was “very interested” in new opportunities in Iraq, which sits on the world’s third largest proven oil reserves. “We have made various proposals to the Government,” he said.

    The company is understood to be interested in a gas field called Akkas, in Anbar province near the border with Syria, to produce supplies for export to Europe. Eastern Anbar was until recently one of the most violent parts of the country, although tribal militias have ensured greater security.

    Shell, which had worked in Iraq for decades until the 1970s, is also thought to be interested in building an export terminal in Basra for supercooled, liquefied natural gas for export to other parts of the Middle East. A number of other Western oil companies are interested in opportunities in Iraq. They include Total and the Norwegian company DNO, which has a drilling programme in the Kurdish region of Iraq.

    Mr al-Shahristani suggested that the competition would be intense. “Everybody in the world, more than 45 companies, have approached us and shown a very keen interest in working with us – the Chinese, Russians, Indians, Brazilians,” he said.

    Reliable economic statistics remain almost impossible to collect in Iraq, but US officials said that the Government had cut inflation to 5.5 per cent from 60 per cent a year ago.

    The Iraqi dinar has strengthened against the dollar. Property prices are rising in safer parts of Baghdad. But unemployment remains stubbornly high at 18 per cent, and 40 to 60 per cent of the population are employed for less than 15 hours a week.

    Foreign investment remains minimal apart from the $3.75 billion paid by three consortiums last year for mobile telephone licences.

    The US military is trying to prime the economy by directing contracts worth more than $100 million a month to Iraqi businesses, generating an estimated 42,000 jobs.

    On the streets of Baghdad and other cities it is now possible to see new building projects, bustling markets and other signs of economic regeneration for the first time since the war, but confidence remains fragile.

    Jalil Khalid, 39, a store manager in central Baghdad, said that business was gradually improving but added: “Every time there’s any stability and people start coming back another bomb goes off and they vanish again.”

    Was 9/11 Truth Giuliani’s Demise?

    3

    Was 9/11 Truth Giuliani’s Demise? You’ll be AMAZED What Corporate Media Hid from YOU!

    by Bill Douglas  

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4fNPnQ[/youtube] 

    Peggy Noonan, a Republican speechwriter (Reagan’s among others), was perplexed last night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart as to “why Rudy fell.” It was a mystery to her. Probably because she gets all her information from FOX News and the other corporate media. 

    Of course those who’s heads aren’t buried in the corporate idiot box, know that 9/11 truth was Rudy’s demise. 

    First of all, how did Rudy, a Mayor even become a possible GOP nominee. Corporate media and the Bush Administration began a myth about Rudy Giuliani beginning on 9/11/2001? 

    Evidence suggests that a quid pro quo may have begun Rudy’s ascendance, whereby Rudy would help destroy the WTC steel BEFORE A FORENSIC 9/11 INVESTIGATION COULD OCCUR (by sending it to India and China to be melted down) . . . and in exchange the powers made him President. 

    Of course that didn’t work out quite the way Rudy wanted. Rudy even began using remains of WTC victims to fill pot holes because he was in such a rabid hurry to get rid of evidence.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4fNPnQ  

    Over 6 months ago, when Rudy Giuliani was expected to be a shoe-in for the GOP nomination as Mr. 9/11, he was confronted on the campaign trail by a very courageous young woman, Sabrina Rivero, who’s father died in the 9/11 attacks, and by Luke Rudkowski, and Tom Foti of WeAreChange New York, a 9/11 truth organization.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAGYB4LvfY0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n7uJnKGTGg 

    This video made network news after being posted on YouTube and flying fiercely around the internet. The original video on YouTube has been viewed over 61,000 times, however this video has been posted by others and linked through countless websites and articles. Corporate media tried to laugh it off, but viewers who watched began to re-think Mr. 9/11 Giuliani. 

    In this video, Giuliani was confronted because he’d told network news on 9/11 that he and his command team had been warned that World Trade Center 7, which mysteriously collapsed at 5:20 pm on 9/11/2001, was about to collapse “before” it actually did. It was not hit by a plane and its damage from the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 was much less severe than other buildings in the World Trade Center complex, which did not collapse. See video of WTC 7 as well as 1 and 2, at:

    http://www.ae911truth.org/  

    No one in the world knew that WTC 7 would collapse on 9/11, so Ms. Rivero wanted to know who told Giuliani that it was about to collapse. She also wanted to know why Giuliani didn’t warn people like her father who were present in the WTC complex on 9/11, in order to save lives, rather than just evacuating the building and not warning others.  

    Giuliani denied having told network news that he knew WTC 7 was going to collapse, and denied anyone told him it would on 9/11, even though it is public knowledge that the Command Center was evacuated by his command crew. Not only did Giuliani know BEFORE it came down that it would come down but police and emergency workers were told by someone it would “blow up.” See Giuliani’s admission he was told, at:  
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4lWM0BECZ8
     

    WTC 7 fell in a classic controlled demolition fashion at near free fall speed of about 7 seconds for a 47 story building, tipping in in the center just like the Vegas hotels we’ve all seen blown on TV.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A 

    The BBC oddly enough also knew that WTC 7 was going to collapse, and in fact announced that it HAD ALREADY COLLAPSED 23 minutes BEFORE it actually did (see above video link). When asked by 9/11 truth activists who told the BBC, they replied by mumbling something about “losing” the archive video of 9/11, and being unable to respond to the question. This actually violates BBC law, which requires 3 archived videos of significant events, to be held in 3 separate locations. 

    CHECK OUT THIS AMAZING VIDEO THAT PROVES THAT THE BBC WAS TOLD 23 MINUTES “BEFORE” WTC 7 WAS TO COLLAPSE, THAT IT ALREADY HAD. The BBC still refuses to tell us who told them what no one else in the world knew.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkFpmZxyWEI

    Rudy’s troubles only began with WeAreChange New York confronting him. His troubles continued with 9/11 truth activists around the country.  Rudy was confronted at Ground Zero by Sabrina Rivera (daughter of 9/11 victim) and 9/11 truth group WeAreChange at Ground Zero on 9/11/2007. Media was gathered to document this confrontation and Giuliani’s desperate attempts to escape the 9/11 family member.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OcRw0BZvPs 

    In September of 2007, Tulsa Oklahoma’s 9/11 truth activists confront Rudy:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFUn45l7vaA 

    9/11 truth activists may have influenced the Fire Fighters Unions of New York City as well as Fire Fighter Union members across the nation. Some fire fighters who were at ground zero knew first hand we’d all been lied to about 9/11, as they’d heard blasts and explosions, some before the planes struck, and in lower levels of the buildings before the collapse. I personally emailed information and fire fighter’s testimony as it came out to firefighters union members, officials, and offices not only throughout the United States but throughout the world. 

    I knew it may have had some impact when I was holding a “What is Bush Hiding About 9/11? Stop the 9/11 Cover Up!” sign, when a Kansas City hook and ladder truck drove by, and blasted its horn and all four firefighters gave me a thumbs up. 

    Although other firefighters didn’t all come out and accuse Giuliani of being involved or at least a knowing accomplice in the demolition of WTC 7, but the fury firefighters showed for Rudy, indicate that they may have been saavy to it. This may have added fuel to the fire of the spontaneous protests of “9/11 Mayor” Rudy that haunted him throughout the nation. 

    Rosie O’Donnell and Joy Behar on ABC’s The View, also brought up the inconsistencies with corporate media’s coronation of Rudy as “Mr. 9/11” and his real record on 9/11/2001, which was not only sad but suspicious. 
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFEDtrEqBPI
     

    October, 2007, 9/11 truth activists WeAreChange Florida confronts Rudy:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7GDz-MJfBM 

    In November of 2007, 9/11 truth activists confront Rudy in Loveland Colorado:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIy6MAdtOjA 

    In November of 2007, 9/11 truth activists WeAreChange confront Rudy in Minnesota:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCIq19-ryIA 

    Nov. 2007, 9/11 activist calls in on C-SPAN to National Review writer regarding Rudy’s WTC 7 warning, and his false denial of it:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFSXR5-vyqQ 

    These types of videos go on and on. 9/11 truth activists are having an impact in our nation, but those who don’t know about it will deny it . . . WHY?   Because corporate media denies it. For a fanciful few in America who ONLY get their media from corporate news . . . that is their reality, even though it is not reality. 

    Reality is that 9/11 truth is growing and gaining strength.  So, why did the corporate media and the powers that be allow the fall of Rudy? We know they can be kingmakers by selectively giving good or bad press. We know they can manipulate voting machines, vote counting machines, and even paper votes. 

    It well may be that they broke their deal with Rudy, even though he did his job and got rid of the WTC forensic evidence. Because as 9/11 truth grew and spread throughout the world, and protests grew larger and more forceful . . . having a President Rudy would keep the demand for 9/11 truth at a fever pitch. The powers that be may have simply dumped their errand boy, to save having to work harder to keep the cover up going. 

    But 9/11 truth seekers will not give up, they will never give up, so long as the lie stands.   

    NOW WE NEED TO BREAK THE MEDIA BLOCKADE, TO GET 9/11 TRUTH INTO THE MAINSTREAM DIALOGUE. HOW? 

    On January 22nd, 2008 an explosive new novel by NY Times best selling author, Steve Alten was released. “The Shell Game” is a powerful truth telling edu-tainment novel that uses real quotes as chapter lead ins including quotes from 9/11 researchers David Ray Griffin and Mike Ruppert. Their books are linked to from the book’s website http://www.theshellgame.net/ and also video trailers that alert Americans they’ve been lied to about the wars and about 9/11. 

    If you know the nation has been lied to about 9/11, and want millions more to join you in demanding a new 9/11 investigation . . . you have a tremendous opportunity to make that happen. VIEW THE BELOW BOOK TRAILER, AND SHARE IT WIDELY:

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OioYWUmRcuw[/youtube]

    Do everything you can for the next 90 days to get as many people as possible to get “The Shell Game” available at all major book stores and sellers. WHY? 

    If we as a 9/11 truth movement can drive this to #1, we can break 9/11 truth into the mainstream. Now is the time to really dedicate yourself. Use the links and video trailers at http://www.theshellgame.net/ to email, blog, post, and get out any way you can as wide, far and fast as you can. 

    Urge all you send it to to do the same. We can make history. This successful author has put his career on the line to write this explosive novel. It has 90 days to soar or fall. We can make it #1, and force corporate media to cover 9/11’s lies.

    9/11 – Was the Bush administration complicit?

    by Citizen Sage

    The unanswered questions about 9-11 can no longer be ignored. A new, more comprehensive investigation by the US Congress is required, given all of the unusual circumstantial evidence on 9-11. Although it happened 6 years ago, the questions just won’t go away. Unless such an investigation is done, the conspiracy theories will only gain more traction with the American people and call into doubt what really happened forever more. Because of the importance of 9-11 in launching America on a War on Terror and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the issues demand closer review, than what now appears to have been a whitewash by the first 9-11 Commission.

    In Project for a New American Century, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and other prominent neo-cons called for a new “Pearl Harbor” in order to create a pretext for curtailing American civil liberties and embarking on pre-emptive wars against regimes they did not like. It is now known that Cheney, Rumsfeld and other neo-cons within the Bush Administration were planning a war on Iraq long before 9-11, just as they are now planning for pre-emptive strikes on Iran in defiance of the wishes of the majority of the American people.

    On 9/11/2001, Dick Cheney was coordinating multiple war games intended to prepare for the type of terrorist strike that happened. Due to the war games, military personnel that would otherwise be available to respond to 9-11 were otherwise engaged. Cheney instructed NORAD defenses to stand down that day. He even instructed that flight 77 be allowed to proceed without being intercepted. Why would that be, if it was not a false flag event?

    After the first plane flew into WTC, George W. Bush was strangely unperturbed and continued to read a book to elementary school children, despite it obviously being an disaster of international proportions. When he finished his visit to the school, he was unable to reach Dick Cheney for an additional period of about 20 minutes, vital time that could have been used to send rescue helicopters to WTC. Could it be that it was not a complete surprise?

    George W. Bush claimed that there were no prior indications of a 9-11 event, however in August, he received an intelligence briefing report that specifically indicated that Osama Bin Ladin was thought to be planning a major terrorist event and that hijacking of planes was a possible scenario. A NORAD war game planning event before 9-11 made specific reference to Osama and hijacking. There were numerous warnings from foreign intelligence services indicating a heightened risk for terrorism. However, Bush was either ignoring these indicators and/or being dishonest about it.

    Marvin Bush, George W. Bush’s brother, was directly responsible for the security of the World Trade Center buildings from the 1992 terrorist bombing attack until September 11, 2001. Ownership of the WTC buildings was changed and insurance for terrorist acts was increased dramatically only several weeks before 9-11.

    Various survivor/witnesses of 9-11 reported hearing explosions just before and as the buildings collapsed. Authorities attempted to suppress these stories. Brigham Young Physics Professor J. Jones analyzed dust from the collapsed WTC buildings and found evidence of demolition explosives. When the buildings collapsed, they came down at free fall speed, despite having been built to withstand many times their weight and specifically, a plane wreck. Photos of the metal beams show visual evidence of liquidization of the metal, due to demolition chemicals. Videos of other high rises that were purposefully felled by demolition show similar free fall characteristics.

    However, where demolition was not done, collapsed high rises do not fall so neatly and larger pieces remain standing. The heat required to melt the structural elements of the WTC buildings would not be created by aircraft fuel, similar to kerosene. Also, the amount of debris from the WTC buildings’ should have been much greater and there should have been many more larger pieces of debris if the building’s collapse did not involve additional accelerants.

    Some analysts indicate that the preponderance of fine dust is indicative of possible use of small hydrogen bombs, of the type only available from Israel’s Dimona Nuclear Reactor. There were several suspicious Israelis who were detained after the 9-11 WTC terrorist explosions, apparently after being seen repeatedly giving each other “high five” celebratory congratulations. They were quitly released, without explanation. This sequence of events could be seen as eerily paralleling what happened in 1967 when Israel was accused by American survivors of deliberately attempting to sink the USS liberty and kill all aboard. Israel has a history of fabricating pretexts for pre-emptive strikes on Arab neighbors, including in 1956 and 1967 against Egypt. Israel has been a srong proponent first of the war on Iraq and now on Iran.

    That the FBI confiscated and destroyed all photos of the plane that hit the Pentagon on 9-11 begs the question of why all the secrecy, if there was nothing to hide? Sure, there was damage done and people killed, but why no photos of the airplane as it came in or after it collided? Some conspiracy theorists believe it might have been a different plane or even a missile that hit the Pentagon. Some believe that one of the planes that hit the WTC was actually a Boeing fueling plane

    Why WTC7 collapsed at 5:30 pm, many hours after the planes collided into the other two towers is very curious indeed. It also fell without any resistence from its structual beams. Physics cannot explain how that would hapopen unassisted. The only logical explanation is that it was helped along with demolition charges and indeed such evidence was found in the debris.

    Despite assurances that a recurrence of 9-11 was impossible, five years later, a small plane again flew into a New York City highrise. This time it was an American baseball player who was the pilot and it was an apartment building that was hit. What if it had been al-Qaeda and the plane had been full of explosives? Just as with the WTC terrorist event, there was not a single government official who took responsibility for allowing this to happen! If Americans had to give uyp civil liberties, due tot he so-called “Patriot Act”, why shouldn’t someone in government be required to accept responsibility and resign? In other countries, that would happen.

    Whether there was active participation by the Bush Administration or 9-11 was merely allowed to happen, whether or not there was involvement by Israelis or even whether or not it was perpetrated by al-Qaeda, we deserve a full and open investigation. There are enough loose ends that 9-11 conspiracy theorists will always be convinced that we were not given the whole story, unless a comprehensive investigation is made public. We deserve to know what really happened, regardless of where the chips fall. The implications are too profound to ignore and pretend that it has been put to rest. The evidence points towards a cover-up or worse. The issues are too serious to leave things as they are. America deserves answers, not obsfucation.

    No Such Thing as Bad Cholesterol?

    2

    No Such Thing as Bad Cholesterol: Dispelling the Marketing Myth

    Cholesterol seems to be one of those things that strikes fear into the hearts of many, so to speak. But is the reputation that this oily substance has acquired truly deserved? What is certain is that the ‘little knowledge’ that the media often imparts means many folks assume cholesterol is simply a ‘bad’ thing. Alternately, a good number of us may have heard the terms ‘good’ cholesterol and ‘bad’ cholesterol bandied about without knowing much about what this really means. In fact it is a fairly safe bet that if you asked anyone on the street for his or her instinctive response, if asked about cholesterol, they would probably say that we simply need to ‘reduce it’.

    The ‘noddy-science’ offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help ‘reduce cholesterol’. Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a ‘typical ordinary’ product might cost. But is this apparent ‘blanket need’ to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy?

    For anyone who has had the official diagnosis of ‘high cholesterol’ in their bloodstream, they may even have embarked upon a program of medicinal intervention. In fact it is quite likely that they may have joined the legions of long-term pill-poppers who are already lining the pockets of the profit-oriented pharmaceutical giants.

    But let’s take a moment, now, to review some of the facts and fallacies about the much-maligned substance: cholesterol.

    First of all, cholesterol is a naturally occurring lipid. This means it is a type of fat or oil and it is in fact an essential component in creating and sustaining the membranes of the cells of all bodily tissues. So this alone means we need cholesterol to survive! Most of the cholesterol that is found in our bodies is actually naturally manufactured within our own cells. However there is also an additional contribution that we get from external ‘nutritional’ sources – the foods we consume. In a typical diet providing around 400mg of cholesterol per day from food sources, about half to two-thirds of this amount is actually absorbed through the process of digestion. The body will normally secrete about a gram (1000mg) of cholesterol per day into the bile via the ducts, and approximately three-fifths of this is then re-absorbed.

    Where our tissues or organs are a particularly dense complex of cells, which have closely packed cell membranes, there will naturally be higher levels of cholesterol. The key organs that need, and contain, these higher amounts of cholesterol include the liver, the brain and the spinal cord – none of which would work well if we reduced cholesterol too much!

    In effect cholesterol plays an essential role in the development and maintenance of healthy cell walls. It is also a critical factor in the synthesizing of steroid hormones, which are a key factor in our natural physical development. Cholesterol is used by the adrenal gland and the sex glands to create these necessary hormones. As you may know, hormones are important regulators of many control mechanisms that occur throughout our bodies as we grow, develop and simply function every day.

    Being a lipid, cholesterol is fat-soluble, but it is not soluble in blood. However it needs to be transported around the body to the places where it can be utilized. This is why, in order to be moved around, it must become ‘associated’ with certain lipoproteins which feature a water-soluble (therefore ‘blood transportable’) coat of proteins. There are two key types of lipoproteins that transport cholesterol around the body: low-density and high-density variants. The essential cellular function of cholesterol requires that sufficient amounts are manufactured by specialized sub-systems (or organelles) within the body’s cells called the endoplasmic reticulum. Alternatively, the cholesterol we need must be derived from our diet. During the process of ‘digestion and assimilation’ of foods, it is the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) that carries dietary cholesterol from the liver to various parts of the body.

    When there is sufficient cholesterol for cellular needs, the other key transport mechanism in this amazing ‘logistics system’ – high-density lipoprotein (HDL) – can take cholesterol back to the liver from where any unnecessary excess can be processed for excretion.

    The ‘noddy-science’ of the so-called ‘functional food’ manufacturers would have us believe that there is such a thing as ‘bad’ cholesterol and ‘good’ cholesterol. This is, in fact, totally untrue. The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same. Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the ‘transporters’ (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body’s delivery logistics to work effectively.

    Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being ‘delivered’ around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.

    LDL can vary in its structure and occur in particles of varying size. It is the smaller LDL particle sizes that can easily become ‘trapped’ in the arteries by proteoglycans, which is, itself, a kind of ‘filler’ found between the cells in all animal and human bodies. This can then cause the cholesterol the LDL carries to contribute to the formation of fatty deposits called ‘plaques’ (a process known as atherogenesis). As these deposits build up, they restrict the arteries’ width and flexibility. This causes an increase in blood pressure and can also lead to other cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks or strokes.

    The LDL itself is consequently sometimes referred to as ‘bad cholesterol’, but you can now appreciate the fact that this is simply incorrect. In fact LDL, HDL and cholesterol are all essential to our health. However, it seems that it has become common for humans to have a preponderance of ‘unhealthily’ small LDL particles, which can become a precursor to heart and arterial disease due to the mechanisms described. It is apparently healthier to have a smaller number of larger LDL particles carrying the same quantity of cholesterol than a large number of small LDL particles might transport, but for some reason this is less common. This is an interesting area that demands more research.

    When LDL becomes retained by the glycol-proteins in the arteries it is subject to being oxidized by ‘free radicals’. This is when the process can become health threatening. It has therefore been suggested that increasing the amount of antioxidants in our diet might effectively ‘mop up’ free radicals, and consequently reduce this harmful oxidation. Although the idea of consuming foods rich in antioxidants, or even using supplements, is now widely promoted, the scientific evidence for their efficacy still remains to be fully established.

    Another point to consider is the occurrence of substances called ‘very-low-density-lipids’ or VLDL, also known as triglycerides. VLDL is converted to LDL in the bloodstream and therefore contributes towards increased levels of LDL and to subsequent potential cholesterol-related health problems. This is why triglycerides are usually measured when a cholesterol test of your blood is undertaken.

    The production of VLDL in the liver – which amounts to a combination of cholesterol and low-density apolipoprotein – is exacerbated by the intake of fructose. Fructose is the type of sugar found in many fruits, it is also a component of sucrose and of the widely used food ingredient high-fructose corn syrup. This implies that anyone whose LDL or triglyceride levels are unduly high should cut back on those sweet sugary snacks, and even on the sweeter, fructose laden fruits; not simply reduce their intake of fatty foods!

    Vitamin B3, otherwise known as niacin, on the other hand, actually lowers the amount of VLDL, and therefore also LDL. In addition, niacin helps to stimulate the production of helpful HDL, the lipoprotein that carries excess cholesterol back to the liver for excretion. However, in keeping with the best traditions of consuming ‘all things in moderation’, currently recommended upper limits for daily intake of niacin is 35mg, given that it can have toxic effects in larger amounts. Even so, medical professionals have been known to prescribe niacin in doses as high as 2g, up to three times a day, for treatment of those with dangerously high blood cholesterol levels. Naturally you should never self-medicate with high doses of niacin without taking appropriate medical advice.

    Niacin in the diet is typically derived from high protein foods including liver and other meats, as well as significant amounts being found in certain nuts and whole grains.

    However one of the fashionable types of pharmaceutical drugs of recent times, introduced to treat the apparently increasing incidence of high cholesterol levels particularly in the West, are Statins. These drugs work by interfering with the liver function and reducing the production of LDL. But Statins are a questionable innovation on at least a couple of accounts. Firstly they are not without side-effects: they can, for example, lead to the breakdown of major muscular material, which can ultimately overwhelm the kidneys and even cause acute renal failure.

    Statins also appear to reduce the body’s natural levels of the vitamin-like, cellular protection agent known as Co-enzyme Q10. This benzoquinone plays an important role in cellular energy release, particularly in hard worked areas like the lungs, liver and heart. CoQ10 (as it is sometimes called) has also been shown to protect the brain against neurological degeneration. But perhaps most interestingly, with respect to cholesterol, CoQ10 also acts as an antioxidant, particularly active in protecting the system against LDL oxidation and the potential problems associated with this as described above. So whilst Statins might provide a reduction in LDL per se, they might also be causing more problems in the long-term. Naturally, as with many modern drugs, they generally have to be taken for the long-term by anyone who has been prescribed them.

    What is particularly disturbing about Statins is, perhaps, the fact that they may be seen as a ‘quick fix’ for unhealthily high LDL, and consequently cholesterol levels throughout the body. They need to be taken over a long period – which makes them very profitable for drugs manufacturers. But they may also be prescribed without the over-arching message that in order to address any cholesterol problem ‘naturally’, the sufferer must change their lifestyle and diet. Statins can seem an easy option but may indeed merely be the beginning of a process where the ‘negative health pay-off’ is simply delayed rather than actively defused! That is not to say that in extreme cases of high blood cholesterol, or hypercholesterolemia, there may not be a useful role for Statin therapy when natural strategies fail or do not prove effective, or feasible.

    In truth, and in summary, cholesterol is an important and essential substance that we need for health at a cellular level. It is most likely that any imbalance in our cholesterol transport system comes down to long-term poor dietary and exercise habits. Ensuring that we consume some extra anti-oxidant foods, along with including niacin rich foods, might well be of benefit. But it is perhaps most important to recognize that deliberate and continued levels of activity and the consumption of a healthful diet is a better solution than questionable quick-fix drugs, if we ever are diagnosed with levels of cholesterol and triglycerides that might give cause for concern.

    About the author

    Al G Smith MSc BSc – Has been working and teaching in the food related sector for over 30 years and is currently a website publisher (http://www.gonaturalandorganic.com) and Independent Representative for the World’s first extensive range of Certified Organic skin care and cosmetics (http://www.saferalternative.com).

    Ron Paul: Bush to blame for US recession

    0

    Republican Presidential hopeful Ron Paul says some of the policies of the Bush administration set the stage for a deep looming recession.

    In a Thursday Republican debate, the 10-term congressman said the US economy is falling into recession which has been directly influenced by the flawed economic strategies pursued by the current administration.

    Criticizing Washington’s monetary and fiscal policies, the anti-war Texan explained that the Americans now enjoy a lower standard of living which is wiping out the notion of middle class citizens.

    Paul also held Washington’s aggressive foreign policy accountable for the current economic problems, saying the White House should admit that it has made mistakes.

    “Republicans were elected in the year 2000 to have a humble foreign policy and not police the world, yet what are we doing now?” asked the veteran politician.

    “We’re bogged down in another war and bankrupting our country and we have an empire that we’re trying to defend” which makes us incur an extreme amount of money every year, Paul continued.

    “The people in the country have been begging for a change in direction which they have never had and its time for us to give it to them,” the libertarian-leaning Texan concluded.

    Ron Paul supports a foreign policy of peace in which US forces do not police the world and promises to gradually abolish taxes and return American troops stationed in other countries if elected president.

    SBB/AA

    “Surge” in War Crimes?

    0

    U.S. Army unit Probed for killing Iraqi prisoners

    The US Army has opened a criminal investigation into an allegation of “battlefield deaths” of detainees captured by a US brigade that operated last year in southwest Baghdad, an army spokesman said.

    The allegation involved the 2nd Combat Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division, which returned to its home base in Schweinfurt, Germany in November after a 15-month tour in Iraq, said Paul Boyce, an army spokesman.

    Boyce said the investigation was triggered by “what appears to be an allegation of at least one, and likely more battlefield deaths involving captured detainees.”

    “The allegation is that this may in fact be some sort of a battlefield crime and we are pursuing this to determine the facts, the circumstances and further investigative leads,” he said.

    Boyce said the 1st Infantry Division’s 2nd Combat Brigade operated in the Rashid district of southwest Baghdad during its tour.

    He said the alleged deaths did not occur in a detention facility but rather at what the military calls “the point of capture.”

    The deaths are alleged to have occurred at least six months ago, he said.

    He provided no other details on the specifics of the allegation, which came to the army’s attention last week.

    The Army’s Criminal Investigation Command is conducting the investigation, he said, adding that the probe was still in its initial stages and no charges have been brought.

    “Usually, these things come to light when somebody talks about it, a soldier in the unit, that sort of thing,” he said.

    “I don’t want to rule out the scope and the extent of the situation quite yet, until we better understand what we are dealing with,” he said.

    Stars and Stripes, a military newspaper that first reported on the investigation, said the Schweinfurt-based unit saw heavy fighting in Iraq, suffering 59 deaths.

    Life in Occupied Gaza

    Stephen Lendman
    RINF Alternative News

    Life in occupied Gaza was never easy, but conditions worsened markedly after Hamas’ surprise January 2006 electoral victory. Israel refused recognition along with the US and the West. All outside aid was cut off, an economic embargo and sanctions were imposed, and the legitimate government was isolated. Stepped up repression followed along with repeated IDF incursions, attacks and arrests. Gaza’s people have been imprisoned in their own land and traumatized for months. No one outside the Territories cares or offers enough aid. Things then got worse.

    Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, in league with Israel and the US, declared a “state of emergency last June 14 and illegally dismissed Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his national unity government. On June 15, he appointed former IMF and World Bank official Salam Fayyad prime minister even though his party got only 2% of the votes in the 2006 election. On June 17, Abbas swore in a new (illegitimate) 13 member “emergency” cabinet with plans for future elections, excluding Hamas.

    Israel and the US showed gratitude. The West Bank embargo ended, Israel began releasing frozen Palestinian tax funds, and the US and European Union (EU) resumed aid to the PA but continued isolating Hamas in Gaza that since 1995 has been designated a terrorist organization. After passage of the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the State Department included Hamas among the first 30 groups designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) in October 1997. It makes it illegal to provide funds or other material support. It also ignores how Israel once embraced Hamas in the 1980s.

    It’s name means courage and bravery, and it’s also an abbreviation of Islamic Resistance Movement in Arabic. It grew out of the Muslim Brotherhood (that had roots in Egypt) and was formed in 1987 during the first Intifada. At the time, Israel offered support and used Hamas to counter the PLO’s nationalist threat under Arafat. Ever since, it’s been an effective resistance movement against repression, occupation and much more. It provides essential social services like medical clinics; education, including centers for women; free meals for children; financial and technical help to Palestinians whose homes Israel destroyed; aid to refugees in the camps; and youth and sports clubs for young people.

    Hamas is also a formidable defender, and that gets it in trouble. It established the Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam Brigades, an elite military wing, and other security forces like its Tanfithya Executive Force for self-defense and law enforcement. Washington and Tel Aviv call it “terrorism” because Hamas wants the occupation ended, won’t surrender its sovereignty like Fatah did under Arafat and Abbas, is willing to recognize Israel (though that’s never reported), but only if Palestinians get equal recognition and what’s rightfully theirs – an independent homeland inside pre-1967 borders or one “state for all its citizens,” Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druze and others.

    Instead, Hamas got isolated, hammered and called a “hostile entity” by Israel’s security cabinet. It was announced on September 19, sanctions on Gaza were tightened, and it was decided to “reduce the amount of megawattage provide(d) to the Strip, and Hamas will have to decide whether to provide electricity to hospitals or weapons lathes.” There was more as well – cutbacks in fuel, food, other essentials and even tighter border crossing restrictions.

    Even before the latest crisis, Gaza was devastated. Its industrial production was down 90%, and its agricultural output was half its pre-2007 level. In addition, nearly all construction stopped, unemployment and poverty topped 80%, and by now it may be 90%. After September 19, it got worse when shops began running out of everything. Israel allows in only nine basic materials, their availability is spotty, and some essentials are banned, like certain medicines, and others restricted like fruit, milk and other dairy products. Before June 2007, 9000 commodities could be imported. Today, it’s down to 20, people don’t get enough food, and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was unusually blunt in its criticism. In a November 2007 report called “Dignity Denied in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” it said:

    “….Palestinians….face hardship (in) their (daily) lives; they are prevented from doing what makes up the daily fabric of most people’s existence. (They) face a deep human crisis, where millions of people are denied their human dignity. Not once in a while, but every day (and the people of Gaza are) trapped (and) sealed off.” The “humanitarian cost (is) enormous,” people can barely survive, “families unable to get enough food increased by 14%, (and) Palestinians (are) being trampled underfoot day after day. (In) Gaza (under siege, Palestinians) continue to pay for conflict and economic containment with their health and livelihoods. Cutting power and fuel further compounds their hardship.”

    Let ’em eat cake, walk, and live without light or heat is apparently Israel’s solution, and noted Israeli historian, Ilan Pappe, took note. He calls it “genocide….to describe what the Israeli army is doing in the Gaza Strip.” Knowing the facts, who can disagree.

    Then there’s the matter of energy. With electricity restricted and fuel supplies reduced, Israel went further. It sealed its borders and cut all fuel shipments in response to Palestinian rocket attacks in and around the border town of Sderot. They’re fired in self-defense and used in response to repeated Israeli attacks that in the week of January 17 – 23 alone:

    — killed 19 Palestinians along with three others from previous IDF-inflicted wounds;

    — extra-judicially executed seven of the victims, including two women;

    — wounded 71 Palestinians, including 24 children and three women;

    — made 33 IDF incursions in the West Bank and five in Gaza;

    — arrested 58 Palestinian civilians, including seven children, in the West Bank, and 32 in Gaza, including 3 children;

    — destroyed five homes and razed agricultural land in Jabalya in northern Gaza;

    — allowed further settler attacks against civilians and property in Hebron.

    The same pattern continued the following week through Janauary 30 with more Israeli incursions, attacks and arrests. In the West Bank:

    — Nablus was targeted and several Palestinian civilians arrested; several homes were also searched and ransacked in the villages of Kufer Kalil, Beit Dajan and Beit Fourik;

    — the IDF seized six Palestinians in Jenin in a pre-dawn invasion; another followed theire several days later, the Israeli army opened fire randomly, one civilian was injured, four others arrested and a home was ransacked; several civilian homes were attacked and ransacked in the town of Qabatiya and village of Abu Da’eif in the northern West Bank; local sources reported unprovoked random gunfire by heavily armed troops in civilian neighborhoods;

    — the IDF invaded Bethlehem, killed one civilian, arrested another, and injured seven others; eyewitnesses reported that local journalists were prevented from witnessing and documenting the incursion;

    — several other West Bank cities were targeted and six civilians arrested: the Al Toor neighborhood in northern Jerusalem; the village of Beit Rima near Ramallah; Tulkarem city and the nearby Nur Shams refugee camp; and Jenin city.

    These are malicious acts of aggression, abductions and wanton killing. Mostly civilians are targeted, and when Palestinians respond with crude Qassam rockets and children throw rocks, it’s called “terrorism.” Israel’s response – fiercer attacks and incursions in the Territories on any pretext or none at all and further tightening of its medieval siege on Gaza.

    Its border crossings have been closed since June 2007, and severe restrictions were imposed on movement. Finally, food and fuel supplies were cut. Gaza’s power plant exhausted its supply, shut down, and the Strip went dark on January 20. Israel remained defiant, and Prime Minister Olmert announced….”as far as I am concerned, every resident of Gaza can walk because they have no gasoline for their vehicles,” and Foreign Ministry spokesman, Arye Meckel, told AP the blackout was “a Hamas ploy to pretend there is some kind of crisis to attract international sympathy.”

    The Director of Gaza’s main Shiffa hospital, Dr. Hassan Khalaf, had a different view. He described the situation as “potentially disastrous.” Already Israel’s siege was directly responsible for 45 deaths, and he said cutting hospital power would cause 30 premature babies to die immediately. The World Health Organization was also alarmed. It said insufficient electricity “disrupt(s)….intensive care units, operating theatres, and emergency rooms (and) power shortages have interrupted refrigeration of perishable medical supplies, including vaccine.”

    To operate at full capacity, Gaza needs 230 – 250 daily megawatts of electricity. Its only power plant supplies around 30% of it, but people in central Gaza and Gaza city are totally dependent on what can’t be supplied if industrial diesel fuel the plant depends on is cut off. The result is critically ill people are endangered, bread and other baked goods can’t be produced without electricity to power ovens, food is already in short supply, so is fresh water, and sanitation conditions are disastrous.

    Michele Mercier of the International Red Cross said hospital medications were running out and wouldn’t “last for more than two or three days.” In addition, allowable food shipments are endangered according to UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) spokesman, Christopher Gunness. He explained that the agency would have to suspend distribution to 860,000 people because of a fuel and plastic bags shortage.

    Israel was unapologetic with Internal Security Minister, Avi Dichter, saying the IDF must “eliminate the rocket fire from Gaza, irrespective of the cost to Palestinians.” Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, added: “We are impacting the overall quality of life in Gaza and destroying the terror infrastructure.” He meant civilians as did Ehud Olmert claiming: “We are trying to hit only those involved in terrorism, but also signaling to the population in Gaza that it cannot be free from responsibility for the situation.”

    Israel makes no distinction between civilians (including women and children) and resistance fighters, and B’Tselem stated that Yuval Diskin, head of the Israel Security Agency (ISA), “defines every Palestinian killed in the Gaza Strip as a terrorist,” including small children and the elderly infirm. The world approves, the Security Council debates and abstains, the dominant media is silent, and innocent Palestinians suffer and die – over 75 killed in January and several hundred injured. Who cares and who’s counting. They’re just Arab Muslims.

    They’re also needy human beings, now desperate, and on January 23 they responded courageously. No help is coming so Hamas acted preemptively. It destroyed 200 meters of metal barrier separating both sides of Rafah that was divided in 1982 as part of Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt. About 40,000 people live in Egypt and another 200,000 in Gaza in the original town and an adjacent refugee camp. Until the outbreak of the second Intifada in September, 2000, crossing both ways was uncomplicated. That ended as violence increased, and Israel erected a barrier. Now it’s breached, Gazans took advantage, and some called it a “jail break.” Hundreds of thousands entered Egypt for needed essentials unavailable at home. Finally, the media noticed.

    On January 24, The New York Times tried to have it both ways. It called Hamas’ border breach “an act of defiance” and continued indifferently. Unmindful of an 18 month siege, mass impoverishment, a humanitarian crisis and daily killings, correspondent Steven Erlanger made things seem festive in his report. Almost flippantly he said “Tens of thousands of Palestinians…. crossed the border for a ‘buying spree’ of medicine, cement, sheep….gasoline, soap and countless other supplies that have been cut off.”

    Most Gazans can barely afford food and essentials and struggle daily to survive. Yet, Erlanger said they stocked up on “Coca-Cola, Cleopatra and Malimbo cigarettes, and satellite dishes” and on January 25 added “televisions (and) washing machines.” It was a party, “Egyptian merchants greeted them with a ‘cornucopia of consumer goods,” and Hamas joined the festivities by “mak(ing no) visible effort to control or tax” purchases. Those who could afford it indeed took advantage. Merchants bought items for resale at lower Egyptian prices. Most Palestinians, however, bought essentials – food, fuel, medicine if available and various household items.

    Earlier on January 21, Israel relented to international pressure and a PR disaster impossible to ignore. Haaretz highlighted it in a January 26 editorial headlined “The siege of Gaza has failed.” Hamas ended it “via a well-planned operation and simultaneously won the sympathy of the world, which has forgotten the rain of Qassam rockets on Sderot, (and Israel looks foolish) entrenching itself in positions that look outdated.” Only a week ago, the government was crowing. Triumphantly, it claimed its policy was “bearing fruit.”

    Today, it’s all bitter with Olmert in denial. In a speech at the January Herzliya Conference, he said: “Mistakes were made; there were failures. But in addition, lessons were learned, mistakes were corrected, modes of behavior were changed, and above all, the decisions we have made since then have led to greater security, greater calm and greater deterrence than there had been for many years.” Haaretz had another view, and it was harsh. It stated events in Gaza “completely (contradict) his statements. If that is what learning lessons looks like, if that is what deterrence means, the Olmert government has precious little to boast about.” So it acted.

    AP reported on January 21 that authorities “agreed today to ship diesel fuel and medicine into Gaza on a one-time basis,” easing its blockade, but it wouldn’t continue unless rocket firings stopped. Everything then changed on January 27.

    Aljazeera, The New York Times, Haaretz and other sources reported that the Olmert government relented. It agreed to resume fuel shipments to Gaza, easing its blockade. The decision came on the same day Israel’s Supreme Court addressed the petition of 10 human rights organizations to order a resumption and prevent a humanitarian disaster. No decision was rendered, but state authorities acted anyway.

    They agreed to supply 2.2 million weekly liters of industrial diesel fuel, the minimum amount needed to power central Gaza and Gaza City, but it’s not enough overall according to Rafiq Maliha, the project manager at An-Nuseirat’s power plant location. It’s only two-thirds the amount needed, a mere fraction was delivered the first day, and Maliha said Gaza’s gas companies would strike and resist this “Israeli plot” masquerading as humanitarian aid. His doubts are well-founded. On the same day fuel shipments resumed, Israeli warplanes struck northern Gaza in two separate raids. Hamas sources said two missiles hit a Palestinian car and others targeted a Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades position causing four injuries.

    Human rights groups are also dismissive. They noted previous promises made, then broken, and the GISHA group (the Israeli NGO for freedom of Palestinian movement in the Territories) spokesperson said that Israel “repeatedly promised that it would ship 2.2 million litres (of fuel) a week into Gaza and has repeatedly broken that promise.” Why believe authorities now, and with events so fluid it seems every day, a new policy.

    At the same time, Hamas and Egyptian security forces are cooperating to close the border eight days after it was breached. On January 28, Haaretz reported that openings were being sealed by barbed wire, but not entirely as some two-way traffic continues as of January 30. Hamas and Egyptian forces now man the main Salah Eddin gate, most cars and trucks aren’t passing through, but pedestrians still in Egypt “scoured (nearly) empty stores for food and consumer products to take back to the Gaza Strip….in fear of an imminent border reclosing.”

    What’s next is anyone’s guess, but Israel’s Supreme Court will affect it. On January 30, it upheld the government’s Gaza sanctions and its right to restrict fuel and electricity. In its statement, the three-judge panel left no doubt where it stands. It wrote:

    “We emphasize that the Gaza Strip is controlled by a ‘murderous terror group’ that operates incessantly to strike the state of Israel and its citizens, and violates every precept of international law with its violent actions.” Israel, nonetheless, will supply enough fuel and electricity to “fulfill the vital humanitarian needs of the Gaza Strip at this time.”

    Israeli human rights petitioners were quick to respond, and their message was clear and harsh. For its part, the Adalah Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights called the ruling a “dangerous legal precedent that allows Israel to continue to violate the rights of Gaza residents and deprive them of basic humanitarian needs in violation of international law.” Hamas spokesperson, Fawzi Barhoum, was equally pointed. He added: The High Court’s decision “reflects the criminal, ugly face of the occupation.”

    Things are now back to square one, Israel’s siege has been sanctified, and an unworkable 2005 security arrangement remains in place. Hamas wants it replaced with a new one and demands justice for Gaza’s 1.5 million people. Its main objection is Israel controls all movement and monitors it with cameras and computers to track everyone entering and leaving Gaza. On January 27, Hamas leader, Ismail Haniyeh, said: ‘We don’t accept a continued Israeli veto on the movement, the exit and entry through Rafah.” It’s time for a new system.

    Getting one is another matter, according to Israeli officials. They commented on January 28 saying “Israel will not allow the continuation of the current state where its security interests are being compromised,” and Olmert and Abbas met on January 27 to discuss it. Initial reports were that Israel wanted Egypt to control the border, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak wants Abbas to do it, he, in turn, agrees to anything Olmert and George Bush want, and they at first rejected putting Abbas in charge, but that’s now changed according to Haaretz.

    On January 29, it reported “Israel does not plan to block….Abbas from assuming control of Gaza’s border crossing with Egypt (if Cairo agrees).” Abbas, in turn, says it does as well as the EU, Arab League and Condoleezza Rice. Hamas reacted angrily through its spokesperson, Sami Abu-Zuhri. He called the plan an “Israeli-led international conspiracy (against the legitimate government) with the participation of some regional parties. We tell all parties that we will not allow the return of old conditions at the crossing.”

    So the beat goes on. Nothing has changed, and unconsidered is what Palestinians want, need and deserve. After decades of abuse, forces they can’t control continue buffeting them, yet they persist and endure.

    Now there’s the latest crisis, and consider Haaretz’s January 27 report. It was after Olmert and Abbas met “for a two-hour tete-a-tete….in Jerusalem” at which Olmert again made promises. He said Israel wouldn’t let a humanitarian crisis develop in Gaza, when, in fact, one has existed for months, his government caused it, and it’s accompanied by daily attacks, killings, arrests and a vast array of human rights abuses against an isolated population barely hanging on.

    On January 23, various Palestinian factions met in Damascus with plenty to say. With little hope of being heeded, they called on Abbas to end the “ridiculous” negotiations he insists must continue with Olmert. Among those attending were Khaled Meshaal of Hamas and Ramadan Shallah of Islamic Jihad. Their message was strong: “I want to ask our brothers in Ramallah (Fatah headquarters), what exactly are you waiting for?” While you’re talking, Palestinians in “the biggest prison in history (are) being massacred.”

    Even Abbas supporters are dubious, and Palestinian writer, Hani Al-Masri, expressed their view: “It doesn’t make sense for negotiations to continue while Israel is changing facts on the ground and undermining the chances for a just and acceptable solution.” The Arab League also responded, but not with teeth. It denounced Israel’s siege, but does nothing to end it. That’s Hamas’ view with Khaled Meshaal saying the League could force change but instead prefers words, meetings, resolutions and more meetings in Arab capitals.

    Still more are planned. Cairo is involved. So are the Saudis, but most of all Washington and Tel Aviv. They control everything and will decide what’s next with one thing assured. Gazans are isolated, locked in the Territory, children and the elderly are dying, so are the sick without medical care, daily attacks kill others, and no end is in sight.

    The plight of Palestinians won’t change as things continue lurching from one crisis to another the way they have for decades. It won’t end until world leaders buckle to growing world sentiment that no longer will injustices this grave be tolerated. How much more suffering must be endured, how many more deaths are acceptable, when will justice finally be served? People of conscience want answers. It’s about time they got them.

    Military Doctors Infect Gitmo Detainee With HIV

    From CagePrisoners

    US Attorney H. Candace Gorman has revealed that her client Abdul Hamid Al-Ghizzawi has been infected with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Al Ghizzawi believes the infection happened during medical procedures at Guantanamo in 2004 when he was given a blood test which resulted in alarm amongst the hospital staff. Al Ghizzawi was not given any explanation for the alarm at the time. As a result Al-Ghizzawi has now been told that he is suffering from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Having already been suffering from Hepatitis B and Tuberculosis (which he also acquired at Guantanamo) Al Ghizzawi has been held in severe isolation in Camp 6.

    Gorman filed an emergency application with the US Supreme Court asking that the US military be ordered to treat Al-Ghizzawi’s medical problems and for medical records to be turned over to her. Chief Judge Roberts denied the motion despite it being stated by the chief medical doctor at Guantanamo, Dr Sollock, that Al-Ghizzawi did not suffer from any ill health on arrival to the base.

    Al-Ghizzawi’s health has rapidly deteriorated and Cageprisoners calls for the immediate release of his medical records so that adequate medical treatment can be given to the detainee. Spokesman for Cageprisoners and former Guantanamo detainee, Moazzam Begg said,

    “That a man who has endured more than half a decade in the world’s most infamous prison — without charge or trial — is now infected with the world’s most dreaded disease is preposterous. How will the US administration explain this one to his family? More ‘robust interrogation techniques’?”

    With Al-Ghizzawi’s condition as it is, Candace Gorman made the following plea,

    “Al-Ghizzawi is an innocent civilian turned over to the Americans in response to a bounty (cash American dollars for Arabs). Al-Ghizzawi has been taken from his wife and young daughter and he will die if he is not given immediate medical care, and yet the American military cannot be bothered… I ask that all of you please contact the American state department and ask them to release this innocent and very ill man.”

    A double heart-attack of Saifullah Paracha, the death of an Afghan detainee due to cancer and the deaths of four other detainees in Guantanamo all highlight the serious medical difficulties of those being detained. The US administration must put pressure on the public to give full medical treatment to those under its control. However, the medical situation only reiterates the more pressing concern that these men must either be charged for crimes under a system that is recognised to be fair and open, or must be released expeditiously.

    Cageprisoners is a human rights organisation that exists to raise awareness of the plight of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and other detainees held as part of the War on Terror. We aim to give a voice to the voiceless.

    Denmark to query US about secret CIA flights

    0

    COPENHAGEN : Denmark will demand answers from the United States for the “unacceptable” use of a Danish airport in Greenland for secret CIA flights, the country’s foreign minister said on TV Wednesday.

    According to a documentary called “The CIA’s Danish Connections”, the US agency secretly used Danish airspace and airports as transit for its airplanes.

    Planes flying for fake corporations are suspected of transporting illegally-kidnapped terrorist suspects to Egypt, Jordan, Romania and Afghanistan, among other countries.

    “There is evidence in this film which I had not seen before which shows that the Americans are using private airplanes as government airplanes,” Foreign Minister Per Stig Moeller told DR1 TV, the channel that broadcast the documentary.

    “It is clear that that is unacceptable, and we are going to talk to the Americans about this,” he said.

    “We can say to the Americans that they have made commitments (to respect international aviation conventions) which they are not apparently keeping. And we would dearly like explanations on this point.

    “Neither Danish airspace nor the airspace of Greenland can be used in violation of these conventions,” he added.

    Greenland is an offshore Danish territory.

    Lars Emil Johansen, one of Greenland’s two representatives in the Danish parliament, demanded an in-depth investigation, saying he did not have confidence in the Danish government – a long-time ally of the United States – to shed any light on the affair.

    Last year the centrist and leftwing parties in parliament demanded an independent inquiry into the CIA’s use of Danish airspace – but the liberal-conservative government and its far-right ally, the Danish People’s Party, refused the request.

    Figures from the civil aviation authority in Greenland show that a third of 35 private planes operated on a CIA account and suspected of being involved in illegal rendition flights, landed at the Narsarsuaq airport in southern Greenland.

    Between the end of 2001 and 2005 the CIA-operated planes carried out more than a thousand flights involving European airports, most of them logistical, but in the absence of any proper European control the only provisional figures come from an account published by the European Parliament rapporteur Claudio Fava last year. – AFP/ch

    CIA not authorised to use waterboarding

    1

    AFP

    US Attorney General Michael Mukasey said Tuesday that waterboarding is not currently authorized for CIA interrogations, but said he would not answer questions from Congress on the technique’s legality in general.

    Mukasey, who is to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, said that since becoming attorney general on November 9 he had been briefed on Central Intelligence Agency methods in its current interrogation programme.

    “A limited set of methods is currently authorised for use in that programme. I have been authorized to disclose publicly that waterboarding is not among those methods,” Mukasey wrote in a letter to committee head Senator Patrick Leahy.

    “Accordingly, waterboarding is not, and may not be used in the current programme,” he said.

    But Mukasey, under pressure since his nomination last year to declare waterboarding, which simulates drowning, as illegal torture in all cases, would not say whether it has been used in the past.

    He also suggested there could be circumstances where it might be allowable, and added that he would not answer questions from the committee about technique’s legality under US law in the absence of any specific current needs and conditions to discuss it.

    Turkey rejects US bank request on Iran

    0

    A Turkish official has refused a US request to scrutinize and then suspend the activities of the Turkey-based Iran’s Bank Mellat.

    “What binds Turkey are the resolutions of the UN and not US presidential decrees or Congressional decisions,” a Turkish diplomat told the Turkish Daily News.

    US officials have told bankers around the world that Iran is funding terrorists and seeking nuclear technology. Banks such as UBS AG and Deutsche Bank AG have responded by ending – or severely reducing – their business with Iran.

    However, in Ankara US requests have not been responded to in a similar way, according to officials.

    Stating that foreign banks operate according to the regulations set by the current Banking Law and are inspected periodically, the official underlined that the conditions of suspending one bank’s operations are clear.

    “Obviously we cannot move upon a third party’s requests,” he said.

    Although some banks in Europe and Japan have bowed to US pressure, a host of analysts and diplomats believe that the move has proved futile.

    They opine that the Bush administration’s controversial policy of slapping sanctions on Iranian banks is facing a critical challenge, as financial institutions in Russia, China, and much of the Middle East have declined to cut ties with Iranian banks.

    AO/JG/PA

    Errors prompt call for end to ID card plans

    0

    By ROBERT BROOKS

    A CATALOGUE of errors involving sensitive personal data has led MP Alan Beith to back calls for the Government to scrap its identity card plans.

    He says the law to make carrying a card compulsory will become a “bureaucratic nightmare”, which won’t prevent illegal working or help stop crime or terrorism

    As chairman of the House of Commons’ Justice Committee, Mr Beith has heard a great deal of evidence on the protection of data and its safe storage and retrieval.

    He welcomed Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg’s publication of figures showing that 37 million pieces of personal information on UK citizens were lost in 2007, mostly by the Government.

    Mr Beith said: “The expensive identity cards scheme is based on the Government storing large amounts of information about each one of us on a central database. But in 2007 the Government stumbled from one data loss crisis to another.

    “The worst example came in November when the Government lost the personal details of all 25 million families with children.

    “That has put the privacy of every family in Alnwick at risk.

    “The dangers of putting so much information about every citizen in the UK into one central database are clear to everyone except, it seems, the Government.”

    He added: “”I am very pleased that new Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg is leading the battle to end the ID cards scheme. Liberal Democrats in Alnwick are right behind him.

    “The plan to make everyone carry a piece of plastic should be buried before it ends up as another expensive Government fiasco.”

    9/11 Commission Secret White House Ties?

    0

    Book Charges Zelikow May Have Interfered With the 9/11 Commission’s Report

    By JUSTIN ROOD

    The former executive director of the 9/11 Commission denies explosive charges of undisclosed ties to the Bush White House or interference with the panel’s report.

    The charges are said to be contained in New York Times reporter Philip Shenon’s unreleased book, “The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation,” according to Max Holland, an author and blogger, and generally confirmed by the book’s publisher. Although the book is not slated to hit stores until early next month, Holland says he bought a copy of the audio version at a bookstore. (Attempts to purchase the book, in any format, at the Barnes & Noble across the street from ABC News headquarters were unsuccessful.)

    9/11 Commission co-chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton hired former Condoleezza Rice aide Philip Zelikow to be executive director, Zelikow failed to tell them about his role helping Rice set up President George W. Bush’s National Security Council in early 2001 — and that he was “instrumental” in demoting Richard Clarke, the onetime White House counterterrorism czar who was fixated on the threat from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, according to Holland’s version of Shenon’s tome.

    “[Zelikow] had laid the groundwork for much of what went wrong at the White House in the weeks and months before September 11. Would he want people to know that?” Shenon writes, according to Holland.

    Zelikow denied that was the case. “It was very well-known I had served on this transition team and had declined to go into the administration. I worked there for a total of one month. I had interviewed Sandy Berger, Dick Clarke and most of the NSC staff.” He noted he recused himself from working on the section of the panel’s report addressing the NSC transition, and that other staffers had held conflicting positions in the Clinton administration.

    In his book, Shenon also says that while working for the panel, Zelikow appears to have had private conversations with former White House political director Karl Rove, despite a ban on such communication, according to Holland. Shenon reports that Zelikow later ordered his assistant to stop keeping a log of his calls, although the commission’s general counsel overruled him, Holland wrote.

    Zelikow told ABC News he was under no prohibition that barred his conversations with Rove, and did not recall asking his assistant to stop logging his calls, although he did speak to her about leaving phone messages in a publicly visible place. “Two other people took my calls as well, and neither have a recollection” of Zelikow asking for calls not to be logged, he said. Further, Zelikow said 9/11 Commission general counsel Daniel Marcus did not raise the matter with Zelikow at the time.

    Reached by phone Wednesday afternoon, Marcus declined to confirm or deny the events.

    Zelikow flatly denied discussing the commission’s work with Rove. “I never discussed the 9/11 Commission with him, not at all. Period.”

    What’s more, the idea of Zelikow and Rove conspiring over the commission’s work was unrealistic, the ex-director indicated. “I was not a very popular person in the Bush White House when this was going on. There’s a lot of carryover of that to this day.”

    Holland reports that Shenon discovered some panel staffers believed Zelikow stopped them from submitting a report depicting Rice’s performance as “amount[ing] to incompetence, or something not far from it.”

    “I don’t think that staffers will bear that out,” Zelikow said. Out of 85 staffers, half a dozen were disgruntled, Zelikow told ABC News. “Under the circumstances, that was a pretty low fraction,” he said. “But they all talked to Shenon.”

    Halfway into the panel’s operation, Zelikow told his bosses under oath of the once-hidden ties, Holland’s blog says Shenon’s book reports. Upon hearing the details, Shenon writes, Marcus concluded Zelikow “never should have been hired,” according to Holland.

    “That’s not right,” Marcus said when told of the account. “That’s certainly not true.”

    Shenon directed calls to his publisher, Twelve Books, a subsidiary of Hachette Book Group.

    Cary Goldstein, a spokesman for Hachette, confirmed the blog’s characterization of the book’s contents, but said he could not confirm direct quotes.

    “It’s not a surprise,” Goldstein said when asked his reaction to the leak of the book’s details before its Feb. 5 publication date. “I think people are really curious to see what the report had looked like if it hadn’t been neutered in [the panel’s] effort to be unanimous.”

    LA Gets Marijuana Vending Machines

    0

    In Los Angeles, medical marijuana patients can now get their drug with a dose of convenience. The Los Angeles Herbal Nutrition Center installed medical marijuana vending machines to give patients a dose of convenience with their grass. The nutrition center’s owner said they also offer low prices, safety and privacy.California allows marijuana use for medical purposes but it’s still against federal law.

    “Convenient access, lower prices, safety, anonymity,” inventor and owner Vincent Mehdizadeh said, extolling the benefits of the machine

    Federal drug agents said the invention might need unplugging.

    “Somebody owns (it), it’s on a property and somebody fills it,” said DEA Special Agent Jose Martinez. “Once we find out where it’s at, we’ll look into it and see if they’re violating laws.”

    At least three dispensaries in the city, including two belonging to Mehdizadeh, have installed vending machines to distribute the drug to people who carry cards authorizing marijuana use.

    Mehdizadeh said he spent seven months to develop and patent the black, armored box, which he calls the “PVM,” or prescription vending machine.

    A sliding fence protects the tinted windows of his dispensary, barely distinguishing it from a busy thoroughfare of strip malls, automobile dealers and furniture shops. A box resembling a large refrigerator stands inside the nearly empty shop, near a few shelves stocked with vitamins and herbs.

    A guard in a black T-shirt emblazoned with the word “Security” on the front stands at the door. A poster of Bob Marley decorates a back room.

    The computerized machine requires fingerprint identification and a prepaid card with a magnetic stripe. Once the card and fingerprint are verified, a bright green envelope with the pot drops down a slot.

    Mehdizadeh says any user approved for medical marijuana and registered in a computer database at his dispensaries can pre-purchase the drug and then use the machine to pick up.

    The process provides convenience and privacy for users who may otherwise feel uncomfortable about buying marijuana, Mehdizadeh said.

    At the Timothy Leary Medical Dispensary in the San Fernando Valley, the vending machine is accessible only during business hours. An employee there said the machine was introduced about five months ago, and provides speedy service.

    “It helps a lot of patients who are in a lot of pain and don’t want to wait around to get help,” Robert Schwartz said. “It’s been working out great.”

    Mehdizadeh said he sought the advice of doctors, and decided to limit the amount of marijuana per user to an ounce per week. Each purchase from the machine yields 1/8th or 2/8th of an ounce. By eliminating a vendor behind the counter, he said, the machine offers users lower drug prices. The 1/8th ounce packet would cost about $40 — $20 lower than the average price at other dispensaries.

    A spokesman for a marijuana advocacy group said the machine also benefits dispensary owners.

    “It limits the number of workers in the store in the event of a raid, and it’ll make it harder for theft,” said Nathan Sands, of The Compassionate Coalition.

    Marijuana use is illegal under federal law, which does not recognize the medical marijuana laws in California and 11 other states.

    The Drug Enforcement Agency and other federal agencies have been actively shutting down major medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state over the last two years and charging their operators with felony distribution charges.

    Mehdizadeh said the Herbal Nutrition Center was the target of a federal raid in December. He said no arrests were made and no charges have been filed against him.

    Kris Hermes, a spokesman for advocacy group Americans for Safe Access, said the machine might benefit those who already know how much and what strain of marijuana they’re looking for. But he said others will want to see and smell the drug before they buy it.

    A man who said he has been authorized to use medical marijuana as part of his anger management therapy said the vending machine’s security measures would at least protect against illicit use of the drug.

    “You have kids that want to get high and that’s not what marijuana is for,” Robert Miko said. “It’s to medicate.”

    Copyright 2008 by KNBC.com and KNBC (NBC4 Los Angeles.

    How Bush Destroyed the Dollar

    3

    The Profile of a Third World Country

    By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

    It is difficult to know where Bush has accomplished the most destruction, the Iraqi economy or the US economy.

    In the current issue of Manufacturing & Technology News, Washington economist Charles McMillion observes that seven years of Bush has seen the federal debt increase by two-thirds while US household debt doubled.

    This massive Keynesian stimulus produced pitiful economic results. Median real income has declined. The labor force participation rate has declined. Job growth has been pathetic, with 28% of the new jobs being in the government sector. All the new private sector jobs are accounted for by private education and health care bureaucracies, bars and restaurants. Three and a quarter million manufacturing jobs and a half million supervisory jobs were lost. The number of manufacturing jobs has fallen to the level of 65 years ago.

    This is the profile of a third world economy.

    The “new economy” has been running a trade deficit in advanced technology products since 2002. The US trade deficit in manufactured goods dwarfs the US trade deficit in oil. The US does not earn enough to pay its import bill, and it doesn’t save enough to finance the government’s budget deficit.

    To finance its deficits, America looks to the kindness of foreigners to continue to accept the outpouring of dollars and dollar-denominated debt.

    The dollars are accepted, because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency.

    At the meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, this week, billionaire currency trader George Soros warned that the dollar’s reserve currency role was drawing to an end: “The current crisis is not only the bust that follows the housing boom, it’s basically the end of a 60-year period of continuing credit expansion based on the dollar as the reserve currency. Now the rest of the world is increasingly unwilling to accumulate dollars.”

    If the world is unwilling to continue to accumulate dollars, the US will not be able to finance its trade deficit or its budget deficit. As both are seriously out of balance, the implication is for yet more decline in the dollar’s exchange value and a sharp rise in prices.

    Economists have romanticized globalism, taking delight in the myriad of foreign components in US brand name products. This is fine for a country whose trade is in balance or whose currency has the reserve currency role. It is a terrible dependency for a country such as the US that has been busy at work offshoring its economy while destroying the exchange value of its currency.

    As the dollar sheds value and loses its privileged position as reserve currency, US living standards will take a serious knock.

    If the US government cannot balance its budget by cutting its spending or by raising taxes, the day when it can no longer borrow will see the government paying its bills by printing money like a third world banana republic. Inflation and more exchange rate depreciation will be the order of the day.

    Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

    State spying that would make the Stasi proud

    1

    EDWARD HEATHCOAT AMORY

    When it was passed into law, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) sounded a pretty innocuous piece of legislation. But in truth it represented a significant victory for the busybody state over our ancient liberties.

    Labour claimed it was responding to demands from civil liberties campaigners for more control over state snooping.

    But it soon became clear that the legislation which Jack Straw, then Home Secretary, was introducing would have the opposite effect, massively expanding the ability of the public sector to pry into our private lives.

    The Act, which has been quietly amended several times (each time handing more powers to the public sector), now gives an unprecedented range of state agencies the right to listen to our phone conversations, tap our emails and open our post.

    In the last nine months of 2006, 960 new applications for the right to peer into the private lives of Britons were made every day.

    It is a level of Government surveillance that would make even the Stasi, the former East German secret police renowned as the world’s most effective intelligence agency, proud.

    There are three different types of surveillance. The first, interception of communications – listening in while people are on the phone, or watching what we do on the internet – is the most difficult to justify.

    But the grounds for interception are so wide as to allow most requests to be approved. As well as the more predictable excuse of “national security”, they include “safeguarding the economic well-being of the UK”. The police, the security services and Customs can all use this technique but they need authorisation from the Home Secretary herself or, in urgent cases, get temporary permission from one of her senior officials.

    Scroll down for more…

    In the name of ‘national security’: We are listening (posed by model)

    The second type is surveillance – old-fashioned spying. The list of possible justifications for this is absurdly long – including “to prevent and detect crime or prevent disorder, public safety, public health, to assess or collect any tax, duty, levy or other charge payable to a government department”. Just about any of us could be under surveillance using one of this list.

    Most worryingly, a long list of government agencies – including 474 councils – can put us under the spotlight. Senior officials in each one can simply give the go-ahead and apply for a rubber stamp to be given later by the Interception Commissioner.

    This Commissioner, former judge Sir Paul Kennedy, with a team of five inspectors, is supposed to check to make sure that all the bugging and spying waived through by the Home Secretary or others has been justified.

    His report this week identifies more than 1,000 cases over nine months where he found that the rules had been broken.

    The third type of surveillance is the most common – access to communications data.

    This includes discovering the identities of who we phone and which internet sites we visit. This information is even easier for public authorities to obtain with relatively junior officials able to authorise it.

    Later, as in the case of surveillance, justification for needing this information is considered by overworked bureaucrats accountable to the Interception Commissioner.

    But by the time his staff gets round to looking at the paperwork, the trading standards officers down at the town hall, for example, may have been peering at your phone and internet records for more than a year.

    There is a tribunal to which you can complain, but since virtually no one under surveillance will know they are being watched, the tribunal isn’t busy and has virtually never found in favour of a complainant.

    How did the Government get away with this? Well, the Lords did make a fuss at the time. Tory peer Lord Northesk said it “sanctioned mass domestic surveillance measures”.

    The Government appeared to be forced into a climbdown. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) initially only covered the nine most crucial law enforcement agencies (police, the taxman, the intelligence agencies etc).

    But this merely delayed the stealthy march of Big Brother. In 2004, the number of groups with the right to poke in our lives expanded to 792; the laws to allow this had been slipped quietly through the Commons by David Blunkett.

    As usual, Whitehall got its way by waiting for the fuss to die down. Incidentally, the only group with an exemption from being bugged are MPs themselves.

    But the Act didn’t merely extend the rights of bureaucrats to check on us, it also forced the larger internet service providers to build into their systems the technological capability to cater for all this snooping.

    In practice, the result was that “black boxes” were installed in all main ISPs, copying all the information available to them straight to the security services. Then, when MI5 or the police obtain an authorisation for surveillance, they merely tap into the black box. In return, the internet companies have been able to recoup some of their costs from the taxpayer.

    While writing this article, I made several phone calls and looked at a number of sources on the internet. If anyone in Whitehall can think of a plausible reason why this article threatens the economic security of Britain, or any of the myriad excuses detailed above, they will be able this morning to see who I spoke to and where I went on the net, to conduct my research. Surely, that can’t be right?

    Over one million Iraqis killed by illegal war

    0

    Research conducted by a leading British polling group shows that more than one million Iraqis have died as a result of war in their country.

    The survey, conducted by Opinion Research Business (ORB) with 2,414 adults in face-to-face interviews, found that 20 percent of people had had at least one death in their household because of the conflict, rather than natural causes, Reuters reported.

    The survey has been conducted in August and September 2007 with a 1.7 percent margin of error.

    The research covered 15 of Iraq’s 18 provinces. Those not covered included two of Iraq’s more volatile regions — Karbala and Anbar — and the northern province of Arbil, where local authorities refused them a permit to work.

    The director of the ORB, Allan Hyde, said it had no objective other than to record as accurately as possible the number of deaths among the Iraqi population as a result of the invasion and ensuing conflict.

    MGH/RA

    Scientists discover way to reverse loss of memory

    2

    By Jeremy Laurance

    Scientists performing experimental brain surgery on a man aged 50 have stumbled across a mechanism that could unlock how memory works.

    The accidental breakthrough came during an experiment originally intended to suppress the obese man’s appetite, using the increasingly successful technique of deep-brain stimulation. Electrodes were pushed into the man’s brain and stimulated with an electric current. Instead of losing appetite, the patient instead had an intense experience of déjà vu. He recalled, in intricate detail, a scene from 30 years earlier. More tests showed his ability to learn was dramatically improved when the current was switched on and his brain stimulated.

    Scientists are now applying the technique in the first trial of the treatment in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. If successful, it could offer hope to sufferers from the degenerative condition, which affects 450,000 people in Britain alone, by providing a “pacemaker” for the brain.

    Three patients have been treated and initial results are promising, according to Andres Lozano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Toronto Western Hospital, Ontario, who is leading the research.

    Professor Lozano said: “This is the first time that anyone has had electrodes implanted in the brain which have been shown to improve memory. We are driving the activity of the brain by increasing its sensitivity — turning up the volume of the memory circuits. Any event that involves the memory circuits is more likely to be stored and retained.”

    The discovery had caught him and his team “completely by surprise”, Professor Lozano said. They had been operating on the man, who weighed 190kg (30st), to treat his obesity by locating the point in his brain that controls appetite. All other attempts to curb his eating had failed and brain surgery was the last resort.

    The treatment for obesity was unsuccessful. But, while the researchers were identifying potential appetite suppressant points in the hypothalamus, the part of the brain associated with hunger, the man suddenly began to say that memory was flooding back.

    “He reported the experience of being in a park with friends from when he was around 20 years old and, as the intensity of stimulation increased, the details became more vivid. He recognised his girlfriend [from the time] … The scene was in colour. People were wearing identifiable clothes and were talking, but he could not decipher what they were saying,” the researchers write in Annals of Neurology, published today.

    The man, who has not been identified, was also tested on his ability to learn lists of paired objects. After three weeks of continuous hypothalamic stimulation, his performance on two learning tests was significantly improved. He was also much more likely to remember a list of unrelated paired objects with the electrodes turned on than when turned off.

    Speaking to The Independent yesterday, Professor Lozano said: “His performance improved dramatically. As we turned the current up, we first drove his memory circuits and improved his learning. As we increased the intensity of the current, we got spontaneous memories of discrete events. At a certain intensity, he would slash to the scene [in the park]. When the intensity was increased further, he got more detail but, when the current was turned off, it rapidly decayed.”

    The discovery surprised the scientists as the hypothalamus has not usually been identified as a seat of memory. The contacts that most readily produced the memories were located close to a structure called the fornix, an arched bundle of fibres that carries signals within the limbic system, which is involved in memory and emotions and is situated next to the hypothalamus.

    Professor Lozano is a world authority on deep-brain stimulation who has undertaken 400 operations on Parkinson’s disease sufferers and is developing the technique as a treatment for depression, for which he has performed 28 operations. He said the discovery of its role in stimulating memory had wide implications.

    “It gives us insight into which brain structures are involved in memory. It gives us a means of intervening in the way we have already done in Parkinson’s and for mood disorders such as depression, and it may have therapeutic benefit in people with memory problems,” he said.

    The researchers are testing the approach in six Alzheimer’s patients in a Phase 1 safety study. Three have so far had electrodes surgically implanted. The electrodes are attached via a cable that runs below the skull and down the neck to a battery pack stitched under the skin of the chest. The “pacemaker” delivers a constant low-level current that stimulates the brain but cannot be perceived by the patient.

    Professor Lozano said: “It is the same device as is used for Parkinson’s disease. We have placed the electrodes in exactly the same area of the hypothalamus because we want to see if we can reproduce the findings in the earlier experiment. We believe the memory circuits we are stimulating are close by, physically touching the hypothalamus.

    “It is a very effective treatment for the motor problems associated with Parkinson’s disease and it has been used on 40,000 people. We are in the early stages of using it with Alzheimer’s patients and we don’t know if it will work. We want to assess if we can reach the memory circuits and drive improvement. It is a novel approach to dealing with this problem.”

    British researchers welcomed the discovery. Andrea Malizia, a senior lecturer in psychopharmacology at the University of Bristol who is studying deep-brain stimulation as a treatment for depression, said: “If they had said let’s stick an electrode in the hypothalamus to modify Alzheimer’s disease, I would have said ‘Why start there?’ But, if they have had a serendipitous finding, then that is as good. Serendipitous findings are how a lot of discoveries in science have been made.”

    Ayesha Khan, a scientific liaison officer at the Alzheimer’s Disease Society, said: “This is very cutting-edge research. It is exciting, but the initial result is in one person. It will need much further investigation.”

    How deep-brain stimulation works

    Deep -brain stimulation has been used for more than a decade to treat a range of conditions including depression, chronic pain, Parkinson’s disease and other movement disorders.

    It has been so successful in treating Parkinson’s that 40,000 patients worldwide now have electrodes implanted in their brains driven by pacemakers stitched into their chests.

    As the devices become smaller, requiring less risky surgery, and the target areas of the brain requiring stimulation are more precisely identified, demand for the treatment is expected to leap. Although it is expensive, the potential savings in care and treatment costs are immense. It does not lead to dependence on drugs and is reversible.

    The electrodes are implanted under local anaesthesia while the patient is awake. Before the operation, the neurosurgeon performs an MRI scan and establishes the target location for the electrodes. He then carries out a craniotomy — lifting a section of the skull — and inserts the electrodes and leads. By stimulating the electrodes and checking the patient’s response, the surgeon can check that they are positioned in the right place.

    Different areas of the brain are targeted for different conditions. For Parkinson’s disease, they are placed in the subthalamic nucleus; for depression, in area 25 of the cingulate cortex.

    Deep-brain stimulation was developed in France and first licensed by the Food and Drug Administration in the US in 1997 as a treatment for tremor. In the UK, the surgery is performed at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in London, in Bristol, in Oxford and at a handful of other centres.

    The name of the procedure is in some ways a misnomer as it often involves inhibiting electrical activity in an area of the brain rather than stimulating it. The technique is as much about restoring balance between competing brain areas which leads to the tremor characteristic of some types of Parkinson’s disease.

    BUSH BREAKS LAW FOUR TIMES IN SIGNING NEW BILL

    1

    PROGRESS REPORT – Earlier this week, President Bush signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008, which included a statute forbidding the Bush administration from spending taxpayer money “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq.” But Bush quietly attached a signing statement to the law, asserting a unilateral right to disregard the ban on permanent bases in addition to three other measures in the bill.

    “Provisions of the act. . . could inhibit the president’s ability to carry out his constitutional obligations. . . to protect national security,” the signing statement read. Reacting to the statement, Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Mark Agrast said, “On the merits, for the president to assert that Congress lacks the authority to say there shouldn’t be permanent bases on foreign soil is fanciful at best.”

    Bush’s “frequent use of signing statements to advance aggressive theories of executive power has been a hallmark of his presidency,” writes the Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage, who has authored a book on that topic. In 2006, the American Bar Association condemned signing statements as “contrary to the rule of law and our constitutional separation of powers.” Bush’s latest signing statement was immediately met with anger on Capitol Hill. “I reject the notion in his signing statement that he can pick and choose which provisions of this law to execute,” said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) added, “Congress has a right to expect that the Administration will faithfully implement all of the provisions” of the law — “not just the ones the President happens to agree with.”

    Last November, Bush announced that he and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had signed a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship” that set the parameters for negotiating an “enduring” U.S. occupation of Iraq. The negotiations have drawn fire in part because the administration said it does not intend to designate the declaration as a “treaty,” and so will not submit it to Congress for approval. Bush’s attempt to waive the ban on permanent bases is seen as one more step in the direction of establishing a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq.

    “If Bush is allowed to negotiate a treaty with Iraq that binds the United States under international law, the next president will be handcuffed,” said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Council for a Livable World. The Guardian notes that permanent bases “are broadly unpopular with Iraqis, who have voiced fears of an ongoing U.S. occupation.” Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), who has led the push to prevent permanent bases, explained that Bush’s statement is “sending a dangerous signal to the people of Iraq that the U.S. has a long-term interest in occupying their country, a move that will only enflame the insurgency.” Speaking on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) said that while administration officials frequently state that they do not intend to permanently occupy Iraq, “this signing statement issued by the President is the clearest signal yet that the Administration wants to hold this option in reserve.”

    Among the other provisions in the Defense Authorization Act that Bush asserted an unfounded right to ignore were two accountability measures aimed at private security firms accused of wartime abuses. One of these provisions would establish an independent, bipartisan Commission on Wartime Contracting. The Pentagon’s inspector general, whose office conducts internal investigations, endorsed the commission’s proposal, telling lawmakers in a November meeting, “We’re leaning forward in the saddle, we’re committed to this.” Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) said, “The idea that the president would stand in the way of a non-partisan, independent committee to look into waste and fraud by companies like Blackwater and Halliburton in Iraq is inexcusable and it’s irresponsible, and it ought to ruffle a lot of feathers across the country.”

    The other provision Bush waived would extend whistleblower protections to employees of defense contractors. “The president doesn’t have the authority to cancel these rights,” said Tom Devine, legal director at the non-profit Government Accountability Project, “unless he sends in troops to stop a jury from hearing whistleblower cases.”

    The fourth and last provision of the law that Bush sought to ignore was a requirement of the administration to turn over “any existing intelligence assessment, report, estimate or legal opinion” requested by the leaders of the House and Senate Armed Services committees within 45 days. The New York Times writes, “Clearly, this violates the power that Mr. Bush has given himself to cover up an array of illegal and improper actions, like his decisions to spy on Americans without a warrant, to torture prisoners in violation of the Geneva Conventions and to fire United States attorneys apparently for political reasons.”

    New Hampshire Recount a “Criminal Enterprise”

    4

    Vote fraud expert convinced chain of custody is corrupt

    Paul Joseph Watson

    Fresh from her confrontations in New Hampshire during which public officials were grilled about slapdash chain of custody and ballot box tampering issues, Bev Harris is now convinced that a “criminal enterprise” is running the primary recount.

    Harris was fundamental in the vetting and production of the HBO special Hacking Democracy, and has contributed towards bringing charges against vote fraudsters who cheated in Ohio in 2004.

    Harris traveled to New Hampshire personally to discover for herself the disgraceful lapses in chain of custody for the memory cards and ballot boxes used in the recent primary.

    Harris is featured in the video below (uploaded today) asking public officials about slits in ballot boxes as they bizarrely deny that the slits are big enough to allow tampering, amongst a myriad of other disturbing questions about chain of custody.

    “What they’re doing here is a criminal enterprise,” Harris told the Alex Jones Show today, “It has all the earmarks of it.”

    Click here to listen to the MP3 interview.

    Why Are Ron Paul Supporters So Angry?

    By Chuck Baldwin


    When Glenn Beck interviewed Congressman Ron Paul a few weeks ago, he said that he had received death threats from people purporting to be Ron Paul supporters. I have heard other journalists make similar accusations against Congressman Paul’s supporters. Of course, I have no way of knowing whether any of this is true or not. And neither does anyone else.

    My own experience has been that Congressman Paul’s supporters have always demonstrated grace, patience, and courtesy. I have met and worked alongside Ron Paul supporters in at least four states, and I have never personally witnessed any of the anger and bitterness of which they are accused.

    Not that Ron Paul’s supporters do not have reason to be angry. They most certainly do. In fact, all of us should be angry.

    Ron Paul’s supporters have been subjected to the most overt and outlandish brand of humiliation and censorship ever seen in modern politics. The cable news Republican Presidential debates have been jokes. For every one question (and usually a stupid, irrelevant question at that) asked of Dr. Paul, the other participants will get three or four. Maybe more. Even though Ron Paul has received more money, more votes, and more delegates than Rudy Giuliani, the press continues to ignore Mr. Paul while showering Giuliani with coverage.

    In addition, Ron Paul’s own party continues to treat him and his supporters as second-class citizens–or perhaps even as aliens from a different planet. They are subjected to insults of every type. Not to mention enduring every conceivable method to censure or remove Dr. Paul from the political process. He has been denied access to platforms, excluded from debates, removed from GOP Presidential lists, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

    I say again: if anyone has a right to be angry, it is Ron Paul supporters. But perhaps the greater question is, Why are not all of us angry? No, I do not mean in a cruel or unkind way, but where is our outrage for what the ruling elite are doing to our country?

    We should all be angry at the way politicians lie to us, deceive us, and manipulate us. We should all be angry at the way both major parties have completely ignored and trampled constitutional government.

    Are we so gullible that we cannot see when a politician says one thing to one group of people and a totally opposite thing to another group of people? Are we so naive that we cannot tell when a politician changes his beliefs simply in order to garner votes?

    Come on folks, let’s get real: do you really expect John McCain to abandon his efforts to grant amnesty to illegal aliens? Do you really expect Mitt Romney to be a champion for the unborn? Do you really expect Mike Huckabee to suddenly be the champion for limited government spending? Do you really expect Rudy Giuliani to keep his pants zipped?

    Have the American people become so numbed to truth and reality that we cannot distinguish the genuine from the phony–even when it stands right in front of us? Perhaps so. However, if the American people had any of the character and resolve of our forebears, we would be steaming mad about what our political and business leaders have done to our country.

    Yes, we should be angry at the way our government has repeatedly lied to us about the economy, about sending our jobs and manufacturing industries overseas, about Iraq, and about EVERYTHING! Yes, dear friends, they lie to us about everything. It has gotten to the point that, frankly, I believe NOTHING the government tells us. They have proven themselves to be totally disingenuous and downright duplicitous. And, frankly, I’m angry about it.

    In addition, I can even understand whatever anger and exasperation Ron Paul’s supporters feel regarding my fellow evangelical believers. Today’s Christians–and especially our pastors–have become little more than toadies for the establishment elite. They apparently have never read our U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, or Bill of Rights. They are seemingly oblivious to our great American history and heritage. They seem to lack the most elementary understanding of even the most basic American principles.

    For example, it makes absolutely no sense that Christian pastors would embrace the sudden pro-life candidacy of Mitt Romney and reject the proven, twenty-year pro-life record of Ron Paul. It makes no sense that evangelical Christians would embrace the pro-illegal amnesty, pro-McCain/Feingold, pro-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-gun control John McCain and reject the proven, twenty-year no-amnesty, pro-freedom, anti-No-Child-Left-Behind, pro-Second Amendment record of Ron Paul. It makes absolutely no sense that Christians would fall for Mr. Big Government himself, Mike Huckabee, and reject the champion of limited government, Ron Paul.

    Beyond that, how is it that pastors and evangelicals cannot see through the GOP’s complicity in helping to establish a Luciferian New World Order? How can they be so blind and dumb regarding the global machinations of the Council on Foreign Relations? How can they not understand and reject the philosophy emanating from the Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergers?

    Ask the average pastor and Christian about the CFR, the Trilateralists, or the Bilderbergers and they just stare into space. They are absolutely clueless. Ask them about the burgeoning NAFTA superhighway, North American Union, or Amero and they look stupefied. Again, they are absolutely clueless. And, yes, I am angry about it. I am saddened and angered at the lack of knowledge, perception, and discernment demonstrated by my Christian brethren.

    I believe with all my heart that if the pastors and Christian people of America would come off their high horse and start supporting the principles of liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government, not only would there be a rebirth of freedom in America, there would be a spiritual revival as well.

    As it is, freedom-loving people cannot see past the ignorance, elitism, and partisan phoniness of modern Christians in order that they might see Christ. The Scripture plainly says, “Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (II Corinthians 3:17)

    When America’s Colonial preachers and Christian people fought for liberty and independence, God gave us two Great Awakenings. I believe another Great Revival would come to America, if our Christians and pastors would stand on their hind legs and once again fight for liberty and independence. And, yes, I am also angry that they will not do that either.

    Bush orders NSA to snoop on US agencies

    1

    Cyber attack fear used to expand spy grid

    By Ashlee Vance in Mountain View

    Not content with spying on other countries, the NSA (National Security Agency) will now turn on the US’s own government agencies thanks to a fresh directive from president George Bush.

    Under the new guidelines, the NSA and other intelligence agencies can bore into the internet networks of all their peers. The Bush administration pulled off this spy expansion by pointing to an increase in the number of cyber attacks directed against the US, possibly from foreign nations. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will spearhead the effort around identifying the source of these attacks, while the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon will concentrate on retaliation.

    The Washington Post appears to have broken the news about the new Bush-led joint directive, which remains classified. The paper reported that the directive – National Security Presidential Directive 54/Homeland Security Presidential Directive 23 – was signed on Jan. 8. Earlier reports from the Baltimore Sun documented the NSA’s plans to add US spying to its international snooping duties.

    The new program will – of course – drains billions of dollars out of US coffers and be part of Bush’s 2009 budget.

    During Bush’s presidency, US citizens have come under an unprecedented spying regime. In addition to upping its focus on suspected criminals, the administration permitted a system for wiretapping the phone calls of Average Joes and Janes. The government is also funding specialized computers from companies such as Cray that can search through enormous databases at incredible speed. Ah, if only Stalin could see us now.

    The government points to cyber attacks against the State, Commerce, Defense and Homeland Security departments as the impetus for expanding the NSA’s powers. “U.S. officials and cyber-security experts have said Chinese Web sites were involved in several of the biggest attacks back to 2005, including some at the country’s nuclear-energy labs and large defense contractors,” the Post reported.

    Critics of the new directive will point to the NSA’s ability to operate in total secrecy as cause for concern.

    More troubling, however, may be the Pentagon and Homeland Security’s aspirations to hit attackers with counter-strikes.

    Proving that a nation rather than a rogue set of attackers are behind a cyber attack will likely be very difficult. In addition, the international community has yet to address the rules of cyber war in any meaningful way. ®

    Website ‘spy’ will increase council tax

    0

    By Sarah O’Grady

    LABOUR claims that it has postponed council tax revaluation in England are today exposed as a sham.

    Gordon Brown has continued to authorise a “database state” to increase council tax bills, according to new documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

    A contract signed by the Treasury reveals detailed information from nine out of 10 house sales and rentals is logged in a “Big Brother” database to prepare for a revaluation tax hike.

    The Government was so concerned about details of the contract leaking out that it forced property website Rightmove, which negotiated for the contract, to sign a secrecy clause.

    Almost every revalued home in Wales shot up into a more expensive tax band.

    The £6million contract with Rightmove is soon due for renewal.

    Revenue & Customs, which has lost millions of personal tax and benefit records, is systematically raiding estate agents’ records to build up a database for its council tax inspectors, the Valuation Office Agency.

    Eric Pickles MP, Conservative Shadow Secretary of State for Local Government, said: “Conservatives will stop this data plundering of people’s private homes, end Brown’s stealth tax revaluation and abolish state inspectors’ rights of entry into our homes.”

    Rightmove holds 16million property records, with 3.3million records updated alone in December.

    The Rightmove contract reveals why the information is wanted: for revaluation purposes.

    The full document can be seen on www.conservatives.com/pdf/Rightmovecontract.pdf.

    A Communities and Local Government spokesman said: “The Valuation Office Agency is simply maintaining an accurate council tax valuation list. The powers of the VOA have not changed since the introduction of council tax, by the Conservative government, in 1993.”

    US propped up Suharto despite rights abuses

    AFP

    The United States declassified documents Monday detailing how Washington propped up ex-Indonesian leader Suharto, who died at the weekend, at the expense of democracy and human rights.

    The documents, declassified following requests under a freedom of information law, showed the US administration did not use its leverage to bring Suharto to account during his 32-year reign until his last months in office.

    “One thing that is clear from the tens of thousands of pages of which we had declassified concerning US ties with Suharto from 1966 to 1998 — at no moment did US presidents ever exercise their maximum leverage over his regime to press for human rights or democratization,” Brad Simpson of the National Security Archive told AFP.

    The body, a non-governmental research institute at George Washington University in Washington, collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act.

    Simpson, who directs the Archive’s Indonesia and East Timor documentation project, said the only time Washington “decisively intervened” in Indonesia was in 1998, when it was reeling from a financial meltdown amid unprecedented riots.

    Bill Clinton, the Democratic US president at that time, phoned Suharto about half a dozen times, pressing the Indonesian leader to adopt a stringent adjustment program demanded by the International Monetary Fund, according to the documents.

    Suharto adhered to the demands of the United States and IMF.

    “I think it is indicative of the kinds of pressure US could bring to bear when it decides that it is in our interest to do so, but this was done on behalf of international financial institutions, never on behalf of human rights activists and the pro-democracy movement in Indonesia,” Simpson said.

    The declassified documents include transcripts of Suharto’s meetings with Presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan, as well as Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.

    They also mirrored US perceptions of Suharto from the earliest years of his violent rule, including the 1969 annexation of West Papua, the 1975 invasion of East Timor, and the so-called “mysterious killings” of 1983-1984.

    The United States was a steadfast ally of Suharto for much of his rule, providing him aid, weapons and diplomatic support as it regarded him as an effective bulwark against communism.

    Suharto made his first visit as head of state to the United States in May 1970 amid rampant corruption and a major crackdown on political parties at home but at the White House meeting, Nixon told the Indonesian leader he was presiding over one of the “largest democratic countries in the world.”

    “There are no issues between the US and Indonesia,” Kissinger wrote to Nixon approvingly, “and relations are excellent.”

    In his talks with President Gerald Ford at the White House five years later, Suharto brought up the question of Portuguese decolonization in East Timor and declared “the only way is to integrate the territory into Indonesia.”

    Ford gave no response, according to the documents.

    There also was no mention of human rights in Indonesia in the briefing papers of Suharto’s meeting with President Reagan in October 1982.

    Two years later, when Vice President George H. W. Bush visited Jakarta on the heels of an alleged massacre of hundreds of civilians in East Timor and “mysterious killings” in Indonesia, the discussions centered largely on US ties with the Soviet Union and China.

    The US embassy in Jakarta estimated that the government had summarily executed about 4,000 people at that time, documents showed.

    Human rights abuses during Suharto’s rule included a 1965-1966 crackdown on suspected communists and sympathizers estimated by historians to have killed at least half a million people.

    Following Suharto’s death Sunday, he was hailed by the US embassy in Jakarta as a “historic figure” who “achieved remarkable economic development.”

    “Though there may be some controversy over his legacy,” Suharto “left a lasting imprint on Indonesia and the region of Southeast Asia,” the embassy statement read.

    IPS leak suggests ID card fingerprint chop

    2

    Prints might just be needed for ‘special’ groups

    By John Lettice

    A key component of the UK ID card scheme, the central database of fingerprints, may be abandoned, according to a leaked Home Office document obtained by the Observer. The document doesn’t suggest entirely scrapping fingerprints, but instead suggests that their value should be assessed for each group of the population enrolled.

    So how does that work? Well, for the ID scheme as originally planned, it clearly doesn’t. From David Blunkett onwards Home Office ministers have presented biometrics as the system’s USP, the one single factor that makes it entirely certain (in their view) that you are who you say you are. And, they have claimed, the ability to check those biometrics against a central register would give us the ‘gold standard’ of identity. But if you don’t necessarily collect everybody’s fingerprints, then you don’t have a complete national biometric register, so you might as well save yourself a pile of money, chuck away any notion of online biometric checks as a matter of routine, and forget any ideas you still had about a national biometric register.

    Quite a few of the claimed ‘benefits’ of the ID scheme go out of the window if you do this. The police cannot trawl the register in order to match crime scene fingerprints, nor can they use their mobile fingerprint readers to identify you or to prove that you are who you say you are. Effectively, the ID card would be chip-backed picture ID, with the security of the chip only of value in circumstances where a reader was used.

    Except, apparently, for some groups. Immigration Minister Liam Byrne recently reiterated his commitment to issuing the first biometric ID cards to foreign nationals from November of this year. Having this group carrying biometric ID cards makes sense to the government, in a racist sort of way, because it should already have biometrics for many of them via the biometric visa programme. But not all foreign nationals require a visa, so perhaps not all foreign nationals will turn out to require an ID card – at least initially.

    But even if the Home Office were to abandon ID card fingerprints for everyone bar the foreigners it’s fingerprinting already, it would still ultimately be fingerprinting most of the rest of us, as the Identity & Passport Service (IPS) is currently scheduled to start collecting fingerprints at passport renewal from 2009. The UK isn’t a Schengen signatory and therefore isn’t obliged, as the Schengen states are, to add fingerprints to passports, but has committed to do so.

    Which presents us with a puzzle. The ID card has up to now been envisaged as, effectively, a small format passport – you collect the biometric data for the passport and squirt it onto the passport chip and the ID card chip, same thing, different shapes. But there’s always been a need, if the ID card is to be universal, to collect biometric data from that part of the population that doesn’t have a passport. And if you’re not going to do that, then the passport and the ID card start to become different beasts, with the passport the ID that’s more strongly tied to the individual, and the ID card being rather less so.

    The picture is not wholly coherent, which is as one would expect from an organisation looking for savings and shortcuts in a desperate attempt to salvage something from the ID card disaster.

    Meanwhile in separate leaks, the Home Office is considering beating young drivers with a stick to get them to sign up for ID cards. Well, sort of – see here. ®

    BAE and Accenture pull out of ID cards bid

    0

    Withdrawal of two systems integrators adds to problems for increasingly controversial national identity scheme.

    Miya Knights

    Two leading systems integrators (SIs) have withdrawn from the shortlist of bidders looking to run the National Identity Scheme (NIS) framework procurement programme.

    BAE Systems and Accenture both confirmed late yesterday they had abandoned plans to run the project introducing ID cards for UK citizen, leaving CSC, EDS, Fujitsu, IBM, Thales and Steria to battle it out for the framework projects.

    The move means both SIs will miss out on the £5.3 billion allocated for the scheme, which will be used in the first instance to pay for establishing and managing registration processes linked to a biometric database.

    BAE Systems said in a statement: “We withdrew because, at this stage of the competition, our assessment is that our bid would not contain every element necessary to deliver to the customer’s requirement.” But it did say it would continue to monitor the scheme “with interest”.

    Shazia Ejaz, Accenture spokeswoman said: “The Home Office is in the process of pulling together a list of companies that will then be eligible to bid for future work packages, which together will deliver the National Identity Scheme. On this occasion, we have decided not to seek to be selected for this ‘framework’.”

    Like BAE, she refused to be drawn further on its reasons for withdrawing, but instead added that Accenture remains committed to work on other government projects including the National Health Service (NHS) electronic patient records and picture archiving communications systems (PACS), a customer information system for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the electronic borders programme.

    The withdrawals news follows reports earlier this week from the Conservative Party that the ID cards scheme had been delayed by at least three years, until after the next election.

    Memo Details Objections to WTC Command Center

    1

    By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM

    The New York Police Department produced a detailed analysis in 1998 opposing plans by the city to locate its emergency command center at the World Trade Center, but the Giuliani administration overrode those objections. The command center later collapsed from damage in the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

    “Seven World Trade Center is a poor choice for the site of a crucial command center for the top leadership of the City of New York,” a panel of police experts, which was aided by the Secret Service, concluded in a confidential Police Department memorandum.

    The memorandum, which has not been previously disclosed, cited a number of “significant points of vulnerability.” Those included: the building’s public access, the center’s location on the 23rd floor, a 1,200-gallon diesel fuel supply for its generator, a large garage and delivery bays, the building’s history as a terrorist target, and its placement above and adjacent to a Consolidated Edison substation that provided much of the power for Lower Manhattan.

    Rudolph W. Giuliani, the mayor then, has acknowledged some police skepticism about the site, but he has described it as resulting from a jurisdictional dispute between police officials and his emergency management director, who had played a role in selecting the site.

    The eight-page memo reveals that police officials asked a variety of in-house experts in various disciplines and an outside expert to prepare a detailed analysis of the site’s vulnerabilities.

    The decision to put the command center in the trade center has been a continuing source of discomfort for Mr. Giuliani, whose expertise and preparedness as a leader in a time of crisis has been the chief element in his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

    The site was completed in the summer of 1999 and was destroyed when the 47-story building at 7 World Trade Center collapsed on Sept. 11 after a fire there burned for much of the day.

    “This group’s finding is that the security of the proposed O.E.M. Command Center cannot be reasonably guaranteed,” the commander of the intelligence division, Daniel J. Oates, wrote in the July 15, 1998, memo to the police commissioner.

    The memo said the conclusions were based on analysis by police officials with expertise in infrastructure, building security, explosives, traffic and ventilation systems, who also consulted the Secret Service, including the agency’s New York special agent in charge, Chip Smith.

    “Mr. Smith agrees with this assessment,” the memo says in its concluding paragraph, “even though his own office is in Seven World Trade Center. He acknowledges that the security of his office is a continuing concern because of the public nature of the building and the other reasons specified in this report.”

    The memorandum was provided to The New York Times by a law enforcement official not affiliated with a rival political campaign.

    Mr. Giuliani received a briefing on the Police Department’s recommendations, but it is unclear whether he received a copy of the memorandum.

    Mr. Giuliani has said in the past that one of the reasons for choosing the location was that several federal agencies with which city officials needed to be in contact during emergencies, including the Secret Service, had their offices there. Other federal agencies in the building included the Defense Department and the C.I.A.

    But the Police Department took the opposite position in the memo, saying the presence of those agencies made the building a more likely target.

    Mr. Giuliani’s campaign declined on Friday to answer questions about the memo. But Maria Comella, a campaign spokeswoman, said the Giuliani administration had considered 50 different sites and examined a variety of factors before selecting the trade center.

    “This is one memo out of a variety of memos that were presented,” she said.

    Two years ago, in their book, “Grand Illusion,” Wayne Barrett and Dan Collins described the vehement objections to the choice raised by Police Commissioner Howard Safir and Chief of Department Louis R. Anemone. The memo from the Intelligence Division lays out what appears to have been the foundation for their arguments against the location.

    Mr. Safir, who now operates a private security company and has supported Mr. Giuliani’s candidacy, did not a return a call seeking comment.

    In response to questions about the site selection, Mr. Giuliani has typically said he relied on his emergency management director, Jerome M. Hauer, to find the best site and suggested he had little role in the process.

    Mr. Hauer, however, has publicly disputed Mr. Giuliani’s assertion, saying that although he helped pick the site, he did so only after mayoral aides had told him the command center had to be within walking distance of City Hall. He has said he originally recommended a site in Brooklyn.

    Mr. Hauer left the Giuliani administration in 2000 and worked as a consultant and served in the Department of Health and Human Services in the Bush administration. He later became a vocal critic of the former mayor. Mr. Hauer, however, has also praised Mr. Giuliani’s overall effort at emergency preparedness, a record that the Giuliani campaign went to some lengths to underscore on Friday.

    Before Mr. Hauer left the Giuliani administration, great enmity existed between him and Mr. Safir. Mr. Safir’s critics have contended that he sought to limit the power and scope of the Office of Emergency Management once he became police commissioner in 1996. Mr. Giuliani created the office in 1996, and Mr. Hauer was its first director.

    The memorandum sets out in detail the reasons why the Police Department concluded that the site was a poor choice for a command center, including its vulnerability to a biological attack and the ease with which a bomber could have damaged the building and crippled the center.

    It has nine sections, the longest one headed “Explosives.” It describes a blast analysis conducted by the Police Department’s bomb squad, aided by the Secret Service, which looked at the likely impact of bombs of varying sizes, from one that could be carried in a car or a van to a large truck bomb.

    The analysis, a standard practice used routinely to determine street closings when the president or another dignitary is in New York City, uses a computer system derived from the military and based on projections by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

    It concluded that the largest of such bombs would have led to the collapse of the building.

    New US plot against Iranian banks

    0

    In its bid to halt Iran’s nuclear program, the US has called on Turkey to be ‘vigilant’ over financial operations with Iranian banks.

    The US Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence Stuart A. Levey called on Ankara to be ‘vigilant’ over financial operations with state-run Iranian banks, AP said.

    Levey said Ankara should scrutinize activities of Turkish-based branches of Mellat Bank since Washington arbitrarily blacklisted Banks – Melli, Mellat and Saderat to coerce Iran to suspend its nuclear program, which Tehran asserts is for domestic purposes only.

    “Iran uses its banks for its missile programs in particular,” he claimed.

    “It is essential to share information, to discuss risks …, and vigilance that is required to ensure that Turkey’s financial institutions are not abused by Iranian financial institutions and state-owned banks,” the official continued.

    The US imposed sanctions against Iranian banks in October to force countries world over to stop doing business with Tehran.

    Although some banks in Europe and Japan bowed to US pressure, a host of analysts and diplomats believe that the move has proved futile.

    They opine that the Bush administration’s controversial policy of slapping sanctions on Iranian banks is facing a critical challenge, as financial institutions in Russia, China, and much of the Middle East have declined to cut ties with Iranian banks.

    MK/FH/RA

    US warns out-of-control spy satellite is falling

    1

    Paul Harris

    A large American spy satellite is expected to fall to Earth some time in the next month, officials said yesterday.

    It is unclear where the space debris might come down, but it could hit ground in late February or March. It is also not known whether the satellite could contain potentially hazardous materials, such as a nuclear-powered reactor.

    Officials said they had lost control over the satellite and had informed countries around the world about the potential problem. ‘Appropriate government agencies are monitoring the threat … we are looking at potential options to mitigate any damage this satellite may cause,’ National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe told the AP news agency.

    Johndroe declined to say whether such measures could include shooting down the satellite with a missile.

    China recently conducted such an operation by destroying one of its own satellites from Earth to test a space missile system. However, that move created a cloud of fragments and other satellites had to be manoeuvred into new orbits to avoid being hit by the debris.

    Other satellites have fallen to earth harmlessly before. In 2002 parts of a science satellite rained down over the Persian Gulf. The largest re-entry took place when Skylab, a 78-ton abandoned space laboratory belonging to Nasa, fell from orbit in 1979. It came down in a fiery mass of debris that fell mainly into the Indian Ocean and onto Australia.

    No one was harmed in what was a media sensation. One San Francisco newspaper offered a reward for anyone who brought a piece of Skylab to its newsroom. The $10,000 prize was collected by a young Western Australian man who found a piece of it on his roof in the small town of Esperance and travelled to America with it.

    In 2000 Nasa engineers brought down a much smaller satellite into a distant part of the Pacific Ocean. That is likely to not be possible in this case as the object has lost all power and propulsion. This makes it impossible to dictate where or when the satellite will come down – or if it will just burn up in the atmosphere.

    One of the most disturbing examples of space pollution occurred in a type of Soviet satellite launched from 1967 to 1988. The Rorsat-class reconnaissance satellites contained a nuclear reactor as a power source. It was later shown that 16 of 31 Rorsats had been leaking potentially radioactive coolant into space, creating a trail of droplets in orbit.

    Care for 9/11 Responders Is Piecemeal

    0

    Plan for Processing Center On Hold, Funding Uncertain

    By Robin Shulman

    As President Bush gives his State of the Union speech Monday, there will be one man in the audience who plans to sit quietly and watch, his very presence a form of protest.

    Joseph Libretti, 51, is sick. He has been diagnosed with chronic lung disease since volunteering after Sept. 11, 2001, to cut through steel to remove bodies from the gritty, smoking pile of detritus of the World Trade Center. Now, too weak to return to his job as an ironworker, he mostly keeps close to his Pennsylvania home.

    He is among a group of responders demanding a coherent national program to provide local medical treatment for Ground Zero workers from outside New York City who answered the call to help after the terrorist attacks. An existing program was effectively halted in December, when the federal government canceled its search for a contractor to process medical reimbursements.

    “The president should take care of the workers,” Libretti said during a telephone interview in which he frequently coughed and lost his breath. “If he sees me and other first responders, he’ll know we’re there.”

    His protest was helped by Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), who has made medical care for Ground Zero workers her cause.

    “What kind of a nation are we?” Maloney said. “What kind of a message are we sending to future responders? ‘You are rushing into tragedy, and we are not going to be there.’ ”

    Right now, Libretti’s son regularly drives him two hours to Manhattan to consult with a pulmonologist and a psychiatrist at Mount Sinai Medical Center, which runs a program providing comprehensive treatment to first responders who suffer from some common ailments: cough, asthma, headaches, nosebleeds, other respiratory ailments and post-traumatic stress disorder.

    People came from all 50 states to help in rescue, recovery and cleanup at Ground Zero, and the federal government had been searching for a contractor to run a business center to manage their health care since then. The center would help clinics across the country treat and monitor first responders, streamline existing payment and pharmaceutical plans, and pay medical bills.

    On Dec. 13, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention canceled a request for proposals to establish the business center. Without the center, there would be no entity to offer medical referrals to responders far from New York City, or any single scheme for the government to reimburse their doctors or to streamline pharmaceutical reimbursements.

    James Melius, an occupational health specialist who is the chairman of the steering committee of the World Trade Center Medical Monitoring and Treatment Program, said the center is critical because funding to treat and monitor the health of first responders across the country is about to expire.

    The Red Cross is providing limited funding to treat about 500 first responders outside the New York City area, but that will end in coming months, while another contract for monitoring about 2,000 people will run out in June, Melius said.

    “These people will basically be on their own,” he said.

    Bernadette Burden, a spokeswoman for the CDC, said the contractor request was canceled because its language was unclear and confusing.

    “We wanted to review the requirements,” she said, “to make certain this solicitation was accurate and fair and to make a determination as to whether a new solicitation should be issued in the future.”

    Funding was uncertain, and there was little interest in filling the contract, added Holly Babin, a spokeswoman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

    But Congress had already appropriated $50 million for treating and monitoring first responders, and it approved another $108 million shortly after the contract was called off, Rep. Maloney said.

    Human Rights : Nico Ntumba

    “  A community is democratic only when the humblest and weakest person can enjoy the highest civil, economic, and social rights that the biggest and most powerful possess …”       

    Dear friend / supporter ;

    Re: Nico Ntumba Inquiry : Abusive / Oppressive

    Executive Orders against Innocent Mistaken for

    Spy in 1988 : Secret Military Tribunal

    for High Treason  ( News BlackOut )   

    For the last 19 years , we are fighting

    Against this dreadful situation created

    To un-settle our Whole life by security

    Services .No is willing to talk about it

    openly ( Police , Security Services,

    Government Officials, Human Rights

    Activists, medias etc): Do Not

    Ask, Do Not Tell .

    We do need to intensify our campaign for

    Full Inquiry by Parliament ( Home Affairs

    Select Committee , Intelligence & Security

    Committee).Nico Ntumba Inquiry and end to

    News BlackOut .

    According to some indiscretions in London,

    an old legislation 1861 Act for High Treason

    ( Capital punishment) has been used without

    any evidence against an innocent man during

    a secret trial in absentia in 1988.

    There has been no Parliamentary Inquiry ,no

    apology for trying to hang an innocent man

    on baseless accusations of High treason

    (Espionnage or Redress for the last 19 years

    . Instead , a large scale Cover-Up with a

    witches Hunt campaign to un-settle our whole

    life through daily disturbance ,

    Use of No Lethal weapons of Mind Control

    ( Organised Gang Stalking , Remote thoughts

    reading and broadcasting , Voice to Skull ),

    Enforced Disappearance of Relatives and

    Associates, Diffuse of Disrupt techniques

    To spread malicious lies about us : Smears

    Campaign , Do Not Ask Do Not Tell to keep

    us in dark and denied us full access to

    the case ; and ban on medias reporting about

    this 19 years counter intelligence case.

    Nico Ntumba Inquiry and end to

    News BlackOut .

    And there have been a conspiracy between

    The Security services and mental health

    Professionals to frame us from suffering

    from mental illness in order to discredit

    our campaign for Justice .

    They sectioned us under mental health act

    To detain us in hospitals which resulted

    In further disruption of our whole .

    We feel, furthermore, that this is yet

    Another example of human Rights violation

    as defined under the CSCE 1080-83 Madrid

    conference, and as embodied in the Final Act

    of Helsinki. We also wish to note that such

    activities are also in contravention of

    several agreements endorsed by Great Britain,

    within the United Nations system, including

    in particular the International Bill of

    Human Rights, and articles 3, 4, 5, and 12

    of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    We urgently press the Home secretary John Reid

    and The Premier Minister Tony Blair for

    all possible assistance which they can give

    to us (Judicial Review ,Parliamentary Inquiry,

    Redress and the Protection of our Civil Rights

    as Defined by International Bill of Rights ).

    Nico Ntumba Inquiry and end to News BlackOut.

    They should put an permanent end to this

    Persecution and Oppression to make our

    Whole life Impossible .

    FOR CONTACT / SUPPORT:

    [NicoNtumba_JusticeCampaign]

    E-MAIL: domega8@yahoo.com

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NicoNtumba_JusticeCampaign

    RINF Alternative Newsletter

    25

    The RINF mailing list is free and takes 2 seconds to subscribe.

    On the right hand side of this post, notice the ‘Newsletter: News To Your Inbox’ section.

    Just pop in your email address and hit Subscribe, a confirmation email will be sent to you.

    Once you’re confirmed you will start receiving the latest 20+ editor’s picks, compiled in a single email. Expect a newsletter every couple of days.

    And if you find it’s not your thing, you can remove yourself with one click.

    Your email address is completely safe – we do not share or sell your details with any third party.

    Let me know what you think.

    Fears of bias as BBC gets £141m in EU loans

    4

    THE BBC last night faced accusations of pro-Brussels bias as it was revealed that the corporation had taken out £141m in “soft” loans from the European Union.

    The broadcaster has taken out three separate low interest loans from the EU-backed European Investment Bank (EIB) to fund the expansion of its growing commercial empire.

    It also emerged that the BBC has received grants from the EU worth £1.4m over the past five years.

    The Brussels deals raise awkward questions for the corporation about its coverage of European affairs and its burgeoning profit-making arm whose interests extend to property, publishing and the internet.

    The details of the loans and grants stretching back six years emerged in a letter written by Zarin Patel, the BBC’s finance director, to Bob Spink, a Conservative MP.

    The first £66m loan in 2003 was used to fund “the fit-out” of a new building in the BBC’s Media Village development in west London, which was later sold for a profit. The second loan for £25m and the third for £50m were made to BBC Worldwide, the corporation’s profit-making arm, to pay for the acquisition of overseas rights to programmes made by the BBC in the UK.

    The EIB has described itself as “an autonomous body set up to finance capital investment furthering European integration by promoting EU policies”.

    It specialises in providing low interest loans below the normal commercial rates. However, the BBC refused to disclose exactly what rates the EIB was charging.

    The BBC letter, written in response to a parliamentary question, also discloses a series of grants to help to fund online educational programmes and preserve the BBC archive.

    Spink said yesterday that he would be putting down a Commons motion condemning the BBC for accepting the cash: “I am concerned that the independence and objectivity of the BBC may have been improperly influenced by funding from the EU.”

    A BBC spokesman denied any pro-Brussels bias: “There were no editorial obligations whatsoever attached to the three EIB loans. The BBC’s commercial businesses go to the European Investment Bank as opposed to any other commercial bank for purely commercial reasons.”

    He added: “The BBC occasionally receives some EU funding in relation to specific educational or research and development projects.”

    However, the size of the EU loans highlights the rapid growth in the BBC’s commercial activities, which are kept separate from the core programme-making funded by the £3.5 billion a year licence fee.

    Critics question how commercial contracts fit into the BBC’s “public services” remit.

    Insights of a Lawyer: Was 9/11 an Inside Job?

    1

    by Hal. C. Sisson, QC

    In mid January 2008 united 9/11 Truth Movements across Canada, spearheaded by Victoria and Vancouver branches, sent a petition letter to the heads of all Canadian political parties and to every Member of Parliament. The letter requested two things:

      a.   A call for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 by an independent and impartial tribunal, plusb.   Open discussion in Parliament of, or a national referendum on, the proposed integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico into a North American Union, under the Security and Prosperity Partnership agreement, (originally signed in 2005 in Waco Texas by then Prime Minister Paul Martin); an Agreement that has never been discussed outside of a cabal of senior government officials and military and corporate leaders.

    The first request (a) follows in the wake of questioning in the Japanese Parliament (Diet) by Yukihisa Fujita of the Japan Democratic Party, as to the conspiracy theory of 9/11 presented by the U.S. Bush Administration. He asked just how terrorists could possibly have attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center.

      9/11 photo
       

    Six years ago the U.S. Administration and their intelligence agencies stated they would present convincing evidence that foreigners of a Muslim Arab persuasion were the perpetrators of the tragic crime of 9/11. This evidence has never yet been forthcoming. People ask why? Can’t the United States prove their allegations in court? And why does the FBI say they have no hard evidence of the involvement of Osama bin Laden?

    On the other hand, millions of people around the world have amassed a great deal of solid evidence of incomplete investigation, missing evidence, unsubstantiated conclusions and outright lies as to the facts and the full story of 9/11. So much so that it is impossible not to conclude that at the very least the events were in some measure allowed to happen – the motive being the persuasion of the American public to condone the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq — and is Iran next?

    The Japanese queries were presented at about the same time as former Italian President Francesco Cossiga told Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, the Corriere della Sera, that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that all the intelligence services in America and Europe know it was an inside job of a false flag nature.

    Who else is of the same opinion? Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation. They are among the rapidly growing number of military and intelligence service veterans, scientists, lawyers, university professors, engineers and architects challenging the Bush government’s story. Former German Secretary of Defence Andreas von Bulow said, “The official story is so inadequate and far-fetched that there must be another one.”

    Every action the U.S. government or its intelligence services take, good, bad or indifferent, is now prefaced by the words “since 9/11 we have to do this, we have to do that, we have to do the other” — every atrocity anywhere in the middle east or in the world is immediately attributed to a vague group called al Qaeda and the concept of a perpetual but profitable to some ‘War on Terror’.

    The Canadian Government can no longer deny that the official story told by the Bush Administration is complete nonsense. This discredited version of 9/11 events as promulgated by the Bush Administration is the justification for Canada’s bloody involvement. If Bush’s version of 9/11 is a lie, like his story on “weapons of mass destruction”, then Canada must ask why it should continue to sacrifice its sons and daughters and spend its resources in a distant country that never attacked or threatened Canada’s security.

    Truthers think that the Canadian Parliament should seriously and openly discuss and investigate these matters before they continue their present course of action or run the risk of being drawn into wider conflicts in Iran and Pakistan That is why they are calling on the Canadian Government to launch its own independent investigation and Official Enquiry into 9/11

    Uncle Sam
     

    Addressing point (b) – the request that there be an open parliamentary discussion of the so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agreement (a grandiose extension of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)). The most recent meeting was August 20, 2007 when Stephen Harper, President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon went to Montebello, Quebec for a secret meeting of the SPP, more transparently described as the North American Union, part of the larger Globalization agenda called the New World Order. Many organizations including 9/11 Truth tried and are trying to inform Canadians what was and is being discussed in a veil of secrecy and a deafening wave of silence from the Canadian and American media. Big decisions at committee level are being made behind closed doors while publicly masking the true intention.

    This writer proposes to use a cautionary tale to illustrate the approach that should be taken before entering any Agreement whose implementation involves the dismantling of Canadian sovereignty, and which seeks, in the words of MP Denise Savoie, ‘to merge our security policies and practices with those of the United States, leaving Canada with a government with less authority, less control over our natural resources and less autonomous and sustainable economic, social, cultural and environmental policies’.

    Warning — the anecdote I am about to relate contains a scene involving sex and therefore may not be acceptable to the sensibilities of those who wish to remain unaware that such an activity may be rampant in our society. Reader discretion is therefor strongly advised:

    “Fast Eddy wanted desperately to have sex with this really cute, really hot girl in his office… but she was dating someone else. One day Eddie was so frustrated that he went to her and said, “I’ll give you $100 if you let me have sex with you…“

    The girl looked at him, and then said, “NO!”

    Eddie said, “I’ll be real fast. I’ll throw the money on the floor, you bend down and I’ll finish by the time you’ve picked it up.”

    She thought for a moment and said that she would consult with her boyfriend… so she called him and explained the situation. Her boyfriend says, “Ask him for $200, and pick it up the money real fast. He won’t even be able to get his pants down.”

    She agreed and accepts Fast Eddy’s proposal. Over half an hour goes by and the boyfriend is still waiting for his girlfriend’s call. Finally, after 45 minutes the boyfriend calls and asks, “What happened…?”

    Still breathing hard, she managed to reply, “The bastard had all quarters!” …

    The lesson to be learned here is one of business management, and certainly is one that should be adopted by the Canadian Parliament in relation to the SPP — “Always consider a business proposition in its entirety before agreeing to it. Otherwise you are likely to get screwed!”

    And if the Canadian public doesn’t want to be forever picking up Fast Eddy’s American quarters they had better figure out how to stop the SPP, now, before it is too late.

    About the writer:

    Hal Sisson, Q.C., R.C.A.F. armourer in World War II, is a reformed lawyer who practiced law in Peace River, Alberta for thirty-five years and has been resident in Victoria, B.C. since 1985. Author of ten published books including the best selling Coots, Codgers and Curmudgeons (with his partner Justice Dwayne Rowe); and his latest Modus Operandi 9/11 that exposes the White House lies about 9/11, the machinations of the New World Order and the “War on Terror”, and does so featuring salty humour in the form of a novel. International croquet and marble player and collector, his major hobby was stand-up comedy and writing and performing in Western Canada’s longest running (25 years) burlesque revue, Sorry ‘Bout That. LINK.

    Diana’s bodyguard had help pleas ignored

    0

    Bodyguards for Princess Diana and her lover Dodi Fayed had calls for extra security rejected during their fateful trip to Paris, the inquest into their deaths has heard.

    Trevor Rees, who was one of two bodyguards assigned to the couple, said he believed Dodi and Diana should have had four security guards protecting them from hordes of photographers and onlookers in the days before their fatal car crash in the French capital.

    Photographs of the couple had been splashed across newspapers around the globe as they holidayed aboard Dodi’s yacht in late August 1997.

    By the time they arrived for a one-night stopover in Paris on August 30, dozens of photographers were waiting to track their every move.

    In the early hours of the next day, Diana, Dodi and their driver Henri Paul were killed after their Mercedes crashed in an underground tunnel after apparently being pursued by photographers. Mr Rees was the only survivor.

    Making his second appearance at the inquest, Mr Rees told how he and his fellow bodyguard Kes Wingfield repeatedly contacted top security chiefs for Dodi’s father, Harrods billionaire Mohamed Al Fayed, in London pleading for extra help during the couple’s holiday but none ever showed up.

    “At that stage, it (the relationship between Diana and Dodi) was in the open, in the media, and the attention both from the paparazzi and general public would have been a lot higher,” he said.

    “I would have expected, or I would have thought, it would have been good to have a four-man team, the same as would have been with Mr (Al) Fayed.

    “We didn’t get any extra security. I believe at one stage we got an extra crew member to help the crew on the yacht, but we didn’t get any extra security.”

    Mr Rees suffered extensive injuries in the crash which claimed the lives of the princess, Dodi and their driver.

    He has rejected recent media reports suggesting his memories about the crash were gradually returning.

    The inquest continues.

    © 2008 AAP

    9/11 Truth: How I Came To Distrust the Official Version

    By Stephen Demetriou 

     From 2001 through most of 2007, I didn’t think much about this subject. I had casually wondered if the fires could actually be responsible for bringing the towers down, thinking about the heat and thermodynamics necessary to weaken the steel columns. I have an undergraduate degree in chemistry, and find thermodynamics very interesting. The idea that fires fueled by office materials and jet fuel (enhanced kerosene) could weaken steel beams, resulting in total failure of the entire structure seemed vaguely unlikely. After all, there have been other large steel-structured office building fires that had not resulted in complete, catastrophic collapse, but I didn’t dwell on my vague doubts.

    I have since learned there have been no complete, catastrophic collapses of steel-framed buildings due to fire recorded, ever, like these. There have been partial collapses, involving a few floors, and considerable damage due to fire, but no complete collapses ever of steel-framed buildings. On 9/11, we are given to believe there were three.

    In September of last year I read an article on “conspiracy theories” about 9/11, and I learned of the website I wrote about this past October, www.patriotsquestion911.com. This site is nothing more than a compilation of names of people who have publicly questioned the official account, and their statements. It is not an organization, or membership association; the people on the list are not necessarily associated with one another in any way, except for having doubts about 9/11 and having made public statements to that effect. Names on the list include Louis Freeh, former FBI director, Wesley Clark, Ron Paul, Paul Craig Roberts, a former Assistant Sec. Of the Treasury, Curt Weldon, Mary Shiavo, former Inspector General US Dept of Transportation, Col. Robert Bowman, Dennis Kucinich, Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist in the Bush Labor Department, with about one thousand other people who have doubts about the official explanation of the 9/11 attacks. A quick look at this list will give you a sense of the caliber and qualifications of those who have spoken out in one way or another about these events.

               Two other names on this list are men I have read extensively in the past four months: Dr. David Ray Griffin, and Dr. Steven E. Jones. Dr. Griffin is a PhD professor emeritus of religion and philosophy at Claremont College in Calif. Dr. Steven Jones is a PhD physicist formerly with Brigham Young. Both have long established academic careers, have published numerous books or articles, and are respected intellectuals in their fields.

               Dr. Jones has well established academic and research credentials for his work with metal-catalyzed fusion. His work has been reproduced and confirmed by independent labs in a couple of countries. Overcoming initial controversy to his findings, his fusion results are now considered the basis for further work. Examining evidence taken from the World Trade Center site he employs the accepted forensic techniques of analysis arson investigators use. He has confirmed a “eutectic” of sulfur in once-molten steel, which a FEMA analysis also found but did not explain, and confirmed the presence of once-molten iron spheres the USGS discovered in dust samples. These samples contain evidence suggestive of explosives: sulfur, aluminum, barium, manganese, with other compounds, in unusually high concentrations.

               Dr. Griffin has exhaustively examined the 9/11 Commission report. Comparing known reports gathered from the news media, from authors, academics, government documents, Dr. Griffin has written extensively on the evidence the Commission focused on in great detail, and the evidence it inexplicably omits. And the devil really is in those details. Many people hold the Commission report in high regard as the most complete investigation of the events of 9/11. Dr. Griffin’s books convincingly show that the evidence in support of the official conspiracy theory received special treatment, while witnesses who brought contrary testimony, along with those who came forward but were ignored, are inexcusably rejected or marginalized, their evidence unreported.

    Scant mention is made in the Commission report of the documented meetings of the chief of Pakistani intelligence at the time, General Mahmoud Ahmad, with CIA director Tenet, officials from the Pentagon, the State Department, and National Security Agency from Sept 4 through Sept. 13, 2001. The report completely denies what the Times of India discovered, and which the Wall Street Journal editorialized, “…US authorities sought [Ahmad’s] removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen. Mahmoud…” Instead the Commission report states, “…we have seen no evidence that any foreign government — or foreign government official — supplied any funding.”

    The back-stories of halted FBI investigations, credible whistleblowers silenced by federal gag orders, FBI field agents’ reports of suspicious behavior ignored, or requests for warrants altered or denied, all make compelling arguments for foreknowledge and complicity by some in the administration. But all these are difficult to prove to the satisfaction of a court of law.

    The science, though, is compelling. Pools of flowing molten iron were found under the rubble of the three World Trade Center buildings. They persisted for 100 days. Office material fires simply cannot produce heat to melt steel or iron. Both the National Institute of Standards and Technology and FEMA studies clearly state that fact in their reports, and neither study so much as attempted to answer the question of what caused those pools of molten metal. And then there is Building 7. Not hit by a plane, not substantially damaged by the other collapses, Building 7 fell straight down in the exact same manner as if by controlled demolition. To this day, no official explanation has been issued explaining how this happened.

    I no longer have vague doubts. I have important questions. Nearly 3000 people were murdered on September 11, 2001, and even the accused perpetrators have not been brought to justice. I am one of many calling for a new, independent investigation into 9/11. The elaborate cover up we have now is an utter disgrace to this country, and the basis for what many scholars consider near tyranny.

    ID CARDS.. BY FORCE

    0

    ‘Coercion’ tactics in secret memo

    By Tom Latchem

    Young drivers are to be FORCED to get ID cards when they apply for their first licences.

    The People has seen sensational leaked Home Office documents revealing the secret plan.

    It says newdrivers and those applying for fresh passports will be “coerced” into getting the controversial identity cards.

    PM Gordon Brown has always said the scheme will be voluntary unless Parliament decides otherwise.

    But last night shadow Home Secretary David Davis stormed: “This is an outrageous plan.

    The Government has seen their ID card proposals stagger from shambles to shambles.

     

    “Now they plan to use coercion in a desperate attempt to bolster a failed policy.”

     

    Civil rights group Liberty said: “This memo confirms that compulsion is the ultimate ambition of this scheme.And it can be achieved by stealth even without the need for further parliamentary debate.”

     

    The secret document from the Identity and Passport Service is headed: “Options analysis – outcome.”

     

    It says: “Various forms of coercion, such as designation of the application process for identity documents issued by UK ministers (eg passports) are an option to stimulate applications in a manageable way.

     

    “There are advantages to designation of documents associated with particular target groups, eg young people who may be applying for their first driving licence.” The report says “universal compulsion should not be used unless absolutely necessary” because of the ID controversy.

     

    Phil Booth of pressure group No2ID said: “This makes ID cards even more devastating and scary than we thought.

     

    “I thank The People for bringing this to the nation’s attention.”

     

    AHome Office spokeswoman said: “We do not comment on leaked documents.

     

    “But it’s right our first priority is to consider where ID cards can be of the greatest benefit.” Compulsory cards for foreigners living here begins this year. They will be available to Brits who want one from 2009.

     

    Last week it was revealed students will be targeted in 2010 in a plan linked to new bank accounts and student loans.

     

    But a compulsory scheme is unlikely until 2012 after the next election because Mr Brown knows he would never get it past MPs. Many want the scheme dumped after the scandal of personal data losses, including the details of 25 million child benefit claimants.

    Pakistan rejects CIA border operation

    0

    President Pervez Musharraf

    President Pervez Musharraf has reportedly rejected a US proposal to allow CIA-run combat operations in Pakistan’s restive tribal areas.

    The New York Times reported that CIA director, Michael Hayden, and the director of US national intelligence, Mike McConnell, made a secret trip to Pakistan early January.

    The officials sought to convince Musharraf that greater involvement of US forces would help root out al-Qaeda and Taliban along the Afghan border, the report quoted a senior US official as saying.

    The report claimed both sides are now discussing other joint efforts, such as enhancing US intelligence and use of armed Predator surveillance aircraft over the tribal areas.

    Sunday’s report went on to add that Washington believes Pakistan is not taking the al-Qaeda threat seriously, although intelligence reports suggest militant groups are trying to destabilize the Pakistani government.

    ZHD/RA

    Out of the ashes: A New World Order

    20

    Global elite signal declining superpower status of the United States, rise of new order

    By Daniel Taylor

    Comment: French TV was kind enough to inform us about the true decision makers behind Davos – the Bilderberg group. A video clip of this report and an English translation can be found here. The discussion which took place in Davos, Switzerland among several individuals who were themselves members of Bilderberg (such as Henry Kissinger and Gordon Brown) gives a window into the inner workings of the elite game plan.

    As the United States faces an economic crisis that is being compared by experts to the 1929 Great Depression, the global elite are proclaiming the fall of the U.S and the rise of a new global order.

    The IOL reports that the recent meeting in Davos, Switzerland, which focused in part on the global economic meltdown, pointed to “global” solutions and the need for a strengthened United Nations in the face of world crises.

    Sovereignty, according to many who attended, must be weakened. The IOL reports,

    For Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and now president of the International Crisis Group, even those countries with a deep resistance to intervention were starting to recognise that egregious crimes against humanity could not go unchallenged.

    “There is now the beginning of a global consensus that sovereignty doesn’t mean a license to kill, doesn’t mean a license to stand back and allow killing of that order to take place,” Evans said.

    “This is a very real phenomenon, that sovereignty is not what it was and can’t be what it was,” he added.

    Writing in the evening standard, Anthony Hilton states regarding the Davos meeting,

    “World leaders have a similar problem in Davos as they try to think through the turmoil in world markets to focus on what is really happening to the global economy.

    Henry Kissinger picked up on the political implications. The challenge to the world, he said, was handling the structural changes taking place – the transfer of economic power from America to the Pacific, the shortages of water and energy and the threat of climate change, which require global not national solutions.”

    A strengthened United Nations, also discussed at Davos, was promoted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown earlier this week after secret talks with world leaders. Brown called for a “new world order” and a “global society”. As the New Zealand Hearld reported,

    “British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a “new world order” and “global society”.”

    The economic crises that the world is plunging into is being and will be used as the pretext to forge the new global order long sought after by the global elite. More centralized control will emerge. “New” solutions will be presented in slick packages to a despairing population begging for order.

    US Senate to grant immunity in illegal wiretapping

    1

    By Andre Damon

    The Democratic-controlled Senate moved Thursday to shield telecommunications companies that aided the Bush administration’s illegal domestic spying program from lawsuits. By a vote 60 to 36, the Senate rejected any provision in its upcoming amendment to the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that would open the companies to prosecution in civil courts.

    Congress passed a temporary amendment to the FISA Act before its Labor Day break in August, which included retroactive protection for the telecom companies complicit in the administration’s illegal wiretapping. That amendment is set to expire on Friday, and Congress is seeking to work out a replacement before then.

    While debate over the Senate bill will continue into next week, the House has already passed a draft of the bill that did not include immunity. If the Senate finalizes its version next week, it will move on to be reconciled with the House version, where it can be expected that an immunity clause will be inserted into the final document.

    For its part, the White House said it would veto any bill that did not include complete immunity for companies that aided its illegal program. The Bush administration and congressional Republicans are also strongly pressing for an expansion of the bill’s provisions, and not simply a renewal of the temporary law passed six months ago.

    The Senate picked up the bill this week after laying it aside in mid-November. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apparently moved to postpone the debate when it became apparent that the bill could not be completed before Congress took its holiday break.

    In view of differences that have arisen over a replacement bill, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (Dem.-Texas) and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (Dem.-Mich.) proposed extending the current law–which is set to expire February 1–for another 30 days.

    However, Senate republicans blocked such an effort Tuesday, in line with views expressed by Vice President Dick Cheney, who commented Wednesday, “There is no sound reason to pass critical legislation like the Protect America Act and slap an expiration date on it.”

    The day before the vote, Cheney gave a speech at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, in which he demanded immunity for telecommunications companies that had participated in the program and said the FISA expansion bill should be passed as quickly as possible.

    A number of Senate Democrats agreed to vote for the preservation of the immunity clause following the Bush administration’s agreement on Thursday to Democrats’ demands that it show them classified documents relating to the warrantless domestic spying program.

    Senate Republicans supporting the inclusion of an immunity clause were supported by a number of Democrats, most notably Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.). Presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were absent during Thursday’s vote and it is unclear whether they will participate on Monday, when the debate is set to continue.

    Sometime around September 2001, the Bush administration illegally authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intercept data from people within the US without first obtaining warrants. This was in violation of the 1978 FISA act, which set up a secret court to authorize surveillance within the US. Congress retroactively legalized the Bush administration’s program by passing last August 5 the Protect America Act of 2007, which is set to expire February 1.

    If the bill is not renewed, government agencies complain that they will have to resort to getting individual court orders in order to spy on communications that pass through the US telecom infrastructure. The Democrats–even those calling for a rejection of the immunity clause–do not want to leave the intelligence agencies out in the cold, fearful of being seen as “soft on terrorism.”

    House Majority Leader Harry Reid, in bemoaning the Republicans’ demands, said, “It appears that the Republicans want failure. They don’t want a bill.” The debate–even to the limited extent that the Democrats are willing to draw it out–revolves around the best way to manage the massive domestic spying program implemented illegally by the Bush administration.

    Mike McConnell, the national director of intelligence, is currently working on a bill that would simply do away with the FISA court and create conditions under which intelligence agencies could spy without the added burden of obtaining warrants. Such a bill could then by applied retroactively to shield the telecommunications companies from prosecution. In promoting the bill, McConnell raised the specter of an imminent terrorist attack, stating recently, “My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”

    Democrats and Republicans alike have announced their support for immunity on the grounds that they do not want to hurt the balance sheets of telecommunications companies. There are currently some 40 lawsuits filed against the telecoms by individuals and groups in relation to the wiretapping. These cases have already unearthed a number of details the Bush administration would prefer to leave hidden, including testimony by a former AT&T employee that the company let out space within one of its main routing facility, which was used to direct traffic directly to the NSA.

    Publish YOUR News on RINF

    12

    RINF visitors are invited to contribute their own news reports to the web site.

    The process is simple, create an account here: 

    http://rinf.com/alt-news/wp-login.php?action=register

    Then log in and publish your story here:

    http://rinf.com/alt-news/wp-login.php

    Quality control will be in operation to remove inappropriate content.

    This will also replace the RINF blogs, allowing members to publish directly onto the main newswire.

    Have fun : )

    London Demo Slams Musharraf’s Rights Abuses

    1

    Rights activists have staged demonstrations in London to denounce Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s ‘human rights abuses’.

    The demonstration, organized by human rights group Amnesty International, came on Saturday at Downing Street, prior to a meeting between Musharraf and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Monday.

    “British Prime Minister Gordon Brown should tell visiting Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf that free and fair elections will be impossible without the full restoration of Pakistan’s judiciary,” said Brad Adams of Human Rights Watch.

    On November 3, 2007 Musharraf suspended Pakistan’s Constitution, fired much of the country’s senior judges and arrested thousands of opponents, most of whom were eventually released because of international pressure.

    “An independent judiciary is vital for people to have an avenue to contest the results of this election conducted in an environment of bias and intimidation,” said Adams.

    He urged Brown to press Musharraf to rescind these measures, set up an independent election commission and a neutral caretaker government to oversee elections.

    SB/RE

    Labour Given Thousands By Scientology Charity

    Jason BeattieThe Labour Party received thousands of pounds from an offshoot of Scientology, the Evening Standard reveals today.

    The decision to accept money from a charity linked to the controversial cult was taken at the highest level by members of the National Executive Committee.

    They allowed the charity, the Association for Better Living and Education (ABLE), to take a stall at the party’s annual conference in Manchester.

    Exhibitors at the conference have to pay up to Pounds 13,500.

    The stand was part of an extensive lobbying operation by Scientology members to promote its drug treatment programme, Narconon, and the criminal rehabilitation scheme Criminon.

    Correspondence obtained by the Evening Standard under the Freedom of Information Act reveals how Graeme Wilson of the Church of Scientology met Baroness Scotland – then a Home Office minister – in Manchester in September.

    Baroness Scotland was later invited to attend the opening of the Scientology’s new base in London and was handed information about Narconon.

    The invitation was passed to drugs minister Vernon Coaker who declined it to “due to diary commitments”. Critics of Narconon claim it is a front for Scientology, a “religion” founded by science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard which counts John Travolta and Tom Cruise among its devotees.

    Labour allowed ABLE to exhibit despite concerns about Scientology and its offshoots. The director of the Prison Service has said that Narconon is not a “validated programme” and has advised against its use as a treatment.

    Drugs charity Addaction also opposes the programme saying it is “not scientifically sound”.

    Labour confirmed he decision to accept money from the Scientologists to exhibit was taken by a committee of the NEC.

    NEC members include Gordon Brown and party chairman Hazel Blears.

    A Labour Party conference spokesman said the money received was a business transaction and did not constitute a donation. He added: “Approval for organisationslooking to attend conferences is made after careful consideration by the NEC board. We do reserve the right to exclude an organisation but in this case approval was given.”

    He added: “We do not comment on individual exhibitors but every year exhibitors represent a range of views and opinions. Their policies may not always reflect those of the Labour Party.”

    In addition to the conference stand, ABLE staged a “state-of-the- art exhibition” in a hotel near the Manchester centre “for Members of Parliament and others attending the conference”.

    Scientology’s lobbying follows revelations that followers arranged talks on drugs at schools through Narconon. A Home Office spokeswoman said it did not meet the standards required by the National Offender Management Service.

    “The view is that drug treatment needs to be evidence based,” she said.

    Brown’s secret talks on ‘new world order’

    0

    British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a “new world order” and “global society”.

    Brown is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent members in a move that will provoke fears in his country that the veto enjoyed by Britain could be diluted eventually.

    The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations.

    Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the world’s new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and India. British sources revealed “intense discussions” on UN reform were under way and Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.

    The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq. US President George W. Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of then British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

    His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech in New Delhi, the Prime Minister was to say: “I support India’s bid for a permanent place – with others – on an expanded UN Security Council.” However, he is not backing Pakistan’s demand for a seat if India wins one.

    Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend £100 million ($257 million) a year on setting up a “rapid reaction force” to stop “failed states” sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached.

    “There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow,” he will say. “So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development.”

    THE UNITED NATIONS: EYE ON THE WORLD
    * The UN Security Council’s membership has remained virtually unchanged since it first met in 1946.

    * Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were designated permanent members of the powerful body.

    * Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council in 1946. They were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.

    * The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe, was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.

    * Decisions made by the council require nine “yes” votes out of 15. Each permanent member has a veto over resolutions.

    * The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds, to back it in the assembly.

    – INDEPENDENT

    Cage the Rage

    0

    No student loan without ID card, says government

    1

    Anthea Lipsett
    EducationGuardian.co.uk

    Students will be “blackmailed” into holding identity cards in order to apply for student loans, the Tories have warned.

    According to Home Office documents leaked to the Conservative party last night, those applying for student loans will be forced to hold identity cards to get the funding from 2010.

    Anyone aged 16 or over will be expected to obtain a card – costing up to £100 – to open a bank account or apply for a student loan.

    The document says: “We should issue ID cards to young people to assist them as they open their first bank account, take out a student loan, etc.”

    The government had planned to start issuing the ID cards to people applying for a passport from 2010, but confidential documents confirm that the scheme will be delayed to at least 2012.

    The biometric cards are due to be introduced for foreign nationals later this year, with the first expected to be issued to UK citizens on a voluntary basis from 2009.

    From next year, they will also be issued to people in “positions of trust” such as airport workers.

    The revelations have led to concerns that the government is planning to collect the fingerprints and other biometric details of more than two million young people entering higher education each year by stealth.

    Shadow immigration minister Damian Green called the plans “straightforward blackmail” to bolster “a failing policy”.

    “This is an outrageous plan. The government has seen its ID cards proposals stagger from shambles to shambles. They are clearly trying to introduce them by stealth.”

    Students refuse to be ‘guinea pigs’ for ID cards

    0

    Students have launched a stinging attack on UK government proposals to make young people “guinea pigs” for ID cards.

    Nick Heath

    Leaked Home Office documents reveal teenagers may need an ID card to open a bank account or take out a student loan from 2010 – making them among the first people to have the biometric cards in the UK.

    The National Union of Students (NUS) described the revelation in the leaked National Identity Scheme Delivery Strategy document as “morally reprehensible” and said it would bog students down in red tape.

    NUS vice president for welfare, Ama Uzowuru, said: “It is extremely disappointing that the government is planning to use students as guinea pigs for this scheme by forcing them to take on ID cards in order to apply for a loan.

    “Besides being morally reprehensible, this plan is also completely impractical. The student loan system is complicated enough as it is, without introducing yet another layer of bureaucracy to the process. Many students change address at least once a year and would be obliged to report such changes in their personal circumstances or face a £1,000 fine.”

    She added: “We would also be concerned for the safety of students’ personal information if they were forced to enter the ID card system.”

    The first UK citizens will get the cards in 2009 when they are given to workers in trusted positions such as airport staff or people working in other sensitive locations, while foreign nationals coming to the UK will be given cards from the end of this year.

    The widespread rollout to UK citizens, known as “Borders phase II”, is now slated to begin in 2012 – two years later than indicated in an earlier government action plan.

    The document says: “Implementation of identity cards will be benefits led, with the first cards issued to individuals where there is the strongest national or personal benefit. We should issue ID cards to young people to assist them as they open their first bank account, take out a student loan, etc.”

    Critics of the scheme said the perceived two-year slip in the widespread rollout of the cards is another sign of wavering support among Gordon Brown’s government for ID cards.

    Shadow immigration minister, Damian Green, said: “The government are clearly trying to introduce the cards by stealth. This is straightforward blackmail and a desperate attempt to bolster a failing policy.”

    A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said this was a draft document, adding: “When developing policy, it is obviously right and logical that our first priority should be to consider where ID cards can be of greatest benefit to the UK and to the individual.”

    Delay for govt’s ID card system

    0

    Roll-out deferred until after next election

    Computerworld UK

    The Conservative Party claims it has access to documents which suggest the introduction of the government’s controversial ID card system will be delayed until after the next general election.

    The Tories say a leaked document reveals that while ID cards will be rolled out to some foreign nationals this year and to staff in “positions of trust” from 2009, a wider introduction will not happen until 2012. It will take until 2015 for the card to be used to control access to public services, the document notes. Responding to Tory claims that the project was delayed, the government’s Identity and Passport Service said: “We do not comment on leaked documents.

    “We have always said that the scheme will be rolled out incrementally. As stated in the Strategic Plan for the National Identity Scheme published in December 2006, we will begin issuing ID cards for foreign nationals this year and the first ID cards for British citizens in 2009.

    “The Framework procurement for the scheme is currently underway: we will make further announcements about the roll-out of ID cards in due course.”

    The Tories have pledged to drop the ID card project if elected, prompting Intellect, the IT and communications industry body, to issue an unprecedented warning that any contracts would have to be honoured.

    Last November the government said the 10-year cost of providing ID cards for British nationals from October 2007 to October 2017 would be £5.4bn – but admitted costs were not fixed. The cost of ID cards to foreigners would be an additional £182m, it said.

     

    Lib Dems call to abandon ID cards

    0

    LIBERAL Democrats in Trafford are backing calls for the Government to abandon plans to make people carry identity cards.

    Jane Brophy, Altrincham and Sale West Parliamentary spokeswoman, said: “The expensive identity cards scheme is based on the Government storing large amounts of information about each one of us on a central database.

    “But in 2007 the Government stumbled from one data loss crisis to another.

    “The dangers of putting so much information about every citizen in the UK into one central database are clear to everyone except, it seems, the Government.

    “I am very pleased that new Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg is leading the battle to end the ID cards scheme.”

    US willing to send troops to Pakistan

    0

    ROBERT BURNS

    The Bush administration is willing to send a small number of U.S. combat troops to Pakistan to help fight the insurgency there if Pakistani authorities ask for such help, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday.

    “We remain ready, willing and able to assist the Pakistanis and to partner with them to provide additional training, to conduct joint operations, should they desire to do so,” Gates told a news conference.

    Gates said the Pakistani government has not requested any additional assistance in the weeks since al-Qaida and affiliated extremists have intensified their fighting inside Pakistan. And he stressed that the United States would respect the Pakistanis’ judgment on the utility of American military assistance.

    “We’re not aware of any proposals that the Pakistanis have made to us at this point,” he said. “This is clearly an evolving issue. And what we have tried to communicate to the Pakistanis and essentially what we are saying here is we are prepared to look at a range of cooperation with them in a number of different areas, but at this point it’s their nickel, and we await proposals or suggestions from them.”

    Gates made his remarks not as an announcement but in response to questions from reporters at a regularly scheduled news conference in which he also declined to say whether U.S. combat troops have previously crossed the border from Afghanistan into Pakistan to conduct combat operations.

    The question of a U.S. troop presence in Pakistan is highly sensitive, although at times senior U.S. officials have acknowledged various arrangements. In an Associated Press interview in January 2002, for example, Gen. Tommy Franks, who headed the U.S. Central Command at the time, disclosed a deal with Pakistan allowing U.S. troops in Afghanistan to cross the border in pursuit of fugitive extremist leaders.

    Gates said Pakistani authorities were understandably taking their time in deciding whether to request more military assistance from the United States. He noted the assassination in Dec. 27 of former prime minister and opposition leader Benazir Bhutto and subsequent fears of increased unrest.

    “I think that the emergence of this fairly considerable security challenge in Pakistan has really been brought home to the Pakistani government relatively recently and particularly with the tragic assassination of Mrs. Bhutto,” Gates said. “So I think it’s not particularly surprising that they have not fully thought through exactly how they intend to proceed and their strategy going forward.”

    The United States has about 28,000 troops in neighboring Afghanistan, and Gates earlier this month ordered another 3,200 to go this spring to train Afghan forces and to help fight Taliban insurgents.

    U.S. intelligence believes al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden is on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

    The top American commander in the region, Navy Adm. William J. Fallon, was in Pakistan earlier this week meeting with senior Pakistani officials, including the new army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani. Last week Fallon told reporters that Pakistani officials were more willing to seek U.S. assistance.

    Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared at the news conference with Gates, said he did not know whether Fallon had offered or received any new proposals.

    Most of the discussion with the Pakistanis thus far has focused on the possibility of U.S. troops being used to train Pakistani forces, Gates said, but he acknowledged that combat operations might also be included.

    “You’re not talking about significant numbers of U.S. troops for the kinds of things if you’re talking about going after al-Qaida in the border area or something like that,” Gates said. “So, in my way of thinking, we’re talking about a very small number of troops, should that happen. And it’s clearly a pretty remote area. But, again, the Pakistani government has to be the judge of this.”

    Asked more specifically what he meant by a “very small number” of U.S. troops, Gates declined to comment.

    Mullen said talks with the Pakistanis are progressing and that the U.S. military stands ready to provide training or combat forces.

    “If asked to assist, I think we could do a lot,” Mullen said.

    For several years the focus of U.S. concern about al-Qaida elements in Pakistan was their support for Taliban extremists who have received training in western Pakistan and then infiltrated into Afghanistan to foment violence. More recently, al-Qaida in Pakistan has posed more of a threat to the Pakistani government, seeking to destabilize the government of a nuclear-armed Muslim nation.

    At his news conference, Gates said the concern about al-Qaida goes beyond its threat to Pakistan and Afghanistan.

    “We are all concerned about the reestablishment of al-Qaida safe havens in the border area,” he said. “I think it would be unrealistic to assume that all of the planning that they’re doing is focused strictly on Pakistan. So I think that that is a continuing threat to Europe as well as to us.”

    Rummy Resurfaces, Calls for U.S. Propaganda Agency

    By Sharon Weinberger

    One of the many things I love about Donald Rumsfeld is that he’s totally unrepentant. Back in 2001, the Pentagon under his leadership created the controversial Office of Strategic Influence, which was closed down just a few months later after its existence became public. Rightly or wrongly, the Pentagon was accused of creating a propaganda office. Now, the former defense secretary has a bigger vision: he is advocating a “21st century agency for global communications.”

    This was one of the major themes in one of Rumsfeld’s first post-Pentagon public comments at a conference today on network centric warfare sponsored by the Institute for Defense and Government Advancement. According to Rumsfeld, the United States is losing the war of ideas in the Muslim world, and the answer to that, in part, is through the creation of this new government agency.

    During the the Q&A after the speech, I asked Rumsfeld what this new agency might entail (he was pretty clear it wouldn’t be a resurrected U.S. Information Agency, which was merged into State Department in 1999), and why, when there is an abundance of media available in the private sector, the government needs to get involved.

    I’ll just let Rumsfeld speak for himself:

    Private media does not get up in the morning and say what can we do to promote the values and ideas that the free Western nations believe in? It gets up in the morning and says they’re going to try to make money by selling whatever they sell… The way they decided to do that is to be dramatic and if it bleeds it leads is the common statement in the media today. They’ve got their job, and they have to do that, and that’s what they do.

    We need someone in the United States government, some entity, not like the old USIA . . . I think this agency, a new agency has to be something that would take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that exist today. There are multiple channels for information . . . The Internet is there, pods are there, talk radio is there, e-mails are there. There are all kinds of opportunities. We do not with any systematic organized way attempt to engage the battle of ideas and talk about the idea of beheading, and what’s it’s about and what it means. And talk about the fact that people are killing more Muslims than they are non-Muslims, these extremists. They’re doing it with suicide bombs and the like. We need to engage and not simply be passive and allow that battle of competition of ideas.

    What would this agency actually do? Hard to say, but Rumsfeld referred approvingly back to when the Army paid reporters to plant stories in the local press in Iraq. He still thinks that was a good idea (and blames the U.S. press for screwing it up). 

    In Rumsfeld’s view, the free press can co-exist with government sponsored/produced/paid news. “It doesn’t mean we have to infringe on the role of the free press, they can go do what they do, and that’s fine,” says Rumsfeld. “Well, it’s not fine, but it’s what it is, let’s put it that way.”

    Bush Justice Nominee Authorized C.I.A. Torture

    1

    By PHILIP SHENON and ERIC LICHTBLAU

    The Justice Department lawyer who wrote a series of classified legal opinions in 2005 authorizing harsh C.I.A. interrogation techniques was renominated by the White House on Wednesday to a senior department post, a move that was seen as a snub to Senate Democrats who have long opposed his appointment.

    The lawyer, Steven G. Bradbury, who has run the department’s Office of Legal Counsel without Senate confirmation for more than two years, has been repeatedly nominated to the job of assistant attorney general for legal counsel.

    But the earlier nominations stalled in the Senate because of a dispute with the Justice Department over its failure to provide Congress with copies of legal opinions on a variety of terrorism issues. Under Senate rules that place a time limit on nominations, Mr. Bradbury’s earlier nominations expired.

    Late last year, Democrats urged the White House to withdraw Mr. Bradbury’s name once and for all and find a new candidate for the post after it was disclosed in news reports in October that he was the author of classified memorandums that gave approval to harsh interrogation techniques, including head slapping, exposure to cold and simulated drowning, even when used in combination.

    Mr. Bradbury’s memorandums were described by Democrats as an effort by the Bush administration to circumvent laws prohibiting torture and to undermine a public legal opinion issued by the Justice Department in 2004 that declared torture to be “abhorrent.”

    The department and the White House have insisted that there are no contradictions between Mr. Bradbury’s legal opinions, which are still secret, and laws and rules governing interrogation techniques. A department spokesman, Peter A. Carr, said Wednesday that the department remained eager to see Mr. Bradbury confirmed.

    “Steve Bradbury is a dedicated public servant and a superb lawyer, who has led with distinction the department’s Office of Legal Counsel,” Mr. Carr said. “He has proven invaluable to the department, and we will continue to work with the Senate to get him confirmed.”

    Joe Shoemaker, a spokesman for Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said that by putting Mr. Bradbury’s name forward again as a nominee, “the president has thumbed his nose at Congress and chosen an individual who has been involved in authorizing some of the most controversial policies of this administration.”

    Mr. Durbin led the previous efforts to reject Mr. Bradbury’s nomination and sits on the Judiciary Committee, which would have to approve the nomination.

    Mr. Bradbury’s new nomination is almost certain to be a focus of questions next week when Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey is scheduled to appear before the Judiciary Committee for his first public hearing since his confirmation to the job in November.

    Mr. Mukasey has suggested that he is a firm supporter of the Bush administration’s tough anti-terrorism policies, and his nomination was nearly derailed over criticism of his refusal to condemn as torture the interrogation practice known as waterboarding. He has since said he is studying its legality.

    Mr. Durbin and the nine other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee joined in a letter on Wednesday asking Mr. Mukasey to clarify his views on waterboarding and other harsh interrogation techniques. The letter noted there had been “ample time for you to study this issue and reach a conclusion” and asked him to respond to the question: “Is the use of waterboarding as an interrogation technique illegal under U.S. law, including terrorism obligations?”

    Also Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney offered a broad and impassioned defense of the administration’s antiterrorism efforts as he urged Congress to act quickly in reauthorizing broad wiretapping powers for the National Security Agency and in giving broad immunity to phone companies involved in the wiretaps.

    The vice president, who was closely involved in the N.S.A.’s program of eavesdropping without warrants from its inception weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, depicted the vote in the Senate as a matter of national security.

    “It is a fact,” Mr. Cheney told a friendly audience at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group in Washington, “that the danger to our country remains very real, and that the terrorists are still determined to hit us.”

    Democrats concede that they probably lack the votes to stop a White House-backed plan to give immunity to phone carriers that assisted in the N.S.A. program, and they urged President Bush anew on Wednesday to agree to a one-month extension in the law to allow time for a full debate.

    Firefighter: Giuliani ‘ran like a coward on 9/11’

    1

    David Edwards and Adam Doster

    Raw Story

    Families of firefighters killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center rallied in Orlando Tuesday in anticipation of the state’s upcoming Republican primary. Unfortunately for Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, the firefighters are not in his corner.

    “We want America to know that [the Giuliani campaign] is lying to America and to the American pubic,” said Jim Riches, a deputy chief in the New York Fire Department, “telling all of Florida that the New York City Fire Department backs him, when that’s another lie.”

    Firefighters and their families vowed to dog the former New York mayor at all of his Florida campaign stops because the state figures prominently in Giuliani’s big-state primary strategy. The protesters think that Giuliani was aware that firefighters who responded to the World Trade Center attack were carrying defective radios and did not hear the order to evacuate.

    “He didn’t prepare us before, during, or after,” says Riches.

    Giuliani has campaigned strongly on his leadership during the attacks on New York, claiming he is the best suited to prevent an “Islamic terrorist war against us.” But the firefighters were quick to question that courage.

    “Yeah, the decision he made was, which direction he was going to run,” says Riches. “And he ran north, and that’s all he did.”

    The Giuliani campaign labeled the display a misleading, partisan attack. The former mayor is also emphasizing his ability to deal with the economy, distancing himself from the 9/11 pitch.

    This video is from CNN.com, broadcast January 22, 2008.


    9/11 Contradictions

    When Did Cheney Enter the Underground Bunker?

    David Ray Griffin

    With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck) and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called the “bunker,” under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge—that he was either making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.

    According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived “shortly before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58” (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth 9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission’s time is correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20 are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.

    Mineta’s Report of Cheney’s Early Arrival

    The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he “arrived at the PEOC at about 9:20 AM,” Mineta reported that he then overheard part of an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived, between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming that “the orders still stand.” When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: “Probably about five or six minutes.” This would mean, Roemer pointed out, “about 9:25 or 9:26.”

    This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney, according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta’s 9:20 arrival. If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute contradiction between Mineta’s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report. Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?

    One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story, however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.

    Other Reports Supporting Cheney’s Early Arrival

    Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went with Clarke to the White House’s Video Teleconferencing Center, where Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10. After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke: “You’re going to need some decisions quickly. I’m going to the PEOC to be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need.” At about 9:15, Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke “suggested he join the Vice President” (Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.

    In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney’s White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00, some Secret Service agents came into Cheney’s office and said, “Sir, you have to come with us.” During this same program, Rice said: “As I was trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and said, ‘You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President’s already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House.’” ABC’s Charles Gibson then said: “In the bunker, the Vice President is joined by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta” (“9/11: Interviews by Peter Jennings,” ABC News, September 11, 2002).

    The 9/11 Commission’s Late-Arrival Claim

    The 9/11 Commission agreed that the Vice President was hustled down to the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until 9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service agents immediately received another message, telling them that the aircraft had turned away, so “[n]o move was made to evacuate the Vice President at this time.” It was not until “just before 9:36” that the Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go to the PEOC. Rather:

      Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the building. (9/11CR 40)

    Next, after Lynne Cheney “joined her husband in the tunnel,” the Commission claimed, “Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the tunnel to the shelter conference room” after the call ended, which was not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she “entered the conference room shortly after the Vice President” (9/11CR 40).

    The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission, Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38 strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor.

    Cheney’s Account on Meet the Press

    The 9/11 Commission’s account even contradicted that given by Cheney himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC’s Meet the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: “[A]fter I talked to the president… I went down into… the Presidential Emergency Operations Center… [W]hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon’s been hit.” Cheney himself, therefore, indicated that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon, not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim.

    Dealing with the Contradictions

    How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the time of Cheney’s arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer, Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports.

    Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission’s failure to mention Norman Mineta’s testimony, even though it was given to the Commission in an open hearing—as can be seen by reading the transcript of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta’s testimony was also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11 Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however, be viewed on the Internet.)

    During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006, Hamilton was asked what “Mineta told the Commission about where Dick Cheney was prior to 10 AM.” Hamilton replied: “I do not recall” (“9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton,” CBC News, 21 August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of the young man’s conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun his questioning by saying to Mineta: “You were there [in the PEOC] for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President.” And Mineta’s exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately after Hamilton’s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to recall any of this, simply said, “we think that Vice President Cheney entered the bunker shortly before 10 o’clock.”

    Obliterating Mineta’s Problematic Testimony

    To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission’s efforts to obliterate Mineta’s story from the public record, we need to look at the conversation he reported to the Commission. He said:

      During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

    Mineta’s story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission, the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it “had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington” (9/11CR 34). That claim was essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not been evacuated before it was struck — a fact that resulted in 125 deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why this evacuation had not occurred, said: “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way” (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001). Mineta’s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that strike.

    Even more problematic was the question of the nature of “the orders.” Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders, especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary aircraft entering the “prohibited” airspace over Washington, in which “civilian flying is prohibited at all times” (“Pilots Notified of Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,” FAA Press Release, September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only if the orders were to do something unusual — not to shoot the aircraft down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported Cheney’s confirmation of stand-down orders.

    That Mineta’s report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta’s testimony and delaying Cheney’s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes, also replaced Mineta’s story with a new story about an incoming aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really happened:

      At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft… At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft… The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane… The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes. (9/11CR 41)

    The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that Cheney’s shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03).

    Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s account of Cheney’s descent to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened.

    U.S. to use Spy Evidence against Citizens?

    1

    Determining what NSA electronic surveillance can be used by police or introduced into court by Government, may be the next battle Americans have to fight.

    Dan Scott

    It is not surprising the Telecom Industry wants “Retroactive Immunity” from at least forty law suits after they helped government spy on Americans’ personal phone calls, faxes and emails? But Not so obvious or discussed by major media is what happens to NSA’s millions of illegally collected emails, faxes and phone call information that belong to U.S. Citizens? Will that information be deleted or copied? Or Used In Court against Americans?

    Depending on the legal scheme the U.S. Government devises to let the phone companies off the hook for spying on its Citizens, could set NSA free–to share its “illegally collected wiretap information” with local, state and federal police in order to initiate almost any kind of criminal investigation.

    Determining what NSA electronic surveillance can be used by police or introduced into court by the Government, may be the next battle Americans have to fight.

    Previously prosecutors were not allowed access to the Justice Department’s “intelligence files” for domestic criminal prosecutions. In 2003 a court ruling lowered that barrier, allowing prosecutors to review old surveillance. In 2003, Attorney General John Ashcroft asked government prosecutors to review thousands of old intelligence files including wiretaps to retrieve information prosecutors could use in “ordinary criminal prosecutions.”

    It is problematic Law enforcement agencies will want to use NSA’s old illegal wiretap evidence and other surveillance to go back perhaps decades to arrest Americans and/or civilly forfeit their homes, inheritances and business using only a “preponderance of evidence” under Title 18 of the United States Code. The Patriot Act specifically mentions provisions passed in Rep. Henry Hyde’s bill HR 1658 “The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000.” HR 1658 included a “retroactive asset forfeiture provision” that applies retroactively to assets already subject to government forfeiture, meaning “property already tainted by crime” provided “the property” was already part of or later connected to a criminal investigation in progress” when HR.1658 passed.

    In 2000 after HR1658 passed the “old statute of limitations” died that gave government “five years” to seize property from the actual date a “property” was involved in crime. Police now have five-years to seize property from “whenever police claim” they learned a “property” was made subject to civil asset forfeiture. There are over 200 U.S. laws that can subject property to civil asset forfeiture.

    Imagine NSA sharing its illegal-domestic surveillance information with countless police agencies that are dependent on forfeiting Citizens’ property to pay their department’s operating costs. Police can too easily take an innocent person’s hastily written email or phone call out of context to allege a crime was committed. Imagine Police using the Patriot Act’s low standard of proof “a preponderance of evidence” to judge NSA illegal domestic wiretap information, perhaps to go back before 2000 to civilly seize a Citizen’s home, business or other property. No conviction is required for the U.S. Government to civilly forfeit a Citizen’s home or business.

    Under the Patriot Act, witnesses can be kept secret while being paid part of the assets they cause to be forfeited.

    Immunization Programs Under Scrutiny

    2

    Andreas Moritz

    For many decades, leading scientists and doctors have vehemently promoted the idea that immunization of children is necessary to protect them from contracting such diseases as diphtheria, polio, cholera, typhoid, or malaria. Yet evidence is mounting that immunization may not only be unnecessary but even harmful. Pouring deadly chemicals into a lake doesn’t make it immune to pollutants. Likewise, injecting the live poisons contained in vaccines into the bloodstream of children hardly gives future generations a chance to lead truly healthy lives. American children often receive some 30 vaccinations within the first 6 years of their lives and children in the U.K. can expect to be vaccinated about 25 times.

    Within the first 15 months of life, vaccinations including nine or more different antigens are pumped into the immature immune systems of babies. Despite the colossal efforts and large sums of money spent on vaccine research, medicine has never been able to devise a cholera vaccine that works and the drugs for malaria aren’t as effective as a single herb.

    Diphtheria is still combated with toxic immunization programs even though it has almost completely disappeared from the earth. When diphtheria broke out in Chicago in 1969, 11 of the 16 victims were either already immune or had been immunized against diphtheria. In another report, 14 out of 23 victims were completely immune. This shows that vaccination makes no difference when it comes to protection against diphtheria; on the contrary, it can even increase the chances of being infected.

    Immunization against mumps is also highly dubious. Even though it initially reduces the likelihood of becoming infected, the risk for mumps infection increases after immunity subsides. In 1995, a study conducted by the U.K.’s Public Health Laboratory Service and published in the Lancet showed that children given the measles/mumps/rubella shot were three times more likely to suffer from convulsions than those children who didn’t receive it. The study also found that the MMR vaccine increased by five times the number of children suffering a rare blood disorder.

    It is interesting to note that the mortality rate from measles declined by 95 percent before the measles vaccine was introduced. In the United Kingdom, despite widespread vaccination among toddlers, cases of measles recently increased by nearly 25 percent. The United States has been suffering from a steadily increasing epidemic of measles, although (or because) the measles vaccine has been in effect since 1957. After a few sudden drops and rises, the cases of measles are now suddenly dropping again. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) acknowledged that this could be related to an overall decrease in the occurrence of measles in the Western Hemisphere.

    In addition to this evidence, many studies show that the measles vaccine isn’t effective. For example, as reported in a 1987 New England Journal of Medicine article, a 1986 outbreak of measles in Corpus Christi, Texas found 99 percent of the victims had been vaccinated. In 1987, 60 percent of the cases of measles occurred in children who had been properly vaccinated at the appropriate age. One year later, this figure rose to 80 percent.

    Apart from not protecting against measles and possibly even increasing the risk of contracting the disease, the MMR vaccine has been proven to produce numerous adverse effects. Among them are encephalitis, brain complications, convulsions, retardation of mental and physical growth, high fever, pneumonia, meningitis, aseptic meningitis, mumps, atypical measles, blood disorders such as thrombocytopenia, fatal shock, arthritis, SSPE, one-sided paralysis, and death. According to a study published in the Lancet in 1985, if children develop “mild measles” as a result of receiving the vaccine, the accompanying underdeveloped rash may be responsible for causing degenerative diseases such as cancer later in life.

    In reality, measles is not a dangerous childhood illness at all. The belief that measles can lead to blindness is a myth that finds its roots in an increased sensitivity to light during illness. This problem subsides when the room is dimmed and vanishes completely with recovery. For a long time, measles was believed to increase the risk of a brain infection (encephalitis) which is known to occur only among children who live in poverty and suffer from malnutrition. Among upper class children, only 1 out of 100,000 will become infected. Besides, less than half of children given a measles booster are protected against the disease.

    In a report issued by German health authorities and published in a 1989 issue of the Lancet, the mumps vaccine was revealed to have caused 27 specific neurological reactions, including meningitis, febrile convulsions, encephalitis, and epilepsy. A Yugoslavian study linked 1 per 1,000 cases of mumps encephalitis directly to the vaccine. The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal in the U.S. reported in 1989 that the rate varies from 1 in 405 to 1 in 7,000 shots for mumps.

    Although mumps is generally a mild illness and the vaccine’s side effects are severe, it is still included in the MMR vaccine. And so is the vaccine for rubella, although it is known to cause arthritis in up to 3 percent of children and in up to 20 percent of the adult women who have received it. In 1994 the Department of Health admitted to doctors that 11 percent of first-time recipients of the rubella vaccine will get arthritis. Symptoms range from mild aches to severe crippling. Other studies show a 30 percent chance of developing arthritis in direct response to the rubella vaccine.

    Research confirms that the whooping cough vaccine is only effective in 36 percent of children. A report by Professor Gordon Stewart, which was published in 1994 in World Medicine, demonstrated that the risks of the whooping cough vaccine outweighed the benefits. The whooping cough or pertussis vaccine is by far the most dangerous of all the vaccines. DTP, the whooping cough vaccine that was used in the U.S. until 1992, contained the carcinogen formaldehyde, and the highly toxic metals aluminum and mercury. Both this vaccine and its “improved” version DTaP have never been tested for safety, only for efficacy.

    The new vaccine has proved to be no better than the old one. Both versions cause death, near-death, seizures, developmental delay, and hospitalization. DTaP (formerly DTP) is given to babies as young as six weeks old, although the vaccine has never been tested on this age group. Among the 17 potential health problems caused by the whooping cough vaccine is sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). According to an estimate from the University of California at Los Angeles, 1,000 U.S. infants a year die as a direct result of receiving the vaccine.

    Immunization programs against polio have no benefits other than economic ones for vaccine producers. The scientist who eliminated polio now suspects that the handful of polio cases which have occurred in the U.S. since the seventies are caused by the live viruses that were used as vaccines. In Finland and Sweden, where the use of live vaccines for polio is prohibited, there has not been a single case of polio in ten years. If live viruses used as a vaccine can cause polio today when hygiene is generally high, it may well be that the polio epidemics 40 to 50 years ago were also caused by immunization against polio while hygiene, sanitation, housing, and nutritional standards were still very low.

    In the United States, cases of polio increased by 50 percent between 1957 and 1958, and by 80 percent from 1958 to 1959 after the introduction of mass immunization. In five states, cases of polio doubled after the polio vaccine was given to large numbers of the population. As soon as hygiene and sanitation improved, despite the immunization programs, the viral disease quickly disappeared. Whatever may have been the reason for polio outbreaks in the past, it is highly questionable today to immunize an entire population against a disease that does not even exist any more. It raises major questions about the motives behind polio vaccination.

    Further, the history of some simian virus 40 (SV40) infections in humans is linked to the use of polio vaccines. According to the American Journal of Medicine, many studies have reported the presence of SV40 from the polio vaccine in human brain tumors and bone cancers, malignant mesothelioma, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The polio vaccine seems ever more linked to cancers, especially in children. The cancers caused by the use of the polio vaccine in the past still kills 20,000 people a year in the United States. This is quite outrageous given the fact that polio itself hasn’t killed anyone for a long time.

    – Excerpt from Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation by Andreas Moritz (www.amazon.com) or (www.ener-chi.com)

    About the author

    Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It’s Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes — No More, Ending the AIDS Myth and Heal Yourself with Sunlight. For more information, visit the author’s website (www.ener-chi.com).

    Is the 2008 Election Rigged?

    1

    Rami Nagel

    Charismatic democratic leader, Barack Obama had a stunning lead going into the New Hampshire primary, with a huge media blitz, and a lot of energy behind him. Then all of a sudden, despite exit polls showing huge leads for Senator Obama, despite no big moves for Hillary Clinton, Senator Obama looses the New Hampshire primary.

    Inexplicable Last Minute Win?

    The Zogby poll released Tuesday January 8th, 2008, the day of the election, gives Senator Obama a stunning 42% of votes over 29% for Hillary Clinton. The poll states, “Obama’s margin over Clinton has opened up. He leads among all groups except women and voters over 65.” (www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417)

    What is of grave concern is that these polls and other similar polls, which usually have a fairly decent margin of accuracy, stating an error rate of plus or minus 3.4%, predicted accurately the outcome of the republican race, for Senator McCain, but were totally inaccurate regarding the votes for only one candidate, Senator Clinton.

    Does it surprise you to know that a majority of voting machines in New Hampshire are the infamous, Diebold optical-scan voting systems. Which is “wholly controlled and programmed by a very bad company named LHS Associates.” (www.bradblog.com/?p=5530#more-5530)

    “Electronic voting machines count about 87% of the votes cast in America today,” reports award winning documentary film Hacking Democracy, which shows among other things how voting machines can be tampered with (www.hackingdemocracy.com) .

    During the primary election count, with 63% of the precincts reporting, MSNBC reported Senator Obama still had a solid 3% point lead. Yet when the election tallies were over, rather than staying ahead 3%, Senator Obama fell behind by 3%, a 6% change in just a short period.

    Another website (ronrox.com/paulstats.php?party=DEMOCRATS) , compares the hand vote tally, to the machine vote tally in New Hampshire. Assuming that the hand votes represent a non-biased cross section of the state, the hand votes would accurately predict the winner of the election, and should match up to the machine votes representing another random cross section of the state. However this alignment does not exist, it appears that Hillary Clinton gained 5.419% or (15,584 votes) from the machines. Meanwhile, this page estimates that the Diebold voting machines took away votes from Barack Obama (-8,711 votes), John Edwards (-2,437 votes), and Bill Richardson (-3,478 votes) and gave them to Hillary Clinton for the victory. It seems strange that the counties that vote with Diebold machines just happen to significantly prefer Hillary Clinton with 4.5% more votes over Barack Obama. Whereas the counties where the vote is counted by hand, Barack Obama is the winner, giving him a 4% victory over Hillary Clinton.

    A Huge Red Flag

    A huge red flag came up for me, when I heard a news announcer report that Senator Clinton’s comeback was much like former president Clinton’s comeback in the 1992 election. The reason being is that part of me has bought into the belief that many presidential candidates, but not all, whether Republican or Democrat, has some ties to private special interest groups that influence how our government runs. If you don’t believe me that elite private groups have infiltrated our government for devious means, let me say two words for you, “Iraq War.” Which is not so much a war, but now a mass murder, with documented reports of at least 81,000 civilian Iraqi deaths (www.iraqbodycount.org) and in October, 2006 Lancet medical journal suggested that about 655,000 people had died in Iraq as a result of the 2003 invasion. Our country has also sacrificed approximately 3900 US soldiers in order to create a “democracy” in Iraq. I wonder if the democracy in Iraq comes complete with Diebold voting machines to ensure that nobodies vote will really be counted.

    Is A Global Elite Involved?

    Independent journalists and authors have noted that in more recent times, candidates who have won the US presidency have had connections with The Council Of Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, and The Bilderberg Group.

    For example, with the Trilateral Commission:

    “President Carter was a member from mid-1973 until his election, President Bush was invited to join in early 1977 after he left the government. He resigned in late 1978, two years before he became Vice President. Richard B. Cheney was a Commission member from 1997 until he became a candidate for the Vice Presidency and resigned in 2000.” (www.trilateral.org/moreinfo/faqs.htm)

    Would it surprise you to learn that Bill Clinton was also a member of the Trilateral Commission?
    Perhaps that is all circumstantial, but I can tell you one thing for sure – something rotten is going on here.

    Why in our freedom loving country are we using some electronic voting systems that are easily tampered with and created by suspect corporations?

    The Power To Change Is Within the People

    Outer world injustice only happens because we are all asleep. Too many people choose to be sponges for absorbing media “reports” without reflection. The reports are many times biased and meant to convince the listener of something, rather than to objectively report the facts. And I let myself be so daring as to state it as if it is a fact, that Hillary Clinton’s miraculous vote lead, is a clear implication of tampering.

    How is it that we have allowed our voting systems in some states to become so suspect? Are there any residents in our country who support using voting machines that can be tampered with? I doubt it. So why does our government allow their use? Let’s face it, in some instances the federal and even state government attempts to manipulate the public opinion for the gain of private interests. As a result, rather than a government that listens to and honors the will of the people, we have a government that many times tries to manipulate the people so it can go out and do stupid and harmful things.

    The people of this country have a lot of power to make a change, provided that they claim that power and take effective action, which some people do, and most do not. Ordinary people who have a passion can easily make and change laws, and gain the support of the public and convince legislators on the state and federal levels to do good things.

    Effective action requires truth, compassion and integrity, it means acting and living with purpose and conviction for what you know is right.

    Let’s seriously investigate these issues of election fraud so that we can find the people behind it. The evidence is staring us in the face, it only takes an ear to listen to it and recognize it. Somehow, the truth has a way of releasing itself into the world.

    About the author

    Rami Nagel is the author of “Cure Tooth Decay: Heal And Prevent Cavities With Nutrition,” which teaches readers how to reclaim their dental health. Learn the real cause and cure for cavities and root canals at: www.curetoothdecay.com
    Rami is a father who cares about the way we affect each other, our children, and our planet through our lifestyle choices. His health background is in hands-on energy healing, Hatha & Bhakti yoga and the Pathwork.
    Rami is author of several health resources:
    www.healingourchildren.net – Learn the Cause and Prevention of the Diseases of Pregnancy and Childhood
    www.preconceptionhealth.org – A Program for Preconception Health based on Indigenous Wisdom
    www.curetoothdecay.com – Heal and Prevent Cavities with Nutrition!
    www.yourreturn.org – The cause of disease and the end of suffering of humanity.

    Neocons Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion

    0

    Bush and his top officials waged a campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.

    By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

    President George W. Bush and seven of his administration’s top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

    On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration’s case for war.

    It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose “Duelfer Report” established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq’s nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

    In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

    President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

    The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

    Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

    • On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.” In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney’s assertions went well beyond his agency’s assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, “Our reaction was, ‘Where is he getting this stuff from?’ “
    • In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: “The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. . . . This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year.” A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction — an analysis that hadn’t been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn’t requested it.
    • In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: “Sure.” In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of “compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda.” What’s more, an earlier DIA assessment said that “the nature of the regime’s relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear.”
    • On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: “We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories.” But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team’s final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.
    • On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.” Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”
    • On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: “What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.” As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named “Curveball,” whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Eqypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had “decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government].”

    The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

    Click for larger version
    (click for larger version)
    It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.

    In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

    The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, “independent” validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq.

    The “ground truth” of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: “It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.”

    Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual “ground truth” regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who’s Who of domestic agencies.

    On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly — and in some cases vociferously — accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation’s allies on their way to war.

    Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government’s pre-war intelligence — not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials — Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz — have testified before Congress about Iraq.

    Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

    Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: What did they know, and when did they know it?

    Amid record losses, Wall Street awarded itself $39 bil

    0

    By Andre Damon

    The five largest Wall Street banks doled out a record $39 billion in bonuses last year, according to data collected by the Bloomberg news service. After driving hundreds of thousands of families into foreclosure, causing a financial crisis affecting hundreds of millions, and pushing the US and world economies closer to recession, it appears Wall Street is rewarding itself for a job well done.

    The banks announced record losses in the fourth quarter, wrapping up the financial industry’s worst year since 2002. All in all, Wall Street wrote off more than $90 billion in bad debt for the year, and the five largest banks saw their profits drop more than 60 percent. Three of the five firms posted losses in the fourth quarter.

    For all that, the bankers made out like bandits. Despite the firms’ abysmal performance, Wall Street buffered its traders from any shocks to their incomes by increasing the ratio of compensation relative to revenues. Typically, banks try to keep compensation below 50 percent of revenues; in 2006, when the five firms paid out some $36 billion in year-end bonuses, the figure was approximately 45 percent. In 2007, it jumped to more than 60 percent, according to figures released by the New York State Comptroller’s office.

    While the $39 billion was divided among 186,000 workers at the five firms–averaging $211,849–the lion’s share was reserved for a few thousand high-level managers, traders, and senior executives, who took in multimillion-dollar bonuses in addition to their salaries. Rank-and-file clerical workers took home a few hundred dollars. Bonuses for traders in subprime-related securities are reported to be about 30 percent lower this year in comparison to other sectors.

    Morgan Stanley wrote down some $10.3 billion in bad debt in 2007, but increased its bonus pool by 18 percent all the same. Its CEO, John Mack, declined his bonus last year after collecting a $40 million bonus in 2006.

    E. Stanley O’Neal, the former chief executive of Merrill Lynch, collected a severance package worth some $161 million, or 3,500 times the yearly income of a typical US household, after losing his job in October. Merrill Lynch wrote down some $20 billion in subprime debt during the fourth quarter of 2007, and saw its value reduced by some 43 percent.

    Charles O. Prince II, the former CEO of Citigroup, which announced similar losses, will walk away with some $68 million. Lloyd C. Blankfein, the Goldman Sachs CEO, set a new record with his bonus of $60.7 million. The firm put its chips on different numbers than the other banks and had a good year overall. The firm’s two co-presidents, Gary Cohn and Jon Winkelried, each collected a stock bonus of about $40 million, in addition to as-yet undisclosed amounts of cash.

    Ike Suri, the managing director of a Finance Executive recruitment firm, told the Los Angeles Times that “compensation in the brokerage industry is increasingly tied to volatility–so the more volatility in the markets, the more investors are trading and the more they make.” He continued, “The marked increase in volatility in the markets in 2007 really benefited the brokers.” Volatility, we might add, which bankers created themselves by gambling–and losing–on risky securities.

    The absurdity of this standard is self-evident. But, for all that, no major public figures have called for the leaders of these banks to be held liable for the destruction they caused, much less even called for hearings into their massive pay. Executive compensation, we are told, is a private affair between shareholders and executives, whatever its effect may be on the rest of the population.

    Outside the mass media, however, these issues are being hotly debated. In a widely discussed Financial Times column dealing with the issue of banker pay, former IMF chief economist Raghuram Rajan writes that executive compensation practices among Wall Street firms “probably contributed to the ongoing crisis” in the financial sector. Rajan goes on to explain the means by which bank managers systematically underpriced and hid risk with the intent of inflating their personal compensation.

    Securities trading, according to Rajan, rests on the ability of funds managers to generate returns over and above market expectations, while minimizing overall risk. Rajan notes that differences between a security’s real yield and its evaluated growth potential “are quite hard to generate since most ways of doing so depend on the investment manager possessing unique abilities–to pick stocks, identify weaknesses in management and remedy them, or undertake financial innovation. Such abilities are rare. How then can untalented investment managers justify their pay? Unfortunately, all too often it is by creating fake alpha–appearing to create excess returns but in fact taking on hidden tail risks, which produce a steady positive return most of the time as compensation for a rare, very negative, return.”

    The boom of Collateralized Debt Obligations and other risky mortgage-based securities was probably exacerbated by bankers’ attempts to, in Rajan’s words, “create fake alpha,” that is, to buy securities whose risk was nominally underrated and therefore paid disproportionately high returns. The foreseeable prospect of the real estate market cooling down, resulting in the writing off of billions of dollars of bad debt, massive losses for shareholders, and turmoil in the wider economy, paled alongside the bankers’ own grasping for massive amounts of compensation.

    For the bank managers themselves, it made perfect sense. Once the racket that they had been running came to light and the securities they bought rendered worthless, the managers would simply lose their jobs, collect millions in compensation, and move on to some other firm. This is exactly what happened at Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch, Citigroup, and others.

    The more farsighted representatives of the establishment recognize–at least in part–the dangers posed by unmitigated greed to the long-term stability of the capitalist system. Martin Wolf, the associate editor of economics at the Financial Times, recently wrote in response to Rajan’s article: “I now fear that the combination of the fragility of the financial system with the huge rewards it generates for insiders will destroy something even more important–the political legitimacy of the market economy itself–across the globe.”

    Wolf proposes that the US government step in to regulate banker pay so as to prevent such discrediting spectacles as those seen on Wall Street in 2007. But such action would require an unimaginable sea change in the policies of the US ruling elite, which has sought for the past three decades to break any restrictions on its own blind pillaging of society.

    As the Wall Street speculators raked in their bonuses, recent government statistics demonstrate that, for average working people in the US, 2007 spelled a further decline in living standards as consumer prices driven by fuel and food rose sharply and the paltry growth in wages recorded the previous year stalled. Average weekly wages last year fell approximately 1 percent.

    The combination of record bonuses for Wall Street’s wealthiest and a drop in real wages for hundreds of millions recorded in 2007 is only the latest episode in the protracted process of transferring wealth from masses of working people to a tiny financial elite. The outcome is a level of inequality that is politically and socially unsustainable and which makes open class struggle inevitable. This is what is meant by the destruction of “the political legitimacy of the market economy itself.”

    Louisiana GOP: Ron Paul stands 2nd

    0

    The Louisiana Republican Party says the state’s preliminary results indicate that presidential hopeful Ron Paul has come in second.

    Louisiana Republican Party Chairman Roger Villere said Wednesday in a statement that Senator John McCain has captured the first place and Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney finished third.

    Party officials are reportedly verifying provisional ballots for newly registered voters, which may boost Paul’s numbers since most of them support his candidacy.

    “I applaud the supporters of Congressman Paul for their enthusiasm and superior organizational ability,” Villere said.

    While the 72-year-old Air Force veteran has yet to win a primary, the Louisiana result is yet another indication that Paul’s ‘message of freedom’ in line with the Constitution is being heard by voters across the United States.

    Political pundits believe while the Louisiana contest is not a major battleground for the Republicans, Paul’s second place finish will further boost the anti-war politician’s campaign.

    Because the mainstream media keeps a low profile on the popular libertarian-leaning Texan, this is considered a great victory for the 10-term congressman’s supporters.

    MD/AA

    Cheney demands ‘permanent’ wiretaps

    0

    The US Vice President, Dick Cheney calls on Congress to ‘permanently’ allow warrantless wiretaps on foreign electronic communications.

    During a speech to the Heritage Foundation in Washington on Wednesday, Cheney said it is ‘urgent’ to renew and update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) ‘immediately and permanently’.

    The 30-year-old FISA is a federal law allowing physical and electronic surveillance and the collection of ‘foreign intelligence information’ coming from and going to territories under US control.

    In a modification made last year that will expire on February 1, the Congress empowered intelligence agencies to tap into telephone conversations and emails, without first obtaining the permission of a special FISA court.

    Cheney warned of ‘serious consequences’ if the Congress fails to provide protection for telephone and Internet carriers from lawsuits for alleged complicity in privacy rights violations in the US ‘war on terror’.

    “The challenge to the country has not expired over the last six months,” he said, referring to the so-called war on terror launched in the aftermath of the 9/11.

    “It won’t expire anytime soon, and we should not write laws that pretend otherwise,” said the US Vice President.

    MD/AA

    British Government Censoring The Web

    Frank Fisher

    When asked to name countries that impose extensive internet censorship, you might think of China, Iran, or North Korea; I doubt you’d think of the UK, but, after the home secretary Jacqui Smith’s speech to the International Centre for Study of Radicalisation and Political Violence today, you really should.

    Smith’s headline-grabbing proposal, to use the same tools against “extremist” websites as are currently used against child pornography, should worry us all. Few hard details are available, but if we take her at her word this is a dangerous extension of government powers, with a dangerous lack of oversight. Press talk of extremist websites being taken down is foolish and betrays a lack of understanding of the internet. Just as with child pornography, web servers within the UK, maintained by UK ISPs or not, can be dealt with legally and technically relatively easily. Those outside our borders – ie, the vast majority, in both cases – are beyond our laws and technical reach, but the content they supply is not. Blocking traffic from servers that host child porn – effectively at our geographical borders – has been a UK government goal for some time, and in 2007 they made a huge step towards that. Good news? Not the way they went about it.

    The technical approach was simple enough, based on a system devised by BT and known as Cleanfeed. A list of IP addresses is drawn up by the industry watchdog, the Internet Watch Foundation, supplied to and then augmented by the Home Office, and then handed to ISPs with the simple instruction “block traffic to and from these addresses”. The problems are twofold.

    First, the government, in the person of Home Office minister Vernon Coaker, simply demanded that all UK ISPs “voluntarily” sign up for the system – there is no legislative backing for this at all. And second, no doubt only because no open discussion took place, no parliamentary debate occurred, and therefore no real examination of the dangers of such a process were exposed, no one except the Home Office knows what’s on that final list. We’re led to believe that it’s purely a list of child pornography sites. But no one outside government knows. Not even the ISPs. They block; they don’t look.

    As of December 31 last year, all UK ISPs duly agreed to adopt the system. You’re now viewing a state-mandated subset of the internet. How do you feel about that? Like to vote against it? You can’t. Like your MP to sit on a committee to oversee implementation? He can’t. Like to know if the Google results you’re seeing are a full representation of Google’s actual results? You can’t. Censorship at this level – above even ISPs, is all but invisible to the end user. It’s a secret that they’re keeping these secrets from you.

    Now, this isn’t China you might say, we trust our government to only censor material that needs censoring. Sure? This is the same government that has leaned on ISPs inside the UK, and outside, not with the intention of blocking illegal or obscene material, but simply sites that irritated, embarrassed, or offended the government. Not using legal methods either – a court order, say – but bullying and threats. And this is the same government that was only beaten by one vote in the House of Lords, on their 2006 proposal to force UK ISPs to drop sites on the say-so of a single police officer. This is, remember, that same government that’s constantly telling us, with regard to ID cards, that if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Why then, do they hide this list?

    Now, OK, most will feel with regard to child pornography a bit of overkill may be justified, but with “extremism” we start a whole new ball game. It’s a truism that one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter, what should also be understood is that what is inflammatory and incendiary material to one, is the simple truth to others. Can we really accept that a few pen pushers in the Home Office should have absolute veto over our online browsing habits?

    If the government is determined to pursue this path – and I’d stress I’d really rather they didn’t (the best answer to poisonous speech is non-poisonous speech) – then the very least they must do is introduce transparency. There is no reason why the list supplied to ISPs should not be reviewed and questioned by a parliamentary committee at the very least and, unlike child porn, there’s no reason why that shouldn’t be in open session. Better would be a wider consultation, perhaps along the lines of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, where government could put its case to interested parties, including representatives of ISPs, civil liberties groups, and the public. You bet I’d volunteer. We cannot allow a power like this to operate, unchecked and unobserved, even if it is currently used benignly. Can those who’d say they would trust this government to act proportionately, really say they’d trust all future governments also? Future Spycatcher episodes will invariably happen online and in the UK, if the government of the day chose to act, we’d know nothing about it. We may even be in that situation right now.

    The manner in which the government has grasped this power, the way in which they are already wielding it, and their resistance to introducing transparency to the process, suggests they think imposing invisible and opaque censorship, with no legal process, is a proper way for the state to behave. I reckon the Chinese government feels that way too. Censors generally feel their censorship is in a good cause too. It makes no difference.

    We need a proper legal footing for these measures, proper oversight, and a proper understanding that free speech is not a trivial principle the government can simply ignore, but a cornerstone of any state that claims to be democratic. If they’re going to slice off chunks of the internet, then the rest of us need to be damn sure that what’s going is going for a good reason, and that Jacqui Smith isn’t both judge and jury, in the hanging, drawing, and quartering of the world wide web.

    Current financial crisis was topic of Bilderberg 2006

    14

    The current financial crisis that has happened due to the Sub prime mortgage crisis was a main topic at Bilderberg 2006 in Ottowa.

    The green & cooperative movement with the libertarian hold the key to a transition from the corporate class if we work together to take over.

    The current financial crisis that has happened due to the Sub prime mortgage crisis was a main topic at Bilderberg 2006 in Ottowa. Sub prime is basically people with bad credit ratings etc taking on house loans at higher rates by companies who have recently crashed with Northern Rock & other institutions funding these companies.. Top bankers & industrialists have access to information most people don’t & make money out of financial crisis & war, whilst others suffer.
     http://www.bilderberg.org/2006.htm
    Bildbergs twin organisation the Trilateral Commission set up by leading banker David Rockefeller in 1973 a year before G8 to add asia fully into the corporate fold will be meeting at the end of april 2008 in private in Washington, no venue as yet confirmed.
     http://www.trilateral.org/recent.htm
    We all know our so called democratic goverments are run to the heed of the corporate elite, but until now they have been well hidden.
    They need to be revealed & their needs to be transition of power from this corporate class to global citizenry run via consensus & delegation asap to stop the many real crisises we face. The green & cooperative movement with the libertarian left & unions hold the key to a transition from the corporate class if we work together to take over. Using ballots is one way of doing this, though where governments have taken power by force or rigging we need our popular movements to take it.
    Although there scarey stories about of theses organisations, I have been to protest&observe some of their conferences & the atmosphere& security was less intimidating than G8’s.

    The G8 Tyranical Commissions & Corporate Hegemony

     https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/360479.html?c=on#c164886

    The G8 was founded in 1975,its conception though happened in meetings
    well before, Valerie d’Estaing the president of France initiating the
    original G5 in Ramboiullet taking his lead from a more powerful private
    organisation described below that during the cold war remained hidden,
    since1975 d’Estaing has attended this more powerful organisation &
    written documents for it with Kissinger.
    The concept of a influential forum for the world’s major industrialized
    democracies emerged following the OPEC oil crisis and subsequent global
    recession. The Supranational Trilateral Commission “lobbying group” is a
    private organization,the top of an oligarchical empire founded at the
    initiative of head of the Rockefeller Trust & the worlds top corporate
    bank Morgan ChaseDavid Rockefeller, who pushed the idea of including
    Japan as an extension of the Bilderberg meetings, but was he was
    rebuffed by other NATO members. Along with Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few
    others from the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations &
    the Ford Foundation, he convened initial meetings from which the
    organization grew. Trilateral commission was officially founded in
    October 1973,but it was in July 1972 the first major planning meeting
    was held at Rockefeller’s Pocantico compound in New York’s Hudson
    Valley. It was attended by about 250 individuals who were carefully
    selected and screened by Rockefeller and represented the very elite of
    finance and industry. Like the G8 the Trilateral Commission is
    advertised as an informal forum & as with G8 we know that when powerful
    corporations gather together behind closed doors it is very formal &
    very undemocratic, the G8 administrative structure is made of the
    participants civil servants. The Trilaterals administrative structure is
    made of corporate think tanks like the Council in Foreign Relations,the
    extreme right use their existence as proof of a one world
    satanic,illuminati,socialist government & their propaganda zeal has
    sadly frightened away true research & protest.

    Trilaterals first executive committee meeting was held in Tokyo, October
    ’73, this date should be known as that of a global coup against hard won
    limited democratic rights earnt after world war 2& into the 1960’s..
    Rockefeller & the oligarchy hated the more democratic tax rates
    implemented in the USA & increased democratic rights. The oil
    crisis,60’s rebellions & soviet union scared the corporate ruling class
    & made it easy for the case to be made to unite them formally.
    Its members came excusively from the G8 nations but since the end of the
    Soviet Unions has included a peppering of other nations elites,regulat
    attendees power doesnt stop at one electoral term, it is a oligarchical
    dictatorship of a small ruling class,mostly even older than the soviet
    politburo.Annual meetings consist of 300—350 private citizens from
    Europe, Pacific Asia (Asia & Oceania)& North America, it exists to
    promote closer political and economic cooperation between these areas
    under USA’s hegemony & corporate politburo.
    G8 countries economies are the biggest in the world,Trilateral
    participants directly control corporate wealth in G8 nations & way
    beyond. Its top figures & controllers are known in financial circles as
    the “Masters of Universe”,their PR transforms genocidal Robber Barons
    transformed into philanthropists.It inlcudes heads of nato &
    US/UKmilitary ,intel services,billionaires,royalty,top politicians,heads
    of PR think tanks,editors & bankers,religious financial advisors.Last
    year there was a token trade unionist who is also a top banker,a leading
    geneticist & Oil scientist. 95% white& christian english speakers.
    Members who gain a position in their respective country’s government
    temporarily leave the commission. The trilateral commision is the apex
    of corporate fascism, G8 impliments its ideas & provides a “democratic”
    shroud.

    91yr old David “I love workers & indigenous people really” Rockefeller
    is the corporate elites “Emperor Ming”; Under his stewardship the Chase
    bank spread internationally and became a central pillar in the world’s
    financial system,the top corporate ban,it has a global network of
    correspondent banks that has been estimated to number about 50,000, the
    largest of any bank in the world now united with Morgan Bank. A notable
    achievement was the setting up of the first branch of an American bank
    at One Karl Marx Square, near the Kremlin, in the then Soviet Union, in
    1973. This was also the year Rockefeller travelled to China, resulting
    in his bank becoming the National Bank of China’s first correspondent
    bank in the US.
    In speeches David Rockefeller has thanked the owners & controllers of
    Washington Post, NBC etc for not mentioning the Trilateral Commission in
    its early years.From President Carter all US presidents have been
    groomed by it,George Bush snr was among the founding members of the
    Tri-lateral Commission, Bush junior has links from his fathers,Cheneys &
    Rumsfelds participation.
    He has been at the top for 40years helping form a Pax Americana with
    three trilateral areas under US hegemony,is pushing for a
    North&S.American superhighway & a American EU state.Until 1999 had major
    financial influence on Exxon Mobil which was one just one part of the
    vast Rockefeller Empire, now dissolved into Trusts & political
    influence.His granfather John Rockefeller senior was worth USD$200
    billion (plus or minus 30%, comparing wealth as a percentage of GDP in
    1911 to the same percentage in 2006)
    Besides Exxons links to Aushwitz company IG Farben, Morgan bank was the
    major backer of the attempted fascist military coup in 1933 stopped by
    retired marine General Butler who exposed it to the press & President
    Wilson.

    “In fact, after the 1960’s, the Trilateral Commission held its first
    meeting(s) to figure out how to deal with the wreckage of Liberal
    capitalism, and to make sure that nothing like the world youth protests
    of the 1960’s ever took place again. The Black Power revolts in the
    metropole, the anti-colonial protests, and the Vietnam anti-war movement
    had shaken them to the core. The leading countries of Europe, Japan,
    Canada, and the USA met in 1973 to form the Trilateral Commission, and
    this was the first major international capitalist criminal cartel, which
    birthed all the groups we are fighting now: WTO, IMF, and others.”
     http://www.ainfos.ca/01/mar/ainfos00141.html Lorenzo Komboa Ervin ex
    black panther/anarchist

    “The Trilateral Commission has issued one major book-length report,
    namely, The Crisis of Democracy(Michel Crozier, Samuel Huntington& Joji
    Watanuki 1975). Given the intimate connections between the Commission
    and the Carter Administration, the study is worth careful attention, as
    an indication of the thinking that may well lie behind its domestic
    policies, as well as the policies undertaken in other industrial
    democracies in the coming years.The effective operation of a democratic
    political system usually requires some measure of apathy& noninvolvement
    on the part of some individuals& groups.” Naom Chomsky.
     http://www.chomsky.info/books/priorities01.htm
    Chomsky argued the lie of corporate democracy is shown primarily by the
    Trilateral Commission who had 19 top members of US government including
    Carter as members straight after its formation.But now he dismisses the
    Trilateral Oligarchy the strong rumours that trilateral is a”zionist
    conspiracy” push many scholars away, the main argument in the
    “trilateral zionist thesis”

    The scariest thing about the Trilateral Commission is that behind their
    liberal veneer Kissinger the Trilateral/USA chief intellectual wrote
    National Security Council documents on global depopulation, that Bush
    Senior admitted were a top priority whilst Chief of the CIA.Is their
    ignorance of global warming just for commercial reasons?

    Halliburton directors, C.J. Silas and L.S. Eagleburger, have both been
    members of the Trilateral Commission. Lee Raymond CEO Exxon Mobil & Bill
    clinton,Melinda Gates have all attended.

     http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=1267
     http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/talbott/20060630.htm advice for G8
    on Russia by Brookings institute,Trilateral member
     http://www.schnews.org.uk/bilderberg/index.html schnews at brighton.co.uk
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB5WgBtTbuI
     http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Trilateral_Commission
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilateral_commission
     http://www.trilateral.org/recent.htm
     http://www.akpress.org/1996/items/trilateralism ZNET writer Holly Sklar
     http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Trilateralism/Trilateralism_Sklar.html
    1980 ed
     http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ruling_Elites/Ruling_Elites.html email
    sub: PEPIS-subscribe at googlegroups.com for Ruling Elite info, 4.5 million
    people visited Third World Traveler in 2006
    *Leeds university geography course mentions the Trilateral
    Commission,traditionall political & internation relation departments
    rarely mention them,is this is as Trilateralism is in the corporatism
    paradigm & its a paradigm university Proffessors presume too dangerous
    if they want to keep courses funded?. siteengineers
    sci-eng at library.leeds.ac.uk
    *American Hegemony and the Trilateral Commission (Paperback)1991 Stephen
    Gill,gramscian scholar
     http://www.amazon.ca/American-Hegemony-Trilateral-Commission-Stephen/dp/052142433X

    Trilaterals over Washington by Antony C.Sutton& Patrick M. Wood 1978
    first book on TLC in english language although
     http://www.newswithviews.com/Wood/patrick9.htm
    * http://www.asiasociety.org/support/specialevents/anniversary_dinner/galaspeeches.html
    Asia society speeches by TLC elite & Koffi Annan DavidRockefeller on
    China”I’ve been making frequent trips there, ever since, for example, I
    had the good fortune to meet in 1973 with Prime Minister Zhou En-lai and
    subsequently with Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin in connection with the
    Trilateral Commission.”

    Note besides their responsibility for organising illegal wars it is
    illegal for members of government in many nations to attend private
    undeclared & un minuted meetings.Many attendees only attend one year or
    on a token basis from non G8 nations & are manipulated to further the
    agenda of the core group regular attendees, who meet regularly in secret
    throughout the year. Regular core group attendess are at the top &
    others known are highlighted, underlined are members of Belgium
    government & Germany.Members known to have committed war crimes are
    highlighted & in italliccs. As I live in the UK, British & Irish
    attendees & members are at the top, the rest are in alphabetic order, if
    full list of attendees is not included in your printed copy, please
    check  https://publish.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/01/360479.html?c=on#c164886

    Annual Meeting of the illegal Trilateral Commission Brussels, Belgium,
    March 16-19, 2007
    location is usually a 5star hotel with room for 300plus & golfing
    facilities

    In 2008 Trilateral Commission meets in Washington DC,April 18-21, 2008

    February 2006:*Executive Committee
    THOMAS S. FOLEY, North American Chairman PETER SUTHERLAND, European
    Chairman YOTARO KOBAYASHI, Pacific Asia Chairman
    ALLAN E. GOTLIEB, North American Deputy Chairman HERVÉ DE CARMOY,
    European Pacific Deputy Chairman KIM KYUNG-WON, Asia Deputy Chairman
    LORENZO H. ZAMBRANO, North American Deputy Chairman ANDRZEJ OLECHOWSKI,
    European Pacific Deputy Chairman SHIJURO OGATA, Asia Deputy Chairman
    DAVID ROCKEFELLER, Founder and Honorary Chairman PAUL A. VOLCKER, North
    American Honorary Chairman
    GEORGES BERTHOIN, European Honorary Chairman OTTO GRAF LAMBSDORFF,
    European Honorary Chairman
    MICHAEL J. O’NEIL, North American Director PAUL RÉVAY, European Director
    TADASHI YAMAMOTO, Pacific Asia Director
    North American secretariat postal address: is 1156 Fifteenth Street, NW,
    Washington, DC 20005 telephone: 202-467-5410 telefax: 202-467-5415
    email: contactus at trilateral.org
    European secretariat postal address: 5, rue de Téhéran, 75008 Paris,
    France telephone: 33-1: 45 61 42 80 telefax: 33-1: 45 61 42 80 email:
    trilateral.europe at wanadoo. fr
    Pacific Asia secretariat postal address:Japan Center for International
    Exchange,9-17 Minami-Azabu,Minato-ku,Tokyo 106,Japan telephone: 81-3:
    3446-7781 telefax: 81-3: 3443-7580 email:admin at jcie.or.jp
    EUROPEAN GROUP
    > Peter Sutherland, European Chairman, BP p.l.c.; Chairman, Goldman
    > Sachs International;a financial adviser to the Vatican,steering
    > commitee bilderberg & member of European Round Table,
    Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General for
    Migrations; former Director General, GATT/WTO; former Member of the
    European Commission; former Attorney General of Ireland
    > Lord Brittan of Spennithorne, Vice Chairman UBS Investment Bank,
    > London; former Vice President,European Commission >Lord Gilbert,
    > Member of the House of Lords; former Minister for Defence, London
    > Richard Burrows, Governor, Bank of Ireland; Chairman, Irish
    > Distillers; Non-executive Director, Pernod Ricard; former President,
    > IBEC (The Irish Business and Employers Confederation), Dublin
    > Sir Ronald Cohen, Founding partner and Executive Chairman, Apax
    > Partners worldwide, London >Richard Conroy, Chairman, Conroy Diamonds
    > & Gold, Dublin; Member of Senate, Republic of Ireland
    Michel David-Weill, Chairman, Lazard LLC, worldwide; Managing Director
    and Président du Collège d’Associés-Gérants, Lazard Frères S.A.S.,
    Paris; Deputy Chairman, Lazard Brothers & Co., Limited,London
    > Bill Emmott, Editor, The Economist, London >Hugh Friel, Chief
    > Executive, Kerry Group, Dublin >Richard Olver, Chairman, BAE Systems,
    > London
    > Lord Kerr, Member House of Lords; Director of Rio Tinto, Shell, & the
    > Scottish American Investment Trust, London; former Secretary General,
    > European Convention, Brussels; former Permanent Under-Secretary of
    > State and Head of the Diplomatic Service, Foreign & Commonwealth
    > Office, London; former British Ambassador to the United States >Robin
    > Buchanan, Senior Partner, Bain & Company, London
    > Peter Mandelson, Member of the European Commission (Trade), Brussels;
    > former Member of the British Parliament; former Secretary of State to
    > Northern Ireland and for Trade and Industry
    > Francis Maude, Member of the British Parliament; Chairman of the
    > Conservative Party; Director, Benfield Group; former Shadow Foreign
    > Secretary, London
    > Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairman, Anglo American; former Chairman,
    > Royal Dutch/Shell Group,London >John Bruton, EU Ambassador & Head,
    > Delegation of the European Commission to the United States Lord Patten
    > of Barnes, Chancellor of the University of Oxford; Chairman,
    > International Crisis Group, Brussels; former Member of the European
    > Commission (External Relations), Brussels; former Governor of Hong
    > Kong; former Member of the British Cabinet, London Lord Simon of
    > Highbury, Member of the House of Lords; Advisory Director of Unilever,
    > Morgan Stanley Europe and LEK; former Minister for Trade &
    > Competitiveness in Europe; former Chairman of BP, London
    > Nicholas Soames, Member of the British Parliament, London >Sir Martin
    > Sorrell, Chief Executive Officer, WPP Group, London
    > Myles Staunton, Former Member of the Irish Senate & of the Dail;
    > Consultant, Westport, Co. Mayo >Paul Adams, Chief Executive, British
    > American Tobacco, London
    > General The Lord Guthrie, Director, N M Rothschild & Sons, London;
    > Member of the House of Lords; former Chief of the Defence Staff, London
    > Lord Garel-Jones, Managing Director, UBS Investment Bank, London;
    > Member of the House of Lords; former Minister of State at the Foreign
    > Office (European Affairs) Michel David-Weill, Chairman Lazard LLC
    > worldwide; Managing Director& Président du Collège d’Associés-Gérants,
    > Lazard Frères S.A.S., Paris; Deputy Chairman, Lazard Brothers & Co,
    > Limited,London
    > Myles Staunton, Former Member of the Irish Senate & of the Dail;
    > Consultant, Westport, Co. Mayo

    > Urban Ahlin, Member of the Swedish Parliament and Chairman of the
    > Committee on Foreign Affairs,Stockholm
    > Krister Ahlström, Vice Chairman, Stora Enso and Fortum; former
    > Chairman, Finnish Employers Confederation; former Chairman, Ahlström
    > Corp., Helsinki
    > Edmond Alphandéry, Chairman, Caisse Nationale de Prévoyance, Paris;
    > former Chairman, Electricité de France (EDF); former Minister of the
    > Economy and Finance
    > Bodil Nyboe Andersen, Chairperson of the Board of Governors, Danmarks
    > Nationalbank, Copenhagen
    > Jacques Andréani, Ambassadeur de France; former Ambassador to the
    > United State
    > Stelios Argyros,Chairman &Managing Director Preveza
    > Mills,Athens;former Member EU Parliament;former Vice President of
    > UNICE, Brussels;former Pres& Chairman of Board of Federation of Greek
    > Industries
    > Jerzy Baczynski, Editor-in-Chief, Polityka, Warsaw
    > Estela Barbot, Vice President, AGA, Porto; Vice President of the
    > Board, AEP — Portuguese Business Association; Consul of Guatemala,
    > Lisbon
    > Erik Belfrage, Senior Vice President, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken;
    > Director, Investor AB,Stockholm
    > Marek Belka, Executive Secretary, United Nations Economic Commission
    > for Europe (UNECE),Geneva; former Prime Minister of Poland, Warsaw;
    > former Ambassador-at-Large and Chairman,
    Council for International Coordination, Coalition Provisional Authority,
    Baghdad
    > Baron Jean-Pierre Berghmans, Chairman of the Executive Board, Lhoist
    > Group, Limelette, Belgium
    > Georges Berthoin, International Honorary Chairman, European Movement;
    > Honorary Chairman, The Jean Monnet Association; Honorary European
    > Chairman, The Trilateral Commission, Paris
    > Nicolas Beytout, Editor, Le Figaro, Paris ; former Editor, Les Echos,
    > Paris
    > Carl Bildt, Chairman, Kreab Group of public affairs companies;
    > Chairman, Nordic Venture Network,Stockholm; former Member of the
    > Swedish Parliament, Chairman of the Moderate Party and Prime
    Minister of Sweden; former European Union High Representative in
    Bosnia-Herzegovina & UN Special Envoy to the Balkans
    > Ana Patricia Botin, Executive Chairman, Banesto; Vice Chairman, Urbis;
    > Member of the Management Committee, Santander Group, Madrid
    > Jean-Louis Bourlanges,Member EU ParlIment (ALDE Group/UDF)&
    > Chairman,Committee on Civil Liberties,Justice & Home Affairs,
    > Brussels; former President of European Movement in France, Paris
    > Jorge Braga de Macedo, President, Tropical Research Institute, Lisbon;
    > Special Advisor to the Secretary General, Organisation for Economic
    > Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris;
    Professor of Economics, Nova University at Lisbon; Chairman, Forum
    Portugal Global; former Minister of Finance
    > François Bujon de l’Estang, Ambassadeur de France; Chairman, Citigroup
    > France, Paris; former Ambassador to the United States
    > Sven Burmester, Writer and Explorer, Denmark; former Representative,
    > United Nations Population Fund(UNFPA), Beijing; former World Bank
    > Deputy Secretary and Representative in Cairo
    > Hervé de Carmoy, Chairman, Almatis, Frankfurt-am-Main; former Partner,
    > Rhône Group, New York &Paris; Honorary Chairman, Banque Industrielle
    > et Mobilière Privée, Paris; former Chief Executive,
    Société Générale de Belgique
    > Antonio Carrapatoso, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Vodafone
    > Portugal, Lisbon; Member of Board of Directors, Vodafone Spain & Vodacom
    > Salvatore Carrubba, Culture Alderman, Municipality of Milan; former
    > Managing Editor, Il Sole 24 Ore,Milan
    > Henri de Castries, Chairman of the Management Board and Chief
    > Executive Officer, AXA, Paris
    > Jürgen Chrobog, Chairman, BMW Herbert Quandt Foundation, Munich;
    > former German Deputy Foreign Minister and Ambassador to the United States
    > Luc Coene, Minister of State; Deputy Governor, National Bank of
    > Belgium, Brussels
    > Vittorio Colao, Chief Executive Officer, RCS MediaGroup, Milan; former
    > Managing Director, Vodafone,Omnitel
    > Bertrand Collomb, Chairman, Lafarge, Paris; Chairman, World Business
    > Council for Sustainable Development >Eckhard Cordes, former Member of
    > the Board, DaimlerChrysler, Stuttgart
    > Alfonso Cortina, Chairman, Inmobiliaria Colonial; Chairman, Repsol-YPF
    > Foundation, Madrid >Thomas Enders, Chief Executive Officer, EADS,
    > Munich; Chairman, Atlantik-Brücke (Atlantic Bridge),Berlin
    > Baron Paul De Keersmaeker, Chairman of the Board of Domo, Corgo,
    > Foundation Europalia International & the Canada Europe Round Table,
    > Brussels; Honorary Chairman Interbrew, KBC,
    Nestlé Belgilux; former Member of the Belgian and European Parliaments
    and of the Belgian Government
    > Vladimir Dlouhy, Senior Advisor, ABB; International Advisor, Goldman
    > Sachs; former Czechoslovak Minister of Economy; former Czech Minister
    > of Industry & Trade, Prague
    > Pedro Miguel Echenique, Professor of Physics, University of the Basque
    > Country; former Basque Minister of Education, San Sebastian
    > Laurent Fabius, Member of the French National Assembly and of the
    > Foreign Affairs Committee; former Prime Minister & Minister of the
    > Economy & Finance, Paris Oscar Fanjul, Honorary Chairman, Repsol YPF;
    > Vice Chairman, Omega Capital, Madrid
    > Grete Faremo, Former Executive Vice President, Storebrand; former
    > Norwegian Minister of Development Cooperation, Minister of Justice and
    > Minister of Oil and Energy, Oslo
    > Nemesio Fernandez-Cuesta, Executive Director of Upstream, Repsol-YPF;
    > former Chairman, Prensa Española, Madrid
    > Jürgen Fitschen, Member of the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche
    > Bank, Frankfurt-am-Main >Klaus-Dieter Frankenberger, Foreign Editor,
    > Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurt am Main
    > Michael Fuchs, Member of the German Bundestag, Berlin; former
    > President, National Federation of German Wholesale & Export Traders
    > Lykke Friis, Head of European Department, Federation of Danish
    > Industries, Copenhagen >Antonio Garrigues Walker, Chairman, Garrigues
    > Abogados y Asesores Tributarios, Madrid
    > Wolfgang Gerhard, Member of the German Bundestag, Berlin >Mario Greco,
    > Managing Director & General Manager, Assicurazioni Internazionali di
    > Previdenza (A.I.P.), Milan
    > Sirkka Hämäläinen, former Member of the Executive Board, European
    > Central Bank, Frankfurt-am-Main; former Governor, Bank of Finland
    > Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Member of the European Parliament; former
    > Estonian Foreign Minister and Member of the Parliament; former
    > Ambassador to the United States, Canada and Mexico
    > Alfonso Iozzo, Managing Director, San Paolo IMI Group, Turin >Mugur
    > Isarescu, Governor, National Bank of Romania, Bucharest; former Prime
    > Minister
    > Max Jakobson, Independent Consultant and Senior Columnist, Helsinki;
    > former Finnish Ambassador to the United Nations; former Chairman of
    > the Finnish Council of Economic Organizations
    > Baron Daniel Janssen, Chairman of the Board, Solvay, Brussels
    > >Zsigmond Jarai, President, National Bank of Hungary, Budapest
    > Trinidad Jiménez, International Relations Secretary of the Socialist
    > Party (PSOE) & Member of the Federal Executive Committee, Madrid
    > Béla Kadar, Member of Hungarian Academy,Budapest; Member of Monetary
    > Council of the National Bank; President of the Hungarian Economic
    > Association; former Ambassador of Hungary to
    the O.E.C.D., Paris; former Hungarian Minister of International Economic
    Relations and Member of Parliament
    > Robert Kassai, General Vice President, The National Association of
    > Craftmen’s Corporations, Budapest
    > Denis Kessler, Chairman& Chief Executive Officer, Scor, Paris; former
    > Chairman, French Insurance Association (FFSA); former Executive
    > Vice-Chairman, MEDEF-Mouvement des Entreprises de France (French
    > Employers’ Confederation)
    > Klaus Kleinfeld, Chief Executive Officer, Siemens, Munich >Sixten
    > Korkman, Managing Director, Finnish Business and Policy Forum EVA,
    > Helsinki
    > Jiri Kunert, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Zivnostenska banka;
    > President of the Czech Association of Banks, Prague
    > Count Otto Lambsdorff, Partner, Wessing Lawyers, Düsseldorf; Chairman,
    > Friedrich Naumann Foundation, Berlin; former Member of German
    > Bundestag; Honorary Chairman, Free Democratic
    Party; former Federal Minister of Economy; former President of the
    Liberal International; Honorary European Chairman, The Trilateral
    Commission, Paris
    > Kurt Lauk,Member EU Parliament(EPP Group-CDU); Chairman Globe Capital
    > Partners,Stuttgart; President, Economic Council of the CDU Party,
    > Berlin; former Member of the Board, DaimlerChrysler, Stuttgart
    > Anne Lauvergeon, Chairperson of the Executive Board, Areva;
    > Chairperson and Chief Executive Officer, Cogema, Paris
    > Pierre Lellouche, Member of the French National Assembly and of the
    > Foreign Affairs Committee, Paris; President, NATO Parliamentary Assembly
    > Enrico Letta, Member EU Parliament (ALDE Group), Brussels; Secretary
    > General, AREL; Vice President, Aspen Institute; former Minister of
    > European Affairs, Industry,&of Industry &International Trade, Rome
    > André Leysen, Honorary Chairman, Gevaert, Antwerp; Honorary Chairman,
    > Agfa-Gevaert Group
    > Marianne Lie, Director General, Norwegian Shipowner’s Association,
    > Oslo >Count Maurice Lippens, Chairman, Fortis, Brussels Helge Lund,
    > Chief Executive Officer of the Norwegian Oil Company, Statoil, Oslo
    > Cees Maas, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the ING Group,
    > Amsterdam; former Treasurer of the Dutch Government
    > Abel Matutes, Chairman, Empresas Matutes, Ibiza; former Member of the
    > European Commission, Brussels; former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Madrid
    > Vasco de Mello, Vice Chairman, José de Mello SGPS, Lisbon >Joao de
    > Menezes Ferreira, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ECO-SOROS,
    > Lisbon; formerMember of the Portuguese Parliament
    > Peter Mitterbauer, Honorary President, The Federation of Austrian
    > Industry, Vienna; President and Chief Executive Officer, MIBA, Laakirchen
    > Dominique Moïsi, Special Advisor to the Director General of the French
    > Institute for International Relations (IFRI), Paris
    > Luca Cordero di Montezemolo, Chairman, Fiat, Turin; Chairman,
    > Confindustria (Italian Confederation of Industry), Rome
    > Mario Monti, President and Professor Emeritus, Bocconi University,
    > Milan; Chairman of BRUEGEL and of ECAS, Brussels; former Member of the
    > European Commission (Competition Policy)
    > Klaus-Peter Müller, Chairman of the Board of Managing Directors,
    > Commerzbank, Frankfurt-am-Main; President, Association of German Banks
    > (BDB), Berlin
    > Heinrich Neisser former President Politische Akademie, Vienna;
    > Professor Political Sciences at Innsbruck University; former Member of
    > Austrian Parliament & Second President of the National Assembly
    > Harald Norvik, Chairman and Partner, ECON Management; former President
    > and Chief Executive, Statoil, Oslo
    > Arend Oetker, President, German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP);
    > Vice Chairman, Federation of German Industries; Managing Director, Dr.
    > Arend Oetker Holding, Berlin
    > Andrzej Olechowski, Leader, Civic Platform; former Chairman, Bank
    > Handlowy; former Minister of Foreign Affairs and of Finance, Warsaw
    > Janusz Palikot,Chairman Supervisory Board Polmos Lublin; Vice
    > President Polish Confederation of Private Employers; Co-owner
    > Publishing House slowo/obraz terytoria; Member Board ofDirectors,
    > Polish Business Council, Warsaw
    > Dimitry Panitza, Founding Chairman, The Free and Democratic Bulgaria
    > Foundation; Founder and Chairman, The Bulgarian School of Politics, Sofia
    > Lucas Papademos, Vice President, European Central Bank,
    > Frankfurt-am-Main; former Governor of the Bank of Greece
    > Schelto Patijn, Member of the Supervisory Board of the Schiphol Group
    > and Amsterdam RAI; former Mayor of the City of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    > Volker Perthes, Director, SWP (German Institute for International and
    > Security Affairs), Berlin >Dieter Pfundt, Personally Liable Partner,
    > Sal. Oppenheim Bank, Frankfurt
    > Josep Piqué, Chairman of the Popular Party of Catalunya, Barcelona;
    > Member Parliament of Catalunya; Member of the Spanish Senate; former
    > Minister of Foreign Affairs
    > Benoît Potier, Chairman of the Management Board, L’Air Liquide, Paris
    > >Alessandro Profumo, Chief Executive Officer, UniCredito Italiano, Milan
    > Luigi Ramponi, Member of Parliament; Chairman of the Defence Committee
    > of the Chamber of Deputies, Rome; former Deputy Chief of the Defence
    > Staff (Italian Army)
    > Wanda Rapaczynska, President of the Management Board, Agora, Warsaw
    > >Gianfelice Rocca, Chairman, Techint Group of Companies, Milan; Vice
    > President, Confindustria
    > Heinz Riesenhuber, Member of the German Bundestag; former Federal
    > Minister of Research& Technology, Berlin; Chairman of the Supervisory
    > Boards of Kabel Deutschland and of Evotec
    > H. Onno Ruding, Chairman, Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS),
    > Brussels; former Vice Chairman, Citibank; former Dutch Minister of
    > Finance
    > Anthony Ruys, former Chairman of the Executive Board, Heineken,
    > Amsterdam >Ferdinando Salleo, Vice Chairman, MCC Mediocredito
    > Centrale, Rome; former Ambassador to the United States
    > Jacques Santer, Honorary State Minister, Luxembourg; former Member of
    > the European Parliament; former President of the European Commission;
    > former Prime Minister of Luxembourg
    > Silvio Scaglia, Chairman, Fastweb, Milan; former Managing Director,
    > Omnitel >Paolo Scaroni, Chief Executive Officer, ENEL, Rome
    > Guido Schmidt-Chiari, Chairman, Constantia Group; former Chairman,
    > Creditanstalt Bankverein,Vienna
    > Henning Schulte-Noelle, Chairman of the Supervisory Board, Allianz,
    > Munich Prince Charles of Schwarzenberg,Founder& Director Nadace
    > Bohemiae, Prague; Member Czech Senate;former Chancellor to President
    > Havel;former President of International Helsinki Federation for Human
    > Rights
    > Carlo Secchi, Professor of European Economic Policy, Bocconi
    > University, Milan; former Member of Italian Senate& EU Parliament
    > >Tøger Seidenfaden, Editor-in-Chief, Politiken, Copenhagen
    > Maurizio Sella, Chairman, Banca Sella, Biella; Chairman, Association
    > of Italian Banks (A.B.I.), Rome; Chairman, Finanziaria Bansel
    > Slawomir S. Sikora, Chief Executive Officer and Citigroup Country
    > Officer for Poland, Bank Handlowy w Warszawie, Warsaw
    > Stefano Silvestri, President, Institute for International Affairs
    > (IAI), Rome; Commentator, Il Sole 24 Ore; former Under Secretary of
    > State for Defence, Italy Thorvald Stoltenberg,President,Norwegian Red
    > Cross, Oslo; former Co-Chairman (UN) of the Steering Committee of the
    > International Conference on Former Yugoslavia; former Foreign Minister
    > of Norway; former UN High Commissioner for Refugees
    > Petar Stoyanov, President, Centre for Political Dialogue, Sofia;
    > former President of Bulgaria >Peter Straarup,Chairman of Executive
    > Board Danske Bank,Copenhagen;Chairman Danish Bankers Association
    > Björn Svedberg, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Ericsson,
    > Stockholm; former President and Group Chief Executive, Skandinaviska
    > Enskilda Banken
    > Péter Székely, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Transelektro,
    > Budapest; President, Confederation of Hungarian Employers’
    > Organisations for International Co-operation (CEHIC); Vice President,
    Confederation of Hungarian Employers and Industrialists
    > Pavel Telicka, Partner, BXL-Consulting, >Jean-Philippe Thierry,
    > Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AGF (Assurances Générales de
    > France),Paris
    > Marco Tronchetti Provera, Chairman, Telecom Italia; Chairman and Chief
    > Executive Officer, Pirelli & C., Milan >Elsbeth Tronstad, Executive
    > Vice President, ABB, Oslo
    > Loukas Tsoukalis, Special Adviser to President of EU
    > Commission;Professor at University Athens& the College of Europe;
    > President of the Hellenic Foundation for European & Foreign Policy
    > (ELIAMEP), Athens Mario Vargas Llosa, Writer and Member of the Royal
    > Spanish Academy, Madrid
    > George Vassiliou, former Head of Negotiating Team for Accession of
    > Cyprus to EU; former President of Republic of Cyprus; former Member of
    > Parliament and Leader of United Democrats, Nicosia
    > Franco Venturini, Foreign Correspondent, Corriere della Sera, Rome
    > Friedrich Verzetnitsch, Member of Austrian Parliament; President,
    > Austrian Federation of Trade Unions,Vienna; President, European Trade
    > Union Confederation (ETUC) Marko Voljc, General Manager of Central
    > Europe Directorate, KBC Bank Insurance Holding, Brussels; former Chief
    > Executive Officer, Nova Ljubljanska Banka, Ljubljana
    > Alexandr Vondra, Managing Director of the Prague Office, Dutko Group
    > Companies; former Czech Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
    > Joris Voorhoeve, Member of the Council of State; former Member of the
    > Dutch Parliament; former Minister of Defence, The Hague
    > Panagis Vourloumis, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Hellenic
    > Telecommunications Organization (O.T.E.), Athens
    > Marcus Wallenberg, Chairman of the Board, Skandinaviska Enskilda
    > Banken (SEB), Stockholm Serge Weinberg, Member and Chairman-designate
    > of the Supervisory Board Accor; Chairman Weinberg Capital Partners;
    > former Chairman of the Management Board, Pinault-Printemps-Redoute;
    former President, Institute of International and Strategic Studies
    (IRIS), Paris
    > Heinrich Weiss, Chairman, SMS, Düsseldorf; former President,
    > Federation of German Industries, Berlin >Nout Wellink, President,
    > Dutch Central Bank, Amsterdam
    > Arne Wessberg, Director General, YLE (Finnish Broadcasting Company)
    > and Director General, YLE >Group (YLE and Digits Oy), Helsinki;
    > President, European Broadcasting Union (EBU)
    > Norbert Wieczorek, former Member of German Bundestag & Deputy Chairman
    > of the SPD Parliamentary Group, Berlin >Hans Wijers, Chairman and
    > Chief Executive Officer, Akzo Nobel, Arnhem
    > Otto Wolff von Amerongen, Honorary Chairman, East Committee of the
    > German Industry; Chairman& Chief Executive Officer, Otto Wolff
    > Industrieberatung und Beteiligung, Cologne
    > Emilio Ybarra, former Chairman, Banco Bilbao-Vizcaya, Madrid Former
    > Members in Public Service
    > Lene Espersen, Minister of Justice, Denmark >Pedro Solbes, Deputy
    > Prime Minister and Minister of the Economy and Finances, Spain Harri
    > Tiido, Ambassador of Estonia and Head of the Estonian Mission to NATO,
    > Brussels >Karsten D. Voigt, Coordinator of German-American
    > Cooperation, Federal Foreign Ministry, Germany
    NORTH AMERICAN GROUP
    > Madeleine K. Albright, Principal, The Albright Group LLC, Washington,
    > DC; former U.S. Secretary of State
    > Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science& International
    > Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA >G.Allen Andreas,
    > Chairman&Chief Executive, Archer Daniels Midland Company, Decatur, IL
    > Michael H. Armacost, Shorenstein Distinguished Fellow, Asia/Pacific
    > Research Center, Stanford University, Hillsborough, CA; former
    > President, The Brookings Institution; former U.S. Ambassador
    to Japan; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
    > Charlene Barshefsky, Senior International Partner, Wilmer, Cutler &
    > Pickering, Washington, DC; former U.S. Trade Representative
    > Alan R. Batkin, Vice Chairman, Kissinger Associates, New York, NY
    > >Doug Bereuter, President, Asia Foundation, San Francisco, CA; former
    > Member, U.S. House of Representatives
    > C. Fred Bergsten, Director, Institute for International Economics,
    > Washington, DC; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
    > International Affairs
    > Catherine Bertini, Professor of Public Administration, Maxwell School
    > of Citizenship& Public Affairs, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY;
    > former Under-Secretary-General for Management, United Nations
    > Dennis C. Blair, USN (Ret.), President and Chief Executive Officer,
    > Institute for Defense Analyses,Alexandria, VA; former Commander in
    > Chief, U.S. Pacific Command
    > Herminio Blanco Mendoza, Private Office of Herminio Blanco, Mexico
    > City, NL; former Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development
    > Geoffrey T. Boisi, Chairman & Senior Partner, Roundtable Investment
    > Partners LLC, New York, NY; former Vice Chairman, JPMorgan Chase, New
    > York, NY
    > Stephen W. Bosworth, Dean, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts
    > University, Medford, MA; former U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea
    > David G. Bradley, Chairman, Atlantic Media Company, Washington, DC
    > >Harold Brown, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International
    > Studies, Washington, DC; General Partner, Warburg Pincus & Company,
    > New York, NY; former U.S. Secretary of Defense
    > Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor, Center for Strategic and International
    > Studies, Washington, DC;
    > Robert Osgood Professor of American Foreign Affairs, Paul Nitze School
    > of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; former
    > U.S. Assistant to President for National Security Affairs
    > Louis C. Camilleri, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Altria
    > Group, Inc., New York, NY Raymond Chrétien, Strategic Advisor, Fasken
    > Martineau DuMoulin LLP, Montreal, QC; Chairman of the Board of
    > Directors of the Center for International Studies of the University of
    > Montreal; former
    Associate Under-Secretary of State of External Affairs; former
    Ambassador of Canada to the Congo, Belgium, Mexico, the United States
    and France
    > William T. Coleman III, Founder, Chairman, and Chief Executive
    > Officer, Cassatt Corporation; Founder, former Chairman& CEO& Member,
    > Board of Directors, BEA Systems, Inc., San Jose,CA
    > William T. Coleman, Jr., Senior Partner and the Senior Counselor,
    > O’Melveny & Myers, Washington, DC; former U.S. Secretary of
    > Transportation
    > Timothy C. Collins, Senior Managing Director and Chief Executive
    > Officer, Ripplewood Holdings, New York, NY
    > Richard N. Cooper, Maurits C. Boas Professor of International
    > Economics, Harvard University,Cambridge, MA; former Chairman, U.S.
    > National Intelligence Council; former U.S. Under Secretary
    of State for Economic Affairs
    > E. Gerald Corrigan, Managing Director, Goldman, Sachs & Co., New York,
    > NY; former President,Federal Reserve Bank of New York
    > Michael J. Critelli, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Pitney
    > Bowes Inc., Stamford, CT >Lee Brooks Cullum, Columnist, Dallas Morning
    > News, Dallas, TX
    > Gerald L. Curtis, Burgess Professor of Political Science, Columbia
    > University, New York, NY; Visiting Professor, Graduate Research
    > Institute for Policy Studies, Tokyo
    > Douglas Daft, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Coca
    > Cola Company, Atlanta, GA
    > Lynn Davis, Senior Political Scientist, The RAND Corporation,
    > Arlington, VA; former U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control
    > and International Security
    > Lodewijk J. R. de Vink, Chairman, Global Health Care Partners,
    > Peapack, NJ; former Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer,
    > Warner-Lambert Company
    > Arthur A. DeFehr, President and Chief Executive Officer, Palliser
    > Furniture, Winnipeg, MB André Desmarais, President and Co-Chief
    > Executive Officer, Power Corporation of Canada, Montréal, QC; Deputy
    > Chairman, Power Financial Corporation
    > John M. Deutch, Institute Professor, Massachusetts Institute of
    > Technology, Cambridge, MA; former Director of Central Intelligence;
    > former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense
    > Jamie Dimon, President and Chief Operating Officer, JPMorgan Chase,
    > New York, NY >Peter C. Dobell, Founding Director, Parliamentary
    > Centre, Ottawa, ON
    > Wendy K. Dobson, Professor& Director, Institute for International
    > Business, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, Toronto,
    > ON; former Canadian Associate Deputy Minister of Finance
    > Kenneth M. Duberstein, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The
    > Duberstein Group, Washington,DC >Robert Eckert, Chairman and Chief
    > Executive Officer, Mattel, Inc., El Segundo, CA
    > Jeffrey Epstein, President, J. Epstein & Company, Inc., New York, NY;
    > President, N.A. Property, Inc. >Dianne Feinstein, Member (D-CA), U.S.
    > Senate
    > Martin S. Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics, Harvard
    > University, Cambridge, MA; President and Chief Executive Officer,
    > National Bureau of Economic Research; former U.S.Chairman, President’s
    > Council of Economic Advisors
    > Roger W. Ferguson, Jr., Vice Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal
    > Reserve System, Washington, DC
    > Stanley Fischer, Governor of Bank of Israel, Jerusalem; former
    > President, Citigroup International &Vice Chairman, Citgroup, New York,
    > NY; former First Deputy Managing Director, International Monetary Fund
    > Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Executive Officer, Federal
    > Reserve Bank of Dallas, Dallas, TX;
    former U.S. Deputy Trade Representative
    > Thomas S. Foley, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Washington,
    > DC; former U.S. Ambassador to Japan; former Speaker of the U.S. House
    > of Representatives; North American
    Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    > Michael B.G. Froman, Managing Director, Citigroup Alternative
    > Investments, Citigroup Inc., New York, NY
    > Francis Fukuyama, Bernard L. Schwartz Professor International
    > Political Economy, Paul H. Nitze, School of Advanced International
    > Studies, The Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC
    > Dionisio Garza Medina, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
    > Officer, ALFA, Garza Garcia, NL >Richard A. Gephardt, former Member
    > (D-MO), U.S. House of Representatives
    > David Gergen, Professor of Public Service, John F. Kennedy School of
    > Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; Editor-at-Large, U.S.
    > News and World Report
    > Peter C. Godsoe, Chairman of Fairmont Hotels & Resorts; Retired
    > Chairman and Chief Executive, Officer of Scotiabank, Toronto, ON
    > Allan E. Gotlieb, Senior Advisor, Stikeman Elliott, Toronto, ON;
    > Chairman, Sotheby’s, Canada; former Canadian Ambassador to United
    > States; North American Deputy Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    > Donald E. Graham, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Washington
    > Post Company, Washington DC
    > Jeffrey W. Greenberg, Private Investor, New York, NY; former Chairman
    > and Chief Executive Officer, Marsh & McLennan Companies
    > Maurice R. Greenberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, C. V.
    > Starr & Company, New York; former Chairman, American International
    > Group, Inc.
    > Richard N. Haass, President, Council on Foreign Relations, New York,
    > NY; former Director, Policy Planning, U. S. Department of State;
    > former Director of Foreign Policy Studies, The Brookings Institution
    > John J. Hamre, President, Center for Strategic and International
    > Studies, Washington, DC; former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense and
    > Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)
    > William A. Haseltine, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Haseltine
    > Associates, Washington, DC; President, William A. Haseltine Foundation
    > for Medical Sciences and the Arts; former Chairman and Chief Executive
    > Officer, Human Genome Sciences, Inc., Rockville, MD
    > Charles B. Heck, Senior Adviser and former North American Director,
    > Trilateral Commission, New Canaan, CT
    > Carla A. Hills, Chairman&Chief Executive Officer, Hills & Company,
    > International Consultants,Washington, DC; former U.S. Trade
    > Representative; former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    > Richard Holbrooke,Vice Chairman Perseus LLC, NY; Counselor Council on
    > Foreign Relations; former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations;
    > former Vice Chairman of Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation; former
    > U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European& Canadian Affairs;
    > former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
    > Affairs& former U.S.Ambassador to Germany
    > Karen Elliott House, Senior Vice President, Dow Jones & Company, and
    > Publisher, The Wall Street Journal, New York, NY
    > Alejandro Junco de la Vega, President and Director, Grupo Reforma,
    > Monterrery, NL >Robert Kagan, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for
    > International Peace, Washington, DC
    > Arnold Kanter, Principal and Founding Member, The Scowcroft Group,
    > Washington, DC; former U.S. Under Secretary of State >Charles R. Kaye,
    > Co-President, Warburg Pincus LLC, New York, NY Henry A. Kissinger,
    > Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc., New York, NY; former U.S.
    > Secretary of State; former U.S. Assistant to the President for
    > National Security Affairs,war criminal
     http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815881561030958784&q=trilateral
    > Michael Klein, Chief Executive Officer, Global Banking, Citigroup
    > Inc.; Vice Chairman, Citibank International PLC; New York, NY >Steven
    > E. Koonin, Chief Scientist, BP, London, UK
    > Enrique Krauze, General Director, Editorial Clio Libros y Videos, S.A.
    > de C.V., Mexico City, DF Robert Lane, Chief Executive Officer, Deere &
    > Co., Moline, IL Jim Leach, Member (R-IA), U.S. House of Representatives
    > Gerald M. Levin, Chief Executive Officer Emeritus, AOL Time Warner,
    > Inc., New York, NY
    > Winston Lord, Co-Chairman of Overseeers and former Co-Chairman of the
    > Board, International Rescue Committee, New York, NY; former U.S.
    > Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific
    Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to China
    > E. Peter Lougheed, Senior Partner, Bennett Jones, Barristers &
    > Solicitors, Calgary, AB; former Premier of Alberta
    > Roy MacLaren, former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom;
    > former Canadian Minister of International Trade; Toronto, ON
    > John A. MacNaughton, former President and Chief Executive Officer,
    > Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, Toronto, ON
    > Antonio Madero, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, San
    > Luis Corporacion, S.A. de C.V., Mexico City, DF
    > Sir Deryck C. Maughan, Managing Director and Chairman, KKR Asia,
    > Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., New York, NY; former Vice Chairman,
    > Citigroup
    > Jay Mazur, President Emeritus, UNITE (Union of Needletrades,
    > Industrial and Textile Employees); ViceChairman, Amalgamated Bank of
    > New York; and President, ILGWU’s 21st Century Heritage
    Foundation, New York, NY
    > Hugh L. McColl, Jr., Chairman, McColl Brothers Lockwood, Charlotte,
    > NC; former Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, Bank of America
    > Corporation
    > Marc H. Morial, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Urban
    > League, New York, NY; former Mayor, New Orleans, LA
    > Anne M. Mulcahy, Chairman and CEO, Xerox Corporation, Stamford, CT
    > >Indra K. Nooyi, President and Chief Financial Officer, PepsiCo, Inc.,
    > Purchase, NY
    > Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard
    > University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University,
    > Cambridge, MA; former Dean, John F. Kennedy School of
    Government; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense for International
    Security Affairs
    > David J. O’Reilly, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chevron
    > Corporation, San Ramon, CA
    > Richard N. Perle, Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute,
    > Washington, DC; member and former Chairman, Defense Policy Board, U.S.
    > Department of Defense; former U.S. Assistant Secretary of
    Defense for International Security Policy
    > Thomas R. Pickering, Senior Vice President, International Relations,
    > The Boeing Company, Arlington, VA; former U.S. Under Secretary of
    > State for Political Affairs; former U.S. Ambassador to the
    Russian Federation, India, Israel, El Salvador, Nigeria, the Hashemite
    Kingdom of Jordan, and the United Nations
    > Joseph W. Ralston, USAF (Ret)., Vice Chairman, The Cohen Group,
    > Washington, DC; former Commander, U.S. European Command& Supreme
    > Allied Commander NATO; former Vice
    Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Department of Defense
    > Charles B. Rangel, Member (D-NY), U.S. House of Representatives
    > Susan Rice, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC;
    > former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs; former
    > Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for African
    > Affairs,
    National Security Council
    > Hartley Richardson, President& Chief Executive Officer, James
    > Richardson & Sons, Ltd., Winnipeg,MB >Joseph E. Robert, Jr., Chairman&
    > Chief Executive Office, J.E. Robert Companies, McLean, VA
    > John D. Rockefeller IV, Member (D-WV), U.S. Senate, political heir to
    > David Rockefeller & probably next family trust controller, also on
    > Rockefeller Asia foundation
    > Kenneth Rogoff, Professor of Economics and Director, Center for
    > International Development, Harvard
    > University, Cambridge, MA; former Chief Economist and Director,
    > Research Department, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC
    > Charles Rose, Host of the Charlie Rose Show and Charlie Rose Special
    > Edition, PBS, New York, NY >David M. Rubenstein, Co-founder and
    > Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, Washington, DC
    > Luis Rubio, President, Center of Research for Development (CIDAC),
    > Mexico City, DF >Jaime Serra, Chairman, SAI Consulting, Mexico City,
    > DF; former Mexican Minister of Trade and Industry
    > Dinakar Singh, Founder and Chief Executive Officer, TPG-Axon Capital,
    > New York, NY; former Cohead, Principal Strategies Department, Goldman
    > Sachs
    > Anne-Marie Slaughter, Dean, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
    > International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
    > Gordon Smith, Director, Centre for Global Studies, University of
    > Victoria, Victoria, BC; Chairman, Board of Governors, International
    > Development Research Centre; former Canadian Deputy Minister
    of Foreign Affairs and Personal Representative of the Prime Minister to
    the Economic Summit
    > Donald R. Sobey, Chairman Emeritus, Empire Company Ltd., Halifax, NS
    > >Ronald D. Southern, Chairman, ATCO Group, Calgary, AB
    > James B. Steinberg, Dean, LBJ School of Public Affairs, University of
    > Texas, Austin, TX; former Vice President and Director of the Foreign
    > Policy Studies Program, The Brookings Institution,
    Washington, DC; former U.S. Deputy National Security Advisor
    > Jessica Stern, Lecturer in Public Policy, Belfer Center for Science
    > and International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA
    > Barbara Stymiest, Chief Operating Officer, RBC Financial Group,
    > Toronto, ON >Lawrence H. Summers, President, Harvard University,
    > Cambridge, MA; former U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
    > John J. Sweeney, President, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC Strobe Talbott,
    > President, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC; former U.S.
    > Deputy Secretary of State
    > Luis Tellez, Managing Director, The Carlyle Group, Mexico City, DF;
    > former Executive Vice President, Sociedad de Fomento Industrial
    > (DESC); former Mexican Minister of Energy
    > George J. Tenet, Distinguished Professor, Edmund A. Walsh School of
    > Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, DC; former U.S.
    > Director of Central Intelligence
    > John Thain, Chief Executive Officer, New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
    > former President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, Goldman Sachs & Co.,
    > New York, NY
    > G. Richard Thoman, Managing Partner Corporate Perspectives& Adjunct
    > Professor Columbia University, NY; formerly President& CEO, Xerox
    > Corporation; formerly CFO and Nº 2 officer, IBM Corporation
    > Paul A. Volcker, former Chairman Wolfensohn & Co., Inc., New York;
    > Frederick H. Schultz Professor Emeritus, International Economic
    > Policy, Princeton University; former Chairman, Board of
    Governors, U.S. Federal Reserve System; Honorary North American Chairman
    and former North American Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    > William H. Webster, Senior Partner, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
    > LLP, Washington, DC; former U.S. Director of Central Intelligence;
    > former Director, U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation; former Judge of
    > the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
    > Fareed Zakaria, Editor, Newsweek International, NY >Lorenzo H.
    > Zambrano, Chairman of Board& Chief Executive Officer, CEMEX,
    > Monterrey, NL;North American Deputy Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    > Ernesto Zedillo, Director Yale Center for Study of Globalization,Yale
    > University, New Haven, CT; former President of Mexico Mortimer B.
    > Zuckerman, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief, U.S. News & World Report, New
    > York, NY
    > Robert S. McNamara, Lifetime Trustee, Trilateral Commission,
    > Washington, DC; former President, World Bank; former U.S. Secretary of
    > Defense; former President Ford Motor Company. Vietnam war criminal &
    > black op organiser of murder of USS Liberty sailors by Israeli air
    > force to try & excuse USA into the war against Eygpt
    >  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6595846710992512471&q=source%3A14872107513460960153
    > David Rockefeller, Founder, Honorary Chairman, and Lifetime Trustee,
    > Trilateral Commission,New York, NY, Head of Chase Manhattan worlds
    > largest corporate bank with 50,000 branches & Morgan bank which tried
    > a military fascist coup in USA 1933,stopped by Marine General Butler
    > who was sickened by what he called the mafia oilers&bankers,still has
    > massive influence over Exxon Mobil world$ largest corporation∂ of
    > his grandfathers the 1st ever billionaires empire who had $40billion
    > 100years ago,head rockerfeller family trusts&CFR, re most financially
    > powerful person alive.
    Former Members In Public Service
    > Rona Ambrose, Canadian Minister of the Environment >Richard B. Cheney,
    > Vice President of the United States >Paula J. Dobriansky, U.S. Under
    > Secretary of State for Global Affairs >Bill Graham, Leader of the
    > Opposition, Canadian House of Commons >Paul Wolfowitz, President,
    > World Bank >Robert B. Zoellick, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State
    PACIFIC ASIAN GROUP strangely includes turkey & argentina
    > Narongchai Akrasanee, Chairman, Seranee Holdings Co., Ltd., Bangkok
    > Ali Alatas, Advisor and Special Envoy of the President of the Republic
    > of Indonesia; former Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs; Jakarta
    > Philip Burdon, former Chairman, Asia 2000 Foundation; New Zealand
    > Chairman, APEC; former New Zealand Minister of Trade Negotiations;
    > Wellington
    > Fujio Cho, President, Toyota Motor Corporation >Cho Suck-Rai,
    > Chairman, Hyosung Corporation, Seoul >Carrillo Gantner, Vice
    > President, The Myer Foundation; Melbourne
    > Chung Mong-Joon, Member, Korean National Assembly; Vice President,
    > Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA); Seoul
    > Barry Desker, Director, Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies,
    > Nanyang Techonological University,Singapore >Takashi Ejiri, Attorney
    > at Law, Asahi Koma Law Office
    > Jesus P. Estanislao, President and Chief Executive Officer, Institute
    > of Corporate Directors/Institute of Solidarity in Asia, Manila; former
    > Philippine Minister of Finance
    > Hugh Fletcher, Director, Fletcher Building, Ltd., Auckland; former
    > Chief Executive Officer, Fletcher Challenge >Shinji Fukukawa,
    > Executive Advisor, Dentsu Inc.
    > Hiroaki Fujii, Advisor, The Japan Foundation; former Japanese
    > Ambassador to the United Kingdom >Yoichi Funabashi, Chief Diplomatic
    > Correspondent and Columnist, The Asahi Shimbun
    > Ross Garnaut, Professor of Economics, Research School of Pacific and
    > Asian Studies, Australian National University, Canberra
    > Toyoo Gyohten, President, Institute for International Monetary
    > Affairs; Senior Advisor, The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi, Ltd. >John R.
    > Hewson, Member, Advisory Council, ABN AMRO Australia, Sydney
    > Han Sung-Joo, President, Seoul Forum for International Affairs;
    > Professor, International Relations, Ilmin International Relations
    > Institute, Korea University, Seoul; former Korean Minister of Foreign
    > Affairs;
    former Korean Ambassador to the United States;
    > Stuart Harris, Professor of International Relations, Research School
    > of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University,
    > Canberra; former Australian Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs
    > Azman Hashim, Chairman, AmBank Group, Kuala Lumpur >Ernest M. Higa,
    > President and CEO, Higa Industries >Shintaro Hori, Managing Partner,
    > Bain & Company Japan, Inc.
    > Murray Horn, Managing Director, Institutional Banking, ANZ (NZ) Ltd.,
    > Sydney; Chairman, ANZ >Investment Bank; former Parliament Secretary,
    > New Zealand Treasury
    > Hyun Hong-Choo, Senior Partner, Kim & Chang, Seoul; former Korean
    > Ambassador to the United Nations and to the United States; Seoul
    > >Nobuyuki Idei, Chief Corporate Advisor, Sony Corporation
    > Hyun Jae-Hyun, Chairman, Tong Yang Group, Seoul >Shin’ichi Ichimura,
    > Counselor, International Centre for the Study of East Asian
    > Development,Kitakyushu
    > Takeo Inokuchi, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Mitsui Sumitomo
    > Insurance Company, Ltd. >Noriyuki Inoue, Chairman and CEO, Daikin
    > Industries, Ltd.
    > Rokuro Ishikawa, Honorary Chairman, Kajima Corporation >Motoo Kaji,
    > Professor Emeritus, University of Tokyo
    > Kasem Kasemsri, Honorary Chairman Thailand-U.S. Business Council,
    > Bangkok; Chairman,Advisory Board,Chart Thai
    > Party;Chairman,Thai-Malaysian Association; former Deputy Prime
    > Minister of Thailand
    > Koichi Kato, Member,Japanese House of Representatives;former
    > Secretary-General, Liberal Democratic Party >Trevor Kennedy, Chairman,
    > Oil Search, Ltd.; Chairman, Cypress Lakes Group, Ltd.; Sydney
    > K. Kesavapany, Director, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies,
    > Singapore >Kim Kihwan, International Advisor, Goldman Sachs, Seoul;
    > former Korean Ambassador-at-Large for Economic Affairs
    > Kim Kyung-Won, President Emeritus, Seoul Forum for International
    > Affairs, Seoul; former Korean Ambassador to the United States and the
    > United Nations; Advisor, Kim & Chang Law Office; Pacific
    Asia Deputy Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    > Kakutaro Kitashiro, Chairman of the Board, IBM Japan, Ltd. >Shoichiro
    > Kobayashi, Senior Advisor, Kansai Electric Power Company, Ltd. >Kenji
    > Kosaka, Member, Japanese House of Representatives
    > Yotaro Kobayashi, Chairman of the Board, Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.; Pacific
    > Asia Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    > Akira Kojima, Chairman, Japan Center for Economic Research ( JCER )
    > >Koo John, Chairman, LS Cable Ltd.; Chairman, LS Industrial Systems
    > Co.; Seoul
    > Lee Hong-Koo, Chairman, Seoul Forum for International Affairs, Seoul;
    > former Korean Prime Minister;former Korean Ambassador to the United
    > Kingdom and the United States
    > Lee In-ho, University Professor, Myongji University, Seoul; former
    > President, Korea Foundation; former Korean Ambassador to Finland and
    > Russia
    > Lee Jay Y., Vice President, Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Seoul >Lee
    > Kyungsook Choi, President, Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul
    > Adrianto Machribie, Chairman, PT Freeport Indonesia, Jakarta >Minoru
    > Makihara, Senior Corporate Advisor, Mitsubishi Corporation
    > Hiroshi Mikitani, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer,
    > Rakuten, Inc. Yoshihiko Miyauchi, Chairman and Chief Executive
    > Officer, ORIX Corporation
    > Isamu Miyazaki, Special Advisor, Daiwa Institute of Research, Ltd.;
    > former Director-General of the Japanese Economic Planning Agency
    > Kiichi Miyazawa, former Prime Minister of Japan; former Finance
    > Minister; former Member, House of Representatives >Yuzaburo Mogi,
    > President and Chief Executive Officer, Kikkoman Corporation
    > Mike Moore, former Director-General, World Trade Organization, Geneva;
    > Member, New Zealand Privy Council, Auckland; former Prime Minister of
    > New Zealand
    > Moriyuki Motono, President, Foreign Affairs Society; former Japanese
    > Ambassador to France >Jiro Murase, Managing Partner, Bingham McCutchen
    > Murase, New York
    > Minoru Murofushi, Counselor, ITOCHU Corporation >Masao Nakamura,
    > President and Chief Executive Officer, NTT Docomo Inc.
    > Masashi Nishihara, President, National Defense Academy >Taizo
    > Nishimuro, Advisor, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
    > Toshiba Corporation
    > Roberto F. de Ocampo, President, Asian Institute of Management; former
    > Secretary of Finance, Manila >Toshiaki Ogasawara, Chairman and
    > Publisher, The Japan Times Ltd.; Chairman, Nifco Inc.
    > Sadako Ogata, President, Japan International Cooperation Agency
    > (JICA); former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    > Shijuro Ogata, former Deputy Governor, Japan Development Bank; former
    > Deputy Governor for International Relations, Bank of Japan; Pacific
    > Asia Deputy Chairman, Trilateral Commission
    > Sozaburo Okamatsu, Chairman, Research Institute of Economy, Trade &
    > Industry (RIETI) Yoshio Okawara, President, Institute for
    > International Policy Studies; former Japanese Ambassador tothe United
    > States >Yoichi Okita, Professor, National Graduate Institute for
    > Policy Studies >Ariyoshi Okumura, Chairman, Lotus Corporate Advisory,
    > Inc.
    > Anand Panyarachun, Chairman, Thai Industrial Federation; Chairman,
    > Saha-Union Public CompanyLtd.; former Prime Minister of Thailand;
    > Bangkok Ryu Jin Roy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Poongsan
    > Corp., Seoul >Eisuke Sakakibara, Professor, Keio University; former
    > Japanese Vice Minister of Finance for International Affairs
    > SaKong Il, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Institute for Global
    > Economics, Seoul; former Korean Minister of Finance
    > Yukio Satoh, President, The Japan Institute of International Affairs;
    > former Japanese Ambassador to the United Nations >Sachio Semmoto,
    > Chief Executive Officer, eAccess, Ltd.
    > Masahide Shibusawa, President, Shibusawa Ei’ichi Memorial Foundation
    > >Seiichi Shimada, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nihon Unisys,
    > Ltd.
    > Yasuhisa Shiozaki, Member, Japanese House of Representatives; former
    > Parliamentary Vice Minister for Finance
    > Arifin Siregar, International Advisor, Goldman Sachs (Pacific Asia)
    > LLC; former Ambassador of Indonesia to the United States; Jakarta
    > Noordin Sopiee, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Institute of
    > Strategic and International Studies,Kuala Lumpur >Suh Kyung-Bae,
    > President and Chief Executive Officer, Amore Pacific Corp., Seoul
    > Tsuyoshi Takagi, President, The Japanese Foundation of Textile,
    > Chemical, Food, Commercial, Service and General Workers’ Unions (UI
    > ZENSEN)
    > Keizo Takemi, Member, Japanese House of Councillors; former State
    > Secretary for Foreign Affairs >Akihiko Tanaka, Director, Institute of
    > Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo
    > Naoki Tanaka, President, The 21st Century Public Policy Institute
    > >Sunjoto Tanudjaja, President and Chief Executive Officer, PT Great
    > River International, Jakarta
    > Teh Kok Peng, President, GIC Special Investments Private Ltd.,
    > Singapore >Shuji Tomita, Senior Executive Vice President, NTT
    > Communications Corporation
    > Kiyoshi Tsugawa, Executive Advisor & Member of Japan Advisory Board,
    > Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc.; Chairman, ARAMARK ASIA Junichi Ujiie,
    > Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Nomura Holdings, Inc. Sarasin
    > Viraphol, Executive Vice President, Charoen Pokphand Co., Ltd.,
    > Bangkok; former Deputy Permanent Secretary of Foreign Affairs of
    > Thailand Cesar E. A. Virata, Corporate Vice Chairman and Acting Chief
    > Executive Officer, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC),
    > Manila; former Prime Minister of Philippines Jusuf Wanandi, Member,
    > Board of Trustees, Centre for Strategic and International Studies,
    > Jakarta
    > Etsuya Washio, President, National Federation of Workers and Consumers
    > Insurance Cooperatives (ZENROSAI); former President, Japanese Trade
    > Union Confederation (RENGO)
    > Koji Watanabe, Senior Fellow, Japan Center for International Exchange;
    > former Japanese Ambassador to Russia >Osamu Watanabe, Chairman, Japan
    > External Trade Organization (JETRO)
    > Taizo Yakushiji, Executive Member, Council for Science and Technology
    > Policy of the Cabinet Officeof Japan; Executive Research Director,
    > Institute for International Policy Studies
    > Tadashi Yamamoto, President, Japan Center for International Exchange;
    > Pacific Asia Director, Trilateral Commission >Noriyuki Yonemura,
    > Consultant, Fuji Xerox Co., Ltd.
    Note: Those without city names are Japanese Members, Korean names are
    shown with surname first.
    Former Members in Public Service >Hong Seok-Hyun, Korean Ambassador to
    the United States >Masaharu Ikuta, Director General, Postal Services
    Corporation.
    > Yoriko Kawaguchi, Special Advisor to the Prime Minister of Japan
    > >Hisashi Owada, Judge, International Court of Justice >Takeshi Kondo,
    > President, Japan Highway Public Corporation (Nihon Doro Kodan)
    PARTICIPANTS FROM OTHER AREAS “Triennium Participants”
    > Abdlatif Al-Hamad, Director General and Chairman, Arab Fund for
    > Economic and Social Development;former Kuwait Minister of Finance and
    > Planning André Azoulay, Adviser to H.M. King Mohammed VI, Rabat
    > >Morris Chang, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Taiwan
    > Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd.,Taipei
    > Omar Davies, Member of the Jamaican Parliament and Minister of Finance
    > and Planning, Kingston;former Director General, Planning Institute of
    > Jamaica
    > Hüsnü Dogan, General Coordinator, Nurol Holding, Ankara; former
    > Chairman of the Board of Trustees,Development Foundation of Turkey;
    > former Minister of Defence
    > Alejandro Foxley, Member of the Senate and former Chairman of the
    > Finance Committee and the Joint Budget Committee, Chilean Congress,
    > Valparaiso
    > Jacob A. Frenkel, Vice Chairman, American International Group, Inc.
    > and Chairman, AIG’s Global Economic Strategies Group, New York, NY;
    > Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, G-30; former
    Chairman, Merrill Lynch International; former Governor, Bank of Israel;
    former Economic Counselor& Director of Research, IMF; former Chairman,
    Board of Governors of the Inter-American
    Development Bank; former David Rockefeller Professor of Economics,
    University of Chicago >Victor K. Fung, Chairman, Li & Fung; Chairman,
    Prudential Asia Ltd., Hong Kong
    > Frene Ginwala, Speaker of the National Assembly, Parliament of the
    > Republic of South Africa, Cape Town
    > H.R.H. Prince El Hassan bin Talal, President, The Club of Rome;
    > Moderator of the World Conference on Religion and Peace; Chairman,
    > Arab Thought Forum, Amman
    > Ricardo Hausman, Professor of the Practice of Economic Development,
    > Center for International Development, John F. Kennedy School of
    > Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; former
    Chief Economist, Inter-American Development Bank; former Venezuelan
    Minister of Planning and Member of the Board of the Central Bank of
    Venezuela
    > Serhiy Holovaty, Member of the Supreme Rada; President of the
    > Ukrainian Legal Foundation; former Minister of Justice, Kiev
    > Sergei Karaganov, Deputy Director, Institute of Europe, Russian
    > Academy of Sciences; Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on
    > Defense and Foreign Policy, Moscow
    > Jeffrey L.S. Koo, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Chinatrust
    > Investment, Bank, Taipei >”Richard Li”, Chairman and Chief Executive
    > Officer, Pacific Century Group Holdings Ltd., Hong Kong
    > Ricardo Lopez Murphy, Visiting Research Fellow, Latin American
    > Economic Research Foundation, Buenos Aires; former Argentinian Finance
    > Minister and Defence Minister
    > Itamar Rabinovich, President, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv; former
    > Ambassador to the United States Rüsdü Saracoglu, President of the
    > Finance Group, Koç Holding; Chairman, Makro Consulting, Istanbul;
    > former State Minister and Member of the Turkish Parliament; former
    > Governor of the Central Bank of Turkey
    > Roberto Egydio Setubal, President and Chief Executive Officer, Banco
    > Itaú S.A. and Banco Itaú Holding Financiera S.A., Sao Paulo
    > Stan Shih, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, The Acer Group,
    > Taipei >Gordon Wu, Chairman and Managing Director, Hopewell Holdings
    > Ltd., Hong Kong Grigory A. Yavlinsky, former Member of the State Duma;
    > Leader of the “Yabloko” Parliamentary Group; Chairman of the Center
    > for Economic and Political Research, Moscow
    > Yu Xintian, President, Shanghai Institute for International Studies,
    > Shanghai >Yuan Ming, Director, Institute of International Relations,
    > Peking University, Beijing >Zhang Yunling, Director, Institute of
    > Asia-Pacific Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS),
    > Beijing >Wang Jisi, Dean, School of International Studies, Peking
    > University, Beijing

    A quote from David Rockefeller’s autobiography ‘Memoirs’ – 6-11-6: “For
    more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the
    political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack
    the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield
    over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we
    are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the
    United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’
    and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more
    integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you
    will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”

    Trilateral Commission
    * The three laterals are: Europe, US, Japan.
    * Organized by David Rockefeller.
    * Jimmy Carter among the founding members.
    * In the 1980 U.S. Presidential election, three major candidates were
    Trilateral members: George HW Bush, Walter Mondale, John Anderson
    (independent.)
    * Other members or former members: Alexander Haig, Zbigniew Brzezinski,
    Warren Christopher, Caspar Weinberger, Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara,
    George Shultz, John D. Rockefeller IV, Tom Foley, W. Michael Blumenthal,
    Cyrus Vance, Elliot Richardson, Paul Volcker, Bill Clinton, Count Otto
    Lambsdorff.
    * (members) Mayors: Tom Bradley, Andrew Young.
    * (members) Journalists: Katharine Graham (Washington Post), David
    Gergen (U.S. News and World Report)
    * Ronald Reagan disliked the Commission and what it stood for, but held
    a reception for it in 1984.
    * Pat Robertson: The Commission springs “from the depth of something
    that is evil.”
    * John Connally: The Republican Party “will never nominate a man who
    belonged to the Trilateral Commission.” Riiight.
    * At any given time, has around 325 members, each serving a 3 year “term”.

    Guantanamo as a symbol

    By Ramzy Baroud

    Guantanamo is a dark spot in U.S. history and shall go down in world history as a symbol of injustice and oppression

    11 January marked the sixth year anniversary of the establishment of the Guantanamo detention camp. Mere months after the start of the 2001 United States invasion of Afghanistan, a large cargo plane landed in a U.S. military base in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay, bringing in a group of hunchbacked, orange-clad, blindfolded, “terrorist” suspects, apparently representing the worst of the worst. They included children and aged men, charity workers, journalists and people who were sold to the U.S military in exchange for a large bounty.

    The debate over this notorious prison has ever since been marred by easy reductionism. The fact is that Guantanamo is neither a warranted compound holding “bad people” — as explained by the ever straightforward President Bush — nor is it a dark spot in the otherwise luminous U.S. record for respecting human rights, rules of war and international treaties. If anything, Guantanamo is a mere extension of a long list of untold violations practised by the Bush administration, which condenses the camp to being a symbol of widespread policy predicated on nonchalantly undermining international law.

    The prison is arguably one of the worst mockeries of international law, which was itself drafted partly by American legal experts. Past U.S. administrations may not have been devoted followers of the Geneva Conventions, but neither have they ever discarded international treaties as openly and as arrogantly as the current one. Former attorney-general Alberto Gonzales, a personal friend of President Bush, mastered this art in a way that allowed his bosses to adorn their gratuitous actions with the air of legitimacy. Guantanamo was his ultimate masterpiece.

    Hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners have subsequently been released, some to the custody of their respective governments. Roughly 275 remain in the camp. Out of a total of about 1,000 only 10 have been charged.

    The prisoners at Guantanamo are “among the most dangerous, best trained vicious killers on the face of the earth,” according to former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld. If that was the case, why wasn’t Rumsfeld prepared to try them in a court of law? After all his self-assured judgement shows that he possessed more evidence than needed by any court to convict and throw them into jail. But, of course, the subject of evidence or lack thereof was irrelevant.

    Neither habeas corpus, due process, nor any set of laws, national or international, mattered much to an administration that prided itself on its ability to transcend all of that. Of course, such disregard was justified on the basis of national interests and a whole set of tired pretences. Time, however, showed that Guantanamo, and the overriding militancy it symbolised, has probably done more damage to U.S. national interest than any other event in U.S. history.

    In the early years, prisoners at Guantanamo were held in open air cages, with nothing but a mat and a bucket for a toilet. Anthony D Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in Salon.com, “We now know that only a small percentage of the many hundreds of men and boys who have been held at Guantanamo were captured on a battlefield fighting against Americans; far more were sold into captivity by tribal warlords for substantial bounties.” Romero cites comments made by a former Guantanamo commander for several years, Brigadier General Jay Hood. The commander told the Wall Street Journal, “Sometimes, we just didn’t get the right folks.”

    Moreover, both former secretary of state Colin Powell and current Secretary Condoleezza Rice called for the shutting down of Guantanamo, along with various international bodies and numerous rights groups in the U.S. and abroad. But the Bush administration still persists in maintaining Guantanamo. The chances are if the Guantanamo prisoners were of any value in Operation Enduring Freedom and in the so-called global war on terror, whatever information some of them might have possessed has already been extracted, violently or otherwise. Moreover, if overwhelming evidence against them was indeed at hand, the Bush administration would have tried them long ago. Neither scenario is convincing.

    Leigh Sales, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald made the dubious assessment that the “the problem is what to do with the prisoners [if the detention camp is shutdown]. If they are moved to American jails, they will have to be charged and tried under U.S. law. Evidence gathered through coercive interrogations will not be admissible in regular courts and so Bush would risk watching the likes of Mohamed and Hambali walk free.” Such commentary, emulated by others, suggests that the underlying reason behind the preservation of Guantanamo is, more or less, national interests.

    However, Guantanamo is staying in business, for the exact same reason that the Iraq war rages on, and for similar reasons to why the Bush administration’s failing global policy persists. Shutting down Guantanamo would be an admission of defeat, a declaration of failure, which is something that the patrons of the empire cannot afford, at least not now.

    11 September was an opportune moment to turn a new doctrine into reality, as outlined by the Project for the New American Century, a desperate attempt to sustain an empire that is facing challenges. The tactics, utilised almost immediately after the terrorist attacks, pointed at a foreign and military policy style designed to free itself from accountability to anyone, including the American people, the United Nations and international law. Guantanamo is a grotesque representation of that tactic — and the failure of that tactic.

    Indeed, Guantanamo is a dark spot in U.S. history and shall go down in world history as a symbol of injustice and oppression. And it will continue to be a jarring reminder of the inhumanity, the torture, and the extreme violence associated with the Bush administration’s so-called war on terror.

    — Ramzy Baroud is a Palestinian-American author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in numerous newspapers and journals worldwide, including the Washington Post, Japan Times, Al Ahram Weekly and Lemonde Diplomatique. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London). Read more about him on his website: RamzyBaroud.net

    VIDEO: 1 In 5 Iraq Vets Have Brain Injuries

    0

    Time magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel discussed a new Pentagon report that says “1 in 5 American servicemen and women who have been in Iraq are coming back with brain injuries.” Stengel called it the “real toll” of the war, adding that “the legacy of that will last all of our lifetimes and it’s incalculable.”

    In total, according to Stengel, “more than 250,000 people” are affected by “mild traumatic brain injuries” sustained in Iraq.

    Brown Prepares to Sell UK Out to Globalist EU

    1

    Brown refuses to allow a referendum on the EU treaty, insists sovereignty be handed over to the globalists in Brussels

    Gordon Brown is bringing Britain’s political system into disrepute by refusing to hold a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty, the Tories have claimed.

    The accusation from William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, came as MPs of all parties lined up to demand a national vote before new powers are transferred to Brussels.

    Gordon Brown

    Mr Brown received an honorary doctorate from the University of Delhi in New Delhi, India, this week

    At the start of a five-week process to ratify the Treaty, tempers flared on both the Labour and Tory benches, after Speaker Michael Martin refused to allow an early vote on a referendum.

    Ian Davidson, the rebel Labour MP who has been rallying support for a referendum, said he was “very disappointed” by the Speaker’s decision.

    He vowed that last night’s failure to secure a vote was only the beginning of a “long battle”.

    He and a small number of other Labour MPs were preparing late last night to vote against giving the Bill necessary to ratify the Treaty a second reading.

    Launching the five-week ratification process, David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, denied the Treaty would mean any substantial transfer of power from the UK parliament and courts to Europe.

    “My case to this House is that this Treaty does not constitute fundamental constitutional change,” he said.

    He made clear he believed Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, had been wrong to promise to hold a referendum in 2004 on the Constitutional Treaty, the predecessor to the Reform Treaty, which should also have been left to Parliament to approve.
    advertisement

    Tories jeered derisively at Mr Miliband’s insistence that the “tide of Euro-federalism” had turned. Frank Field, a former Labour minister, said a number of Commons select committees had “reported that there is no substantial difference between what was a constitution and is now a treaty”.

    Mr Hague said the most serious charge against the Government was that it wanted to take the Bill “through Parliament without any of the consultation of the people that was promised at the last election, brazenly abrogating the commitment made by every major political party in this House to hold a national referendum in this event.”

    By breaking their promise for a referendum they were spreading distrust in politicians and the political process. “Today in our country, the word of government is less readily believed than at any time in our modern history,” Mr Hague told MPs.

    “Ministers, instead of tackling the apathy and cynicism that brings will only add to it with the weasel words with which they try to escape their referendum and commitment, bringing in their wake a political process that will be further devalued and the passage of a Treaty whose democratic legitimacy will never be respected.”

    Nasa probe reveals image of mystery figure on Mars

    2

    Life on Mars? Amazing photos from Nasa probe reveal image of mystery figure on Red Planet

    The Daily Mail 

    Does this photograph really prove that we are not alone in the universe?

    Images beamed back from Mars would suggest so – although to sceptics, it could just be a strange rock formation.

    Nasa’s Mars Explorer Spirit sent back images from the surface of the Red Planet four years ago, and there was initial disappointment among scientists that they lacked any signs of life.

    The ‘alien’ appears to be walking downhill

    But space and science fiction enthusiasts are convinced there is more than meets the eye, and after years of studying the images, have found what appears to be an alien figure walking downhill.

    The discovery of the life-like figure ambling across the surface of the planet is likely to further boost intrigue in our nearest neighbouring planet.

    An earlier rock formation, dubbed “the face of Mars” showed what appeared to be a human head staring into the night sky.

    The pictures, found on a Chinese website, are now creating a stir of excitement on the internet.

    Alien life: What seems to be a human-like Martian is pictured on Mars

    One keen stargazer said: “These pictures are amazing. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I looked and saw what appears to be a naked alien running around on Mars.”

    Nasa’s Mars Explorer Spirit is now starting its fourth year of exploration.

    Painstaking: Space enthusiasts spent four years analysing this image, which on much closer inspection shows the ‘alien’

    Enlarge the image

    Rovers are deployed because it has so far been too costly and difficult to achieve a manned mission to Mars, and because probes and satellites are too limited to explore the Martian surface.

    The Spirit rover was launched on June 10, 2003.

    One in ten RFID projects tag humans

    0

    The percentage of worldwide radio frequency identification (RFID) projects concerning tagging people has increased from eight percent to 11 percent over the last year, according to new research — with the healthcare sector set to see the benefits.

    Suzanne Tindal, ZDNet Australia

    Although privacy concerns have been aired over passports being RFID-tagged, let alone people, according to the report by RFID researcher ID TechEx, people should consider the benefits before becoming too concerned.

    The health sector is already taking up people-tagging, the ID TechEx report says, where it allows nurses to radio their location if they are being assaulted, reduce mother baby mismatches and baby theft, help severe diabetics with getting correct treatment, and monitoring disoriented elderly patients without the need for a dedicated member of staff.

    However Phillip Allen, analyst at research firm IDC, told ZDNet Australia that RFID does not seem to have gained a foothold in the Australian healthcare industry, and is unlikely to do so in the future.

    “The healthcare sector in Australia is classified as a late adopter of IT,” Allen said, adding healthcare organisations are struggling to fund the “stock standard areas of IT”, and are unlikely invest in forward-looking technologies such as RFID.

    “They have been technology laggards and under-investing in technology for over a decade,” he said.

    Allen said that even if healthcare organisations were to consider people-tagging, the resulting data could pose a problem. “They don’t have the systems in place to manage that volume of information,” he said.

    One exception is Rockhampton hospital, where Allen said nurses are given an RFID pendant to allow the hospital to monitor their location.

    Despite the likely slow uptake in the Australian healthcare industry, the country is proving an enthusiastic adopter overall. According to ID TechEx, Australia clocked up the seventh largest number of new RFID projects worldwide.

    USA was number one, with the UK and China following in second and third place, all three of which were classed as “endemic surveillance societies” in the 2007 International Privacy Ranking report, released at the end of last year.

    Diana crash survivor to testify

    0

    The only survivor of the crash that killed Princess Diana is scheduled to testify Wednesday at the inquest into her death.

    Trevor Rees, formerly known as Trevor Rees-Jones, was the front-seat passenger in the Mercedes that carried Diana, her boyfriend, Dodi Fayed, and their driver, Henri Paul. He sustained serious injuries in the Aug. 31, 1997 crash.

    Rees has said he has no memory of the crash. The last thing he remembers that night was the car pulling away from the Ritz Hotel in Paris, he has said. His next memory is more than a week later, in his hospital bed, when his parents told him everyone else in the car was dead.

    At the time of the crash, Rees was a bodyguard employed by Dodi Fayed’s father, Mohamed Al Fayed. He was assigned to guard the younger Fayed and, because she was Dodi Fayed’s companion on the trip, the princess as well.

    Rees suffered major injuries to his lower jaw, the base of his brain, and his pulmonary system and has had several surgeries and hospitalizations, some of which Al Fayed paid for.

    He no longer works on Al Fayed’s security team, and Rees has said what was once a good relationship with his former employer has broken down.

    In an interview with CNN’s Larry King Live in 2000, Rees said he left because Al Fayed pressured him to support conspiracy theories about the crash.

    “I felt my level of trust was breaking down” in the Al Fayed organization, Rees said. “I was informed by my solicitors that if I continued at work, they felt they could no longer represent me. That I was just being seen as a mouthpiece for whatever theories were being chucked up. And I made the decision eventually to leave.”

    In 2000, Rees published a book, “The Bodyguard’s Story: Diana, the Crash, and the Sole Survivor,” offering his account of the events surrounding the crash. He said Al Fayed tried unsuccessfully to stop the book’s publication in England.

    Rees told CNN he wrote the book to give a definitive account of what he remembered and knew, but also to counter Al Fayed’s accusations that his unprofessionalism caused the accident. Rees also said proceeds from the book helped pay his legal bills.

    Rees, a former soldier, was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the crash, but he has said that was routine for his work as a bodyguard because it meant he was free to move around.

    Rees has said he wasn’t happy with the Ritz departure plan on the fateful night, and that Dodi Fayed hadn’t given him or the driver enough advance notice of their destination.

    The plan to leave the Ritz by the back door, Rees told CNN, “was not the plan that I was happy with.” He also didn’t approve of Dodi Fayed’s plan to travel in a single vehicle — the Mercedes — with no security following behind.

    Other former bodyguards have testified at the inquest that Fayed rarely planned his schedule far in advance and was often eager to get to his destination quickly.

    Source

    The Emails that Dick Cheney Deleted

    0

    Harper’s Magazine

    Late last week, right after official White House spokesmen made a series of either evasive or completely false statements about the mysterious case of the vanishing, then reappearing, then perhaps no really vanished White House emails, Henry Waxman and his Oversight Committee announced some of the conclusions they had reached.

    Dan Eggen and Elizabeth Williamson published an account of it on Friday in the Washington Post:

    The White House possesses no archived e-mail messages for many of its component offices, including the Executive Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President, for hundreds of days between 2003 and 2005, according to the summary of an internal White House study that was disclosed yesterday by a congressional Democrat. The 2005 study – whose credibility the White House attacked this week – identified 473 separate days in which no electronic messages were stored for one or more White House offices, said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.).

    Waxman said he decided to release the summary after White House spokesman Tony Fratto said yesterday that there is “no evidence” that any White House e-mails from those years are missing. Fratto’s assertion “seems to be an unsubstantiated statement that has no relation to the facts they have shared with us,” Waxman said. The competing claims were the latest salvos in an escalating dispute over whether the Bush Administration has complied with long-standing statutory requirements to preserve official White House records – including those reflecting potentially sensitive policy discussions – for history and in case of any future legal demands.

    Waxman said he is seeking testimony on the issue at a hearing next month from White House counsel Fred F. Fielding, National Archivist Allen Weinstein and Alan R. Swendiman, the politically appointed director of the Office of Administration, which produced the 2005 study at issue.

    Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington has now posted a series of studies to help us zero in on just what’s missing. It will come as no surprise to most that the big offender is the men at the center of the most virulent scandals, and the missing email traffic relates just to those dates in which a federal prosecutor would have the most interest. Vice President Dick Cheney’s office destroyed its emails, in violation of the requirements of the federal records act and potentially criminal law, for the following days:

    September 12, 2003: The day on which the headlines in the New York Times read “federal appeals court in Washington yesterday rejected the Bush Administration’s effort to avoid releasing documents about Vice President Cheney Energy Task Force.”

    October 1, 2003: The day on which the Solicitor General argued to the Supreme Court that Vice President Cheney was entitled to keep all the details concerning his meetings with oil executives and their influence in his formulation of national energy policy confidential, including the names of the participants.

    October 2, 2003: The day on which senior Congressional Republicans began a rewrite of key energy legislation behind closed doors and without involvement of Democrats–but potentially with the involvement of Vice President Cheney and oil executives involved in his secret energy task force.

    October 3, 2003: The Senate approved a requirement that all future contracts to rebuild Iraq be granted on an open and competitive basis after airing open criticism on the closed and controversial process that resulted in multi-billion dollar noncompetitive contract awards to subsidiaries of Halliburton, the company which Vice President Cheney headed before he assumed office, and from which, under a deferred compensation agreement, he continues to receive more compensation than he receives from the Treasury for his services as vice president.

    October 5, 2003: Publication of the findings of a task force studying the development of the Iraqi oil industry and its potential for funding the costs of the occupation of Iraq.

    January 29, 2004: David A. Kay, the former chief American weapons inspector in Iraq, called for an independent inquiry into pre-war intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs as skepticism about the administration’s claims about Iraqi WMD grows.

    January 30, 2004: President Bush opposes an independent investigation of intelligence failures surrounding Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction stockpiles despite increasing demands for one by some U.S. lawmakers.

    January 31, 2004: Press reports focus on building speculation that an independent commission will be created to look into the White House’s basis for claims that Iraq had WMDs, accusations which were consistently led by Vice President Cheney.

    February 15, 2005: Citing the threat exemplified by 9/11, President Bush urges Congress to re-authorize the Patriot Act.

    February 16, 2005: An appeals court orders that two reporters who have refused to testify about their conversations with confidential sources regarding the leak that exposed the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame should be held in contempt. It would later be revealed that both had conversations with members of Vice President Cheney’s staff.

    May 23, 2005: Calls mount for the resignation of Tom Delay pending the outcome of an investigation into ethical violations. The Congressional and criminal investigation into Jack Abramoff widens to include long-time associate and fellow architect of the Republican takeover of the capital, Grover Norquist. The White House continues to obstruct efforts to identify who Abramoff saw in his hundreds of visits to the White House.

    The missing Cheney emails fit a pattern that suggests intentional rather than accidental destruction. They all occur on days on which, considering contemporaneous press reports, the Vice President or his staff members were in the news and would likely have been communicating on the subjects relating to the press coverage. The most persistent themes are the outing of Valerie Plame and Cheney’s secret dealings with a group of oil and gas executives who were directly influencing national energy policy. The Empty Wheel has some excellent analysis of these points.

    I keep wondering: have they checked that man-sized safe in Cheney’s office? Maybe he kept some copies there.

    And in the meantime, Blimp TV offers a promotional videotape for the administration’s proposed new petroleum-based coinage.

    VIDEO: Bush Pardon’s HIMSELF Against Warcrimes

    1

    President Bush Passes a Bill giving himself and his whitehouse retroactive immunity for possible war crimes!

    Don’t you wish we could all do that?

    NO WAY I WOULD BE A CRIMINAL!
    AMERICA WAKE UP and FIGHT BACK!!

    Against the NEW WORLD ORDER!

    The List: The World’s Top Spy Agencies

    0

    With the Cold War long over, the CIA no longer faces any real competition, right? Wrong. The world’s top espionage agencies are as busy as ever. This week, the FP List looks at the countries that best know how to wield a cloak and dagger.

    DENIS SINYAKOV/AFP/Getty Images

    Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR)

    Country: Russia

    Area of expertise: Officially–counterterrorism and protecting Russian commercial interests abroad. Unofficially–consolidating political power back home.

    Activities: Russia has a formidable spying tradition that dates back to the czarist-era Cheka. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the once omnipotent KGB was broken up into several smaller organizations with vastly limited powers. Since ex-KGB man Vladimir Putin took power, however, the SVR, or Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedk as it’s known in Russian, has recovered much of its swagger. Russian spying within the United States is now back to Cold War levels, U.S. officials believe. Peter Earnest, the executive director of the International Spy Museum in Washington, who matched wits with the KGB as a CIA operative for over three decades, shared this assessment. “They are as important today as they ever were, if not more,” he said. “Russia has not eased off at all on its espionage activities.” The SVR is widely suspected to have played a role in the assassination of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko in London last year. Putin has denied this allegation and lauded the SVR as “one of the most professional and effective special services.” In reality, the intelligence services have emerged as one of the most powerful political groups in Putin’s Russia, and ex-KGB agents occupy many of the Kremlin’s key positions. As the Russian saying goes, “There’s no such thing as an ex-Chekist.”


    FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP/Getty Images

    Ministry of State Security

    Country: China

    Area of expertise: Industrial espionage and data analysis, domestic security

    Activities: The MSS is close in structure to the old Soviet KGB and is responsible for both domestic security and foreign espionage. Its overseas activities are believed to be focused aggressively on the United States, particularly its high-tech industries and military technology. Rather than relying on a handful of agents, the MSS views almost anyone has a potential intelligence asset and gathers intelligence on new weapons systems painstakingly over time through personal contacts. “Chinese espionage is different than Western espionage,” says Earnest. “We go after a secret somewhere; they go after numbers. They collect little bits and pieces and put it together.” Sources often don’t even realize they’ve collaborated with a foreign spy mission, and the thousands of Chinese diplomats, students, and business people who travel to the West every year make spies incredibly difficult to detect. Through this method, the Chinese have managed to reverse engineer numerous U.S. weapons systems. China appears to be stepping up its espionage efforts in cyberspace as well. In September 2007, the Pentagon accused China of hacking into U.S. Defense Department databases. The governments of Germany and Britain have made similar accusations.


    Research and Analysis Wing

    Country: India

    Area of expertise: Destabilizing Pakistan

    Activities: RAW was founded in 1968 specifically to counter Pakistani support of militant groups within India, but over the years it has grown into one of the world’s most formidable intelligence services, with wide-ranging activities in Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bangladesh, and elsewhere. It is particularly active in Bangladesh, where it played a key role in that country’s movement for independence from Pakistan. Pakistani authorities often blame RAW for terrorist attacks in their country. Although these accusations tend to lack evidence, RAW does have a history of backing militant groups in Kashmir, Afghanistan, and Sri Lanka. Recent years have not been easy for RAW. In 1996, RAW was implicated in a scandal involving the illegal donation of funds to U.S. congressional campaigns. Stories about infiltration by U.S. and Chinese assets have become public scandals, and the media is now calling for greater transparency and oversight of the notoriously secretive agency.


    ROUF BHAT/AFP/Getty Images

    Inter-Services Intelligence

    Country: Pakistan

    Area of expertise: Destabilizing India

    Activities: Sometimes described as a state within a state with virtually no oversight, ISI is best known for the firm control it exercises over Pakistan’s politics and its role in protecting the military from domestic opposition. But the ISI has also been accused of playing both sides in the global war on terror–fighting Islamist extremists domestically while abetting them abroad. Whether spreading anti-Indian propaganda in Kashmir or funding Sikh separatists in Punjab, the ISI has consistently undermined India’s stability for decades. India has accused the ISI of involvement in dozens of terrorist attacks over the years, including the Mumbai bombings of 2006 that killed 187 people. At the same time, the ISI has worked with the U.S. and allies to combat al Qaeda and the Taliban inside Pakistan.


    ROUF BHAT/AFP/Getty Images

    Secret Intelligence Service (MI6)

    Country: Britain

    Area of expertise: Counterterrorism, James Bond nostalgia

    Activities: After a decade of budget cuts during the “peace dividend” years following the Cold War, Her Majesty’s secret service was caught somewhat unprepared for the challenges of the war on terror. On 9/11, only 30 of MI6’s 1,600 agents were working on counterterrorism. Since then, the agency has been on an all-out recruitment blitz that includes previously unheard of measures, such as taking out ads in newspapers and allowing agents to grant interviews. (Among the fun facts revealed: There really is a person called “Q” who designs gadgets, just like in the James Bond films, but “M” is actually called “C.”) MI6 has also taken out ads in online spy-themed computer games such as “Tom Clancy’s Splinter Cell.” This is a far cry from the Cold War era, when undercover recruiters surreptitiously singled out Oxford and Cambridge’s best and brightest for intelligence work. Despite the charm offensive, MI6 has been attacked in the British media for allegedly participating in CIA-organized “rendition” of terrorism suspects to be tortured abroad. Kremlin officials have also accused MI6 of trying to influence Russia’s domestic politics. MI6’s activities may not be as expansive as they once were, but Earnest characterizes this as “a shift in priorities” toward Middle Eastern terrorism, “rather than a decline.”


    The Mossad

    Country: Israel

    Area of expertise: Combating Islamist terrorism, evacuating Jewish refugees

    Activities: “We’re all students of the Mossad,” says Earnest. Since it was founded in 1951, “the Institute,” as it translates in English, has acquired a reputation for extraordinary skill and aggressiveness in combating Israel’s enemies. Some of its notable achievements include the abduction of Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann from Argentina in 1960, the assassination of the planners of the 1972 Munich Olympics killings, and the assassination of a senior Hamas operative with an exploding cellphone in 1996. The Mossad has also been active over the years in efforts to assist Jewish refugees who seek to immigrate to Israel, including the secret airlifting of thousands of Ethiopian Jews in “Operation Moses” in 1984. The Mossad made some moves toward greater transparency and openness in the 1990s, including revealing the name of its director for the first time, but under Ariel Sharon it turned back toward the clandestine operations for which it is best known. Reports indicate that the Mossad may have had either an agent or an informant at the Syrian military installation that Israel bombed in September 2007.

    US recruiting under diploma soldiers

    0

    Afghan military operations and the Iraqi war have forced the US army to recruit soldiers without high school diplomas to fill its ranks.

    National Priorities Project, a research group that analyzes federal data, found that the percent of Army recruits with a high school diploma dropped last year.

    According to the CBS News, in a report released Tuesday the research group said that nearly 71 percent of Army recruits graduated from high school in the 2007 budget year.

    All troops must have a high school diploma or an equivalent degree. The military prefers that they have a high school diploma because its studies have shown they are more likely to finish an enlistment term.

    The Army’s goal is 90 percent high school graduates, which it hasn’t met since 2004. Each year since, the number of recruits with at least a high school diploma has steadily declined.

    The Army has been under growing pressure to strengthen recruiting as part of an ongoing effort to increase its size.

    RB/RA

    How Cheney Fought To Give Bush Dictator Status

    0

    For three decades Vice President Dick Cheney conducted a secretive, behind-closed-doors campaign to give the president virtually unlimited wartime power. Finally, in the aftermath of 9/11, the Justice Department and the White House made a number of controversial legal decisions. Orchestrated by Cheney and his lawyer David Addington, the department interpreted executive power in an expansive and extraordinary way, granting President George W. Bush the power to detain, interrogate, torture, wiretap and spy — without congressional approval or judicial review.

    Now, as the White House appears ready to ignore subpoenas in the investigations over wiretapping and U.S. attorney firings, FRONTLINE examines the battle over the power of the presidency and Cheney’s way of looking at the Constitution.

    “The vice president believes that Congress has very few powers to actually constrain the president and the executive branch,” former Justice Department attorney Marty Lederman tells FRONTLINE. “He believes the president should have the final word — indeed the only word — on all matters within the executive branch.”

    After Sept. 11, Cheney and Addington were determined to implement their vision — in secret. The vice president and his counsel found an ally in John Yoo, a lawyer at the Justice Department’s extraordinarily powerful Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). In concert with Addington, Yoo wrote memoranda authorizing the president to act with unparalleled authority.

    “Through interviews with key administration figures, Cheney’s Law documents the bruising bureaucratic battles between a group of conservative Justice Department lawyers and the Office of the Vice President over the legal foundation for the most closely guarded programs in the war on terror,” says FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk. This is Kirk’s 10th documentary about the Bush administration’s policies since 9/11.

    In his most extensive television interview since leaving the Justice Department, former Assistant Attorney General Jack L. Goldsmith describes his initial days at the OLC in the fall of 2003 as he learned about the government’s most secret and controversial covert operations. Goldsmith was shocked by the administration’s secret assertion of unlimited power.

    “There were extravagant and unnecessary claims of presidential power that were wildly overbroad to the tasks at hand,” Goldsmith says. “I had a whole flurry of emotions. My first one was disbelief that programs of this importance could be supported by legal opinions that were this flawed. My second was the realization that I would have a very, very hard time standing by these opinions if pressed. My third was the sinking feeling, what was I going to do if I was pressed about reaffirming these opinions?”

    As Goldsmith began to question his colleagues’ claims that the administration could ignore domestic laws and international treaties, he began to clash with Cheney’s office. According to Goldsmith, Addington warned him, “If you rule that way, the blood of the 100,000 people who die in the next attack will be on your hands.”

    Goldsmith’s battles with Cheney culminated in a now-famous hospital-room confrontation at Attorney General John Ashcroft’s bedside. Goldsmith watched as White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Chief of Staff Andy Card pleaded with Ashcroft to overrule the department’s finding that a domestic surveillance program was illegal. Ashcroft rebuffed the White House, and as many as 30 department lawyers threatened to resign. The president relented.

    But Goldsmith’s victory was temporary, and Cheney’s Law continues the story after the hospital-room standoff. At the Justice Department, White House Counsel Gonzales was named attorney general and tasked with reasserting White House control. On Capitol Hill, Cheney lobbied Congress for broad authorizations for the eavesdropping program and for approval of the administration’s system for trying suspected terrorists by military tribunals.

    As the White House and Congress continue to face off over executive privilege, the terrorist surveillance program, and the firing of U.S. attorneys, FRONTLINE tells the story of what’s formed the views of the man behind what some view as the most ambitious project to reshape the power of the president in American history.

    “Inconsistencies” over Diana driver samples

    0

    The procedures used by French medical experts to collect samples from the body of Princess Diana’s chauffeur suffered “inconsistencies”, the inquest into her death was told on Monday by a leading British toxicologist.

    French and British police investigations have both concluded that Diana and her lover Dodi al-Fayed died in a high-speed Paris car crash because chauffeur Henri Paul was drunk.

    But Dodi’s father, luxury storeowner Mohamed al-Fayed, alleges that her son and Diana were killed by British security services on the orders of Prince Philip.

    He has also questioned the results of the tests taken on Henri Paul’s body after his death.

    Professor Robert Forrest, who reviewed all the medical reports into Paul’s death, ran through them again in meticulous detail for lawyers at the inquest.

    The court was told that important blood samples from Paul were originally thought to have come from the heart but in fact came from his chest cavity, a much less reliable measure.

    Forrest said Dr Gilbert Pepin, responsible for the French toxicology tests, believed they were heart samples.

    “I was there when Dr Pepin was told it was not cardiac blood, it was chest cavity blood. I still have a vivid recollection of the way that his face changed when he was told. He looked surprised,” Forrest told the court.

    There was also confusion over just how many samples of blood were taken and when exactly they were taken.

    “There are unresolved incompatibilities — inconsistencies I should say rather than incompatibilities,” Forrest said.

    He told the court: “The interpretation of samples is only as good as the samples themselves,” he told the court.

    “It doesn’t matter how sophisticated the analysis is, if you don’t have good material to work with, you have to qualify the interpretation of the data your laboratory generates,” he said.

    Reuters

    Bush and Bin Laden continue to benefit each other

    0

    By Robert Parry

    Just as Sylvester and Tweety Bird achieved lasting Hollywood fame from their comical cartoon chases, the less amusing duo of George W. Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to benefit each other by reviving their long-distance rivalry, one posturing against the other in a way that helps them both.

    In a new video, al-Qaeda leader bin Laden again taunts Bush, the United States — and then the Democrats for not forcing an American withdrawal from Iraq, which should help guarantee that the Democrats won’t dare press for a withdrawal from Iraq.

    At a summit of Pacific Rim leaders in Sydney, Australia, President Bush then did his part, highlighting bin Laden’s Iraq comments:

    “I found it interesting that on the tape Iraq was mentioned, which is a reminder that Iraq is part of the war against extremists. If al-Qaeda bothers to mention Iraq, it’s because they want to achieve their objectives in Iraq, which is to drive us out.”

    Except that U.S. intelligence has long concluded that al-Qaeda really wants the opposite: to bog the United States down in a hopeless, bloody war in Iraq that has been a boon for recruiting young extremists, raising money and protecting al-Qaeda’s leadership holed up in base camps inside Pakistan.

    Bin Laden continues to play the role of another cartoon character, Walt Disney’s Brer Rabbit, who escaped one famously tight spot by begging not to be thrown into the briar patch when that was exactly where he wanted to go. [For more details on this Bush-bin Laden symbiosis, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

    Cole attack
    At least since the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000, al-Qaeda’s strategy has been to draw the United States militarily into the Middle East to weaken the Americans by draining their resources and damaging their army.

    However, the Clinton administration couldn’t verify that al-Qaeda was behind the Cole attack until January 2001 and then turned over the evidence to the incoming Bush team, which didn’t act because it had other priorities.

    By summer 2001, U.S. intelligence was picking up chatter indicating that al-Qaeda was disappointed by the lack of a response to the Cole provocation but was confident that the next blow would force Washington’s hand.

    That next attack on Sept. 11, 2001, did compel an American military reaction, but al-Qaeda may have miscalculated as an effective U.S. counter-attack ousted al-Qaeda’s Taliban allies in Afghanistan and cornered bin Laden and other top leaders at Tora Bora.

    At that crucial point, however, Bush failed to dispatch sufficient U.S. troops to seal off bin Laden’s escape routes, allowing many of al-Qaeda’s top leaders to flee into the rugged tribal region of Pakistan.

    To al-Qaeda’s relief and amazement, Bush also began diverting key U.S. military resources away from Afghanistan toward Iraq, whose “secular” Sunni leader Saddam Hussein was an enemy of al-Qaeda’s Sunni “fundamentalists”.

    Bush’s invasion of Iraq eliminated a key Sunni rival in Hussein. As al-Qaeda gained strength, bin Laden came to see Bush as something of a strategic ally. When Bush found himself in a tight battle with Democratic Sen. John Kerry, bin Laden issued a videotape denouncing Bush on the Friday before Election 2004.

    The tape had the predictable effect of giving Bush a last-minute boost in the polls, which CIA analysts concluded was precisely bin Laden’s intent. Bin Laden wanted to keep Bush around as a foil for another four years. [See Neck Deep for details.]

    Prolonged war
    Also, contrary to Bush’s repeated assertions that al-Qaeda wants U.S. troops to leave Iraq so it can establish a safe haven there, the terrorist group’s internal messages, which have been intercepted by U.S. intelligence, reveal that al-Qaeda fears most the impact of a sudden American withdrawal.

    A July 9, 2005, letter attributed to al-Qaeda’s second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri warned that a rapid U.S. pullout could cause al-Qaeda’s new recruits, who traveled to Iraq to wage war on the Americans, to simply give up the fight and go home.

    “They must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal,” wrote Zawahiri, who worried that a premature departure of the Americans also might leave the depleted ranks of al-Qaeda foreign fighters at the mercy of angry Iraqis.

    Another internal communiqué revealed that al-Qaeda’s real wish was for the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely, so the terrorist group could continue recruiting and training young people while buying time to overcome the hostility of Iraqis toward outsiders.

    In a letter to Zarqawi, dated Dec. 11, 2005, “Atiyah,” another top aide to bin Laden, described the hard work needed to overcome the animosity of Sunni tribal leaders. In that context, Atiyah said the continued American presence was crucial.

    “Prolonging the war is in our interest,” Atiyah wrote in a letter captured when Zarqawi was killed in June 2006. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Al-Qaeda’s Fragile Foothold.”]

    So, the interests of President Bush and Osama bin Laden continue to dovetail perfectly. The open-ended “war on terror” has allowed Bush to consolidate previously unimaginable powers for a U.S. chief executive.

    Now, as Bush faces another Democratic challenge to his plans for continuing the Iraq War, bin Laden shows up again, essentially berating the Democrats for not forcing U.S. troop withdrawals.

    “The vast majority of you [Americans] want it [the Iraq War] stopped,” bin Laden said. “Thus you elected the Democratic Party for this purpose, but the Democrats haven’t made a move worth mentioning.”

    That means if the Democrats do renew their efforts toward forcing American troop withdrawals, Bush and his supporters can simply accuse the Democrats of following bin Laden’s orders or playing into bin Laden’s hands.

    The reality may be the opposite, but a few Republican floor speeches and a couple of well-placed op-eds should be enough to spook the already nervous Democrats.

    Fox News commentator Sean Hannity offered a taste of how the new bin Laden tape will be used against both Democrats and the American Left.

    “One of the things that also struck me is the language specifically that he [bin Laden] used,” Hannity said. “He seemed to adopt the very same language that is being used by the hard Left in this country, as he describes what’s going on in Iraq as a ‘civil war’; he actually used the word ‘neocons’; he talked about global warming; he denounces capitalism and corporations.”

    In other words, any similarity in language between bin Laden and what many Americans say in common conversations will be used to discredit them. They will become bin Laden’s fellow travelers.

    All the better to get Bush and bin Laden what they both really want: a prolonged war in Iraq — and possibly a U.S. attack on the Shia government of Iran.

    — Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush , can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & ‘Project Truth’ are also available there

    VIDEO: US troops encourage kids to smoke

    Video of US troops sharing cigarettes with children.

    Man dies after being shot with Taser gun

    0

    Katie Dawson

    A man who died after being shot by police with a stun gun had fatally injured himself, detectives said last night. Armed officers were called to an incident in the Goldington area of Bedford at 7pm on Saturday after reports of a dispute between a mother and a son, Bedfordshire Police said. Officers used the Taser gun after the knife-wielding man, who was in his thirties, threatened police outside a terraced house.

    The injured man retreated inside the house where he was discovered a short while later with “self-inflicted injuries”, a force spokeswoman said. The injuries from the Taser gun were “minimal”, she added.

    He was taken to Bedford Hospital where he died. A post-mortem examination is due to be carried out today, and the incident has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

    Police cordoned off the house and the property next door while an officer stood guard. Flowers were laid outside the scene.

    Neighbours said they thought the mother lived in the house alone and had more than one son. Amanda Luddington, 42, who lives opposite, said: “She is a very lovely woman. Every time I go into the shop she’s always there and says hello. As far as I know, she lives there on her own. I do not know her son. I am surprised at what has happened.”

    UN transformation proposed to create ‘new world order’

    3

    Statements coming from Gordon Brown seem to openly admit what has long been denied. The super imperial world is being constructed behind the curtain W/O our consent. Will you continue to allow it?

    Andrew Grice in Delhi

    Gordon Brown has begun secret talks with other world leaders on far-reaching reform of the United Nations Security Council as part of a drive to create a “new world order” and “global society”.

    The Prime Minister is drawing up plans to expand the number of permanent members in a move that will provoke fears that the veto enjoyed by Britain could be diluted eventually. The United States, France, Russia and China also have a veto but the number of members could be doubled to include India, Germany, Japan, Brazil and one or two African nations.

    Mr Brown has discussed a shake-up of a structure created in 1945 to reflect the world’s new challenges and power bases during his four-day trip to China and India. Last night, British sources revealed “intense discussions” on UN reform were under way and Mr Brown raised it whenever he met another world leader.

    The Prime Minister believes the UN is punching below its weight. In 2003, it failed to agree on a fresh resolution giving explicit approval for military action in Iraq. George Bush then acted unilaterally, winning the support of Tony Blair.

    UN reform is highly sensitive and Britain will not yet publish formal proposals for fear of uniting opponents against them. Mr Brown is trying to build a consensus for change first.

    His aides are adamant that the British veto will not be negotiated away. One option is for the nations who join not to have a veto, at least initially. In a speech in Delhi today, the Prime Minister will say: “I support India’s bid for a permanent place — with others — on an expanded UN Security Council.” However, he is not backing Pakistan’s demand for a seat if India wins one.

    Mr Brown will unveil a proposal for the UN to spend £100m a year on setting up a “rapid reaction force” to stop “failed states” sliding back into chaos after a peace deal has been reached. Civilians such as police, administrators, judges and lawyers would work alongside military peace-keepers. “There is limited value in military action to end fighting if law and order does not follow,” he will say. “So we must do more to ensure rapid reconstruction on the ground once conflicts are over — and combine traditional humanitarian aid and peace-keeping with stabilisation, recovery and development.”

    He will call for the World Bank to lead the fight against climate change as well as poverty in the developing world, and argue that the International Monetary Fund should prevent crises like the credit crunch rather than just resolve them.

    Arriving in Delhi yesterday, Mr Brown said he wanted a “partnership of equals” between Britain and India as he called for closer trade links and co-operation against terrorism. He announced £825m of aid over the next three years — £500m of which will be spent on health and education.

    Mr Brown is to bring back honorary knighthoods and other awards for cricketers from Commonwealth countries. He said: “Cricket is one of the great things that bind the Commonwealth together. It used to be that great cricketers from the Commonwealth would be recognised by the British nation I would like to see some of the great players in the modern era honoured.”

    Read Andrew Grice atindependent.co.uk/todayinpolitics

    Security Council membership

    The UN Security Council’s membership has remained virtually unchanged since it first met in 1946.

    Great Britain, the United States, the then Soviet Union, China and France were designated permanent members of the UN’s most powerful body.

    Initially, six other countries were elected to serve two-year spells on the council — in 1946 they were Australia, Brazil, Egypt, Mexico, the Netherlands and Poland.

    The number of elected members, who are chosen to cover all parts of the globe, was increased to 10 in 1965. They are currently Belgium, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Croatia, Indonesia, Italy, Libya, Panama, South Africa and Vietnam.

    Decisions made by the council require nine “yes” votes out of 15. Each permanent member has a veto over resolutions.

    The issue of UN reform has long been on the agenda. One suggestion is that permanent membership could be expanded to 10 with India, Japan, Germany, Brazil and South Africa taking places. Any reform requires 128 nations, two-thirds, to support it in the assembly.

    —–

    Please spread very widely before it is too late. General Joe

    The McDonalds Happy Meal Report Card

    3


    [Seminole County, Florida, is a hotbed of opposition to teaching evolution]

    AD AGE – “This is a good day for parents and children in Seminole County and anyone who believes that corporations should not prey on children in schools,” said Dr. Susan Linn, director of the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. “We are pleased that McDonald’s is listening to parents all over the country who believe that report cards should not be commercialized.”

    The fast-food giant had agreed to sponsor the report-card jackets for the county’s elementary schools to cover a printing fee of $1,600. There are 27,000 children in the school district.

    On the jackets, McDonald’s offered a free happy meal to any student with all A’s and B’s, two or fewer absences, or good behavior in a given academic quarter. Susan Pagan, an area parent, notified the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, and an all-out public-relations battle ensued by early December. According to the campaign, the school district received more than 2,000 calls of protest. . .

    “It was McDonald’s decision to remove our trademarks from report-card jackets in Seminole County, Fla., because we believe the focus should be on the importance of a good education,” said Bill Whitman, a spokesman for McDonald’s USA. “McDonald’s, not the school district, will cover the cost to reprint the report-card jackets.”

    CONSUMERIST – The school district that approved McDonald’s-sponsored report cards has a hot new partnership with Bus Radio, a friendly company that advertises to kids as they ride to school. The company serves a sonorous mix of inoffensive music, public service announcements (buckle up, kids!) and a few harmless advertisements (maybe McDonald’s?) to over 1 million children in 23 states. Bus Radio is based in Needham, Massachusetts, but lost its contract with the Needham school district after uppity parents objected to the crass commercialization of something as innocent as a bus ride. Seminole School Board members said the benefits of the radio show seem to outweigh any drawbacks, but they will evaluate Bus Radio’s performance during the test run.

    The Drugs in Your Toothpaste Can Affect Your Health

    0

    One of the fastest ways to absorb anything into the body is through the mouth. Drugs such as nitroglycerine for heart conditions and natural homeopathic remedies are given under the tongue for fast absorption. Your daily routine of brushing your teeth with your favorite toothpaste may also be delivering a daily dose of antibiotics or other potentially toxic ingredients, without you realizing it.

    Most people, even dentists and dental hygienists, don’t realize there is a warning on the back of most toothpastes (including many from health food stores). The warning is mandated by the FDA for active ingredients that are drug based. The most common ones are fluoride, antibiotics and other drugs used to prevent cavities, tartar or teeth sensitivity.

    Even children’s toothpaste has a warning to “keep out of reach of children under the age of six. If more than used for brushing is swallowed, contact the poison control center or your physician”. If a child under the age of six swallows half a tube of the sparkly, bright colored toothpaste that tastes like bubble gum and contains fluoride, the result could virtually be deadly.

    Besides fluoride and the potential for poisoning your child if large amounts are swallowed, most toothpaste contain saccharin and many other artificial additives. Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) is another ingredient to stay away from. Studies have reported there’s a potential for flare-ups of canker sores with SLS. Instead of choosing one of these types of commercial toothpastes for your child or you, providing your family with nutritious meals and brushing with “common sense” toothpaste, without potentially toxic ingredients, is much safer.

    In recent years we’ve been hearing about the alarming increase of superbugs such as methicillin-resistant Staphlycoccus aureas (MRSA). The CDC and other studies list one cause for the rise of these antibiotic resistant bacteria to the general overuse of antibiotics. This overuse is not always in the form of a pill. You may be absorbing a small amount of an antimicrobial drug through your personal products as well.

    Many brands of toothpastes, deodorants, shampoos, and soaps contain antibiotics, antimicrobials and strong disinfecting detergents. Triclosan, acetylpyridium chloride and tea tree oil are commonly used ones. Although natural, tea tree oil is a strong anti-fungal and antibiotic better suited for conditions such as athlete’s foot than in your moisturizer.

    Antibiotics should only be prescribed if you have a serious infection. Informed consumers make wise buying decisions that aren’t based on pretty packages. Read, research and choose wisely for you and
    your family.

    For more information, visit (www.drstay.com) .

    About the author

    Flora Stay, D.D.S. has been a practicing dentist for over 30 years. She is the author and contributing author to books as well as magazines such as Total Health, Prevention, Men’s Health and others. She is currently an Associate Professor at U.S.C. School of Dentistry Dept. of Diagnostic Sciences. Visit her website for a free e-book “Product Labels: a cautionary tale” at www.cleure.com

    A genocide in numbers

    0

    During the period  Sept. 30 ‘00 –

    Please note that all injuries figures are from PRCS field posts & EMS
    operations. Misc. injuries are mostly due to bomb fragments and shrapnel.

     

    Total Sept . 1-30 ‘06 33 27 4 2 31 63
    Total Oct . 1-31 ‘06 54 41 7 4 16 56
    Total Nov. 1-30 ‘06 100 122 9 1 159 292
    Total Dec. 1-31 ‘06 15 19 1 0 2 22
    Total Jan. 1-31 ‘07 8 24 21 0 0 45
    Total Feb. 1-28 ‘07 9 11 43 9 5 68
    Total March. 1-31 ‘07 6 10 13 2 1 26
    Total April. 1-30 ‘07 14 5 0 0 0 5
    Total May. 1-31 ‘07 53 7 0 8 81 96
    Total June. 1-30 ‘07 27 27 21 5 6 59
    Total July. 1-31 ‘07 28 6 9 2 24 41
    Total Aug . 1-31 ‘07 50 70 58 0 0 128
    Total Sept . 1-30 ‘07 30 7 5 1 24 37
    Total Oct . 1-31 ‘07 37 2 4 0 16 22
    Total Nov. 1-30 ‘07 28 15 0 0 41 56
    Total Dec. 1-31 ‘07

    TOTAL

    4,675

    8,429

    7,013

    6,656

    9,672

    31,815


    Palestine Red Crescent Society

    Some examples of Palestinian civilians killed by illegal settlers:

    Salman Yusef Salman a-Safdi
    17 year-old resident of ‘Urif, Nablus district, killed on 26.10.2004 next to Yizhar, Nablus district, by gunfire. Additional information: Killed by a settler after he penetrated his house. He was not armed.

    Sa’il Mustafa Ahmad Jabarah
    46 year-old resident of Salem, Nablus district, killed on 27.09.2004 next to Salem, Nablus district, by gunfire. Additional information: Killed while driving his taxi, by a settler who wanted him to stop.

    Hani Bani Maniya
    22 year-old resident of ‘Aqraba, Nablus district, killed on 06.10.2002 in ‘Aqraba, Nablus district, by gunfire. Additional information: Shot and killed by settlers while harvesting his olives

    Farid Mussa ‘Issa Nesasreh
    28 year-old resident of Beit Furik, Nablus district, killed on 17.10.2000 in Beit Furik, Nablus district, by gunfire. Additional information: Killed by a settler from Itamar while harvesting olives near the settlement.

    B’tselem

    Some examples of Palestinians killed while waiting to cross checkpoints for medical reasons:

    Amir Shaher ‘Abdallah al-Yazji
    8 year-old resident of Gaza city, died on 19.11.2007 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care. Additional information: suffered from meningitis, and died after being refused, for more than a week, entry into Israel.

    Mahmoud Kamal Kamel Abu Taha
    23 year-old resident of Rafah, died on 28.10.2007 in Erez (Industrial Zone), North Gaza district, following a delay in receiving medical care. Additional information: Cancer patient dies after being delayed entry into Israel for 10 days even though he had a permit to pass.

    Nimer Muhammad Salim Shuheibar
    75 year-old resident of Gaza city, died on 23.10.2007 , North Gaza district, following a delay in receiving medical care. Additional information: He arrrived at the Erez checkpoint after having received a permit to enter Israel, but soldiers fired at the ambulance and ordered it to return to the hospital in Gaza. The following day, he returned to the checkpoint and was allowed to pass after waiting for more than two hours, but died when he got to the Israeli side.

    Na’el ‘Abd a-Rahman Khamis al-Kurdi
    21 year-old resident of Gaza city, died on 16.10.2007 in Gaza city, following a delay in receiving medical care. Additional information: a cancer patient, Israel refused to let him leave the Gaza Strip to obtain medical treatment

    ‘Aiseh ‘Ali Hassan ‘Absi
    21 year-old resident of Qibya, Ramallah and al-Bira district, died on 22.05.2002 , Ramallah and al-Bira district, following a delay in receiving medical care. Additional information: A kidney patient, she was on her way to dialysis treatment. Soldiers at the checkpoint twice refused to let her cross; the second time, they fired a tear-gas canister at the car she was in. She died in the car.

    B’tselem

     

    Causes of Deaths of Israeli Soldiers
    2005

    Committed Suicide

    30

    Illness

    14

    Accidents

    26

    Terror Incidents

    6

    http://philistine.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/a-genocide-in-numbers/

    They Can’t Cover Up Iraq’s Death Toll Catastrophe

    0

    John Tirman

    The warmongers who got us into Iraq are blaming everyone but themselves for the humanitarian disaster they created.

    Now I know what Hillary Clinton meant, first hand, by that “vast right-wing conspiracy.” When the Wall Street Journal editorial page and the Sunday Times in London are going after you — along with about 100 right-wing bloggers — rest assured you’ve hit a nerve.

    Or is it just Soros Derangement Syndrome at work?

    More than two years ago, I commissioned a household survey of Iraq to learn how many people had died in the war. This topic had been virtually ignored by the news media and the U.S. government. It was important to know for at least three reasons. The first was to try to understand the nature of the violence there, which was steadily growing and creating a humanitarian crisis, possibly a regional conflagration. Second, it might tell us something about how and when to exit. Third, we needed to know for the sake of our national soul. What had we wrought?

    So I contacted the people who had done a previous, largely ignored survey-top public health professionals at Johns Hopkins University. They had published a survey in October 2004 that showed 98,000 had died in the first 18 months of the war, which was greeted with disbelief and charges of politicizing science, and quickly dismissed.

    I said: ‘do a bigger survey to improve the accuracy, and I will make sure it gets the proper attention in the news media.’ They did do a bigger survey, and I managed a public education campaign that permitted the results to be considered more broadly, results that estimated total deaths at 600,000 by violence after 40 months of war. The survey was published in The Lancet, the British medical journal. And get attention it did, roundly disbelieved and scorned by war supporters, but spurring a brief but intense debate about the human cost of the war.

    Dozens of statisticians and other professionals scoured the study and its data to see if the methods and implementation were proper; a special committee at the World Health Organization was convened to review it, and the Lancet had also subjected it to rigorous peer review. The survey held up to this scrutiny, with quibbles and some lingering “should have done this” and “might have done that.” But virtually every competent person agreed that the study provided the best estimate we have.

    Then, earlier this month, the National Journal, a Capitol Hill “insider” weekly, ran a cover story titled “Data Bomb” by Neil Munro and Carl Cannon. In a note by Munro published by the National Review blog, he asserts:

    George Soros funded the survey. The U.S. authors played no role in data-collection, and did not apply standard anti-fraud measures. The chief Iraqi data-collector had earlier produced medical articles to help Saddam’s anti-sanctions campaign in the 1990s, and said Allah guided the prior 2004 Lancet/Johns Hopkins death-survey. Some of the field surveyors were employed by Moqtada Sadr’s Ministry of Health. The Iraqis’ numbers contain evidence of fakery, and the Lancet did not check for fakery.

    It’s a neat summary of their allegations, which include dozens of unfounded charges, promiscuous innuendo, misquoting of the principals, and misunderstanding statistics, and relies on two disgruntled critics. It was a hatchet job, pure and simple. Not a sentence of Munro’s summary is truthful, and that goes for much of the NJ article, too, which I have demolished elsewhere (PDF). The principal author, Gilbert Burnham, M.D., Ph.D., and his colleagues have taken time from their clinics in Afghanistan and Jordan and Africa to answer the charges on the John Hopkins website, too ( with a letter here, and a FAQ here).

    But lies have a way of proliferating on the Internet, and so it was with this set of schoolyard bully brickbats. What seemed most to get under the skin of the right-wing media was a small grant for public education funded by the Open Society Institute, a foundation created by George Soros.

    The charges of fraud that NJ clumsily made but never came close to proving were of course a tonic to the war supporters who were shamed by the estimate of 600,000 fatalities. There is nothing as devastating to the increasingly discredited case for war as the specter of the U.S. invasion having caused, directly and indirectly, more deaths than were attributed to the bloody reign of Saddam Hussein.

    But it was news that “Soros” was a donor, and the wingnuts went berserk. The line that Munro and Cannon took was that “Soros” was somehow behind the survey from the start, which was timed to affect the 2006 elections. It was not only fraud, they contend, but the perversion of science for political ends backed by the disgruntled, Bush-hating billionaire.

    It’s classic right-wing defamation, and of course none of it is true. Munro and Cannon were painstakingly walked through the chronology and donors, but deliberately ignored it to fashion their paranoid fairy tale, and the Wall Street Journal et al lapped it up.

    We commissioned the survey on October 25, 2005, hoping to get it done as quickly as it could be done professionally, and perhaps have the results out in the spring. Why wait? But Iraq quickly became too violent to permit teams of questioners go out to 1,000 randomly chosen households. So it was not until late spring that they did begin the door-to-door work-still very perilous-and completed the survey in early July. It took another two months to enter the data, have biostatisticians at Johns Hopkins analyze it, and write up the article. The Lancet then took weeks to peer review. It was released when ready. There was no political agenda; there didn’t need to be. The results spoke for themselves.

    The Open Society Institute came late to the process, announcing to me that a grant had been made for public education on May 4, 2006. That is six and a half months after the survey process began. We had already paid for the survey out of internal funds. Less than half of the cash needs of the survey, the analysis, and the public education effort was paid for by OSI. (If the real cost of the effort were totaled-to include salaries of Burnham, myself, and many others who were not compensated directly-then the OSI contribution would have offset about 10 percent of the cost.) I doubt very much whether George Soros himself was ever aware of the grant. OSI is a very large, humanitarian foundation, and their $46,000 grant to MIT is small by their standards.

    And, needless to say, OSI and “Soros” had no influence over the initiation, conduct, or findings of the survey. Neither Burnham and his colleagues nor the Lancet editors knew OSI was one of the donors. The contract was with MIT.

    I carefully told this to Munro on the telephone, and Burnham’s colleague Les Roberts emailed the same information to Cannon last autumn. Munro had asked, among other hostile questions, whether any Muslims or Arabs were supporting the survey, a racism reflected in his remark about Allah above and a charge in the NJ piece that the survey teams lacked American oversight and were thereby suspect. But he was emotionally fixated on Soros, and asked about his role repeatedly. When I tried to offer corroborating evidence for the survey, he screamed at me that none of that mattered. I could see where this was going.

    Of course, Munro himself has been a rabid supporter of the war from the start. In the tradition of former NJ editor Michael Kelly, who called opponents of the war traitors, Munro agitated for the “destruction of Iraq” as early as November 2001. He had elsewhere insisted that the peace in Northern Ireland was the result of the British Army’s iron fist. His sentiments were on display through the hatchet job on us, not least in alleging that The Lancet article was a spur to jihadists.

    So the headlines-“Soros Underwrites Osama’s Talking Points,” and “$oros Iraq Death Claim was a Sham” are typical. The Soros Derangement Syndrome derives, I suspect, from his special status as a traitor to his class, as the right used to refer to FDR. Someone so intelligent, articulate, actively compassionate, and rich cannot be tolerated.

    In an odd twist, a new mortality survey-approvingly mentioned by the NJ piece-appeared earlier this month in the New England Journal of Medicine. Conducted by the Iraqi Ministry of Health, it found 151,000 deaths by violence as of June 2006, about the same period as the Lancet article. Newspaper coverage duly noted that their estimate was only one-quarter that of the Lancet. But a little digging would have revealed much more: the total deaths attributable to the war, non-violent as well as violent, was about 400,000 for that period, now 19 months ago. If the same trends continued, that total today would be more than 600,000.

    The deaths-by-violence in that latter survey remained the same from year-to-year, however, which is not plausible-all observers agree that violent deaths were rising sharply in 2005 and 2006. The discrepancy is found in how the survey was conducted: interviewers identified themselves as employees of the Ministry of Health, then under the control of Shiite cleric Moktada al Sadr. Those interviewed, therefore, would be wary of saying a brother or son or husband had been killed by violence, fearing retribution. And, indeed, there are non-violent categories in the survey that suggest just such equivocation: “Unintentional injuries” would equal about 40 percent of the death-by-violence toll, for example. Road accidents were ten times their pre-war totals-if someone is run off a highway by a U.S. convoy, is that a “non-violent” death?

    The researchers, to their credit, acknowledge that their estimate is likely too low due to several factors. They did not go into dangerous neighborhoods, which made up 11 percent of the sample, and could not accurately estimate the death toll in those, which would of course have been high. Still, the survey is revealing on the non-violent mortality, too: deaths by kidney failure, cancer, diabetes, and others rose by several times, signaling the near-collapse of the health care system.

    The MoH survey is the fifth trying to measure mortality during the war, and there is significant congruence among all. (The Lancet estimate is not actually the highest; that belongs to the private British polling firm, Opinion Research Business, which found that as of August 2007, 1.2 million Iraqis were dead due to the war.) But all the surveys point to one thing: a colossal amount of killing and dying has been going on, far more than numbers used in most discussions of the issue in the fleeting instances when concern for Iraqis appears.

    And that, of course, should be the real issue here, not whether George Soros is interested in the issue. The NJ calumny and the many gleeful references to it are a sign that the pro-war legions are really at wit’s end. The catastrophe they created and supported must be blamed on others-the conveyors of bad news, the quisling liberals, and the Iraqis themselves.

    But the dead in Iraq cannot be silenced as long as we have courageous researchers who will go into the warzone to gather data and tell us the truth. That’s what five surveys-against perilous of odds-have done, and the findings should haunt us every day.

    Coffee increases miscarriage risk

    0

    A new study suggests that drinking two cups of coffee each day may significantly increase the risk of miscarriage in pregnant women.

    American researchers who studied more than 1,000 pregnant women found those who drank two cups of regular coffee, or five 12-ounce cans of caffeinated soda daily had a two-fold higher risk of miscarriage compared with their counterparts who avoided caffeine altogether.

    According to the study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, women who had a daily caffeine intake of less than 200 milligrams were at a 42 percent increased risk of losing their child.

    The scientists said caffeine is an active substance which can go straight to the fetus and result in blood flow reduction.

    Doctors suggest pregnant women or those who plan to become pregnant should stop drinking caffeine, at least in the first trimester when most miscarriages occur.

    JM/HGH

    Israeli satellite to spy on Iran

    0

    Israel has successfully launched a spy satellite which will be used to gather intelligence on Iran’s activities, a new report says.

    The TECSAR satellite is particularly important for Israel since it can be used to ‘keep tabs on Iran’s nuclear program’, the report said citing unnamed Israeli officials.

    The officials revealed that the TECSAR satellite operates with an enhanced footage technology, allowing it to transmit images regardless of daytime and weather conditions.

    TESCAR is considered the Zionist regime’s most advanced satellite in orbit to date.

    Israel has been backing the US efforts to isolate Iran and persuade the international community to intensify sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear standoff with the West.

    Despite a report by US spy agencies last fall which conceded that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons, Washington and Tel Aviv accuse Tehran of pursuing a nuclear arms program.

    Iran says its nuclear activities are within the framework of the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    MD/HGH/RE

    CIA admits hackers ‘blacked out’ cities

    The CIA has revealed that cyber terrorists have left several cities outside the USA without power by hacking into power grids, demanding money in return for switching the lights back on. It would appear that the nightmare scenario envisaged in films like Die Hard 4 has now become a reality.

    In a statement given to a major US security conference, CIA official Tom Donahue revealed that America’s security agency knew of a number of successful attacks on power grids outside the US that had resulted in blackouts and demands for money.

    Lights go out, walls come tumblin’ down

    Donahue revealed how in at least one case the attacks had “caused a power outage affecting multiple cities”. The CIA has refused to name the cities or countries affected by the attacks, but confirmed that all the attacks had taken place through the internet.

    According to the CIA statement, the hackers’ success in compromising infrastructure security systems may have been aided by insider knowledge, although they have no way of proving this. Although blackmail was certainly one factor no other motives were presented: “We do not know who executed these attacks or why, but all involved intrusions through the internet,” the statement read.

    The statement has led to renewed calls for more attention to be focused on the security of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems that are used to manage many civic utilities and infrastructure. The vulnerability of SCADA systems has concerned IT security specialists for many years.

    Although numerous checks and balances aimed at preventing wholesale meltdown are incorporated into most SCADA systems, the CIA’s evidence suggests that there are still ways to circumnavigate even the tightest security.

    tech.co.uk

    British Media Confirms Fbi Nuke Cover-up

    0

    RAW STORY 

    The Sunday Times has obtained a document that confirms that a file, which the FBI denied existed, could contain information about American officials stealing nuclear secrets for Turkish and Israeli spies, who would then sell the secrets to Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

    Earlier, FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds, 37, approached the Times about “explosive” communications she discovered between high-up American officials and Turkish and Israeli spies. A FOIA request to the FBI, for case number 203A-WF-210023, was answered with a claim that the case number did not exist.

    “I can tell you that that file and the operations it refers to did exist from 1996 to February 2002,” says Edmonds.

    One high-ranking official, identified by RAW STORY‘s Larisa Alexandrovna as Marc Grossman, Ambassador to Turkey from 1994 to 1997. Grossman is said to have warned his cohorts not to do business with Brewster Jennings, a front company set up by the CIA. Brewster Jennings was also the “employer” of CIA operative Valerie Plame, whose cover, with Grossman’s help, was blown in what is widely believed to be a political hit job by the Bush Administration on her husband, Ambassador and Iraq war critic Joseph C. Wilson.

    The entire Sunday Times article can be read HERE. More information is also available at The BRAD BLOG.

    The national ID register will leak like an old bucket

    0

    The record of lost data of the past few years should be a warning to us all: our personal details are safe in nobody’s hands

    Jackie Ashley
    The Guardian

    Here’s an easy question. What do the following have in common – people on housing benefit, people getting child benefit, people wanting to be RAF pilots or Royal Marines, people in hospital and people learning to drive? The answer is that they have all had their personal details lost through government incompetence. And here’s another question. With the national database for ID cards looming, just how much do you trust the government to keep your identity details safe?

    News flies past our eyes so fast, in a blur of exclamation marks and excitement, it is often hard to keep track, to join the stories together. So it’s useful to go back and remember. In this case, we only need to go back to last year when the child benefit records for a mere 25 million people, including dates of birth, national insurance numbers and bank and building society details, were lost by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). It happened in October, when a junior official sent the information on two CDs by the private courier TNT to the National Audit Office. They failed to arrive and have still not been found.You might think: well, a one-off, any organisation makes the odd mistake. As it happens, the HMRC had lost details of 15,000 people when they were sent to Standard Life the previous month. Also in September an HMRC laptop was lost with the details of 400 Isa holders on it. Remember that this is not just any government organisation, but the one meant to be trusted, holding the crown jewels of our financial lives. And there were other similar incidents, going back at least to 2005. Indeed, according to parliamentary answers HMRC had in the previous year been responsible for a modest 2,111 data-protection breaches.

    Then in December it was revealed that more computer discs had gone missing, this time in transit between local authorities and the Department for Work and Pensions, involving the same courier. This time the number of personal details involved was unclear, but it was large. One council, Kirklees, lost CDs with 45,000 names of people claiming housing benefit. At about the same time, nine English NHS trusts admitted losing the records of hundreds of thousands of patients.

    Next up, learner drivers. Ruth Kelly, the transport secretary, had to admit that the records of 3 million people who had sat driving tests from September 2004 to April 2007 had been lost from a hard disc in Iowa. Like the child benefit discs, the details had not been properly encrypted and, again, a “total error in procedure” was blamed.

    This year has begun in the same vein. On Friday, hundreds of documents containing details of benefit claims, photocopies of passports and mortgage payments were found dumped at a roundabout near Exeter airport. And on the same day we learned about the loss of a Ministry of Defence laptop containing passport, national insurance and banking details of 600,000 people who had expressed some interest in joining the Royal Navy, Marines or RAF. There is talk of a court martial and Des Browne will be making a statement in the Commons today. But surely, after one ear-splitting, headline-grabbing warning after another, from different departments, month after month, there might be a bigger lesson here, one that goes beyond tightening this procedure or that, one rather larger in scope than internal inquiries or even prosecutions, can deal with?

    Remember that this year the full national identity register, the essential core of a compulsory ID card scheme, will get properly started: from now, anyone aged over 16 applying for a passport has all their details, fingerprints, face or eye scans included, added to the register. Foreigners coming to work here get the first ID cards this year too, and although for the next two years people can opt out of having the cards, from 2010 anyone renewing or getting a passport will be included. The cards, and thus your involvement in the national identity register (which will be stored on three government databases) don’t become compulsory until after the next election – if Labour wins it. And nobody has told us if carrying the things will be compulsory too – though plenty of the arguments in favour of them fall if you don’t have to carry them.

    Legally, this is all done and dusted. After five defeats in the Lords the parliamentary process is over, the scheme is taking shape, big IT contracts have been signed and the computer industry have been snarling at the Tories and Lib-Dems for threatening to ditch it. Ministers still think they are on to a winner.

    Well, it seems to me that after the events of the past few months, they are wrong and that any voter who notices the news already knows what will happen. We know that millions of sensitive details will be lost. We know that material of huge use to criminals will be sent in the post, stolen, mislaid, dropped in car parks, will fall off the back of lorries and will be sent by accident to radio talkshow hosts. We know this because whatever the system, whatever the rules, from Tyne and Wear to Iowa City, they are operated by humans. And people get bored, tired, drunk, have bad days, think they’re about to be fired, are greedy and, in general, make mistakes.

    The government is going to introduce a single system for all our identities. And I promise, you can’t trust it. First, it will leak like a battered old bucket. Oh yes, there will be ministerial statements. Apologies. Inquiries. Expensive new IT consultants will be brought in. Tough and unbreakable procedures will arrive. And still it will leak like a battered old bucket – except that it will be the most expensive battered old bucket in the history of the world, and we will keep pouring in money to the IT industry in the years to come.

    Second, it will be riddled with errors. Great-grannies will be jumped on by armed police at Newcastle airport because of an administrative or human error. Identities will be confused. And third, whatever promises there are about keeping some things, health things, or criminal record things, off one database, these walls will be breached. There is always an emergency, a special case, on the way.

    This is a fantasy of control. Whatever Des Browne says today, whatever promises he makes, however rare and unusual he says the loss of this laptop was, the truth is in the record. The national identity register will make us less safe, not more so. However late the hour, it should be scrapped.

    ‘Pray next US president bombs Iran’

    0

    A senior advisor to Rudy Giuliani says the next US president must discharge President Bush’s ‘responsibility’ of waging war on Iran.

    Writing for the February edition of Commentary, Norman Podhoretz said if the next US president doesn’t have the ‘courage’ to attack Iran, the outcome will be catastrophic for Washington.

    “We had all better pray that there will be enough time for the next president to discharge the responsibility that Bush will have been forced to pass on,” Podhoretz added.

    “If not – God help us all – the stage will have been set for the outbreak of a nuclear war that will become as inescapable then as it is avoidable now,” continued the 78-year-old politician.

    Podhoretz, who is the foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, stated last year that President George W. Bush would attack Iran under the pretense of frustrating Tehran’s ‘nuclear ambitions’.

    This is while the neocon Czar admitted the December 3 US National Intelligence Estimate, which conceded that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, made it ‘politically impossible’ for the Bush administration to launch a military strike on Iran.

    MD/AA

    TURNING A BLIND EYE TO TORTURE

    1

    Both images ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
    Canada to rewrite ‘torture’ manual

     

    Amnesty International has criticised a decision by Canada to rewrite a training manual that put the US and Israel on a list of nations where prisoners risk being tortured.

    The document, released on Friday, named the US, Israel, Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Syria as places where torture was used.

     

    It had classified some interrogation methods used by the US as torture, including isolation, sleep deprivation and blindfolding, according to an official document obtained by Reuters news agency.

    The decision to redraft the manual used by Canadian diplomats came after the US objected.

     
     
     
     

    Alex Neve, secretary general of Amnesty International, said: “It was commendable to see that manual, which seemed to include an important section that was an objective assessment of human rights concerns around the world.

    “To see that now be undermined by concerns about embarrassing allies is very disappointing.”

    US objection

    In a statement issued on Saturday, Maxime Bernier, Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister, said that he was embarrassed by the public disclosure of the manual that “wrongly” includes some of Canada’s closest allies.

    “I regret the embarrassment caused by the public disclosure of the manual used in the department’s torture awareness training,” Bernier said.

    “It contains a list that wrongly includes some of our closest allies. I have directed that the manual be reviewed and rewritten. The manual is neither a policy document nor a statement of policy. As such, it does not convey the government’s views or positions,” the statement added.

    Foreign Affairs spokeswoman Marina Wilson said on Saturday that she could not say yet how long it would take to review the manual or what the process might involve.

    Sharp response

    The document had prompted a sharp response from the US, a key NATO ally and trading partner, which asked to be removed from the manual.

    “We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China. Quite frankly it’s absurd,” David Wilkins, the US Ambassador told The Associated Press on Friday.

    “For us to be on a list like that is just ridiculous.”

    He said the US does not authorise or condone torture. “We think it should be removed and we’ve made that request. We have voiced our opinion very forcefully,” Wilkins said.

    A Canadian citizen, 21-year-old Omar Khadr, is in custody at Guantanamo on charges that include killing a US medic with a grenade during a July 2002 firefight in Afghanistan.

    He has claimed in the past that he has been abused, but Canadian foreign affairs officials have said they accept US assurances Khadr has been treated humanely.

    Human rights groups believe Canada has not done enough to ensure Khadr, who has been in custody since he was 15, is being fairly treated.

    Alleged abuse

    The workshop manual, which was used in the foreign affairs department’s torture awareness training, was produced about two years ago while Canada’s justice Dennis O’Connor was investigating the case of Maher Arar.

    Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian engineer, was imprisoned and tortured in Syria for almost a year after he was detained and sent there by US authorities in 2002, wrongfully accused of having terrorist ties.

    A Canadian judicial inquiry, led by O’Connor, later cleared him.

    The government inadvertently released the manual to lawyers for Amnesty International who are working on a lawsuit involving alleged abuse of Afghan detainees by local Afghan authorities, after the detainees were handed over by Canadian troops.

    The document offers a section on laws prohibiting torture and what diplomats should do when cases are suspected.

    http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2008/01/20/turning-a-blind-eye-to-torture/

    Institutionalized Spying On Americans

    By Stephen Lendman
    RINF Alternative News

    This article reviews two police state tools (among many in use) in America. One is new, undiscussed and largely unknown to the public. The other was covered in a December article by this writer called Police State America. Here it’s updated with new information.

    The National Applications Office (NAO)

    The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) established a new domestic spying operation in 2007 called the National Applications Office (NOA) and described it as “the executive agent to facilitate the use of intelligence community technological assets for civil, homeland security and law enforcement purposes within the United States.” The office was to begin operating last fall to “build on the long-standing work of the Civil Applications Committee (CAC), which was created in 1974 to facilitate the use of the capabilities of the intelligence community for civil, non-defense uses in the United States.”

    With or without congressional authorization or oversight, the executive branch is in charge and will let NAO use state-of-the-art technology, including military satellite imagery, to spy on Americans without their knowledge. Implementation is delayed, however, after Committee on Homeland Security Chairman, Bennie Thompson, and other committee members raised questions of “very serious privacy and civil liberties concerns.” In response, DHS agreed to delay operating (officially) until all matters are addressed and resolved.

    Given its track record post-9/11, expect little more than pro forma posturing before Congress signs off on what Kate Martin, the director of the Center for National Security Studies, calls “Big Brother in the Sky” and a “police state” in the offing.

    DHS supplies this background information on NAO. Post-9/11, the Director of National Intelligence appointed an Independent Study Group (ISG) in May, 2005 to “review the current operation and future role of the (1974) Civil Applications Committee and study the current state of Intelligence Community support to homeland security and law enforcement entities.”

    In September 2005, the Committee produced a “Blue Ribbon Study,” now declassified. Its nine members were headed by and included three Booz Allen Hamilton officials because of the company’s expertise in spying and intelligence gathering. Its other members have similar experience. They all have a vested interest in domestic spying because the business potential is huge for defense related industries and consultants.

    ISG members included:

    Keith Hall, Chairman
    Vice President, Booz Allen Hamilton

    Edward G. Anderson
    LTG US Army (Ret)
    Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton

    Thomas W. Conroy
    Vice President
    National Security Programs
    Northrop Grumman/TASC

    Patrick M. Hughes
    LTG US Army (Ret)
    Vice President, Homeland Security
    L-3 Communications

    Kevin O’Connell
    Director of Defense Group Incorporated (DGI)
    Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis (CIRA)

    CIRA is a think tank that calls itself “the premier open source and cultural intelligence exploitation cell for the US intelligence community.” Its business is revolutionizing intelligence analysis.

    Jeff Baxter
    Independent Defense Consultant with DOD and industry ties

    Dr. Paul Gilman
    Director
    Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies
    Oak Ridge National Laboratory
    US Department of Energy

    Kemp Lear
    Associate
    Booz Allen Hamilton, and

    Joseph D. Whitley, Esq
    Alston & Bird LLP, Government Investigations and Compliance Group, former Acting Associate Attorney General in GHW Bush administration, and former General Counsel for DHS under GW Bush

    The ISG’s report produced 11 significant findings and 27 recommendations based on its conclusion that there’s “an urgent need for action because opportunities to better protect the nation are being missed.” It “concluded a new management and process model (is) needed to effectively employ IC (Intelligence Community) capabilities for domestic uses.”

    In March 2006, DHS unveiled the new agency to implement ISG’s recommendations called the National Applications Office. In May, 2007, Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Michael McConnell, named DHS as its executive agent and functional manager. At least in principle according to DHS, Congress agreed with this approach and to provide funding for it, beginning in the fall of 2007.

    The public knew nothing about this until a feature August 15, 2007 Wall Street Journal story broke the news. It was headlined “US to Expand Use of Spy Satellites.” It noted that for the first time the nation’s top intelligence official (DNI’s McConnell) “greatly expanded the range of federal and local (civilian law enforcement agencies that) can get access to” military spy satellite collected information. Until now, civilian use was restricted to agencies like NASA and the US Geological Survey, and only for scientific and environmental study.

    The Journal explained that key objectives under new guidelines will be:

    — border security,

    — securing critical infrastructure and helping emergency responders after natural disasters,

    — working with criminal and civil federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and

    — unmentioned by the Journal, the ability to spy on anyone, anywhere, anytime domestically for any reason – an unprecedented act using state-of-the-art technology enabling real-time, high-resolution images and data from space.

    NAO will also oversee classified information from the National Security Agency (NSA), the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and other US agencies involved in dealing with all aspects of national security, including “terrorism.”

    NSA was established in 1952, is super-secret, and for many years was never revealed to exist. Today, its capabilities are awesome and worrisome. It eavesdrops globally, mines a vast amount of data, and does it through a network of spy satellites, listening posts, and surveillance planes to monitor virtually all electronic communications from landline and cell phones, telegrams, emails, faxes, radio and television, data bases of all kinds and the internet.

    NGA is new and began operating in 2003. It lets military and intelligence analysts monitor virtually anything or anyone from state-of-the-art spy satellites. Both NSA and NGA coordinate jointly with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) that designs, builds and operates military spy satellites. It also analyzes military and CIA-collected aircraft and satellite reconnaissance information.

    Combined with warrantless wiretapping, pervasive spying of all kinds, the abandonment of the law and checks and balances, intense secrecy, and an array of repressive post-9/11 legislation, Executive Orders and National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, NAO is another national security police state tool any despot would love. It’s now established and may be operating without congressional approval.

    Using spy satellites domestically “is largely uncharted territory,” as the Wall Street Journal noted. Even its architects admit there’s no clarity on this, and the ISG’s report stated “There is little if any policy, guidance or procedures regarding the collection, exploitation and dissemination of domestic MASINT (Measurement and Signatures Intelligence).”

    The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is the main DOD spy agency. It manages MASINT that’s ultra-secret and sophisticated. It uses state-of-the-art radar, lasers, infrared sensors, electromagnetic data and other technologies that can detect chemicals, electro-magnetic activity, whether a nuclear power plant produces plutonium, and the type vehicle from its exhaust. It can also see under bridges, through clouds, forest canopies and even concrete to create images and collect data. In addition, it can detect people, activity and weapons that satellites and photo-reconnaissance aircraft miss, so it’s an invaluable spy tool but highly intrusive and up to now only for military and foreign intelligence work.

    Further, military spy satellites are state-of-the-art and superior to civilian ones. They record in color as well as black and white, use different parts of the light spectrum to track human activities and ground movements and can detect chemical weapons traces and people-generated heat in buildings.

    This much we know about them. Their full potential is top secret and available only to the military and intelligence community. The Journal quoted an alarmed Gregory Nojeim, senior counsel and director of the Project on Freedom, Security and Technology, that advocates for digital age privacy rights saying: “Not only is the surveillance they are contemplating intrusive and omnipresent, it’s also invisible. And that’s what makes this so dangerous.”

    Anyone for any reason may be watched at all times (through walls) with no way to know it, but a June 2001 (before 9/11) Supreme Court decision offers hope. In Kyllo v. United States, the Court ruled for petitioner 5 to 4 (with Scalia and Thomas in the majority). It voided a conviction based on police use of thermal imaging to detect heat in his triplex to determine if an illegal drug was being grown, in this case marijuana.

    The Court held: “Where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a Fourth Amendment ‘search,” and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant….To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment” protecting against “unreasonable searches and seizures.”

    In 1981, Ronald Reagan seemed to agree in Executive Order 12333 on United States Intelligence Activities. It bars the intelligence community from most forms of home eavesdropping while providing wide latitude to all government agencies to “provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information (needed to) conduct….foreign, defense and economic policy (and protect US) national interests from foreign security threats. (Collecting this information is to be done, however,) consistent with the Constitution and applicable law….”

    That was then, and this is now. It’s hard imagining congressional concern or DHS meaning that NAO will “prioritize the protection of privacy and civil liberties” and citing the Reagan Executive Order and the 1974 Privacy Act. That law mandates that no government agency “shall disclose any record (or) system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains.” The Privacy act requires the US government to maintain an administrative and physical security system to prevent the unauthorized release of personal records.

    Post-9/11, the Patriot Act ended that protection, so DHS is shameless saying NAO must comply with civil liberties and privacy laws and be subject to “oversight by the DHS Inspector General, Chief Privacy Officer, and the Officer for Civil Rights and Liberties” plus additional oversight. No longer post-9/11 when the national security state got repressive new tools to erode the constitution, ignore democratic principles, and give the President unrestricted powers in the name of national security. NAO is the latest one watching us as our “Big Brother in the Sky.” Orwell would be proud.

    Real ID Act Update – Another Intrusive Police State Tool

    The Read ID Act of 2005 required states to meet federal ID standards by May, 2008. That’s now changed because 29 states passed or introduced laws that refuse to comply. They call the Act costly to administer, a bureaucratic nightmare, and New Hampshire said it’s “repugnant” and violates the state and US Constitutions.

    The federal law mandates that every US citizen and legal resident have a national ID card that in most cases is a driver’s license meeting federal standards. It requires it to contain an individual’s personal information and makes one mandatory to open a bank account, board an airplane, be able to vote, get a job, enter a federal building, or conduct virtually all essential business requiring identification.

    States balked, and that doomed the original version. On January 11, changes were unveiled when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued binding new rules. Under them, states have until 2011 to comply (instead of 2008), until 2014 to issue “tamper-proof licenses” to drivers born after 1964, and until 2017 for those born before this date. DHS said the original law would cost states $14 billion. The new regulations with an extended phase-in cuts the amount to around $3.9 billion or $8 per license.

    These numbers may be bogus, however, the true costs may be far higher, and that’s why the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) is lobbying for Real ID’s passage. Its members include high-tech card makers like Digimarc and Northrup Grumman and data brokers like Choicepoint and LexisNexis that profit by selling personal information to advertisers and the government.

    Under new DHS rules, licenses must include a digital photo taken at the beginning of the application process and a filament or other security device to prevent counterfeiting. They must also have three layers of security that states can select from a DHS menu. In addition, states must begin checking license applicants’ Social Security and immigration status over the next year.

    As of now, a controversial radio frequency identification (RFID) technology microchip isn’t required. It may come later, however, and here’s the problem. It’ll let cardholder movements and activities be tracked everywhere, at all times – in other words, a police state dream along with other pervasive spying tools.

    Even worse would be mandating human RFID chip implants. It’s not planned so far (but not ruled out), and three states (California, Wisconsin and North Dakota) preemptively banned the practice without recipients’ consent.

    Think it can’t happen? Consider a January 13 article in the London Independent headlined “Prisoners ‘to be chipped like dogs.’ ” The article states that civil rights groups and probation officers are furious that “hi-tech ‘satellite’…. machine-readable (microchip) tagging (is) planned (for thousands of offenders) to create more space in jails.” Unlike ankle bracelets now sometimes used, tiny RFID chips would be surgically implanted for monitoring the way they’re currently used for dogs, cats, cattle and luggage. They’re more reliable, it’s believed, as current devices can be tampered with or removed.

    Ken Jones, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), was quoted saying: “We have looked at….the practicalities and the ethics (and we concluded) its time has come.” The UK currently has the largest prison population per capita in western Europe. It sounds like authorities plan to expand it using fewer cells. It also sounds like a scheme to tag everyone after testing them first on prisoners. And consider the possibilities. RFID technology is advancing, and one company plans deeper implants that can vibrate, emit electroshocks, broadcast a message to the implantee, and/or be a hidden microphone to transmit conversations. It’s not science fiction, and what’s planned for the UK will likely come to America. In fact, it’s already here.

    In 2004, the FDA approved a grain-of-rice sized, antenna-containing VeriChip for human implantation that allows vital information to be read when a person’s body is scanned. The company states on its web site that it’s “the world’s first and only patented, FDA-cleared, human-implantable RFID microchip….with skin-sensing capabilities.” Reportedly, about 2000 test subjects now have them, but it may signal mandatory implantation ahead. Consider for whom for starters – prisoners, military personnel and possibly anyone seeking employment. After them, maybe everyone in a brave new global surveillance world.

    It gets worse. Katherine Albrecht authored a report called “Microchip-Cancer Report – Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006.” After reading it, Dr. Robert Benezra, Director Cancer Biology, Genetics Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center said: “There’s no way in the world, having read this information, that I would have one of those chips implanted in my skin, or in one of my family members. Given the preliminary animal data, it looks to me that there’s definitely cause for concern.”

    Albrecht’s report evaluated 11 previously published toxicology and pathology studies. In six of them, up to 10.2% of rats and mice developed malignant tumors (typically sarcomas) where microchips were implanted. Two others reported the same findings for dogs. These tumors spread fast and “often led to the death of the afflicted animals. In many cases, the tumors metastasized and spread to other parts of the animals. The implants were unequivocally identified as the cause of the cancers.”

    Report reviews, conclusions and recommendations were to immediately stop further human implantations, inform people with them of the dangers, offer a microchip removal procedure, and reverse all animal microchipping mandates.

    Debate Ahead on New DHS ID Rules

    DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff said new ID rules require states to verify each cardholder’s personal information (including a person’s legal status in the country) by matching it against federal Social Security and passport databases and/or comparable state ones.

    States have time to adjust, but Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy wasted no time saying he’ll recommend legislation to ban Real ID drivers’ license provisions because “so many Americans oppose” them. They’re intrusive, burdensome, and federal databases are full of false or out-of-date information that’s hard to disprove, but unless it is Americans will be denied their legal right to a driver’s license.

    The ACLU also strongly opposes Real ID because it violates privacy, lets government agencies share data, and its “tortured remains” represent an “utterly unworkable” system that will “irreparably damage the fabric of American life.” An ACLU January 11 press release further states that DHS “dumped the problems of the statute on future presidents like a rotting corpse left on (its) steps (and) whoever is president in 2018.” Congress must “recognize the situation and take action.” The Real ID Act and new DHS rules must be “repealed and replaced with a clean, simple, and vigorous new driver’s license security law that does not create a national ID” or violate Americans’ privacy.

    Futuristic Hi-Tech Profiling

    On January 14, Computerworld online revealed more cause for concern in an article called “Big Brother Really is Watching.” It’s about DHS “bankrolling futuristic profiling technology….” for its Project Hostile Intent. It, in turn, is part of a broader initiative called the Future Attribute Screening Technologies Mobile Module. It’s to be a self-contained, automated screening system that’s portable and easy to implement, and DHS hopes to test it at airports in 2010 and deploy it (if it works) by 2012 at airports, border checkpoints, other points of entry and other security-related areas.

    Here’s the problem. If developed (reliable or not), these devices will use video, audio, laser and infrared sensors to feed real-time data into a computer using “specially developed algorithms” to identify “suspicious people.” It would work (in theory) by interpreting gestures, facial expressions and speech variations as well as measure body temperature, heart and respiration rate, blood pressure, skin moisture, and other physiological characteristics.

    The idea would be detect deception and identify suspicious people for aggressive interrogation, searches and even arrest. But consider what’s coming. If developed, the technology may be used anywhere by government or the private sector for airport or other checkpoint security, buildings, job interviews, employee screening, buying insurance or conducting any other type essential business.

    Aside from Fourth Amendment issues, here’s the problem according to Bruce Schneier, chief technology officer at security consultant BT Counterpane: “It’s a good idea fraught with difficulties….don’t hold your breath” it will work, and a better idea is to focus on detecting suspicious objects. Schneier further compares the technology to lie detectors that rely on “fake technology” and only work in films. They’re used because people want them although it’s acknowledged, even when well-administered, their median accuracy percentage is 50% at best.

    This technology is worse, it may never be reliable, but may be deployed anyway in the age of “terror.” Something to consider next time we blink going through airport security, and ACLU Technology and Liberty Project director Barry Steinhardt states the concern: “We are not going to catch any terrorists (with it), but a lot of innocent people, especially racial and ethnic minorities, are going to be trapped in a web of suspicion.” Even so, DHS spent billions on this and other screening tools post-9/11. Expect lots more ahead, and here’s the bottom line:

    As things now stand, Washington, post-9/11, suspended constitutional protections in the name of national security and suppressed our civil liberties for our own good. This article reviewed their newest tools and wonders what’s next. This writer called it Police State America in December that won’t change with a new White House occupant in 2009 unless organized resistance stops it. Complacency is unthinkable, and unless we act, we’ll deserve Aleksandr Herzen’s curse of another era – to be the “disease,” not the “doctors.”

    Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

    Swiss Suspend CIA Abduction Probe

    0

    AP

    Swiss authorities have frozen an investigation into CIA operatives suspected of illegally transporting an abducted Egyptian Muslim preacher through Swiss airspace, an official said Friday.

    “The case was suspended in November 2007,” said Jeannette Balmer, a spokeswoman for the Swiss federal prosecutor’s office.

    Switzerland authorized the start of criminal proceedings in February, joining Italy, the country from which the preacher was allegedly abducted, and Germany in raising the threat of prosecution of CIA operatives.

    Neutral Switzerland, which has cooperated closely with the United States in investigations and attempts to shut down terrorists’ funding networks, has generally avoided open disputes with the U.S. government.

    But the seven-member Cabinet said last year that it could not tolerate the use of Swiss airspace for an abduction, citing evidence that basic norms of international law were violated.

    The investigation concerned the alleged kidnapping of Osama Hassan Mustafa Nasr, known as Abu Omar, from a street in Milan. The CIA allegedly flew Nasr from Aviano air base in Italy across Switzerland to Ramstein air base, Germany, and then on to Cairo, Egypt, on Feb. 17, 2003.

    Nasr, who was allegedly tortured during his imprisonment in Egypt, was ordered released last year by an Egyptian State Security Court that ruled his detention for four years in Egypt was unfounded.

    Balmer said Swiss prosecutors “will not provide any further information on this case until the circumstances allow” it. She declined to comment further.

    Italy has charged 26 Americans in the alleged operation _ all but one identified by Italian prosecutors as CIA agents _ but a Milan judge suspended the trial in October pending a decision by the country’s highest court on a government challenge that could scuttle the case.

    The Italian court ruling should show whether the kidnapping trial will be permitted to publicly air details of the U.S. so-called extraordinary rendition program _ moving terrorism suspects from country to country without public legal proceedings.

    Critics of the program say some suspects have been tortured after being delivered to certain countries.

    Under Swiss law, a sentence of up to three years in prison can be imposed on anyone who undertakes actions for a foreign government on Swiss territory without permission.

    The law also specifies a prison term of at least one year for abduction through violence, trickery or threats, followed by delivery to a foreign agency or organization outside Switzerland.

    All the accused Americans have left Italy.

    More CIA torture tapes

    0

    In a court filing, Center for Constitutional Rights attorneys say that there are more CIA torture tapes, the Washington Post reports:

    Lawyers for Detainee Refer In Filing to More CIA Tapes

    By Carol D. Leonnig

    Attorneys for a former detainee at a secret CIA prison said in a court filing this week that intelligence officials had falsely claimed in public statements that his interrogations were not videotaped, that all videotaped interrogations stopped in 2002 and that only a small number of CIA detainees were subjected to unusually harsh interrogation techniques.

    The basis of the assertions was redacted from the filing by the Bush administration, under an unusually stringent security order that blocks the attorneys for Majid Khan from disclosing evidence of the alleged falsehoods or detailing how Khan was treated while in CIA custody.

    Khan, one of 14 detainees whom the CIA secretly imprisoned before transferring them last year to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has said he was systematically tortured. His attorneys at the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights have been pressing for a court order to prevent the government from destroying evidence of his treatment.

    “Inaccurate statements by senior intelligence officials about the tape destruction, and false statements about Khan’s experience in CIA custody, raise substantial concern that torture evidence in this case may be lost or destroyed absent a court order,” attorneys Wells Dixon and Gita Gutierrez wrote.

    The three statements that Khan’s lawyers said were false were made by CIA Director Michael V. Hayden and unnamed intelligence officials quoted in news reports.

    CIA spokesman George Little said yesterday that Hayden has said in speeches that the videotaping of interrogations stopped in 2002 and that about 30 of 100 CIA prisoners had required “special methods of questioning.”

    “The agency stands by those statements,” Little said. ”I can’t speak to unattributed quotes in press reports.”

    Khan’s attorneys, citing their top-secret security clearances and their agreement not to disclose classified information, said they could not comment on their court filings.

    “We’re under an extremely restrictive gag order that in many ways is making our representation extremely difficult and certainly compromises the public’s ability to know what’s happening,” Gutierrez said. “We are challenging a state-sanctioned system of torture, the details of which the government is keeping secret.”

    Gutierrez said she hopes the government will release more information about the detainees’ incarcerations.

    Labour’s bureaucratic, un-necessary ID cards

    0

    Speech to the National Assembly for Wales.

    “I welcome this debate this afternoon. It is the first opportunity that we have had in the new year not just to discuss the potential impact of any ID scheme on public services and members of the public more widely in Wales, but to examine the impact of the loss of information and data that we experienced at the end of the last calendar year.

    Would the public in Wales and across the UK now be satisfied with the UK Government pursuing an ID card scheme and holding so much more additional data that would also be at risk of being lost? That is why we have tabled our amendments, noting

    ‘the incompetence of the UK Government in ensuring the security of individuals’ personal data’, and calling on, ‘the current Assembly Government to urge the UK Government to drop plans for compulsory ID cards’.

    In the Assembly, as we represent the millions of people who live throughout this nation, we are right to question the competence of the UK Government and the variety of Government agencies that, at the end of last year, were exposed as having lost so much personal data.

    For some reason, it all happened in November and December and we do not know if such data has been lost on a regular basis over the past 10 or 20 years–I suspect that it probably has been–but the losses have certainly now been exposed, with much criticism and scandal.

    We must be wary of any Government scheme that promotes the concept of an ID card, because I do not think that the public will be satisfied for more of their personal data to be handed over to central Government agencies that could then be extremely lax in the way that they look after the security of that data.

    Millions of records were lost, containing people’s individual data on things like benefits and family tax credits; pension details were lost in Cardiff at the Inland Revenue; data was lost from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea; and a laptop being used by the retinopathy service was stolen when on a visit in Newport.

    The fact that all those facets of Government organisations and bodies–organisations that were commissioned by a variety of Government agencies to provide services–have lost millions of data records demonstrates how difficult it is for Government agencies, and UK Government and Welsh Government departments generally, to ensure the security of individuals’ data.

    I have never believed in an ID card scheme; I have never believed that it would reduce terrorism or crime. It would be an absolute waste of £20 billion of taxpayers’ money, just for the UK Government to keep more and more data on individuals.

    We are certainly going back a while if we are trudging back 11 years–that is a third of my life. We could all stand here and say, ‘You said this 10 years ago’ and ‘You said that 20 years ago’, but the fact of the matter is that I have never been a supporter of ID cards.

    I made that perfectly clear in the campaign that I ran in Merthyr Tydfil. Thank you for raising that. I do not think that my party was right to suggest that as an option back then. We have become extremely wary of the possibility of ID cards, and you will know that the leader of the opposition at Westminster has suggested that the money should be put towards a border police force, to ensure that we have proper immigration controls. That is far more sensible than spending money on some ID card scheme.

    The point raised by Peter Black about accessing public services is extremely valuable. If you have visited accident and emergency departments in our major hospitals, you will know that they are very chaotic organisations, so the thought that they, or any other part of the NHS, should act as some sort of information gateway to ensure that people have the right documentation on them to prove who they are and where they live, or whether the photograph matches the name that has been given, is ridiculous. I do not think that we should allow that to happen.

    The Assembly should be confirming that it is happy with the view that it took some months ago, and I hope that Leanne Wood and her Plaid colleagues will support this motion and the amendments this afternoon.

    I do not believe that the Welsh people will accept that an ID card scheme will work, I do not believe that they want it, and, given all the mishaps with lost data and lost information, I do not believe that they will tolerate it. As the organisation responsible for delivering public services in Wales, we should not tolerate the idea that an ID card scheme be used by people accessing public services.

    You doubted my consistency, Leanne, over the period since the election campaign more than 10 years ago, but I suspect that you voted in favour of the motion that stated that the Assembly Government should not allow ID card schemes to be used for people to access public services. I hope that you, too, will be consistent and support this motion and the amendments today.”

    “Croesawaf y ddadl hon y prynhawn yma. Dyma’r cyfle cyntaf inni ei gael yn y flwyddyn newydd nid dim ond i drafod effaith bosibl unrhyw gynllun cardiau adnabod ar wasanaethau cyhoeddus ac ar aelodau’r cyhoedd yn ehangach yng Nghymru, ond i archwilio effaith colli gwybodaeth a data fel y gwelsom ddiwedd y flwyddyn galendr ddiwethaf.A fyddai’r cyhoedd yng Nghymru a ledled y DU yn fodlon yn awr i Lywodraeth y DU fwrw ymlaen â chynllun cerdyn adnabod gan gadw cymaint mwy o ddata ychwanegol, a pherygl i’r rheiny fynd ar goll hefyd? Dyna pam yr ydym wedi cyflwyno ein gwelliannau,

    ‘yn nodi anallu Llywodraeth y DU i sicrhau diogelwch data personol unigolion’ ac yn galw ar, ‘Lywodraeth y Cynulliad cyfredol i annog Llywodraeth y DU i roi’r gorau i gynlluniau ar gyfer cardiau adnabod gorfodol’.

    Yn y Cynulliad, gan ein bod yn cynrychioli’r miliynau o bobl sy’n byw ym mhob cwr o’r wlad hon, yr ydym yn iawn i amau gallu Llywodraeth y DU a’r amrywiaeth o asiantaethau’r Llywodraeth y datgelwyd iddynt ddiwedd y flwyddyn diwethaf golli cymaint o ddata personol.

    Am ryw reswm, digwyddodd hynny i gyd ym mis Tachwedd ac ym mis Rhagfyr ac ni wyddom a oes data fel hyn wedi mynd ar goll yn rheolaidd dros y 10 neu’r 20 mlynedd diwethaf–mae’n debyg gennyf eu bod–ond mae’r colledion hynny’n sicr wedi’u datgelu yn awr, a hynny’n destun cryn feirniadaeth a sgandal.

    Rhaid inni ochel rhag unrhyw gynllun gan y Llywodraeth sy’n hyrwyddo cysyniad cerdyn adnabod, oherwydd ni chredaf y bydd y cyhoedd yn fodlon gweld rhagor o’u data personol yn cael eu trosglwyddo i asiantaethau’r Llywodraeth ganolog a’r rheiny wedyn o bosibl yn hynod o flêr yn y ffordd y maent yn gofalu am ddiogelwch y data hynny.

    Collwyd miliynau o gofnodion, yn cynnwys data personol pobl am bethau megis budd-daliadau a chredydau treth teulu; collwyd manylion pensiynau yng Nghaerdydd yng Nghyllid y Wlad; collwyd data gan yr Asiantaeth Trwyddedu Gyrwyr a Cherbydau yn Abertawe; a dygwyd gliniadur a ddefnyddid gan y gwasanaeth retinopathi wrth i rywun ymweld â Chasnewydd.

    Mae’r ffaith bod yr holl agweddau hynny ar sefydliadau a chyrff y Llywodraeth–sefydliadau a gomisiynwyd gan amrywiaeth o asiantaethau’r Llywodraeth i ddarparu gwasanaethau–wedi colli miliynau o gofnodion data yn dangos pa mor anodd ydyw i asiantaethau’r Llywodraeth, ac i adrannau Lywodraeth y DU a Llywodraeth Cymru’n gyffredinol, sicrhau diogelwch data unigolion.

    Nid wyf erioed wedi bod o blaid cynllun cerdyn adnabod; nid wyf erioed wedi credu y byddai’n lleihau terfysgaeth na throseddu. Byddai’n wastraff llwyr ar £20 biliwn o arian trethdalwyr, dim ond i Lywodraeth y DU gadw mwy a mwy o ddata am unigolion.

    Yr ydym yn sicr yn mynd yn ôl dipyn os ydym yn ymlwybro’n ôl 11 mlynedd–dyna draean fy mywyd. Gallem i gyd sefyll yma a dweud, ‘Dywedasoch hyn 10 mlynedd yn ôl’ a ‘Dywedasoch hynny 20 mlynedd yn ôl’, ond y gwir yw nad wyf erioed wedi cefnogi cardiau adnabod.

    Gwneuthum hynny’n gwbl glir yn fy ymgyrch ym Merthyr Tudful. Diolch ichi am godi hynny. Ni chredaf fod fy mhlaid yn iawn i awgrymu hynny’n opsiwn bryd hynny. Erbyn hyn, yr ydym yn ochelgar iawn o bosibilrwydd cyflwyno cardiau adnabod, a gwyddoch fod arweinydd yr wrthblaid yn San Steffan wedi awgrymu y dylid defnyddio’r arian i sefydlu heddlu ar y ffin er mwyn sicrhau bod gennym drefn iawn i reoli mewnfudo. Mae hynny’n fwy synhwyrol o lawer na gwario arian ar ryw gynllun cardiau adnabod.

    Mae’r pwynt a godwyd gan Peter Black ynghylch cael gafael ar wasanaethau cyhoeddus yn arbennig o werthfawr. Os ydych wedi ymweld ag adrannau damweiniau ac achosion brys yn ein hysbytai mwyaf, gwyddoch eu bod fel ffair, felly mae’r syniad y dylent hwy, neu unrhyw ran arall o’r GIG, fod yn rhyw fath o borth gwybodaeth er mwyn sicrhau bod gan bobl y dogfennau cywir arnynt i brofi pwy ydynt ac ymhle maent yn byw, neu a yw’r ffotograff yn cyfateb i’r enw a roddwyd, yn hurt. Ni chredaf y dylem adael i hynny ddigwydd.

    Dylai’r Cynulliad hwn fod yn cadarnhau ei fod yn hapus â’r farn a fynegodd ychydig fisoedd yn ôl, a gobeithiaf y bydd Leanne Wood a’i chyd-Aelodau ym Mhlaid Cymru’n cefnogi’r cynnig hwn a’r gwelliannau y prynhawn yma. Ni chredaf y bydd pobl Cymru’n derbyn y bydd cynllun cerdyn adnabod yn gweithio, ni chredaf eu bod yn dymuno’i gael, ac, a chofio’r holl anffodion wrth golli data a cholli gwybodaeth, ni chredaf y byddant yn barod i’w oddef.

    Gan mai ni yw’r corff sy’n gyfrifol am ddarparu gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru, ni ddylem oddef y syniad y dylai pobl sy’n defnyddio gwasanaethau cyhoeddus orfod defnyddio cynllun cerdyn adnabod. Yr oeddech yn amau fy nghysondeb, Leanne, dros y cyfnod ers yr ymgyrch etholiad fwy na 10 mlynedd yn ôl, ond yr wyf yn amau ichi bleidleisio o blaid y cynnig a ddywedai na ddylai Llywodraeth y Cynulliad ganiatáu defnyddio cynlluniau cardiau er mwyn i bobl gael gafael ar wasanaethau cyhoeddus. Gobeithiaf y byddwch chithau hefyd yn gyson ac yn cefnogi’r cynnig hwn a’r gwelliannau heddiw.”

    Canada Manual: US Prisoners Face Torture

    0

    AP

    A training manual for Canadian diplomats lists the United States as a country where prisoners risk torture and abuse, citing interrogation techniques such as stripping prisoners, blindfolding and sleep deprivation.

    The Foreign Affairs Department document, released Friday, singled out the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay. It also names Israel, Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Mexico and Syria as places where inmates could face torture.

    The listing drew a sharp response from the U.S., a key NATO ally and trading partner, which asked to removed from the manual.

    “We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China. Quite frankly it’s absurd,” U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins told The Associated Press. “For us to be on a list like that is just ridiculous.”

    He said the U.S. does not authorize or condone torture. “We think it should be removed and we’ve made that request. We have voiced our opinion very forcefully,” Wilkins said.

    Michael Mendel, the Israeli Embassy spokesman, said Israel’s Supreme Court “is on record as expressly prohibiting any type of torture. If Israel is included in the list in question, the ambassador of Israel would expect its removal,” he said.

    A Canadian citizen, Omar Khadr, is in custody at Guantanamo, but Canada has long publicly said it accepts U.S. assurances that Khadr is being treated humanely.

    The government inadvertently released the manual to lawyers for Amnesty International who are working on a lawsuit involving alleged abuse of Afghan detainees by local Afghan authorities, after the detainees were handed over by Canadian troops.

    Canada said the manual is for training, and does not amount to official government policy.

    “It is not a policy document or any kind of a statement of policy. As such it does not convey the government’s views or positions,” said Neil Hrab, a spokesman for Canada’s Foreign Affairs Department.

    “The training manual purposely raised public issues to stimulate discussion and debate in the classroom.”

    Human rights groups have long called on Canada to pressure the United States to return Khadr from Guantanamo. They say not done enough for Khadr, who has been in custody since he was 15. Khadr is accused of tossing a grenade that killed one U.S. soldier and wounded another in Afghanistan in 2002.

    He is the son of an alleged al-Qaida financier, and his family has received little sympathy in Canada, where they’ve been called the “First Family of Terrorism.”

    Dennis Edney, one of Khadr’s lawyers, said the foreign affairs document shows that Canada says one thing publicly but believes something else privately.

    “Canada was well aware that Omar Khadr’s allegations of being tortured had a ring of truth to it. Canada has not once raised the protection of Omar Khadr when there are such serious allegations,” Edney said. “What does that say to you about Canada’s commitment to the rule of law and human rights? It talks on both sides of its face.”

    US considering Pakistan incursion

    0

    The US Defense Secretary says his country is trying to understand ground realities before taking any action inside northwestern Pakistan.

    “We’re trying to make sure we understand the ground truth before we take any action so that it is not be misperceived,” The Daily Times quoted Robert Gates as saying.

    “We’re assessing what value we could have, or any other ally could have, in contributing to their security,” he added.

    “This has always been an area that has not been fully under the control of the Pakistani government or where there has been a significant military presence,” he added.

    Washington is reportedly considering military operations inside Pakistan allegedly to hunt militants who use the country’s tribal regions as hideouts.

    US-led forces have already launched several air strikes on North Waziristan and in the Bajaur tribal area, killing dozens of civilians.

    JR/ RE

    CIA Corporate Spying

    They’re leaving “the Company” to snoop on your company. How C.I.A. agents are pushing corporate espionage to ominous new extremes.

    Douglas Frantz

    spies

    In early September 2006, a vice president of Wal-Mart sent a highly personal email to his boss through what he thought was a safe email account. “My Gmail is secure,” Sean Womack assured Julie Ann Roehm, the company’s senior vice president for marketing communications. “Write to me. Tell me something, anything…. I feel the need to be inside your head if I cannot be near you.”

    Roehm had persuaded the company to hire Womack only three months before. “I hate not being able to call you or write you,” she replied. “I think about us together all of the time. Little moments like watching your face when you kiss me. I loved your voicemail last night and love the idea of memory and kept thinking/wishing that it would have been you and I there last night.” Then she signed off, saying she had to take her two children to the park.

    Unfortunately for Roehm and Womack, who were both married to other people, their intimate email exchanges would become public in a legal dispute between Roehm and their employer. Wal-Mart learned about the relationship while investigating Roehm for accepting gifts from an ad agency that received a huge contract with the retailer. Ultimately, Wal-Mart fired both execs for violating company policy and later accused them of carrying out a love affair on company time.

    Largely overlooked in the furor was the role that Wal-Mart’s internal security department had played in digging up the salacious details. This department, a global operation, was headed by a former senior security officer for the Central Intelligence Agency and staffed by former agents from the C.I.A., the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and other government agencies. (See our Spy Slang guide) A person familiar with the episode said in an interview that an ex-C.I.A. computer specialist was involved in piecing together the email evidence–which included copies of Womack’s private Gmail messages, provided by his estranged wife–and that another former government agent had supervised the overall investigation.

    Ex-government agents appear to be Wal-Mart’s investigators of choice. The retailer has emailed job listings to members of the Association for Intelligence Officers as well as posted ads on its site seeking to hire “global threat analysts” with backgrounds in intelligence. The job description for the analysts, who would have reported to a former Army intelligence officer, entailed collecting information from “professional contacts” to gauge threats from “suspect individuals and groups.” In practice, their responsibilities would have extended to gathering information about Wal-Mart employees, suppliers, and customers; Wal-Mart monitors shoppers for suspicious or potentially criminal activity. A Wal-Mart spokesman said the company does not comment on security matters.

    Roehm sued the retailer for breach of contract over her firing but dropped her case in November. She has denied all wrongdoing, including the affair.

    Sam Morgan, Roehm’s lawyer, declined to discuss the suit. But corporate espionage is becoming almost as sophisticated as government spying. Morgan said, “There is no right to privacy in the private-sector workplace.”

    Roehm and Womack were unwittingly drawn into a new world of intrigue in which rivalries between superpowers have been replaced by global competition among the titans of capitalism, where companies use the most advanced techniques available to scrutinize competitors and employees alike. From New York and London to Moscow and Beijing, today’s corporations are venturing into a netherworld populated by former agents who have been schooled in the arts of detection and deception by the C.I.A., the F.B.I., Britain’s secret services, and the former Soviet Union’s K.G.B.  Instead of probing for state secrets or recruiting government ministers as double agents, these latter-day George Smileys are selling their old skills and contacts to multinationals, hedge funds, and oligarchs. They’re digging up dirt on competitors, ferreting out internal corruption, and uncovering secrets buried in the pasts of job applicants, boardroom rivals, and investment targets.

    The best estimate is that several hundred former intelligence agents now work in corporate espionage, including some who left the C.I.A. during the agency turmoil that followed 9/11. They quickly joined private-investigation firms whose U.S. corporate clients were planning to expand into Russia, China, and other countries with opaque business practices and few public records, and who needed the skinny on international partners or rivals.

    These ex-spies apply a higher level of expertise, honed by government service, to the cruder tactics already practiced by private investigators. One such ploy is pretexting–obtaining information by pretending to be somebody else. While private detectives have long posed as freelance reporters or job recruiters to get people to talk, former agents have elevated pretexting to an art.

    At Diligence, a New York private-investigation firm founded by former C.I.A. and British agents, ex-intelligence officers have taught newcomers how to construct false identities by using fake business cards, creating phony websites, and directing incoming calls to cell phones reserved for each separate identity. “You are establishing a cover, like in the C.I.A.,” said a former Diligence employee, adding that there are people who know investigators only by their phony identities.

    Similarly, ex-agents have helped popularize the use of G.P.S.-based monitoring devices and long-range cameras for following people around. One corporate-espionage technique comes straight from the C.I.A. playbook. In the constant search for the slightest edge, some hedge funds and investment companies have turned to a handful of private-investigation firms for a tactic that seems to fall between science and voodoo. Called tactical behavior assessment, it relies on dozens of verbal and nonverbal cues to determine whether someone is lying. Signs of potential deception include meandering off topic rather than sticking to the facts and excessive personal grooming, such as nervously picking lint off a jacket. This method was developed by former lie-detector experts from the C.I.A.’s Office of Security, which administers polygraph tests to keep agents honest and verify the stories of would-be defectors.

    Don Carlson is the former chief executive of a Boston research-and-analysis firm, Business Intelligence Advisors, where ex-C.I.A. agents have turned the human-lie-detector technique into a business tool. Carlson said hedge fund managers have hired ex-C.I.A. polygraphers from B.I.A. to sit beside them as a company executive delivered a rosy business forecast. The former agents were supposed to signal the manager if they sensed that the executive was dissembling. Carlson said he is convinced that human lie detectors work, though others scoff at the notion.

    B.I.A. did not return calls. But I was told that Cascade Investment, the vehicle set up by Microsoft founder Bill Gates to handle his wealth, was among the B.I.A. clients resorting to the human lie detector. Gates relied on B.I.A. investigators to analyze security risks in foreign countries that he and his wife, Melinda, plan to visit. Gates also employs a former C.I.A. agent as head of his personal security team.

    Most of the ex-agents’ activities, from surveillance to lie detection, are perfectly legal. In the wake of the 2006 Hewlett-Packard scandal, detectives used pretexting to obtain the private telephone records of company directors, employees, and journalists. In an effort to track leaks to the media, federal law was tightened to prohibit using fraudulent means to obtain telephone records. Financial records were already off-limits. But federal law doesn’t forbid assuming a false identity to get other information–an area that ex-spies exploit.

    Still, a few techniques favored by the spies-for-hire do appear to violate privacy statutes. One of these involves using “data haunts,” extreme methods of electronic monitoring such as tracking cell-phone calls and gathering emails by relying on secretly installed software to record computer keystrokes. An ex-C.I.A. agent described a group of his former colleagues who set up shop offshore so that they could tap into telephone calls–a practice prohibited by federal law–outside U.S. jurisdiction. “They call themselves the bad boys in the Bahamas,” he said.

    Even some of the legal methods are controversial within the industry. Certain old-school firms won’t stoop to dumpster diving or stealing garbage–which is usually legal as long as the trash is on a curb or other public property–because they consider it unethical. They say that the prevalence of former intelligence agents in the field and the rise of unscrupulous tactics have tarnished a business that often struggles with its reputation. One longtime investigator complained that he recently lost business to some ex-C.I.A. officers who promised a potential client that they could obtain the phone and bank records of a target–something that is illegal in most cases.

    The investigator told me that nearly every major security firm employs ex-agents, though most don’t break the law.
    “But plenty of people are worried about the potential damage to all of us when someone gets caught,” the investigator says.

    Penetrating the secret world of corporate espionage has never been easy, and spies are trained to leave no tracks. Still, when disputes like the Wal-Mart case become public, it’s increasingly likely that former intelligence officers are lurking in the background. For instance, in March 2007, Oracle, the software company, filed suit in San Francisco federal court against German rival SAP, accusing it of systematically and illegally downloading thousands of pieces of proprietary software. According to a source involved in the case, Oracle’s documentation featured an analysis by forensic computer experts who used to do top-secret work for the federal government. SAP’s chief executive, Henning Kagermann, acknowledged in July that “inappropriate downloads” had occurred, although he maintained that Oracle was not seriously harmed. The suit is pending.

    Continue…

    Wal-Mart Spying: Good, Bad, Or Just The Future?

    1

    Mel Duvall

    Wal-Mart is used to finding its name on the front page of The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, but in March of 2007 it found itself making news under very different circumstances.
    Wal-Mart officially apologized to the Times and retail reporter Michael Barbaro after a member of its internal security organization was found to have secretly taped conversations between Wal-Mart employees and the Times reporter. Not only did Wal-Mart apologize to the reporter, chief executive H. Lee Scott phoned the chief executive of The New York Times to personally offer an explanation and convey the information that the technician involved, who had 19-years with the company, as well as a supervisor, had been fired.
    But the matter did not end there. Weeks later, the fired technician, Bruce Gabbard, went public, telling The Wall Street Journal he was part of a larger, sophisticated surveillance operation at Wal-Mart. Gabbard said the retailer employs a variety of means, including software that can monitor every key stroke on the retailer’s network, to keep tabs not only on employees but also on its board of directors, stockholders, critics of the company, and in at least one instance, on a consultant, McKinsey & Co.
    Wal-Mart later denied some of Gabbard’s allegations, in particular statements made that Wal-Mart had spied on its own directors as well as shareholders, but the incident cast a spotlight on the retailer’s normally secretive security organization. McKinsey & Co. was contacted by CIOZone to confirm Gabbard’s statement that Wal-Mart spied on its consultants, but spokesman Mark Garrett said because of the confidential nature of McKinsey’s work with clients, the firm declined to comment.
    Kenneth Senser, a former top official at the C.I.A., heads the company’s global security operations. His lieutenants include a number of former government and defense department security specialists. David Harrison, a former member of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, heads the company’s analytic research center, which has a mandate to identify threats from suspect individuals and groups. Joseph Lewis, a 27-year FBI veteran, heads corporate investigations. And Steve Dozier, former director of the Arkansas State Police, is a VP in charge of corporate investigative services.
    It is not unusual for Fortune 500 companies to hire law enforcement or intelligence experts for their security departments, but Wal-Mart actively recruits those with military or intelligence backgrounds. Last March it posted ads on its Web site and on sites for security professionals for “global threat analysts” with backgrounds in government or military intelligence.
    “Like most major corporations, it is our corporate responsibility to have systems in place, including software systems, to monitor threats to our network, intellectual property and our people,” Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said in a statement in April. Following the Gabbard firing, Wal-Mart said it conducted a review of its monitoring activities. “There have been changes in leadership, and we have strengthened our practices and protocols in this area,” Clark said.
    When contacted by CIOZone, Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley restated the company monitors threats using a variety of techniques, as would any company its size. “Every company has an obligation to its shareholders and to its employees to ensure that its information isn’t compromised,” Simley said. Simley would not, however, provide details on the security department reorganization.
    To be fair, Wal-Mart is not the only company involved in a spying controversy. Other high-profile corporate spying incidents have drawn public attention to the fact that companies are using an increasing array of methods to snoop on, or monitor as is the preferred term, the everyday activities of employees, suppliers and customers on their networks.
    In December a researcher in the anti-spyware unit of Computer Associates, revealed that Sears Holdings Corp. had installed spyware software in a program offered to customers via its “My SHC Community” shopping network that allowed Sears to track its members online browsing behavior.
    Sears says it does disclose the tracking software in a privacy statement, but Harvard Business School assistant professor Ben Edelman has criticized the retailer, saying the disclosure is difficult to find and consumers rarely read such statements.
    Boeing was the subject of a Seattle Post Intelligencer investigative story in November, which questioned its monitoring activities, including the reading of emails and videotaping of employees. Boeing spokesman Tim Neale said when employees log on to the corporate network they are fully informed that their activities are being monitored. He said only authorized personnel have the capability to monitor corporate systems and they do so only when they have reason to suspect abuse or misuse. “For example, it is against company policy for an employee to use company systems to run his or her own business,” Neal said. “Of course, it is also against company policy to share proprietary information with parties outside the company, unless authorized by management to do so.”
    And, in probably the most publicized example, Hewlett-Packard found itself in hot water with California regulators in 2006 after it initiated an investigation of its own board of directors to discover the source of leaks to the media. The investigation included monitoring of emails and instant messages, as well as using illegal means to obtain telephone records of employees and journalists. The company was ordered to pay $14.5 million in fines and bring its internal investigations into compliance with California laws.
    Most employees have now come to expect that their activities on corporate computers are being monitored to a certain degree.
    But in 2008 CIOs will be increasingly drawn into discussions about who should be in charge of monitoring employees, what software tools should be deployed to protect corporate resources, and which electronic activities corporations should or shouldn’t watch. “There used to be an argument over whether we should be doing this at all,” says Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, an industry-sponsored research group and computer security training body. “It rarely comes up as an issue any more.”
    David Zweig, an associate professor of organizational behavior with the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto who has written books on the issue of workplace monitoring, says that it is now believed close to 75% of employers have some form of electronic monitoring in the workplace.
    Zweig is not against monitoring. He believes in today’s environment, where companies face a wide range of internal and external threats, some levels of monitoring are necessary. However, he believes the monitoring should be in relation to the risk, and that companies need to do more to inform employees exactly how they are being monitored and why. “If you give people a rational explanation for monitoring, they will at least see why the company is doing it,” he says. “But you should be open and inform them exactly how it’s being done and what controls are in place.
    “It’s easy to monitor–it’s much more difficult to develop proper controls and processes,” he says.
    Ira Winkler, president of Internet Security Advisors Group of Baltimore, Md., and author of books such as “Spies Among Us” and “Zen and the Art of Information Security,” doesn’t believe in coddling employees with lengthy disclosures and explanations for why monitoring is taking place. “Get over it. Companies need to protect themselves,” says Winkler. “The fact is nobody should have any expectations of privacy when they’re using the company’s computers.”
    In fact, Winkler advocates companies apply a blanket approach to security and use of the Internet in particular. Simply tell employees or suppliers accessing a corporation’s network, they are being monitored and non-approved activities will not be tolerated. End of story.
    Is that fair? “I think it’s totally fair,” he says. “If I want to go shop on eBay or download porn on a company computer, that’s my stupidity, not the company’s,” he says.
    For many organizations the line will probably be drawn somewhere between Zweig’s and Winkler’s viewpoints. But what is clear is a mounting body of evidence points to the need for network monitoring against a wider definition of internal and external threats.

    As the world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart does often find itself a target for a wide range of protests and potential security threats. Its stores have been targeted by groups who feel its low wages contribute to the working poor and it has been the subject of frequent union protests over its healthcare policies. In December alone, Wal-Mart stores were evacuated for periods of time after bomb threats were reported at stores in Somerworth, N.H., Noblesville, Ind., Viera, Fla., Fruitland, Md., Fayetteville, Ark., Garden City, Kan., and Halifax, Nova Scotia.
     

    At a gathering of security specialists in New York City in January of 2006, David Harrison, the former Army military intelligence officer who was hired by Senser to head Wal-Mart’s analytical security research center, provided a rare glimpse into the company’s monitoring operations. Harrison told the gathering Wal-Mart faces a wide range of threats: “A bombing in China, an armed robbery in Brazil, an armed robbery in Las Vegas, another bomb threat, and that was just yesterday,” Harrison said.
     

    To safeguard its employees and operations Wal-Mart has tapped its massive data warehouse of information, now believed to be larger than 4 petabytes (4,000 terabytes), to look for potential threats. It tracks customers who buy propane tanks, for example, or anyone who has fraudulently cashed a check, or anyone making bulk purchases of pre-paid cell phones, which could be tied to criminal activities. “If you try to buy more than three cell phones at one time, it will be tracked,” he reportedly told the audience.
     

    When CIOZone contacted Wal-Mart for comment on this story, the company said it would not provide further information or make its security officials available for interviews. It did not dispute Harrison’s reported statements.
     

    But, according to one report, Kenneth Senser, the senior vice president of global security, aviation and travel, is in charge of an apparatus that spans the company’s global operations. Senser oversees a department with about 400 employees, according to an interview he gave last March to The New York Times. Heads of the company’s crisis management, investigative services, the analytical research center headed by Harrison, as well as individual departments assigned to address corporate fraud, security of the company’s headquarters in Fayetteville, Ark., and protection of the company’s top executives, all report directly or indirectly to Senser.
     

    In its advertisements for “global threat analysts” last spring, the job description included collecting information from professional contacts and public data to assess threats coming from “world events, regional/national security climates, and suspect individuals and groups.”
     

    Gabbard, the Wal-Mart employee fired for recording reporters’ phone calls, said in his interview with The Wall Street Journal that Wal-Mart uses software from Raytheon Oakley Networks to monitor activity on its network. The Oakley product was originally developed for the U.S. Department of Defense.
     

    The Oakley software is so sophisticated it can allow administrators to visually see what types of information are moving across the network, from Excel spreadsheets to job searches on Monster.com, or photos with flesh tones that might indicate a user is viewing pornography.
     

    Tom Bennett, senior vice president of Raytheon Oakley Networks, would not reveal the company’s customers other than the U.S. Department of Defense. However, the company does note its customers include 10 of the Fortune 100, including top U.S. retailers and manufacturers.

    SOMETHING TO FEAR
     

    There are good reasons why companies are turning to increasingly sophisticated monitoring tools. Some studies, such as one conducted in 2006 by the F.B.I., suggest as much as 70 percent of attacks originate from within an organization.
     

    Not only that, but the definition of what constitutes and insider has changed. Companies now open up their corporate networks to a wide range of suppliers, consultants and customers, and that in turn opens up new avenues for security breaches and data leakage.
     

    Consider some of the higher profile network security breaches of the past year:
     

    • Oracle sued rival SAP in March, alleging that employees of an SAP operating unit called TomorrowNow, based in Bryan Texas, stole proprietary information from Oracle’s network. In its suit Oracle claims that TomorrowNow employees used “the log-in credentials of Oracle customers with expired or soon-to-expire support rights,” and then “accessed and copied thousands of individual software and support materials.” Oracle alleges SAP then used the materials to offer “cut-rate” support deals to Oracle clients. In a statement, SAP responded to the suit by saying TomorrowNow was authorized to download materials from Oracle’s Web site on behalf of TomorrowNow customers. It says it will defend the lawsuits in hearings expected to resume in U.S. District Court in San Francisco early this year.
    • Formula One racing team McLaren Group was fined $100 million last September and excluded from the 2007 Constructors’ Championship, after it was revealed a former Ferrari employee took designs for special gases with him when he defected to McLaren. Ferrari was able to finger the culprit because it had deployed software from Verdasys of Waltham, Mass. which allows it to track individuals that access certain files.
    • WestJet Airlines, a Canadian discount airline, was forced to issue an apology in May 2006 to rival Air Canada and pay a $15.5 million penalty, after it admitted members of its management team accessed a password protected Air Canada employee Web site and downloaded competitive data. The WestJet employees used the Air Canada Web site to obtain detailed information on Air Canada flight loads.

     

    Keith Rice, a vice president with the Threat Detection Engineering Group at Bank of America, notes that an insider may, in fact, be a partner working on critical application development overseas. “One thing we’re running into now is we’ve outsourced a lot of development to India and other locations,” says Rice. “We have very strict contractual rules in place, that state what they can do, what they cannot do, and what they must have installed on their networks. But that creates whole new issues for us.”
     

    “It’s a constant battle,” adds Bruce Valentine, senior vice president in treasury management at Comerica Bank. Valentine is responsible for ensuring the security of the bank’s e-commerce and other customer facing applications. “We have what everyone wants – money. And data is the key to that money,” says Valentine. In today’s competitive banking environment, you have to open up your networks to customers, says Valentine, but that means you have to put systems in place to manage the risk.
     

    Keith Carter, executive director of materials management systems with Estée Lauder, agrees that companies have to accept a certain amount of risk or trust when dealing with partners and suppliers. But, he says, that doesn’t mean blind trust. He shared a recent example of data leakage at a security conference in Palo Alto in November. Estée Lauder had designed a counter poster display it wanted to use in stores with its Bobbi Brown cosmetic line. “One of our competitors came out with it a month earlier, because the photographer, in this case, showed it to the competitor as a sample [of their work]. We couldn’t use it any longer, because we didn’t want to look like we were the ones who copied the idea,” says Carter.
     

    In this case, the company ended its relationship with the photographer, but Carter says the incident demonstrates how easily competitive data can leak out of an organization without proper controls in place. It also demonstrates the kind of analysis companies need to perform to determine what types of data or files need to be protected.

    CONTROLS REQUIRED
     

    The consensus seems to be that in today’s environment, where corporate networks are increasingly exposed to insider and outside threats, companies must protect their data by putting controls, policies, and systems in place to monitor activity.
     

    But if you accept it as a necessary evil, how do you go about putting systems and policies in place, and making sure employees, partners and suppliers abide by those policies?
     

    “When we hear people tell horror stories, so often the breakdown is in the area of communication,” says Robin Ruefle, a member of the technical staff at the Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT).
     

    “The right people didn’t get told in the right time frame, the information didn’t get to the right people who could effect change, people didn’t know what the right policies or procedures were . . . there’s a breakdown in process.” Ruefle’s team is involved in developing security best practices for organizations, including creating Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRTs) to respond to security incidents as they happen.
     

    “A lot of people think it’s just about technology, but really, developing and having the right processes in place is critical,” says Ruefle. “It’s about being prepared. What’s your plan? Who’s involved? Do they know what to do when something’s happened? Do they know what the policies and procedures are? Do they know how to escalate?
     

    “Having those processes in place, along with the right education, is key.”
     

    Zweig, the associate professor of organizational behavior with the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto, says while monitoring may be a necessary evil, companies should resist the temptation of putting in systems that go beyond what is necessary.
     

    He says there is a line that can be drawn between benign monitoring and intrusive, and Wal-Mart has crossed that line. “If you have to use a stick, make sure the stick is in relation to the behavior you’re trying to stop,” says Zweig. “People are going to rebel against the constant monitoring, and you know, Wal-Mart is going to reap what they sow.”

    ‘Bush message one of confrontation’

    0

    President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad blasts US President George W. Bush’s recent remarks on Iran in a live interview with Qatar’s Al-Jazeera TV.

    “President Bush’s message is the message of division and confrontation and will not affect the Iranian people and neighboring countries,” said Ahmadinejad in a live interview televised by Al-Jazeera.

    “Mr. Bush did not gain much in his visit. If Bush wished to polish his image domestically he should have taken better steps.”

    “We considered the visit a failure from the very beginning and did not pay any attention to it,” he continued.

    When asked about his recent visit to Doha to attend the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council summit, President Ahmadinejad said, “we have been living together for thousands of years”.

    “We share the same religion, the same scripture, the same God, we are all brothers as you may have noticed the leaders and the peoples of the region are rapidly heading towards conversion and harmony,” he explained.

    The Iranian president also answered questions about the situation in Iraq and Iran-US talks on the war-torn country’s security, saying, “regional stability depends on the stability of Iraq”.

    “On the invitation of the Iraqi officials we staged a few rounds of talks aimed at defending Iraqi interests and at supporting the Iraqi government, which is elected by its people,” the Iranian president affirmed.

    He noted that the fourth round of the Iran-US talks on Iraq’s security is still in the pipeline.

    Turning to Israel the Iranian chief executive predicted Israel will not dare to attack Iran, despite its recent successful test of a ballistic missile.

    “The Zionist regime lacks the courage to launch a strike against the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Ahmadinejad observed.

    He noted that the Israeli regime is aware that any strike on Iran will be confronted by a strong Iranian response.

    Israel tested a long-range ballistic missile on Thursday capable of carrying nuclear warheads.

    Israel is widely considered to be the Middle East’s sole nuclear power with an estimated but undeclared arsenal of upwards of 200 warheads.

    MGH/AA/MMN/HSH/HAR

    Guiliani’s Daughter Supports Obama

    0

    Well, that’s embarassing. We knew that Rudy Guiliani’s two kids are estranged from him since he dumped their mother for his mistress (and now third wife), but this is just humiliating for the candidate. According to her Facebook page, Rudy’s daughter Caroline supports Barack Obama for president, not her own father. She lists her political affiliation as liberal and — up until reporters started hounding her this morning — was a member of the Barack Obama support group “Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack).” After Slate broke the story and reporters started calling and emailing her, Caroline removed the mention of the Obama support group, but still lists herself as a liberal.

    Rudy has not attended any of Caroline’s high school events, although he did show up at her graduation. But he didn’t even speak to his daughter nor did he participate in the graduation festivities with his ex-family. Guiliani’s son, Andrew, who is a junior at Duke, has not been shy in telling reporters how unhappy he is with his father’s behavior towards his mother and his family. Andrew has also discussed how he objects to his father’s marriage to Judith Nathan.

    You remember Judith, right? The week before 9/11, the cover of People magazine screamed “The Mayor, His Wife and His Mistress.” The story went on to detail how Rudy moved his mistress into Gracie Mansion, humiliating his wife and children. Rudy can yell “9/11 Changed Everything!” all he wants on TV, but Rudy’s kids don’t seem impressed. By contrast, Chelsea Clinton is always by her mother’s side and is a passionate, poised and polished speaker on her mother’s behalf.

    It does not look good to voters when your own family doesn’t think you’re qualified to be president. You just know John McCain thinks the whole thing is hilarious.

    http://www.mediacynic.com/cgi-bin/mediacynic.pl?cynic=806071

    Truth About Antidepressants Kept From Public

    0

    Sweeping Overview Suggests Suppression of Negative Data Has Distorted View of Drugs

    By DAVID ARMSTRONG and KEITH J. WINSTEIN

    The effectiveness of a dozen popular antidepressants has been exaggerated by selective publication of favorable results, according to a review of unpublished data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.

    As a result, doctors and patients are getting a distorted view of how well blockbuster antidepressants like Wyeth‘s Effexor and Pfizer Inc.’s Zoloft really work, researchers asserted in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine.

    Since the overwhelming amount of published data on the drugs show they are effective, doctors unaware of the unpublished data are making inappropriate prescribing decisions that aren’t in the best interest of their patients, according to researchers led by Erick Turner, a psychiatrist at Oregon Health & Science University. Sales of antidepressants total about $21 billion a year, according to IMS Health.

    Wyeth and Pfizer declined to comment on the study results. Both companies said they had committed to disclose all study results, although not necessarily in medical journals. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, maker of Wellbutrin and Paxil, said it has posted the results of more than 3,000 trials involving 82 medications on its Web site, and also has filed information on 1,060 continuing trials at a federal government Web site.

    Schering-Plough Corp., whose Organon Corp. unit markets Remeron, and Eli Lilly & Co., which makes Prozac, said their study results were indeed published — not individually, but as part of larger medical articles that combined data from more than one study at a time. The New England Journal study counted a clinical trial as published only if it was the sole subject of an article. “Lilly has a policy that we disclose and publish all the results from our clinical trials, regardless of the outcomes from them,” a Lilly spokeswoman said.

    Pharmaceutical companies are under no obligation to publish the studies they sponsor and submit to the FDA, nor are the researchers they hire to do the work. The researchers publishing in the New England Journal were able to identify unpublished studies by obtaining and comparing documents filed by the companies with the FDA against databases of medical publications.

    “There is no effort on the part of the FDA to withhold or to not post drug review documents,” an FDA representative said. For newer drugs, information is posted online “as soon as possible.” Older documents aren’t always available online and efforts to add those files to the Web are slowed by “a lack of resources,” the agency said, acknowledging that there is a backlog in complying with records requests.

    A total of 74 studies involving a dozen antidepressants and 12,564 patients were registered with the FDA from 1987 through 2004. The FDA considered 38 of the studies to be positive. All but one of those studies was published, the researchers said.

    The other 36 were found to have negative or questionable results by the FDA. Most of those studies — 22 out of 36 — weren’t published, the researchers found. Of the 14 that were published, the researchers said at least 11 of those studies mischaracterized the results and presented a negative study as positive.

    Five Trials

    For example, Pfizer submitted five trials on its drug Zoloft to the FDA, the study says. The drug seemed to work better than the placebo in two of them. In three other trials, the placebo did just as well at reducing indications of depression. Only the two favorable trials were published, researchers found, and Pfizer discusses only the positive results in Zoloft’s literature for doctors.

    One way of turning the study results upside down is to ignore a negative finding for the “primary outcome” — the main question the study was designed to answer — and highlight a positive secondary outcome. In nine of the negative studies that were published, the authors simply omitted any mention of the primary outcome, the researchers said.

    The resulting publication bias threatens to skew the medical professional’s understanding of how effective a drug is for a particular condition, the researchers say. This is particularly significant as the growing movement toward “evidence-based medicine” depends on analysis of published studies to make treatment decisions.

    Colleagues’ Questions

    Dr. Turner, who once worked at the FDA reviewing data on psychotropic drugs, said the idea for the study was triggered in part by colleagues who questioned the need for further clinical drug trials looking at the effectiveness of antidepressants.

    “There is a view that these drugs are effective all the time,” he said. “I would say they only work 40% to 50% of the time,” based on his reviews of the research at the FDA, “and they would say, ‘What are you talking about? I have never seen a negative study.'” Dr. Turner, said he knew from his time with the agency that there were negative studies that hadn’t been published.

    The suppression of negative studies isn’t a new concern. The tobacco industry was accused of sitting on research that showed nicotine was addictive, for instance. The issue has come up before notably with antidepressants: In 2004, the New York state attorney general sued GlaxoSmithKline for alleged fraud, saying it suppressed studies showing that the antidepressant Paxil was no better than a placebo in treating depression in children. Glaxo denied the charge and eventually settled with the attorney general. The company later posted on its Web site the full reports of all of the studies of Paxil in children.

    [nejm]

    But publication of negative studies is an issue that cuts across all medical specialties. And it has engendered some strong reactions in the medical-research world: To make it harder to conceal negative study findings, an association of medical journal editors began requiring in 2005 that clinical trials be publicly disclosed at the outset to be considered for publication later. The system isn’t foolproof, since manufacturers often run exploratory studies without registering them and can selectively disclose favorable results. The rule only applies to studies intended for publication in a medical journal.

    Some studies that don’t eventually get published are registered with online trial registries, including the federal government’s www.clinicaltrials.gov. Nonetheless, many studies still aren’t being registered or reported, says Kay Dickersin, the director of the Center for Clinical Trials at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We need something more meaningful,” she said. “The average person has no idea that www.clinicaltrials.gov is not comprehensive.”

    The New England Journal study also points to the need for the FDA to disclose more information about the studies it receives, says Robert Hedaya, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Georgetown University Hospital. He said it was “disturbing” that the information on the negative studies wasn’t made widely available by the FDA.

    The FDA does post information, including unpublished studies, for some drugs on its Web site, says Dr. Turner. But information that hasn’t yet made it online is hard to come by. Dr. Turner said he made public records requests for information not on the Web site more than a year ago, but the requests have gone largely unfulfilled. He said he was able to get some of the FDA’s information on unpublished studies from other researchers who acquired it from the agency through their own record requests.

    The ‘Effect Size’

    In this week’s study, the researchers found that failing to publish negative findings inflated the reported effectiveness of all 12 of the antidepressants studied, which were approved between 1987 and 2004. The researchers used a measurement called effect size. The larger the effect size, the greater the impact of a treatment.

    The average effect size of the antidepressant Zoloft rose 64% by the failure to publish negative or questionable data on the drug, the researchers found.

    Iraq War: 1,760 Days and Counting

    0

    Sen. John McCain may have stunned some Americans with his projection that the U.S. occupation of Iraq could last 100 years or more. But the political pressures in Washington sometimes make ending a war more difficult than starting one.

    In this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Robert Higgs discusses what it might take to bring the troops home:

    By Robert Higgs

    On Oct. 19, 2001, in speaking about the new government controls and heightened surveillance already being clamped on the American people in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, Vice President Dick Cheney said that the new war “may never end. At least not in our lifetime. . . . The way I think of it is, it’s a new normalcy.”

    We should have taken his grim forecast more seriously.

    The U.S. attack on and occupation of Iraq, represented by the Bush administration as a critical element in the larger Global War on Terror, began nearly five years ago, and it shows no signs of ending soon.

    Indeed, if John McCain is elected president and (with help from his successors) carries out the not-so-veiled threat to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years, then we can confidently expect that the war will not end in our lifetime. Such a prospect is so seemingly preposterous, however, that one’s mind does not readily assimilate it.

    It is difficult enough to absorb the reality that the United States has now been at war against the Iraqis for almost five years. An engagement sold to the public as a “cakewalk” and represented just six weeks after it began as a “mission accomplished” has now (as I write) continued for 1,760 days.

    Compare this duration with the time the United States was formally engaged in World War I (589 days) or World War II (1,365 days). In the 1940s, the U.S. forces (with important allies, to be sure) defeated two major economic and military powers in a globe-circling war in less time than the U.S. forces have been engaged in Iraq.

    And after all this time, where does the U.S. venture stand? Evidently it is no closer to the “victory” the president has repeatedly said he seeks than it was immediately after the occupation began.

    The 901 U.S. troops who lost their lives in Iraq during 2007 were the largest number in any calendar year since the war began.

    As 2008 begins, we read reports of a U.S. air strike on the outskirts of Baghdad in which B-1 bombers and F-16 fighters dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives, an attack described by Major Alayne Conway as “one of the largest airstrikes since the onset of the war.”

    The attack came only a day after six U.S. soldiers participating in a major ground offensive were reported killed in the “biggest one-day loss in Iraq since May.” These events do not epitomize minor “mopping up” activities. The war obviously has no end in sight.

    Notwithstanding these inauspicious developments and Sen. McCain’s bizarre pronouncement, we might well think in a more focused way about what will ultimately bring the war to an end, because it almost certainly will end someday.

    Given its nature, it cannot be ended as each of the world wars was ended, by the formal capitulation of an enemy state. Loosely organized insurgents and guerrillas do not stop fighting in that fashion.

    In view of the particulars on the ground in Iraq, it would seem that no complete cessation of armed hostilities can occur there until the United States withdraws its military forces. So the question becomes:  What will induce a future U.S. president or a future U.S. Congress to act decisively to bring the troops home?

    In the abstract, the answer is easy: U.S. authorities will extract their occupation force when they perceive that doing so is in their interest. Note well that I said, “in their interest.”

    Whether a U.S. withdrawal serves my interest, or yours, or that of 95 percent of the American people is not necessarily important, because government leaders do not act to serve other people’s interests.

    Anyone who has advanced beyond infancy in his understanding of political affairs knows that despite all the dutiful claptrap that political leaders and their functionaries spout in public, they invariably pursue their own interests. Those interests may be material, political, institutional, or ideological, but in any event they are their own interests, not yours or mine.

    It follows directly that up to this point the continued prosecution of the war has served the leaders’ interests. They may say they are trying to end the war. They may have secured their election or reelection, as many of the Democrats now serving in Congress have, by promising to do whatever they can to end the war. Yet the truth is that they’ve sold the public a bill of goods.

    When the leaders have considered all the personal consequences they expect to follow from acting to end the war, they have concluded that, all things being considered, doing so does not serve their interest, and therefore they have refrained from doing so.

    After all, it’s not as though the U.S. war effort has a mind of its own. Whenever the president wants to remove the troops, he can do so; he has the power. Whenever the members of the majority in Congress want to remove the troops, by stopping the funding to support them there, they can do so; they have the power.

    The posture of powerlessness that our leaders often affect―my goodness, what can I do? my hands are tied―is a disingenuous pose. They can stop the U.S. engagement in the war whenever they want to do so. Thus far, they simply have not wanted to do so.

    What might cause them to reach a new conclusion about what serves their personal interest? Several developments might turn the trick. Nearly all of them work by heightening the public’s anger with their leaders’ decisions.

    Historically, the decisive development in similar instances has been the cumulation of public costs, especially the costs in life and limb. In both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the public’s disfavor of the engagement closely tracked the cumulation of casualties.

    As political scientist John Mueller showed in his book War, Presidents, and Public Opinion, “every time American casualties increased by a factor of 10, support for the war dropped by about 15 percentage points” in the polls.

    One reason the public has continued to tolerate their leaders’ continued prosecution of the war in Iraq is that the casualties have not been nearly so great, by an order of magnitude, as they were in Korea and Vietnam.

    So far, not quite 4,000 U.S. military personnel have been killed in Iraq. That’s only one death for every 75,000 persons living in the United States, and therefore the loss of life has not cut deeply into the public psyche―most Americans have not been personally acquainted with anyone killed in the war.

    (The vastly greater loss of Iraqi lives seems to have made even less impression.)

    Sad to say, the public may not turn decisively against their leaders’ continued prosecution of the war until many more American soldiers have died.

    Economic costs have also mounted, and they have loomed relatively much larger in this war than in the earlier wars in Korea and Vietnam.

    Who says the military leaders never learn? They’ve certainly learned how to increase hugely the financial costs of fighting a war.

    Estimates of the costs to date vary widely, depending on how one accounts for various joint, indirect, and implied costs, but a total cost to date in the neighborhood of a trillion dollars is not implausible, and later costs, including those associated with decades of care for the war’s legions of physically and mentally disabled, will add enormously to the total.

    In earlier wars, even though the costs were relatively greater in blood than in dollars, the public eventually wearied of the economic sacrifices entailed by the financial expenses of continued fighting.

    Economist Hugh Mosley concluded that the Johnson administration “was reluctant to resort to increased taxes to finance the war for fear of losing public support for its policy of military escalation.”

    Historian Stephen Ambrose wrote that President Richard Nixon “realized that for economic reasons (the war was simply costing too much) and for the sake of domestic peace and tranquility he had to cut back on the American commitment to Vietnam”; the retrenchment was “forced on [him] by public opinion.”

    As the recession that has just begun deepens, the public may well object more strenuously to the government’s squandering of such vast amounts of tax money on a senseless continuation of the war in Iraq.

    When their purses are not so full, people may resent every additional dollar spent on the war more than they did previously. Ultimately, they may become so angry that they will take actions to punish severely the political leaders who continue to support the war.

    Serious political challengers may attract a mass following by embracing the example of Dwight D. Eisenhower, who promised in the 1952 campaign to end the enormously unpopular war in Korea and, after he took office, kept his promise expeditiously.

    When substantial negative feedback begins to jeopardize the personal job security, not to speak of the respect and fawning, the electorate affords incumbents, they will begin to take notice, and to discount more heavily the contributions from defense contractors, big financial establishments, petrochemical companies, and other high rollers who have encouraged them to stay the hopeless course―though not hopeless for these special interests, of course; for them it has been a bonanza.

    George W. Bush parlayed a campaign of fear-mongering into his reelection in 2004, but unless another major terrorist attack occurs in the United States, the public will grow increasingly resistant to such appeals and more eager to throw the rascals out as the war’s costs continue to mount.

    It is extremely unfortunate that escalating costs in blood and money are the only proven means of bringing the general public to resist strongly their political leaders who are committed to a continuation of unnecessary, unwise, and immoral war.

    Some of us wish that rational argument, cogent evidence, and humane sentiment would persuade a preponderance of the public to demand an end to the war. History suggests, however, that only personal grief and economic pain will induce the American public to act against their perfidious leaders.

    Needless to say, if the public remains as passive and as easily bamboozled as it has been during the past seven years, the war will continue, maybe even for the hundred years in which Senator McCain declares that a U.S. occupation of Iraq would be “fine with me.”

    Robert Higgs is a Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, and he has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. He is the author of many books, including Depression, War, and Cold War.

    Elite’s Blueprint for Global Enslavement Exposed

    3

    Paul Joseph Watson

    The waiting is over, the anticipation can now finally be realized-Alex Jones’ Endgame is here and its arrival heralds a new salvo in the infowar, a fresh new insight into understanding what the long term plans of the elite really are and why the future destiny of humanity could be won or lost within our lifetimes.

    Endgame is the culmination of years of research into the documented historical record of why the rulers of the world are maniacally obsessed with controlling, dominating and enslaving humanity, wielding ferocious power for power’s sake, centralizing authority into a ruthless world government system, and ultimately enacting their “final solution” of global population reduction.

    The movie lays the framework for how this tyranny will unfold by highlighting the message of the mysterious Georgia Guidestones, purportedly built by representatives of a secret society called the Rosicrucian Order, which call for a global religion, world courts, and for population levels to be maintained at around 500 million, over a 5.5 billion reduction from current levels. The stones infer that humans are a cancer upon the earth and should be culled in order to maintain balance with nature.

    The new elite that seek to capitalize on this blueprint for global enslavement are merely the latest generation in a long line of tyrants and their empires that have sought world domination throughout human history. The fact that powerful people have always attempted to expand their authority and rule over others is a manifestly provable historical truth, but one that is often forgotten in today’s world of mindlessness, self-obsession, entertainment and distraction.

    Endgame explores how elite banking families like the Rothschilds were able to stay one step ahead of world events and shape the future by financing both sides in wars and use their advance knowledge to seize control of economies and governments and lay the foundations for the architecture of world government.

    The documentary then explains how the two camps of world government were formed-Fabian socialism in Britain and fascism in Italy and Germany, and how General Smedley Butler discovered a plan on behalf of the fascists to take over America in a violent coup d’etat.

    The birth of the United Nations and the secretive Bilderberg Group segway into a tour de force feature about how the Bilderberg Group have been forced to relinquish their much cherished anonymity thanks to the efforts of the alternative media and veteran journalists like Jim Tucker and Daniel Estulin, who are interviewed at length about Bilderberg’s agenda, during Alex Jones’ confrontation of Bilderberg at the 2006 meeting in Ottawa, Canada.

    The fascinating veil of secrecy that Bilderberg still tries to impose over their gatherings despite the increased media attention is documented as Tucker and Estulin explain how moles within Bilderberg always leak their participant list and agenda because they are furious about the level of illegal scheming clearly taking place along with the Bilderberger’s rude disdain for everyday people who are not members of the elite.

    Estulin explains that the Bilderberg Group control the world by means of a process called systemic methodology, where they carve up the globe into numerous different pieces and then place their designated frontmen in charge of the major institutions that govern each part of the world.

    By this method, Bilderberg were able to merge the nations of Europe into the EU under the guise of trade deals, and the same process is now unfolding with Canada, the U.S. and Mexico being conglomerated to form the North American Union-but not without committed resistance on behalf of the American people.

    That resistance is being countered by the beefing of a brutal police state nationwide and the increasing use of U.S. troops in domestic law enforcement. Endgame exposes how the elite are trying to overcome opposition to their agenda by instituting the framework of martial law with executive orders that are designed to combat “domestic insurrection,” as President George Bush officially announces a fiat dictatorship.

    Endgame documents how tyranny is the norm and why governments are the biggest killers and always have been throughout the ages-from Hitler, to Stalin, to Mao, through to genocide in Uganda, Cambodia, Guatemala, Rwanda and Turkey-and how Communist China, with its crushing of dissent, intolerance of religion and horrific organ harvesting of political prisoners, remains the model for the global tyranny that the elite plan to entrench.

    The scientific rationale for tyranny gives the elite an excuse for treating their fellow man like lab rats and this mindset gave rise to the emergence of eugenics in the 19th century. Endgame catalogues how the Malthusian drive to eliminate the poor developed into social Darwinism which then transgressed into the fields of racial hygiene programs and genetic screening as American citizens were forcibly sterilized by the state throughout the 19th century.

    Endgame charts how the Rockefeller family exported eugenics to Germany by bankrolling the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute which later would form a central pillar in the Third Reich’s ideology of the Nazi super race. After the fall of the Nazis, top eugenicists were protected by the allies as the victorious parties fought over who would enjoy their “expertise” in the post-war world.

    The comments of elitists alive today who openly advocate “culling” the human population by means of mass genocide, plagues and viruses are then considered alongside Aldous Huxley’s warning that ruling oligarchies would use advanced techniques of medicine and pharmacology to ensure the human population “enjoy their servitude.”

    Endgame documents the innumerable examples where governments have tested deadly pathogens, viruses, radiological and biological weapons on human populations without their knowledge in order to advance the progress of eugenics, including the infamous Ringworm Children, who were used as guinea pigs and subjected to lethal doses of radiation by Israeli health officials, killing 6,000 and leaving the rest with lifelong debilitating illnesses.

    The hollow words of Bertrand Russell, who advocated the use of vaccines to induce partial chemical lobotomies and create a servile zombie population, are then considered alongside the soaring rates of autism in the U.S. and the increasing amount of vaccines being mandated for babies and young children.

    Endgame highlights National Security Study Memorandum 200, a geopolitical strategy document prepared by Henry Kissinger, which targeted thirteen countries for massive population reduction by means of creating food scarcity, sterilization and war. George H.W. Bush’s role in advising China on its one-child policy and the forcible sterilization of native American women is also presented as evidence of the elite’s ruthless pursuit of eugenics.

    Endgame exposes how the myth of man-made global warming is being hyped by the establishment in order to create new feudalist control methods and convince people that their every action should be regulated by the state in the interests of supposedly saving the planet, while the real environmental crises go ignored.

    Endgame concludes by looking to the future and analyzing the field of transhumanism, founded by eugenicists as another trojan horse on which to piggy-back global population reduction by formulating a technologically bio-enhanced master race, leaving the rest of humanity in the dust and subject to elimination.

    Finally, we return to the Georgia Guidestones and the elite’s sacred mission, to thin the population leaving only an enslaved underclass who are forced to live on the poverty line in control grid cities while the overlords enjoy the bountiful paradise of the earth and evolve into super-beings with the aid of advanced life-extension technologies.

    Endgame rips the lid off the elite’s long term dream and explains why it will be a nightmare for the rest of humanity unless we rise up now and fight back against the systems of control that are being locked down to transform the earth into a prison planet.

    BA jet crash lands at Heathrow

    0

    PA

    Passengers escaped unharmed today after a British Airways jet crash landed at Heathrow Airport.

    The aircraft appeared to have landed several hundred yards short of the southern runway – and just yards from a busy perimeter road.

    The impact wrecked the undercarriage and caused extensive damage to both wings.

    The aircraft’s emergency chutes were deployed but Scotland Yard said there were no reports of serious injuries. A spokesman also said there was no suggestion that terrorism was involved.

    BA said the aircraft, a Boeing 777, was flight BA38 from Beijing.

    The incident happened as Prime Minister Gordon Brown was due to leave Heathrow for China and India.

    His flight was delayed because of the incident, but his jet was not involved directly.

    Witnesses said around six fire engines were at the scene of the incident and the stricken jet was surrounded by a sea of firefighting foam.

    A spokeswoman for London Ambulance Service said three passengers were assessed for minor injuries following the incident.

    Six ambulances, two fast response cars and a hazardous response team were scrambled to the scene.

    Scotland Yard said: “Police were called at 12.43pm to reports of an incident involving an aircraft on the southern runway at Heathrow Airport.

    “We understand that all passengers and crew are currently being evacuated.

    “There are no reports of any persons seriously injured at this time.

    “There is nothing to suggest at this stage that the incident is in any way terrorist-related.”

    A Heathrow airport spokesman said: “A British Airways flight arriving from Beijing carried out an emergency landing at 12.42pm. Passengers have been evacuated and there are currently no reported injuries.

    “The Heathrow southern runway has been closed, but the northern runway remains open.”

    The incident left the Prime Minster’s chartered British Airways 747 stranded by its departure gate.

    Mr Brown was being accompanied by 25 leading businessmen in the official visit including Virgin boss Sir Richard Branson. Around 30 political journalists were also flying with Mr Brown.

    Also on the plane bound for Beijing was Olympic gold medallist Dame Kelly Holmes.

    Passengers on the Prime Minister’s aircraft were told that because of the runway incident there was no fire cover for the rest of the airport, meaning all take-offs and landings were halted.

    But an announcement on Mr Brown’s plane said that additional fire cover should be available within “20 minutes or so”, allowing take-off to resume.

    There was no smoke visible from the crashed plane, which was surrounded by emergency vehicles.

    It stopped about 1,000 metres from the Prime Minister’s plane.

    A spokesman for air traffic control company Nats said planes were still taking off and landing at Heathrow under a single runway operation using the northern runway.

    But delays to flights were expected, he added.

    There were 136 passengers on the crashed plane, a British Airways spokesman said.

    In statement, BA said: “A British Airways Boeing 777 operating as flight BA038 from Beijing to Heathrow has been involved in an incident at Heathrow today.

    “Cabin crew have done an excellent job evacuating all 136 passengers on board with three minor injuries.

    “BA will release further information as soon as it is available.

    “Updated information will be posted on the BA website www.ba.com

    “A telephone helpline for friends and relatives has been set up on 0800 3894193.”

    How the Pentagon Planted a False Story

    by Gareth Porter

    Senior Pentagon officials, evidently reflecting a broader administration policy decision, used an off-the-record Pentagon briefing to turn the Jan. 6 U.S.-Iranian incident in the Strait of Hormuz into a sensational story demonstrating Iran’s military aggressiveness, a reconstruction of the events following the incident shows.

    The initial press stories on the incident, all of which can be traced to a briefing by deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs in charge of media operations Bryan Whitman, contained similar information that has since been repudiated by the Navy itself.

    Then the Navy disseminated a short video into which was spliced the audio of a phone call warning that U.S. warships would “explode” in “a few seconds.” Although it was ostensibly a Navy production, IPS has learned that the ultimate decision on its content was made by top officials of the Defense Department.

    The encounter between five small and apparently unarmed speedboats, each carrying a crew of two to four men, and the three U.S. warships occurred very early on Saturday Jan. 6, Washington time. But no information was released to the public about the incident for more than 24 hours, indicating that it was not viewed initially as being very urgent.

    The reason for that absence of public information on the incident for more than a full day is that it was not that different from many others in the Gulf over more than a decade. A Pentagon consultant who asked not to be identified told IPS that he had spoken with officers who had experienced similar encounters with small Iranian boats throughout the 1990s, and that such incidents are “just not a major threat to the U.S. Navy by any stretch of the imagination.”

    Just two weeks earlier, on Dec. 19, the USS Whidbey Island, an amphibious warship, had fired warning shots after a small Iranian boat allegedly approached it at high speed. But that incident had gone without public notice.

    With the reports from 5th Fleet commander Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff in hand early that morning, top Pentagon officials had all day Sunday, Jan. 6, to discuss what to do about the encounter in the Strait of Hormuz. The result was a decision to play it up as a major incident.

    The decision came just as President George W. Bush was about to leave on a Middle East trip aimed in part at rallying Arab states to join the United States in an anti-Iran coalition.

    That decision in Washington was followed by a news release by the commander of the 5th Fleet on the incident at about 4:00 a.m. Washington time Jan. 7. It was the first time the 5th Fleet had ever issued a news release on an incident with small Iranian boats.

    The release reported that the Iranian “small boats” had “maneuvered aggressively in close proximity of [sic] the Hopper [the lead ship of the three-ship convoy].” But it did not suggest that the Iranian boats had threatened the boats or that it had nearly resulted in firing on the Iranian boats.

    On the contrary, the release made the U.S. warships handling of the incident sound almost routine. “Following standard procedures,” the release said, “Hopper issued warnings, attempted to establish communications with the small boats, and conducted evasive maneuvering.”

    The release did not refer to a U.S. ship being close to firing on the Iranian boats, or to a call threatening that U.S. ships would “explode in a few minutes,” as later stories would report, or to the dropping of objects into the path of a U.S. ship as a potential danger.

    That press release was ignored by the news media, however, because later that Monday morning, the Pentagon provided correspondents with a very different account of the episode.

    At 9 a.m., Barbara Starr of CNN reported that “military officials” had told her that the Iranian boats had not only carried out “threatening maneuvers,” but had transmitted a message by radio that “I am coming at you” and “you will explode.” She reported the dramatic news that the commander of one boat was “in the process of giving the order to shoot when they moved away.”

    CBS News broadcast a similar story, adding the detail that the Iranian boats “dropped boxes that could have been filled with explosives into the water.” Other news outlets carried almost identical accounts of the incident.

    The source of this spate of stories can now be identified as Bryan Whitman, the top Pentagon official in charge of media relations, who gave a press briefing for Pentagon correspondents that morning. Although Whitman did offer a few remarks on the record, most of the Whitman briefing was off the record, meaning that he could not be cited as the source.

    In an apparent slip-up, however, an Associated Press story that morning cited Whitman as the source for the statement that U.S. ships were about to fire when the Iranian boats turned and moved away — a part of the story that other correspondents had attributed to an unnamed Pentagon official.

    On Jan. 9, the U.S. Navy released excerpts of a video of the incident in which a strange voice — one that was clearly very different from the voice of the Iranian officer who calls the U.S. ship in the Iranian video — appears to threaten the U.S. warships.

    A separate audio recording of that voice, which came across the VHF channel open to anyone with access to it, was spliced into a video on which the voice apparently could not be heard. That was a political decision, and Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros of the Pentagon’s Public Affairs Office told IPS the decision on what to include in the video was “a collaborative effort of leadership here, the Central Command, and Navy leadership in the field.”

    “Leadership here,” of course, refers to the secretary of defense and other top policymakers at the department. An official in the U.S. Navy Office of Information in Washington, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that decision was made in the office of the secretary of defense

    That decision involved a high risk of getting caught in an obvious attempt to mislead. As an official at 5th Fleet headquarters in Bahrain told IPS, it is common knowledge among officers there that hecklers — often referred to as “Filipino Monkey” — frequently intervene on the VHF ship-to-ship channel to make threats or rude comments.

    One of the popular threats made by such hecklers, according to British journalist Lewis Page, who had transited the Strait with the Royal Navy is, “Look out, I am going to hit [collide with] you.”

    By Jan. 11, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell was already disavowing the story that Whitman had been instrumental in creating only four days earlier. “No one in the military has said that the transmission emanated from those boats,” said Morrell.

    The other elements of the story given to Pentagon correspondents were also discredited. The commanding officer of the guided missile cruiser Port Royal, Capt. David Adler, dismissed the Pentagon’s story that he had felt threatened by the dropping of white boxes in the water. Meeting with reporters on Monday, Adler said, “I saw them float by. They didn’t look threatening to me.”

    The naval commanders seemed most determined, however, to scotch the idea that they had been close to firing on the Iranians. Vice-Adm. Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the 5th Fleet, denied the story in a press briefing on Jan. 7. A week later, Cmdr. Jeffery James, commander of the destroyer Hopper, told reporters that the Iranians had moved away “before we got to the point where we needed to open fire.”

    The decision to treat the Jan. 6 incident as evidence of an Iranian threat reveals a chasm between the interests of political officials in Washington and Navy officials in the Gulf. Asked whether the Navy’s reporting of the episode was distorted by Pentagon officials, Cmdr. Robertson of 5th Fleet Public Affairs would not comment directly. But she said, “There is a different perspective over there.”

    (Inter Press Service)

    The Thought Police “Protect” the Constitution

    0

     Allyson VillarsYesterday, I was ecstatic to be able to surprise John by being at the end of his march from Boston to Washington. But my excitement suddenly turned to shock when we went with a few rally participants to view the actual Constitution. Upon entering the National Archives building I was stopped and told that I could not enter wearing my yellow rain poncho. When I asked ”Why,” I was told that they don’t allow anyone in the building wearing a protest slogan on their clothing. My poncho read “Save the Constitution” and continued with “Impeach Bush/Cheney…Tell Speaker Pelosi (202) 225-0100.” Finally it listed the web address: www.marchinmyname.org.

    I was pulled from the security line. The guard said, “Step over here,” and unhooked the cordoning rope so I could move aside. The man behind me, Larry, was wearing a light jacket over a green t-shirt that said “Impeach Bush.” He made Larry move out of line as well.

    I tried to talk to the guard about my goal in being in the building — simply to see the Constitution of the United States. He wasn’t convinced and kept repeating his mantra, “Just take off the poncho and you can go in.” I asked him what was wrong with my poncho. He replied that they do not allow protests inside the building. I said that I was not protesting, that I was just an American citizen visiting the most important document of our country.

    He kept talking over me. I said I wanted to speak to his supervisor and asked a friend in line to call the press and tell them that I was being barred from visiting our Constitution because of a message on my clothing.

    Captain Judd and C. Bethea arrived quickly and identified themselves as supervisors and made an effort to explain to me why I could not wear my poncho. I calmly but forcefully asked them, “How it is that I was denied my freedom of expression if I was not actively protesting, or carried a sign, or in any way disturbed others?” I also mentioned that other people went into the archives with protest t-shirts and baseball caps saying, for example: “Stop the War for Oil,” and “Vote for Hillary.” Apparently those people were allowed in by mistake and officer C. Bethea said he would make certain they would be found and escorted out. But Captain Judd corrected Bethea and said that those wearing election campaign garments like “Elect Edwards” or “pro solar power” t-shirts were okay since they were “for” something. I responded, “Well I am for Saving the Constitution.” That did not convince him. He was now in mantra mode and simply repeated his command, “Just take off the poncho and you can go in or leave.”

    Larry, with the green “Impeach Bush” t-shirt, buttoned his thin jacket, moved back into line and proceeded through the security checkpoint. I asked for the guards’ names. They wrote them down and when asked to tell me who their boss was so I could call him or her on Monday, “I was told to look it up on the Archives website.”

    Then, I asked for a copy of the policy that mandated I remove my objectionable clothing in order to see the Constitution. They would provide nothing. They were unmoved. I asked them to tell me what they would have done if Larry didn’t have a jacket. Would they require him to take off his shirt and then go into the building half naked? They basically said they wouldn’t respond. Larry’s shirt was not an issue anymore…I asked them how the policy is practiced – that knowing how they interpret and implement the policy might help me understand the policy or law I was violating. They simply and finally said, “You will have to leave if you do not remove your garment.”

    I chose to leave. I chose to leave because I refused to give up my rights to see the very document that provided those rights. I told Captain Judd that he might want to consider the good Germans who were part of the 3rd Reich machinery that took away the freedoms of Jews, and ultimately their lives. And, as I was turning to leave, I told him he was part and parcel of the reason that I found it necessary to articulate my point of view to “Save the Constitution,” on my clothing. “You might want to read the Constitution before you leave work today to find out what this is all about.” I said as I left.

    I stood outside in my poncho in a silent protest until my friends returned.

    I learned that a woman who cleared security wore a t-shirt that said “Impeach Bush.” Security guard C. Bethea later found her and made her borrow a jacket or leave the building. He also found my husband who was wearing a baseball cap that said “Impeach Cheney?” and made him take it off.

    My thoughts go to those of you who see this as a small thing…perhaps even trivial. To those who believe this was just a ridiculous over-escalation in response to a security guard doing his job, let me tell you that our Constitutional rights are being stripped away one at a time and that it seems that most Americans who take these protections for granted will not “get it” until they, too, have their rights denied. Our being denied our rights is happening with more mind-numbing frequency than ever, and gets worse with each one of these new “trivial” moves.

    I suppose I shouldn’t expect people to be upset about this is they are not upset about having lost their right to know what they are being charged with when they are arrested, possibly tortured and denied a speedy trial.

    It may be just one more, sad instance of our rights being denied us, but remember, as it says on the outside wall of the National Archives, “Eternal vigilance in the price of liberty.” I hope you will take this seriously and decide where you will draw the line, what you will stand up for, what you will stand up for.